Chair Borders Present.

Vice Chair Crohn.

Here.

Commissioner Brooks.

Here.

Commissioner DeChristopher.

Commissioner Peterson.

Commissioner Preston.

Commissioner Pizel.

Here.

A quorum is present.

Thank you.

Commissioner De Christopher, will you leave us in a pledge, please?

Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands.

One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

All right.

The public is invited at this time to comment on any topic that relates to a matter over which this public body has supervision, control, jurisdiction, or advisory power, including any such matter that is not specifically included on the agenda as an action item.

No action will be taken on any matter raised during this period of for public comment.

Is there any public comment at this time?

Seeing none.

Approval of the minutes for January 28th, 2026.

Are there any additions or corrections to the minutes?

Hearing none can have a motion for approval.

I'll move to approve the minutes of January 28th, 2026.

Okay.

Moved by Commissioner Pazell.

Is there a second?

I second.

Commissioner DeChristopher, thank you.

Any further discussion?

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed, no.

Motion carries.

Meeting items 6A L U 2025-0375.

Discussion and possible action for application from the state of Nevada Public Works Division for a special use permit to allow for the construction of two two-story office buildings and one four-story parking garage on property zone P located at the southeast corner of South Stewart Street and East Fifth Street.

Thank you.

I'm going to start with going through some background on this so that we're all on the same page.

Back on November 18 2025, this application for a special use permit was originally heard by the planning commission.

The commission voiced concerns at that meeting, primarily focused on master plan consistency due to the policies of the downtown mixed use.

One, a change of condition, and that was something the planning commission could not find.

What the board said at that February 5th meeting was that policy 6.3B of the master plan says the state's not under the city's jurisdiction.

So it made sense that the state thought we were not going to take jurisdiction from a master plan perspective.

Also, the board found that the state had become plan had begun the planning for this campus well before the adoption of the master plan.

And the board found that the state's government buildings are different than other buildings due to safety concerns related to being a government building.

The Board of Supervisors also found that this by taking the state out of the downtown character map and out of the downtown mixed use policies, that would yield a more desirable use of land, noting the state's office complex would provide for pedestrian walkways and landscape features, that it would allow for the retention of historic structures, and that would allow for the redevelopment of underutilized land by providing workforce and economic development opportunities for the city of Carson City.

So with the board's action of sorry, February 5th, this property is no longer part of the downtown character map.

It's no longer subject to the policies of the downtown mixed use.

So you are looking at an application for a special use permit because the zoning is peak, so it needs a special use permit.

But in terms of the design standards, it's similar to if it were on Highway 50 or on college.

It's not part, it's not subject to the downtown standards.

And I think at your last meeting we kept kind of talking about that.

So now I'll move on to what the proposal is.

The applicants proposing two new office buildings, each 64,876 square feet, and a four-story parking garage, which will be roughly 155,789 square feet, and 275 surface parking spaces.

Landscaping will be installed along the street frontages.

When you consider any special use permit, including this one, you're considering the seven required findings of fact.

The staff has addressed all of these findings of fact in the staff report, and I'm happy to go in depth on any of them if you'd like me to at this point.

I don't plan to do that, but we'll do so upon request.

A couple questions have come in in advance of the meeting that I do want to address.

One question was regarding the architecture and whether or not it was consistent with the city's design standards.

The staff does find that this architecture is consistent with the city's design standards.

It includes articulation and there's discussion in the design standards about human scale, which is why when we look at this main entrance perspective, I think it's important to see the seating that's available and how they have done things to bring it to a human scale as you approach the building.

As you look at the plan set, you'll also see a lot of details for benches and things like that, other amenities, which I think will also promote a human scale.

A second question I received was regarding whether or not this review was premature, given that there are there is another pending amendment to the master plan, and that amendment is regarding the city's jurisdiction over this property that the state owns.

And as has been stated numerous times at all the meetings that I referenced, the master plan says the city does not have jurisdiction.

So this use did not exist at this location prior to April 1st, 23rd, 1971.

You had the exact same thing with the legislative building that you looked at.

You had the exact same thing with the visitor center over by the railroad museum that you looked at.

And so the law gives you gives Carson City zoning jurisdiction.

So although the master plan, which is a policy document, in my opinion erroneously stated that the city didn't have jurisdiction, that's because typically municipalities don't have jurisdiction over state projects on state lands.

Nevada, in my opinion, is a little bit unique in that the um legislature chose to allow local municipalities to have zoning jurisdiction.

So I think because the law is in place, it has been in place.

And with that, Mr.

Chair, I'm happy to answer questions.

I will also mention that Brian Walker, the deputy public works director for the state is here, as is Kevin Kemner with TSK architecture.

And if you want them to present or if you have questions for them, I ask them to come to the table at the beginning.

Thank you.

Um is this subject to the growth management as far as water usage?

It will not be because what the growth management ordinance says is the growth management commission has to make certain approvals prior to the issuance of a building permit.

The city, I just explained about NRS 278 580, and that we have zoning authority, we do not have jurisdiction on the building permit.

So this will not go through the city's building division.

So since there is no building permit, there's no building permit to hold up because that's not within the city's jurisdiction.

If you think about the car wash we had, for example.

That car wash that um was going to use however much water and was subject to approval by the Growth Management Commission, they could not get a building permit until the Growth Management Commission authorized it.

So what the growth I wasn't thinking so much and trying to delay it, but I I do know that it's going to be a water user, and there's and we need to know what that is.

Understood, and the utilities division will factor that in when they do their when they look at their user information.

Okay.

But because the the there's an there's a connection, a regulatory connection between growth management and the building permit, and because the state does not have to come to the city for a building permit, there would be no reason to do growth management.

All of that said, they will be working with the utility provider in determining piping sizes and things like that to accommodate the demand of their buildings.

Okay.

And could you also talk a little bit about this deceleration lane?

Because we did get some public comment on it also.

Stephen do that.

Let Stephen do it.

Stephen Pote of Development Engineering for the record.

Um so yeah, there the traffic impact study did recommend a D cell lane.

Um I believe it was on RUP, if that sounds right.

Um so that's is there other questions in particular you had over there?

We got a couple of comments on in the light material about whether it's adequate or not, or if it's gonna need to be expanded, or or those kinds of things.

And I would just I just like to gotcha.

Um a couple of things.

What I think you're referring to there is a comment about um how this is a phased project and there are future phases coming.

Um we do require as as future phases come to do additional analysis and to look at everything holistically.

Um so when phase two of the the state complex does move forward, um, they they will be looking at at the site as a whole.

All right.

Our Commissioner Crum.

Yeah, as long as Stephen, as long as you're at the table, let me ask my questions to you first, and then I got a couple for Hope again.

Um, or maybe actually this other one too.

But anyway, the first one has to do with one of the public comments we talked about was sidewalks.

Are they being required?

This is where I can be a little confused because the conditions of approval talk about prior to the issuance of a site improvement permit, and that says in five, six, seven, and eight, but I wasn't quite understanding from Hope's perspective, or which he shared.

Do they actually get a site permit from the city?

My I doubt so I guess I'm a little confused.

Can you maybe explain that for me?

Yeah, so um a little bit of nuance there.

