Regular Meeting

CITY OF ELKO PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES 5:30 PM, TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 2026 ELKO CITY HALL, COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1751 COLLEGE AVENUE, ELKO, NV 89801 I. CALL TO ORDER Jeff Dalling, Chairman of the City of Elko Planning Commission, called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Jeff Dalling Stefan Beck Garret Kamps Mercedes Mendive Michael Irish Carlos Nunes Absent: John Lemich City Staff Present: Dale Johnson, Assistant City Manager Cathy Laughlin, City Planner Sarah Schick, Civil Engineer Seth Frandsen, Fire Marshal Rachel Randall, Planning Technician III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IV. COMMENTS BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC There were no public comments at this time. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. April 7, 2026 - Regular Meeting. FOR POSSIBLE ACTION ** A motion was made by Commissioner Irish, seconded by Secretary Kamps to approve the meeting minutes from the April 7, 2026, regular meeting, as they stand. The motion passed unanimously. (6-0) June 2, 2026 City of Elko Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 12  VI. NEW BUSINESS A. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Review, consideration and possible action on Variance No. 1-26, filed by Paul Stimac, owner of Cowboy Joe Roasting Co., on behalf of the Pamela Caldwell Family Trust, to allow for a variance from Elko City Code 3-2-17(B)(3)(d) to allow a parking lot to be arranged or designed to necessitate backing a vehicle into a public street, within a LI (Light Industrial) Zoning District, and matters related thereto. FOR POSSIBLE ACTION The subject property is located on the east corner of the intersection of River Street and S. 12th Street. (1246 River Street – APN 001-630-010). The proposed use of the property will be a drive thru coffee shop. CL No planning commissioners needed to sit this item out. The applicant, Paul Stimac, did not give a presentation, but expected his engineer, Lana Carter, Carter Engineering, to join the meeting virtually. There were no public comments at this time. Ms. Laughlin explained that Staff was recommending denial of the requested variance and reviewed the key points from the City of Elko Staff Report, dated May 19, 2026, provided in the agenda packet. The property was zoned Light Industrial and was surrounded by light industrial and industrial commercial properties. It had multiple buildings and the structure closest to River Street, at the front of the property, was considered for a proposed drive-through coffee shop, which was a principal permitted use in that district. The building had been vacant for more than ten years, which meant that it had lost its legal non-conforming status, therefore the site was required to be brought into compliance with current code. The proposal was in conformance with the land use component of the Master Plan Land Use component as it met objectives 4, 7, and 8. However, it did not meet the Transportation component. The property was not located within the redevelopment area. All lot-size requirements were met. The residential buildings at the back of the property were still considered legal non-conforming as they had never sat vacant. She explained that backing movements onto a public street were not allowed for commercial or industrial properties. Instead, City Code required parking spaces to be located and designed with a paved turning area so vehicles could turn around on-site and enter the public street in a forward direction. This requirement was the basis for the requested variance. She stated that, because the proposed use was a drive-through coffee shop, Staff anticipated a significant increase in traffic in the area and at the intersection. She also noted that 12th Street was classified as a minor arterial roadway based on traffic counts. Backing movement would also impact pedestrian safety as the proposed five-foot sidewalk was behind the parking spaces, requiring them to be crossed over. As the proposed business was for drive- thru only, the application stated the parking spaces would only be for employees, but due to the size June 2, 2026 City of Elko Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 12  of the property there was opportunity for the business to provide indoor or outdoor dining areas in the future. She also noted that four parking spaces were required and five spaces were proposed, the fifth being available for walk-up orders. Code required six criteria to be met for a variance to be granted. Staff could not make the required hardship finding because the parcel was approximately one acre in size and appeared to have room to locate the required parking on-site without backing into the public right-of-way. One such area was on the north side of the property, underneath the existing overhead power line. She acknowledged that it was a more costly option as it would be further away from the road but would eliminate the need for a variance. The staff report listed 11 findings, with the key points considered being pedestrian and vehicular safety and the lack of proven hardship. At this time, Ms. Carter was found to be in attendance virtually. Rather than getting her input now, Chairman Dalling continued with Staff comments. Sarah Schick, Civil Engineer, explained that Engineering reviewed the proposal in relation to the functional area of the 12th Street and River Street intersection. Stating that, based on traffic engineering guidance from the Federal Highway Administration (FHA), the functional area extended approximately 100 to 175 feet along River Street depending on the assumed speed on 12th Street. Chairman Dalling questioned the need to change the parking at all as there was existing 45-degree parking and River Street functioned like a dead-end street on that block. Was the change required because of new standards or because the business was expected to be busy? Ms. Schick was unsure whether there were new standards but an increase in traffic to the area as well as the change in use were both considered during Staff review. Vice-Chairman Stefan Beck asked for clarification as he did not