All items include discussion and possible action to approve, modify, deny, or continue unless marked otherwise.

Jim Hindle Chairman Jim Collins Planning Commissioner Larry Prater Planning Commissioner Summer Pellett- Planning Commissioner Storey County Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Thursday October 4, 2018 6:00 p.m. Storey County Courthouse, District Courtroom 26 South B Street, Virginia City, Nevada John Herrington Vice-Chairman Kris Thompson Planning Commissioner Laura Kekule Planning Commissioner All items include discussion and possible action to approve, modify, deny, or continue unless marked otherwise. 1. Call to Order at 6:00 p.m. 2. Roll Call 3. Pledge of Allegiance 4. Discussion/Possible Action: Approval of Agenda for October 4, 2018. 5. Discussion/Possible Action: Approval of Minutes for August 23, 2018. 6. Discussion/Possible Action: Approval of Minutes for September 6, 2018 7. Discussion/Possible Action: 2018-036 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) 001-073-28. 8. Discussion/Possible Action: 2018-037 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) 003-101-05. 9. Discussion/Possible Action: 2018-038 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) 003-123-07. 10. Discussion/Possible Action: Ordinance No. 18-274 amendment to the Storey County sign ordinance, Storey County Code Title 17 Zoning, including Chapters 17.84 Signs and Billboards, 17.12 General Provisions, 17.15 Public zone, 17.16 R1 Single-Family Residential zone, 17.20 R2 Multi-Family Residential zone, 17.24 A Agriculture zone, Chapter 17.28 C Commercial zone, 17.30 CR Commercial Residential zone, 17.32 F Forestry zone, 17.34 I1 Light Industrial zone, 17.35 I2 Heavy Industrial zone, 17.40 E Estate zone, 17.44 SPR Special Planning Review zone, and 17.10 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 775.847.1144 or planning@storeycounty.org, or viewed online at http://storeycounty.org/517/updates. 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. 1

11. Discussion/Possible Action: Determination of next Planning Commission meeting. 12. Discussion/Possible Action: Approval of Claims. 13. Correspondence (no action) 14. Public Comment (no action) 15. Staff (no action) 16. Board Comments (no action) 17. Adjournment Notes: There may be a quorum of Storey County Commissioners in attendance, but no action or discussion will be taken by the Commissioners. Public comment will be allowed after each item on the agenda (this comment should be limited to the item on the agenda). Public comment will also be allowed at the end of each meeting (this comment should be limited to matters not on the agenda). Items on the agenda may be taken out of order, the public body may combine two or more agenda items for consideration, and the public body may remove an item from the agenda or delay discussion relating to an item on the agenda at any time. Additional information pertaining to any item on this agenda may be requested from the Planning Department (775-847-1144). Certification of Posting I, Lyndi Renaud, on behalf of the Storey County Planning Commission, do hereby certify that I posted, or caused to be posted, a copy of this Agenda at the following locations on or before September 25, 2018: Virginia City Post Office; Storey County Courthouse; Virginia City Fire Station 71; Virginia City RV Park; Mark Twain Community Center; Rainbow Bend Clubhouse; Lockwood Community Center; Lockwood Fire Station; Virginia City Highlands Fire Station; and the Virginia City Highlands Online Message Board. By Lyndi Renaud, Secretary 2

STOREY COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Thursday August 23, 2018 6:00 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. Roll Call: Jim Hindle, Summer Pellett, John Herrington, Kris Thompson, Larry Prater, and Jim Collins. Absent: Laura Kekule Also Present: Planning Director Austin Osborne, Planner Kathy Canfield, and Deputy D.A. Keith Loomis. 2. Pledge of Allegiance: The Chairman led those present in the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Discussion/Possible Action: Approval of Agenda for August 23, 2018. Motion: Approve agenda for August 23, 2018, Action: Approve, Moved by Commissioner Prater, Seconded by Commissioner Pellett, Vote: Motion carried by unanimous vote (summary: Yes=6). 4. Discussion/Possible Action: Approval of Minutes for June 21, 2018. Motion: Approve Minutes for June 21, 2018, Action: Approve, Moved by Commissioner Prater, Seconded by Commissioner Pellett, Vote: Motion carried by vote (summary: Yes=3), Abstain: Kris Thompson, Jim Hindle, Jim Collins. 5. Discussion/Possible Action: Approval of Minutes for July 19, 2018. Motion: Approve Minutes for July 19, 2018, Action: Approve, Moved by Commissioner Prater, Seconded by Commissioner Herrington, Vote: Motion carried by unanimous vote (summary: Yes=4), Abstain: Kris Thompson, Jim Collins. 6. Presentation (Annual SUP Update): By Comstock Mining, LLC. (Gold Hill/American Flat) Special Use Permit Holder to present its annual compliance review in accordance with the conditions of Special Use Permit No. 2000-222-A-5. 1

Planning Director Osborne: There is a special use permit applicable to this company, and one of the conditions is to present to the planning commission an annual compliance review. Corrado DeGasperis, President and CEO of Comstock Mining: Gave a power point presentation for the annual compliance review (see details below). We mined actively from 2012 to 2015, then another 12 to 15 months, and at the end of 2016 we stopped processing. We are still actively developing, planning, engineering, and doing reclamation. He introduced two new additions to their team. Mr. Ron Laiken has re-joined us. He was with us previously and is now director of Health Safety and Environmental Protection, and Mr. Leo (inaudible) has joined our board. We have continued commitment to the environment and environmental protection. Compliance Review Outline Site Overview and Disturbance Acreage Review of SUP Compliance Status of Silver City Water Line Plans and Actions SR 342-2017 Award Reclamation Underground Mine Monitoring Report Tonogold Resources Inc. Option Update Mr. DeGasperis discussed the information on the charts below. Phase Permit Acres Used Acres Active Mining 120 42 Mine Definition 20 0 Exploration 20 0 Active Reclamation 0-50 18.9 Reclaimed N/A 11.1 Special Use Permit Condition Compliance certification I. General Provisions Compliant II. Operating Plan Compliant III. Boundaries and Uses Compliant IV. Environmental Controls Compliant V. Fire & Emergency Compliant VI. Transportation VII. General Uses VIII. Cultural Resources Compliant Compliant Compliant 2

