Gentlemen, it's January 25th.

This is the Carson City Planning Commission meeting.

Call roll.

Chair Borders.

Present.

Vice Chair Crohn.

Here.

Commissioner Brooks.

Commissioner De Christopher.

Commissioner Peterson.

Commissioner Preston.

Commissioner Pizell.

Here.

A quorum is present.

Thank you.

Commissioner Pizell.

Would you do it lead us in our 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.

Before we start, I would like to admonish the commission and the speakers.

That our microphones are too far away from our little mouths, and we're not recording real well for those people who want to listen.

So please move your microphone a little closer.

The public is invited at this time to provide comments on any topic that's 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 may be taken on any matter raised during this period of public comment.

Is there any public comment at this time?

Hearing none.

Ah went too fast.

Yeah, all right.

Item five, I beg your pardon.

Uh approval of the minutes of February 25th, 2026.

And uh been brought to my attention that there is one correction in the back.

Uh on the last motion on item number six.

Uh Commissioner Preston voted no on that item, and she's recorded as a yes.

Are there any other additions or corrections to the minutes?

Is there a motion to approve?

I'm sorry.

All right.

Commissioner uh Brook uh Brooks.

I second.

Second, Commissioner De Christopher.

Any further discussion?

Commissioner Preston, you want to say something, or we would we done.

I got it.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed, no.

Motion carries.

Now, six A.

LU 2026 day zero zero four three.

When once in the silver for a special use permit to allow for the construction of a 2400 square foot detached metal accessory structure to be used for storage of personal items with the Coleman cumulative square foot, each total of 170% of the size of the primary structure on property zone single family one acre located at 1230 Clearview Avenue.

Heather.

Originally, the applicant had planned to remove the 168 foot square foot shed that's located closest to the house as well.

However, um he has since changed his mind and will be keeping it.

The calculations that are included in the staff report assume that the 48 square foot shed and the 168 square foot shed will be kept and the other two will be removed.

So that brings the total square footage of all of the accessory structures to 2,616 square feet.

Here's a mock up of what the building would look like.

And the planning commission is authorized to approve a special use permit upon making all six findings of fact in the affirmative.

Staff has made all findings and is recommending approval subject to the conditions of approval included in your staff report.

I'm available for questions, and the applicant is also here and may wish to address the commission.

Okay.

Heather, I think you said that backwards.

The 48 square foot and the 168 square foot sheds are going to remain.

Yes, if I said that backwards, then you said they were going to be 48 square foot and 160 square foot would be kept.

The 48 square foot and the 240 square foot would be removed.

Okay.

And the calculation is based on those two on 68 and 48.

Correct.

Okay.

Yeah, you said I thought that's a good one.

I apologize.

Okay.

Um I noticed that we we no longer say things like it's got to the colors got to match and those kinds of things, but it's referenced now in the code.

Is that is that the new way we're going to start looking at the Yeah?

So essentially what the code says now is that it has to either complement the primary structure or be painted to match the primary structure on site.

Okay.

Yes.

All right.

Commissioner Pizel.

Yes.

Um should we have a uh separate condition stating that the those two detached accessories said shall be removed prior to issuance of a building permit?

Um we can do that, but um, we have a condition that says that um the construction has to essentially be consistent with the site plan that's approved.

Okay.

Um so I I don't I I think it's duplicative.

Uh Commissioner Crone.

Yeah, real quick question.

The applicant I think goes out of their way to talk about um no electrical plumbing or gas services.

Uh, if so, my question becomes um if I'm just I'm looking at the building, you put the um uh um elevation back up.

I'm thinking that like at 4 30 on December 24th, uh that's gonna be a very dark space with no skylights or windows, just a big door.

So if the applicant does want to come back and put electrical in it, for example, is that something because it's a part of the special use permit and because they specifically said in the special use permit that they are not going to put it in.

Do they need to come back through the special use permit process?

Or is that just something that can be um addressed at a later time?

So the applicant would have to get a building permit um as applicable for whatever changes he would be making.

Um, but if the change does not change the use or the size of the building, then there would not be a trigger for um any special use permit.

Uh Commissioner Preston.

Can we make a correction on which uh accessory buildings are going to be removed?

Because on the plan itself, it says the one six the one sixty-eight will be removed, and that the 48 will be removed.

It's very confusing.

Can we actually highlight this on the map and change it?

Because it was backward from what was depicted, correct?

So the approval would include the removal of the 240 square foot and the 48 square foot shed.

That would remain that would leave remaining a 48 square foot shed and a 168 square foot shed.

Um that's on the record, that's in the staff report, those are all things that are reviewed at the time that a building permit is submitted.

Um the whatever um planning staff is reviewing it, pulls all those documents and reviews those things because it's all part of the record.

It may be worth getting the applicant up here as well to um clarify that that is his intent.

Okay.

Is the applicant here?

You want to come forward, please?

Are you familiar with the seven conditions of approval?

You push the button until it turns good.

Yes.

Okay.

And are they acceptable to you?

Yes.

Okay.

I think I just think we'll find I'd like to just kind of follow up on what Heather suggested is just for the record, making sure that the applicant just on the record is telling us which buildings are going to be removed.

And I think that would just clarify some of the issues that are here.

So you know, if if if the applicant would be so kind as just for the record to tell us which ones are coming out.

Sure.

The two highlighted in yellow is coming out.

The other two are going to stay perfect.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The small one is a chicken coop.

So the one the ones in yellow are 240 square feet and 48 square feet.

Correct.

Yes.

All right.

Thank you.

Commissioner De Christopher.

Yeah, this isn't a requirement.

It's just a curiosity.

Have you talked to your neighbors about this going up?

I know we had one letter from a neighbor, but they're not really on the property lines.

They don't have common property lines with you.

So just curious if the ones that do share.

Yes, I talked to my neighbor in the back.

So he's like rooting for me.

He wants me to build because he doesn't want to see the cars on the other side of the neighborhood.

So and the one they were on my uh on my right side, he doesn't live there, so I I don't know him.

Okay.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Okay.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Is there any public comment?

Okay.

Hearing none.

Any further discussion from the commission?

Commissioner Preston.

I hate to be leaguer this, but in our in our packet, it actually shows the 168 is to be removed and the 48 are to be removed and the 240 are to re be removed.

And that's drawn on the page in our packet.

That's correct, but the staff report clarifies which ones will be removed and which ones will be staying.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

All right.

Any further discussion?

About a motion.

All right.

I'll make a motion.

All right.

I move to approve special use permit LU-2026-0043 based on the findings and subject to the conditions of the approval contained in the staff report.

Thank you.

Mr.

Crone, is there a second?

All second.

Commissioner Pizza, is that you?

Yes.

All right, thank you.

Any further discussion?

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed, no.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you, y'all.

Good luck.

Item 6B, LU 2026-0022.

Discussion and possible action regarding an application from the Nevada National Guard Office of Military for a special use permit to allow for the permanent placement of four 160 square foot metal storage containers and one 80 square foot metal storage container on property zone general commercial located at 1070 East West Street.

Heather?

There are two large office buildings on site and a storage building in the northwest corner of the site that was constructed approximately 2016.

The applicant currently leases office space as well as the storage area.

Outside storage is an allowed use when it's accessory to a primary use in the general commercial zoning district, subject to compliance with Division 1.12 of the development standards, which limits outside storage to no more than 20% of the site area.

Included within the storage area are five metal storage containers.

Staff is recommending condition five, requiring the applicant to remove the razor wire from the fence that surrounds the storage area.

And either slats to uh need to be added to the existing chain link fence or another acceptable site obscuring fence material would need to be provided to screen the outdoor storage area as well as the containers.

Um it was brought to my attention earlier today that the staff report indicates on page four that a condition uh had been included to ensure compliance uh with division 1.103 of the development standards, but um that condition was erroneously left out of the conditions of approval.

Um so staff is recommending um adding condition seven, stating prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the standards set forth in CCDS division 1.103, metal storage containers to include ensuring the containers are painted to blend with the primary or adjacent structures or painted earth tone colors to minimize visual impacts, ensuring the containers are kept free of any graffiti, and ensuring there are no advertisements on the exterior of the metal storage container.

Um the planning commission is authorized to approve a special use permit upon making all six of the findings in the affirmative.

Staff has made all findings and is recommending approval subject to the conditions of approval that are included in your staff report along with the addition of uh condition number seven.

Um, with that, I'm available for questions, and the applicant is also here and may wish to address the commission.

Okay.

Is it is this an application for uh permission or forgiveness?

This is an application that has resulted from a code violation.

So all of those all those containers are there.

They look like they are in the picture.

Are they all there now?

Yes.

Okay.

Any other questions for staff?

Is the applicant here?

Would one of you like to come forward or both of you?

There are now seven conditions of approval.

Do you understand them and are they acceptable to you?

Uh Devon Earl for the record, Nevada National Guard.

Um, yeah, I believe that those are acceptable.

Um, I do know that one of the conditions was to um add the slats to the fence or some other method of obscuring the view uh the view into the fence within 45 days.

Um so our agency is asking if it would be considerable to ask for a 90-day period.

Um the tenant doesn't currently have the funding to support buying that material and at National Guard in order to fund uh either construction or maintenance on our leased facilities as opposed to our own facilities.

Um we do have to jump through a few more hoops, um, and it does often take us a little bit longer to find additional funding or to move funding from one pot of another uh money to another.

Okay, so you discuss that with staff.

Have you discussed that with staff?

No, that is something that um is just come up recently as as we you've read.

I think we're willing to work with them if if you all are.

Okay.

And it is desert camouflage okay for those containers, or does it I think that's a that's a you know never mind maybe maybe Commissioner Cron?

Yeah, real quick question.

Uh, and it's a clarification, I guess.

This staff report when it talks about the slats or um whatever is going to be used in the chain link fence.

Is that include?

I'm assuming, but I want to clarify this that it also includes the gates that they would also have that same.

Yes, it would include the gates.

It would include the gates.

Okay, that's great.

And then could you talk a little bit more about the requirement for a building permit and the foundation that they've got to put together?

How does how is that gonna work?

So um they're gonna need to contact the um building official to determine exactly what they will need to do.

Um, but this is a typical condition that they need for permanent placement of a container that they do need to have some sort of anchoring.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions for staff or the applicant?

Uh how about the extension to 90 days?

Okay.

All right.

Yeah, I know.

Uh public comment.

Hearing none.

And the your conditions of approval if we amend this to 90 days are acceptable to you, including number seven.

Yes.

Okay.

All right.

Is there a motion?

All right, Commissioner Preston.

Okay.

I move to approve LU 2026-0022 based on the required findings and subject to the conditions of approval included in the staff report with the addition of an additional condition number seven, LU 2026-2022.

Conditional condition of approval.

In addition that the time for the uh slats to be placed in the uh fence to be extended from 45 days to 90.

Okay.

Is there a second?

Second.

Commissioner De Christopher.

Seconds.

Any further discussion?

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed no.

Motion carries.

Thank you guys.

Item 6C LU 2026-0026.

Uh discussion on possible action regarding an application from the state of Nevada Public Works Division for a special use permit to allow for the construction of a new approximately 13,112 square foot mail service services building and associated parking and access on properties excuse me, property zone public located at 700 East Fifth Street, SAR's parcel number APN 004083-12.

Heather.

Heather Ferris again.

The applicant is proposing to construct a new single-story 13,112 square foot mail services building for processing and delivering outgoing mail for state agencies, as well as inter-office mail.

The project includes 41 surface parking spaces located on the south and east sides of the building and the extension of East Third Street, which is state-owned and maintained road.

It is also important to note that the applicant has committed to using a non-fruiting variety of crab apple along South Roop Street to prevent uh fruit from essentially falling on the sidewalk and becoming messy.

Um and they've also committed to increasing the size of the evergreens uh in the area from six to eight feet to eight to ten feet, and this would help to provide a little added screening until the new landscaping matures.

Um these are a couple of the building elevations.

There are more in your packet as well.

Um so there are six findings of fact that the planning commission must make in the affirmative to approve uh special use permit.

Staff has made all findings and is recommending approval subject to the conditions of approval included in your staff report.

Um I'd like to clarify that on page three of the staff report under public comments.

Um the report incorrectly states that comments are attached.

Um when the report was published, we had not received any public comments.

Um, we have since received one public comment on this item from Greg Novak, which is included in your late material.

So with that, I'm available for questions, and Brian Walker is also here with his team representing the project.

Okay.

Do you well that I've got a question for them then?

Is there any question any questions for staff?

How is the applicant here?

Long time no C I'm gonna program my answer in COBOL.

All right, there are six items.

There are six items in the recommendations for conditions of approval.

Are you aware of those and are they satisfactory to you?

Uh Brian Walker with a state of Nevada, yes, I'm aware of them, and yes, we are we are good with them.

Okay.

Um my only question is in the the old mail services building.

Are you gonna repurpose that or what's gonna happen to it, or do you know yet?

Or that's a I don't know that we care, but I mean it was uh it looks like you want to start all over again instead of trying to fix it.

Correct.

No, that's a no, that's a great question.

Um right now, we don't know what we're gonna do with that building if we're gonna repurpose it or if it's gonna remain vacant.

I know long term.

Um I know we've been talking about you know the state's capital complex master plan 20, 30 years down the road at some point.

We would look to uh to take that building down, but that's a long-term goal, short term.

We might look to repurpose that building.

Okay.

Commissioner Parzel.

Yeah, just a couple questions.

And I think this one probably I wasn't fast enough to uh talk to staff about this.

Um but for engineering, um I had a quick question under the um statement under uh will not overburden existing public services, yada yada yada.

There's a uh sentence in there that um the proposed sewer main uh in third street currently only serves the proposed project, and at the very end of that sentence it says that sewer mains between manholes must be a minimum of 18 inches, and I'm assuming that's in width as opposed to 18 inches apartment engineering Stephen Pote for the record.

Um I believe that's supposed to be eight inches is the diameter of the main.

Thank you.

The other question I had uh, and again um uh to engineering on the previous application that the state had for the south of this, we had a requirement that they extend um basically the uh roop street multi-use path.

Um is that path just gonna dead end at Fifth Street, or is it gonna or is it gonna continue beyond to the north?

And if so, is that a condition we should apply to this particular application?

Um so there is an offset uh sidewalk proposed, they're not proposing the full width multi-use path.

Um I'm not sure the reasoning uh of the why the multi-use path wasn't extended further to the north, but our transportation division did review this and um they're satisfied with the design.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um the other question I have is is looking at the building elevations themselves.

Um it's difficult to see how this building complies with uh um standards listed in Title 18 appendix division one section one three where it talks about variation of building details, including form lines, color, and materials, and it says it must be employed.

And all I'm seeing really is a CMU building with some steel canopies strung up over the um service bays essentially for your mail service delivery and and uh send outs, and then the main entrance into the building.

Can you tell me how you think this building is complying with that standard?

And that's for the applicant for the record.

My name is Paul Cavan.

I'm the uh architect and consultant to State Public Works Board.

Um so what you're looking at, uh there's a pretty I would say it's a construction drawing, it's pretty boring elevation.

Um I do have a colored rendering that I can share with you, if I may.

If you have smartphones, I also have a QR code that you can do a 360 degree view.

You don't have to.

What that are you're presenting needs to be available not just to the commission but the public as well.

So how many copies did he bring okay?

And you do you have it in soft copy?

A soft copy of it or just hard copy.

Do you have an electron yes?

Okay.

Um you can hold it uh at this point.

Yeah, but you can't.

I mean, the public needs to be able to see it too.

That's our challenge.

So I don't want them to touch it.

I don't want it in their possession.

Okay.

You can show it and then commissioner, and then I'll stand up.

Let the public see it as well.

Thank you.

Yeah, if the public wants that.

Sure.

So while I while I'm showing this, I'll kind of briefly describe how it meets you know the articulation requirement.

Um so basically this building is broken up into three components that has three major functions.

There is um I'll say more a human function that is for the staff and their offices, right?

And they have a staff in about zone or so.

And so that is as you come onto the site, that's the lower part of the lane, and it sticks out and reach you as you come in on third street.

So it's low, it's its own block.

And then as you move through the building, there is mail sorting in terms of factory type function.

You have big machines, you have people working in those machines.

Uh so the building um articulates vertically, it steps up as you can see a little part of that elevation, and then it also steps back.

Um about eight feet or so.

So there's uh horizontal articulation area as well as a vertical articulation.

Um and then the third component of this building is a storage component.

And so it is the higher volume that you see.

So again, a third articulation vertically.

Um then it also forward again, so you get a third articulation horizontal.

Um articulate it, um in multiple directions, and then it is a masonry building.