understand the issue. Ms. Laughlin explained that the 45-degree parking was on-street parking and that, because of the change of use and loss of grandfathered status, the required parking for the business had to be located on the property. She explained that there was an application to vacate 10 feet of a portion of River Street right-of-way width which would move the property line and cause the proposed parking spaces to be fully on the property, as shown on the site plan. The proposed parking layout would cause backing movement onto River Street, which was not allowed, thus the request for a variance. Vice-Chairman Beck now understood the request and Staff’s finding that compliant parking could be placed elsewhere on the property. Ms. Schick supported Ms. Laughlin’s statements and reiterated that based on the FHA’s traffic engineering best practices, back-out movement was not recommended, which was the primary reason for denial. Chairman Dalling pointed out that the houses across the street were using back-out movements into River Street. June 2, 2026 City of Elko Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 12  Secretary Garret Kamps responded that they were residential properties. He expressed support for seeing the property cleaned up and used but noted concern that the three parking spaces closest to 12th Street could create conflicts if the coffee shop became busy. Commissioner Mercedes Mendive also expressed concern with the three parking spaces closest to 12th Street, as one of the two entrances to the buildings in the back would be blocked. Ms. Laughlin explained that the only access point to the back buildings was on the north side of the property. The southern access point was not on the property, but rather in the 12th Street right-of- way. She spoke favorably about the double-lane drive-through which provided more stacking than required. But also agreed with Secretary Kamps that the proximity of those parking spaces to the intersection may create conflicts between someone wanting to back out of a parking space at the same time as another person wanting to turn into the drive-through. Back-out parking would also be hazardous for those wanting to travel west on River Street because they would need to back across an entire travel lane. Commissioner Michael Irish commented that the area would be wasted space if the spaces were removed. He also questioned where the sidewalk would go to. Ms. Laughlin responded that removing the spaces would leave room for on-street parking. She explained that if the 10-foot vacation was approved, the new sidewalk would match the existing sidewalk. Seth Frandsen, Fire Marshal, said the Fire Department had no comments. Dale Johnson, Assistant City Manager, said the City Manager's office recommended denial based on Staff's recommendations. Commissioner Irish asked what would happen with the residence in the back since the property was in a Light Industrial zoning district. Ms. Laughlin explained that a residential unit was allowed in light industrial if it was a caretaker residence. This building, which was a mobile home, was grandfathered in because it had never sat vacant. Secretary Kamps asked if the parking requirement would increase if the business decided to open the interior to customers. Ms. Laughlin said it would depend on the useable square footage. The provided parking table on the site plan determined the parking requirement to be four parking spaces based on zero-square-footage for indoor dining. They were exceeding that requirement by providing five spaces, so depending on the increase to the usable square footage, the fifth space may be adequate to accommodate it. Chairman Dalling asked Mr. Stimac if he would be moving locations or if this would be a business expansion as a second location. June 2, 2026 City of Elko Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 12  Mr. Stimac introduced himself and gave his address as 875 2nd Street. He stated that the proposed River Street location would be an expansion and was hopeful that it would be a successful drive- through. The downtown Cowboy Joe location would remain open. Vice-Chairman Beck asked if denial of the variance would torpedo the project. Mr. Stimac explained that denial of the variance would not stop the project, but it would increase costs because the parking would need to be moved, which would require additional asphalt, and the powerline may need to be moved. Commissioner Irish asked if cost was the only reason Mr. Stimac asked for the variance. Mr. Stimac said that it was. Chairman Dalling asked what the square footage of the building was. Mr. Stimac said it was 1,100 square feet. Chairman Dalling commented that it had been an eyesore for at least the last 15 years. He couldn’t recall ever seeing it open. Commissioner Carlos Nunes remembered it being a Bail Bond once, and Ms. Laughlin said the last business had been a ceramic shop. Ms. Carter stated she couldn’t hear the meeting, and as a result, she was unsure about what had already been discussed. She explained that when the variance application was submitted, one of the primary considerations was the nature of the lot. Although the size of the lot was relatively large, because the rear portion was being utilized, it made it difficult, though not impossible, to provide on- site parking in another configuration. Due to the nature of the business being strictly a drive-through coffee shop, the proposed parking spaces were intended exclusively for employees. As a result, there would not be significant traffic entering and exiting the parking area. The applicant needed to request a vacation of the street right-of-way for the accessible ramp into the building and so decided to apply for a variance at the same time. In reviewing similar situations in the past, she had observed instances where back-out parking had been permitted, sometimes with the sidewalk located behind vehicles and, in most cases, in front, which she acknowledged was typically safer. In this case, the sidewalk was positioned behind the parking spaces to keep it within the right- of-way. Given that the parking was limited to employees and would not generate high traffic volumes, the applicant believed the request for a