Silver City Waterline Protection No Mining or Exploration Took Place in Proximity to the Silver City Water Line (SCWL) Per the SCWL Protection Plan Storey County will be Notified Prior to any Future Activities Award Received for State Route 342 Realignment 5/17/2017 Final inspection close out letter received from NDOT 5/24/2017 Surety Bond for the amount of $65,000 was released by the Storey County Planning Dept. 8/4/2017 Comstock Mining nominated for Nevada Division of Minerals Excellence in Reclamation Award Reclamation Keystone Vegetation Well Established Billie the Kid, Hartford and Justice Reclamation is Advanced Hydro Seeding for these Areas Completed in the Fall of 2016 and is Well Established 11.1 acres have been reclaimed, with 18.9 acres actively being reclaimed within the mine area. NDEP/BMRR Inspection in May, 2018 found Comstock Mining in compliance with all aspects of the reclamation permit. Mr. DeGasperis said that Comstock Mining won Excellence in Mine Reclamation awards in 2015 and 2017. Comstock Foundation for History & Culture supports: Long-range plans to address the preservation for historic structures; Fully document or mitigate archeological or surface resources affected by any undertakings; Supported by a dedicated 1% Net Smelter Revenue royalty. 2012-2016 Comstock Mining generated $899,000 in royalties; Contributions to the Foundation totaled $935,000 Comstock Mining is partnering with Tonogold on the Lucerne Mine Project. They are committed to spending $20M dollars over the next three years in drilling, developing and engineering. If they do that, the current arrangement earns them 51% of the Lucerne Mine. They are good miners, and Comstock is impressed with their approach. Nothing is done without Comstock s cooperation. They don t own anything, they just have the right to do this under our supervision. Commissioner Prater: If they become 51% owners, then they control the operation? And are they aware of the restrictions placed on Comstock and will they continue those? Mr. DeGasperis: Yes, 51% of the Lucerne Project, but Comstock still owns all the infrastructure. They would control the mining activities. They absolutely know about the restrictions and will continue to follow them. Planning Director Osborne: Stated that condition 8.5 in the special use permit does require that 1% of Net Smelter return into historic preservation. The county believes that has occurred, however, we don t know that it has occurred. We are taking the documentation that Corrado and his team have provided and additional information to make sure that the net smelter proceeds (1%) have been given to the Comstock Foundation, and then through the Foundation out to the community. We are auditing all the financial documents with the Comptroller s office to support that this has occurred. Comstock has been completely cooperative in this process. A second component of condition 8.5 is that a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) be created and approved by the board and reviewed by the District Attorney s office. The MOU never happened. It was an oversight. We are working with Comstock and the District Attorney s office to get this MOU. It will be retroactive. Planning Director Osborne stated that Comstock is compliant with the SUP otherwise. He communicates with NDEP and other agencies. There are no issues. There was no public comment on the Comstock Mining compliance review. 7. Discussion/Possible Action: Ordinance No. 18-274 amendment to the Storey County sign ordinance, Storey County Code Title 17 Zoning, including Chapters 17.84 Signs and Billboards, 17.12 General Provisions, 17.15 Public zone, 17.16 R1 Single-Family Residential zone, 17.20 R2 Multi-Family Residential zone, 17.24 A Agriculture zone, Chapter 17.28 C Commercial zone, 17.30 CR Commercial Residential zone, 17.32 F Forestry zone, 17.34 I1 Light Industrial zone, 17.35 I2 Heavy Industrial zone, 17.40 E Estate zone, 17.44 SPR Special Planning Review zone, and 17.10 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 775.847.1144 or planning@storeycounty.org, or viewed online at 3

http://storeycounty.org/517/updates. 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 asking to continue this item to the October 4, 2018 Planning Commission meeting and the October 16, 2018 Board of County Commissioner s meeting. She said she has not been able to work on this since the last meeting due to other projects, and no revisions have been made. No public comment. Motion: Continue Ordinance No. 18-274 amendment to the Storey County sign ordinance to the October 4, 2018 planning commission meeting at 6 p.m. and October 16, 2018 Board of County Commissioners meeting at 10 a.m. located at the Storey County Courthouse, District Courtroom, Virginia City, NV, Action: Approve, Moved by Commissioner Prater, Seconded by Commissioner Thompson, Vote: Motion carried by unanimous vote (summary: Yes=6). 8. Discussion/Possible Action: Determination of next planning commission meeting. Motion: Next planning commission meeting to be held on September 6, 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 Pellett, Vote: Motion carried by unanimous vote (summary: Yes=5, Nay=1, Larry Prater, will be out of town). 9. Discussion/Possible Action: Approval of claims None 10. Correspondence (No Action) None 11. Public Comment (No Action) None 12. Staff (No Action): Planner Canfield: Gave an update on what she has been working on. Storey County is part of the National Flood Program. As part of this, we have participated with FEMA and the Community Rating System (CRS) which gives discounts for flood insurance depending on what rating the county has. One of the criteria for this program and earning a discount, is a 5 year audit which is due on Monday. She stated that she has been preparing for the audit for the last month, it is labor intensive and a lot of work. She s been working on tracking down a lot of the different items that can help the county get a good rating. In 2017 they added additional things to complete in order to gain points which contribute to getting a better rating. The county s rating now is 8. Been working on putting all of this together. It is a lot of work, and this is what she has been concentrating on. She said that she meets with the auditor on Monday, and they may have a list of things to correct. She said she identified some things to do in the future to improve the process. There are things we are doing now, but they are not being documented very well. Working on fixing that. This program is applicable to the whole county, and in order for someone to purchase flood insurance, even if they don t live in a flood plain, the county needs to be a part of this program. People that live in a flood plain such as Lockwood, are already required to purchase flood insurance. Planning Director Osborne: This is a huge project and Kathy is doing a great job. She has been doing work that is usually completed by an entire department. Welcomed Jim Collins to the planning commission. There were two good applicants, but we thought with Jim s small business, construction and contracting experience, he brings to the table a different perspective, and that s what we re looking for. AT & T is working on preparation for submitting building permits to put equipment on the monopine in the Highlands. He said he believes it will provide 5G and broadband internet service. It should be up and running in late October. They are also working on putting a water tower design in Virginia City close to the flag pole tower and it will provide the same service. The flag pole tower and the proposed new tower are two different carriers. 13. Board Comments (No Action) None 14. Adjournment (No Action) - The meeting was adjourned at 6:53 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, By Lyndi Renaud 4

STOREY COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Thursday September 6, 2018 6:00 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 Collins, Summer Pellett, John Herrington, and Kris Thompson. Absent: Jim Hindle, Laura Kekule, and Larry Prater. 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 September 6, 2018. Motion: Approve agenda for September 6, 2018, Action: Approve, Moved by Commissioner Thompson, Seconded by Commissioner Collins, Vote: Motion carried by unanimous vote (summary: Yes=4). 5. Discussion/Possible Action: Approval of Minutes for June 21, 2018. These minutes were approved in error without a majority vote at the last meeting, therefore they are again on the agenda for approval. There were three votes for approval and three abstentions, not a majority. Deputy D.A. Loomis did some research on approving minutes. He clarified that a commission member may vote on approval of the minutes regardless of attendance at that meeting. Motion: Approve Minutes for June 21, 2018, Action: Approve, Moved by Commissioner Pellett, Seconded by Commissioner Thompson, Vote: Motion carried by vote (summary: Yes=4). 1