Um we're trying to be honest with uh what the function of it is uh somewhat utility.

Um we do have each one of these blocks is a different color CMU.

Then we also have banding on building where we have split face CMU along with it's called precision or smooth face CMU with a little bit of banding to help break up that um to help bring it down to a human scale, I should say, and then we have a canopy that not only functions at the entrance, um, we've got a ramp at the entrance.

You know, this building had to come up quite a bit because try and get closer to the mic.

Can you also take that what you just showed the commissioners and let the um public see it, please?

They can just pass it.

Okay, sure.

Thank you.

So the canopy um serves a function to each of those three components.

Um, one we're sheltering the the entrance.

We have a uh an accessible ramp there so that canopy comes out and helps protect that a little bit, you know, during inclement weather, rain or snow.

And then the um, you know, this canopy kind of acts as a datum.

It ties all these three blocks together over the central part, is where the business happens for the users.

That's where they're oh I would say loading on loading their mail, uh, so they have a covered canopy to protect them in inclement weather, and then thirdly, this canopy extends over to uh as you can see and a roll-up door, so someone could back a van up or a small box truck and again be protected from the elements.

Um so in a quick nutshell, that's basically the architecture and how I feel it complies with that requirement.

Okay, thank you.

Um you couldn't tell that from the information included in the building envelopes or building elevation, so I appreciate your explaining that.

Commissioner Parcel.

I'm sorry, Commissioner Krohn.

I'm gonna I'm gonna follow up a little bit more on uh Greg Novak's questions regarding the engineering side of things.

One of the things that he talked about is the plans do show uh some construction with Rube Street as well as the extension of third, but I didn't see any mention of the RTC project about to start on Rube Street.

Steven, can you help us with that at all?

How that plays into this or could play into this is you I'm assuming you're you're gonna as the city and being in the right-of-way, you guys are gonna have to issue a permit.

Is that correct?

Correct, yeah.

So um Stephen Further, they'll have to get a permit for anything in the right of way as well as uh any work with our utilities.

Um and we also have a a weekly uh traffic report for coordinating different projects and making sure uh we don't have conflicting traffic control and that sort of thing.

I'm not sure if that answers the question.

Is that well?

I just want to make sure that city staff is in involved in some of this stuff.

Because as we've seen previously, sometimes it the left hand doesn't know what the right hand's doing, and I'm really hoping that as these projects come forward, you know, there'll be more interaction between state and city staff to coordinate some of these things.

And I think that's where I mean I can't, I'm I can only read into what Greg's saying here, but I think it's a legitimate concern.

Yeah, so our our transportation department has been involved with this review, and they will be uh when the permits come in, and they're also involved with RTC, so they should be up to speed on everything.

Commissioner Preston.

Yes, this is some questions for the um architect on here.

Is it a sweat story?

But I did see an elevation of 29 feet.

Is that to accommodate machinery?

Uh that's to accommodate rack storage.

Okay.

Um, yeah.

Okay.

And then I also notice there's a parapet along here.

Does the parapet actually screen for any of the HVAC or any of the IT components?

Um yes, they screen um we did sight line views, uh, the parapets are actually pretty tall.

They actually double in function.

Not only do they screen uh HVAC units, but they also act as the code required guardrail so no one can fall over.

Okay, perfect.

And then the third thing I have is that I just want to clarify that the access is going to be from Third Street or behind the current Department of Education.

Uh so all of the roll-up doors are going to be facing Roop.

Yes, that is that is correct.

Okay.

And um I think that pretty much covers it.

Uh I think I one thing I did want to say is that the mail room actually repurposed the old Fremont school.

And uh I worked closely with the mail room, and I am so glad to see that they have something in their future because it was a little tough.

So thank you.

Commissioner Cron.

Um Heather, do you have that site plan again?

You could pull up.

Yeah, perfect.

Okay, just following up on Commissioner Preston's uh thoughts uh related to Roop Street.

So we're talking um that the applicant has uh agreed to add to increase the size of his evergreen trees down through there and do some other things to keep uh less from a less maintenance perspective.

My question is they were talking about a four foot high wall.

Where is that located?

I couldn't tell from the drawings.

Is it close to the sidewalk?

Is it back toward the so I guess what I'm trying to understand is where it is in relationship to the landscaping.

Do we see the landscaping first and then the wall, or do we see the wall first and then the landscaping?

Right.

So it's hard to tell on on this size.

I believe, and Brian, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it if you can see my cursor, it's right around here.

So you'll see the landscaping first and the walls interior to the landscaping.

Okay, so it goes roop street, sidewalk, landscaping with berms in an enhanced trees or larger evergreen trees, and then wall.

Yeah.

Okay, all right, thank you.

Then the other question I had, and this is more of a of a philosophical question, I guess, um, is that one of the concerns I know I expressed uh when we went through the special use permit for the for the other projects, other state projects that were here south of Fifth Street, um, was that the buildings had a certain look.

This is different than that look.

And I guess what my concern is is consistency.

I know the state at the time wanted to present an image different than the downtown because that's part of the reason they stepped out of or were allowed to step out of the downtown requirements.

But I I'm just a I'm just what I'm concerned about is consistency.

If if the state is is looking to have a particular look, and these buildings south of Fifth Street have that look.

Now, north of his street, we're starting to have a different look.

So I guess I'm trying to understand the the in the I I see it as an inconsistency.

So I'm kind of hoping that maybe the architect can help explain to me why it changed, or was that never in the plans?

For the record, Paul Cavan architect.

Um we're talking philosophy, right?

So my philosophy on this is similar to a college campus.

You know, the state is creating a campus, has a large campus mall, kind of uh similar to uh the quad up at UNR.

Um and if you look at large campuses, I'll say I'll use college campuses across the US.

Um, and I think again, personally, my philosophy is that that diversity is uh more appealing than I would say uh a multitude of buildings that are essentially the same.

Um now UNR has some standards as we all know.

If you've been up there, they brick is incorporated into all their buildings, whether their buildings are big box-like or whether they're round, um, but even up at UNR, they still have um buildings that do not have brick.

Um the the Fleshman Planetarium is one of them.

Um historical size society is another one.

There are there's you're kind of sprinkled here and there throughout the campus.

Um but I think it's better architecture to have a variety of buildings rather than the same building or the same look plopped throughout a campus.

And and this campus will also be diverse too.

You know, we've we've got the the Bryan building looks quite different.

Um the fire department that belongs to Carson City is on this campus, it is a different type of building.

So there's already um I don't know, a variety of buildings on this campus, but that that's how I see it.

Right, thank you.

Commission Commissioner Peterson.

I have a question for you.

Will there be any continuity between that building and what the mall is going to look like?

Anything similar in feature, or it will be chalk and cheese from your building to what the future malls gonna look like.

New thing you want to propose, or so when we designed our building, we didn't necessarily look at the the campus master plan.

It was changing when we were designing.

We looked more at the context of Roop Street.

Um and Roop Street has right across the street, we've got a two-story commercial building right next to it, is a one-story masonry building using tan masonry.

Um just down the street, we have the apartments that are all uh we're familiar with them, they've been there forever, but they're they're flat roof, and then we've got the post office just down from there.

It is also a masonry building, be it brick, but um still masonry.

Um if we move north on Roop Street, um there's a couple little residences tucked in there, um, but there's more commercial buildings.

Um, and then we get to the Carson City the court is the courthouse that is a three-story masonry building, um, again, mostly brick but still masonry, and then across the street from that is um the state motor pool, which is also a masonry building uh of tan masonry.

So we tried to incorporate more the context of Carson City and architecturally less of the context of the campus mall.

We did we did use we're using the same planting, same vegetation.

Um so there is consistency with the land, with the landscape.

There's a lot of concern, public concern about the whole new mall thing, and then what's these sections that are going to be built in the future?

And you know, a lot of them are like trying to keep that continuity, something that looks the same, not mishmash, one of these, one of those, two of them, that kind of thing.

So you have to ask, you know, I mean, if you're going down Roop or you're going down fifth, and you see this set of buildings on one side and your set of buildings on the other, is there anything that's similar?

But I understand being diverse on that architecture side of that, but I thought there might be a medium or something to consider there.

Yeah, and and this is a much smaller building um than those two, um, their administered the office buildings.

Um so I think scale-wise, there's quite a bit of difference too.

Cool.

Thank you for your time.

Mr.

Chair, if I may.

Yes, ma'am.

I just asked Heather Ferris a question based on um Commissioner Cron's question, and I think it's gonna be something for the deputy public works director, Brian Walker, to answer.

Um the question I have, and it's interesting that Lapore constructions here because we have this exact issue, and Commissioner Cron was then working with the city when we dealt with it, was when Adele's was coming down and the Jacksons was going in, and it technically wasn't in the downtown, but we were able to work with Lapore Construction to have the palette of the downtown landscaping extending to that Jackson's that's just um north of William Street.

And so what I asked Heather, but I'd rather hear from the applicant at this point, is is there a continuity between the state project that they just looked at in this project in terms of the landscape palette?

So there is sort of this connection, because given the landscaping on the exterior, we'll call it the campus.

That's really, in my opinion, what's going to define the character of this property to anyone who's not on the property more so than the buildings.

So I think if there is continuity of landscaping, that sort of is a statement piece similar to what the city's done in the downtown.

And I'm looking at Commissioner Cron because we lived it together on that Adele site.

But if you were there too, so thank you.

Yeah, one of the things that I think was very successful in the downtown was that continuity of the streetscape.

You you have that continuity of the of the seating walls, the landscape planners, the tree canopies, you know, of a particular size, and that unifies, at least in my opinion, that unifies the entire downtown because in the downtown area you have you know historical buildings, you have buildings from the 50s and 60s.

So there's a whole mishmash of things very similar to what you're talking like around, for example, Roop Street, for example.

Um so that that landscaping, in my opinion, you know, and and I appreciate this just a moment to get on my soapbox, um, is that I think that's really huge.

So I didn't necessarily look at the plant material pallets between both of the projects, but uh I that would be a good question to ask and see if we could get a you know some sort of a you know commitment from the state to be able to make that work Brian Walker for the record.

Uh thank you for that question.

I think it that is actually a really good question.

As I'm sitting here today, I'm thinking I have not pulled up both of our proposed landscaping from the two projects and we're just reviewed them side to side to look for consistency between the two.

But I certainly do understand the question and the and the reason for the consistency, because that is like you said, that's what you're gonna see off of Roop Street.

That's something we could commit to taking a look at, taking a look at the proposed landscaping to see how they to see how they align with each other.

I'll add Paul Cavan for the record.

Uh so the planting, the vegetation is the same.

We've used the same landscape architect uh for each project.

Um and we've uh it was part of their scope of work to use the same vegetation um for each of those projects, so the vegetation should match.

Commissioner Brazil.

Yeah, quick question for engineering.

Um we certainly call out that the extension of third street is gonna be state-owned and maintained.

My my question is are the remaining portions of third street and fourth street, are those currently owned by the state and maintained by the state.

Stephen Potter, uh, for the for the record.

So the state owns uh 4th Street, 3rd Street, 2nd Street, um, and King Street along that, you know, between Stewart and Roop.

Anything east of Roop or west of the Capitol Complex would be the city.

So in that block they own all the streets.

Okay, thank you.

Any further discussion or questions of the applicant okay public comments?

Danny French, Carson City, Nevada.

First off, both gentlemen are definitely well set.

I don't feel that their presentation to you was full.

I don't think it was appropriate for us just to get a glance at a picture.

I don't think that gave any public a chance to respond to the actual considerations.

I appreciate uh Brazell's question about the facing.

Um particular articulation.

I've noticed that a few of the storage buildings and stuff have no articulation for yards and miles, it seems.

And in this case, after seeing the actual picture or their depiction, it does show some articulation in the variation, not a flat space area without any differences and such.

I do have a problem with it just because I'm not happy with them, but also putting that aside, their considerations don't really seem to be involved with the city.

So it seems separate, it is considered and it's nice stuff.

And we're sort of getting the what it is and what we're gonna deal with.

Appreciate the time that you're giving me.

Um crab apples and this country um haven't always fared so well.

I think the choice of trees should be rethought.

Also, a lot of communities have found when they put in one specific tree in the whole area and a bug comes through that's specific to that tree, they're gonna lose the whole lot.

They like to diversify to allow for that happening so that they do keep foliage while the others are replanted or a different type of tree is brought in, or some sort of a healing is done on the trees.

I also am opposed, I'd like to know what the and I was just told it's called the uh oh, can you help me hope it's called the something belt?

I called it a tree belt, but no, tree belt which would be between thank you.

Um the area between the street and the sidewalk.

Um, what materials are gonna be put in there?

I hope it's not rock, but I can't say it can't be.

But if it is that they need to break it up, the area even in front of the community center here has a space between the sidewalk and the parking lot.

You can't get through until you go to either one of the ends without going over those rocks.

Anyhow, so I'd hate to see it be rocks.

Artificial turf involved at any point in this facilities plan.

No, thank you.

Um, I took that.

I I know you can't answer, but um, so those were my concerns and my um considerations on this.

It just looks so institutional, and that I don't think really is what I want to see too much.

And there's a thing of uh uh chain link fence in the picture that I saw to the I think it's the third street or fourth street there, the far end of their exit.

Um, and I don't that I don't like that either.

Thank you very much.

Any other comment?

Okay.

Back to us.

Commissioner Crohn.

Yeah, I I can appreciate what the architect is saying related to trying to match some of the materials up and down Roop Street.

It does help with the character and the integration of it within that neighborhood.

Um so I I appreciate that.

I appreciate that that um response.

Although I think uh the idea of uh a condition that we could add, or at least we can consider up here, would be to um that I think that streetscape along uh along Rube Street is going to be very critical to a consistent look, whereas the different architecture um blends behind that landscaping.

I mean, I I think you see that on South Carson Street, where you have that you know the landscaping down along South Carson Street with the with the path behind it.

I think you see it in the downtown.

There's just a unifying element of uh of that what that landscape can do for uh um a campus look, whereas if you're having different styles of architecture within the campus.

So um anyway, that's just my suggestion is that we add another condition to the project, basically saying is that uh the applicant would be required to work with city staff to make sure that the landscaping plan and the landscaping aspect of it along Roof Street is consistent with the uh project south of uh Fifth Street.

So that's sort of my that's my thought.

I don't know what the other commissioners think, but that's my thought.

Is that doable?

Is that doable we're good with that if that's a condition?

Okay.

Any further discussion with that condition say something like landscaping uh landscape must be uh consistent.

Um what I had scribbled down was the applicant shall demonstrate a consistent landscape standard with the property to the it's property to the north, south, south to the property to the south along Rube Street to create consistency and design along the streetscape.

To the property to the south along Rube Street to create consistency and design along the streetscape.

And that way whoever reviews it on the staff side understands what the intent was.

I'm also because I'm noticing on the landscaping, I feel like there's some number sevens there, which are drainage basins, but there are trees there as well.

So I'm not sure how that all works.

So I think we're gonna have to look at a more specific landscape plan for for both properties to see that consistency.

Okay.

Well, is that can that condition covers that right?

I I believe so, and again using the word to demonstrate.

Okay.

And that's acceptable to the sit or the state.

Yeah, that wording sounds that sounds good.

Okay.

That we can do.

All right.

Any other comments?

Is there a motion?

Um I'll make the motion.

Um I move to approve special use permit LU 2026-0026 based on the findings and subjects to the conditions of approval contained in the staff report with the addition of condition seven, which um Ms.

Sullivan uh articulated.

I thought if we could use that wording to, I believe that represents the commission's thoughts, at least it does mine.

And so um if we could use her wording for that seventh condition, that would be great.

All right.

Is there a second?

For the benefit of the record number seven will say something to the effect of the applicant shall demonstrate a consistent landscape standard along Roop Street between the property to the south of fifth and the subject property to the satisfaction of the director.

Okay.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed no.

Motion carries.

APN number is 005 days 091 dash 40.

Thank you, Heather Manzo for the record.

Uh so this subject site is actually located on the Carson City Airport property.

Uh, there's a long-term um lease to the benefit of the applicant.

Um, and so with this, uh there was previously a tentative map approved for I think it was 18 or 24 um individual uh uh hangar units that um as you can see on that left side uh has been recorded open over multiple phases.

This last one uh had come in after the expiration date of the tentative map itself, and so uh the applicant is before you this evening requesting a new tentative map for this last phase.

And with that, uh there's four hangar uh parcels and then that one common area parcel that's being requested with the map.

Um staff is recommending approval of the require that the planning commission recommend to the board approval of the request.

Um and the uh applicant is present if you have any questions for them.

I didn't receive any public comment on this item.

Heather, um because it's a condo, should we not require CCRs?

