MEETING MINUTES. COMMISSIONERS: Larry Prater, Kris Thompson, Laura Kekule, Summer Pellett, Jim Collins

Transcription

1 STOREY COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Thursday October 4, :00 p.m. Storey County Courthouse, District Courtroom 26 South B Street, Virginia City, NV MEETING MINUTES CHAIRMAN: Jim Hindle VICE-CHAIRMAN: John Herrington COMMISSIONERS: Larry Prater, Kris Thompson, Laura Kekule, Summer Pellett, Jim Collins 1. Call to Order: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 6:03 P.M. 2. Roll Call: Jim Hindle, Jim Collins, Summer Pellett, John Herrington, Larry Prater, Laura Kekule and Kris Thompson. Absent: None Also Present: Planner Kathy Canfield, Deputy D.A. Keith Loomis, and County Commissioner Marshall McBride. 3. Pledge of Allegiance: The Chairman led those present in the Pledge of Allegiance. 4. Discussion/Possible Action: Approval of Agenda for October 4, No Public Comment Motion: Approve agenda for October 4, 2018, Action: Approve, Moved by Commissioner Thompson, Seconded by Commissioner Prater, Vote: Motion carried by unanimous vote (summary: Yes=7). 5. Discussion/Possible Action: Approval of Minutes for August 23, 2018, Motion: Approve Minutes for August 23, 2018 Action: Approve, Moved by Commissioner Pellett, Seconded by Commissioner Thompson, Vote: Motion carried by unanimous vote (summary: Yes=7). No Public Comment 6. Discussion/Possible Action: Approval of Minutes for September 6, 2018, Motion: Approve Minutes for September 6, 2018, Action: Approve, Moved by Commissioner Thompson, Seconded by Commissioner Collins, Vote: Motion carried by vote (summary: Yes=5, Abstain: Laura Kekule, Larry Prater). No Public Comment 1

2 7. Discussion/Possible Action: Special Use Permit by applicant Dylan Li. The applicant requests a Special Use Permit to operate an outdoor establishment promoting tourism and local activities. The establishment will consist of a small movable stand that will act as a table and be located within the front patio area of an existing commercial establishment (Firehouse Grill, BBQ & Saloon). The property is located at 171 S. C Street, Virginia City, Nevada, Assessor s Parcel Number (APN) Planner Canfield summarized the request. See supporting material included in the agenda and packet at No Board or Public Comment Motion: In accordance with the recommendation by staff, the findings of fact under Section 3.A of this report, and other findings deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission, and in compliance with the conditions of approval, I Kris Thompson, recommend approval of Special Use Permit to operate an outdoor establishment promoting tourism and local activities. The establishment consists of a small movable stand that will act as a table and be located within the front patio area of an existing commercial establishment (Firehouse Grill, BBQ & Saloon). The property is located at 171 S. C Street, Virginia City, Nevada, Assessor s Parcel Number (APN) , Action: Approve Moved by Commissioner Thompson, Seconded by Commissioner Kekule, Planner Canfield read the Findings of Fact: (1) This approval is for Special Use Permit to operate an outdoor establishment promoting tourism and local activities. The establishment consists of a small movable stand that will act as a table and be located within the front patio area of an existing commercial establishment (Firehouse Grill, BBQ & Saloon). The property is located at 171 S. C Street, Virginia City, Nevada, Assessor s Parcel Number (APN) (2) The proposed project complies with the general purpose, goals, objectives, and standards of the county master plan, this title, and any other plan, program, map, or ordinance adopted, or under consideration pursuant to official notice by the county. (3) The proposal location, size, height, operations, and other significant features will be compatible with and will not cause substantial negative impact on adjacent land uses, or will perform a function or provide a service that is essential to the surrounding land uses, community, and neighborhood. (4) The proposed project will result in no substantial or undue adverse effect on adjacent property, the character of the neighborhood, traffic conditions, parking, public improvements, public sites or rightof-way, or other matters affecting the public health, safety, and general welfare, either as they now exist or as they may in the future be developed as a result of the implementation of the provisions and policies of the county master plan, this title, and any other plans, program, map or ordinance adopted or under consideration pursuant to an official notice, by the county, or other governmental agency having jurisdiction to guide growth and development. (5) The proposed use in the proposed area will be adequately served by and will impose no undue burden on any of the improvements, facilities, utilities, or services provided by the county or other governmental agency having jurisdiction in the county. (6) The Special Use Permit conforms to the 2016 Storey County Master Plan for the Virginia City planning area in which the subject property is located. A discussion supporting this finding is provided in Section 2.C of this staff report and the contents thereof are cited in an approval of this Special Use Permit. (7) The conditions under the Special Use Permit do not conflict with the minimum requirements in Storey County Code Sections , Special Use Permit and Section 17.30, CR Commercial Residential Zone. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous vote (summary: Yes=7). 2

