Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

This conference will now be recorded.

I'd like to call this meeting to order. Welcome everybody to the City of Elko Planning Commission. This is our regular meeting agenda. It's 530 on a Tuesday, September 1st of 2026. The agenda for this meeting of the Elko City Planning Commission has been properly posted for this date and time in accordance with NRS state requirements. I'll start with the roll call.

Carl Snow is here.

Stefan Beck.

John Lemmich. Garrett Camps.

Mercedes Mendeve.

And I'm Jeff Dowling, your chairman. Looks like Michael Irish will be absent today. And if you guys will join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. And thanks for joining us in the Pledge of Allegiance. Comments by the general public pursuant to NRS 241. This time is devoted to comments by the public, if any, and discussion of those comments. No action may be taken upon a matter raised under this item on the agenda until the matter itself has been specifically included on a successive agenda and identified as an item for possible action. Action will not be taken. Does anybody have any? And if you do have public comment, just to let you know, there will also be each specific item, there will be a public comment on that item too. And there'll also be another public comment at the end. But go ahead and if you could just put your name and address for the record.

My name is Sylvie Doray. I live at 7142 West Frontage Road. I have, I don't know if this is possible for me to give a handout to you guys? You don't have to discuss it or just for your, as a resource? Is that okay?

Can I have some Mercedes, yeah.

OK so thank you for allowing me to speak tonight. I'm a co-founder of Elko Neighbors for Responsible Industrial Growth or NRG. Our mission is to inform and connect Elko County residents promote transparency and informed community participation and advocate for responsible policy and development as technology and industry evolve. At last week's city council meeting. We learned that city staff are working alongside Elko County and a working group to consider data center regulations. We are really encouraged that this work is already underway. As the process with this working group moves forward we hope meaningful public participation will be built into it before recommendations or code amendments are finalized. We found a timely Nevada example that may be useful. The Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Agency has created a formal data center engagement process. It includes stakeholder interviews and focus groups a public community conversation resonance surveys in English and Spanish publication of survey results and public comments public review of draft themes and recommendations reports to its planning bodies and a centralized Web page where the public can follow the work. I've brought some copies of a one page description of that process including links to the full program and survey. We are not suggesting that Elko must copy every element exactly. We're simply offering this as an example of what a transparent structured public engagement process can look like. We hope the planning commission will consider encouraging this kind of participation as the city and county continue their work and that the public will have opportunities to contribute before decisions have effectively already been made. We would also appreciate future clarification about how the joint city-county work will inform any regulations needed within the city of Elko itself. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. Any other public comment at this time? Okay, moving right along, approval of minutes, July 7, 2026, regular meeting for possible action.

Make a motion that we approve the minutes.

Okay, do we have a second?

Second.

Take a vote.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye. I vote aye, motion carries. New business A, public hearing one, review consideration of possible action on zoning ordinance amendment 1-26, ordinance number 910, an ordinance amending title three, chapter two of the Elko City Code entitled general zoning ordinance in various respects to include revising Title III, Chapter 2, Section 9, CCCT commercial districts, Title III, Chapter 2, Section 10, PCC commercial districts, and Title III, Chapter 2, Section 11, IPPIC industrial districts, bringing the city zoning ordinance into compliance with NRS 278-.02071 and matters related thereto for possible action. NRS 278.02071 requires that all municipalities adopt an ordinance authorizing by-right multi-family housing or mixed-use development that includes residential use on property zoned for commercial use. City Council took action to initiate this amendment at their July 28, 2026 meeting. Okay. Does anybody need to sit this item out? Presentation by the applicant. Kathy, you want to take it away?

Yes, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, thank you. As stated, this was a law that was passed under NRS 278.02 071 last year that all municipalities must adopt an ordinance authorizing that any multifamily housing development and mixed use developments would be allowed as a principal permitted use. So right now in our section of 329, 3210, and 3211, which are all three commercial zoning district, sections of our code. We allow multifamily residential developments which contain five or more units located on a single lot or parcel townhome, condo, or attached housing development, as well as mixed use, but they're listed under a conditional use as permitted, meaning that they have to apply for a conditional use permit, and that is a public hearing that comes to the Planning Commission. What the Nevada law did was require all municipalities to take it out of our conditional uses permitted and to move it up to principal permitted uses. So now, any multifamily housing developments or mixed use developments that contain any type of residential use. They will just be able to apply for a building permit and be permitted. It's no longer going to be a notification to adjoining neighborhood neighbors. There's no public hearing, no public comment period for neighbors to come in and require conditions. I know all of you have sat through plenty of those public hearings that we've had from town homes. to apartment complexes where we have had a room full of public that want to speak about that development next to their home or that maybe those apartments are looking down into their neighborhood or their backyard or maybe a variety of things have been in public comment, that is all going away. The state is requiring this to be a principal permitted use. So it's changing it in three different sections of our code. We have the entire ordinance included in your agenda packet and anything that is bold and underlined is new and anything that is bold and struck out is being removed out of the code. So for instance, we're talking about the zoning setback requirements, it still has to comply with the multifamily residential developments. And then we added a little bit of definitions here. But this is in all three sections of the code. So principal permitted uses are now multifamily as well as single family residents. Are there any questions in regards to the changes to the code?