6. Discussion/Possible Action: 2018-032 Road Abandonment by applicant Steve McBride. The applicant requests to abandon a portion of K Street right-of-way, located within Virginia City. The right-of-way abandonment would be approximately 16-feet wide by approximately 140 linear feet south of the Union Street right-ofway. The right-of-way abandonment is located adjacent to a vacant parcel owned by the applicant at 25 South K Street, the southeast corner of Union and K Street, Virginia City, Storey County, Nevada and borders Assessor s Parcel Number (APN) 001-243-05. Planner Canfield summarized the request: This is an application for an abandonment of K Street ROW. The proposed abandonment is located at the southeast corner of K Street and Union Street. The proposed abandonment is located adjacent to a vacant residential parcel. Both properties are R-1 zoning. The applicant is requesting an abandonment of approximately 16 feet of width for a length of approximately 140 linear feet from the southernmost portion of the existing fence to the right-of-way of Union Street. The exact dimensions will be provided with the required Record of Survey if the abandonment is approved by Storey County. Adjacent and surrounding property owners were noticed. Staff did hear from a neighbor who abuts the property, he didn t have any objections, but did have some questions about his own property. Staff also received an email from a community member shortly before this meeting. It will be read in Public Comment. The applicant owns both APN 001-243-04 & 05. Parcel 001-243-04 contains a residence and Parcel 001-243-05 has been improved with landscaping and provides outdoor space for the existing residence. The improved yard space is a level area at the top of a hill, and the yard has encroached into the K Street right-of-way over the years with a fence and landscaping being added to the area. K Street has recently been paved up to the location of the fence and terminates at this location. None of the paved portion is requested to be abandoned. Beyond this location, the right-of-way has a significant slope downwards towards Union Street and it is very unlikely this portion of roadway would be constructed. The right-of-way for K Street is 60-feet wide. At the terminus of K Street, the pavement is approximately 50-feet wide. The area of the proposed right-of-way abandonment does not contain any existing pavement or improved public access way. A recently replaced sewer line does exist west of the proposed right-of-way abandonment area and the roadway was repaved after the sewer project was completed. Electric service is provided to the applicant s property from L Street, and the parcels to the west are served by electrical lines from I Street. At this location, there are no known utility lines within the right-of-way abandonment area, however, a public utility easement will be retained for this area as a condition of approval. If approved, the applicant will be required to record a Record of Survey documenting the abandoned portion of land which has been consolidated into the adjacent parcel. The abandoned strip of land cannot be a stand-alone parcel. The applicant will also consolidate APN 001-243-04 & 05 into one legal lot of record so all improvements are located on a singular parcel. As a condition of project approval, a public utility easement shall be reserved over the abandoned portion of the property. Vice Chairman Herrington asked if the 140 linear feet covers the residence and the vacant lot. Planner Canfield: Clarified that the 140 is from the vacant lot down to Union Street, and just 16 of the 60 ROW for K Street. Nothing that is paved will be abandoned. The applicant is here if there are any questions. Commissioner Thompson: Asked Planner Canfield for clarification regarding her statement that paving of the ROW in the future was very unlikely, and if there had been any plans for paving the road. Planner Canfield: Stated that she spoke with the Public Works Department, the Fire Department, the Sheriff s Department and the Building Department and asked them for their thoughts on this. Public Works said that it was very highly unlikely that a road would ever be constructed there due to the steepness of the terrain, and constructing it to the standards required including road width, would require a lot of grading and fill. There were never any plans for this road to be paved and extended to Union Street that she came across. Vice Chairman Herrington: Asked for clarification that there would be 44 of ROW left after the abandonment. Planner Canfield: Yes, and during the application process it was discussed with the applicant and adjacent property owner Joe Curtis, the potential to ask for abandonment of the whole ROW which would mean that they would each get 2

half of the road. The applicant didn t feel he needed that much, and with the utility easement in place, he wouldn t be able to use it anyway. Joe Curtis wasn t concerned about getting any portion of the road abandoned to his property. Vice Chairman Herrington: Stated that Union Street is a very steep road, and paving K Street through would be nothing. Once this is abandoned, the county can never get it back. He stated that he is not a big fan of abandoning streets, and the yard improvements can easily be removed. He stated that initially he thought the whole road was to be abandoned, not just 16 feet. In considering this request, he said that he asked himself how does this serve the public, and other than a couple of residents, it doesn t. Commissioner Collins: Said that C Street in front of his business is 36 paved curb to curb and it handles all the traffic. If the county wanted to pave the road (K Street), it would still have 44 left. Steve McBride, the applicant: Stated that he built the fence in 81 or 82, and as far as he knows, it has always been a dead end street. When he started building it, he talked to Public Works, and asked them if they thought that the road would ever go through. He said that he was told not in my lifetime, and to go ahead and do it. He said he would like to have the road abandoned so that down the road, the fence, trees and landscaping will not have to be removed. Vice Chairman Herrington asked Mr. McBride If the fence is on the house property or the vacant property. Mr. McBride answered that the fence is on the vacant property. Commissioner Thompson: Asked Planner Canfield how far south from the cul de sac in front of the applicant s property, is K Street paved? Planner Canfield, a couple of members on the commission, and Mr. McBride concluded that K Street south is paved across Washington Street, but only for a block or a little bit more. Commissioner Pellett: Asked the applicant for clarification that the fence is projecting 16 feet into the ROW, and this request is just for the land that he have developed and no more. Mr. McBride: Stated that yes that is correct. Planner Canfield: stated that the 16 is approximate because Staff didn t want to require the applicant to have go to the expense of having a survey completed before knowing if this request would be approved or denied. The measurements may be off by a few inches either way once a surveyor gets out there, and Staff is okay with that. Mr. McBride added that the surveyor should have this completed by the end of the month. Commissioner Pellett: Asked if this abandonment is approved, is what s left (44 feet) enough for two way traffic if a road was ever to be constructed in this location. No specific answer to Commissioner Pellet s question was given until later in the meeting. Public Comment: Joe Curtis: K Street is a one block street and ends at Washington in terms of pavement. After Washington Street is continues south and is all dirt, and the same sort of thing has occurred. People have moved into the Washington Street ROW (yards and so forth). From where Steve s fence ends, which would be the southwest corner to where the parking area is (some of this is inaudible), and down to Washington, the street varies in width. It starts out in one width and it narrows down in front of the next house down, then narrows in front of my house, then more so in front of Sean Griffin s house. It stays very narrow down south to Washington Street. The street has a 60 ROW, but it s never been that wide. The street, where it ends the goes north down Union Street, houses the sewer line and is only about 10 feet deep. There are two manhole covers at the end of the street (cul de sac) that access the sewer. That whole sewer would have to be taken out if they were ever to run the road down. The question regarding is there still sufficient width for two cars, no there is not because the area that goes down with the sewer line is an immediate drop off to the west. It s probably a 60 degree angle and is hard to walk on. The whole ramp in which the sewer is under, had to be built by Ames Construction. It was not like that before. It was almost straight down until Ames constructed the ramp it in order to put the sewer line in. They couldn t run it straight down. They had to run it at an angle. After the 16 foot mark (abandonment), there s probably only 10 feet of walkable space that s flat, but downhill at about a 40 degree angle. The other space that would make up that 44, is probably at a 60 degree angle that drops down to the northwest corner property of Union and I Street. 3