3 8. Discussion/Possible Action: Special Use Permit by applicants Patrick and Beth Smith. The applicants request a variance to the front and side yard setbacks for the construction of a two-car detached garage, to allow for a front yard setback of 20-feet (versus the required 30-feet) and side yard setback of 8-feet (versus the required 15-feet). The property is located at 1930 Applegate Road, Virginia City Highlands, Storey County, Nevada, Assessor s Parcel Number (APN) Planner Canfield summarized the request. See supporting material included in the agenda and packet at The proposed detached garage will be located where an existing parking area is now. The proposed detached garage will be approximately 38 from edge of the roadway. Applegate Road has a 50 Road Easement. Staff had a hard time justifying the finding of special circumstances of the site needed in order to recommend approval. Topography of the property appears not to be a factor for justification of the site location of the garage. The applicant submitted additional justification for the proposed location and is here tonight to answer questions. Notices were sent to 30 surrounding property owners. Staff received one inquiry from an adjacent property owner asking for more information. A staff report was ed to them, and no further comment was received. Discussion between commission members Kris Thompson, John Herrington, Larry Prater, and Staff: - Proposed garaged location is not close to any house or structure. There is a horse corral across the road from the proposed location, and another adjacent neighbor s home faces Saddleback Road. - Similar variances in this area: Staff did not find any variances in this area, however the house on the corner of Applegate and Saddleback (east side) is very close to encroaching on the setback requirement. There was a similar setback variance approved around the Delta Road area of the Highlands. - Commissioner Prater expressed concern with setting a precedent. Beth Smith, Applicant: Said she and her husband Patrick have been residents on Applegate Road for 10 years. House was built in Several neighbors are here tonight. The lot is particularly narrow. We want to keep the rural residential character of the neighborhood. She and her husband understand there are reasons for rules and variances and planning. They are there to preserve those things (rural residential character). By placing the garage in the location proposed, we are actually preserving the character of the neighborhood. By placing it further back up the hill would make it more visible to neighbors and wouldn t really conform to that character. There have been at least two boundary line adjustments that have been done along Saddleback Road for very good reasons, mostly due to topography of the area. The roads have been constructed on the flat areas. Once you leave the road, you usually run in to some type of topographical barrier. The house on 1941 Saddleback is another lot that is extremely narrow. When they built the house, they got a variance. The house faces Saddleback and they constructed the attached garage facing Applegate Road with a setback similar to what we are requesting now. Applegate Road is mostly built up now, and people have already made their adjustments for placement of structures. The neighbors to the north have built up the hill. We do have the option of building up the hill, but would have to remove over 25 to 30 mature pinion pines, and the garage would be visible to neighbors. This would impact their viewshed, and not preserve the rural residential character of the neighborhood. Moving it closer to the house would encroach upon the leach field and may not meet the 6 required distance between the house and garage. The utility corridor is existing and placing the garage in the proposed location would not affect it. There is a record of property corners that were presented to the planning commission when the boundary line adjustments of neighboring properties were completed. Our closest neighbors are here tonight, and the HOA has been open to the idea. Commissioner Prater: It appears that it may not be a hardship to move the garage back another 10 and a few more feet away from the property line, although a few trees may have to be removed. 3