I mean, it sounds pretty unfair that you take the public out of it for the good of the public, right? Right. The next thing you know, you're going to start grabbing their land. But eminent domain. I mean, it feels all the same to me, but.

Well, and I included in your packet, I included a memo, a staff memo that I did submit to the city council when we had to initiate this code amendment. And you can see staff's opinion on that. We do believe that it is important that the public had a right to give their public comment. and that it was a public hearing that was being notified to any adjacent property owners. I think the last apartment complex that we had over adjacent to Angel Park, we had public comment here from the residents above on Dada Drive. The apartments over across from Wendy's, we had public comment regarding the parking. on that particular complex. We've had public comment on rabbit brush apartments. So any of these multifamily apartment complexes, we have had public comment. Now that is being removed, and it will just be submitted for a building permit, and it will be permitted.

Well, why is this...

coming up for us or the city council to vote on are you telling me is this like an election in iraq did the state just say this is what we're going to do nrs 278 02071 was adopted was passed and adopted into law and it says that the governing body must adopt an ordinance authorizing by right multifamily housing or mixed use development not by conditional use permit or special use permit but by right which means it has to be a principal permitted use so how is that approved at the state level did they discuss that legislature yes and the legislature adopted this in 2025 session thank you

Did Lombardo sign this into law when? Do you know that?

It was in 2025, and it would have taken place on July 1st. So we're a few dates behind. We put this on city council on the 21st.

There's really no point in arguing it is what we're getting at, right?

It's no point in arguing it. It is a requirement by law that we modify our code to allow this.

With all the, I've read through the language of the code. What's the intent behind this? What does this do that's supposed to benefit our state or the people in it?

It's supposed to add more affordable housing.

Low income housing next to your house.

Supposed to add more affordable housing, speed up the process.

So the implication is that the largest issue facing affordable housing is that people don't want it near their homes? I'm just curious, because unfortunately, you don't get to see what their goal is in all of this stuff. You just see a bunch of legal language.

I think their goal is to speed up the process so that it doesn't have to go through a conditional use permit.

And they take away your voice. They don't get to come in and complain anymore because it's just a.

So then it's by right that that housing can be developed there in any commercial zoning district without any public hearing. Sure. So it will speed up the process for one. It will save 21 days. in our process. The City of Elko is one of the shortest processes there is because a conditional use permit comes only to the Planning Commission and it's a 21-day process from application period 21 days before your meeting to your approval, it's 21 days. So it will speed up the process in the City of Elko by 21 days because it will not have to come to a Planning Commission.

in a housing development is a blink of an eye.

I was gonna say, it makes zero sense. It's the least effective.

And in our opinion, staff's opinion is, and I put it in here, it removes the city's ability to do a discretionary review that would look through things such as ingress, egress, roadway classifications, There's a couple of empty parcels there on Silver Street, for instance, that are zoned commercial. They could go with a multi-family housing development there that really could impact the amount of traffic on Silver Street, which is already a high travel classification. But that's all taken away because we no longer can address those requirements that are site-specific concerns that would be addressed by staff's review. This will now be in the permitting process. Staff will look at the distance requirement for any egress and ingress into a property or intersection, distance to intersection. We will look at any code compliance at the permitting process. But Planning Commission will not have that opportunity to look at those site-specific conditions.

Well, back to my first question, if they're jamming this down our throat, why are we going to even discuss it? I mean, can we say, no, we're not going to do it?

No, it's required by law.

So why are we talking about it?

Because you have to hold a public hearing on it or a discussion here on this public hearing. And then it has to be a recommendation to city council as an adoption of an ordinance. And it goes through first reading and second reading at city council. But the way our code is written, planning commission has to consider all code amendments to anything in title three, chapter two, which is your zoning ordinance.

So even if we can just send a recommendation to not approve it, they'll just overwrite us.

Well, I don't want to make a mountain out of a molehill, but I have a good point. I mean, I've got better things to do than sit here and have someone jam something down my throat, which is what's happening. And that's un-American. I realize it's probably a pointless argument, but I just want to bring that up. I mean, why are we doing this?

Just going through the steps, just to go through the steps.

So I was right, it's an election in Iraq. Sorry, I have, I'm opinionated.

Okay, any public comment on this item? Okay, any other further city staff comments? Seeing none, since you guys are the, it's your deal. Okay, so planning commission questions.

Sounds like we have a lot of support for this.

Yeah. Okay, if we got no questions, applicant final comment? No. Okay, this will be the final public comment on this item? Okay, I'll entertain a motion.