Uh they they will be getting a permit for anything that involves the city right-of-way, so utilities, the the driveway connections, the the pathway that's that's conditioned.

Um so yes, they are they are required to do that.

The sidewalks that were mentioned in in the public comment, that is with respect to the minimum width of the sidewalk.

I think it's like four and a half feet out there now, minimum's five, um, at least in in parts.

There's other parts where it's it's actually larger.

Um so our our practice has been to not require uh conditions of approval that are already code requirements or development standard requirements, and that this is one of those.

The reason the path is on there is that the path is a little bit different because it's a 12-foot wide path required by I think our transportation master plan.

So it's not something that's specifically required by the development standards.

So it's kind of above and beyond needed to meet the findings.

Okay, excellent.

Um one of the other publics we talked about was um, and this particular gentleman was concerned about kind of piecemealing uh uh kind of a since the state did present a larger plan for at the last meeting that we were at for the whole area down there.

Um he's he's concerned about the piecemealing analysis of uh well not only the traffic study but some of these other things.

Um how might that be addressed?

Um so like I mentioned before, as as other phases come in, they're not going to be doing just a traffic analysis on on the one piece, but it's looking at a holistic approach, so the analysis will look at what's already been approved.

So this phase will be included in that, whether it's completely built or not, um, that traffic generation will be accounted for in the analysis.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions for staff?

Um, I had one for hope.

Um no, I Stephen took care of it.

So um I'm good.

Okay.

Okay.

And Mr.

Chair, if I can just expand on what Steven said on the site improvement permits, other communities would refer to those as encroachment permits, and that's work that's occurring on the city's right-of-way or to the city system.

So it's not the city as a regulator, it's a city as a landowner.

And so that's the subtle difference.

Okay.

And our applicant is here.

Um there are eight conditions of approval.

Have you read those and are they acceptable to you?

Yeah, uh Brian Walker, Deputy Minister, Administrator of State Public Works.

Yes, I've read those, and those are acceptable to us.

Okay.

Um I've got a couple of questions just on perception, and you know, this picture kind of hits at it.

Uh the office buildings themselves are two-story.

And the picture on the right appears to be a two-story building.

The picture on the left, I guess it's a two-story building, but if but I've had people say, look, it's four stories.

Uh what are those skylights or those window lights?

Can you explain why this looks like a four-story building in a picture?

Um Kevin Kemner, director of TSK Architects.

Um, what you're seeing in, and I I've brought some better renderings along if you would like to see them.

You know, one of the problems with these kind of renderings is they're small and they're not fully communicative of what we're seeing material-wise.

Um, what you're seeing is that above and below each window is an additional um material change in the building itself.

You know, one of the things it's not translucent.

It's not translucent, no, sir.

All right.

Um and the the parapet, as I read your your report, the pyramid was is designed to hide most of the HVAC and other systems on the roof.

That's correct.

So that they're not visible.

Correct.

Uh how about telecommunications?

Are there going to be uh cell phone towers, communication towers, or anything like that in these on these buildings?

Uh we do not have any cell phone towers on these buildings.

Um at this time, I'm not aware of any additional needs for antennas or other fixtures for the state.

Um, one of the things about these projects is that the state um hasn't fully determined which agencies go into these buildings.

There may come at a future time a need for an antenna.

Um, we'll make sure that those antennas are are moved away from the from the parapet so they minimize any visual appearance, and if required, we'll come back as you know would be normal for those kind of those kind of efforts.

Okay.

And uh I guess Commissioner Crone.

Um, yeah, um, and so you're the principal of the architecture firm.

Am I understanding that correctly?

So I'm I'm the director of client relations.

Um I've I'm I've passed up above principal level.

I'm I'm so I I really we we all joke.

I I do the talking and not much work, so I'm you know here, but I've been involved with this project since his inception.

Um I also led the our our firm did the cap the most recent capital complex master plan revision for the state, and I led that effort.

So understand where they're trying to go with these things.

Okay, well, excellent.

Um because one of the things I that has come up in public comment is the concern about the architecture and I and hope addressed it.

It does meet our design standards, at least that's what staff's position is.

And what I'd like you to do, because I this is the first time you've been here.

It is.

I I apologize.

I was supposed to be here in November, but had uh an emergency medical procedure.

So Matt, you may have remembered Matt sat here and you know it was his first public appearance, so he he got a real education.

So but I think this is really a great opportunity for you if you wish to take it.

So but I think this is really a great opportunity for you if you wish to take it, is that one of the things that has consistently come up in the community has been uh especially through the master plan process is kind of the small town feel that this community really wants to uh embrace and and embrace it through the land use master plan and your architecture has generated some discussion.

So I wanted to give you the forum tonight to talk a little bit about how your architecture and this building, uh specifically the building, building architecture really addresses some of these um characteristics, whether it's in texture or form or mass or material selection, that would be I think helpful to the community to understand how you got to this point and how you believe that it helps us complete that particular mission.

And I appreciate that opportunity.

Um I'd like to step back a little to the the to the time when we were working with the state on the capital complex master plan revision.

Um the state expressed a strong desire and has expressed a strong desire for this development, and you know, it's uh the the concept of the mall and a in a capital complex has existed now for close to 40 years, going back you know, through several different master plan iterations.

There was a desire that this would read as the capital complex and serve not only for Carson City, but the people of the entire state.

And so there was a desire that the buildings would be um cohesive, you know, that as we build more of these buildings in the future, and the master plan is a 30, 40 year master plan that they would read as the Capitol Complex.

And there was the desire for that to be a clear reading, not uh not to be confused with say historic structures or to not see them as parts of Carson City.

And I think what we're we have is we have two governmental agencies that have differing visions about the same land.

Um in this case, um these these buildings are um similar to other recent buildings that the state has done, not not the legislative council bureau, but the the um you know the the state library, you know.

If you look at the the Supreme Court, they're all fairly modern buildings.

Um they are um to varying you know degrees with levels of articulation and and other material differences.

The state library is fairly stripped and modern, you know.

We see, you know, that the Supreme Court is has different levels of of articulation.

Um the goal with these buildings is that these are these are working buildings for the really for the Department of Administration, the the non the non-elected side of the government.

Um and so one is that we wanted them to be honest in their materiality, and so we're using concrete, we're using tile.

There's a range of materials that you know are are durable that um speak of economy but have a richness and a fullness to them.

Um the other thing is that really there these are buildings that have um enhanced security about them, so they're they may not feel as open as a as a commercial building would.

Um you know, there's there's I think you mentioned earlier hope, you know, that part of our site planning is in response to how we design securely for governmental buildings.

Um so these these buildings are intended to speak to the entirety of the state, you know, because it's the state government versus a local government.

Um they're intended to communicate, I think that the ethic of the state, which is they wanted them to feel more modern.

They wanted them to be honest in their materiality to be economical, um, but to not be cheap.

These are these are not you know cheap buildings.

Um and so I appreciate the comments that have come up about not matching you know what is planned for the downtown multi-use area or some other parts of the city.

Uh, you know, I I really feel that this is the intention here is to create the capital as a real capital in this in this part, and it's away from the it's away from the historic capital building, it's away from you know, the the um heroes memorial, the attorney general's complex.

