Regular Meeting

City of Elko ) County of Elko ) State of Nevada ) SS August 12, 2025 The City Council of the City of Elko, State of Nevada met for a regular meeting beginning at 4:00 PM, Tuesday, August 12, 2025. The meeting was held in the council chambers, 1751 College Ave., Elko. This meeting was called to order by Mayor Reece Keener. The public can watch the meeting by phone, tablet, laptop, or computer by going to the link provided on the agenda. Questions can be sent to cityclerk@elkocitynv.gov. I. CALL TO ORDER The Agenda for this meeting of the City of Elko City Council has been properly posted for this date and time in accordance with NRS requirements. II. ROLL CALL Present: Reece Keener, Mayor Chip Stone, Councilman Clair Morris, Councilman Giovanni Puccinelli, Councilman Marissa Lostra, Councilwoman City Staff Present: Jan Baum, City Manager Dale Johnson, Assistant City Manager Dave Stanton, City Attorney Jim Kerr, Utilities Director Andrew Storla, Water/Sewer Superintendent Paul Algerio, Public Works Jim Foster, Airport Manager Seth Dancz, WRF Superintendent James Johnston, Fire Chief Kyle Ward, Police Chief Annette Robinson, City Clerk Cathy Laughlin, City Planner Ralph Negron, Development Manager Julie Davis, Financial Services Director Candi Quilici, Accounting Manager James Wiley, Parks and Recreation Director Susie Shurtz, Human Resources Manager Jeff Ford, Building Official Sarah Schick, Civil Engineer Nichole Stephens, City Clerk Technician II August 12, 2025 City Council | Minutes Page 1 of 26  III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IV. COMMENTS BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC Pursuant to N.R.S. 241, this time is devoted to comments by the public, if any, and discussion of those comments. No action may be taken upon a matter raised under this item on the agenda until the matter itself has been specifically included on a successive agenda and identified as an item for possible action. ACTION WILL NOT BE TAKEN Josh Brake, 762 South 6th St, Elko, NV, said he wanted to bring to the Council’s attention that the property the E is located on is for sale. He said he spoke with the woman that owns the property at a meeting at the museum, and she had mentioned that the only offers she had received were from developers. He believed if developers bought the property, they would get rid of the E. He proposed the city buy it and make it into a municipal area. Mayor Reece Keener requested Mr. Brake leave his phone number with the City Clerk so they could get in touch with him if needed, and staff would discuss the issue. Claire Jensen with Convergence Health announced they were having an open house on Thursday. There would be food to eat, they would be giving a tour and ending with a presentation by Elko Spine, who does pain procedures at their surgery center. V. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes for the July 22, 2025, Regular Session. FOR POSSIBLE ACTION B. Approval of Minutes for the July 30, 2025, Special Session. FOR POSSIBLE ACTION C. Review, consideration, and possible approval of a request from Byron & Theresa Mouse, dba Ma and Pa's NDN Taco's for concession space at the Elko City Main Park, and matters related thereto. FOR POSSIBLE ACTION Mr. & Mrs. Mouse would like to utilize Area 5 at the Elko City Main Park for their Indian Taco food trailer. They hold an Elko City Business License and have provided the required insurance. AR D. Review and possible approval of the updated City of Elko Investment and Portfolio Policy, and matters related thereto. FOR POSSIBLE ACTION The updated City of Elko Investment Policy is attached for City Council consideration. A redline version with changes recommended by Buckhead Capital Management, LLC is also attached. JD ** A motion was made by Councilmember Puccinelli, seconded by Councilmember Stone to approve the consent agenda as written. August 12, 2025 City Council | Minutes Page 2 of 26  The motion passed unanimously. (5-0) VI. PRESENTATION A. Presentation of an appreciation plaque to former Planning Commissioner Tony Odeh for his 3 years of service, and matters related thereto. INFORMATION ITEM ONLY – NON ACTION ITEM Tony Odeh, 1931 Griswold Drive, said hopefully it was not the end; he had given away four years of volunteer time for various things, and he was hopeful he could do it again down the road. Mayor Keener presented Mr. Odeh with a plaque in recognition and appreciation of his service to the Elko City Planning Commission. VII. PERSONNEL A. Review, discussion, and evaluation of Appointed Official job performance for Fiscal Year 2024/2025, including the possible award of merit pay increases, and reappointment for the following eligible Appointed Officials: 1) Jan Baum, City Manager; 2) James Johnston, Fire Chief; and 3) Annette Robinson, City Clerk, and matters related thereto. FOR POSSIBLE ACTION Current City policy requires performance reviews to be completed for each Appointed Official during the month of July each year. All Appointed Officials, who are considered employees, shall be evaluated by the Council on years that end in an odd number. Prior to any reappointment of an Appointed Official, a performance evaluation shall be completed. In addition, Council determination is required for reappointment of each Appointed Official, and merit increases for those eligible. A copy of the job performance ratings is included in the agenda packet for review. SS Susie Shurtz, Human Resources Manager, handed out a copy of the scoring matrix to each councilmember, and a copy was also included in the agenda packet. She told the council that the item required two actions: the acceptance of the evaluation scoring for each appointed official, and the reappointment for each appointed official with the merit increase. She noted all three were eligible for the merit increase. Mayor Keener said he thought each of the appointed officials scored very respectfully on their evaluations. ** A motion was made by Councilmember Stone, seconded by Councilmember Morris to approve evaluation scoring and reappoint the City Manager, Fire Chief and City Clerk, and award merit increases to those eligible. The motion passed unanimously. (5-0) August 12, 2025 City Council | Minutes Page 3 of 26  B. Employee Introductions: 1. Caitlin Benavides - Water/Sewer Operator In Training Andrew Storla, Water/Sewer Superintendent, introduced Caitlin Benavides as the newest employee to the Water/Sewer Department. Ms. Benavides introduced herself. She said she was born and raised in Elko and working in the Water Department was pretty cool since she already knew most of the streets. VIII. APPROPRIATION A. Review and possible approval of Warrants, Hand Cut Checks and matters related thereto. FOR POSSIBLE ACTION ** A motion was made by Councilmember Puccinelli, seconded by Councilmember Morris to approve warrants for FY24-25 in the amount of $2,700,534.75. The motion passed unanimously. (5-0) ** A motion was made by Councilmember Puccinelli, seconded by Councilmember Morris to approve warrants for FY25-26 in the amount of $1,676,962.23 . The motion passed unanimously. (5-0) ** A motion was made by Councilmember Puccinelli, seconded by Councilmember Morris to approve hand cut checks in the amount of $1,634,503.36. The motion passed unanimously. (5-0) B. Review, consideration and possible authorization for staff to purchase a new Caterpillar 730 LWB Articulated Chassis with Mega 6K Water Tank, in the amount of $791,981.20 and matters related thereto. FOR POSSIBLE ACTION This purchase was budgeted for and approved in the FY 2025/26 Budget. Empire Southwest, a Caterpillar dealer, Omnia Contract # 212816-01, which is in effect through October 2, 2027, is available for this unit. The amount of the Caterpillar 730 LWB Articulated Chassis with Mega 6K Water Tank is $791,981.20. SF Shane Fertig, Landfill Superintendent, said the landfill had budgeted $875,000 and this was quite a considerable savings over what was originally estimated. He added Empire chose to go with Omnia this time instead of Sourcewell in order to get a discount on the water tank that goes with the truck. ** A motion was made by Councilmember Morris, seconded by Councilmember Stone to authorize staff to purchase an Empire Cat 730 LWB Articulated Chassis with Mega 6K Water Tank., in the amount of $791,981.20 August 12, 2025 City Council | Minutes Page 4 of 26  The motion passed unanimously. (5-0) IX. NEW BUSINESS A. Review, consideration, and possible approval of Revocable Permit No. 1-25, filed by Cortney Worline and Anita Worline, to occupy +/- 1,969 square feet of Fifth Street, Oak Street and alley rights-of-way adjacent to their parcel located at 501 and 517 Oak Street, referred to as APN's 001-173-012 and 001-173-011, to accommodate landscaping, a business sign and two accessory structures which encroach into the alley right-of-way, and matters related thereto. FOR POSSIBLE ACTION The applicant has submitted to the City of Elko a parcel map to combine multiple lots into one parcel and during the survey, it was discovered that there were multiple encroachments into the City of Elko rights-of-way including an existing sign, landscaping and accessory structures. The property has been developed as a commercial use for many years. CL Cathy Laughlin, City Planner, said the Worlines owned four lots that were being assessed as two parcels on the corner of 5th and Oak. When the Worlines had hired a surveyor to do a parcel map to merge all of their lots into one parcel, it was discovered that there was landscaping