Um so the way that our code reads, uh all of those one through 14 conditions are based on code.

Uh and so the applicant, I did have a conversation with them earlier this week, they are able to comply with those requirements.

Yeah, but uh they're gonna sell these as condos, and every time we sell a condo, we require that the CCRs be reviewed or looked at.

And we're not requiring that in this instance.

And I think that's a mistake.

I I think in this case the agreement between the Carson City Airport and the applicant would be sufficient.

Well, can I ask our attorney?

We sure can.

Hope and Mahela.

So there's a condition that's in code that requires C C and Rs to be submitted for review by the uh attorney.

Since this is on the airport property, I suggested that the airport agreement would address that requirement.

You you can include the CC and R condition, and if they don't have C C and Rs, they'll just say we don't have any applicable C C and Rs, and that will be responsive to the condition.

Okay.

I just it it it's gonna be a condo, and somebody's gonna buy into a condo, and I don't want them to turn around and say, you know.

Actually, I don't.

Is that in titles 18?

It's probably in seven.

I think it was removed.

No, it's it's 17.

Okay, if it's in 17, yeah.

You can include it, and if it's not applicable, the they'll just advise us of that, and the staff will consider the conditions satisfied.

Okay.

Commissioner Preston.

I had that same question.

And the other thing is, isn't this a land lease underneath it?

Yeah.

Okay, so the thing is is these guys will own the property underneath these condos.

No.

No, Carson City owns the land.

The airport manages the airport, and so they manage all the operations within the airport property, which would include the agreements that Heather was just referencing.

Okay.

And this is an actual subdivision.

So these parcels are actual parcels.

They get assigned parcel numbers and they are actual parcels that are recorded against the map.

And you are transferring the Carson City real property to the condominium owner.

No.

The the lease spells out how the land is leased to the owner for that term.

Um, but they are real parcels.

Then I would definitely be with uh Commissioner uh the chair borders on this, is that you do need a CCNR in order to show what that ownership is.

I think that's really important.

So Cron, thank you.

Yeah, one uh Heather, could you walk me through your discussion a little bit?

Um it it uh you know, and I've read it multiple times, but as far as the I'm just having difficulty of how we've got here.

It says the third and final phase did not record and the map is expired.

Could you walk me, uh you know, uh and maybe others, kind of like how we got to this point, um just from a historical perspective and how these other properties have been subdivided and what is and you're gonna have a common area too.

So I'm I'm just a little history, I think would be really helpful for me.

Okay, so um so I when I'm looking at the discussion, you're talking about the background?

Yeah, for uh page four.

Okay, so we we've got a fabulous lengthy background there that started in 2006.

Where I'm I'm thinking more of your discussion.

Okay, so um in 2023, the last final map of the approved tentative map that was approved in 2007 was recorded.

Um when a final map records state law says, and so does our code, our code mirror state law.

It says you need to record the next final map within two years or the map expires.

So in this case, they had until I think it was November to record that next map.

And the map was not recorded, and so the map expired.

So then they get to start all over again and request a new tentative map for that subdivision.

Are there really any changes between what they had originally proposed and what we're seeing here today?

There are.

I I mean it's still a subdivision.

Uh, what Mr.

Ortiz has done is instead of creating six hangars like the previous two phases had done before to the west, they're actually proposing larger hangars, so there's only four hangers.

Okay, that's helpful.

All right.

And then the common area around it, that's not gonna have is it just gonna be asphalt?

I they've been very insistent over the years that no landscaping is out on the runway area.

So what is that common open space area?

Or maybe maybe I'm using the wrong term.

Um yeah, so I've got the aerial, I know it's very small, but it's gonna look exactly like the improved surfaces surrounding it.

So it's gonna be asphalt and improved surface without landscaping.

It's literally next to the two runways, Taxiway Bravo and Charlie.

So there's not gonna be any landscaping within that space.

Okay, so the basic change is then instead of six hangars on a particular piece of property, we're talking four.

That's correct.

And they're larger for larger planes and jets, I'm assuming.

Isn't that uh for whatever the lesses are gonna use, yes.

Whatever they're gonna use it for.

Okay.

That's fair.

Um and then uh with uh kind of along that same C C and R discussion, is there any consistency between hangers as far as architecturally looking the same or can this Yeah, when you when you drive out there, they're essentially all corrugated metal structures.

I anticipate this one's actually under construction.

So when the applicant comes up, you can ask what the materials are, but I do believe that that's what they used.

All right, thank you.

That's helpful.

Thank you very much, actually.

Uh Commissioner Peterson.

Thank you, Chair.

I was just curious about the language, condo hangar.

So when you think of a condo, you think of three bedrooms, a living room, a kitchen, and a garage, but these are hangers with living quarters inside.

No, I have to.

So I I don't recall seeing a condominium request.

We can talk with the applicant representative about whether it's a condo or or subdivision.

However, the difference between a condo or a uh town home when you're talking residential, is a condo is airspace only, so the land beneath it is not part of the parcel.

Um when you're talking town home or a parcel, the land beneath the parcel itself is is owned by that parcel, so it's airspace and land.

Okay, but it's they're still hangers.

They're hangers.

They're hangers.

Yep.

Okay.

Because Heather on page three, it talks about four condominium hangar units, is where that probably is.

That's right.

Yes.

I see that.

There were also 18 condominium hangers now that I'm looking at it.

So yes, that is how they are mapped.

Okay.

Commissioner Bysell.

Yeah, just um for edification, the NRS does have a specific section under the subdivision uh regulations that allows for industrial um condominiums.

Um we did this a number of times in Sparks, where actually you create you do a tentative approval, they can actually come in and build the structures and then do the surveys.

And what the uh final map is is the airspace contained within that structure is the actual unit itself.

Um so they it there is an allowance uh a method to do that, and that that appears to be what has been done consistently here.

And Heather correctly pointed out there's a there's a state statute and uh almost all jurisdictions, all jurisdictions follow that, where if the tentative approval um the tentative approval is uh expires if they don't record a final map for the within a certain time space for or a series, another and a series of final maps for those types of of facilities.

Um so it's uh just to clarify some of the confusion about condominium versus um a regular subdivision.

Mr.

Preston Okay, upon reviewing the actual flat, it actually shows quite a bit of common area when they roll the planes out, and we're looking at the Google map, that's actually a tarmac.

So I think that enforces the need for a CCNR.

Our condominium, if if I if I buy a condominium, I'm gonna have a fee.

So and the fee is gonna be for buyer space.

To clarify, the airport, aka Carson City owns the airport land.

So these condos are just the hangers themselves.

Sure.

So there's a hundred and twenty-page document that Mr.

Ortiz signed when he purchased the rights to this property, and there's a term where his rights to it expire, and Carson City Airport will still own the land, and they will get the improvements back at some point in the future.

So I don't believe C C and Rs are required as part of this request.

It's covered in their agreement with Carson City Airport.

Well, there's the applicant here, maybe we can ask him.

They are hello, I'm Rebecca Brunier with Bluestone Engineering.

I represent the applicant.

Okay.

And there are 15 items of approval.

Are they acceptable to you?

They are.

All right, the one we're talking about is CCRs.

Uh if if you build four hangers and you have you condoed them, uh then you're gonna have potentially four owners of a condo that they park their airplane in and a certain amount of common area.

So the the way that the agreement is written on the lease is that the applicant is in charge of that lease area, the entire parcel.

And so that common area is still his responsibility, and he and they are the ones that have to enforce the others to follow all of the requirements in their lease agreement.

But why then do you want to make it a condo?

So they they can um they they lease out the buildings to other people.

Well, the the the two sets of six that are are just to the left of you, those aren't condos.

People just rent those.

I I will uh disagree.

They were condos as well.

So the 18 recorded, or actually it was it was a tentative map for 18, which included this.

It was a condo project as well.

Okay.

Yeah.

That that was my mistake.

I didn't read my own staff report.

Okay.

Mr.

Preston.

Okay, so Mr.

Ortiz, right?

Is okay, he he owns all of the parcels.

He made these uh hangars.

Planes go in the hangars, but they they cut they cross common areas.

Because I see common area D and I see the tarmac and their doors roll up, and I mean, we used to chalk our plane out there and you know, do do the different things, but that was a shared area, it's not part of the regular taxiway.

So that's what our question would be is because typically when you're dealing with real property, you would deal with what they call a CIC, a community um a community, a community association, essentially, that says these are the rules, you're not gonna leave the plane out there, you're gonna leave all your crap out there in the middle of it, you're gonna keep it clear if you're not using your plane.

You know, those kind of things.

Do you have those kind of written rules?

So those are um the airport owns the land and and our tease just has the the lease.

So they're basically subleasing the building portion of it, and they're responsible to the airport to make sure that the original terms of the lease are are met.

Like you can't do anything outside the plane stay out there for a certain amount of time, just basically to cool down, and then they're bought into their hangers.

The agreement between Mr.

Ortiz and the Carson City Airport does cover all of those items.

Okay.

It spells everything out, all of the rules.

Okay, perfect.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Any other questions for the applicant?

No, another question about your staff.

Okay.

Go ahead.

Um Heather, just a real quick question.

You go into your staff report and you make a point that uh there is a previously approved special use permit that covers this.

Does it cover the existing hangars that are there as well as the new four hangers that are going in?

And can you give me a little background why it needed a special use per rite, or is it just because it's on public property as well?

You got it.

Uh so you answered your own question.

Because it's publicly zoned, uh, it required a special use permit for any construction of structures.

Once the special use permit was activated and met by that first building going in, the species promo is satisfied.

So yes, the approval uh does uh allow for this to be constructed.

Any other questions?

Public comment.

Danny French, Carson City, thank you very much.

It's a shame that Mr.

Jenkins, the director of the airport, isn't here to help us a bit.

It looks like your common area only at two, three different of the parcel uh division are able to get to that common area with a plane other than going on uh taxi taxiway Charlie, and then the other would have to find a way to get to the facility.

Well, I guess they'd have to use a taxiway to get to their common areas.

And I don't really think they need that complication on the airport.

It's a pretty complicated place.

The other air option for them is to go out um the back.

I don't see where parking or if the common area is gonna be used for that, but I'm just so glad that Mr.

Peterson asks the question about condos because I was up in arms because there's a federal deal about not having facilities with building and living quarters on them, and I'm going, how did they get this in?

So thank you very much.

You saved me a bit of embarrassment.

But I still the plans are so limited, and the explanation was a bit long.

Um so I have a lot more questions, and I hope you all do, because leasing like this leaves the us in, I think a precarious spot as far as legally.

And it just seems like we shouldn't want to be landlords with an area like that quite so specific.

Each of these facilities on the property are leased, and they have to be overseen by the airport, and that's understood.

But that's a big job in itself, and keeping everybody uh coordinated.

So having planes getting in taxiways and such unnecessarily uh through odds and ends going different ways.

I think it's just adding complexity to something that already is very precarious at times.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any further comment?

All right, group.

What do we think?

I'll make the motion.

Yes.

I'm I move to recommend approval of SUB 2026 0029 to the board based on the ability to make the required tentative subdivision map findings and subject to the conditions of approval included in the staff report.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

All second.

Second by Commissioner Pizell's any further discussion.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed no.

Motion carries.

All right.

Um I would like to move agenda item 6H up for consideration next, and then we're going to take a small break.

Uh 6H is discussion and possible action regarding an application from St.

Teresa's uh of Avila LLC for a special use permit to allow for the construction of a 559,675 square foot structure and associated site improvements to accommodate child development center, a school, and school uses use on a 13.91 acre parcel, currently zone limited industrial.

Um 3000 North Lampa Lane, APN 008-922-31.

The applicant has requested a uh to continue this item uh to a date search and uh search certain of May 27th, 2026.

So I would like a motion to do that.

I move that we continue this agenda item to the I'm sorry, I forgot what date.

Thank you.

May 27th, 2026 meeting, date certain.

All right.

There's second second by Commissioner De Christopher.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

No.

Uh now I want to take about a five-minute break, and then we'll come back and finish this agenda.

We do have two other items for St.

Theria's.

We're gonna consider tonight.

So if people want to stay for that, they can.

Okay.

We'll be back here, this is the Carson City Planning Commission's meeting on what is it, March 25th.

Uh, we're at item six E, LU 2026-0030, discussion and possible action regarding application from Frank Laporte Construction LLC to amend and approve a special use permit uh to allow for the modification to convert a portion of the office building into watchman's quarters to increase the maximum structural height of building C from 10.5 feet tall to 15.67 feet tall, and to increase the maximum height of the solid screen fence from six feet to eight feet on property located on the Lampa Ranch North Pacific Plan Area and Zone General Construction SPA and public regional SPA located on the west side of Airport Road, south of Bud Eye Way on 556 Airport Road, parcel number APN 101004176.

Heather.

Thank you, Heather Manzo again for the record.

So this project uh is a storage facility that was approved a bit ago um with a sizable office uh as noted in the description, it's on the east side of airport road, as noted on the overhead here.

So uh here's the site plan kind of identifying the two buildings that are part of this request.

Uh one of them is building C located on that west side adjacent to the freeway.

That's the building that they're asking for an increase of height up to 17 and some change feet tall.

Uh and then that office that is located along airport along the frontage there.

So I provided you with the approved office um floor plan as well as a wonderful color-coded planner's light color coded things, by the way.

Um floor plan that shows the um the office space in purple and the uh proposed uh one bedroom uh watchman's quarters in pink there, so that we can differentiate between the commercial and that watchman's quarters uh square footage.

Um so that is the proposed uh those are the po proposed two changes.

I'm gonna go back to the site plan um for just a moment.

So in between building C, which is that one on the west side that's proposed to be increased in height, and building D, uh, there's a small section of fence there.

And then along the frontages and in between other buildings, building C and building B.

Um, there are other segments of uh solid fencing that uh the planning commission that was sitting in a couple years ago will remember was this really nice vinyl um uh fencing that has been approved.

The applicant is gonna stick with that fencing.

It was really important to uh staff and to the commission that they stick with it because it was a really nice product.

What the applicant wants to do though is increase the height uh to eight feet to just add that additional security and to match up the height of that fencing with the buildings that it's gonna be uh set between.

Um there is some open view wrought iron fencing uh next to between the office and where the gates are, that's gonna stay the way that it had been originally planned, which is open view six feet tall.

So that way as you're entering the site, it doesn't feel you know like a fortress, but they did really want to have that security fencing uh match up with the buildings.

So those are the three requests that are before you this evening to convert that uh office space to a watchman's quarters to provide that security on site to increase that building height of building C to allow for uh taller roll-up doors and then that additional height on that solid view fencing that's uh providing the screening for the the site.

I did receive um one uh actually mailed in uh public comment.

They were actually asking a lot of questions that really had to do with operations.

So I forwarded it to Dominic who's here to represent the applicant um and asked him if he wouldn't mind following up with them.

He did respond to their questions and um the uh the commenter did say thank you for your time.

So uh I didn't receive any other follow-up uh public comments on this item.

Staff is recommending approval of the request and the applicants available, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Okay.

Um the building C the roll-up doors.

Are there is are they gonna change the number?

It looks like that's an awful lot of narrow gosh.

Um we'll go ahead and turn that over to the applicant.

I didn't I actually didn't count the doors.

Okay.

All right.

Any other questions for staff?

Is the applicant here.

There are seven conditions of approval.

You familiar with those and you are are they acceptable?

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Yes, Dominic Gonzalez with lepery construction.

I'm uh aware of the conditions and I'm good with all of them.

Okay.

And and my question is it if we're gonna make building C taller, are they are those slots pretty narrow?

The actual change for increasing the height of the building is to make those spaces more usable.

When this project first came to us, we had the design complete by um other uh um designers, and we took those complete plans and and pulled all the permits and then um the uh the owners held it for a while before we started construction.

And we do a lot of design build and were able to kind of actually look at a lot of the stuff that that was designed.

Well, the the initial overhead doors were were eight feet uh tall by ten feet wide, and those specific storage units are meant to be kind of luxury, more luxurious RV or boat parking stalls.

So as it was initially designed, the doors weren't tall enough to get an RV or a racked boat in there, and they were a little skinny.

So they they lost a couple units because the units did get wider, and um the the height increase was to get the taller overhead doors.

Well, that that was my question.

I couldn't you couldn't get a bus in there.

No, so now that those doors are uh 14 feet tall, 12 feet wide, and um uh everything got scooted over.

Okay, so the the answer is yeah, there's less there's less spaces there.

There's there's less spaces, yeah.

There's more room to park in the spaces.

Okay, Commissioner Cron.

Yeah, just uh just kind of clarifying and getting on the record to be sure.