variance was reasonable. Traffic on River Street would increase but would primarily consist of business-related trips rather than through traffic. Vice-Chairman Beck said he hadn’t realized it would be employee parking only, commenting that four cars backing out in an 8-hour period was nothing. June 2, 2026 City of Elko Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 12  Ms. Schick stated that Engineering’s concern was minimizing conflict points rather than the volume of employee trips. Ms. Laughlin added that there would be conflicts with pedestrians using the sidewalk as well. Chairman Dalling enquired about the project timeline. Mr. Stimac said it would depend on permitting as well as any changes to the plans if the variance was not approved. Commissioner Nunes asked whether backing over the sidewalk was the issue. Ms. Laughlin explained that Section 3-2-17 of City Code did not allow off-street parking to back into the right-of-way from commercial or industrial properties and that pedestrian conflicts were also a concern. Commissioner Nunes commented about the number of businesses around town that also had back- out parking, stating he had recently counted forty-seven. There was a medical business with back- out parking one block away, on the corner of 12th Street and Silver Street. Ms. Laughlin explained other properties could have legal non-conforming status because they have not sat vacant or had a change of use. If either of those things occurred the property would have to be brought up to code or get a variance. A recent variance for a property on Douglas Street was approved for back-out parking because there was not a lot of traffic in that area and most of the lot was being used by the large building, with just enough room to have on-site parking. Staff supported the variance because the proposed business would not generate a lot of traffic and the hardship for the property was proven. That was not the case for this property, as the property was large enough to accommodate the required parking. Chairman Dalling understood Staff’s concerns but felt it was important to consider that it was not a brand-new development. He didn’t see a problem with the existing parking lot because River Street was not a through-street, even though it was not quite a dead-end either, and the sidewalk was in front of the parking lot instead of behind it. There was also a chance the residents in the back would complain about the proposed layout because it interfered with their u-shaped access. He worried that if costs increased, the project would no longer be feasible and the project abandoned. Ms. Laughlin stated that Staff was presenting the code requirements and facts only. If the Commission was leaning towards approving the variance, they would need to include a hardship finding. She also recommended including a condition that if the business changed to indoor or outdoor dining, that the variance be reevaluated at that time. Vice-Chairman Beck proposed approving the variance for employee parking only with no backing- out, then revisiting the approval when the business grew, that way there would be a cost savings. Ms. Laughlin recommended excluding financial savings as a finding as it could not be considered for variance approval. June 2, 2026 City of Elko Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 12  Commissioner Irish stated that he wanted to justify the variance but believed the issue could be solved through design. Vice-Chairman Beck questioned why they couldn’t park in front of the property. Ms. Laughlin reiterated that that parking had to be on the property itself. Commissioner Mendive stated that she was trying to balance practical use of the site with the Commission’s responsibility to uphold current code. Commissioner Irish asked if the City would offer any help on the curb, gutter and sidewalk. Ms. Laughlin said no. Secretary Kamps said that while River Street currently had very little traffic, the hope was for the business to generate more traffic, such as the carwash across 12th Street. But he was concerned that during busy periods, vehicle stacking could extend into the street and prevent employees from leaving the parking spaces. He would be more supportive of locating the parking toward the back of the property, where vehicles could circulate through the site and wait for traffic to clear before existing, or at least moving the three parking spaces closest to the 12th Street intersection. Vice-Chairman Beck still wanted to approve the variance and then reevaluate it in 6 months or a year. Both Commissioner Irish and Secretary Kamps were opposed to this suggestion as it would mean paying to install parking twice. Commissioner Irish expressed confidence in Ms. Carter’s ability to provide a solution that met the budget. Ms. Laughlin commented that the area just north of the building, between the power pole and the square box shown on the site plan had a width of about 56 feet. Parking stalls were normally 9’ x 20’, so there was plenty of room for parking and an access isle to be located there, for instance. Chairman Dalling asked if there were any other questions, to which he received no reply. He then asked Mr. Stimac if he had any final comments, which he did not. Helen Olmstead, 1257 River Street, stated that she was not opposed to the project but was concerned about congestion, existing street parking, and whether the parking would be private for Cowboy Joe’s or available to the public. She suggested adding NO PARKING signage so people wouldn’t park on the street. Ms. Laughlin said as it was laid out, there was some room for on-street parking between the on-site parking stalls, and restrictive signage could be added. If however the Commission wanted the sidewalk moved in front of the parking spaces, the existing ADA ramp would no longer function as- is and the sidewalk would be a public sidewalk on private property, which would require a grant of easement. June 2, 2026 City of Elko Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 12  There were no other public comments. ** A motion was made by Vice Chairman Beck, seconded by Commissioner Irish to deny Variance No. 1-26. Vice-Chairman Beck's findings to support the motion are the proposed