and business signage occupying the right-of-way. Ms. Laughlin said that the property was zoned for residential business, so it is an allowed use as long as they have a revocable permit to occupy the right-of-way. She noted there were two small encroachments from the accessory structures, but it was written into the revocable agreement that if those structures were to be demolished, they could not be rebuilt in the same location and would need to be built onto their property. Mayor Keener called for public comment and did not receive a response. ** A motion was made by Councilmember Stone, seconded by Councilmember Puccinelli to approve revocable Permit No. 1-25 subject to the execution of a Standard License Agreement between the applicant and the City of Elko. The motion passed unanimously. (5-0) B. Presentation, discussion and possible direction to Staff to pursue adoption of the 2024 Building and Fire Codes, and matters related thereto. FOR POSSIBLE ACTION The State of Nevada and multiple Nevada jurisdictions have adopted 2024 Building and Fire Codes. The City of Elko is currently using the 2018 Building and Fire Codes. Chris Kimball with Building Code Solutions, Inc. has performed two public meetings to discuss and educate on the updated codes. This presentation to the City Council will provide a summary of the updated codes, why it is important to update the codes, and the process for doing so. JF Jeff Ford, Building Official, said it had been a little over six years and it was time to visit adopting new codes. He added Chris Kimball was present to give a presentation. August 12, 2025 City Council | Minutes Page 5 of 26  Chris Kimball with Building Code Solutions gave an informative presentation, a copy of which was included in the agenda packet. He noted many of the changes would not apply to construction in Elko. He said they were currently drafting some of the proposed ordinance language and amendments that would be presented to City Council at a future meeting. ** A motion was made by Councilmember Lostra, seconded by Councilmember Morris to pursue the adoption. The motion passed unanimously. (5-0) XI. REPORTS A. Mayor and City Council Mayor Keener reported that he and Ms. Baum had the opportunity to visit the Nevada Gold Mines Recreation Center that morning and it was coming along nicely. He added it was exciting to see it now that the walls are up, and they are on schedule for January opening. He said he had the opportunity to fly out of Elko last week and unfortunately, both flights were only about half full. He was hopeful that would turn around and reminded everyone that if they were traveling to please try to fly out of Elko. Councilmember Stone reported Pop Con was at the E Center last weekend and was very well attended. He added bookings are starting to go up and there are some things coming up in the future that would be very beneficial to the community. B. City Manager Ms. Baum thanked Mr. Kimball for his very informative presentation. She also thanked Mr. Ford for his active involvement in the Northern Nevada adoption of the codes over the past year and a half. C. Assistant City Manager Dale Johnson, Assistant City Manager, reported 12th Street Bridge was complete. He noted that they had only 18 and ¾ days of railroad flagging, so they saved about $81,000 on that portion. He thanked everyone that has been involved in the code amendment process. D. Utilities Director Jim Kerr, Utilities Director, reported they were finishing up installing meters in the rolling hills area and would be moving into the Enfield and Forest Court area of town. Once that is finished, they will finally be able to focus on some of the commercial in the area and getting them metered before jumping across 5th Street. Mayor Keener mentioned he was glad they had not had any further public comment complaints about the water fees. August 12, 2025 City Council | Minutes Page 6 of 26  Mr. Kerr believed staff had fielded a few more complaints regarding the sewer rate. He added he had done some research, and the sewer rate was fairly reasonable compared to what people pay across the state. E. Public Works No report. F. Airport Manager No report. G. City Attorney No report. H. Fire Chief Fire Chief James Johnston announced there was going to be a fire prevention open house on October 9th and the theme was “charged back into fire safety” and was going to be all about lithium batteries for the home and how to take care of them. He added there would be a few different vendors there that would be able to take old lithium batteries. I. Police Chief Police Chief Kyle Ward thanked everyone that attended National Night Out. He reported they had grilled about 1,780 hot dogs and hamburgers and had a really great turnout and had a good time. He reminded everyone that school was starting Monday the 18th and asked everyone to be mindful of their speeds in the school zones and keep an eye out for the families, crossing guards and school staff. He added they will be putting some PSAs out to encourage people to report anything they think may be suspicious, especially with the holidays coming up. J. City Clerk Ms. Robinson reported the Shilo Inn still has not paid for May’s transient lodging tax, though they did pay for June. She added they had not received anything for July. She said they were currently at 58 days for the May transient lodging tax, and when they hit 70 days, she would be sending out a letter to suspend their license again. She added that Maverick properties, who had recently filed for bankruptcy, had paid their July transient lodging tax and she planned to keep them updated on that. K. City Planner No report. L. Development Manager August 12, 2025 City Council | Minutes Page 7 of 26  No report. M. Financial Services Director No report. N. Parks and Recreation Director James Wiley, Parks and Recreation Director reported they had started a resurfacing project at the tennis courts. He said there was a delay in bidding for the park rehabilitation project due to some technical issues, but they were working through it and hoped to see that project begin early next spring and be done before the end of the fiscal year. He added they had their annual chair and grip inspection at SnoBowl and they passed with flying colors. O. Civil Engineer No report. P. Building Official Mr. Ford reported there had not been any news on the apartments yet, but they had a really good meeting with the Pioneer Hotel people. Mr. Kimball, his partner, and Mr. Ford met with their design team and were able to get a lot of things ironed out. He thought that project should be nice. Mayor Keener asked if they were in the process of pulling permits for that. Mr. Ford responded yes. He added it was an old building and they would have some issues to work through, but he thinks they made some pretty good progress with them at the meeting. X. 5:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING A. Review, consideration, and possible action on an appeal filed by Catherine Wines pursuant to Elko City Code 3-2-22(H), appealing the Elko City Planning Commission’s decision to conditionally grant a variance from several City Code requirements, as follows: (1) ECC 3 2 5(E)(8)(b), which requires detached guesthouses and servants’ quarters to conform to all yard requirements applicable to the principal building. The appellant seeks a variance reducing the required rear yard setback of the detached accessory structure from 20’-0” to 0’-0” and a reduction of the interior side yard setback from 5’-6” to 2’-6” for a guesthouse or servants quarters to be located within the detached accessory structure. (2) ECC 3-2- 17(F), which requires two off street parking stalls for the guesthouse or servants quarters to be located within the detached accessory structure. (3) ECC 3-2-5(H)(2) to permit an increase in the maximum allowed cumulative square feet of accessory buildings from 500 square feet to 624 square feet. These variance requests were filed collectively as Variance No. 1-25. Appellant is specifically challenging the following two conditions placed on the variance by the Planning Commission: the merger of lots 8 and 9 of Map File #1 by parcel August 12, 2025 City Council | Minutes Page 8 of 26  map application and the installation of one parking stall for the guest house, and matters related thereto. FOR POSSIBLE ACTION The Planning Commission considered the subject Variance on July 1, 2025. Pursuant to Elko City Code 3-2-25, the City Council may affirm, modify or reverse the decision of the Planning Commission. CL EXCEPT FOR THE REMOVAL OF DUPLICATE WORDS AND SOME FALSE STARTS, THE MINUTES FOR THIS ITEM ARE INTENDED TO BE VERBATIM. Mayor Keener: Before we get started, I'm going to turn things over to the City Attorney, David Stanton. Dave Stanton: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I would like to just kind of go over what some of the procedures are. Michael Hanley is actually going to be representing the City at this hearing, but the procedure is set forth in Elko City Code Section 3-2-25 B and C. I'm going to read just sort of a checklist of the procedures that are outlined in the code and then talk a little bit about, you know, what the City Council's obligations are. The procedures begin with the appellant, that's Catherine Wines. It says, “the appellant shall be first to provide comment and present the grounds for appeal.” So that's the first thing that happens. “Other persons shall be given an opportunity to speak and provide comment. The City may respond to Appellant's appeal, after