Um so with building C, there's no architectural change in the sense of materials or the look.

We're just increasing the height.

Is that correct?

That is not entirely correct.

There's a is a small architectural change just along the back.

Um for all three buildings, uh, B, C and D, you have the exterior uh three bearing walls or CMU.

They go up to about eight and a half feet.

Um structurally, we wanted to keep those CMU walls at eight and a half feet, and so just on the back side of building C for the additional uh eight feet or so to get up to the roof, is um the same metal metal siding metal panels that you would see along the whole front face of those buildings, uh, where the overhead is.

Okay, so you just wrap it up.

Actually, you're wrapping that same texture, same color around the building.

Yeah, so the the initial building was CMU all the way around, roof abutted to it.

Now there's just the the height makeup is being um constructed out of uh metal studs with with metal siding in view of additional.

Thank you.

Uh next question, really again, just for clarification.

The uh fence that's going around the place, same materials, same look, just two foot taller.

Yes, and truthfully, that it might end up even being only seven feet.

Um we're we're still finalizing that.

And I I think Heather mentioned um vinyl.

It it kind of looks like uh looks like vinyl, but I think it will be uh a nice um precast concrete type wall.

Um it's smooth, it's got posts about every 12 feet and then solid.

Do they slide in then?

Is that how that works?

They do.

They're yeah, they're about two feet, two feet tall each panel, and they yeah, they got to lift them up, they're heavy and they slide it.

Slide in to each so they do post slide, yep, do the next post, and okay, and uh that's that's not changing.

We uh before we went through with changing the other two buildings and heightening the fence.

I had several conversations with Heather about potential changes to that fence and the the outside uh aesthetics of the buildings and uh we're keeping everything as initially approved.

So and then the change on the um um workmen quarters or the security quarters, basically same floor plan, same square footage, nothing there.

No, it's the exact same uh uh exterior footprint.

In fact, if if you drive by the site right now, the building's fully fully framed and sheeted, so nothing on the architectural outside look of the building changes.

Just when we were again reviewing the design, you look at that initial floor plan, and we're talking to the owners about trying to formalize what their operations look like.

You have a huge reception showroom, uh an office, and those two little storage rooms, and no one could really answer as to what they were gonna use all of that space for.

So the watchman's quarters will be for an on-site watchman security and cleanliness.

Another person will just operate the the office operations in that uh that blue reception area that you see right there.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

So you don't you don't see the watchman as being the receptionist?

No, not at all.

They're they're they're exclusive for sure.

All right.

Uh public comment.

Hearing none.

I'm ready for a motion.

Uh I move to approve special use permit LU 2026 0030, uh, based on the findings and subject to the conditions of approval contained in the staff report.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second by Commissioner Brooks.

Any further discussion?

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed no.

Motion carries.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Six F.

I'm almost to the third page.

Discussion and possible action regarding a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors concerning an application from David Snaunerbush Loomis and Associates to abandon 2,903 square foot portion of executive point way and commercial way, a public right-of-way adjacent to the northern portion of a parcel owned by St.

Teresa of Avilia LLC to accommodate future development of the northern portion of 3000 North Lampa Lane APN number 008-922-31.

Heather.

Thank you.

Heather Manzo for the record.

So this is a request to abandon just a portion of the right-of-way at that inner the corner of executive point way and commerce way.

What the request is is on the left-hand side and hash marks.

It's to eliminate the knuckle of that uh roadway.

Uh public works did evaluate the request and has uh found that the roadway will function without that uh rounded or that curved area.

Um so with the abandoned area on that right hand side, that abandoned area would then be absorbed into the St.

Teresa of Vila property.

Um and so the resultant parcel would look like it uh it's shown on that right hand side.

So uh staff was able to make all of the findings to support um planning commission's recommendation to the board for approval of this request.

Uh there are five conditions of approval um in your packet, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have on this.

And the applicant is also present if you have any questions for them.

Okay.

Um Stephen, is there any traffic control necessary on that?

Are they gonna have eventually add to that intersection?

Do you know?

We just made a square intersection if we get rid of that cul-de-sac.

Are they eventually gonna have a road that comes up to that or do we know or um so Stephen Pote for the record?

Any traffic control uh would be associated with the the project for the abandonment itself?

It's just looking at the the right-of-way and removing that bulb.

So our analysis was just confirming that um large vehicles can still navigate that turn.

Okay.

Was that part of the reason, Stephen?

Why the knuckle was there originally?

It just seems so odd.

You know, I guess you drive around all the different city streets, and that just seemed odd.

So I didn't know if that was a fire department requirement, an engineering requirement, or just some crazy engineer came up with uh wanting to do something with a round line instead of a straight line.

Uh so knuckles uh at corners like that are not uncommon.

Our code doesn't require it, so I don't know uh historically if maybe there was a requirement for it or um what the reasoning was there, but that that was why we had that additional analysis to confirm that vehicles can make that turn.

Now will that 10-foot public easement uh the 10-foot public utility easement that kind of goes around and around the knuckle and down the street commerce way does then that 10-foot public easement then match the 90-degree angle as well?

Correct, yeah.

The the PUE gets moved uh to the new property line.

To the new property line, and then you just mentioned something here about the ATT having some stuff in there.

Yeah, so with abandonments we get utility statements, and I believe ATT mentioned that they um had a utility in the the area.

Okay, so that because it does it sounds like you're it's um like addition five seems to address that uh okay.

That's that's all I I was just curious.

Thank you.

Any further questions first?

Oh, Commissioner Preston.

Yeah, the only question I had is because we were doing a lot of development during this time, and I know what that knuckle is is that knuckle is actually required by the fire department during during the 70s and 80s.

Have they gone ahead and walked away from that?

Because I think they were looking at putting in that was all Shaheen's properties, and they were looking at putting in uh additional you know office buildings and so forth.

Yeah, so the the fire department has uh reviewed um this this application and um that is the the size vehicle that we're analyzing.

Okay, great, thank you.

Okay, any other questions for staff applicant they hear Michael Lock with Loomis and Associates uh there are five conditions of approval.

Uh there are five conditions of approval.

You're familiar with those and are they acceptable?

Yes, we're familiar with them and they are acceptable.

Okay.

Any just any questions for the applicant public comment?

All right.

I'll make a motion.

Recommend that the board of supervisors approve the right-of-way abandonment based on the findings and subject to the conditions of approval contained in the staff report.

Second.

I'm sorry.

Commissioner Pazell.

All right.

Yeah, we got we can smell the barn, I can tell.

All right, any further discussion?

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, no.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

6G, ZA 2026-0027.

A discussion and possible action regarding a recommendation of the Board of Supervisors concerning an application from St.

Teresa of Avia LLC to adopt an ordinance amending the zoning map to change the zoning from limited industrial to public on 13.91 acres parcel located at 3000 North Lampa Lane.

Excuse me, parcel number APN 008-922-31.

Heather.

Thank you, Heather Manzo again for the record.

So this is actually the same subject site of uh the abandonment.

Um so this request is for a zone change, and you'll probably remember a few months ago the planning commission saw uh as part of the master plan uh annual report.

This property had a split master plan designation with a portion of that northern property um area uh designated um industrial.

So uh there was a master plan amendment that was uh finalized by the board earlier this month um to designate the entire site uh public quasi public.

So master plan designation is public quasi pub public as of today.

Uh and um with that the existing zoning on the property is limited industrial.

That is not a conforming zoning district for the PQP master plan.

Um so the applicant has requested that uh zoning map amendment move forward to change the zoning of the property to public.

Um that also does coincide with the project that uh was continued to the May meeting that uh is for a use that is allowed within that public zoning district.

Um so we'll be seeing that in a couple months.

But what's before you to tonight is not project specific, it's really just to bring the zoning in conformance with the master plan designation.

Uh that concludes my presentation and Micah is available for applicant questions, and I'm here as well.

I didn't receive any public comments on this item.

I have I have a chicken and egg question for you.

If we approve this before we approve the other, we've got a couple hundred square feet of property that's still zoned incorrectly.

Is that right?

Um, so the master this is this includes the cul-de-sac.

Oh, so there's actually something in code that allows for the that's a great question.

So uh it allows for um it actually states that zoning goes to project center or to uh public right-of-way center line.

The way we map our things and show it online isn't exactly how it how it reads in code.

So um it actually will follow with that public zoning.

Okay.

That was it it just it's drawn one way, and oh, if we do this, then we've got yeah, a great question.

All right.

Any other question for staff?

And you're still here.

There are there aren't any no conditions.

You had anything you want to say.

Just happy to be here.

Okay.

Can you program in COBOL?

All right, any public discussion.

All right.

Uh motion.

I move direct mend to the board of supervisors' approval of the uh zoning map amendment ZA 2026 0027 as presented.

All right, and Commissioner DeChristopher pushed the wrong butt or pushed the button, and I didn't recognize her.

So she can second that.

Any further discussion?

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, no.

Motion carries.

All right.

Okay.

Lost my papers here.

All right.

Six IA 2026 0045 discussion and possible action regarding a recommendation of the Board of Supervisors regarding a proposed ordinance relating to zoning, establishing various provisions concerning short-term rentals in Carson City and providing for other matters properly related there too.

Thank you.

Hope Sullivan, Director of Community and Economic Development.

So we've been at this a little while.

We had some listening sessions, and we have some folks in the audience who participated in those listening sessions.

One was on January 21st, and we had 17 attendees.

One was on January 22nd and we had 20 attendees.

And in addition, we received five written comments regarding short-term rentals.

Oh, there it is.

In terms of the time frame, we went to the Board of Supervisors.

Actually, I should talk about December 4th, 2025 before I get into 2026.

So we'll go back to that one.

So December 4th, 2025, the Board of Supervisors discussed short-term rentals.

And in that meeting, what the board said is look at nationally, short-term rentals are a thing.

We can't not call it out in the code.

Right now, as you know, it's not specifically identified in the code as a land use, so we have to interpret.

And when we interpret, we interpret it as being most akin to a hotel, and we subject it to the zoning regulations of a hotel.

So the board said, you know, no, short-term rentals exist.

They're a land use, and we want to be clear about where they're allowed in Carson City and what zone what standards, if any, would be appropriate in Carson City.

So they asked that I go do these listening sessions, and you all came with me, so thank you.

And hear what the community had to say.

Back on December 4th, the board did provide some input in terms of what they thought maybe some standards should be that should be considered.

And when we go through the late material, there were some things the board did not want to consider.

And we can talk about that a little more.

But we did do the listening sessions.

Then we fast forward to February 20th.

The board reviewed the input from these listening sessions, and I had provided a recommendation on standards.

The board discussed this, and they provided their input on short-term rentals.

So based on the input received by the board on February 20th, and again that included the input that came up at the listening sessions.

Let's see.

First, um, something you all don't really deal with, and don't worry about the money.

I'm calling out the money because this was the slide I had used at the board retreat.

But an administrative permit today costs $750.

It's just what it costs.

We don't talk a lot about administrative permits.

Um often when we talk about land use, I always say there's three choices yes, no, and maybe.

Yes means you can do it.

It's a ministerial permit, no means you can't do it.

There's nothing to talk about.

And a maybe means maybe.

So a special use permit is a maybe, maybe you can.

We have to look at the findings of fact.

Well, there's also in the code, and it's been there, an administrative permit.

And with the administrative permits, exact same findings of fact as a special use permit, but the hearings officer, which right now the hearings officers in Carson City are Heather Ferris and me.

The hearings officer has the authority to issue an administrative permit.

It's a public meeting.

We notify the neighbors just like we do for the special use permit.

So the procedural due process is identical essentially to the special use permit.

The only difference is rather than coming to the planning commission, it goes to the hearings officer for the public meeting.

Um it will also require business license, a business license is part of Title Four.

You all don't have jurisdiction on Title Four, so you don't have to worry about the business license piece.

Also, in considering what is a short-term rental, and we'll get to the definition.

Um if you just rent a room in your house when your home is permanently occupied, and you maybe are an empty nester and you have an extra room.

That is not considered a short-term rental.

That's still a single family home.

It's occupied by it by a permanent resident.

Again, the time frame was mostly we're relying on the board retreat from February 20th.

You're having your public hearing now.

We're looking at going to the board meeting in May for both first and second reading, then doing community outreach in June and July with a grace period until July 21st.

Depending on what the board does.

I don't know what they'll do for sure.

I just know what happened on February 20th.

So let's talk about before I get to standards.

I want to talk about the definition.

So the proposal is to define a short-term rental as meaning one dwelling unit rented for the purpose of overnight lodging for a period of not less than one day and not more than 28 days.

So if the church gets a rezoning, they can't have a short-term rental.

Defining the short-term rental to include one dwelling unit was really important because during the listening session, something we heard was people are renting out sheds.

People are renting out their RV.

That's not, we don't want people living in a shed.

It needs to be a house.

And so as part of the hearing, that would be inspected.

So when we look at what the standards are, and I'm going to give you four pages of standards here, and it's in your staff report.

One, they have to complete and submit to visit Carson City, the TOT report and stay current.

And that wording I saw in Garrett's letter, he questioned the wording on that provision.

And again, we haven't written the ordinance.

Well, I've written this word, the deal points for you to look at.

And we can call out the code section that specifically addresses the room tax or the TOT.

Second, it has to be a dwelling.

Has to be a dwelling.

Only one short-term rental per property.

So if you have an accessory dwelling that you want to rent out, that's okay, but you can't rent out your house and the accessory dwelling.

If you're in an apartment complex, only one.

We're not turning apartment complexes into hotels.

You only get one short-term rental per property.

The trash, I I looked into this, and Garrett has this in his letter.

And I say Garrett, Garrett's representing the board of realtors, so I should say the board of realtors has it in their letter.

Said, well, why don't we just follow the city standard on when to put out the trash bin?

Well, I actually looked into it, and there isn't a standard.

So that's why I felt like we needed one that said we wouldn't put out the trash more than one day prior to the scheduled pickup, and the bin has to be removed within a day after the pickup.

Sometimes when you have folks in a short-term rental, maybe they're leaving on a Tuesday, but pickups not till Friday.

You don't want a bin there attracting rodents and all types of animals.

Next, you have to identify a responsible person who can respond within 30 minutes if the city needs somebody to respond to the property.

No events, and that came up in the realtor's letter as well.

The word event was very deliberate.

And we don't want prohibit parties.

We know that people might have a birthday, right?

And they might come together and they're going to do an outing in Tahoe, but they're renting a house down here in Carson.

We don't want to say, oh, you can't have that birthday cake and blow out the candles.

I mean, that's a party.

So a party can be okay.

An event is like a wedding or something, something like that.

So no events.

Quiet hours from 10 p.m.

to 7 a.m., and that would be defined as no amplified noise outside.

Again, the realtors wanted to rely on the nuisance regulations.

I feel like the nuisance regulations aren't as specific as this.

I think if you just say no amplified noise.

If someone's outside having a conversation, it might annoy the neighbor, but I can be outside at my backyard having a conversation.

That might equally annoy the neighbor.

But having amplified sound, I think when you live there permanently, you're you're pretty conscientious about that.

So that's why that wording was included.

A statement of no conflict with the CCNRs.

Something Douglas did and the board really like this is they have a code of conduct.

So there's a code of conduct that identifies sort of the rules for the vacation rental.

And the code of conduct would be reviewed by the hearings officer.

The applicant would propose their code of conduct.

And what they do in Douglas that the board like this idea was they actually post the code of conduct in a in right when you walk in the front door.

So anyone who's there understands what the code of conduct is.

And that can include the quiet hours.

It can include when the trash goes out, things like that.

We would include an annual inspection, and the compliance officers would conduct these inspections to make sure there were operable smoke detectors, carbon monoxide detectors, a fire extinguisher that wasn't going to expire before the next annual inspection, an information book with the responsible party contact information, information on how to how to track emergencies.

If there's a wildfire, if there's flooding, where do they go to get that information?

So that would be in the book, the house rules, backup batteries for the smoke and carbon monoxide detectors.

Any swimming pool or hot tub would need a sanitation protocol.

The occupancy would be limited to two people per bedroom based on the bedroom count as determined as part of the administrative permit.

So the staff member for the administrative permit, I said just like the special use permit, but the hearings officer is authorized to grant it versus planning commission.

There's a staff report.

So the staff member, the assistant planner would go and literally go into the house and see how many bedrooms there are.

So if they want to use the dining room as a bedroom, no, it's not a bedroom.

And you can only have an occupancy, an evening occupancy of two people per bedroom.

This came from a woman in the audience.

She brought up the fire pit and Washow, and I brought that up to the fire chief.

It was at one of the listening sessions and even the evening listening session.

And we realized, you know, she made me realize people don't understand our wind.