Commissioner Herrington: Asked Joe if K Street past Washington is dirt, and if there are homes on it, why didn t they get pavement? Joe Curtis: There are homes there, but only backyards of homes addressed on I and L Street have K Street running behind them. No homes face K Street, and there is no sewer line that runs down there, so it wouldn t have been paved anyway. He stated that he has been here since 1975 and K Street was not paved until many years later. It was not paved when Steve built his house in 81 or 82. Because it s a cul de sac, we (Steve and Joe) do all the plowing. The plow trucks can t turn around. Hopefully that clarifies some information about the street. Planner Canfield: Verified that the required minimum width for a roadway is 24 feet. This is on page 7 of the Staff Report. Nick Lazzarino: Thanked the commission for letting him speak, and stated his support for the abandonment. The motto for Virginia City is The Way It Was, and it s been this way for a long time, longer than I ve been alive. The county has not had any interest in the property. You can see by looking at it, that it is not usable to the extent that a road could go in there very easily. Supports abandoning 16 feet to accommodate the landscaping that s taken time and effort by a homeowner that cares. Vice Chairman Herrington read a letter of correspondence on this item into the record: Correspondence from Sam Toll received 9-6-18 via email at 4:34 p.m. To the Storey County Planning Commission. Item 6 considers abandoning a Storey County road at the request of the property owner adjacent to the road way. Granting this request will effectively render useless a county asset which today can and should be accessible by all residents of Storey County. The applicant has built a fence structure that appears to be on K Street and obstructs through traffic on K street. A sign posted on K Street indicates there is no through traffic even though the section on K Street is as traversable as many other unpaved roads in Virginia City. By granting this abandonment, the county effectively extends the property owners property footprint without compensation and with no clear benefit to the County and the other 4100 residents. This action exclusively benefits Mr. McBride at the expense of every other Storey County Resident. Even if compensation were to be provided for this road abandonment/property extension, the pubic is not being served by this action. By restricting and abandoning this roadway, all Storey County residents are being prevented fair and easy access to a roadway in favor the selfish desires of a single resident. If the county agreed to every abandonment requested by a landowner wanting to extend their property and improve their privacy, many many road abandonments will occur in the future. All residents of the county benefited from the extension of E street in front of Collins Construction and The Silverland Inn. With much less effort and expense that was invested to benefit the majority of county residents on E Street, we all could and should similarly enjoy K Street as well. By abandoning this road for the personal use of Mr. McBride, only Mr. McBride will enjoy the benefit of the abandonment and all other Storey County Residents are injured without compensation. It is time for the county to enter into the 21st century and stop catering to the wants and desires of the few at the expense of the many. I strongly and energetically encourage Storey County Planning Commissioners to vote for the majority of the residents of Storey County and deny this transfer of public property into private hands. Thank you. Sam Toll Gold Hill 4

Additional Public Comment: Joe Curtis: That section of K Street has never, to my knowledge, been a through street. The lot area to the west of what would have been K Street was originally a dairy farm, and ran from Union Street basically to Taylor Street. It was the Alexander Brothers Dairy Farm. K Street has never gone through; has never had the ability to go through. Before the ramp was put in, it dropped off at 45 degrees or so. You could not walk up that embankment. His research and records and maps show that this has never been a through street since at least the 1870s. Planner Canfield: Staff recognizes that the county wants to keep its ROWs, and we are looking at these abandonments on a case by case basis. In looking at this case, Staff really doesn t believe this has the potential of being used for a future roadway. She asked the commission if they were comfortable with the required width of a future roadway being 24 feet. Commissioner Pellett: Doesn t have concerns with the 24 width since there will be 44 of ROW remaining. Satisfied with keeping the public utility easement in place. This is still serving the public good. She said she doesn t think this is a loss for the county. Motion: In accordance with the recommendation by staff, the Findings under section 3.A of the Staff Report, and in compliance with all Conditions of Approval, I Kris Thompson, hereby recommend approval of an abandonment of a portion of K Street right-of-way, located within Virginia City. The right-of-way abandonment is approximately 16-feet wide by approximately 140 linear feet south of the Union Street right-of-way. The right-of-way abandonment is located adjacent to a vacant parcel owned by the applicant at 25 South K Street, the southeast corner of Union and K Street, Virginia City, Storey County, Nevada and borders Assessor s Parcel Number (APN) 001-243-05. Action: Approve, Moved by Commissioner Thompson, Planner Canfield read the findings into the record: 1) This approval is to abandon a portion of K Street right-of-way, located within Virginia City. The rightof-way abandonment is approximately 16-feet wide by approximately 140 linear feet south of the Union Street right-of-way. The right-of-way abandonment is located adjacent to a vacant parcel owned by the applicant at 25 South K Street, the southeast corner of Union and K Street, Virginia City, Storey County, Nevada and borders Assessor s Parcel Number (APN) 001-243-05. (2) The Abandonment complies with NRS 278.480 relating to Abandonment of a street or easement. (3) The Abandonment complies with all Federal, State, and County regulations pertaining to vacation or abandonment of streets or easements, including NRS 278.240. (4) The Abandonment will not impose substantial adverse impacts or safety hazards on the abutting properties or the surrounding vicinity. (5) The Abandonment will not cause the public to be materially injured by the proposed abandonment. (6) The conditions of approval for the requested Abandonment do not conflict with the minimum requirements in Storey County Code Chapters 17.12.090, General Provision Access and Right-of- Ways, or any other Federal, State, or County regulations. Seconded by Commissioner Collins, Vote: Motion carried by vote (summary: Yes=3, Nay=1, John Herrington). Secretary Renaud asked if this was a quorum vote of approval since there were only 3 votes for the recommendation of approval and 1 Nay vote. Discussion between the commission and the Deputy D.A. commenced regarding whether or not a majority of members at the meeting can vote to approve or if it requires a majority (4) of the entire planning commission members (7) regardless of attendance at the meeting. Initially Deputy D.A. Loomis stated that this item should be continued to the next meeting, He said that he would research whether the vote was actually approved or not, and if the vote for approval is not legal, this will have to be continued to the next meeting. He stated he would get back to Planner Canfield with the answer the following day. 5

7. Discussion/Possible Action: Determination of next planning commission meeting. Motion: Next planning commission meeting to be held on October 4, 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 Pellett, Vote: Motion carried by unanimous vote (summary: Yes=4). 8. Discussion/Possible Action: Approval of claims None 9. Correspondence (No Action) Letter already read into the record from Sam Toll. 10. Public Comment (No Action) Joe Curtis: The whole block of Union, I, L, and Washington are tailings from the Savage Mine operation in the 1870s. He said he bought his property from the Savage Mine family. It was a typical mine tailing pile. Nick Lazzarino: Expressed his disappointment with the board. This meeting was planned, action was taken and for the board not to have enough people to take action on a matter is pretty bad; should be done in a timely manner. Jay Carmona: If the board can t take action on item 6, how can they take action on anything tonight? Stated that as president of the HOA board, they have five members on the board that may attend the meetings; if only three attend, a majority vote of two approves the motion. Deputy D.A. Loomis: The vote on item 6 was three to one, and three is not a majority of the board. He said he will look into the matter and will have an answer tomorrow. 11. Staff (No Action): Planner Canfield said that the October 4 th meeting has quite a few items on the agenda. 12. Board Comments (No Action) None 13. Adjournment (No Action) - The meeting was adjourned 6:47 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, By Lyndi Renaud 6

Storey County Planning Department Storey County Courthouse 26 South B Street, PO Box 176, Virginia City, Nevada 89440 Phone 775-847-1144 Fax 775-847-0949 planning@storeycounty.org To: From: Meeting Date: Meeting Location: Staff Contact: Storey County Planning Commission Storey County Planning Department October 4, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. 26 S. B Street, Virginia City, Storey County, Nevada Kathy Canfield File: 2018-036 Applicant: Property Owner: Dylan Li Richard Connell Property Location: 171 S. C Street, Virginia City, Storey County, Nevada, APN 001-073-28 Request: The applicant requests a Special Use Permit (2018-036) 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) 001-073-28. 1. Background & Analysis A. Site Location and Characteristics: The property is located at 171 S. C Street in Virginia City, Storey County, Nevada. The commercial property contains a restaurant, saloon, outdoor BBQ and gold panning establishments. A large patio is located between the building and the street walkway that contains picnic tables and a patio cover which provides seating for the onsite businesses. The area of the patio is relatively flat and at the grade level of the street and boardwalk (although the boardwalk in this location is asphalt). The property is zoned CR and the surrounding land uses include the Storey County District Attorney and Sheriff s office building to the south, retail establishments to the east, a residence to the north and Hugh Gallagher Elementary School and a parking lot to the east.