which Appellant may present any rebuttal argument or evidence. Appellant and the City are entitled to be represented by Council, present testimony, evidence, and argument on all issues raised on appeal. The City Council may, if it appears helpful to a clear understanding of the issues, consider evidence or other matters not raised with the Planning Commission level or with the Administrative Officer.” Just a couple of things about that. This is what's called a de novo appeal, and a de novo appeal means that you're not really deciding whether the Planning Commission did the right thing or not you're looking at it brand new. You can affirm the Planning Commission's decision, but you're looking at it sort of stepping into the Planning Commission's shoes. So that's the reason why you're going to take all of this information and consider the whole thing. “The City Council shall consider all evidence presented to the Planning Commission or Administrative Officer at the original hearing, including oral and written testimony and any recommendations and findings of the Planning Commission or Administrative Officer as shown by the official record, and may affirm, modify or reverse the decision of the Planning Commission or Administrative Officer. In reviewing a decision on appeal, the governing body will be guided by the statement of purpose underlying the regulation of the improvement of land expressed in NRS 278.020.” Or, a couple of factors that are considered when making decisions regarding land use. “The decisions of the city council shall be considered the final decision for the purpose of judicial review.” Now, let's talk a little bit about what happens after. I'm going a little bit out of order here. What happens after all of the evidence has been presented and it is submitted to the City Council, and you're all deciding what to do, whether to affirm, modify, or reverse. I think it's very important for you to really discuss all of the issues, thoroughly vet them. When you do arrive at a decision, have findings—you need to have findings and a rationale to support whatever decision you make. When it comes to the presentation of testimony, the rules of evidence do not apply. You can basically listen to anything that is relevant. Sometimes at these hearings the evidence will tend to be kind of redundant. You'll start hearing the same thing over and over again. I'm not sure that will happen here, but it has happened in the past. The council can shut off the testimony, but whenever that happens, be sure to give whoever is testifying or presenting evidence the opportunity to summarize what additional evidence would be August 12, 2025 City Council | Minutes Page 9 of 26  provided if they were allowed to continue. I doubt that'll be an issue here. When it comes to witnesses, I understand that we're going to have the City Planner will probably be presenting a summary of a report that was previously submitted to council that probably doesn't need to be sworn testimony since it's just going to be a summary as I understand it, but if somebody is going to be presenting actual testimony that the council is going to be relying on, witness testimony, that witness should be sworn in. And so, I'm not sure whether that's going to be the case here. That's basically what I have. Do you have any questions for me before we get started? Mayor Keener: I don't think so. Dave Stanton: Okay. With that, I think according to these procedures, the appellant is the first to provide comment. In a normal courtroom setting, what we have is we have opening statements followed by the presentation of witness testimony, but in a case like this, I think that the procedures allow for us to sort of abbreviate that and we can just have the appellant come up and provide a statement and then offer any testimony if there is any additional evidence in conjunction with that statement. Is that okay? And then the city can get up and provide a response to that and then the appellant can get up, provide a rebuttal. And then both sides really ought to have an opportunity to present a closing statement. The appellant should go first and then the City can go second and then it should be submitted to Council. Yeah? Mayor Keener: All right. Thank you. Everyone good with that? All right, Catherine, you're up. Catherine Wines: Catherine Wines, my mailing address is 421 Railroad Street, but what we're talking about tonight is my physical address, which is 518 Oak Street. One thing before I start, I don't think it's clear in what was read. The guest house exists. It is already built. The variance from five and a half to two and a half, that already exists. There is a garage on the ground floor and an apartment on the second floor of that, so that was built under a variance in I think it was variance one of 08. And at the time, my intention was to also build a house along with it but that didn't work out at that time, so I live in the apartment above the garage and now I'm in a position where I would like to build the house, and part of an appeal or part of a variance is to ask for relief from hardship. And I think just the fact that the two parking spaces will not physically fit on this, on this lot because of the size of it, I think that creates like a unique situation that wouldn't necessarily be something like, well, if we let her do it, then we're going to have to let everybody do it because this is a unique situation. The garage is there; there's no room for two parking spaces. But I will start with the first issue on the... Sorry, let me get organized here. So, the first issue is basically the legal description, and if you look at what I wrote in the appeal, it says, “I'm appealing the requirement of a parcel map to fix an issue with the Deed of Sale at my property at 518 Oak Street. There was a mistake made on the deed during purchase. The legal description in the deed calls out lots 8 and 9 in block 40. This was an error on the deed when the property was purchased. Stuart Title has apologized to me for the error. To fix it would take an amendment to the deed. The City is requiring a parcel map to fix the issue. The parcel map would be a duplicate of a survey of record that was produced and recorded in the Elko County Recorder's Office in 1998, which shows one parcel. A parcel map isn't necessary to change the error on the deed. A new parcel map would cost between $6,000 and $8,000. A deed amendment would be one-tenth of that cost. I am happy to amend the deed. My attorney has already started the process. When an amended deed is recorded with the Elko County Recorder, it will update the legal description and resolve the issue.” A parcel map is not required to fix this problem. And since I turned that in, the appeal, I have August 12, 2025 City Council | Minutes Page 10 of 26  also spoken with Eric Heron, who did the original survey of record, and he sent an email (see minutes packet), and I'll give you a copy of that. The email says, “I got your email,” because I talked to him on the phone about the issue, and then he says, “I got your email, it looks like Louth just wanted the exterior corners, so I had to file a revision of survey. I am sure the City is asking for a map of reversion, which wouldn't be much more, except adding a line between the lots with easements, and adding jurats for whomever may own easements along the line between the two lots.” So, there's several different ways to fix this problem. I acknowledge that it's a problem, but there's a couple of different ways to fix it. So, what I'm asking on this issue is for you to just let me take care of it. Because the deed is a document between two private parties and there's an issue with the deed. And in order to fix it, there are several different ways that we could fix it. There's an amendment to the deed, which my attorney could do, and he has looked at. There's also a reversion of acreage, which the original surveyor talked about. There's possibly also a parcel map. So, what I'm asking is just to let me take care of it because I know that it's an issue, I know that it needs to be fixed, but it doesn't need to be the very most expensive fix that there is. So, I'm just asking for some relief on that, and I will get it done. I have to, because I didn't realize that this was an issue before this all came up. I have to get it fixed, but I'm just asking to just let me handle it. So, the second issue is with the parking. The single parking stall at the back of the property. As I said before, the garage is existing, and so there isn't really room. If you're within the setback, there isn't room to put the required two parking spaces, and the one parking space would be very close to the existing garage wall, and there are some photos that I gave in my appeal. But hopefully you have the elevation of basically the backyard where this parking space would go is about two feet higher than the alley. There is a retaining wall that basically retains the backyard and you can see, if you can scroll to the next one, you can see the stairs there that go up into the yard from the alley, and so in order to get a parking space in there, I would have to put in a retaining wall because you have to be able to drive from the alley into the parking space. So, there's about a two-foot difference right now, and so in order to do that, I would have to dig out a lot of earth and put a retaining wall around that parking space, and what that retaining wall would do is compromise the existing structure, which is the garage, because there isn't enough room to get