You know, those are buildings that have great qualities about them because of the time they were built and how they were built.

Um we don't build that way anymore.

You know, we we build you know in different techniques.

And in fact, at one point in time we tried to match the the stone that we used that was used on the attorney general's the Capitol building.

We can't get that stone anymore because that was that was actually quarried by prisoners.

Um, one that that quarry's closed, and two, I don't think we can use prisoners anymore for that kind of labor.

Um but but we do feel that you know these are buildings that will will provide that sense of permanence and people as they see them will see this, you know, the state government as a as an organization and more cohesiveness along between RUP and Stewart Street.

I'm sorry, that was a little rambling.

I hope that no no, I I appreciated every word.

I really did.

Um the other thing that I think I appreciate about your description and where you're headed with this is that when you have a complex like this that you're talking about, I think there's um I think your concept of of a state presence because right now on some of the older buildings it's a mishmash of things.

And so by adding this new modern look to the complex, I think there are some straints to that concept.

So and you're and from what I understand as you move further north, a lot of the older buildings are going to go away, and we're getting new buildings.

Is that correct?

The the the long term, the 40-year master plan is that most of the buildings as we move north towards Muser will be replaced.

Now there will be a valuation, you know, building by building, but you know, there are quite a few that that have reached the end of their life, and you know, as the state looks to um move more staff to this complex, you know, they'll be replacing some buildings with with new buildings.

And the architectural style, I don't want to put swords in your mouth, but the architectural style that we're looking at today will be a theme that you'll be using through these other buildings, or are they going to change too?

We hope so.

You know, um, you know, it'd be kind of cheeky of me to say we're gonna build all the buildings as much as we would like to.

Um but you know, it does set a standard in at least in terms of um coloration, materiality, and simplicity of form.

That's also something that exists within the Capitol Complex Master Plan.

Okay.

Commissioner Brazil.

Here we go.

Thank you.

Um just a couple questions.

In in looking at your application materials under overview, you've got in the second paragraph, the site's proximity to the downtown master plan area uh allows for architectural architectural articulation that enhances and integrates with the existing landscape character.

I'm not sure if you meant the existing surrounding buildings or somehow it's tied into the existing landscaping out there.

I I would I would say that the that phrase, and I would have to go back and reread read that in specific.

Um we do we have placed a fair amount of effort into um kind of the on, especially on Stuart, the the alignment of the buildings, you know, the the Bryant building right now will actually sit a little further back, um, you know, and has more parking in front of it.

As we move north, the next one of these buildings, which is just past the fire station, there'll be significantly more landscape in front, you know, as as well.

Thank you.

Um and so you can see that there's significantly more landscape in the in the foreground along the the street, and and we're looking at this the roof side, but the the Stewart side does the same thing.

Um and so there's um more walking paths, the foreground is more uh walkable.

Um we're not trying to match the architectural language of the buildings immediately across Stewart Street, you know, because quite honestly, they're you know, we're looking at the backside of a shopping mall and a number of blank, you know, blank lots right there.

So really we're we're looking at this more in terms of like walkability and you know, amenities along the street front.

Okay, yeah, I was curious because I you know nothing I saw reflected the Bryant building or the um center to hotel or no education or and and frankly when we did the master plan um the state staff themselves do not like the Bryant building and it was not held up as something to emulate.

Having been in the Bryant building several times for meetings, I can understand that.

Um next one is there's uh can you discuss the required 10-foot um wide no planning zone?

Is that um is that a specific standard for the state buildings?

Because we didn't see that with the um L C B building.

Well, first let me just start a little bit with um the the L C B and the and this this project really come from different agencies within the within the state, and so um the legislative council bureau building comes through the legislative council and is doesn't come through state public works division, and so we're we're dealing in in essence we're dealing with a different client.

Um many of the offsets uh that we have with these buildings is to create um uh safer safer um buffers for the buildings, you know.

There's planning in these buildings.

If I'm reading if I'm understanding your question correctly, and if I'm not please stop me.

Um the part of the planning of these buildings is based on um FEMA and GSA guidelines for site planning for um governmental buildings and so offsets and you know, sort of zones that were not using the landscape or setting things away from the building are intended to create a safer environment for the building and to reduce risk from bad acts.

Did I answer your question correctly?

Yeah, yeah.

Um in the paragraph above that, you're talking about um uh the landscaping again.

Um there's a screen wall proposed along the Stewart Stewart Street and a portion of the little lane side.

Yes.

And is that why is a screen wall proposed?

So the screen wall serves a couple purposes.

The the first is um you know it it helps to define that edge and define you know where people can walk.

The other is the the screen wall serves a purpose in that um if you can imagine that there are people who are who are responsible for the security of the these buildings, they want to guide people to enter the site in particular places and locations.

And so what they're not trying to do is have an open porous edge that people just simply walk in.

They're trying to guide people onto the sidewalk and then to kind of major entry points.

The screen also helps buffer the the parking lot so it's visually not as apparent from drivers and people who are walking along the edge.

Okay, that's interesting.

Um in your discussion to the building in your application, it it's well, we already had that conversation about integrating some of the building materials from the surrounding, you know, the fire station is brick, the Department of Education is a mixture of brick and the center hotel is something all together.

So do you have a in reading the application and and looking at the plans?

Um it was difficult to get any visual connection with the surrounding existing development with regards to materials or colors.

I don't think you imagine any of the materials, but it would be do you have a materials board so we can see what the proposed colors are.

I do not have a materials board with me though.

Okay.

Commission.

I'm sorry, go ahead.

Go ahead.

I was interrupting you, I'm sorry.

I I don't know if that's something typically Carson City as for or not.

I just uh just it's curious that we don't, you know, it's difficult to get in it.

Mr.

Chair, for the for the benefit of Commissioner Pizzell, we typically don't ask for a material board.

Okay.

And in the case of this particular project, if I go back to the site plan, I think um what's going to be sort of the defining character, if you will, when you're off-site will be the landscaping, as opposed to the buildings, because you need to get on site before you're really experiencing the building.

And so the idea of that um sort of connection with other buildings, I didn't consider to be that necessary.

Yeah, I I agree.

Once the landscaping material reaches maturity, but initially it's going to be you're going to be seeing the buildings as opposed to the the landscaping, or the landscaping won't stand out as much as the as the buildings.

So I think that's about it.

Commissioner DeChristopher.

Uh yeah, under that same the landscape design area.

I think I'm following it looking at this photo.

Go back to the well, this one will do it too.

Where artificial turf is uh opposed to true turf?

I believe I believe there was a misconception in the original meeting.

There was a small area intended at one point in time to have a basically a small patch of artificial turf in an enclosed outdoor courtyard for staff.

Um everything you see there as green is natural.

We are not putting artificial turf down, especially in that quantity.

Oh, okay.

So even in the front there.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

No, no, no worries, Mike.

Any further questions from the staff?

Or the council.

Commission, whatever we are.

Any public comment?

Oh, I'm sorry.

Go ahead.

Question I have is that on here actually shows the city fire department.

Yes, ma'am.

And on the fire department in the back of it, is that reciprocal parking?