The wind's a serious thing here.

And so if you have somebody from out of the area, even just the Bay Area coming in, they might think, oh, cool, there's this fire pit.

And that can really pose a danger.

And so, based on the input we received at the listening session, I contacted the fire chief, and he said, Well, let's make sure it's gas operated.

And so it can't be, you know, wood.

It has to be a gas operated fire pit.

Um, the administrative permit is non-transferable.

Occasionally you do that with your special use permits if something was serious and and you think, yeah, we really need to make sure the next owner gets this right.

And so that's why the administrative permit is not transferable.

And there needs to be a sanitation disinfection protocol required for approval by the director of health and human services.

And are they still here?

No.

We had two people from Health and Human Services here early, but they've they've left.

So that's the scope of the standards.

When we look at the findings for a zoning text amendment, there's three required findings.

Um, substantial compliance with and supports the goals and policies of the master plan.

And looking at this, you'll recall as part of the master plan, there were sort of two things that we have to figure out how to balance.

One was sort of the economic vitality and kind of being a tourist community because that's part of our economic base.

Well, as a tourist community, we want to have venues for tourists to come.

Some tourists may be traveling with the family, they may be traveling with animals, they keep the hotel's not going to be conducive to their stay, and they're looking for a short-term rental.

So that gives them an option in Carson City.

So that's that's a positive for tourism.

But you might say, but remember, as part of the master plan, we kept hearing about protecting our neighborhoods and the character and livability of established neighborhoods, and how do we create that compatibility?

And I think the way we create that compatibility is two things.

One, we have these standards, and these standards are really to dictate a kind of a good neighbor policy for people who maybe just forget to have good manners when they're on vacation.

The second piece is we will have the administrative hearing.

So at that hearing, we can consider any specific characteristics of the neighborhood or that property and determine whether or not it's appropriate to put conditions of approval in place to ensure that that compatibility, if you will, or we did I highlighted some things.

We talk about maintaining the quality, character, and livability of established neighborhoods.

So I think that was when the board said, you know, go talk to the community.

What standards, if any, do we need to make sure these can exist and not be a problem in neighborhoods?

So I think between the procedural due process of the administrative hearing coupled with the standards, um we're close.

The second finding is land use compatibility, and we just sort of talked about that with the procedural due process of the administrative hearing, plus the standards are being being contemplated.

And the next that will not negatively impact existing or planned public services or facilities or impact public health safety and welfare.

That was part of it being really important that it's a house, it's a dwelling already.

We're not taking a garage and turning it into a dwelling.

We're not taking a shed and turning it into a dwelling.

This is a dwelling.

Also, it's really important to look at the occupancy limitations because we don't want to put pack in 20 people in a two-bedroom house.

If it's a two-bedroom house, it's four people, two people to a bedroom.

And so the impact on public services and facilities should be the same as if it were a permanently occupied home.

And with that, um, I'll stop.

I know there's some public here, and I'm happy to answer questions, or if you want to take public comment first, that's that's good too.

Oh, actually, you know what?

If I could just speak to the late material real quick, sorry.

Um, late material.

The first one was a question you received or from Zelda Zaniga.

That really focuses on the fees.

The fees will be in Title Four in the $750 administrative fee already exist.

You can talk about the $750 administrative fee, but it already exists.

I'm not coming up with that fee.

And I think for the business license, that would be a new fee, and that's Title IV.

So the the board will take that up.

In terms of um Garrett Gordon's letter from behalf of the board of realtors.

Um, he on the trash bin thing.

I'm I tried to be really specific on that.

He suggest, or they are suggesting that we also look at any other collection requirements in city ordinance.

My understanding, having looked into this early on, is there is no collection requirements in city ordinance, which is why I came up with the one day and one day.

Um, next, um there may be collection requirements in CCRs.

There could be.

I leave that to you.

On insurance requirements, the board did discuss whether or not to include insurance during the retreat and decided not to require not to require that somebody supply us with insurance.

That's their private decision on carrying insurance.

Um they asked for clarification on the room tax, and and I agree we can certainly make sure when the ordinance is drafted, that's very specific and referring to Title IV where the room tax exists.

And last, they suggested a tiered permit structure.

And I actually had a call with Airbnb, and it was a group out of Texas, and they advocated for this as well.

And I explained this to the Board of Supervisors in February.

What they said is there's some light users who only rent out occasionally, and they felt like the fees would be very expensive for them.

And again, this the fees is really business license fees.

Um, and they felt like there should it should be tiered based on the usage.

Um I don't agree with that.

I think if you're going into this business, you're going into this business.

And the Board of Supervisors in February did agree with that.

But again, I expect that this would not be revisiting the fee for an administrative permit because that's been in place.

I suspect this is looking at a new fee, which would be a business license fee in Title IV.

It's all at that Commissioner Pazell.

Thank you.

Oh, just had a couple of questions on the zoning districts where it's allowed, you include most of them I understand, but uh mobile home parks, multifamily apartments, general office, neighborhood business, retail commercial, general commercial, and tourist commercial, or are those because those zoning districts in some occasions do have dwelling units within them that could be used.

Correct.

Well, this board knows that there's been a number of times when you've issued special use permits for residential uses and non-residential zoning districts.

And although those zoning districts are listed, it still needs to be a dwelling per my recommendation.

And then the only other thing was in um uh section nine um C with regards to the um fire pits.

Um you had may not be used during red flag alerts or red flag warnings.

I would just add um issued by the um by the local National Weather Service Got it.

And that actually came from Douglas had that.

I was like, oh wow, I didn't know you weren't supposed to, you're not even supposed to use a grill during a red flag warning.

I didn't even know that.

Yeah.

Commissioner Cron.

A couple of things.

So we'll stay with the the Board of Um the Board of Realtors um issue uh comments.

I wanted to talk on two of them.

Um the 60-minute response time, um, while I certainly appreciate the desire to get somebody there as fast as possible, I'm just thinking realistically, a lot of this stuff is probably going to happen at night.

And so you're gonna get somebody potentially out of bed at 11 o'clock at night to chase them across town.

Now you can get about anywhere in this town in about 15 minutes, but by the time you get up out of bed, get dressed, out the door to your car, I think 30 minutes is uh almost unrealistic.

It just personally, I I I think that if you were even even gave them another 45, and now we're splitting hairs, I get that, but another 45 minutes or even an hour to get there.

But I I understand the urgency if there's a problem at 11 o'clock at night and your neighbors are upset and they've contacted the city, that's an hour you have to wait to get there, you know, by the time that city person gets there.

I just I'm just concerned that's unrealistic in expectation, to be honest with you, 30 minutes.

And um again, if your your role today is to make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, then we you've often heard me say, I don't want to adopt rules that can't be enforced.

Or so I hear what you're saying.

And continuing on with the party versus events, um, all right, let's let's go with your example.

Uh you don't want to monitor a birthday party.

But if the occupancy, let's say it's a four-bedroom house, that means there's eight people, and if you have a kid and a mom and a dad and a grandpa, that works.

But what if they want to bring in the aunts and uncles?

So where does that become, I mean, where do we shift from a party, you know, of eight people potentially to 15 or 20 people with aunts and uncles and cousins and everybody else.

So again, I'm just uh it may be a little bit wordsmithing, but that's that's going to be, I think, from an enforcement standpoint.

I think that's going to be really an interesting dilemma if if we don't get this right.

No, I hear you.

And what they do in Douglas is they actually have a daytime occupancy and a nighttime occupancy.

And the daytime occupancy is a bigger number than the nighttime occupancy.

And that may be something which I I didn't recommend that, but that would be something that would address what you're bringing up.

You know, is there maximum daytime occupancy?

So those people could be at the party, but that number is 12, you know, I mean, as opposed to 25.

And um, so that would be something I would suggest you all discuss whether we should have a daytime occupancy and in addition to the evening occupancy, which is just evening occupancies drive from bedroom count.

Then um then moving uh then moving on to actually your um uh short-term permitted uses.

Um I guess I'm struggling with three of the uh zoning districts in my mind.

The mobile home park, multifamily duplex, and multifamily apartments.

I guess for some reason, let's just start with the mobile home park.

You're in a very typically you're in a very dense um living situation with your neighbor next door to each other.

And so if even though it may be a two or three bedroom home, you've got parking issues.

I'm just I'm just thinking you're asking for problems.

Now I appreciate somebody maybe have has purchased a nice mobile home and wants to rent it out as an Airbnb.

So I get that, but I'm just concerned about the neighbors, and it's just it's a it's a proximity issue that I'm concerned about, and that's also the same thing with the multifamily duplex.

Uh having if you're or your walls are attached, now all of a sudden you've got 12 or 14 people in there for a birthday party.

It's again, I I think it's a proximity issue, and the same thing with apartments.

I just some reason I again I'm thinking very simplistically, but if you have an apartment and again you're renting it out, is that really an appropriate use again because of the proximity with the other neighbors?

Everywhere else makes sense to me, like a one-acre home or a 6,000 square foot home.

That makes sense to me, but I'm just concerned related to the proximity and the use that you're bringing in to those particular zoning districts.

That makes it Commissioner Preston.

Okay.

I'm going to stop I'm going to come from a different hat here because I think I'm the only one who actually has a property manager permit.

And doing that, one of the things that, and I've been doing this for gosh, many, many decades.

Um I'm gonna go down kind of a list here.

Is I think the 30 minute minute response time is correct.

With regular property management, you can have a 60 minute response time, but that's somebody that lives at the property all the time and has a full-time lease agreement.

Somebody that is leasing on a periodic short term has a different kind of arrangement.

A response, when people are talking about response, doesn't mean you have to be in there in your PGs with your shoes screwed on and run it and be at the property.

The response is I'm not a fireman, let's call the fire department.

I'm not a doctor, let's call the doctor.

You don't have any heat, I'm not an HVAC guy, but let me get it UNHVAC guy.

A lot of this stuff can be done from the phone.

The other thing is is if I'm in South Reno right now, I don't know if I should admit this, but I make it from Silver Oak to South Greenho in 12 minutes.

And um uh Reno the other day down to which you believe our notorious Highway 50 395 interchange, it was 22.

So, you know, I mean it you have that ability.

30 minutes to me sounds very, very reasonable.

The administrative fee, the way I look at the administrative fee is gosh, that's a lot cheaper than a special use permit and waiting for two weeks, two months to see us.

So that is a winner.

The uh business license, I pay business license fees, I pay business license fees on what I do.

This is an income producing situation and it's a service, so I agree.

In regards to the trash bins, um, we have a couple of of uh of uh of these already that you know we're supposed that don't exist, but I am seeing the trash bins overflowing, the lids don't close, and we do have bears, and so this is a concern.

So I think that something is really important, especially when you live in a subdivision that has this type of a thing and has the C C and Rs.

If the C C and Rs did not have the foresight to address this and need a 68% change of actual voting membership to allow for this, that at least that there is a contact with the HOA knows who these people are, so they can contact them and say, have your maintenance people come take care of the trash, dispose of it either at the landfill, or you know, make arrangements because this will go ahead and keep the rodents, the trash, the bears, everybody away from it.

Parking.

I did not see that parking was not addressed at all, and I do have one of these units right here on a corner lot in my subdivision, and the other night they had two sprinter vans and they had two one-ton uh contractor trucks there.

The driveway was only appropriate for two vehicles.

They were crossing the sidewalks, which is a very pedestrian-friendly neighborhood.

They were parked in front of and obstructed the uh the uh post office cluster boxes, and they actually were sideways up on the ADA ramp.

To me, this is a problem.

And this is something that I think again could be resolved by having the HOA contact and having the owner contact and having people know who to do it.

It might even benefit it somehow is if there was some way we knew, you know, even as a neighbor to be able to call the property manager and say, hey, reach out to your people, whatever.

One thing I always did as far as whenever I took over any rental in a neighborhood is I I wrote letters to the people that surrounded a couple of blocks and said, hi, I'm the manager of this is now a rental.

If you have any problems in the future, please contact me and welcome your new neighbors.

Whatever.

But at least one thing is they know who to contact.

I agree with this board of supervisors.

Insurance policies are up to with the owner.

Because some people have umbrella policies, some people have specific policies.

So that is really not of any of our concern.

And most of the time, if the mortgage company knows what they're doing in it, they will require additional writers.

Let me see.

And because I mean, I I look at the incline.

Incline says six months, one day it's a residence, and you live there.

But if you're there less than that, what I'm saying is are they just locking up their stuff and just oh, we don't want to be here this weekend, let's see if we can rent it.

That would be their own choice.

And that would not be something you'd have to real work with.

In regards to the mobile homes, multifamily homes and the um uh duplexes.

Typically the duplex is a rental on one side or it's owner occupied.

So the person next door, they're gonna know whether or not they have one of those next door.

That's gonna be between the landlord or the resident.

In regards to the mobile home park, they're gonna be kind of like what we have already with the CC and Rs.

It doesn't matter if it's Silver Oak over, it doesn't matter if it's Capitol Village.

They're gonna have to still be good neighbors and notify the people.

In regards to an apartment complex, right now, many apartment complexes do what they call corporate apartments, and they will do nightly rentals, weekly rentals in less than a month just for people to do things.

Sometimes, you know, you have special people that are coming in from um uh out of area and they only have one project to do.

And so those exist and they exist now.

So I mean, that's what I wanted to point out on that.

So thank you very much for your time.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um I'll start with with what I like, which is almost almost everything, because I'll qualify that later, don't worry.

Uh but it but in this moment I will say uh uh much like Commissioner Preston, I my my work life exposes me to a lot of this.

I I have looked at a lot of cities and how they handle short-term rentals.

This is fundamentally reasonable, it's a good path.

Um there are some cities that that absolutely uh don't want it and figure out every legal way not to have it.

There are some cities that say they want it and then put up so many barriers that they're surprised when most of their short-term rentals are actually underground uh undocumented units.

Uh, this as I said, it's reasonable.

Having said that, uh think that as a general principle, and I don't and I don't think it's gonna happen on this particular vote of the board, but I think as a general principle, we should avoid categorizing what subdivisions of the people within our borders do, and instead figure out ways to, you know, if we're going to restrict behavior or encourage good behavior, do it at the population level.

So if the you know, if if we don't have a nuisance ordinance up to the task, I'm not sure inserting additional noise or no noise restrictions in short-term rentals is the right way to go.

Um I get that the people who use our short-term rentals don't live here.

I don't get and don't support the notion that somebody who doesn't live here, somebody who hasn't had a family here since lizards crawled out of the sea, uh is somehow different and subject to more policing.

I just I don't think that's a that's a great principle to uh govern by uh events and weddings.

Uh I had a question about that just as an example.

I spend a lot of time at large Airbnbs where our team will come in, we'll spend four days there during the daytime.

It's just one big long meeting.

And at night, yeah, the music comes on and uh people are drinking and complaining about work or whatever they're doing.

I reading this, I didn't know whether that was an event or not.

I didn't think it was, but I I also think that the word event, I get why you want to use it.

I also get that it probably needs a paragraph of explanation somewhere in whatever you eventually come up with.

Thank you.

Mr.

Bazell, you or me.

Thank you.

Um based on the experience I've had in in particular in Colorado, um, I particularly um support the um occupancy limit of the house be two bedroom, two people per bedroom.

Uh there are several instances where they'd try and stuff, they'd stuff too and try and get three bunk beds into a into a single bedroom within each bedroom of the of the residents.

So I think that's a that's a healthy thing to do with regards to limiting the occupancy of the house.

My turn.

Um there's a couple of things in here that I think were missing.

Uh one of them is age.

Uh and I've I you know this is you you were kind enough to give me the Lake Tahoe vacation home rental ordinance, which is 17 pages.

Uh ours is two.

There's some things in here I think we need to incorporate.

Um they require that the minimum age to rent a vacation home is 25 years, and that that 25-year-old needs to be present, and I think that's essential.

Um we've talked about birthday parties and things like that.

Uh I lived in a resort community and manage resort properties for 35 years.

And when you have somebody call up and they want to rent an apartment, and oh, it turns out that it's dad and he's renting it for his kids for their graduation, and 47 people show up and they knock out all the plywood and all the walls in the place.

Uh, you really want to have somebody older than 18 in the facility.

And Airbnb understands that, VRBO understands that.

I think we need to state that there needs to be a the responsible person that makes the reservation needs to be there.

And and I like the idea of a daytime occupancy and a nighttime occupancy.

I don't know how to do that yet, but I think that's a good idea.

Um I also have some concern about corporate ownership, single ownership.

Um if you can rent uh a three-bedroom apartment in Carson City for $2,000 a weekend.

Um that that's a $10,000 a month project that turns into a hundred thousand dollar deal with a $50,000 annual mortgage payment.