it far enough away from the garage, and the frost wall makes me nervous about that. So, I contacted a structural engineer who is a licensed SE in the state of Nevada. And just for your record, I want to read what this—it's just about a page and a half. “Regarding evaluation of potential impact for proposed parking location, 518 Oak Street, Elko, Nevada, to whom it may concern. This letter is to address concerns regarding the new parking location requested by the City of Elko Building Department. In our assessment, we determined that the existing garage footing may impose a surcharge on the proposed parking retaining wall footing. By doing so, there is the potential risk of undermining the existing footing during the construction of the new parking area, given the proximity of the existing garage footing. Construction activities such as excavation or changes in soil conditions may compromise the integrity or support the existing footing if not properly managed. The primary concern is the disturbance of soil during excavation adjacent to the existing garage frost wall footing. As a rule of thumb, the zone of influence for surcharge is typically considered to extend at a one-to-one slope, meaning that the effects of the existing footing can transfer horizontally and vertically within the area. This may result in the proposed parking retaining wall footing being subjected to additional load from the existing garage. To avoid potential surcharge on the new retaining wall footing, the proposed parking area would need to be about 32 inches from the existing garage structure. In doing so, this would have the proposed parking encroach on the property line setback. However, the true extent of this zone of influence can vary depending on the existing soil conditions, which are unknown at this time. Stiffer soils will tend to localize the surcharge effect, making the zone of influence more vertical and thus potentially reducing August 12, 2025 City Council | Minutes Page 11 of 26  the impact on the new retaining wall footing. Conversely, in looser soils, the surcharge effect can extend more horizontally, increasing the potential impact to the new parking retaining wall footing. This horizontal extension also creates a larger area of soil disturbance, which can have further negative effects, including the potential to adversely impact the existing garage footing. We recommend refraining from any construction activities that may undermine the existing garage wall footing. Additionally, it may be beneficial to engage a geotechnical engineer to determine the exact soil conditions at the site. With that being said, it is worth noting that these precautionary measures could result in additional costs.” So basically, like, just going in and digging this out, it could have very adverse effects, but there is a way, I mean, if you think about how they build, like in New York City when buildings right next to each other, there's one existing, and then they have to go in and put like the foundation kind of underneath the existing one in order to make it work. So that's a potential fix for this, but that's something that that I can't afford, and I won't. So, here's a quote from the Michael Clay Corporation, are there five there? (see minutes packet for handout) So, in order to do this, to make it safe for the garage, you would have to dig the footing basically underneath the existing footing. And the estimate for that from Michael Clay Corporation is $69,276. And so that of course makes this project not really in budget. So, in the staff report on item two, on page 11 of 12, it says “the appellant is stating that the elevation difference between the property and the parking area is going to require retaining wall, jeopardizing the detached garage, frosted depth and structural integrity.” It says this is not true. It is true. There's no way to get from the alley up basically two feet to a parking space. So, you have to dig it out. And in such a tight quarter, it requires retaining walls. On page 12 of 12 of the staff report, there's a type of curve, like a slope that you can use to kind of drive up on. It's 10 feet 5 inches. I'm going about 24 inches. So, this doesn't work. So, there's not a way to not do this without retaining walls and a retaining wall compromises the garage. During the Planning Commission meeting, if you look at the minutes from that on page 33 of 38. I can't find it exactly, but one of the planning commissioners who holds a residential designer professional license said, “there's lots of ways to do this,” something to that effect. “There's a way to do this without the retaining wall.” And I said, in that meeting, I said, “tell me how.” And he said, “well, I'm not going to give you that.” And then Jeff Ford Dalling, the Chairman of the Commission said, “no, you'd have to pay him for that.” So, I reached out to Mr. Irish the day after the Planning Commission meeting and I said, “I'll hire you. Give me a detail that will work in this area, since you think you know more than I do.” And so, and he came back and said, “yeah, okay, I'll come up with some options for you.” I haven't heard from him. I emailed him yesterday asking if he had anything. He doesn't. There's not a solution for this that doesn't include retaining walls. I think it's incredibly irresponsible for him to try to influence a public board based on his professional license when it's not true. What he's saying, it's unethical, and I think the State Board of Architecture would agree with me on that. So, moving on. Going back to the staff report on page 11 of 12, after the retaining wall, then it says, “the appellant constructed the existing garage at the same elevation as the alley and has indicated that building the parking stall at that elevation is not feasible.” That's not what I'm saying. It is not feasible because of the part of the retaining walls. It's not that it wouldn't be possible anywhere. It just wouldn't be possible in this location because of the of the nature of the site and then on to the next page 12 of 12, about halfway through the first paragraph, “the appellant also states that there would no longer be frost protection of the existing structure if the parking area was required this is also not true and once again the City of Elko Building Department consulted with Mr. Chris Kimball on this comment, and he stated there is nothing in the International Residential Code that states a horizontal distance requirement away from the foundation wall for frost protection.” That can't be true. I'm almost positive, that's not what Chris Kimball said, because basically what he's saying is frost walls don't need dirt on the outside of them and that's the August 12, 2025 City Council | Minutes Page 12 of 26  whole purpose of a frost wall. You have to, like in the City of Elko, the frost wall is 30 inches below the ground. So, you have to have 30 inches of organic material on a frost wall in order to make it work the way that it's supposed to, which is keeping the foundation below any possible depth of freezing. So, I reached out to Jeff Ford today and asked for if there was any written record of this conversation with Chris Kimball because I'm positive that's not what he said because I know him and I know that he's a fairly smart guy and I know that he doesn't think that you can have zero horizontal distance on a frost wall. That's just, that's not possible. So, this is, I mean, to me, without any written explanation of what he actually meant, I don't think that has, I don't think that we can call that, like, this is, this is what we have to do. I reached out to Todd Snyder, who is the head of WC3 because I thought we were still using WC3 and he said that he believes that distance is 12 inches but he would not put that in writing so therefore you know there's kind of something to be said with that and without anything from Chris Kimball in writing, the only people that have put that “this will work” in writing is the City of Elko which I think is an incredibly dangerous position to put yourself in. You're saying that this will work, and it won't create any harm to the existing structure. And so that means that you're basically... I mean, I think that puts some liability on you when those statements are made. That's an incredibly dangerous place for a governing body to be. I make statements about liability every single day, but I have a million dollars of errors and omissions insurance. I would guess that you don't have that, and I don't know of anybody that would license a city with errors and omissions in design-related, because you shouldn't be doing this. You shouldn't be calling out design and saying design that will work. So, I'll tell you though, this wouldn't be an issue of liability with me because I will not build this like this. I don't believe that it's safe. I'm not going to compromise. I can't legally do that with my architecture license, but I also don't want to build something that's going to compromise the structural integrity of a building that I own, because that would certainly not be insured either, because it would be an error on my part. So, forcing me to put this parking space in with the retaining walls is essentially killing the project, because I won't build it. And maybe you want to kill the project, maybe you want to get rid of me and have me move out of Elko, because that's what would happen. I won't build this, I don't think it's safe, it's not responsible. So, I guess that's all I have for now. Michael Hanley: Good evening, Michael Hanley for the