I'll make a motion to forward a recommendation to the City Council to adopt an ordinance which approves zoning ordinance amendment 1-26. Okay, do we have a second?

Second. Okay. We got a different motion?

Mr. Chair, I recommend to forward a recommendation to city council not to adopt an ordinance which approves zoning ordinance amendment 126.

Okay. Do we have a second on that one?

Second.

Okay, I'll take a vote.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. I vote aye, motion carries. Good job, guys. Okay, moving right along. Two, reviewing consideration of tentative map 6-26 filed by Jordanelle Third Mortgage LLC for the development of a subdivision entitled Bullion Sports Overlook involving the proposed division of approximately 33.607 acre parcel into 36 residential lots and one owner-maintained lot totaling 6.675 acres and a 24.534 acre remainder parcel located within the R single-family, multi-family residential zoning district and matters related thereto. Four possible actions. The subject property is located on the south side of Bullion Road, approximately 2,000 feet southwest of Bullion Road and Eric Hart Boulevard intersection. APN 001-690-030. Any commissioners need to sit this item out? Presentation by the applicant.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Planning Commission members, Bob Tebow, High Desert Engineering, for the record, here on behalf of Jordan L. Third Mortgage, the developer for this property. Unfortunately, staff's going to ask that we take no action on this tonight. We're still trying to work through some details and debating some finer points of code, and we'll bring this back to you at a future meeting, so I apologize if this wasted some time this evening.

Okay, thanks, Bob. Yeah, thanks. Does anybody want to move to table. Take no action. Take no action. Sorry.

You all make a motion to take no action on.

You don't even need to motion or get a second on it. You just. Perfect move on.

Oh I could do that on. Let's do it on number three.

Take no action as the chairman you're just going to say we're just take no action.

Do it on the rest and go home. Or on American. All right, we're going to take no action. Thanks, Bob. Thanks for showing up. Thank you, Bob. Okay, three, review consideration and possible action on variance number 3-26 filed by Catherine Wines for variance from 3-2-5H2 interior side yard setback reduction from 5 foot to 2 foot 6 and an increase on the maximum allowed cumulative square foot of an accessory building from 500 square feet to 624 square feet. matters related thereto for possible action subject property is located at 518 oak street referred to as apn 001 176 002 all right does anybody need to sit this item out okay presentation by the applicant uh Yeah, that's fine. Okay. Throwing up my whole game here. Any public comment on this item? There will be a secondary public comment item just to remind everybody. Okay. Seeing none, city staff planning. Kathy, you want to take it away?

Yes, Mr. Chairman, members of the... Commission. I'm going to, because this is a little bit complicated and even the applicant has listed in the application that she's not sure why we're even applying for this. So I was thinking that even the planning commissioners could probably just use a little planning lesson here, 101 lesson. We're gonna do a little slideshow here. So in the Elko City Code 325, which is our residential zoning district, there are three types of uses, right? And this is in all residential zoning districts. So E is our single family and multifamily residential district. So one, there is the principal uses permitted, right? Anything that is a principal permitted use. Under this, we have a one single family dwelling of a permanent character in a permanent location with each dwelling unit on its own parcel land and provided all area and setback requirements are met. The second type of use is a conditional use. We just talked about conditional uses when it came to the multifamily and how that was taken away. So we have conditional uses permitted. And then the third type of uses is the accessory uses that are permitted. So in the single family and multifamily residential zoning district, one of the accessory uses is a private garage or carport. We have many listed in here, but that happens to be one of them. So that's why I wanted to show that here is the section of code for residential zoning districts. And here are our three types of uses. Principal use, conditional use, and accessory use. So under 3-2-19, under our nonconforming uses, a lot of people refer to this as what is grandfathered in. We don't use that term. We use it as nonconforming or legally nonconforming. And it's when a use is lawfully existing until it does something such as extend, enlarge, or change. If it changes from one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use, it must be done by variance or conditional use permit. So this is here on the right-hand side is Mrs. Wines' property as it exists today. So we have an existing structure that's shown in blue. It is legal, non-conforming, principal permitted use. It's grandfathered in the way it is today because it is a garage on the main level and it has a residential use above. It does have a variance approval for meeting the setbacks. and it is an accessory structure once it gets permitted as a principal on the same property. But right now, this is a legal non-conforming principal permitted use, okay? The City of Elko is currently permitting a single family residence to be built on the property. That's what's shown in green. The single family residence is now listed as a principal permitted use under 325E. So this structure, it meets all the setback requirements for the front yard, the rear yard, the side yards, and it is ready to be permitted today at the building department as soon as a map gets recorded. So now this is going to take over as the principal permitted use because that's gonna be the home on the property. So now the existing structure is now shown in pink. It is no longer the principal permitted use. once the home is constructed because now the home is the principal and this existing structure is now considered an accessory use. Under 325E, a private garage and it has to meet the setback requirements. It has to meet the area requirements under 325. That's why this variance is for the side yard setback as well as the cumulative square footage allowed for all accessory structures on the property. So this structure will no longer have a residential use on the second floor of the garage. It's going to be used as a private art studio. And therefore, the variance is not for the guest house setback requirement or parking requirement. as it was previously approved in variance number 125. This is just for an accessory detached garage with art studio above. So now the accessory structure shown in pink due to its loss of legal non-conforming status it must be brought up to current code requirements with the approval of the variance. Remember a variance is an approval to bring it from something that is non-conforming to conforming. Once you approve that variance, that makes that property conforming again. So it has to be brought up with the approval of the variance, and the variance is for this side yard setback, which is the red line, as well as the maximum allowed cumulative square footage of accessory buildings from 500 square feet to 624. The 325 code states that a detached accessory structure, meaning this garage, can only be 10% of your lot size up to 1,200 square feet maximum. So her lot area is 5,000 square feet, so she's allowed to have a cumulative square footage of accessory structures at 500 square feet. This currently is 624, so we're asking for that to be increased up to 624 to be allowed, okay? So once again, the existing garage, it had a change of use, right? It was a non-conforming principle permitted use, but once we build that new home, it now changes to a non-conforming accessory use. So under the non-conforming uses, the most important sentence is that very last sentence. However, that such non-conforming uses may not be extended, enlarged, or changed to other non-conforming uses except by variance or conditional use permit. Right?