That's a profit of 11,000 for the three guys that went in and made the down payment and bought this house.

And I think those are the kinds of things we don't want to do.

I don't want us to become a corporate rental place.

And I can see that happening because there's no way not to.

Um we talked about the trash bins, there's no reason why we can't require that the owner of the Airbnb purchase a bear proof trash bin.

If they put it out early, at least it's a bearproof bin, not just a regular one.

Uh I think that when they first come in to get their administrative permit for their short-term rental, they must already show a valid hotel motel tax license or whatever we call it.

And if it's a renewal, they must show us a whole year's worth of receipts from that from the previous year.

I think that should be a requirement.

Because you're absolutely right.

You're gonna have people trying to lie their way around this and not do not comply.

The only way the only hammer we have is if they have to have an annual permit and they have to show that as part of it.

Um I don't have a problem with 30 minutes.

This code of conduct, I think could be worked a little bit better.

There could be some more things in here.

Um but I think the biggest issue that we have as uh a body.

Well, before that, there's some enforcement questions, but that's a for a different kind.

But as a body, we need to decide based on our master plan and the things we did, what kind of a community we are.

And we're not a resort community.

We are we are not a resort destination, we are a pass through.

And if people come here, they're coming here for specific reasons.

So and I don't think we ought to try and create an environment that says this is the place where everybody wants to come come on and stay in Carson City.

I don't think that's what our master plan says now.

I don't think that's what we feel like.

And the the biggest elephant in the room now is uh Airbnbs and single family residents uh zoning districts, which is not permitted now.

And this ordinance opens the whole thing up to everybody, and I don't know that that I don't feel good about that in some of the more established neighborhoods in this in this community that have 6,000 square foot lots.

I don't know having four cars like like Terry said parked on the driveway is inducive to what we think Carson City ought to be.

Uh and I I just have some problems with that item.

What I would like to see us do, and I think there's some been some really good input today, and we're gonna get some more from the community, is to put this back together and come back and do it one more time.

I don't feel good about passing on it right now.

I would I would prefer to have a workshop.

I would have preferred to have a workshop with the Board of Supervisors, but they don't like to do that.

They're they're afraid that they might get something wrong, I guess.

I don't know what their reason is, but I think I think this needs to be something we do faster than slam bam, thank you, ma'am.

And it it uh it it bothers me that that I think we're on the right direction.

I think we have to do this.

Uh Verbo and Airbnb have come up with all of these problems before.

I know they can adjust to whatever we come up with, and their clients can adjust to whatever we come up with.

So I think we need to to take our time and do it and make it right the first time.

Uh Commissioner De Christopher, your turn.

Thank you, Chair.

Um being a former short-term rental landlord, um, my initial and I should note one was a mixed-use building here in the historical district.

Another one I was absentee landlord, it was in Chicago.

Um, two very, very different situations.

Um, just overall, I didn't have a problem with anything I heard.

I like that it generates a revenue stream.

I like it in that revenue stream by doing the business license and going through um the administrative approval, that alone puts them on the map to know who they are.

Doesn't mean we'll get rid of the ones that don't do it.

Um but it helps people understand what we're doing as a community that there's some responsibility to it.

Um I personally have found that just believe it or not, just the little poster of good conduct.

What do we as a community?

Um I did it just on my own and with some neighbors who are doing the same thing, but if you kind of establish yourself, people start revisiting, you will get the better people because that's what they want when they do a short-term rental.

They want to be in a community that adheres to these guidelines that you're putting out there.

Um, one little note, what I always put in my uh upfront before somebody could go on, how I defined a party defined the difference between a party and event is did you advertise it on social media?

That did the trick.

They got the idea.

It doesn't mean they didn't do it, but they got the idea that one, this isn't gonna accommodate it, two, it's not gonna be your cup of tea coming into this neighborhood.

Um I do agree with the 30-minute response that is absolutely necessary to Commissioner Preston's point.

It doesn't necessarily mean you have to beat their boot be their boots on the ground.

But it's the idea that they know going into it that you will, and that phone call oftentimes takes care of things.

To me, the biggest issue, and I agree with chair borders on this.

More conversation needs to happen.

You I I feel so comfortable with what you've presented.

If I know that it is individuals doing it and not corporate owned housing, I appreciate what Commissioner Brooke said.

I've relied on that myself.

I don't know if that's what we're looking to be.

And in and if we are, if we want to entertain those type of things, then I think the conversation needs to continue about okay, then how is that animal different from what we're looking at in 85%, 90% of the cases, which is single residential homes.

Um but that's pretty much my input.

I don't I I don't think this is the end.

I think this is a really good place to get to the next step.

Mr.

Preston.

I did have a question.

Is that one thing I think that we're starting to notice is the last two hotels that were built here are extended stays.

And they're extended stays primarily because the fact is we have a lot of out-of-area construction workers.

So and now with the new legislative campus, the state campus, trick, you know, we've got so much going on.

I thought, and I wanted to get this clear is I thought years ago that the city had actually said they did not want to have work vehicles in neighborhoods.

And so I mean, I think that people that would be looking at it and bringing their work vehicles into these neighborhoods, which would probably want with with my neighbors, that is the parking.

That's the problem.

These are construction vehicles, they're not your you know, regular SUVs.

If there would be something we could put in there that reminds them that we do have a city statute on this, we don't want to have somebody coming up there in their you know, box truck or whatever and coming into neighborhoods when the neighbors next door are not allowed to have that.

So that's one of the things I wanted to bring in.

And I am going to parrot uh Chuck Porters and and uh Ellen DeChristopher.

Corporate ownership would cause some real problems here because what it does is it limits the ability for us to be able to add that additional housing that we have, and they are.

I mean, they they these do you know create money, but what's and and and regarding these people saying, Oh, it costs too much.

This is accountability and responsibility.

And you know that I mean, hope you know I called you up and I said, My gosh, there's people out at so-and-so, and they've got sheds and people are living in sheds, and they are advertising to people from out of the country that think that oh, they're gonna go be at Tahoe and they put them into it.

It wasn't even a nice tough shed, you know.

So I mean, these are these are concerns.

So I think we're on the right path.

So thank you.

Mr.

Preston.

Peterson.

Well, doing sweep after everybody spoke, I get to kind of take all the comments and stride.

I have to agree with a lot of my fellow commissioners here, and uh especially Chair Borders that we need to kind of revisit this.

I don't think it's ready to pass just as yet, but we're really close.

Um parking's an issue.

I think that's an issue as far as what the neighbors would think of what they see.

Some of the construction guys, they'll be gone all day.

I mean, if they're there to work, it's just they'll be gone from seven to four.

My guess seven to seven because they're gonna go have dinner because they don't want to cook, they're beer drinkers and taco eaters, so they'll probably be back at seven, not to classify those guys like that, because I'm kind of one of them.

I go home to eat though.

But I think that you know the parking thing is something to consider as well.

Um the garbage thing, I think the bear traps are a good bear garbage cans are a good idea.

Um, I think a supplemental brochure with our standards needs to accompany the uh pamphlet that goes with the landlord for the person that's coming to stay, so that they not only see what the landlord what they stipulate, but also like what the city rules are.

Um maybe as an addendum towards the back of the book, however, they want to do that.

Um fire pit, that's a good idea.

I mean, as far as requiring it to be gas, um you put porcelain logs in the pit, you don't leave an open pit with just a log lighter in it, you know, you do porcelain logs so they can't throw wood on it or glass beads, something like that.

Um one of my last questions though is who's gonna enforce this?

Like what entity, what body is going to be um brought up to like say, is it a staff of three?

Is it one enforcement officer and a helper?

Um I can see where the initiate the initial fees will help fund this, but that's gonna have to be like a lot of these units hopping on board, a lot of these landlords hopping on board and have this big influx of of cash or or just resources to fund what we are going to try to enforce.

So that's uh okay.

That's part of my program there.

Um let's take some public comment.

I think we we beat this worse a lot.

See if there's anybody in the public that would like to speak about okay.

All right, Denny, you're first thank you, Chair Denny French, Carson City.

I went to the Board of Supervisors workshop.

If they had even a midget smidget of the discussion that you have shared today with your thoughts, how you came to them, how you've developed your positions and your considerations, it would have been a positive for me.

As it was, it was great.

I mean, all the time for me, Hope Sullivan is sort of the main get it, and her staff's got it, and as a public, I appreciate it.

But there just has to be more discussion.

And if you could coordinate it so you could mix all of your inputs into a board of supervisors and planning commission, fine.

But those programs are not they're not filmed, and under the circumstances they're gonna be working on if they use the same facility on their sound equipment.

And I forgot my hearing aids, but today the uh situation here's been good for me.

But the the microphone situation was tough, and then it's not videoed.

And then, you know, it's it that's a facilitation of an uh event that you want everybody to have uh opportunity to look at, review and and such.

So I I'm sort of opposed to workshops that don't have the facility to have it filmed and recorded.

And and if they're gonna use the fire station again, it's already been considered that they will look into their sound system, so that may be improved, and the seating in there, because you've got this huge area for the people that are the participants of the staff, the commissions and such, and then a very little tight space for the public and seating was a little awkward.

So the facilitators were great people, and it was great to see the fire station, but it wasn't a location I would suggest again for right now.

But more time, thank you, Chair, and thank you for this informative and thoughtful communications between you.

Thank you.

No, just push it.

There you go.

Now you gotta bring it closer to you, Bart.

Usually that's not the problem.

Thank you.

Uh again, my name is Bart Carrillo.

I'm a resident in the Silver Oaks subdivision, and we live in an area which has been identified by zoning as uh SF 12 P.

All right.

Uh I and a bunch of my neighbors are uh opposed to the creation of an ordinance uh being written without consideration of the injury to the neighborhood.

Number one, uh first of all, I agree with everything Hope said, and I applaud her efforts here.

But the big concern I have is to re is the opening up of the short-term rental market, the entire entirety of Carton City, as opposed to it currently being available in the historic district.

If that was not an issue, I would be 100% behind Hope, but my neighbors and myself are not.

A couple of comments that were made with regard to corporate buyers or investors.

I agree that's a real problem, but you miss and missed a point.

If you have corporate investors who see a successful market, what's going to stop them from buying three, four, five, six whole block?

Number one.

Number two, is there any limitation on how many uh STRs are going to be in a particular block?

Who gets to pick that up?

First come, first serve.

Okay, that's not uh provided in it.

Um I have intimate knowledge of what goes on in this type of situation because I and my neighbors, a year and a half, two years ago, almost two years ago, complained about time's almost gone.

Complained about an SU or short-term rental across from my house.

Code compliance came out, violated, uh, served a violation.

There was a hearing, uh, the owners uh appealed the hearing.

Uh the hearing went to the local uh municipal court, and the judge found that the current code is clear, it's not ambiguous.

The current code is code is um is direct, that there's no due process problems, so that there is a court decision indicating that the current code is fine.

Why change it?

As an ex-lawyer, I'm gonna tell you that whatever you do for the ordinance, somebody's gonna find uh an issue with something, and the ensuing lawsuit which is gonna happen.

I have a list of items that is on the um schedule that Hope presented, and I don't have a chance to get through all of them, but I would like permission to uh to uh memorialize it in a written statement and submit it to the to this board.

Is that possible?

If you get it to me, I'll transmit it to the commission.

All right, and I will have it done within a week.

That's fine.

Is that okay?

Yeah, and then I can be more articulate and it won't be over time.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next, Mr.

Chairman, Commission, uh, for the record, Garrett Gordon, I'm an attorney at uh Womble Bond Dixon Dickinson, but am happily the uh government affairs director for the realtors, served by the realtors.

So thank you for the letting me provide some input today.

I sent the letter.

Um, let me just touch base on a few of the items.

Uh, number one, the trash bin storage.

I appreciate Ms.

Sullivan providing a clarification on that.

Um, number two, the events.

So we suggested language from Washoe County, which includes the word parties.

I think we can all agree we don't need to be regulating birthday parties or Thanksgivings, but graduation parties, Super Bowl parties, you know, if it starts to rise to a level of a nuisance that's gonna impact neighbors, could be could be an issue.

And let me say on behalf of the realtors, we're always trying to balance protecting and preserving private property rights to these property owners, but also being sensitive and compassionate to the surrounding neighborhood.

So trying to strike that balance.

Um as far as noise restrictions, we suggested just referring to current code.

It seemed um concerning to us that you'd be treating a short-term tenant differently than a regular tenant.

So why would the ambient noise from 10 p.m.

to 7 a.m.

apply to short-term tenants, but not to other tenants or other property owners.

To us, it just seemed for uniformity, whatever the nuisance laws are on the books or Norris ordinances, so this kind of apply to everyone, not necessarily short-term versus long-term.

Um, some great points on the responsible person.

So, as the ordinance is currently proposed, it says 30 minutes on site.

What we were suggesting is look what Washoe County does, which is a good balance, I think.

It says respond to a complaint within 30 minutes, so that covers the phone call issue you mentioned, but then being to the site by 60, which gets to your point, Commissioner, about waking up in bed and getting there.

So respond in 30 on-site and 60 would be a suggestion that we would um put on the table here.

Ums, Washoe County and other um jurisdictions do require insurance.

Um, for instance, Washoe County requires a $500,000 policy, and and we believe this requirement is consistent with industry standards and protects both property owners and the public if if something happened.

So for your consideration, that wouldn't be outside the norm to allow insurance.

Appreciate um Hope's clarification on the room tax, and finally the tiers.

So the tier structure that other jurisdictions, including Washo have, it's not to get out of necessarily paying different fees, but it's for like for example, tier one is less than 10, tier two is 11, the 20, tier three is 21 and over.

Tier three, I would suggest, like Washo is not allowed in residential districts, right?

Is only allowed in commercial districts.

Tier two could be allowed in residential, but with some heightened standards or regulations if you're gonna have that many people in residential.

So those tiers kind of just help not just the fees, but where they could actually be located based on occupancy.

So just a couple thoughts for your consideration.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hope that's why we need to have another meeting.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I beg your I beg my pardon.

I'm sorry.

Oh, that's all right.

Sorry.

No, you just turned it off.

All right, Terry Workington.

Um I can program in Cobalt, so just for the Okay, good.

Good.

Oh yeah.

Right.

Uh first I want to thank the commission for actually uh tackling this issue.

I know it's uh sensitive one, but it is needed.

Uh no particular order.

Uh so looking at the permanent license fees, um, we're not a corporation.

You know, we are a mom and pop, we might like to call us boutique.

Um, but you know, 5750 seems a little steep.

Uh kind of look in smaller markets, they're typically running around 300 for a permit fee.

Uh some clarification on the 30-minute contact, I think would be great.

Um, I agree, uh phone call response in 30 minutes, but on site and 60 is probably more reasonable.

Uh looking at the um capacity.

Um right now you're proposing uh two people per bedroom.

A lot of other ones do have two plus two, where it's uh two people plus two people per bedroom, but then plus two.

So like a one bedroom would be four people, two bedroom would be four plus a two would be six.

So it accounts for like children.

So typically it's kind of like two adults and then allowing like maybe two children for that property.

Um like we want the room room tax.

I'd highly recommend to work with with work with the platforms like Airbnb to actually collect and submit uh the room tax as opposed to depending on the individual uh owners of the property.

Uh I agree with the age of 25 responsible person.

I think that's a that's a great insight on there.

Um the one STR per property, you know, say if you had a duplex that you own, you know, couldn't you do both of them as um as STRs, short-term rentals?

You know, even though there maybe there are one, it's one property, but they have a duplex there.

So you have two two properties that could be uh put out.

Um and also, oh I've got lots of time.

Um Russian so flush.

Um corporate ownership, yeah.

Um totally agree with on that because you know, you get the corporate ownerships in here, they'll take over the city.

Um, you know, try to leave it.

You know, I don't know how you regulate that or how you even control that.

That's probably a hard one too, but you know, allowing it to kind of for the small landlords.

Uh, because then you'll get much better properties and much better management.

I agree with what the fellow uh previous gentleman, yeah.

You know, how do we treat like work trucks, bare cans, party noise, like any different from anybody else that's living in that neighborhood?

You know, we we've had neighbors that you know put a motorcycle track and buy on their house and you know in a 10,000 square foot lot.

Um, you know, why why once your neighbors are overflowing their trash?

Why aren't they responsible with a bear can?

Um, you know, and and also party, you know, like who doesn't have a party every now and then and have noise and you know they have all under the same regulation, so I don't know why there needs to be discrimination against these people in the in the SDRs, also.

That's all I have to say.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Oh, you're tag teaming.

Yeah.

Uh my name's Tammy Workington.