4 Beth Smith, Applicant: The property actually narrows going towards the back of the lot. Moving the location would require shifting back and in towards the house and the builder didn t seem to think that we would have the clearance if moved towards the house. Planner Canfield was asked by Chairman Hindle where the actual centerline of the roadway is. She said the easement for the road is 50 but the road is not centered in the middle of the easement, it is more towards the east. Roads were constructed to consider the topography, not necessarily in the center of the easement. She clarified too for Commissioner Thompson that the proposed garage will be located approximately 38 from the edge of the existing roadway. Bill Baines, neighbor: Said he has no problem with the proposed structure, but is concerned with how the property corners are determined. Without a survey, how is the setback location found. Discussion: It was decided by Staff, the commission and the applicant to modify recommended condition of approval H, to include the wording professional land surveyor. Planning Director Osborne suggested removing the words two car from two car detached garage in the recommendation of approval to allow for more flexibility for the proposed development. Motion: In accordance with the Findings of Fact under Section 3.A of this report, and other findings deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission, and in compliance with the conditions of approval with a modification to Condition H to include Professional Land Surveyor, I Kris Thompson, recommend approval of a variance (Variance ) to the front and side yard setbacks for the construction of a detached garage, to allow for a front yard setback of 20-feet (versus the required 30-feet) and side yard setback of 8-feet (versus the required 15-feet). The property is located at 1930 Applegate Road, Virginia City Highlands, Storey County, Nevada, Assessor s Parcel Number (APN) , Action: Approve, Moved by Commissioner Thompson, Seconded by Commissioner Collins, Kathy read the Findings of Fact: (1) This approval is for a variance (Variance ) to the front and side yard setbacks for the construction of a two-car detached garage, to allow for a front yard setback of 20-feet (versus the required 30-feet) and side yard setback of 8-feet (versus the required 15-feet). The property is located at 1930 Applegate Road, Virginia City Highlands, Storey County, Nevada, Assessor s Parcel Number (APN) (2) The subject property is located within E-1 VCH Estates zoning with an existing residence as a primary use and the proposed garage as an allowed accessory use. (3) That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including shape, size, topography or location of surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity or under identical zone classification. (4) That the granting of the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant. (5) That the granting of the Variance will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, adversely affect to a material degree the health or safety of persons residing or working in the area of the subject property and will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to property or improvements in the area of the subject property. (6) The proposed Variance is in compliance with all Federal, Nevada State, and Storey County regulations. (7) The proposed Variance is in compliance with Storey County Code Variances, E Estates Zone and General Provisions when all Conditions of Approval are met. (8) The proposed Variance is in compliance with and supports the goals, objectives and policies of the 2016 Storey County Master Plan. Vote: Motion carried by vote (summary: Yes=6, Nay=1, Larry Prater, disagrees with finding 3 and 4). 4

5 9. Discussion/Possible Action: Special Use Permit by applicant Bryan Burlison. This is a request by the applicant to allow for an accessory dwelling unit on an existing developed residential property. The applicants request an accessory dwelling unit be approved within a previously constructed garage. The subject property is located at 1931 Lousetown Road, Virginia City Highlands, Storey County, Nevada, Assessor s Parcel Number (APN) Planner Canfield summarized the request. The accessory dwelling will be located on a 1 acre parcel in a previously constructed garage. The garage was constructed to be a garage/shop/office in 1995 and received a C of O in Somewhere between 1999 and 2017 the structure was converted to a dwelling unit. This application is submitted by the current property owner to correct some mistakes that were made by past owners. This is to recognize the accessory dwelling unit as a legal unit. The accessory dwelling unit meets all code requirements for accessory dwelling units including being occupied by immediate family members, being under 1,000 square feet, and meets the side setback requirement. There are also requirements for the applicant to demonstrate that the septic system meets the Nevada Department of Health requirements, and that the well meets