Is that for some of the people that are part of the fire department?

Do they have the ability to use that when you figured in the parking and the people and everybody else?

Yes, ma'am.

Um so the the fire department actually shares some parking with the state, and in the future development that will be maintained for them.

I believe we're actually adding a couple extra spaces for their staff.

Um, for the record, um, we've also worked with Carson City Fire on another project, and we're quite familiar with this location and with the fire department's requirements, and we've made sure that what they're met.

Okay, the other question is gonna be the dog walkers, because everybody thinks that this is a dog park.

That's I mean, that's truly it.

So the question is is we have the screen parking and so forth for safety.

But for instance, if I wanted to go out and walk my dog on this plaza, I could come in off of this street, go through the parking and park anywhere.

Let's say I wanted to park over next to the historic gym, the old um Sunny Hill uh gym.

I could park in there and I could walk my dog.

Yes.

Okay.

And there's no restrictions.

I mean, we're not gonna have gates like they have at the Supreme Court.

There will be um, so there will be some control parking uh in terms of dedicated staff parking, you know, sort of hierarchical staff parking.

There's not intended to be gates or other um controls to the site.

Um there's also free access to the to the mall from you know 5th street, it's it'll be open along there.

The one control point we have is on the large um walkways, they also serve as fire lanes, and so there will be um bollards there to prevent vehicles from just randomly driving through there.

Perfect.

And then I can also use the parking garage, right?

I believe so, yes.

Okay, it will be open.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Commissioner Crone.

Yeah, a couple of real quick questions.

Um the and I've I've looked through it, I might have missed it, so if I have, I'm sorry, but the height of this wall, how this uh screening wall, how are we talking two feet, 20 feet, what no, it's not 20, it's not 20 feet.

I I want to say it's six feet, um, but don't quite don't go in beyond that.

I'm going off of a bad memory, but we can find out that out for you.

Okay, because 30 inches?

Okay, 30 inches.

30 inches, okay.

So all right.

Yeah, thank you guys.

Not much of a screening wall, but but that's okay.

Um the other thing I have, and I'm I've gone through your plans here, and on L101, and you may not have that in front of you, but it's the packet that we were given.

This illustration of the mall does not match the landscape plan that you're proposing.

Um the landscape plan um identifies a planting area that actually isolates the turf area.

So um, I don't know if I'm again, I may be catching you completely off guard.

Yeah, thank you.

But that's not what's proposed on the landscape drawings.

I and I believe that the um the plan that you see here, L101 is a more recent plan than those rendering.

Sometimes we get a little out of sequence.

Um you know, the the there's a couple things that are happening here.

One is that um we're also working to mitigate any flood water, you know.

So there's the that area will probably be slightly depressed to help absorb any flood flood detention, but it's still a walkable open plaza area.

Okay, so you're actually using that as a potentially a stormwater drainage area?

Am I understanding you correctly?

It'll be a filtration area.

A filtration area, okay.

Then uh the other thing that I have is that there's been a lot of discussion about how this green area is gonna be open to the public, but as I look at it, and correct me if I'm wrong, I don't see any like pedestrian access areas into it.

Are they is the public going to have to?

Is it just a visual space?

I mean as as it's designed right now, is the public can walk onto the grass.

Okay, so they would walk through the landscape bed to get to the grass.

And we can work, we'll work in you know, sort of better pathways to walk in and things, but the intention is that it's accessible that people can walk right into it.

Okay, all right.

Okay, yeah.

Commissioner Preston?

The other question I have is one of the things that came up when we were working with LCB was basically pedestrians because we have a lot of pedestrian situations going on.

I see that there's a crosswalk that is right there by the fire department.

Is that going to have any kind of a light?

Because right now, what we've got is we've got the one down by the Brian building where little lane is.

And that's we have a light there.

Are we gonna have an are they gonna have to walk all the way down to where the Brian building is to go across?

Or is it going to be there with one of the little flashing lights?

Or you know what what is that going to be?

Because isn't that an area that we would already have kind of as a controlled thing in the event that there's a fire and the fire trucks have to go out of there too?

So currently I the the fire trucks do not have uh a signal there.

Um, you know, and and that's something that I know that they've discussed a few times.

Um, in terms of a flasher for crosswalks, that's something we can certainly take a look at.

I don't believe from our traffic study it was deemed required, but it could be added as a safety factor, you know, depending on the states and uh the reason I was saying this is because you have your buildings that are on the east side and typically when you know uh okay the we're we're real familiar with the state workers, they'll go out and walk and so forth, and and of course, and they want them to come down to the downtown area and eat and all those type of things, but the only controlled intersection is all the way down at Little Lane or all the way at Fifth Street.

And and I believe um Heather has something to add.

Okay, yeah.

Um just to kind of clarify our we're on Stewart Street.

There's I believe two crosswalks with the flashing beacons right near the project area.

I just think that the concern is one of the things we talked about when LCB was there, is if L C B is there, then we have these additional state people coming in here and I mean th this is gonna be great, but there's gonna be a lot of employees, a lot of traffic and so forth.

And during legislature, we already have a situation with LCB there because it will back up on Fifth Street, it backs up on Carson Street, it backs up everywhere right there.

Now we're adding these buildings in here and more pedestrians coming in and not dedicated lanes.

So that's that would be my question.

The other question is is I didn't get real clear on the sidewalks.

And the reason is is this one area that's on the corner of Fifth and Stuart Street.

I actually had to help a little person in a scooter that flip their scooter there and pull over on the side of the road because that is not really well ADA compliant, and it's got too big of a dip to it, and it's narrow.

I believe that we are reconstructing all of the sidewalks around the site around the project site.

Okay, great, thank you.

Okay.

Anything else?

Okay, last chance.

All right.

Any public comment?

Hearing none.

Back to us.

Any further discussion.

Thank you all for coming today.

Thank you.

We appreciate the time.

Yeah, I I just I have a couple of suggestions I'd like to make with regards to the recommended conditions of approval, if I may.

Go ahead.

Um the first one would be on uh proposed number two.

Starts out the project will be constructed or developed substantially in accordance with the with any uh site plans that are approved by the planning commission.

Uh I would suggest inserting after substantially in accordance with um strike any and insert the building elevations and site plans that are approved by the planning commission on number two on number seven.

I would suggest um inserting after uh prior to issuance of a site improvement permit, plans must be submitted, which show I would suggest inserting after must be submitted to the satisfaction of the city engineer, which show the following, and then under condition number eight, insert at the end of condition number eight to the satisfaction of the city engineer suppose we acceptable yeah, yes, those are acceptable changes to us.

Okay.

All right.

Hope is that okay?

Yes.

All right.

All right.

Commissioner Brazil, since you screwed up the thing, you can get to make the motion.

There's always a price to pay.

Um I would uh move to approve special use permit LU 2025 0375 based on the findings and subject to the amended conditions of approval contained in the staff report.

Would you like me to run through the changes again?

Or if you just want to call out the numbers where the changes have occurred, that will be and you can stay as stated on the record.

Your record was clear.

Thank you.

Um subject to amended conditions of approval uh number two, number seven, and number eight, as submitted on the record.

Okay.

I'll second.

Second.