Um I also um agree with the 30-minute response and then the 60-minute uh, you know, arrival time seems very practical, um, especially through the night.

And I I think that would probably most likely be for a party that wasn't supposed to happen, so that usually might not be able to be done by a phone call anyway.

So you would need to go.

Um I like when I advertise, I um, you know, on Airbnb, I I say no parties, and I um I'm very strict about that.

I don't want anyone coming in and wrecking my home and disturbing my neighbors.

Um and I've had people reach out and say, My my we're coming to town because my 80 year 80-year-old father is having, you know, he's having his 80th birthday party, and we're gonna have a few people there, and I would love to be able to celebrate.

And of course, you know, that's wonderful.

There's always exceptions.

Um, but I just say no parties because I want to make that clear that that I'm not gonna allow parties.

Um lost my notes.

Um, I think the bear proof uh can is a good idea if people are not able to meet the parameters of the time frame.

Um I don't we don't have a problem with the you know that amount of time, it just makes sense to us.

Um I think newsness laws for vacationers does make sense.

Um, you know, they're on vacation, so they're gonna be drinking more and just you know, they're just gonna be there to have a good time, they're not gonna get up early and go to work.

So I think that does make sense.

Um, and yeah, when people come to our place, they you know, we just make it clear that that that those are the rules.

So none of these rules will really be difficult for us, um, which is partly why I like the other idea of a tiered kind of uh you know payment, if it's yearly, you know, fees that maybe as each year goes on for good service or um, you know, because of the familiarity, we have everything in place that maybe the fees could be adjusted from year to year.

Those are my thoughts.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, so um, I have a lot of notes here.

I have one more comment for you.

Oh, please.

The uh if we could if we did develop some sort of a tiered structure.

It might go a long way in solving the problem with all the the uh single family resident zoning areas in town, which is gonna be the bone of contention, I'm sure.

Right, and I was grateful Garrett clarified that because I was when I read the letter, I immediately thought about the tiered pricing, and I was aware that Incline Village or Washaw County does have that tiered system.

I'm not sure that we have any houses big enough to be a tier two or tier three.

It's it's based on the occupants.

Well, maybe we'll use our own tiers, or we create a maximum occupancy, could be an option as well.

So speaking of which, the first note I have is daytime occupancy and nighttime occupancy.

So I had suggested a nighttime occupancy.

I did not identify a daytime occupancy.

Um I guess I'm gonna go one by one if it's okay.

So I guess that's a question.

Is that something a majority of you feel like we should do a daytime occupancy?

And actually, before we do that, um I'll go out of order.

I'm not gonna talk about occupancy first.

First thing I want to talk about is the chair advocated, and I think maybe Greg Peterson agreed with him, um, to postpone this and do a workshop.

I'm going to suggest we not do that, and but do something that's kind of a modification of that.

We know we have short-term rentals in this town.

And because we know we have about 40 to 50 of them, we know they exist.

They are not licensed, there are no standards in place, they are not paying TOT.

We but they're here.

And so what the board requested, which I think was very reasonable, was we know they're here, they're all over the country.

Let's figure out some standards, let's figure out a procedural due process.

Let's figure out how they're lawful and how we create balances between neighborhoods and in these things, these creatures, I'll call them.

Um is this perfect?

Probably not.

And is it a good starting point?

Probably.

And so what I'm gonna suggest is we go over what you've discussed, but that you go ahead and make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors with the understanding that once this program's in place, which will probably not be before July, because of I the timeline I showed you, because the Board of Supervisors wants time.

One, we need time to have all the hearings, and secondly, they wanted a 60-day grace period, is what they talked about.

Um, but once the program's in place, I think after one year, it would be helpful for this commission to say we want to review how it's going.

We want to see what type of what what properties are they all single family?

Are they townhouses?

Are they condos?

Are they concentrated?

Do we have corporate buyers?

Do we not have corporate buyers?

And just look at that data and look at the complaints that have come in and identify the modifications at that point based on real life experience versus hypothetical ideas.

Our best examples locally are basically in Tahoe.

It's in Klein Village and it's it's the Douglas County part of Tahoe.

You look at those settings, they're very different than our setting.

And so that's my suggestion in terms of whether or not we stop or we, you, it's you, I don't vote.

Um you stop and say nope, we want a workshop, or whether or not you say, okay, this is our best recommendation, but we want to revisit it after the system's been placed for a year.

So all that said, um, the occupancy.

So there was discussion about having a daytime occupancy as well as a nighttime occupancy, and now maybe even a maximum occupancy.

Thoughts.

In a resort community, when you rent a place to stay, you rent a two-bedroom unit with a mac maximum occupancy of six.

Because there's a usually a hide of bed.

So you could sleep six adults in a two-bedroom unit.

Same way with a three-bedroom unity, the maximum occupancy is eight.

Um we could use that.

And that would for the daytime.

Yes.

No, for the nighttime.

You don't like two people per bedroom.

I want them staying in bedrooms so that the intensity is similar to a single family home.

And that and that's fine.

I I don't have a problem with that.

But I'm I'm just telling you how how if you go to a resort community, that's how they count them.

Um but I don't know that we're a resort community.

We're yeah.

What what if we're to Christopher?

Oh, sorry.

You raised your hand.

I'm sorry.

Yeah, no, no, no.

Um I guess, and this is not answering directly to that.

Um I guess my problem with going ahead and getting our opinions on all of this is I keep going back to what's enforceable and how are we even starting this?

Like if we apply these today.

Are we just assuming people are in go, oh yeah, I'm doing that.

So I'm coming on in and I'm gonna do my business license.

How are we even identifying them?

I I can answer that.

And actually, I'll I'll just kind of go through this and you all can decide what you want to talk about because we'll get to enforcement and implementation because um Commissioner Peterson had a question on that.

Um I like the idea of 30 minutes to respond and 60 minutes to get to the site.

I think that's reasonable.

So I appreciate that.

Um there was discussion about whether or not to allow it in mobile home parks, multi-family duplexes, and multifamily apartments.

Those are clearly our higher density areas.

Maybe it's too hard to incorporate there.

Um so I don't have an opinion.

I just I would be in favor of taking those out.

Okay.

And and is that consensus then?

Or I don't know.

It's just only two of us so far.

I know two of us, it's right.

I would be on board with that.

One thing I wanted to mention because it's within the context of that point.

When we talk about apartments and people doing corporate rentals, it is typically because it is over 30 days.

It is not a short-term rental.

It's someone coming in, they're waiting for their house to be ready, or they're on contract work.

There is a platform that handles that, and it we really need to, so I would be in favor of taking those two areas out.

So it's three, you need one more.

Come on.

The only reason I can't go into that one is because if you're going to open it up to agricultural everything except for industrial, then it becomes a it becomes a property, right?

Okay.

Um the other thing, and this might be a balance is it's allowed in the mobile home park zoning, multi-family duplex zoning, multi-family apartments only, only if it's single family detached.

I can I think that's that's good.

I guess I guess my counter to that would be in the multifamily apartments.

Yeah, we have extended state facilities here in town.

So why can't that fulfill this requirement here using your an apartment for that?

The extended um I don't I for one recommended one per property, thinking about apartments because one per property means an apartment complex is usually on a single property, which means only one unit could be a short-term rental.

And my thought is I don't want to see apartment complexes become hotel complexes.

That turns into a change of use, which is a whole different thing.

So yeah, so that's my thought on that.

I agree with that.

Um potentially allowing those three zoning districts only if it's single family detached.

The HOA contact, I think because the administrative hearing will be um noticed.

If there is an HOA with CC and Rs, they could certainly look at on the code of conduct, including the HOA contact contact, the HOA, whoever could ask who's the contact on this, but there will be that sort of um visibility on parking.

A lot of talking about parking.

The reason the code is silent on parking is because the board, and and I recommended this, the board agreed.

I said, let's enforce we have to enforce parking.

There is a rule that you can't bring a commercial vehicle to your home unless it's used as your primary um personal vehicle.

So if I have a pickup truck that I use for work, but it's also where I won't go grocery shopping in it, then I'm allowed to have that at home.

If it's just my work vehicle and I have my own car at home, no, I can't bring it back to my house.

And so we have parking restrictions, and the idea there was all parking restrictions would be enforced.

So you're not supposed to park on a sidewalk.

If you're parking on a sidewalk, I don't care if you live there permanently or if you're a short-term rental, you get a parking ticket.

Um let's see.

Then we have noise restrictions.

I think the difference between a short-term rental and a permanent residence is when you live there full time, you have to get along with your neighbors.

You have to figure it out.

When you're just in for a couple days or a week, you maybe aren't as conscientious about that.

And I also don't believe the new nuisance ordinance is specific enough.

We don't have a noise ordinance in Carson City.

So we would have to find it to be this objectionable noise.

Well, is Vern playing the radio at 11 o'clock at night and objectionable noise?

It's amplified sound.

We just I want something that was really objective.

Stop the amplified sound at 10 o'clock.

Um we talked about this, the short-term rental would be subject to different standards in residential.

And I think that goes back to your findings, which I still have up here, and it's what the chair was talking about.

These will be in residential neighborhoods.

So we need to figure out how to balance this, what is a commercial enterprise with keeping a residential neighborhood livable.

And so the standards proposed, and I think there's definitely opportunity for improvement, are trying to create that balance.

Um define event, I agree, and maybe we have to define party.

We have to define something so we know what we're talking about.

Um so I think that's a good value value add.

The minimum age of 25 years old.

Um, if you all want to recommend that to the board, sure, go ahead.

Um, corporate ownership board did talk about that somewhat in February, but if that's a recommendation of this commission, make that recommendation.

Um bear proof bins, sure, we can recommend that.

Um showing evidence of TOT at the time of the administrative permit and at the time of renewals.

I think that's a good idea.

The code of conduct um to add to it, sure.

We can definitely add to it.

Um the chair mentioned we're going to allow Airbnb on residential lots, exactly, which is why we want these standards.

We or I'm recommending these standards.

I'm recommending we don't treat it like a permanent dwelling because the tenancies are different.

The um impacts on what you choose to do are different.

You have to live with your neighbors.

Work vehicle limitation we talked about, a supplemental brochure for the standards, certainly.

Um, who enforces?

That's what I want to talk about.

So the idea right now, there's a meeting tomorrow on the supplemental budget.

And right now I have 1.5 compliance officers who enforce Title Four, which is business license.

They enforce um Title 8, which is nuisance, Title 10, which is parking restrictions, and Title 18, which is zoning.

They um I am asking in the anticipation of having these regulations to go from 1.5 to two FTEs for that.

They will have to work evenings and weekends.

Now they are working a swing shift.

And so the enforcement will be out of community development.

We may need to bring in the sheriff's office occasionally, but overall the enforcement will rest with community development because it will be enforcing primarily Title 18 and Title IV, which is business license and zoning.

We're looking at creating that the FTE if this is in anticipation of something happening.

So we'd have to do the recruitment and so and so forth.

The enforcement will rest with community development.

This is a zone, this is zoning and business license.

And that's the agency that enforces that.

These do exist in town.

And but I don't think we have to, you know, stop there.

We we amend the code from time to time.

We can certainly revisit after an hour uh year's worth of data and see if it needs changes.

But I don't suggest postponing and having a workshop.

I think we had the listening sessions, we had good attendance, we had good input, and I think this is largely reflective of that input.

And uh I'll stop.

Well maybe hope if I don't if I could just circle back about something.

It was the occupancy nighttime, daytime.

Um how do we um how do we start there?

Is it gonna be the size of the house?

Is it gonna be where it's at?

Um, a daytime event.

If we say that we can have double the amount of people during the day than during the evening, I mean, does that mean that it's going to be we're allowing a larger event that becomes an event and more of a and more of a party than it is, like say just a family coming in with you know a certain amount of people for the for the weekend or whatever.

Right.

And I don't know if Garrett, what did you do in Washow for daytime occupancy?

Did you have that?

Garrett may know.

Okay, he's gonna pull and then I another thing too, is that I thought, you know, in order to find these people, because they're not gonna like race to the office and say, I want to pay my fee because I want to become legit.

They're probably gonna like try and stay under the covers for a little while, you know, uh, until they get um till the the flag goes up.

But I mean, maybe what we do is we look at the RBO when you look at Airbnb, you do you punch in your destination at Carson City, you see what pops up.

You know, now we have a base of like the people that are advertising, and those are the people that are trying to get business.

So that's that's a good thing.

But what we need to do is have something in place so that we could put something out publicly that says this is what Carson City is going to take into effect, this is what's going to be in effect October 1st, or God knows what, whenever this thing gets approved, and these are the rules.

If you're if you're caught, you know, we have the ability to do something.

Whatever that is is going to be up to you guys as enforcement, you know.

And that's exactly the top that's exactly what the board supervisors has said.

They said we we want you to go out to the community and determine if we should have standards, and if so, what those standards should be, so that everyone understands what are the rules of the game.

We often talk about the rules of the game.

And I understand that that's where we're going tonight.

But man, the next question is gonna be implementation.

So maybe that was more of where I was going along with community.

Christopher, are you are you you're next on my schedule here?

Commissioner Crone.

Um I want to circle back to the parking.

Um, one of the places that I stayed at made it pretty simple.

One car per bedroom.

Figure two people are coming in a car, so you have two for a bedroom, so you bring two in a car.

So if you have a four-bedroom, you have a four-bedroom house, you were only allowed four cars.

The other thing that they did is they didn't allow on-street parking, and you had to use their garage to put two of your cars in.

So it didn't impact the neighborhoods.

There were no uh visitors or no uh Airbnb folks on the street, they were two or in the garage and two were in the driveway.

So that was how that was handled.

And I think Commissioner De Christopher just talked about in Commissioner Um Peterson about enforcement.

And the reason I'm not advocating for special parking standards, is when my team goes out to issue a parking ticket, they don't know why the car's there.

They don't know if that's somebody who's visiting a permanent resident or if that's somebody who's renting an Airbnb.

And so the parking tickets, the parking tickets, the parking ticket.

Mr.

Chair, if you don't mind Garrett Gordon has the information about the permanent occup or the daytime occupancy in Washaw and how that works.

Okay.

Would that be okay?

Yeah, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh thank you.

So for the record, Garrett Gordon with the Realtors.

Um, so I don't see I have a little spreadsheet here for all the issues, Washoe versus uh Carson.

Uh occupancy, nothing distinguishes daytime and nighttime, but occupancy in Washoe is two occupants for every legally permitted bedroom, remainder of the home, excluding bedrooms, calculating that one occupant for every 200 square feet of habitables have habitable space.

So you get a little bit more based on the size of the house.

Yeah, I like what we have better.

And I have parking here if you wanted to know that or not.

Yeah.

The parking is in Washoe County is limited, the standards applicable to all residential uses.

Um no STR parking allowed with an access easements or public right-of-way, and one parking space is required for every four occupants.

Okay.

Hope that's helpful.

Commissioner Brooks.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh it sounds like I'm looking for feedback here.

It sounds like the end of this process tonight will be recommendations that we vote on and then are written into some sort of of memo or something to the board.

Is that correct, Ho?

The recommendation of the staff is that you consider these in-code amendments, you can suggest modifications to them, and that you make a recommendation to the board.

What you can also do is you can continue this item to study it more or to have some type of workshop.

Um, and that's what what the chair had suggested earlier.

Okay, thank you.

I haven't heard it for about 15 minutes, so I hesitate to bring it up.

But uh if we are trying to get to some sort of decision point and and things that we're we're on board with, I I'm I would like to encourage my fellow board members, uh our commission members, to stay away from uh the I uh corporate house corporate owned short-term rentals as an issue.

It's uh it's a hairball.

It's uh you know we have corporate owned housing in Carson City right now.

Mobile homes are often owned by corporations or mobile home parks.

Uh the landlord who owns five doors probably has an LLC.

It's it's a difficult issue, and it's if it's something that this body or the board of supervisors cares about, it's probably best addressed separate from the issue of short-term housing.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Preston.

Okay, I think that um one thing that would be nice is that we already have occupancy on residentials, and it's already outlined.

So as far as just residential housing, how many people or should be two people per bedroom?

And a lot of them, and it's really funny is because a lot of that is actually predicated on years ago when everything was on a septic, how much can it handle?

You know, and so I look at that and I think that's still a good rule of thumb rather than trying to figure out 200 square feet here, blah, blah, blah.

You know, because that's that's that's really cumbersome.

So I would go back to just regular rec uh occupancy.

Uh when we are looking for people, not everybody's using Airbnb or Verbo.

There's people on Facebook, there's people on Craigslist, and they're showing up in some of the darnedest places.

And if you just look up short-term rentals, things that pop up are just incredible.

So when we do that community outreach on that, I think that's important.