the Nevada Division of Water Resources requirements. The applicant has been in touch with both of these agencies to obtain approval. Staff received one inquiry from a neighboring property owner. A staff report was sent to them and there was no additional response. Vice Chairman Herrington: Asked if the Building Department has inspected the improvements and deemed it a habitable space. Planner Canfield: No, this came to our attention because the building department received a comment from a member of the public regarding the additional dwelling. They went to the site and recognized that there was an accessory dwelling on the property. After a bit of research by the planning and building departments, it was found that there were no building permits issued or a special use permit. As a condition of the special use permit there will be a C of O required prior to the unit being occupied. The unit is not occupied at this time. Applicant Bryan Burlison: Gave some history on the unit. He said he spoke with the realtor and the sellers who told him this unit was fine. Said he spoke with the wrong department at the county to verify this. He also sent a note to the building department asking if this was permitted and was told yes. Should have contacted the assessor s office. The work that was done (renovation) was completed by a general contractor here in the county, Mark Zulim. The contractor told him that because there were no structural changes, a permit was not required. Over 60,000 dollars was put into it in order to have his in-laws stay there when they came to visit. Improvements included a handicap shower, and upgrades to appliances. Said that his in-laws do not live there full time, but do visit occasionally to obtain medical care locally. Stated that he believes he has done everything humanly possible to do this in the right way, only to find out that it wasn t. He apologized. Public Comment: Neighbor Jeanne Gribbin: Said she is a 25 year resident of the Highlands and lives next door to this property. Saw the house and the garage being built. He had no fence. Called the building department and they made them put the fence in. She stated that she has been there for the transition as it progressed into a mother in law quarters. She said she has been in it numerous times prior to the Burlison s owning it. The law says that if you want to get a variance or special use permit, you come prior to doing it. Said her neighbor went to the building department and the HOA to get a permit for the additional large garage, but she is astounded that they didn t know to get a permit to convert the garage into a permanent residence. A deed restriction needs to be put on this because when they move, that has to be converted back into a garage. I start work at 5 a.m., I work at home and my office window looks out to this dwelling that no one is living in. They have lights on all the time. No one is leaving the lights on unless they are there. Feels that because we are on one well, one septic, two dwellings, they ve already had problems with their septic field, it s filled with trees. Feels that there is a major problem that is going to happen with this. Applicant Bryan Burlison: Said he can appreciate everything that she (Jeanne Gribbin) had to say. I have automatic lights that come on at dusk and go off at dawn every night. Stated that he did not do this out of spite or hatred. Said he asked the contractor about obtaining a permit and he was told that a permit was not needed. Said he thought he had confirmed that the unit was legal when he moved in, and he apologized for the confusion. He has tried to be careful with the water, and said he has not had any problem with the septic. The State is coming out to look at the septic and we will work with them to find a solution. Nevada law only allows one septic system per acre, and the system may have to be enlarged which he said he is willing to do. Clarified that a permit was obtained for the large shop/garage behind the house. This is not a dwelling. 5

6 Commissioner Thompson: asked for clarification on repeated comments on the staff report that the building and planning departments cannot find any records that the garage/shop/office was to be used as a dwelling. He asked what the significance of those comments are. Also confirmed with Bryan Burlison that he purchased the property two years ago. Planner Canfield: This is to confirm that there was no prior special use permit or building permit to convert the garage to an accessory dwelling. It would have been required per the 1999 zoning ordinance. It was always referenced as a garage/shop. At some point it was convert to an accessory dwelling by a previous owner. Regarding comments from Mr. Burlison s neighbor about a requirement for a deed restriction, that is addressed in condition G. Deed Restriction, of the special use permit. Deputy D.A. Loomis: Said that the applicant provided and Affidavit of Family, but it should be