Any further discussion?

I might note that that amendment was acceptable to the uh the applicant also.

That's on the record.

Okay.

I just want to make sure it's one of the one of the things that we do not see on this is a lighting plan.

So can we address the lighting plan?

We actually did obtain a lighting plan.

Okay, so we do have a lighting plan.

We do, and we have the lighting cut sheets, and they provide a photometric survey, and the lighting is with the exception of the flagpole light because you have to light up our flagpole, and the code allows that.

Um everything is a down light.

It's so it's dark sky compatible, and the photometric survey showed a lack of spillover.

Okay, yeah, I was just concerned because I do know that we're trying to take silver saddle and a bunch of our different areas into dark still.

No, we we actually that was something we received relatively recently because we didn't have it.

Thank you.

There's a motion and a second on the floor.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed, no.

Motion carries.

Thanks, guys.

Thank you.

Thank you.

See, when you're the applicant, you can talk longer.

It's easier.

All right.

Item 6B, LU 2026-008 discussion and possible action regarding an application from Company Properties LLD partner, uh, Cliff Sorensen for a special use permit to allow for a permanent placement of a 320 square foot metal storage container on property zone general commercial located at through 3660 South Carson Street, parcel number 009152-1.

You're it.

I'm it okay Heather Ferris for the record.

The subject parcel is zone general commercial, and it's located at the northwest corner of South Carson Street and West Coont's Lane, and is occupied by the Ford dealership.

The applicant is proposing the permanent placement of an 8 by 40 foot storage container for the storage of vehicle parts used in the repair and maintenance of customers' vehicles.

Per 1804 187 of the municipal code, the permanent placement of storage containers in the general commercial zoning district requires a special use permit and must be consistent with the requirements of division 1.103 of the development standards.

Here's some photos of the proposed location.

So of note, uh subsection 2H of 1.103 of the development standards requires the container be painted to blend with the primary or adjacent structure or painted uh earth tone colors to minimize visual impacts, and it must be screened.

As proposed, the container will be screened on the south by the building, the north and east by existing slatted chain link vents, and the west end of the container will not be screened as proposed.

Um staff has included a condition five to address the requirement for screening on the west end of the container.

Um we have not received any public comments related to this item, and I'm available for questions.

Um additionally, Cliff Sorensen is here as well.

I thought that when we did Title 18 that this became a uh administrative task.

So there are um some that are administrative, um, but uh I verified after I spoke with you uh earlier in the week um that this was not um one there is no confusion in the code.

This is um a special use permit because it is permanent placement.

Okay, any questions for staff?

Okay, the applicant is here.

And have you read the uh five conditions of approval and are they acceptable to you?

Uh basically I do have some concerns on the screening towards the west.

I mean the one that's not there yet.

Correct.

Okay, there's only one entrance and uh to that storage container that we can put the parts in, and that's on the west, because the screening already uh covers all the rest of the entrances.

So as with any container, you're opening the front or the back, and the container will go all the way up against the fence in both areas.

So the only way into the container is from the west.

Yeah, I'm I'm not sure what you want them to do in on the um so there's a couple of options.

I don't know if a rolling gate would be an option um at that west end of the fenced area.

Um alternatively, if there is a location along the building where an additional fence could come out without obstructing traffic, I understand that that's an issue.

Um there just isn't ultimately, you know, it's up to the commission if the commission feels that the findings can be made.

Commissioner Crone.

Yeah, to me there's a it's a simple solution to me anyway.

Maybe I'm thinking of this incorrectly, but this is going to be a large container, and the the way it's set up on the site plan is that the end that doesn't open is going to go all the way back to the east fence, correct?

Okay.

So all you would have to do, in my opinion, is to take the existing you put up the existing, can you put up the picture?

Okay, is to add another section of fence, another eight foot, ten foot section of fence going west, then you can bring back the uh fence uh toward the building again so you can open it.

Does that make sense?

Are you following where I'm going?

No.

No.

I don't know.

Okay.

Because I think everybody's been thinking that the end of the fence is where you're gonna put the screen.

Okay, okay.

I'm saying that if you extend the fence that runs east-west by another 10 feet, you will then be able to open the gates and still screen the door.

You're not at least extended to the east.

Extend it to the west.

Oh, that's all dry.

There it's only one lane available now, that's shipping and receiving apps.

That's where all the big trucks are in.

Oh, that's where all the big trucks come in.

Okay.

Absolutely.

All right, parked uh the semines that deliver our parts every day parked right next to this container.

That is our only entrance, right?

Do you see on the picture to the far right?

Where there's kind of a person standing behind that, that is the entrance to the entire parts department from the shipping receiving area.

Oh, okay.

All right.

Not so simple.

And and the container actually that we've been, we've been using it.

It's been there for a couple years, and nobody's ever noticed it.

So we're like, wait a minute, we need to have a uh permit on this.

So we came forth.

Oh, I'm sorry.

So we came forth to to get that, and we're we've moved it now behind the the fencing, so it's to code.

Um it's already painted the right color.

We actually uh tore up all the asphalt, put in four-inch asphalt, so it was um solid base, uh, so this container could permanently rest on there.

And again, our intention, it's it's the car business now, right?

So our intention was to have that for 90 days.

And COVID happened, and uh and then the chip shortage happened, and now the entire business plan in the automotive industry is kind of changing with the tariffs and all that going on.

And our uh primary business model is not sales anymore, it is service.

And uh and playing the service and parts game across northern Nevada in order for us to compete, we need to have you know these parts available.

Our building just isn't big enough, and there's no way to expand the building to to make it big enough.

We've had all kinds of contractors in, and because we don't want this storage area either, that's not our long-term goal, but uh we have to compete today, and that's that's what's gonna make it happen for us is being able to permanently keep uh this storage area and and then eventually maybe uh uh try to expand somehow, but that's where we're at.

Okay, Commissioner Peterson.

Well, I'm sympathetic to the four dealership and Mr.

Sorensen here.

I mean, I'm looking at the picture on the right where you can see the guy standing behind the fence, and if you drew a 90-degree corner off of that post and you went due south, it's right in the middle of the roll-up door that gets in parts.

So um I think that that east end of the container is pretty well screened by parked cars, by a lot of odds and ends between there and Curry Street, which is about your only vantage point to see the east side of the container.

So since we look at these things on a case-by-case basis, and he's coming here for special use permit, and it's you look at the options and the things that we can and can't do.

I don't see why we can't let the container stay without being shielded on the west.

It seems impractical, and I think it's out of view for 99% of the people unless you have binoculars on Curry Street trying to see the east side of the or the west side of the container.

What if you painted the open front of the container like the fence?

So it looked like the fence.

That would be no problem.

It's can we painted it to match the building?

Yeah.

But we could we could paint it one.

I mean, if you if you painted it to make it look like the same fence was I get it, absolutely.

Absolutely.

Okay.

That that is a that absolutely easy to do.

Commissioner Preston.

I love that idea because the one thing is just um assuming they had a Chrysler six-pack store.

I know that people would come in with the semis and everything's on pallets, and I can see that you've got your lift right there.

So you're bringing things in and out of that container and then bringing them out.