So that's kind of... Can I ask real quick or I'll get confused? Yes. I think I understand that, and we are not in any way changing the blue structure, which became pink.

Correct.

We're not changing it at all. Let me finish. Thank you. So the fact that we're not changing anything, I would think, well, what's the problem? But the fact that you're building another house there, is that forcing a change onto the...

you're changing the use. So going back to our original slide on our uses, you're going from what used to be a principal permitted use to now to an accessory use. Because the principal permitted use that's being built on the property is her home. She's building a new home on this property, right? So once the new home gets built, it's now the home is the principal permitted use and the garage is now an accessory use.

But she's only permitted a certain percentage of square feet based on that because it's 500. She's asking for a variance for 600 because that's what her.

No, I got it.

The blue structure to change to pink, we're not changing that. It's not enlarging. It's not expanding. None of that to that building. What's changing is the use type.

I'm with you on that.

Going from principal to accessory. Okay, so with that.

So is this all a parking problem? Is that what this was? Because we've done this before.

No, and it has nothing to do with the parking because we are no longer considering a variance for the guest house above the garage. That is not a consideration. The application did not ask for that. The applicant stated in the city council meeting in the appeal from last year's variance that the upstairs will be converted to a private art studio. So it will no longer be used as a guest house. Therefore, it doesn't need to meet the setback requirement for a guest house. Therefore, it doesn't need to meet the parking requirement for a guest house. The reason that we are here today is because the variance 1-25 expired. It's valid for one year. You have to commence work within one year of the approval of the variance. Mr. Lemmich knows that. His variance also expired one time. He had to reapply for a variance. You have to commence work within one year. You have 18 months from the approval date to complete that work. So we do have a tight timeline. And that variance 1-25 expired. So here we are today. It is a different variance application because we're only asking for two things. We're asking for the side yard setback for this detached garage accessory structure. And we're asking for the increase in the cumulative square footage allowed for an accessory structure. OK. So if you look at the applicant's application, please do not look at that because you would have to deny this variance based on the answers in that application. You have to meet all six areas of the code in order to be approved a variance, right? We go through that every variance application. You have to meet that there's a hardship. You have to meet that there's a special circumstance. You have to meet that it will not change the zoning classification or the zoning code. You have to all six of the items in the code have to be met. The application does not do that but staff's report does have the findings to support the approval of this variance. So please do not refer back to the application. as that does not support the case. The staff memo does give you the findings to support the approval of this. It does meet the intent of our zoning district. It meets the intent of our land use for our master plan. It's within the redevelopment area. It does not have any, it meets the objectives of the redevelopment area. It meets the parking requirements under 3217. The new home meets the area requirements, the setback requirements for 325. We have all the findings listed in our staff report to support this variance and we recommend approval of the variance.

Okay, thanks Kathy, I appreciate that. Catherine, after hearing that, do you want to come up to the podium? Okay, because. Because what? Oh, go ahead. She kind of proved your case for you. I don't know why you'd want to argue against it, but I'm ready to listen.

You also don't know if I'm going to argue or not, so assuming is maybe not good for any of us. Can you state your name and address for the record, please? Catherine Wines. of 421 railroad street. I have a couple of questions. I think the first one maybe is for Dale. On August 6th at 8 37 a.m. I sent an email that said I would like to also ask this email string went back and forth for a long time. I would like to also ask when you provide information about how to go about appealing this to the city council. that someone also provide an example of other properties in the city of Elko that have applied for a permit to build a legal structure that has an existing legal nonconforming building in a different area on the parcel is located in a legal zone 518 Oak Street is a single family residence in a residential zone. The occupancy use will not change. 518 Oak Street's entire parcel is in our occupancy and will remain in our occupancy and that is seeking a permit for an adjacent building that is not inside the setbacks of the existing structure and not in physical contact with the existing structure. 518 Oak Street will have a 19, I think that's actually 17, 17 foot separating the existing from the new structure. That does not include any work or construction to the existing structure under the permit. and I didn't receive anything. Is that, just wondering.