done on a form the county provides. It should be a condition of the SUP. Some additional comments were inaudible. The applicant agreed to complete the county form. Commissioner Thompson: Asked what has been the custom of the commission has been in the past with like accessory dwellings, and if so, is there a custom or practice the commission uses. Planner Canfield: This is a special use permit which differs from a variance. With a variance the applicant needs to show a hardship and special circumstances. Planning Director Osborne: The 2016 Master Plan talks quite a bit about multi-generational housing i.e. mother in law quarters for immediate family members. They are all over the county, we are trying to encourage these in order to reduce hardship on government services, and hardship on seniors, and families that want to take care of their parents or other family members. Commissioner Prater: Other special use permits have been granted in the Highlands. This is existing, but does follow the parameters for an accessory dwelling unit. Said he is familiar with this property. It is one of the more attractive properties in the Highlands. Motion: In accordance with the recommendation by staff, the Findings of Fact under Section 3.A of this report, and other findings deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission, and in compliance with the conditions of approval, and a correction to Condition G. (17.12.C8 should be C.8), and additional condition to require an Affidavit of Family, I Larry Prater, recommend approval of Special Use Permit , a request by the applicant to allow for an accessory dwelling unit on an existing developed residential property. The applicant desires an accessory dwelling unit within a previously approved garage with a shop/office be legally established with the special use permit. The subject property is located at 1931 Lousetown Road, Virginia City Highlands, Storey County, Nevada, Assessor s Parcel Number (APN) , Action: Approve, Moved by Commissioner Prater, Seconded by Commissioner Pellett, Planner Canfield read the Findings of Fact in to the record: (1) This approval is for Special Use Permit to allow for an accessory dwelling unit on an existing developed residential property. This approval allows for an accessory dwelling unit within a previously constructed garage. The subject property is located at 1931 Lousetown Road, Virginia City Highlands, Storey County, Nevada, Assessor s Parcel Number (APN) (2) The Special Use Permit conforms to the 2016 Storey County Master Plan for the Virginia City Highlands Rural Residential community area in which the subject property is located. A discussion supporting this finding for the Special Use Permit is provided in Section 2.E of this staff report and the contents thereof are cited in an approval of this Special Use Permit. The Special Use Permit complies with the general purpose, goals, objectives, and standards of the county master plan, the zoning ordinance and any other plan, program, map or ordinance adopted, or under consideration pursuant to the official notice by the county. (3) The proposal location, size, height, operations, and other significant features will be compatible with and will not cause substantial negative impact on adjacent land uses, or will perform a function or provide a service that is essential to the surrounding land uses, community, and neighborhood. 6

7 (4) The Special Use Permit will result in no substantial or undue adverse effect on adjacent property, the character of the neighborhood, traffic conditions, parking, public improvements, public sites or rightof-way, or other matters affecting the public health, safety, and general welfare, either as they now exist or as they may in the future be developed as a result of the implementation of the provisions and policies of the county master plan, this title, and any other plans, program, map or ordinance adopted or under consideration pursuant to an official notice, by the county, or other governmental agency having jurisdiction to guide growth and development. (5) The proposed use in the proposed area will be adequately served by and will impose no undue burden on any of the improvements, facilities, utilities, or services provided by the county or other governmental agency having jurisdiction in the county. (6) The Special Use Permit, with the recommended conditions of approval, complies with the requirements of Chapters Special Use Permit, Accessory Dwellings, Location and Placement, and Estate Zone. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous vote (summary: Yes=7). 