Carson City Supervisors, Planning Commission discuss master plan update process

On Wednesday, the Carson City Board of Supervisors and Carson City Planning Commission held a joint meeting in order to discuss the Master Plan Update process.

The last time the Carson City Master Plan was updated was 2006, and a phased approach is currently underway.

According to Carson City, a Comprehensive Master Plan is a policy document that provides guidance on where and how the community should and will grow in the next 20 years. Master Plans typically consist of maps, policy statements, goals and objectives addressing a number of issues relating to growth, housing, economic development, transportation, environment, parks, recreation, trails, open space, aesthetics, community character and historic preservation and conservation.

Currently, the plan is in its second phase. The first phase took place from October 2023 through January 2024, and involved project initiation, conducting initial outreach, assembling background data and information, and finalizing public engagement strategy.

Now, Phase 2 is focused on the Technical Foundation and Plan assessment, which aims to establish a baseline of understanding of recent trends and key issues, as well as identifies strengths and weaknesses from the 2006 Master Plan.

This second phase will take place from January 2024 through May 2024.

The phase will include a “targeted update” which will deal with a general freshening up of the plan to confirm and refine guiding principles and vision, as well as update data and trends. More substantial updates will also be included such as identifying and correcting where the current plan lacks sufficient policy guidance in order to align with more recent plans and studies.

Community Feedback

According to staff, a major goal of the update is to deepen the community’s understanding about the growth rate and build out. This is brought on by support for compact, mixed-use development on infill sites, interest in revisiting growth rate assumptions, a perceived disconnect between the Master Plan and adopted land use regulations, and a concern for the long-term maintenance of public infrastructure.

A point of concern noted by the community has also been long-standing building vacancies, such as the Ormsby House and the old K-Mart building, and a general desire to expand revitalization efforts along N. Carson Street and E. William Street.

Through this process, a need was identified for an Economic Development Champion.

There was also support in the community for more walkable mixed-use developments, as well as an interest in simplifying land use categories.

Across the board, staff found that the community perceived a lack of workforce housing options, and there was a need for a common vocabulary in discussing housing issues overall.

There were mixed opinions, however, on the types of housing that is appropriate for future development, and staff determined there is a need to define the city’s role in housing in general.

Specifically, those who voiced their concerns regarding housing stated they would only be in favor of large-lot single family housing developments moving forward as opposed to multi-family and mixed-use developments.

When it comes to the environment, community members stated they were supportive of the continued buildout of Carson City’s open space and trail network, as well as a desire to preserve the community’s natural beauty and focus on community resilience and sustainability.

The community also gave feedback they would like to see partnerships strengthened with local non-profits, who provide a lot of assistance for the city at large, but could be stretched thin by the needs of the community. The community also noted that the state of Nevada owns a significant amount of property within the capital city, and the city should be working closely with them moving forward.

Supervisors, Commissioner feedback

• COMMERCIAL

Commissioner Teri Preston agreed that there does need to be more work in conjunction with the state, especially since they recently purchased two new properties in the city just this year.

“The two buildings have been taken off the tax rolls to a tune of about a quarter of a million dollars per year,” Preston went on. “And these areas where they are located are on the ring; they’re not in the downtown area. This to me is concerning.”

Preston said she was also concerned by the vacancies within Carson City, such as the Ormsby House, the K-Mart building, and the City Center Motel.

“Taking those out, we have still over half a million square feet of vacancies in Carson City.”

Supervisor Stacey Giomi said that he would like to see the creation of a component of the master plan that focuses the borders with Lyon and Douglas counties and what development issues could potentially arise based on what those counties could develop on their border zones.

Supervisor Maurice White advocated for a Master Plan change that would tell developers the city will no longer be taking dedications of roads. This is due to the ongoing roads budget deficiencies, and would require developers to continue upkeep and maintenance of their roads.

He also said that he does not believe that the government has a place in economic revitalization, and said that the downtown economic revitalization project is a “failure” when looking at sales in the area between 2015 ($18 million) and 2019 ($15 million).

“In 2015 we had 39 total businesses downtown, in 2021 we had 44. I don’t see a success rate there either. If we’re going to play in this game of economic revitalization, we need to get some real updated numbers — these numbers stop in 2020.

Supervisor Lisa Schuette said that she “respectfully disagrees” and sees the continued work on revitalization in the corridors that have been highlighted to be of the utmost importance.

“While I appreciate what you’re saying, I think we need to consider this long term vision to accomplish some of the goals Carson City has been trying to accomplish as outlined in the 2006 Master Plan.”

Mayor Lori Bagwell said she understood both sides of the conversation, and that during the Master Plan discussions they can decide as a team on whether or not the redevelopment areas — and subsequent redevelopment fund taxes — should continue or not moving forward.

Commissioner Preston also said she would like to see an overview done of Title 18. She said that Title 18, which deals with the city’s zoning ordinance, is an overview of what they would like zoning to be, but when looking at which businesses are thriving within Carson City, “most of them are non-conforming in those areas.”

“If you look at something that is doing well, and you see that under our Title 18, it couldn’t be there … that to me is frustrating,” Preston said.

• HOUSING

As to housing, Mayor Bagwell said that “Carson City is not a housing authority and for me, I do not choose to go down that direction. I don’t want to be a housing authority, I don’t want to be working in that arena on who gets vouchers … this is not my favorite thing and I think we’re in a danger zone.”

Supervisor Giomi said he agrees, but that there are things in the Master Plan that can be done to encourage integrated workforce housing as opposed to isolated workforce housing.

“I think if we’re going to do something in the Master Plan, that’s what we should do,” Giomi said. “I don’t think anyone wants to create, for lack of a better term, a subdivision of only low-income housing. I want to encourage integration with low income housing and there are ways to do that by offering incentives.”

An example would be encouraging developers to include a percentage of affordable workforce housing in exchange for some increase in density.

Commissioner Sena Lloyd agreed with Giomi, and said she would like to see the city to come up with innovations that would also incentivize the owners of the vacant buildings in the city to include housing as part of their businesses.

“There’s the potential for mixed use development; Texas has turned strip malls into mixed use facilities that are prosperous, thriving communities,” Lloyd said. “I think if we can look at this innovatively and encourage the types of developments that can change the ways we think about housing within our communities we can take something that is a blight or upcoming blight and turn it into something that is beneficial for our community.”

Supervisor Schuette said she agreed, and that including a diverse mix of housing is something the city should be encouraging, especially for young families.

Supervisor White said that, looking at demographics, Carson City is not a “retirement community,” but that if those are the people who want to move here, the city shouldn’t interfere.

Preston said she would like to see smaller, more affordable homes in clustered communities that are walkable, which were popular in much of Carson City’s older neighborhoods, as opposed to the much larger 2,000 square foot and above homes being built now that are often unaffordable to most families.

Commissioner Greg Brooks said that while he agrees he does not want Carson City to become a housing authority, he said that through the Master Plan, they could identify what can be done to make Carson City the best place for young families to move to purchase a starter home.

To learn more about the Master Plan update, you can see more on the agenda and supplemental materials here.

If you would like to provide comment on the Master Plan Update, you can email masterplan@carson.org