City, I'm a Deputy City Attorney, and what I wanted to do for the City's case was just have Cathy Laughlin come up and give a summary of the city staff report. So, Cathy, if you could do that for me, please. Thank you. Mayor Keener: Dave, does anyone need to be sworn in during this process at all? Dave Stanton: Well so far, we've just heard argument. I haven't heard a great deal of testimonial evidence. But if Cathy Laughlin is just going to be giving a summary of the report that was previously submitted, I don't think it's necessary. If Cathy's actually going to be adding to that, providing some substantive response to the argument that we heard, then we probably should have her sworn in. Cathy Laughlin: I agree there may be some additional information that I would provide. Dave Stanton: Yeah, then let's swear her in as a witness. Annette Robinson, Elko City Clerk, swore in Cathy Laughlin. August 12, 2025 City Council | Minutes Page 13 of 26  Cathy Laughlin: Mr. Mayor, members of the council, thank you. I want to just kind of summarize that that this variance application that came to the City of Elko was because currently, yes, there is a living quarters above the garage but that would be the principal permitted current use, right? When we get an application for a new home to be built on the same property, then that new home is going to now become the principal permitted use and the apartment above or the living dwelling unit above the garage would then become an accessory dwelling unit. So, it changes the use of what is currently there when a new principal permitted use is built. So, with that, we gave Ms. Wines the options. We said, well, you wouldn't be required a variance on this structure if, once you built your home, if you removed, let's say, the kitchen from the home, because, according to the International Residential Code, a dwelling has to have sleeping facilities, bathing facilities, and cooking facilities. So, if you remove one of those, like the kitchen, for instance, it no longer meets the definition of a dwelling and no longer can be, you know, a rental facility or rental unit or a guest home. So, we gave that option and that's not what the applicant wanted to do. So, with that, we had to give the variance for the setback requirements. So even though we mentioned that this is existing, we're considering it now is going to be an accessory dwelling unit because Ms. Wines is going to build her new principal home. So, there were four sections of our code that we applied for. And one of them was a reduction of the new home from front yard setback from 12 foot to 10 foot two. That was denied by the planning commission. They stated that the home has plenty of room between the accessory dwelling unit and garage, detached accessory structure and the new home to be pushed back one foot ten inches. So that portion of it was denied. The second portion of it was in order for the accessory dwelling unit to be allowed above the garage, it would be required to have a rear yard setback from 20 feet to zero and a reduction of the side yard setback from five foot six to two foot six. That was approved. The third thing was a request for a reduction of the zero required off-street parking. Once the principal permitted use is built, the two parking spaces within the garage act as their off-street parking requirement, but then you now have a second dwelling on the property and that requires two off-street parking as well. So, the Planning Commission heard testimony on that, and they stated that a reduction of one required off-street parking stall for the guesthouse was approved. She was requesting both of them to meet no requirement for off-street parking. The fourth thing was for an increase in the maximum allowed cumulative square feet of the accessory building, and that was also approved. So, there were conditions put on the approval of the variance, and two of those conditions are what Ms. Wines is appealing today. So, with the mergers of lot eight and nine of map, file number one, I want to refresh your memory back into my staff report, there's NRS 278.461, this is very, very clear. When two or more separate lots, parcels, sites, units or plots of land are purchased, they remain separate for the purposes of that section, right? So, because the deed reads lots 8 and 9 of block 40, those two parcels, those two lots are separate. They are assessed as one parcel, but we don't care how the assessor assesses for tax purposes on any of these parcels. It is how the parcel is created. And Ms. Wines agrees that there is a problem with that, but I do disagree that the deed can be amended. The deed cannot be amended based on that record of survey, a record of survey I've provided you all the NRS in the staff report. The record of survey does not merge those two parcels. There has been no evidence going all the way back. We've had the attorney's office research it. We've had our staff research it. There has been no record of those two lots being merged. The only way they can be merged is through a parcel map or a reversion to acreage map. And so, one of those two things needs to be happened to merge those two lots. So, I believe that Ms. Wines understands that one of those two maps will need to be filed. It's an administrative review. It's done quickly within our office and then she'll be able to get a building permit for her home, but it's not possible—and the NRS in my staff report shows that it's not possible—to amend the deed. On the parking spot there we do have a section in our code in 3-2-17 that does not allow for in a residential August 12, 2025 City Council | Minutes Page 14 of 26  zoning district it does not allow for your off-street parking that is required or to off-street parking to be in your side yard setback or your front yard setback and the Planning Commission looked at the proposed development of this property and really it was impossible with the layout of the house and going from setback to setback to the front yard setback to have any parking on the front of the property. It was impossible, but the request for the variance was not a request for the parking to be on the interior side yard setback, right? So, the proposal that staff came back and showed Planning Commission that we have in one of the displays that we have in our staff report, it has a red box around the area. That's just a suggestion. Here is the area that one parking space could be provided. Now had the variance asked for that off street parking requirement to be allowed to be in the side yard setback, there's five and a half feet there that that parking space could be moved closer to the property line. In the tree streets, there are no easements along those interior lot lines, so there isn't an easement there. 3-2-17 just simply states that it's not allowed, but there could have been a variance requesting that that parking space be allowed in the side yard setback. And that would give her more room between the existing structure and the property line. This was an example that this this right here was six tiny homes that Luke Fitzgerald built on First Street and they are on 25 foot wide lots. The two parking spaces are required to be nine feet wide which is 18 feet total and in a 25 foot wide lot, 18 of that being parking, you are already encroached into your side yard setback. So, the planning commission granted a variance for this development to allow these parking spaces off the alley to be in the side yard setback. That could have been an option, but that was not part of the request. That was not part of the original variance to allow the off-street parking to be in the side yard setback. It would only work on the one side of her property, on the one side of the garage, as there is not room on the other side for any additional parking. So, what the Planning Commission did is that the argument that was presented at that meeting was that everybody on that block parks on the street. Well, that was argument towards the fact that we should provide at least one off-street parking because if everybody already is parking on the street, then at least we're providing one on the property for this guest house. Providing the guest house above this garage and allowing that does give the applicant a little advantage over surrounding neighbors as far as now she's allowed a guest house, and the others probably don't have a guest house. Or if they want to convert their garage into a guest house, there's things that they have to comply with for code. So, approving the variance did give her the advantage over her neighbors, but the Planning Commission said the good compromise here is you would be required two off-street parking, but we're going to reduce that down and require one, because there was the room there to provide that. Yes, it is difficult. Yes, it could be costly, but cost cannot be a factor when it's considering the merits of a variance. Cost can never be a factor, and I remind the Planning Commission of that all the time because a lot of times the applicants will state that. So, with that, the Planning Commission did approve the reduction of one parking space but it shows that there is the opportunity that they can provide one more. Mayor Keener: Are we able to ask questions? Dave Stanton: Yes. Mayor Keener: Okay. Cathy, I listened to the hearing in its entirety and just for the record—was the Planning Commission's decision unanimous on this? Cathy Laughlin: Yes it was. August 12, 2025 City Council | Minutes Page 15 of 26  Mayor Keener: Anyone else have any questions