Um the parts racks are typically a lot bigger than I'm sorry, your stores a little old and it doesn't have to see it does not have the ceiling heights that you typically would have for you know parts racks.

So I really like the idea of painting that east side to match the fence.

I mean, that seems to be easy.

West side, I'm sorry, the west side.

Commissioner to Christopher.

I just wanted to concur with Commissioner Peterson's comments.

I can support that and do like the idea of doing the paint so that it matches it, but not looking to get in the way of business given how it's currently done.

But looking forward to an SUP for expansion.

Yeah.

Well then could we move?

Can we amend number five to say block wall landscape or painting?

So the approval of the staff.

Um, I think we could amend it to say to include painting the west side of the container to match the fence.

Um and probably leave it there.

All right.

Yeah.

So just to be clear, the existing container that's on site is the one you're relocating into this place, correct?

I'm making sure I'm understanding that right.

That's correct.

Yeah, when I met with staff, that's what that was their suggestion.

So it's completely fenced off except for that west end.

So okay, so it's not a new container we're approving.

We're it's just we're gonna go from rental to owning it.

Okay, fair enough.

All right, thank you.

And they're asking for permission or forgiveness instead of permission.

Okay.

Um is that amendment acceptable to you?

Okay.

So then all six are acceptable.

All right.

Any further discussion?

Is there any public comment?

Okay, hearing none.

Back to us.

Any discussions or a motion?

Regular.

Yeah.

Great.

Yeah, great.

I move to approve LU-2026-0008 based on the required findings and subject to the conditions of approval included in the staff report, um, with the exception of number five, which changed to paint the west end of the container to match the fence.

Okay.

Is there a second?

I second.

There's second by Commissioner De Christopher.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed no.

Motion carries.

Thank you, sir.

6C MPA 2026-0024 discussion and possible action regarding a resolution approving approving a master plan text amendment and recommending approval of the amendment to the Board of Supervisors to amend the text of the policy 6.3B downtown character areas to create consistency with NRS 278-580.

Heather.

Thank you, Heather Ferris again for the record.

On December 16th, 2025, the planning commission was provided with the master plan annual report and following review, forwarded recommendation to the board to initiate an amendment to the master plan policy 6.3b to create consistency with NRS 278 580.

On January 6th, 2026, the Board of Supervisors considered the annual report and adopted a resolution initiating this request.

As currently written, policy 6.3B incorrectly states the city does not have jurisdiction over state-owned properties.

This is incorrect as Hope uh described earlier tonight per NRS 278580, which states that the state and its political subdivision shall comply with all zoning regulations except for the expansion of any activity existing on April 23rd, 1971.

This master plan amendment will modify the text of policy 6.3b, recognizing that the city does have zoning jurisdiction over those uses that did not exist prior to April 23rd of 71.

The text uh proposed um to be added as shown in bold and underlined.

Um, and the text proposed to be deleted as stricken um on this screen.

Um it should be noted that the paragraph regarding the state office complex was deleted from the policy um per the board's action um with the master plan amendment MPA 2026 007 on February 5th of this year.

Um so with what you reviewed, um so this is um pretty consistent with what you reviewed in December.

Um staff is recommending that the fifth paragraph of policy 6.3b be revised to read um the capital complex is a defining feature of downtown Carson City.

The capital complex serves as a draw for visitors and residents and contributes to the character and vibrancy of the downtown plans for the capital complex and properties that abut the capital complex should be coordinated with state facilities staff and planners as appropriate to be consistent with the goals and policies associated with the downtown.

Staff has made all five of the required findings and a draft resolution is included uh in your packet for consideration.

Should you choose to adopt the resolution and recommend approval to the board?

Um we did receive one public comment from Greg Novak, which you should have in your late material.

Um, and I am available for questions.

Okay.

Any questions for staff?

Commissioner Crone.

Yeah, I wanted to talk a little bit about Greg Novak's comments, and it doesn't really necessarily have to from my perspective whether I'm I'm gonna vote for this or not, but um he does talk about uh the idea that um there just needs to be some continuing ongoing discussions.

Um with the master plan and some of these things, how is staff planning to work with the state to kind of move forward so we don't end up in the same situation again?

I think at the staff level, um Brian Walker in particular and his team, um, we have had some informal conversations during this whole process that we've been going through.

Um you've heard Brian Walker state publicly they haven't built a building for what 20 years or something.

So and so it's sort of it's it's kind of new to all of us, in fact, um working with the state.

So we at the staff level have all committed to working better together and being more collaborative.

So I think now that this one piece is behind us with the special use permit, we'll be able to start talking about things that aren't necessarily in front of us today, but that we anticipate coming forward.

Right.

Thank you.

Could you put that that change again up on the screen?

The question that I have is it says Capital Complex, and we've already defined what the Capitol Complex is.

I mean, we've been beating this out for November, right?

Um actually the state office complex is where um the project that you just heard earlier is located, and that that's a different location than the capital complex.

Okay.

The capital complex, the reason I'm saying capital complex is it would be nice to know exactly where that's defined.

And the other question is is it says plans for the Cavill complex and properties that abut the Capitol Complex should be coordinated with state facilities and as appropriate.

So are we talking about state projects?

Should we talk about private projects that abut the Capital Cup project?

I think we're talking about both.

Um, and I believe it's on the following page.

Hope did you have your master plan?

Um the the location of the capital complex is defined and it is is shown on a diagram.

Um we have it.

You haven't you have to do that.

I don't have it as a slide.

Okay.

I'm sure you brought with you.

Oh, yes, the whole phone book.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Well, there's a Cliff Note version, I think.

I hope so.

Well, this I kind of see this as nothing more than a we wrote something in the master plan that was contrary to NRS, and now we're fixing it.

And that's all we're doing.

For the benefit of the record, um, and to answer Supervisor Um Preston's question on page 59 of the master plan is the downtown character area map.

And there was an area that's been removed by the board, which was shaded light blue, and that was called the state office complex.

And there's another section which still exists on this map, and it's a darker blue, and it's called the Capitol Complex.

So these areas are included and defined by location in the downtown character area map, although the state office complex has been removed.

Okay.

Any other questions for staff?

Any public comment?

Hearing none.

If I can just add a flip to page, page 58 gives the narrative description of where they are as well.

Okay.

Is there a motion?

I move to adopt resolution 2026-PC-R-5 and recommend to the Board of Supervisors approval of MPA-2026-0024 as presented.

Nope.

Yep.

I'll second.

Yep.

Thank you.

Who seconded?

I'm sorry.

I did.

Other Greg.

Commissioner Peterson said any further discussion.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, no.

Motion carries.

6D.

MPA 2026-0009.

Discussion and possible action regarding a resolution approving a master plan text amendment and recommending approval of the amendment to the Board of Supervisors to one amend condition 57B of the LOMPA Ranch North Pacific Plan Conditions of Approval dated March 16th, 2027.

And two, amend the text re the text related to the LOMPA Ranch North Specific Plan Area Handbook, Section 4.5.2 Goldust West Way Connection alternative to acknowledge the need to access to East William Street.

Twee.

Heather, go ahead.

So this was another one of those things that you all reviewed at your December 16th meeting when you were considering the master plan annual report.