10. Discussion/Possible Action: Ordinance No amendment to the Storey County sign ordinance, Storey County Code Title 17 Zoning, including Chapters Signs and Billboards, General Provisions, Public zone, R1 Single-Family Residential zone, R2 Multi-Family Residential zone, A Agriculture zone, Chapter C Commercial zone, CR Commercial Residential zone, F Forestry zone, I1 Light Industrial zone, I2 Heavy Industrial zone, E Estate zone, SPR Special Planning Review zone, and Definitions as pertaining to signs and billboards, and other properly related matters. Additional information including, but not limited to, draft text may be obtained from the Planning Department at or planning@storeycounty.org, or viewed online at In addition to the provisions of the NRS, any person may complete and return to the Board a statement supporting or opposing the proposed amendments to the county code and/or zoning ordinance. Planner Canfield: Staff is very close to the final revision of the sign ordinance, but would like to continue this to the next meeting in order to clarify some legal definitions, and have legal counsel look over the final draft. Discussed a few of the changes since the last revision was presented to the commission: - All signs located within the Comstock Historic District, and are not consistent with Comstock Historic District regulations, shall be brought into conformance with this chapter prior to March 31, Existing signs which were installed prior to December 31, 1999, which are not consistent with this sign ordinance, may remain, with the exception of signs not consistent with the Comstock Historic District, if applicable. Any changes to the sign shape, size, location, or other similar modification which is not considered ordinary maintenance and repair, shall require the signs to come into conformance with the sign ordinance. - Billboard definition to include the wording freestanding sign with a single pedestal support and Billboards must be listed as an allowed use or allowed with a special use permit land use in the corresponding zoning district for the property where the billboard will be located. The size of the billboard shall be determined on the allowable sign area associated with the parcel the billboard will be located on and the associated zoning district". - Added Appendix A, Locations for signs associated with national, state or local election processes within County owned rights of way or property. This includes aerial images of these areas. - Existing signs which are not conforming to this sign ordinance shall be brought into conformance with the sign ordinance prior to December 31, This may require removal and/or retrofitting of non-conforming signs and/or obtaining a Special Use Permit for certain signs as identified by this chapter. Vice Chairman Herrington: Asked for clarification on the allowable sign size of 6 square feet for 40 acre parcels. Political signs currently posted at Lousetown and 341 are on Victor Lucker s private property, and will be illegal for the size allowable. Six square feet is pretty small for a 40 acre parcel. Planner Canfield: Stated that yes, the allowable size will be 6 square feet in the Estate zone, but there is no limit on the amount of signs which can be posted. She said the signs appear to be in the NDOT ROW in that area. Discussion regarding allowable size. Consensus was to leave it at 6 square feet. 7

8 Commissioner Prater: Talked about lack of enforcement language in the ordinance and suggested that this be addressed in the ordinance. Maybe this could be worked out between the D.A. and the Sheriff s office coordinate to get a code enforcement officer that has authority and a badge to enforce non-compliance. Planning Director Osborne: Community Development has a nuisance officer to handle nuisances, but it hasn t been discussed how far the duties of that person can reach. Discussion about enforcement and whether or not violating the sign ordinance will be a criminal or civil violation. No Public Comment Motion: Continue to next planning commission meeting, Action: Approve, Moved by Commissioner Prater, Seconded by Commissioner Kekule, Vote: Motion carried by unanimous vote (summary: Yes=7). 11. Discussion/Possible Action: Determination of next planning commission meeting. No Public Comment Motion: Next planning commission meeting to be held on October 18, 2018, at 6:00 P.M. at the Storey County Courthouse, District Courtroom, Virginia City, Nevada, Action: Approve, Moved by Commissioner Thompson, Seconded by Commissioner Prater, Vote: Motion carried by unanimous vote (summary: Yes=7). 12. Discussion/Possible Action: Approval of claims None 13. Correspondence (No Action) already discussed during meeting. 14. Public Comment (No Action) None 15. Staff (No Action): Sewer project in Virginia City is near substantial completion. The new water line replacement has begun with Ames Construction between 5 Mile Flat to the water treatment center. 16. Board Comments (No Action) Commissioner Herrington: Said that at the last meeting we had public comment from someone who was upset that there was only four commissioners present. We have people travelling and people sick, but we did have a quorum. 17. Adjournment (No Action) - The meeting was adjourned 8:08 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, By Lyndi Renaud 8