for Cathy? Thank you. Dave Stanton: If there other witnesses from the City, Catherine Wines now has the opportunity to speak. Let me also add that if the appellant wants to provide testimony, that's statements of fact, like factual statements, the testimony should be sworn as opposed to just making argument. So, I'll leave that. You can tell us whether you intend to provide testimony, and if you do, now you have the opportunity to be sworn and to provide testimony. Catherine Wines: I would like to provide testimony. Annette Robinson, City Clerk, swore in Catherine Wines. Catherine Wines: Okay. I forgot one thing during my first presentation. My intention, I realize that it legally has to be considered a guest house, but my intention is to make this a private art studio. I don't intend for it to be a guest house. So, I don't want to remove the kitchen because art studios need a sink and a refrigerator and things like that. So that is my intention for this. I realized that, I mean, I'm not going to live there forever and I'm not going to tie myself down to never selling it. But my intention is for this to be a private art studio. That was the intention in 2008 when I thought I was going to build the house, too. But the testimony that I would like to give is, as a registered architect in the State of Nevada with consultation from a registered structural engineer, this parking space with the retaining walls is dangerous. And it's not a good idea to build that. The other thing that I think that Cathy said that it sounds like we're in agreement of, and if you go back to the email from Eric Herron, he is suggesting to do a reversion of acreage, and I am more than willing to do that. That's something that's a lot simpler than a parcel map. So, as I said before, I'm hoping that you can just take out the requirement of a parcel map and just let me fix the problem. Thank you. Dave Stanton: And if the council has questions for the appellant. Mayor Keener: I do. So, Catherine Wines, you said tonight and you said during the meeting on July 1st that your intention was to have it be an art studio. So, if you make a minor modification, in other words eliminate the cooking or the sleeping quarters or the bathing facilities, it's no longer classified as a living unit. So, if you do that, you don't have to worry about then having that accessory or that extra parking stall, correct? So why don't you just consider doing that? Catherine Wines: I don't know how to. I mean, it's a studio. There's no, I mean, how do I eliminate the bedroom? The bedroom is, I mean, how would you- Mayor Keener: Remove bathtub shower, for instance. That's a lot less expensive than all the engineering and the Michael Clay Corporation estimate in the amount of almost $70,000. Catherine Wines: I don't know that it is a lot less expensive to remove. I mean, I don't want to remove a bathroom. I would like to have a bathroom in there. So just to remove the bathtub and shower seems kind of, I don't know, that doesn't seem like a viable option. I suppose I could take out the range and then that takes out the cooking. I could do that. I would prefer not to, but I could. Mayor Keener: Does anyone else have any? August 12, 2025 City Council | Minutes Page 16 of 26  Councilmember Puccinelli: I understand what your intentions are and things like that, but I guess you keep…I know it's guest house or whatever but I just keep going back in my head and just without removing that I just I feel it's an apartment or a rental property that's how I'm seeing it I know it's just words and stuff like that but I just find it hard, and then they just like the mayor said I mean removing an oven to get rid of anything that could be considered cooking or anything like that I think that would be minor to me, at least you could not consider it a dwelling anymore, I guess is the best way to put it. If just removing the stove, would that get rid of the dwelling? Does that make sense? Inaudible response from the audience. Dave Stanton: I think that this is going to mess up our record if you're doing it this way. Councilmember Puccinelli: All right. Dave Stanton: So maybe finish the questioning with the appellant and then we can have others come up, get sworn in and testify as well. Any other questions or testimony? Okay. Does the council feel it needs to hear from anybody else? Councilmember Puccinelli: I have a question to Jeff Ford (Ford). Dave Stanton: Okay. Well, we can bring Jeff Ford up and Jeff Ford can be sworn in and can testify. Annette Robinson, City Clerk, swore in Jeff Ford. Councilmember Puccinelli: Okay. Yes. My question is what I stated earlier or asked earlier. What would constitute, in that kitchen area, what would we have to remove to consider this no longer a dwelling? Jeff Ford: The sink. Councilmember Puccinelli: The sink. Now, if you put a utility sink in there, but remove the oven. Jeff Ford: I don't know, I think that's splitting hairs. It is. But you don't have to provide an oven. You don't have to provide a refrigerator. You have to provide a sink. I mean, you could put a microwave in there, call that your cooking. Yeah. Councilmember Puccinelli: So it's the sink that considers the dwelling. So, on the bathroom side of it, is it the shower, the bath shower that's doing it? Jeff Ford: You have to have a way to, yeah, you have to have a way to bathe and use the bathroom. Okay. Councilmember Puccinelli: So just a half bath is not considered a dwelling then? Jeff Ford: Well, I mean, if it's got a sink and a toilet in it, it is. It's a bathroom. August 12, 2025 City Council | Minutes Page 17 of 26  Councilmember Puccinelli: Okay. Yeah. Councilmember Stone: What makes a bedroom? Jeff Ford: I think you've got to have a bathroom, a shower, one or the other. I'm not 100% sure on that, but I believe that's the case. To me, that's considered a bathroom. Councilmember Puccinelli: That seems like an easier fix than this. You know, that's the only thing with me. That would just be the easiest way to alleviate this problem. Jeff Ford: Yeah. Now, I feel like if you took sink out then it wouldn't be a kitchen because that's what we look at in like efficiencies or you know the overnight stay hotels you have to have a sink in there that's basically what makes it a kitchen. Dave Stanton: Do any other council members have questions in this witness? Councilmember Stone: Oh I was just thinking, what makes a bedroom not a bedroom? Jeff Ford: Well now you have to have an egress window, a sleeping area. You have to have an egress window and a closet, like if I see a set of plans it has a closet but not an egress window I won't allow you to call it a sleeping room. Councilmember Stone: So, you put a piece plywood over the window it's no longer a bedroom. Jeff Ford: Yeah, it's no longer legal bedroom, but moving forward that's going to change you guys heard Chris talk about that earlier but currently that's the case. You have to have an egress window, a compliant egress window, and, you know, like I said, a closet, but that's what we consider a sleeping room. Councilmember Stone: Okay. Thank you. Dave Stanton: Does the appellant have any questions of this witness? Inaudible response. Dave Stanton: Oh, you'll have an opportunity to speak, again. I just want to make sure that you know that you can ask questions of this witness, and if you have questions of the City Planner, we can bring the City Planner up and you can ask questions of her as well so you just let me know, okay? Maybe go up to the podium and- Catherine Wines: It's going to be kind of a long-winded question, but I want to like think about the statement of a sink makes it a kitchen, because lots of laundry rooms have sinks. Art studios have sinks, there's I mean garages have sinks. I don't think that's what makes a kitchen. In a commercial setting, the difference between a warming kitchen and a commercial kitchen is the cooking. It's the range. Because you can have a, like in an office setting, you can have a refrigerator with like a little August 12, 2025 City Council | Minutes Page 18 of 26  break room with a refrigerator and a sink and a microwave and that's not a kitchen but when you put a range in that makes it a kitchen so you. You don't think that a range is what makes it a kitchen? Inaudible response. Catherine Wines: Okay, but it is in code that a sink makes in a kitchen. But you don't have to have a sink, doesn't make it a kitchen I mean a kitchen has to have a sink, but a sink, it's like, like all of these are fingers, but this is a thumb, but it's still a finger. I mean, you don't have to, I mean, you don't have to have, a sink doesn't make a room a kitchen. Inaudible response. Catherine Wines: Okay? But if you have a sink in an art studio, that doesn't mean it's a kitchen. Inaudible response. Catherine Wines: I think I do. I'll make that testimony. You can have a sink in a lot of different areas and not call it a kitchen. Dave Stanton: Any other questions for the Building Official? Councilmember Lostra: Am I allowed to speak? Dave Stanton: Yes. Councilmember Lostra: So I did Google up here the definition, the IRC definition of some of these terms that are being thrown out just for my own personal reference. So the IRC definition of a dwelling must contain living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation areas and then since we're talking about a kitchen, based on the IRC definition, it says, the kitchen is generally understood to be an area that is used or designated to be used for the preparation of food, an area that includes a