Vicinity Map Location Map 2

View looking southeast View looking northeast 3

View looking north B. Proposed Use: The Applicant is proposing to conduct an outside commercial activity promoting tourism and local activities. This will consist of movable stand that acts as a table with information regarding activities. The stand will be located on the private property patio area between the boardwalk /property line and the building. The commercial use will consist of business representative providing information regarding tourism and local activities. Movable stand 4

C. Zoning Code. Chapter 17.12.100 (General Provisions for all zones) Section C states the following: The applicant proposes to utilize an area outside of the right-of-way and boardwalk on private property. The proposed business provides information on tourism and activities available in the surrounding areas, and does not include the display of merchandise for sale. The Special Use Permit would allow for the business to operate outside of a building, on designated private property and not on the public right-of-way, but would not allow for display of merchandise for sale. The property where the use is proposed is unique to the Virginia City downtown as it has a relatively large patio area bordering the street/boardwalk area where most properties have their buildings built to the property line. The building is setback approximately 20 feet from the edge of the boardwalk and the area in between is

utilized as outdoor dining with an open shade canopy over tables for a portion of the area. Although not proposed by the applicant, a condition of project approval would be that no activity associated with the business could occur within the right-of-way or the boardwalk area. It would also be conditioned that the movable stand must be located as not to impede access to the existing onsite businesses or be located where it could interfere with emergency access. D. Special Use Permit. A Special Use Permit is required because of the outdoor venue and nature of the proposed operation in the CR zoning. Section 17.03.150 of the Storey County Code identifies the process for Special Use Permits. The applicant and this report follow the requirements outlined in the Code. 2. Use Compatibility and Compliance A. Compatibility with surrounding uses and zones. The following table documents land uses, zoning classification and master plan designations for the land at and surrounding the proposed project. There are no evident conflicts between the proposed project and Storey County Title 17 Zoning or the 2016 Master Plan. The proposed use is also consistent with the surrounding zoning and master plan designations. B. General use allowances and restrictions. Storey County Code 17.03.150, Special Use Permit, identifies the administration for the Board and Planning Commission for allowing a special use permit. The approval, approval with conditions, or denial of the Special Use Permit must be based on findings of fact that the proposed use is appropriate or inappropriate in the location. The findings listed below are the minimum to be cited in an approval. (1) 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. The proposed use will be an outdoor activity which is permitted with a Special Use Permit for the Commercial Residential zone. The proposed business promotes tourist and tourism related activities in the surrounding area. The business will be located within the commercial-residential area of Virginia City which the master plan promotes for a wide range uses within a single community. 6

(2) 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. The proposed business will be an outdoor venue, located adjacent to commercial uses on the subject property and to the commercial businesses to the west. The business will operate from a movable stand located on an existing patio, sharing the patio with outdoor dining areas for the onsite restaurants. As a condition of approval, the business must operate only on private property and will not be able to be set up or operate on the boardwalk area or within the public right-of-way. The stand will be located so as to not impact existing emergency access ways associated with the existing onsite businesses. (3) 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 right-of-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. The business will be located on an existing patio area and promote tourism related activities. The activity will be located on private property and, as conditioned, emergency access to existing business will be maintained at all times. (4) 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. The proposed use is not expected to require any additional governmental services or impact existing facilities. C. Conformance with the 2016 Storey County Master Plan. The property is located along C Street within Virginia City, Storey County, Nevada and is identified as a Commercial- Residential land use. The property is zoned Commercial-Residential. The Storey County Master Plan identifies C Street as the main thoroughfare of Virginia City. The Storey County Master Plan identifies the following goals: Enhance and diversify the local economy by promoting commercial business in Gold Hill, Virginia City, and the Divide that service the specific interests and needs of tourists and local residents. Continue to enhance diversification of economic opportunities with the county. 7

Design zoning districts to allow for a mix in land use development. 3. Findings of Fact The proposed business and the business location are consistent with these master plan goals. A. Motion for approval. The following findings of fact are evident with regard to the requested special use permit when the recommended conditions of approval in Section 4, Recommended Conditions of Approval, are applied. (1) This approval is for Special Use Permit 2018-036 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) 001-073-28. (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 right-of-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. 8

(7) The conditions under the Special Use Permit do not conflict with the minimum requirements in Storey County Code Sections 17.03.150, Special Use Permit and Section 17.30, CR Commercial Residential Zone. B. Motion for denial. Should a motion be made to deny the Special Use Permit request, the following findings with explanation why should be included in that motion. (1) This denial is for Special Use (2018-036) 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) 001-073-28. (2) The conditions under the Special Use Permit conflict with the minimum requirements in Storey County Code Sections 17.03.150, Special Use Permit and Section 17.30, CR Commercial Residential Zone. (3) The conditions under the Special Use Permit do not adequately mitigate potential adverse impacts on surrounding uses or protect against potential safety hazards for surrounding use. 4. Recommended Conditions of Approval A. Special Use Permit 2018-036 shall be 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) 001-073-28. B. Business Operations. This special use permit authorizes the business to promote tourism and local activities. The business activities shall be limited to distributing pamphlets, leaflets, and other similar type literature and verbally interacting with the interested public. Merchandise displays, sales or handouts of merchandise are not permitted with this special use permit. C. Requirements. The Applicant shall apply for all required permits and licenses, including any applicable building and fire permits, for the project within 24 months from the date of final approval of this SUP, and continuously maintain the validity of those permits/licenses, or this approval shall be null and void. This Special Use Permit shall remain valid as long as the Applicant remains in compliance with the terms of this Special Use Permit and Storey County, State of Nevada, and federal regulations. No activity shall commence prior to the Applicant securing rights to the Special Use Permit. D. Compliance. The use on the subject property must comply with federal, state, and county codes and regulations and the submitted plans and reports, as approved. 9