We sent you the codes on August 3rd, August 5th that would follow 3-2-25, 3-2-22, and then again on August 11th, I re-sent you the codes to follow what Kathy just explained, 3-2-25, 3-2-22, and 3-2-19 that explain this whole situation.

So you said you would provide some examples and you didn't. I'm just wondering, was that even pursued?

If you guys need to go back to the drawing board, would you like me to take no action on this, Catherine, for you?

Why. I don't know why you're arguing with. Well I'm not arguing I just asked a question. I had asked if if I could have examples and you said you would provide some.

Well that the our occupancy is we're we're confusing the our occupancy and the use as based on a planning and zoning perspective we're talking use principal use. accessory use. We're not talking about the R occupancy. That would be a building code situation. The R occupancy is a building code, right? We refer to it as a principal permitted use and an accessory use. It is a legal non-conforming use the way it sits today. But the minute that we put the single family residence on that parcel, which I showed you in my presentation, you can only have one principal permitted use on a parcel. That new home is the new principal use. So it does have a change in use.

For clarity, is that an ELCO thing or is that a national code thing?

It's a national code thing. That is planning and zoning. It's completely different than our occupancy, which is building code.

Yeah, this application says there's no hardship.

So the answer is no? That's correct. Okay. I was unable to find any.

I have a question. Is this the appropriate place for you guys to hash out your email chain? Because this is a place where you come before us and you request what this document says. And I feel like I'm coming into the living room when mom and dad have been fighting all day. This is a weird thing. We would love to approve your variance. I'm pretty sure. I can't speak for the whole board. We'd love to approve your variance and get you on board in building this beautiful home. You've done great work doing all of this. Maybe what would be helpful right now is for you to let us know how the application, I'm sorry, not the application. I saw that. That's not helpful. How, what the city, the work the city has done to shift this into a let's go and build it. Can you tell me how that doesn't work for you? That might help me. How does it not help you?

I don't believe that this variance is necessary. I think the purpose of it, my next question was going to be the purpose of a variance is for an applicant to eliminate a hardship. And I don't know what the hardship is.

So do you want us to deny your application because there's no hardship? Or would you like to see your property go through in a very fair, reasonable way that people have worked with to make sure that this happens? I mean, that's what I'm seeing is it's like, It seems to me like you want this to happen.

I know you're frustrated because you've been here before. Yeah, we hear that. At the last minute to read over and you were very upset. Took me two and a half years to get a building permit. I get it. But you're at the finish line. I don't.

Does this not get you what you want?

No I would like to have not not have a variance OK not have it go ahead and we'll just deny the variance for you then. Well I'd like it to not be required for a variance because I don't see how we don't have control over that can't do that. You're coming to the wrong guy. But but the staff has control over it. And they're forcing me to. And I have asked these questions, and I haven't gotten answers for them. So I thought maybe tonight was the night to do that.

So the answer is that we are changing from one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use. It's going from a non-conforming, we're talking just the existing structure, just the garage. It's a non-conforming principle permitted use right now. But the minute you build your house, it's changing to a non-conforming accessory use. And so this sentence right here, that the only way that we can change from one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use is by variance or by conditional use permit. We could have done this by CUP, which is $750. So we certainly didn't want to do that. Variance was the least amount to go with. But we're changing that such non-conforming uses may not be changed to other non-conforming uses except for by variance. And so the hardship is, Catherine, that the building is there. It's existing. We're not asking you to tear it down. The building is there. We're in support of you building a new home on this property and that new home is now going to be the principal permitted use. And so it changes. So what's the hardship.

The hardship is your 100 feet over.

It's existing. It's existing.

An existing nonconforming use building is not a hardship. But 90 percent of the buildings in town fall under that.

The hardship is it's an existing nonconforming and it's changing its use. And by changing its use to another nonconforming use the only way that can be approved is by variance. And that's why.

No example of this ever happening in the history of the city of Elko.

there are plenty of variance approvals that have happened within the city of Elko. I was on vacation. I'm not talking about just regular variance. I was on vacation during that string and I was responding on vacation during that time on that string of emails and I wasn't gonna go and do four hours of research of 30, 40 years worth of variances since we put this into the code to see which other property would meet that example. This is what the code states and this is what was required and we are supportive of this.

Kathy, you've explained very well. There's no one, for the most part, confused in this room. I would love to make a motion. I would love to make a motion to approve a variance if the applicant still wants to have the variance approved. The variance approves in perpetuity, right? So in other words, once this is done, It's done. She gets to use her property, enjoy it, never think about this again other than to tell about the good stories from tonight.