At that time, you had forwarded a recommendation to the board to initiate an amendment to the master plan that would actually eliminate condition 57b of the specific plan.2 to acknowledge the importance of access from the development to East William Street and retain the unit count.

So you had originally looked at eliminating that unit count for certain triggers.

So consistent with the board's initiation.

So condition 57B would read on the portion of LOMPA Ranch West of I-580, building permits for no more than 810 dwelling units shall be issued unless vehicular access to East William Street has been improved.

And section 4.5.2 of the specific plan would read the developer is actively seeking the gold dust westway connection and believes that the required access for this connection will be obtained.

In this case, connection or a substitute connection cannot be made.

No more than 810 single family residential unit building permits or permits for the equivalent trip generation shall be issued in the specific plan area west of uh 580 without the Gold Dust Westway connection, the William Street Solomon Road intersection can accommodate approximately 65% of the total projected traffic without requiring any improvements.

Reference appendix 6.2.

So staff has made all five of the required findings in a draft resolution is included in your packet for consideration.

Should you choose to adopt the resolution and recommend approval to the board.

We did receive one public comment from Greg Greg Novak, which is included in your late material.

Um and just before I take any questions, um, I would like to note that with the review of this amendment, staff has identified other areas of the specific plan that may require amendments.

So those will likely be coming forward in the future.

Um with that, I'm available for questions.

Okay.

Any questions for staff?

Yeah, um, real quick, Heather.

They talk about you talk about in here, maybe I'm misunderstanding it when you talk about you know unit counts.

Um, explain to me why the unit count was taken out, and I don't see the wording that indicates that or my misunderstanding that so the unit count has not been taken out originally.

That's what you all had um recommended going forward to the board.

The board decided that they did not feel that that was um the intent, and that was consistent with the intent when the specific plan was adopted, and they just directed us to essentially um recognize that access is needed here, but not predetermine what type of access that might be.

So currently the way it's written, it requires it be a right-of way.

Mr.

Chair, if I can just expand on the board's conversation a little bit.

All right, please.

Brought this to the board.

Um, if you look at the attachment to your resolution exhibit A, and I'm gonna just go down memory lane for a minute.

Um so basically, when the LAMPA specific plan came forward, there was a condition 57A that the planning commission saw.

And what that condition, no, I'm sorry, there was a condition called 57.

There was no A.

And what that condition said is you have to meet this certain level of service.

And what happened at the board meeting is one of the board members in advance of the meeting said, Well, nobody really knows what level of service means.

We want to know how many units are going to trigger this improvement.

And so Patrick Pittinger, who was then the traffic um ran the transportation division, reached out to the traffic engineer and said, Hey, what's the equivalent unit count?

They said 810 units, so that's what we put in.

But we also put in words that say, because we're doing this at the board meeting, and that's why there's a B because 57 became 57A, which just talks about level of service.

And so this B says, okay, when you hit this, you have to have a road connecting to William Street, and the improvements have to be accepted by the city engineer.

What we brought before you, and you as part of the annual master plan report was to eliminate the B.

We said, let's just leave the A.

The two were supposed to say the same thing, they don't say the same thing anymore.

Let's just go with the A and get rid of B.

The board said no.

We were very deliberate in wanting that unit count that was really, really, really important.

And they said it accesses improved.

But then the conversation, this is the piece that Heather didn't talk about because she actually, I don't even know if she was at that board meeting.

But um, what the board what the conversation then turned into is the wording of 57B.

And because 57 B uses the word road and says it has to be accepted by Carson City, that means we have to build a road on what is that driveway right next to Gold Dust Way.

Well, if we go back to the map, you'll see that's an off-site improvement.

And can we go one back from that one?

That one.

So you'll see a lot the LAMPA specific plan doesn't have frontage on East William.

And the only way to accomplish that that road, so to speak, is to get one of these property owners who are behind between the specific plan and William Street to agree to build a road.

Well, the obvious place would be Gold Dust Way, which is not a road, it's an east access easement.

And so at the board meeting, the conversation was well, there's really challenges to getting the right of way or the width, a strip of land that will accommodate the construction of a road.

And you have a building, you have parking lots, you have improvements.

It's not that easy to just build a road when you have all this improved stuff.

And the board said, okay, fair enough.

It's gonna be hard to build a road.

And the public works director was part of that discussion with the board.

And board said, we get that maybe it's not gonna be a road.

It has to be access, though.

So the board felt very strongly about keeping 57B, which has that unit count, but they also recognize that the I that the idea of actually being able to build a road off site when you have this whole area already improved, was gonna be a challenge, but they were not willing to give away access.

So they said we will change the word road to access.

What's this access mean?

Access is the driveway.

So that's I just wanted to expand a little bit on that.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Oh, I'm sorry.

Sharp Preston.

Okay.

Uh the question I have is that okay.

There's there's been a lot has happened between when we originally did the LAMPA, and I think Chuck and I are the only ones here that originally did LAMPA.

And at that time, the discussion was was uh you know, because of the densities that we had, and because of the addition of the multifamily, and because of the schools and everything else that we discussed, the fact is is that that was putting a lot of um a lot of traffic on Fifth Street, Solomon, Robinson, and uh we had a lot of neighbors that we were working with all the way down on that whole area that were very, very concerned about all that.

Then where it came back up is when the retirement community wanted to come in, and then we find out that that had not been addressed, that there is not one developer over the original Blackstone, it now is into three or four different developers that are in there.

They didn't know about the 810 units, and then we find out that not only is there one owner of that easement, there's actually two, right?

So that's where we're at, kind of on this whole thing.

My question is is when we did this, we took a lot of consideration.

We said we've got a high school, we had another school project, we had the church, we had the houses, we have multi-family, and the question is is how to get the heck out of there and how not to, you know, burden certain roads.

So that's where I still have a question about that, because if it's only going to be a driveway, when I look at a driveway, it's like 10, 12 feet or 12, 14 feet max.

So the retirement community was talking about fencing the whole area.

Are they talking about about a little driveway thing?

Period.

To go ahead and in the event that let's say you know, heaven forbid that there's a fire or whatever, and people need to evacuate this area, they're gonna all try to evacuate on a 14-foot road.

I mean, that's just that is just kind of because I know that we had so many concerns about this when this project was here, and how many units?

And you know, we were assured that oh, yeah, everybody's all talking about it, and now they're you know parceling it off, and it it's not cohesive, so I don't know.

Um, your comments are similar to the comments at the board meeting, and that's why the board was not willing to eliminate 57B.

What you don't have in your packet, I don't believe is 57A, and 57A does talk about the level of service requirements, so there are continue to be requirements.

There continues, do we have 57?

No, we don't have 57A.

We do?

Oh, I don't think so either.

And if we can go back to that map, because I think that map's good.

Um there does have to be access.

They do have to meet certain levels of service, they have to meet the fire code.

There are things that any developer will need to do.

The developer at the time, the phasing plan for LAMPA ranch specific plan came forward, felt confident he could he could meet this condition.

The reality is as Commissioner Um Preston has mentioned is there's third parties have been approached, and we don't have a road, and that's just what the situation is.

And that's just what the situation is.