Uh back to the year the 25-year-old.

I think that that is very important because like Chuck is that I can't tell you how many uh grown-ups came to rent you know, residential resorts or whatever that uh for prom night until you've actually dealt with a situation like that, it's just absolutely incredible.

Um you need to have the responsible party there, and that responsible party, you know, is usually vetted if they use a company, but we can't require that they use a company.

So thank you.

I'm gonna, Terry, I'm gonna Commissioner Preston.

I'm gonna kind of add some of that too.

I mean, I think that uh Carson City, we are kind of a destination place, you know.

But we're not like say a big metropolis with a lot of like say culture so to speak, you know, nighttime shows, you know, like cabarets and you know big name concert you know uh things that happen here.

You know, I think we have a lot of like outdoor people, bike riders, um golfers, um people that want to go to Tahoe.

I don't really see like say we're we're gonna have a lot of people that are going to come in um big groups to party not like the lake not like Tahoe would could be you know because um front thing is there's not that many big houses here.

I can understand where you're talking about you know in Silver Oak.

You know that could be a four bedroom, five bedroom, you know, big living room, you know, outdoor kitchen on the golf course, you know I mean if that's eight golfers, well you know they're gonna be gone out all day and they might barbecue at night.

But um anyways that's kind of that situation.

But in a minute.

But as far as the rest of it goes, I mean as far as you know the people that are going to come in and go here I think are not going to be the big groups.

I think that's gonna be more of the um more of the exception to the rule.

I think we'll see smaller groups you know um family things that are uh just were a base they're gonna branch off and take off for the day and they may end up back at the house that night something along that line corporate stuff I go along with Commissioner Cron that we can't control that.

I mean if it's an LLC you know like you guys that you know you may have an LLC and you do your thing.

Um how do we say it's mom and pop that are that own the bought the house or an LLC that is just mom and pop and they have an LLC and they have a couple properties all over the place.

You know, is that a corporation?

Well yeah but do we tell them no you can't buy that house or you can't rent it out short term.

Um there's a few things I think that uh we need to talk about before we put this in print thank you I I understand what you're saying about trying to get somewhere I just I think we're just one step short and and I I appreciate what you're saying about well we can try it for a year and then change it uh that becomes harder and harder and harder to do I would much rather take all we have here and have you rework it and come back in two weeks if we need to because of a schedule and just have a one item meeting and talk about it if that's if that's the issue.

But I don't I don't feel comfortable approving something tonight based on our all this conversation that we've had I would like to see it all put back together at least one more time and I don't know how the rest of the commission feels but I think that's uh that's the way I would like to proceed if it's possible.

That's an A.

That's an A.

Yeah yes one more comment I feel like what we're missing too is some of the due diligence.

We're talking about things that we don't really know are factually true.

How many LLCs how many do we have how many are LLCs there is a difference between a corporation and LLC how many are trouble spots where they geographically that we're aware of are happening you know what are the hot spots I feel like that's all important information to have before we put something out there to say here's the rules I I just don't I understand the practice I understand wanting to get to a finish line and be able to implement something but the implementation the enforcement having the information of how big of a problem is this really I feel like there's a lot of questions before we get to the answers.

Just a word of caution the data the data is not easily accessible publicly accessible.

I could pay a company and actually a company has reached out to us recently knowing we are having this conversation to see if we'd hire them to help us which right now I'm not entertaining that but they told me you have 40 something um Airbnbs not Airbnb short-term rentals in Carson City and I had had an employee count how many there were using Airbnb um VRBO it's too hard on their website but even when you count on these websites you don't necessarily know where they are so it's gonna be really in terms of getting data that's gonna be hard.

All that said in terms of the comments you've made tonight I can certainly work on those and come back.

I don't know if it will be next month I'm not I'll I'll think about that.

Let me I do best when I sleep on something think about it.

But if that's where majority of you want to go and look at this one more time we can we can for sure do that.

Okay.

Well, I that would be my preference hope.

And if we need to do it in two weeks, let's do it in two weeks.

I'm I'm not a I'm not a adverse if we're trying to meet a schedule, a self-imposed schedule from the board of supervisors.

I'm not opposed to meeting here on in two weeks for a short meeting.

I think we'd be okay going a month.

I I don't think we'll need a special meeting, but we'll we'll we'll see.

Okay, well, and in that case, I'd I'd don't know how everybody feels about it, but I would just like to have more whack at this.

So I have a question.

Yes.

Yes, I will you are I'm I was working on it.

If you're ready, go ahead.

Make sure I've got my numbers over here.

Uh Mr.

Chair, I move that we table uh agenda item ZA20260045 based on the on-the-record conversation this evening uh to a time yet to be determined.

There's second actually let's go ahead and continue it to date certain um April 29th, 2026.

Then I don't have to re-advertise our next meeting, April 29th, 2026.

If you don't mind motion, uh Mr.

Chair, I move uh that the commission continue item CA 20260045 to the April 29th planning commission meeting based on the conversations on the record this evening.

Okay, is there a second?

All a second.

Uh any further discussion, Commissioner Pazell.

Do you have something else to say?

You raise your hand again.

Uh no, I was just uh gonna comment about uh asking to table it versus continuance, and there's a procedural issue.

So I think we cleared it up by amending the motion.

So okay.

All right.

Any further discussion?

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye, opposed, no.

Motion carries 6J.

Last one.

Okay, I do not have the authority to initiate a zoning code amendment, but you have the authority to direct me to initiate a zoning code amendment.

So a few months ago, no, a few weeks ago now, it was yeah, a couple weeks ago, we had some listening sessions about the parking and redevelopment area one.

And one of the observations I had is that's an area where one of the objectives of the redevelopment area is to strengthen the local economy by attracting new and expanded private investment in the area, create new employment opportunities, and increase the city's tax base and expand public revenue to be used to improve the quality of life for the people of Carson City.

We had a couple cases where either a business was trying to occupy an area uh building, a small building on a small lot, or um somebody was trying to make an expansion of a building that's a small building on a small lot in redevelopment area one.

In both cases, there's definitely plenty of on-street parking, yet they were being told they needed to create parking lots on these sites.

So both because I saw that not necessarily as a necessary improvement given the availability of the on-street parking.

And so we wanted to have a community conversation about that.

Most of you were able to join those meetings.

Based on those meetings, things that came up, they said, well, we don't think one size fits all.

Like it, you have to definitely go after those small lots.

And so I looked at redevelopment area one, and 800 and there's 817 parcels in redevelopment area one.

670 of them are less than a third of an acre.

You might think, wow, that's a lot.

But only 210 of these parcels are a third of an acre or less, are improved with the building because we don't want to accommodate vacant lots or parking lots, and have a non-residential use.

Because what came up at the meeting was this is for non-residential uses only, not residents have to have parking.

So what I would recommend is if you're good with it, is you direct me to commence the process.

So what would happen is I would go ahead and schedule the public hearing.

You would have a public hearing, so all you're doing is initiating.

You're not necessarily agreeing with it.

But while we're having this conversation, if you heard anything at the listening sessions that you feel like should be incorporated beyond the couple things I said.

One, it's in redevelopment area one, it has to be non-residential, it has to be improved with the building, and um it has to be a third of an acre or less.

Yeah, so that's so just be a motion to direct me.

And if there's anything else you want incorporated, you would just say that now.

Thank you.

Any further discussion?

Go ahead.

Okay, hope I I have a question, and it's and I hate to be specific.

I have two specifics.

And I think one of them is the uh former Secretary of State's office.

Uh that's 10,000 square feet plus or minus.

And so if we're talking about a third of an acre, so this would fit into that parameter because currently they have like four on street parking, a couple of them are ADA and one is for a trash can.

So let me just fill it fill in one thing.

Right now in the downtown mixed use, which is Secretary of State's office, is in the downtown mixed use.

But as you remember from the maps I passed that out and in your packet, the redevelopment area goes beyond the downtown mixed use.

Right.

In the downtown mixed use, if you occupy an existing building and don't increase the square footage or don't add on to that building, you it does not matter what the use is, you do not need to provide parking.

Perfect.

So that's already in the downtown, but it's not in the areas like on North Curry or on John Street or those other parts of the redevelopment area.

And all of those are smaller lots.

There's a lot of small lots, but there's some that aren't real small.

So I want to make sure that we're really targeted on this.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Brooks.

Did you have your hand up?

I did, and then I took it down, but I'm gonna seize the day.

All right.

Hope in our listening session, we were in uh we got into an interesting discussion about these sort of edge cases, and maybe maybe the option is more parking, or maybe they the building or the property owner pays uh some sort of uh one-time or recurring fee into an infrastructure budget.

In your opinion, as a planning professional, is that still something that's a possibility or no?

Um, I thought about that, and one of the things that it sort of evolved into was getting the payment with a focus on sidewalks, because the idea would be people would park and they would walk as opposed to funding some type of parking structure or something.

As I thought more about it, because it's in redevelopment area one, the improvements that occur on that property are going to increase the tax revenue, which will then de facto increase the revenues in redevelopment area one.

Redevelopment area one will expire in five years.

So this is a very short opportunity.

And I don't, I mean, we have what 2210 parcels that could potentially avail themselves.

We'll be lucky if we see 15 of them in the next five years, take advantage of this text amendment if if we were to adopt it.

So um, I actually did not that I did not plan to incorporate a payment in lieu.

You're watching me.

Commissioner Cron.

Yeah, okay.

Just a quick I guess maybe an observation is that through the master plan process, we expanded the downtown area.

Now, the downtown area was never to match the redevelopment area.

So there's um and I don't know if it even should to be honest with you, but what you're dealing with is an expansion of the downtown and what we want to be able to do with you know some of these properties and allow them to have more flexibility and to give them the opportunity to be as developing as creative as they can in their development process on their current parcels.

So I think this does give us an opportunity to have that discussion, you know, related to uh at least uh redevelopment area number one.

And I I think it is worth the discussion because we have this town, especially the historic part of the downtown, is really small lots, and if we want to really encourage development and infill and those kind of things, I think the more creative we need to be with our parking, the better off we're going to be.

So I I think this would be uh a good thing to at least start the discussion on.

Mr.

Brazil.

I'm ready to make a motion.

All right, I'm ready to hear it.

I moved to direct the public comment.

Public comment.

My bad.

Sorry, Denny.

I didn't get to this item.

And what you're talking is a little too uh broad for me if you could make it just a little bit more dumb person language.

Um because for me, I would put it to just wait till whoever has the property decides what to use it for.

I don't like leaving it open to the idea it doesn't matter what the use is, because what if I put something in that's gonna quantify have a whole bunch of use and that there is not street parking, and we're not making street parking in the vicinity area for public parking available.

So I'm a little worried about that vagueness and my lack of understanding.

So I'd like to know how that works.

But I also would like to say that couldn't we just let it happen and see if that person gonna really need more parking.

Do they have to raise their building up and put it underneath?

How do we accommodate it?

Um, and do it like a special use permit and and have those qualifications for traffic use or those type of things involved.

Thank you very much.

I I just need to know more about this, and it's on me.

I didn't look into it.

So I'm sorry I'm coming from this perspective, but thank you.

Okay.

Any further comment?

No.

I moved to direct the director to prepare a zoning code amendment to eliminate the requirement for on-site parking on properties within the redevelopment area one that are used for non-residential uses, or a third of an acre or smaller in areas, and currently improved with a building.

I'll second that.

Any further discussion?

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed, no.

Motion carries.

Item seven.

Okay, the director's report.

Um, first for your April meeting.

I'll tell you what you have.

You have four items right now.

Um you have a special use permit for an accessory dwelling unit.

You have a um special uh Montessori school is looking to amend their special use permit over on Russell Way, which is the boys and girls club.

They want to increase their attendance there, so use more of the building.

I thought we talked about that when they were here before.

I don't recall.

Yeah.

Okay, uh special use permit for a property on North Carson for a tattoo studio, and um a special use permit for um an apartment complex.

It would be an over 55 apartment complex over at Wampa.

And so, and we'll also do the short-term rentals.

Um, in terms of my report on what's been going on in community development this month, McKenzie did this, so thank you, McKenzie.

The building division, um, the building division came in-house this month.

I don't know if you guys know.

On February 13th, we uh was the last day of our third-party vendor, and we have an in-house team who works for who are Carson City employees, and just really excited to be there and uh really good group.

We were able to recruit.

Our valuation um in March as of the 24th was 9 million.

The total valuations year to date is about 37 million.

So you can see we're about equal to January was really busy.

February and March were pretty equal, although we're still early in March.

Um we had seven housing starts in March.

They were all detached, so a total of 54 housing starts so far.

So we're only a quarter of the way through the year.

So that's that's kind of a big number given that we had winter.

Um the Historic Resource Commission met on March 4th, and they discussed the preservation awards and the scavenger hunt.

There was an administrative permit review for property and woodstock circle to look in ADU.

Um the planning commission, you know what you did.

Um code enforcement, they opened 313 cases in March.

They closed 258.

Um, I'm sorry, they she put business licenses there, business license.

I think that was a mistake.

No, 258 business license cases open.

Or maybe I know what they're doing.

They did renewals of the business license.

And so if somebody had a business license that did not renew, they had until February 15th to do that.

They had until February 15th to do that, so they opened code cases.

So that's what the 258 is.

Um 131 cases have been closed, and um they've been doing proactive work on illegal vendors in the evenings.

We had 45 new business licenses issued so far this month.

In terms of sp upcoming special events, there will be the pumpkin pioneers in Tall Tales, Easter egg hunt over at Livermore Sports Complex, wine walk downtown, both of those are April 4th.

April 25th is Parkinson's warriors never give up at the Mac.

And that is it.

And that's all I have.

Um that six months ago, you were talking about how we were gonna not kill so many trees by including stuff when we abandon property to go back and do tax records and title searches and all that.

It doesn't seem like that's stuck very well.

No, I think what we try.

Could we try again?

We can try again.

I think what we've done is we don't give you the impact reports, so you're not getting the traffic impact report, the stormwater impact report.

And so is the we were specific on the impact reports.

We can take a look at what we're giving you that maybe maybe you don't need so much.

Well, in the in the I know in that abandonment, we get all the the title search information, and I don't think we need that.

Okay.

So you know, it just it's just a a lot of paper that that we could probably save.

Sure.

Oh, if I could just announce on April first in the afternoon, and you are not invited, but I'm just announcing our office will be closed in the afternoon because we're doing a a group uh department wide training session.

We have our new building division now, so the whole department's going to come together.

Is that a party or an event?

It's HR will be there talking to us.

HR will be going over the benefits packages for us.

We're gonna go over do a SWOT analysis.

So it's it's it's work.

And we'll but we're gonna take some time.

So the office will be closed so that we have a time to work together as professionals and make sure we're doing the best we can.

Okay.

Any other commissioners?

I have a question.

Um building department.

Um how did how did they how did that shake up?

How did how what happened?

Who was who left and who's in?

Is that happened already?

It happened on February 13th, and nobody from the third party vendor is working with the city right now.

Okay.

Thanks.

I do want to though, um, thank you for including the um major project review comments response letter back for the uh state that was particularly illuminating.

When I was driving around today, I noticed that the um the state motor pool has a container in it.

Chuck, you're killing her.

You're killing her.

I will.

Is there anything else?

All right, public comment.

What's good for the goose ought to be good for the gander.

That's all I got to say.

You shouldn't say things like that around me.

I'm the one that wants to report that actually.

But the main thing is Denny French, thank you all for being here.

I have uh the concerns about enforcement.

And will we be creating a situation where the enforcement fees or the fees that we are call charging for the licenses and for this and that's gonna cover the enforcement fees.

I I think cities are already um having issues with finances, and that would not help.

Besides that, I'm wondering what is the problem.

We've got how many people doing these B and Bs and what complaints, and I'm looking forward to more fill in as to where they are.

Um all of this is gonna be great to hear.

It will help keep me in better informed.

And then I also want to bring up the environmental considerations about structures, placement of structures or size, the way they're turned, what the materials they're made out of, all of these considerations are not in part of our consideration box, and we need to look at other cities, look at other states, look at places that are getting hot pockets that they're going, oh, we put this building in, and guess what it did?

It heated up this whole next neighborhood.

It changed the directory of our wind.

It changed our temperature in our cities.

Changed how we receive moisture, where we receive the driest of our atmospheric changes right now are headed towards hotter or colder.

Well, there's a temperature deal that a city sets up in itself, and you can read that very easily.

NASA has ways for you to check those things about your neighborhood, not only the light or that, they can tell you the temperature you're generating.

Right now, Las Vegas is going through spots where they go, oops, we built this wonderful building, but it pushed the wind towards these people.

And what a strange thought.