E. Design. The proposed features associated with the use must meet the requirements of the Comstock Historic District. F. Taxes. Before obtaining the Special Use Permit from the Planning Department, the Property Owner must provide evidence that all property taxes on the land are paid-todate. G. Indemnification/Insurance. The Applicant warrants that the use of land will conform to the requirements of Storey County, State of Nevada, and applicable federal regulatory and legal requirements; further, the Applicant warrants that continued and future use of the land shall so conform. The Applicant and Property Owner agree to hold Storey County, its officers, and representatives harmless from the costs associated with any damage or liability, and any/all other claims now existing or which may occur as a result of this Special Use Permit. H. Transfer of Rights. This Special Use Permit (SUP 2018-036) is non-transferable. This Special Use Permit applies to the Applicant s business and Property Owner listed in this permit. I. Operation Location. The business shall operate on private property only. No business, or solicitation of business, shall be located or conducted in the public right-of-way or the area of the boardwalk. The business is approved to be located on APN 001-073-28 and all business related activities shall occur on that parcel only. Building access shall remain clear at all times to prevent impeding emergency access areas. J. Operation Restrictions. No uses of sound, music, smoke, moving objects, lasers, flashing lights are permitted with this special use permit. At no time shall employees of said business harass, intimidate, touch or bully the general public. Use of a vehicles associated with the business is not permitted. All signs for the business shall be consistent with Chapter 17.84. 5. Public Comment As of September 25, 2018, Staff has not received any comments from the public. 6. Power of the Board & Planning Commission At the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission must take such action thereon as it deems warranted under the circumstances and announce and record its action by formal resolution, and such resolution must recite the findings of the Planning Commission upon which it bases its decision. The decision of the Planning Commission in the matter of granting the Special Use Permit is advisory only to the Board of County Commissioners and that governing body must consider the report and recommendation and must make such a decision thereon as it deems warranted. 10

7. Proposed Motions This section contains two motions from which to choose. The motion for approval is recommended by staff in accordance with the findings under Section 3.A of this report. Those findings should be made part of the approval motion. A motion for denial may be made and that motion should cite one or more of the findings shown in Section 3.B. Other findings of fact determined appropriate by the Planning Commission should be made part of either motion. A. Recommended motion for approval 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 (planning commissioner), recommend approval of Special Use Permit 2018-036 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) 001-073-28. B. Alternative motion for denial Against the recommendation by staff, but in accordance with the findings of fact under Section 3.2 of this report, and other findings deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission, I (planning commissioner), recommend denial of Special Use Permit 2018-036 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) 001-073-28. 11

12

Storey County Planning Department Storey County Courthouse 26 South B Street, PO Box 176, Virginia City, Nevada 89440 Phone 775-847-1144 Fax 775-847-0949 planning@storeycounty.org To: From: Storey County Planning Commission Storey County Planning Department Meeting Date: October 4, 2018 Meeting Location: Staff Contact: Storey County Courthouse, 26 S. B Street, Virginia City, Storey County, Nevada Kathy Canfield File: 2018-037 Applicant: Property Owner: Patrick and Beth Smith Patrick and Beth Smith Property Location: 1930 Applegate Road, Virginia City Highlands, Storey County, Nevada, APN 003-101-05 Request: The applicants request a variance (Variance 2018-037) 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) 003-101-05. 1. Background & Analysis A. Site Location and Characteristics. The 1.01 acre residential parcel is located in the Virginia City Highlands. The parcel contains an existing single family residence located near the front of the parcel, a driveway/parking area along the south property line and a shed located along the south property line. The rear of the property is relatively undisturbed and consists of large pinon pines and juniper. The well is located along the north property line behind the residence and the septic system is located along the north property line in front of the residence. The residence is located within a residential neighborhood, with residences constructed on the adjacent parcels. The subject 1

property is zoned E-1 VCH which has required 30 foot front yard, 40-foot rear yard and 15-foot side yard setbacks. The property has a 50-foot roadway easement for Applegate Road. Setbacks are required from the edge of the easement, not the property line or the roadway itself. Vicinity Map Location Map 2

Surrounding Properties Assessor s Parcel Map 3

B. Proposed Project. The applicants are proposing to construct a two-car detached garage approximately 20-feet by 45-feet in size. The garage is proposed in the existing parking area location on the parcel. The proposed location of the garage is based on the existing development of the site and the proposed scheme of use of the property. This location is relatively flat, requires little to no excavation and vegetation removal, and is located adjacent to the residence to allow for easy access. The property slopes upward from the road and the existing development is located on a relatively level area at the front of the property. The site is rocky and the excavation for a portion of the residence foundation required a great deal of rock to be removed which would also be expected for the garage foundation. Other locations were considered, however, because of the existing wellhead and the septic system along the north property line, and the increasing slope of the rear of the site, along with the existing mature vegetation that the applicants desire to remain, potential locations near the residence and outside of the setbacks and well and septic systems are limited. The applicants have submitted a written statement regarding their methodology for selecting the proposed garage site. Please see Appendix A of this staff report. Existing residence 4

View looking west. View looking east 5

Proposed plan 6

Proposed garage location C. Roadway Easement. The property has a 50-foot roadway easement for Applegate Road along the east property line. Building setbacks are measured from roadway easements when the roadway exists for the purposed of providing a public or private road. The applicant s property extends beyond the existing travelled way to the other side of the roadway. The travelled way is typically assumed to be located in the center of the easement, however, that isn t always the case as the roads were constructed to consider the topography as it exists and the easiest and most logical route possible. Staff could not locate surveyed property corners to determine the exact location of the property boundary and compare that to the travelled way. There is a rebar piece located in the general area a property boundary is anticipated to be, however, this isn t a survey marker and staff is unsure if this is an official marker. If this is the location of the property corner, then the travelled way is located closer to the east property line and not centered within the 50-foot easement area. The significance of this is the proposed garage location would be located further from the travelled way than it would be if the travelled way was centered in the 50-foot easement which is assumed in the rationale for the setbacks from roadway easements in the Zoning Code. Based on the found rebar location and measurements at the site, it appears that there is approximately 18-feet of undisturbed area between the edge of the roadway and western boundary of the roadway easement. Applegate Road is approximately 24-feet wide, and with the approximate 18-feet of undisturbed roadway easement area, the proposed garage location would be approximately 38-feet from the edge of travelled 7

way. Location of the property corners is necessary to confirm the exact property line and is included as a condition of approval. D. Variance. The applicant has requested a variance to the rear and side yard setbacks. The VCH-1 Estates zoning for this parcel states a 30-foot front yard setback (as measured from the roadway easement line) and a 15-foot side yard setback is required. The applicant has requested a 20-foot front yard setback and an 8-foot side yard setback. Section 17.03.140 of the Storey County Code identifies the process for Variances. The applicant and this report follow the requirements outlined in the Code. 2. Compatibility and Compliance A. Compatibility with surrounding uses and zones. The following table documents land uses, zoning classification and master plan designations for the land at and surrounding the proposed project. There are no evident conflicts between the proposed garage addition and Storey County Title 17 Zoning or the 2016 Master Plan with the exception of the setbacks which are addressed with the Variance application. B. Variances. The SCC 17.03.140 Variances states that a Variance to the provisions of its title may be granted by the Storey County Board of County Commissioners (the Board) with action by the Storey County Planning Commission (the Planning Commission) where by reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a specific piece of property at the time of enactment of the regulations, or by reason of exceptional topographic conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situation or condition of the lot or parcel, the strict application of the regulations enacted under this title would result in peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties to, or exceptional and undue hardships upon the owner of property. Within Section SCC 17.03.140 (F) it states: The Board s approval, approval with conditions, or denial of a Variance must be based on Findings that indicate that the proposed use is appropriate in the location for which it is approved. The Findings listed in this subsection are the minimum to be cited in an approval; the body may include additional Findings in their decision. The Board and Planning Commission must cite Findings of fact in the motion for approval, approval with conditions, or denial. At a minimum, an approval must be based on the following Findings. After each finding, rationale for the Finding is provided. In addition to the following rationale, please see Appendix A for the applicant s statement of methodology for the garage placement. 8