Keep in mind, it's a conditional approval. We always have conditions on variances. It's the exact same conditions that were on her previous one with the exception of now we've taken out the guest house part and the parking part. So let's go over these conditions real quick so that we're all on board with the same conditions. We have commencement within one work, one year, and completion within 18 months. Conformance to the plans that were approved as part of the variance. Merge lots eight and nine of map, which she's already submitted the reversion to acreage. It's been approved by city. We just have not gotten that recordation of that map done yet. But it is required to be recorded prior to the issuance of the building permit. and then issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new single family residents the existing dwelling unit above the ground shall cease to be used as a dwelling and shall be converted to a non-residential use. And we have no stipulations on how that gets done.

Are those not to your liking.

They're fine. I just don't think any of this is necessary. And I was trying to get some answers because I didn't get them before.

And I totally understand. I'm not telling you you're not allowed or entitled to some answers. I'm telling you this isn't the forum for it. It sounds like a meeting maybe even with a lawyer if you have to, if you feel like you can't get the answers that you need. But at the end of the day, we're here to do one thing, and it's to say whether or not this is a good variance that we should approve. I'm already telling you, which I don't think I'm supposed to do, but I'm telling you, I'd love to approve it. I'd love to see how beautiful. That is a freaking great work you have done. I looked at those drawings. That's awesome. We want that in the neighborhood. I live there. Can we move forward?

Sure. Okay, we're gonna move forward with development. Mr. Carson, do you have anything? None. Engineering, Ms. Schick, do you have anything? Signaling none as well. Looks like Seth is not here, so fire doesn't have anything. City Manager's Office, Mr. Johnson?

No comments.

Okay. Any Planning Commission questions?

It's not a question. I think it makes sense to me that if based on the square footage of this law and based on what the law says and the square footage that you're permitted to have once, you know, it becomes not a primary residence and the new house is built, it makes sense why the variance is needed. But I didn't really understand. I didn't understand the argument. And I apologize, Catherine.

I don't believe it's a change of use. It's a it's a residential and it will remain residential. I don't think it's a change of use. It's like saying if a restaurant changes from Italian to Mexican you need a variant. Not the same thing. It's not the same thing. It is.

It's really in a building code. Yeah. That is in a building code that is not in a planning

It really just has to do with that it overshoots it by 100 feet. I mean, that's really the simplicity of the conversation I got and the explanation that Kathy gave us and a little bit of the back and forth and some really just.

It's a legal non-conforming use. It's an existing building that's not changing the use is my position.

But once you have your resident built, right, you can't have two primary, it has to change. It's not our choice that it has to change. It's because that's what the code says it does. Once your house is built.

It's a residential use and it will remain a residential use.

No, I can't argue semantics, but I don't know. I don't really have any other questions, but. Should we make a motion?

Marcia would love to.

All right, great, then I make a.

Hold on, we're not, we had a poll. Lead us, lead us. Applicant, final comment?

No.

OK. Do we have any final public comment on this item? Seeing none, I'll take a motion.

Make a motion to conditionally approve based on the findings of fact and conditions as stated in staff report dated 12 of 2026.

Second that motion.

Take a vote.

Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. I vote nay. Motion carries. OK. Miscellaneous items, petitions, and communications. One, review consideration of possible action to initiate an amendment to the city zoning ordinance section 3-2-28, hillside development regulations and guidelines, specifically adding clarifying language and definitions and matters related thereto for possible action. Elko City Code Section 3-2-28 was added to the City Code through Ordinance 579 adopted on February 26, 2002 and has not been amended since its adoption. Portions of the City of Elko's corporate boundaries include areas characterized by hillside and steep terrain. In reviewing the existing code, staff has identified areas of ambiguity in the application and interpretation of Section 3-2-28. The proposed amendment is intended to clarify the language and provide greater certainty in the application of the code to properties with hillside and steep terrain. Okay, any commissioners need to sit this item out? and presentation by the applicant. Kathy, you wanna take it away?

Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, thank you. We do not have any proposed changes in this packet that we have submitted into your agenda packet. We are just now starting on some proposed changes. What it really needs to do is possibly be broken down into three different areas, slope development, hillside development, and then grading. permitting for different grading that we do. So we've had several areas that is in question. It is not clear. This code, if you look at the bottom of this code, it was adopted in, I believe it was 2002. It's never been amended since. We are now moving out into the outskirts of the community and we are getting into some hillside areas, not necessarily maybe meeting the definition of hillside area by this code, but there is some slope and some stabilization that we need to consider. So we do want to look at this section of code and do a repeal and replace of it. And this is the initiation for directing staff to go back and and work on some amendments and then we'll be bringing it back to you.

OK. Thanks Kathy.

This come up because of the bullion sports overlook.