sink and permanent provisions for food preparation and cooking. It says, each dwelling unit must have a kitchen area, and every kitchen must have a sink. Jeff Ford: Yeah, I mean, it doesn't specify what kind of cooking appliances, you just have to provide it. Councilmember Lostra: Just says an area for the purpose of preparing food. Councilmember Stone: Yeah, that seems to be...Sorry, is that me? Dave Stanton: Well, I didn't know if you were done. Oh, okay. Councilmember Stone: Seems to me very simple. Take the window out of that bedroom, close it off, you're done. Now it's no longer a rentable space. Simple fix. Jeff Ford: It wouldn't be considered a sleeping room then. Yeah. August 12, 2025 City Council | Minutes Page 19 of 26  Councilmember Puccinelli: Or removing the shower too. Councilmember Stone: The window would be cheap. Dave Stanton: Any other questions from council? Any questions from the appellant? Catherine Wines: This goes along with what Chip just said. If I made them inoperable windows, then it's not a sleeping room, right? Because right now they're operable, because it's a sleeping room. But if I made them inoperable. Inaudible response. Catherine Wines: Ok. If that's an option. Mayor Keener: Can I ask Cathy a question? Dave Stanton: Sure. The appellant would like to go back up to answer the question. Mayor Keener: Oh I'm sorry. Dave Stanton: Catherine Wines or Cathy Laughlin? Mayor Keener: Cathy Laughlin. Dave Stanton: Oh, two Catherines. Mayor Keener: So, what's to keep in this situation let's say the appellant says fine, I'll convert it so that it's no longer a dwelling unit. And what's to keep them from taking it down six months later? And are there restrictions that can be put in place by this body to ensure that it remains non-dwelling unit? Cathy Laughlin: I'm not sure if you could put a deed restriction on the property that would state it's just a single, I mean, I'm assuming that the notification to the county that it's just a single-family residence when the new home gets built and that there isn't a second dwelling unit on the property. I can tell you we get calls all day long from people who have converted a garage and they were asking for a second address so they can have a new power service or something done to it and we find that it's a conversion for an accessory dwelling unit right so any decision you make today, if we say it can't be used as an accessory dwelling unit, you're putting on the City the responsibility to assure that moving forward. And I'm not sure if we ever could. Catherine Wines could sell the property next year. And the new owner says, wow, I've got two units now. And I'm going to have a rental income here on top of this dwelling. So, I'm not sure. I do have one question for Mr. Stanton. Since the variance was requesting the reduction of the minimum parking requirement from 3-2-17, the Council could not take into consideration a variance from 3-2-17 to allow the one parking space to be within this side-yard setback. Dave Stanton: You mean changing the location? August 12, 2025 City Council | Minutes Page 20 of 26  Cathy Laughlin: Correct. Dave Stanton: Well, the answer to that question is kind of a question but would the Planning Commission have done that at their hearing? Do they have the ability to do that? Cathy Laughlin: They did not because it wasn't part of the variance application. Dave Stanton: Okay. Cathy Laughlin: So, what was requested in the variance application and what was part of the public hearing notifications was a variance from 3-2-17 not requiring the two required off-street parking for the accessory dwelling unit. Dave Stanton: Well, that's a problem because what this council can do is it can affirm, modify, or reverse the decision of the Planning Commission. But if it was not something that was in front of the Planning Commission to begin with, then it's not before this council. Cathy Laughlin: So, we could go back to Planning Commission as a variance to allow the one off- street parking to be allowed to be in the side yard setback. Dave Stanton: The more I hear, the more it sounds like that's maybe where this should be headed. Cathy Laughlin: It would allow five additional feet distance between the existing structure and the retaining wall. Dave Stanton: I see Catherine Wines is shaking her head, so she's going to have to weigh in on this. But were there any other questions of the City Planner? Councilmember Puccinelli: Real quick, a revision of acreage. What exactly is that? Cathy Laughlin: It's a map very similar to a parcel map. Anytime we're making a land use decision when it comes to merging parcels or modifying parcels, creating parcels, any of that, it requires the county to sign, the county assessor, the county treasurer, the owner, the city, the utility companies. Because there could be some easements in there. Everybody has to sign it. The parcel map and the reversion to acreage, the only difference the way the city looks at it, the only differences is the reversion to acreage fee for a map is higher than a parcel map. The parcel map fee to the city is less. But it takes the same amount of signatures required by the applicant to get on the map before it gets recorded. But what it states is, originally before map one was created it was acreage right large acreage so what a reversion to acreage does is it takes those two parcels and just reverts it. They combine it to revert it back to acreage, how it started, and the way we look at it is legal descriptions are the key. How it's assessed is not the key. We look at how the map created those lots, and we just had a parcel map submitted for Bergeron Village, brand new subdivision, but they were created lots and one owner bought the two lots and wants to merge them together to build one house right across the property line. That is the exact same thing. So, they can do it either by a reversion to acreage or they can do a parcel map. August 12, 2025 City Council | Minutes Page 21 of 26  Councilmember Puccinelli: Thank you. Dave Stanton: Are there any other questions for the City Planner? Mayor Keener: Not at this time. Dave Stanton: Okay. The appellant can come back up and make another argument, and then if there's no new testimony, then the city will respond and then the appellant will have the final rebuttal and then it can be submitted to council. Catherine Wines: Thank you for your time tonight. As I stated before, I'm hoping that you can just let me figure out how to fix the issue, whether it's a reversion of acreage or a parcel map or a deed amendment. Just let me handle it, please. And then the parking, I mean moving it five feet, that's not going to make it safer to dig in that area. It's a very, very tight area. I won't do it. So, I'm not interested in going back to the Planning Commission. Thank you. Dave Stanton: Okay, City. Michael Hanley: Good evening again, Michael Hanley for the City. So just addressing the first issue, which is whether a parcel map is required or whether the deed can just be amended. The City is asserting that it can't just be completed by simply amending the deed. I wanted to point out first that we were talking about a record of survey. That is not the same thing as a parcel map or a reversion to acreage. In fact, parcel maps are required by law when merging lots without doing a reversion to acreage and that is in NRS 278.4925 subsections 1 and 2. Ms. Laughlin also pointed out another particular statute that I wanted to highlight which was NRS 278.461 which says “when two or more separate lots, parcels, size units or plots of land are purchased, they remain separate for the purposes of this section” and a few other NRS sections. So essentially what I'm saying is that this cannot be fixed by simply amending the deed. So, I don't think just allowing Ms. Wines to take care of it, as she says, would fix the problem. I think that a parcel map or a reversion to acreage would be what's required. And I also wanted to point out that there is no statute in the Nevada Revised Statutes which says that a legal description can change on a deed, that a legal description change on a deed will merge two plots, excuse me. So, as to that issue, I'm asking that the Planning Commission's decision be affirmed. Then moving on to the second issue, Elko City Code allows parking to be located in the rear yard setback, and we did hear some testimony today that there could be some other options here such as applying for a variance to build the parking spot in the front or side yard setback. So that's an option. And there could also be the option of making the residence above the garage a non-dwelling. So, I think that there are some options here that can be considered that don't involve sending this back to the Planning Commission or modifying the decision. And I also wanted to point out like Ms. Laughlin said, the Planning Commission is not required to consider the cost of the project when approving or denying variances or develop plans for the applicant for building or constructing for the variance. So based on the fact that there are other possibilities, and I believe there were some other possibilities that were identified in the Planning Commission meeting which were moving the parking stall further from the alley or if the retaining wall foundation were leveled and that could also fix the issue. So those issues were identified by the Planning Commission as potential solutions and so essentially, at the end of the day, what the Planning Commission is trying to do is just conform to the law and it's also