(1) 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. The proposed variance would allow for a detached two car garage to be constructed adjacent to the existing residence. The parcel is 147 feet in width and the existing residence is located near the front of the property. The applicants state that other logical locations on the parcel for the garage with easy access to the residence are hindered by the need to excavate into rocky terrain and require removal of mature vegetation. The location of the wellhead and the septic system adjacent to the northern property line, which the applicants would like to avoid impacting. The side yard setback is requested to be 8-feet versus the required 15-feet. The applicants state the proposed location would avoid the need to remove mature vegetation in the front yard of the residence while still maintaining the mature vegetation located along the south property line. Although staff recognize the desire to retain existing mature vegetation and minimize costly excavation in a rocky soil, it does not appear to staff that these reasons alone are not a special circumstance the finding requires. (2) That the granting of the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant. The existing property does not contain a garage. The applicants desire a garage that has easy access to the existing residence. Because of the existing configuration of development at the site, the rocky terrain and the mature vegetation on the site which the applicant would like to maintain, the feasible locations for the garage are limited in the applicants opinion. Staff recognizes that a garage for the residential property would be necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights, however, it does not appear to staff that the variance of the garage setbacks meets the Finding. As identified in Section B(1), above, although not as desirable by the applicants, a garage could be located in other locations on the property. (3) 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 neighborhood of the subject property and will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property. The proposed garage will be located adjacent to the existing residence and will be located on an existing relatively levelled area with surrounding mature vegetation. 9

The location of the garage would not be readily visible to neighbors to the north, south and west because of the vegetation and topography. The parcel across Applegate Road is developed with the residence located further south and a corral located directly across from the applicant s property. The applicant has contacted the surrounding property owners to the north, south and east (the closest neighbors to the proposed garage) and states they have no objection to the proposed garage location. The proposed garage is not expected to detrimentally impact the surrounding properties or the general public. Staff agree with the applicants that the evidence presented with the application documents this Finding can be made. C. Storey County Zoning Code. The property is located within E-1 VCH, Estates, Virginia City Highlands, residential zoning. The Storey County Zoning Code states The estates zone is established for areas particularly suited for low density residential use, to further enhance the quality of life for residents to prohibit the development of uses which are incompatible and detrimental to a rural residential environment, and to allow for the keeping of a limited number of large domestic animals for non-commercial purposes. Single family residences are an allowed use for the zoning and the proposed garage addition is a permitted accessory use to the residence. The one acre parcel size is consistent with the required minimum lot size and the proposed garage would be required to be located 6 feet from the existing residence and shed which is consistent with the Code requirement of 6-foot setback between dwelling and accessory buildings (Section 17.12.045). The proposed garage location will be located approximately 20-feet from the roadway easement (approximately 38-feet from the edge of travelled way) instead of the required 30-feet, and 8-feet from the side yard setback instead of the required 15-feet with this Variance application. With the exception of the setbacks which this Variance application addresses, the proposed garage addition will be consistent with all other portions of the Zoning Code. D. 2016 Storey County Master Plan. The 2016 Storey County Master Plan designates the Virginia City Highlands as a Rural Residential community with parcels no less than oneacre. Section 3.5.3 Goals and Objectives for land uses in the Highlands (p. 120) states in Goal 1 that land use decisions, including the implementation of zoning and regulations in and around the Highlands area must preserve the rural residential character and conform to historic use patterns in the Highlands area. 3. Findings of Fact The addition of an accessory garage to an existing residential property is consistent with the rural residential characteristics of the Highlands area. A garage is proposed on a property that is currently developed with a residence and parking currently occurs in an open area of the parcel. A. Motion for approval. Should a motion be made to approve the Variance request, the following Findings should be included in that motion, along with the recommended conditions of approval in Section 4, Recommended Conditions of Approval. 10

(1) This approval is for a variance (Variance 2018-037) 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) 003-101-05. (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 17.03.140 Variances, 17.40 E Estates Zone and 17.12 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. B. Motion for denial. Should a motion be made to deny the Variance request, the following Findings with explanation of why should be included in that motion. (1) This denial is for the applicants request for a variance (Variance 2018-037) 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) 003-101-05. (2) There are no special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including shape, size, topography or location of surroundings, the strict application of the 11

zoning ordinance that would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity or under identical zone classification. (3) The granting of the application is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant. (4) That the granting of the application will, 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 be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to property or improvements in the area of the subject property. (5) The proposed Variance is not in substantial compliance with all Federal, Nevada State, and Storey County regulations. (6) The proposed Variance is not in substantial compliance with and does not support the goals, objectives and recommendations of the Storey County Master Plan. (7) The conditions of approval under the Variance do not adequately mitigate potential adverse impacts on surrounding uses or protect against potential safety hazards for the surrounding uses. (8) No reasonable level of conditions of approval imposed on this Variance would be sufficient to reasonably mitigate visual, safety or other potential impacts on adjacent and surrounding residences and land uses. 4. Recommended Conditions of Approval A. Variance This approval is for a variance (Variance 2018-037) 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) 003-101-05. B. Compliance. The Variance must comply with Storey County Codes, and submitted plans and reports, as approved. The Applicant must provide the Building Department site plans drawn to scale prior to obtaining a Building Permit. C. Null and Void. If the Variance is not exercised within 12 months of the date of approval, unless additional time is granted by the Board with action by the Planning Commission, based upon consideration of the specific circumstances of the project, then without further action, the Variance will be null and void and no non-conforming development activity may be made on the property except on the granting of a new Variance. D. Hold Harmless. The Property Owners agree to hold Storey County, its Officers and Representatives harmless from the costs and responsibilities associated with any damage 12

or liability, and any/all other claims now existing or which may occur as a result of this Variance. E. Permits and Expiration. The Permit Holder shall apply for all Building and Fire permits for the structure within 12 months from the date of Board approval for this Variance, and continuously maintain the validity of those permits, as appropriate, or this approval will become null and void. F. Taxes Paid. Before obtaining a Building Permit, the Permit Holder must show the Planning Department evidence that all property taxes on the land are paid to-date. G. Easement. The granting of this Variance must not affect any existing easements on the subject property. No building may be constructed over an easement, ROW within a building setback area not otherwise allowed by this Variance. H. Boundary. The Permit Holder must provide the Planning and Building Departments valid evidence indicating the proper location of the property boundaries and the structures on the property. I. Accessory Structures. All accessory structures shall comply with the requirements identified in the Estates Zone, Chapter 17.40, and the General Provisions Chapter 17.12 of the Storey County Code. J. Property Owner Association. The Permit Holder must obtain approval from the Virginia City Highlands Property Owners Association and submit a copy of the approval to the Building Department prior to obtaining a building permit for the structure subject to the variance. 5. Public Comment As of September 25, 2018, staff has not received any comments from the public. 6. Power of the Board & Planning Commission At the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission must take such action thereon as it deems warranted under the circumstances and announce and record its action by formal resolution, and such resolution must recite the Findings of the Planning Commission upon which it bases its decision. The decision of the Planning Commission in the matter of granting the Variance is advisory only to the Board and that governing body must consider the report and recommendation and must make such a decision thereon as it deems warranted. 7. Proposed Motions This section contains two motions from which to choose. The motion for approval may be made and is in accordance with the findings under Section 3.A of this report. Those findings should be made part of the approval motion. A motion for denial is recommended by staff and that motion should cite one or more of the findings shown in Section 3.B. Other findings of fact determined appropriate by the Planning Commission should be made part of either motion. 13