It did. Which the bullion sports overlook is you know right adjacent to what people refer to as Honda Hill. So there is a lot of topography there. They're they're exporting three hundred and some thousand cubic yards of material from that subdivision Which just creates even more slope? so we want to make sure that we do it right and And make a great product for the city of Elko Any public comment on this item

Planning Commission members again Bob Tebow of High Desert Engineering. And yeah this is probably the main reason why that subdivision earlier was asked we asked you to take no action. We are still working through some details on that. And in just the fact that we're disagreeing on interpretations of this particular chapter is a good enough reason to make some corrections and let's clarify the things that we're reading differently or disagreeing on. And I mentioned this to another engineer who does a lot of subdivision design in this town, and they said, why don't they just do away with that whole chapter? I smirked, as many of you are, I'm sure. It was my first reaction. But, you know, the more I thought about it is what we need to do away with is that definition of hillside area. So it reads it. It's about the existing topography on the land, and if it's steeper than a 15% average, we're going to follow all these special rules. If it's less than a 15% average, we're not going to follow all these rules. But I think what staff is looking for is a way to treat all subdivisions. And then there's Bullion Sports Complex. It's just below the 15%. And so they're still trying to apply some of these. There's other manuals that provide guidance for slope construction. I've always understood that this whole chapter doesn't apply if you're less than the 15%. But what staff's looking for is a way to treat all slopes in all subdivisions. And so maybe what we need to do away with is the 15% requirement. Why should it matter if the existing topography was 14% or if it was 16% before the development? We're trying to find a way to to maintain slopes post-construction and such. So let's do that and let's try to have some reasonable requirements as we move forward and revise this section and not really create hardships for contractors and have excessive lot sizes or requiring certain ways of stabilization on slopes, but maybe letting them decide how to be stabilized as has been done in the past. And so I look forward to working through this and hearing what staff has to come up with and appreciate the time being put into revising this section. Thank you.

Thanks, Bob. But we did just blow your 21-day bonus. There was a bonus? Well, we're gonna just stamp it. Okay, any Planning Commission questions on this item?

Yeah, just a curiosity. How long do we expect something like this to take?

Anytime that we do a complete repeal and replace, we have a lot of legal work done with it. And we've already started reviewing probably about eight to 10 different municipalities and their hillside development codes. So we're in that process right now of reviewing that. And it really just depends on staff's time. what we have available to really get in and edit right now we have the development manager myself and the city engineer we're all working on this revision at the same time in a shared file and then we'll get to a point where we then send it to legal he'll make his changes get it back to us we go back and forth and make changes multiple times before we bring it back so it's really going to just depend on the extent of that, and of course we're gonna want some public input as well. We'll be reaching out to Mr. Thibault, reaching out to other engineers, what do they think of this, what do they think of that, and working with them on it.

Great, thank you.

Stefan, did you have a question as well?

Well, I held back because I haven't really studied this, but I've never heard of an angular repose anywhere close to 15%. They're way higher, and the concept of slope stability is relatively simple in the engineering world. So I shouldn't say anything because I haven't read this, but what's the problem? Is it just too complicated and they're trying to streamline it?

What happens is if your development meets the definition of the hillside area, which is any parcel having an average slope of 15% or greater, then the size of the lot goes from 6,000 to 10,000 square feet. Right? You have additional setback requirements. You have setback requirements from the home to the toe of the slope. You have stabilization. You have is it a manufactured slope? Is it a natural slope? Is it, you know, there's all these requirements built into this code. So we need to just look at, you know, right here, the definition of a slope, right? It's a natural or manufactured slope steeper than five to one. Well, here's the development standards. Slopes next to streets and roadways, slopes not interior slopes. So we just need to look at all of it, compare it to other codes, visit with engineers about it and come back with a code that works for the city of Elko and protects the city of Elko and subdivisions within the Elko.

Sounds reasonable.

Any other planning commission questions? Okay, seeing none. Applicant, final comment? I'll take that as a no. This will be final public comment on this item. Okay, I'll entertain a motion.

I make a motion to initiate an amendment to Elko City Code section 3-2-28 and bring it back to Planning Commission as a public hearing.

Okay, thanks Mercedes. Do we have a second?

Second.

Did you get that one in? I second. Okay, I'll take a vote.

Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. I vote aye, motion carries. Okay, Kathy, you wanna?