And again, I I keep asking Heather to keep this map up because it just shows you this isn't vacant land that's going to be developed.

It's developed land.

And I use the word driveway, and I maybe shouldn't use that word.

But I use it because Heather and I were on a call with some developers, and they I think they used the word the qu the conversation was what's the difference between access and a road?

And I said a road, the city has standards for a road, very specific standards that have to be met for the city to accept a road.

When you we use the word access, think driveway.

That doesn't mean a 10 to 12 foot driveway.

A driveway can be wider than that.

And I suspect the fire code will expect it to be wider than that.

But I use that to kind of distinguish the term access from a road, which has very objective standards.

Commissioner Brazil.

And just because I'm go past this area all the time, either on my vehicle or on my bike.

You've also got access is being created on additional access being created on Solomon and Fifth in the existing part that you see developed in this picture, but also on that east side south of Robinson.

So it's no longer just a couple of entrances and exits out of the subdivision.

And I I agree with hope, you know, typically the fire code requires for driveway fire equipment accesses.

So and in listening to the to the Board of Commission, Board of Supervisors meeting.

Again, the fire chief didn't seem to have an issue or didn't stand up and speak that this shouldn't be allowed, and the city engineer was supportive of it as well.

And again, hope pointed out correctly when it it's deemed to be a city road or a county road, there are specific standards and right-of-way woods that have to be met.

So if you're going to develop it as a road, you're going to be taking out some some buildings to the north and required parking as well.

So in just watching the meeting, it looked to be an acceptable, an acceptable solution given how this this area is developing.

Just my two cents.

I think what my thing is is that we actually sat here in front of a lot of people that had public comment that were very, very concerned about the amount of traffic with their schools with everything else that was on there.

So honestly, on this one, I can't support it.

So I did want you to note that Mr.

Chair, just for clarity, um, the planning commission never looked at 57B.

The Planning Commission approved it with 57.

Mahela has 57 up if you want me to read it to you.

Okay.

57 said, note that traffic impact studies are required for all phases.

I'm sorry, required for all phases must demonstrate that the northbound leg and the westbound left turning movement of North Salman Road, East William Street intersection, and that the overall intersection will have a projected level of service of D or better for the year 2025, unless the North South Spine Road is connected to William Street.

The North South Spine Road must be connected to East William Street prior to any development that would cause a level of service worse than D for the northbound leg or for the westbound left turning movement of this intersection during school hours.

Also note the traffic impact studies for each phase west of I-580 will require traffic counts at this intersection.

So that is the language.

Let me just pass it back.

That is the language that the planning commission approved.

When it went to the board, one of the board members that was Karen Aboud wanted a conversion to a unit count to understand what this meant in terms of dwelling units.

And so when this condition 57B was created, my recollections that was created during the board meeting, the word road was used, and it talked about the improvement being accepted by Carson City, which that's what happens.

You build a road, and the city finds its to the city standards, and they accept the road, or they may choose not to accept it based on recent conversations, but when they accept the road.

And so that was the wording that was put in.

Now here we are later, and the ability to obtain access is has a high likelihood.

The ability to build a road to the city standards does not have a high likelihood.

But I just mostly wanted to be clear that what the planning commission recommended was what is now described as 57A.

Okay.

Any other comments?

Any public comment.

Is there a motion in our future?

Sure.

Um Commissioner Pazell.

I move to adopt resolution 2026 PCR 6 and recommend to the Board of Supervisors approval of MPA 2026 0009 as presented.

Section Second by this one.

Thank you.

Commissioner Brooks.

Any further discussion?

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

No.

No.

One no.

Commissioner Preston.

Staff report.

Okay, the best part of the meeting.

We see Mackenzie's PowerPoint.

Okay.

Oops.

Uh-oh.

Oh, there it is.

Pew.

Got nervous.

Okay.

So we're looking at activity in February through February 24th.

So total valuations of permits in February, slightly more than $8 million.

The total valuation in 2026 as of February 24th was $26 million over that.

So you'll see there was a lot of activity in January.

February, it looks like it's a little slower.

What's also happened in the building division effective February 13th was there was a bit of a changing of the guard if you haven't heard.

Since 2014, the city had outsourced its building division.

That means the building official inspections, plan checking, permit tax, they were all from a third-party vendor.

The city has brought those jobs in that operation in-house, and that happened on February 13th.

So it might have been a busy January.

Let's see.

So that's a pretty big number for less than two months.

Code enforcement in February.

So far, they've opened 45 cases, they've closed 43 cases, and they've been working a swing shift proactively looking for unlawful vendors who are operating in the evenings, primarily food establishments that are just setting up on the side of the road.

Business licenses so far this month, 51 new business licenses have been issued.

Special events on March 7th will be the wine walk, excuse me, and on April 25th is the Parkinson's warriors never give up at the MAC.

And that is McKenzie's PowerPoints.

So we can turn that off.

In terms of your upcoming items, you have a busy agenda for March, so thank you all for agreeing to start early.

What you have is you have a special use permit for um it looks like it's a subdivision over at the airport.

It's a tentative map for five parcels.

Okay, over at the Catholic Church, you're going to have a request to rezone the property.

You're going to also have a special use permit for the school, and you're going to have the abandonment of a right-of-way where it turns a corner, there's kind of a bulb, and they're looking to eliminate that bulb, so it'll be a right angle.

Over on Clearview for a metal building, so an outbuilding.

I also am hopeful that you will have I'll be able to bring to you the amendment to Title 18 for short-term rentals, and I will likely bring to you a request to initiate a text amendment for the um parking standards in the redevelopment area one.

And you all um six of you, not all of you, participated in listening sessions earlier this week.

I think those were really productive and informative, and really appreciate everybody who participated.

I think it's helpful to get to have that dialogue without a three minute limit.

And that's all I have.

Is there a is there a new timeline for when we're gonna get a codified version of Title 18?

It the codified version was posted online earlier this week.

However, some of the more recent amendments like the um temporary uses and what was that?

Oh, vendor carts, those have not those are not in it, and so we'll work with the clerk's office to get the the late, oh, and the recent one with the historic district and moving a building.

That's not there.

So we need those three amendments to get incorporated, but right now it's it's pretty close.

What's online?

Okay, Commissioner Brazil.

I understand congratulations are in order.

You uh managed to secure yet another straw to put on your back.

Um so for those who didn't see the front page article that's I I will autograph it.

Um yeah, what the city well, when the city manager became the city manager, something that he he focused on, and you all talked a lot about it during the master plan was economic development and the city's role in economic development.

And so um, what the city manager had had said from the very beginning is he wanted to identify somebody within the city organization to take on economic development as opposed to bringing somebody in purely for economic development.

And so um I asked to be that person, and he took a while, but he did agree.

And um, so yeah, so now our department is now called the Department of Community and Economic Development.

We are recruiting right now for a deputy director, if you know anybody.

Um that recruitment is open as we speak, and that person would run day-to-day operations while I do more of the economic development and kind of do a knowledge pass down so that that person ultimately could become the director.

Cool.

Okay.

Any other comments?

Uh public comment.

Hearing none, motion to adjourn.

So move.

Second.

We're adjourned.

Thank you.