A. Recommended motion for approval 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, I (planning commissioner), recommend approval of a variance (Variance 2018-037) 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) 003-101-05. B. Alternative motion for denial In accordance with the recommendation by staff, and with the Findings of Fact under Section 3.B of this report, and other findings deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission, I (planning commissioner), recommend denial of a variance (Variance 2018-037) 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) 003-101-05 14

Appendix A 15

Storey County Planning Department Storey County Courthouse 26 South B Street, PO Box 176, Virginia City, Nevada 89440 Phone 775-847-1144 Fax 775-847-0949 planning@storeycounty.org To: From: Storey County Planning Commission Storey County Planning Department Meeting Date: October 4, 2018 Meeting Location: Staff Contact: Storey County Courthouse, 26 South B Street, Virginia City, Nevada Kathy Canfield File: Special Use Permit File 2018-038 Applicant: Property Owner: Property Location: Request: Bryan Burlison Amanda and Bryan Burlison 1931 Lousetown Road, Virginia City Highlands, Storey County, Nevada Special Use Permit 2018-038 is a request by the applicant to allow for an accessory dwelling unit on an existing developed residential property. The applicant requests 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) 003-123-07. 1. Background & Analysis A. Site Location and Characteristics. The property is located within the one-acre Virginia City Highlands subdivision in Storey County, Nevada. The property is approximately one acre in size and is zoned Estates. The site is currently developed with a residence, a garage structure (approved to be a shop/office and is existing as an accessory dwelling unit without the benefit of a special use permit) and a second garage/shop structure. Surrounding land uses include vacant residential zoned land to the north and east and developed residential land to the south and west. 1 of 13

Vicinity Map of Highlands Subdivision Property Location 2 of 13

Assessor s Parcel Map Existing Development and Surrounding Properties 3 of 13

B. Background. In September 1995, the owner of the property (Rowan) submitted a building application to construct an 828 square foot garage on the parcel. Submitted with the application is a statement letter stating It is my intent to use the garage for the pupose (sic) of storage and as a shop/office from which to work out of during the construction of my home. The construction of the residence was to commence in May 1996. The residence construction did not occur and renewal of the garage construction permit was given in February 1997, stating the original permit expired before construction was completed. The application for a residence and a temporary travel trailer permit was requested in August 1997. A Certificate of Occupancy was issued in April 1999. In July of 2000, a new owner of the property (Nazemian) submitted an application to add 192 square feet on to the existing residence, which was completed in September 2000. The summer of 2017, another new owner of the property (Burlison) submitted a permit for a new shop building. This received a Certificate of Completion on August 27, 2018. Based on the review of the building and planning department records, staff can find no files which indicate the garage to be used as a shop/office received permits to become an accessory dwelling, either under the regulations in effect today, or regulations in place at the estimated time of conversion. Both the 1999 Zoning Ordinance and the 2015 Zoning Ordinance require a Special Use Permit for an accessory dwelling. Based on the stated sizes for the building permits, the garage shop/office was approved to be 828 square feet, which is a size that can be permitted for an accessory dwelling. C. Zoning Ordinances. The 1999 Zoning Ordinance Estates zoning, Chapter 17.40 states the following as a permitted use: One detached family guest home, defined as a structure occupying an accessory position on a lot and used exclusively for housing members of a single family, subject to a special use permit, shall contain its own sewer and water source for that guest house. That same section goes on to identify that family guest homes meet the following standards: 1. A family guest home shall be a complete dwelling and include a kitchen and bathroom. 2. A family guest home may not be less than five-hundred (500) square feet in area, nor greater than one-thousand (1,000) square feet in area. 3. If a family guest home is occupied on a permanent basis, a signed affidavit must be filed with the county building official stating who is occupying the guest home. Affidavits will be reviewed annually. 4. Septic requirements shall be in accordance with Nevada Revised Statutes. The 1999 Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 17.10) defines dwelling unit as one or more rooms and a single kitchen in a dwelling or apartment hotel, designed as a unit for 4 of 13

occupancy by not more than one family for living or sleeping purposes, and not having more than one kitchen or set of fixed cooking facilities. The 2015 Zoning Ordinance defines Accessory Dwelling Unit detached as a separate and completely independent dwelling unit on the same lot as the principal single-family dwelling or other principal building, but which is physically separated from the principal building. A detached accessory dwelling unit includes, at a minimum, a permanent kitchen and bathroom with bathtub or shower. It may also include habitable space for living, sleeping, and eating. Chapter 17.12 of the 2015 Zoning Ordinance goes on to identify the following regulations associated with a proposed accessory dwelling: 5 of 13

Existing Site, view looking from northeast Floor Plan 6 of 13

D. Special Use Permit. This property is currently subject to the provisions of the 2015 Zoning Ordinance of Storey County. The property is zoned Estates, E-1-VCH. An accessory dwelling is permissible subject to a Special Use Permit being obtained in accordance with Section 17.12.046. During the review of the building and planning files, a special use permit could not be located converting the garage shop/office into a guest house or an accessory dwelling, following the requirements of either the 1999 or 2015 zoning ordinances. In addition, no existing affidavits or deed restrictions, which would have been required if the guest house or accessory dwelling unit had been legally established, could be located. Planning staff consulted with the Nevada Division of Public Health regarding the existing septic system at the property. As a guest house or separate dwelling unit, a separate septic and water source would have been required. These findings are how staff came to the conclusion that a special use permit needs to be obtained for what is defined by the 2015 zoning ordinance as an accessory dwelling. 2. Compatibility and Compliance A. Compatibility with surrounding uses and zones. The following table documents land uses, zoning classifications, and master plan designations for the land at and surrounding the proposed project. B. Compliance with Accessory Dwellings, Location and Placement. The accessory dwelling will be located within an existing structure previously approved as a garage with a shop/office component. The structure currently exists and has been previously modified to contain the accessory dwelling. The parcel size is one acre which is consistent with the requirement for the Estates zone to be one acre in size to allow for an accessory dwelling. The accessory dwelling will be approximately 828 square feet which meets the requirement of the accessory dwelling being between 500 and 1,000 square feet. The parcel provides off-street parking for the accessory dwelling. The applicant lives in the main residence on the parcel and the proposed accessory dwelling will be utilized by family members. The applicant has submitted an Affidavit of Family with this application and a deed restriction will be required if the application is approved. C. Compliance with required setbacks. No exterior construction is associated with the Special Use Permit. The accessory dwelling has a 15-foot side yard setback and meets the 30-foot front yard setback requirement identified in both Chapters 17.12.045 and 17.40. 7 of 13