I don't really have much in reports other than we did have an RDA meeting regarding our RDA plan. We're going to continue to work on some revisions on that plan and bring it back to the agency before it comes back as a public hearing. And then we We did get a final stretch of road right-of-way dedicated at the last city council meeting. We've been working on that for three years. And it's the final leg of South Ninth Street. So it will be from Lamoille Highway and the intersection of South Ninth Street there where the City of Elko has their volunteer fire station and Southside School on Ninth Street there. It will go up and adjoin to the Tipton property, which we have South Ninth Street dedicated already through that property to . It's one of the major, long-range planning initiatives that we've been working on for years for sewer and water and roadway and development for the south area of our community. And so that was a huge, huge thing for us to finally get that and get it recorded and get that dedication. So other than that, we're just working on a million different little things. Any questions for me?

thanks Kathy comments by the general public pursuant to NRS 241 this time is devoted to comments by the public if any and discussion of those comments no action may be taken upon a matter raised under this item on the agenda until the matter itself has been specifically included on a successive agenda and identified as an item for possible action action will not be taken but do we have any final public comment for today Okay, seeing none, I would like to say, good job Garrett, that was good, on odd that Catherine always comes in a little aggressive and combative, and we were giving her, she was getting what she wanted, so that was a little odd to me. But I thought you guys did good on kind of trying to help her out, even though the reason I voted nay is if you read her application, it is, she says she doesn't have a hardship. So I supported her reasoning, even though she.

And I want to make sure I didn't misunderstand Catherine. But is she saying that she wants to keep the garage? Yes, as a residence. That's what I thought, because I'm like, wait a second.

That's where the problem, because maybe she should have permitted it a different way. Right.

And I didn't want to get into more of it, but I was like, wait a second. It's opposite of what we were.

But residential occupancy. from the building code is different than planning and zoning principal permitted use. And I'm gonna refer back to that PowerPoint again. You were allowed one principal permitted use per parcel. You can't have two. So the new home is the principal permitted use, which converts the existing garage into an accessory use.

Well, I think we're all on board. Yeah, but really I feel what she does is when she comes here and then she's so angry with the process and not getting what she wants, and she fights with you guys, which does no good because we're not here to argue the basics of it and where she was getting the permitting in the first place for the variance or the CUP. That should have all been done before it got to us. We tried.

Yeah, we tried to do that with her. And I know the questions that she was asking was, She had a list of questions of her house, and the one question that we couldn't answer was that the occupancy use will not change. Well, all the other ones, the occupancy use changed because it became an accessory dwelling. So there was no way to really give her an example where it stayed the same because none of them stayed the same.

I think it was more of an option question if you want to be honest. She's very intelligent, and I think she knew exactly why she was asking the question, too, and I really do think it was a gotcha thing that would later have been, you know, used to... Well, it was a timestamp, too.

Like, it was a... I don't know, investigation.

and the change gear real quick kathy i know it was i i don't think i know it wasn't your fault that the legislature was jamming this down our throat i know it wasn't you so i hope you didn't think i was no um and i appreciate your support on that because i i do know that the planning commission feels the same way that staff does that there is an importance to the public process

and allowing the public to make comments, right? And so I am not in support of that, and you can tell that by my staff report, but I am also being forced to approve it through ordinance. So, yeah.

Garrett, you had something?

I'm good.

Yeah, I just think that that's a lot of problems down the road, a lot of problems.

Katherine already made me forget about that. So I thought that was a good one on us too to, I know this might not be the popular opinion, but I think we did the right thing. And then the city council can. Yeah, they can.

I mean, obviously it doesn't make any difference, but we're on record standing by what we know. I would love to see I would love to see actual statistics on what stops multifamily dwellings from being produced I guarantee a very very low percentage is community lack of community support

It's poor planning, there's a thousand other things, bad plans, not thinking through stuff, but it's, I mean, would it be one in 10 that gets it disapproved because people don't want it there? I don't know.

I don't know, I'd love to see it.

I'd love to see it.

A good example is the apartment complex that was proposed and conditional use permit was approved by the Planning Commission across from Wendy's. It shared a parking lot with the Elko Inn Hotel.

That was a mess.

But you guys took a long, hard look at how that parking would be met for both the building, the hotel, and for the apartments. And you had conditions in there regarding that parking so that if they had a mine expo and the entire parking lot was full and the apartments had no parking, it was addressed, right? So those are the key elements that I felt that the Planning Commission does a phenomenal job that needs to address those things when they come up because they're site specific concerns and you no longer are going to be able to do that for apartment complexes. So that's where my stance was is I had examples of where you guys had site specific concerns and that apartment and the hotel shared parking lot was exactly one of them.

Oh, that's interesting. So that would not have come before us.

now it won't that's crazy that was a disaster i don't know well hopefully city councilmen and county commissioners across the 17 counties of our state you know feel the same way and get involved and get it changed so what about the property in on uh fifth and uh what was it maple or whatever that is fifth and ash that would not come to you either yeah

And there were quite a bit of public comment on that due to the off-street parking requirement.

Now whatever happened, so what did happen with the hotel slash apartment complex slash ?

They applied for a parcel map to split the parcel into two so they could get funding specific for the apartment complex. And I'm not sure if they just couldn't get funding or what. But the permit was ready to go. It was ready to be issued. Did it lapse now? The approval on the conditional use permit has lapsed because they haven't been actively engaged in the year.

Well, they should come in and fight it and say, I don't want it approved.

They should hire Catherine.

They should hire her.

Yeah, okay.

With that, this meeting is adjourned.

Thanks, everybody.