asking August 12, 2025 City Council | Minutes Page 22 of 26  that Ms. Wines do the same. So, the decision by the Planning Commission may be affirmed, modified, or reversed by the Council. What I'm asking is for the decision to be affirmed and the appeal denied. Ms. Wines indicated that she didn't want to go back to the Planning Commission, so I believe that the right decision is to affirm the decision. Thank you. Dave Stanton: Any rebuttal from the appellant? No? Okay. So that concludes the testimony and an argument portion of the hearing. The matter is now submitted to the council. Mayor Keener: All right. Thank you, Dave. It's a big deal to overturn a Planning Commission decision, particularly when it is unanimous. I listened to the hearing in its entirety just last night, and it felt like they hit all of the points. There might have been a couple of fouls as you indicated in your testimony, I don't know. The issue though of the two lots is non-negotiable and it's my understanding, if I understood you correctly Cathy Laughlin, that if, even if the appeal was overturned and approved by this board, the building department wouldn't be able to even issue a building permit. (Cathy Laughlin confirmed) Okay, so that's totally non-negotiable about trying to do any kind of amendment. And then the issue with the requirement of the additional parking stall can be easily mitigated by converting the apartment to a studio. So that's where I'm at and my position is to affirm the Planning Commission's ruling on this. Councilmember Morris: It's pretty much where I'm at also. The advice from the attorney is that the parcel map is required by NRS and I think it's important to do that. We can't vary from that, and I would have to vote to affirm the decision also. Mayor Keener: If there is no... Councilmember Puccinelli: Oh, yes. I got a real quick... I mean, as I was just reading through some of the evidence and stuff like that, I just remember reading a disclaimer from the county that said in their information that was supplied to us that this is used for appraisals only. And you have to refer back to the jurisdiction of the city or whoever is the governing body to get any more information. So, to me, that's just saying it's used for appraisal only. I mean, the city, we set the rules for this, I guess. And for me, I'm tending to agree with this. I think the easiest fix would be to just get rid of the dwelling upstairs somehow. Get that rid of that, and then we won't even have to have this conversation. I am for affirming as well. Councilmember Morris: Get the parcel map and then she can go in and apply for a building permit and go forward. Councilmember Lostra: So, I feel the same way that I would like to hold the Planning Commission's decision to affirm. I feel that they have met Ms. Wines in some of her requests and they have given alternatives and opportunities for her to provide what she is trying to do with the simple limitation of eliminating the dwelling unit and combining the two parcels so that that would allow for the building permit to move forward and have an art studio above her garage and put in her residential unit on the front of the property. But my decision is also to affirm the planning commission's decision. Councilmember Stone: I'm very sympathetic, Catherine, as to what's going on, and I'm sure it's very frustrating. I don't think there's any choice but to reaffirm this. However, I think there's some very August 12, 2025 City Council | Minutes Page 23 of 26  inexpensive ways to make it happen to be what you want it to be, and so I would, that would be where I would be on my motions. Mayor Keener: All right. Yeah, come on up, Catherine. Catherine Wines: So, can it be a parcel map or a reversion of acreage? Dave Stanton: Yes. Catherine Wines: It can be either one? Okay. Dave Stanton: Correct. Catherine Wines: And affirming what the Planning Commission decided was that I have to put in a parking space. So, I'm not going to do that, but I'll take steps to make the dwelling not a dwelling. So, if you affirm the Planning Commission, you're saying I have to put in a parking space. Is that right? Dave Stanton: Yes, that's right. I mean, whatever was presented to the Planning Commission is what's before the Council. The Council has the ability to modify that decision, but it doesn't have the ability to consider something that was not presented to the Planning Commission. So those are the parameters. Catherine Wines: So, if you affirm what the Planning Commission did, that requires a parking space that could possibly make my garage collapse. Councilmember Puccinelli: Unless it's a non-dwelling and you don't have to worry about it. Mayor Keener: We can affirm, deny, or modify. Right. Catherine Wines: So, I think modify is the thing instead of affirm. Because if you affirm, then it says like part of the thing is that I have to put in parking space. Councilmember Lostra: We cannot modify your application. That wasn't part of your original application. So, we can't modify your application. That would be something you would have to take back to the Planning Commission, is that correct? Dave Stanton: That's correct. The Planning Commission can only consider what was presented to them in the application. Catherine Wines: So, if you take out the requirement for a parking space, but then I'm not able to get a building permit without affirming that I will make the dwelling, I mean, could we do it? Because if you affirm what the planning commission did, I have to put in this parking space. So, I'm willing to convert the dwelling to be a non-dwelling, but I can't put in that parking space Dave Stanton: I think maybe the City Planner can offer some insights August 12, 2025 City Council | Minutes Page 24 of 26  Cathy Laughlin: The variance was 100% related to a guest house in the detached accessory structure, right? It was all about a guest house or future rental unit or whatever. That's what it was tied to. If you go 18 months with no activity on a variance. they expire. That's what our code says, right? If this is not going to be a guest house, then then the only thing Ms. Wines needs to do is merge the two lots so that she can get a building permit, the variance goes away because the variance was all about approval for a guest house. If there's not going to be a guest house this variance goes away. We null and void it. So, there's no conditions to it. She would still be required to merge the two parcels to get the building permit, however that happens. Dave Stanton: Any response from the appellant? Catherine Wines: Not really. I mean if the variance goes away, I'm fine with that too. Mayor Keener: It becomes a non-conforming use. Cathy Laughlin: Correct. Mayor Keener: All right. Someone brave enough to offer up a motion? Councilmember Stone: Sure. Mr. Mayor, I move to uphold Planning Commission's decision. Dave Stanton: Affirm is the... Councilmember Stone: Affirm, excuse me. I move to affirm Planning Commission's decision, noting there are options to changing the dwelling as needed to, now I'm getting complimented here. Dave Stanton: Yeah, I think if you just affirm, then all of these other things can be taken, or take place. Councilmember Stone: Move to affirm Planning Commission's decision. Councilmember Lostra: I'll second that. ** A motion was made by Councilmember Stone, seconded by Councilmember Lostra to affirm Planning Commission’s decision. Mayor Keener: Okay, we have a motion to second. Is there any public comment on this item? I did have a text message come in and listening to the discussion regarding the off-street parking on the Oak Street property, it is important to remain consistent with requiring adequate parking. I am a Tree Street property owner and congestion created by additional dwellings on single lots has drastically impacted the quality of life and character in our homes’ historic neighborhoods. Owners must supply off-street adequate parking to remain consistent. And this was submitted by Loretta Sutliff, S-U-T-L-I-F-F. Via Lori Gilbert. All right, anyone, anything else? Councilmember Stone: Other than I just want to say I'm very sympathetic to what's going on and doing what we can to find a way. Thank you. August 12, 2025 City Council | Minutes Page 25 of 26  Mayor Keener: Thanks for that, Chip. And I would also like for it to be in the record in the strongest terms possible that this is being approved on the basis that this will be an art studio with the current owner and going forward, it will not at some time down the road be converted into an apartment. So anyway, we have motion and a second. All in favor of the motion say aye. Councilmembers: Aye. Mayor Keener: And I also vote aye for approval. The motion passed unanimously. (5-0) XII. COMMENTS BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC Pursuant to N.R.S. 241, this time is devoted to comments by the public, if any, and discussion of those comments. No action may be taken upon a matter raised under this item on the agenda until the matter itself has been specifically included on a successive agenda and identified as an item for possible action. ACTION WILL NOT BE TAKEN Mayor Keener called for final public comment. Mr. Stanton announced they had a couple of visitors from Davies Claim Solutions, who was a third- party administrator for POOL/PACT, Jasmine Sanchez and Donna Squires. There being no further business, Mayor Reece Keener adjourned the meeting at 6:52 PM. Mayor Reece Keener Annette Robinson, City Clerk August 12, 2025 City Council | Minutes Page 26 of 26