variance is in conformance with the Land Use Component of the Master Plan. The proposed variance is not in conformance with the Transportation Component of the Master Plan and existing transportation infrastructure as it conflicts with the goals and objectives of the Master Plan. The property is not located within the redevelopment area and therefore consideration of the plan was not required. The proposed use is in conformance with the principal permitted uses listed in Elko City Code 3 2-12. The proposed off-street parking is backing into the street and therefore, a variance will be required to be approved in order to be in conformance with Elko City Code 3-2-17. In accordance with Section 3-2-22, the applicant has not demonstrated the special circumstances or features regarding the parcel. In accordance with Section 3-2-22, the applicant has not demonstrated that there are practical difficulties or exceptional undue hardships, which constitutes an abridgment of property right and deprives the property owner of reasonable use of property. In accordance with Section 3-2-22, the applicant has not demonstrated special circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district. Granting of the variance will result in material damage or prejudice to other properties in the vicinity. Granting of the variance will substantially impair the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance. Granting of the variance will not impair natural resources. The motion Passed. (5-1) Commissioner Mendive voted against it. After the vote, Chairman Dalling advised Mr. Stimac of his right to appeal the decision. 2. Review, consideration and possible action on Conditional Use Permit No. 1-26, filed by BM Shippy Properties, LLC, which would allow for a commercial development within a C- General Commercial zoning district abutting a residential zoning district, and matters related thereto. FOR POSSIBLE ACTION Any new commercial development that abuts a residential zoning district requires the approval of a conditional use permit. CL No planning commissioners needed to sit this item out. The applicant, Brady Shippy, was present, but did not give a presentation. He was available to answer any questions. There were no public comments. Ms. Laughlin summarized the City of Elko Staff Report, dated May 19, 2026, provided in the agenda packet, stating that the property was zoned Commercial with a Commercial Highway Master Plan designation and that the proposed use met Objectives 6 and 8 of the Land Use Component. The project was in conformance with the Transportation Component because Jennings Way was currently classified as a minor arterial and would become a major arterial once connected, while Mountain June 2, 2026 City of Elko Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 12  City Highway was an arterial roadway with no proposed access from the subject property. The site had pedestrian access along its frontages, supported safe routes to schools, and that the proposed access aligned with the access point across the street, which Staff considered the safest location and consistent with the intent of the transportation standards. The property was not within the Redevelopment Area or a wellhead protection area, met the applicable conditional use permit requirements, and required approval because the commercial development abutted a residential zoning district. The development complied with the zoning district requirements, but that outdoor storage in the Commercial zoning district was subject to screening requirements. She noted that the applicant proposed Conex containers on the north side of the property for storage, enclosed by fencing with two gates, and proposed an eight-foot vinyl fence with slats. She also explained that, under City Code, the Planning Commission needed to consider whether a screen fence was required between the commercial use and the residential use, and that the adjacent residential subdivision had already installed a six-foot vinyl fence along the property line, which the applicant proposed be accepted as the required screen fence where additional screening was not needed. Chairman Dalling asked for clarification about the storage screening requirement. Was it only required for the corner where the storage area was? Ms. Laughlin confirmed that it was so. The existing six-foot vinyl fence could satisfy the requirement for screening between residential and commercial uses. An eight-foot-tall fence was only required for the storage area because of the Conex containers. She then finished her summary of the staff report, stating a conditional use permit for the development was required by Section 3-2-18, which also stipulated a timeframe for the developer to be actively engaged and to complete the development. The property was not in a flood zone. There were 10 findings in the staff report and Staff recommended conditional approval. Ms. Schick recommended conditional approval as presented. Mr. Frandsen recommended approval. Mr. Johnson recommended approval with the listed conditions. Chairman Dalling asked if there were any commissioner questions and commented that it looked like a good fit and a good use of the lot. Secretary Kamps asked if the proposed signage would be lit. Mr. Shippy gave his address as 1520 Lamoille Hwy and responded that the sign on the building would probably be lit. Ms. Laughlin added that illumination of a sign was dependent on which way it faced in relationship to a residential use. If it faced the frontage side, there would be no concerns. If, however, there was a pole sign with flashing lights or a reader board, there would be conditions. June 2, 2026 City of Elko Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 12  Mr. Shippy then discussed the grading of the site and explained that, because of the amount of dirt work proposed, the finished grade near the storage area would be lower than the surrounding residential properties by about 10 feet. He wanted to know if the difference in grades and the existing 6-foot vinyl fence could be considered in determining whether the 8-foot requirement was being met. He also commented that he would have to extend the vinyl fence up the bank and maintain the vegetation on the slope. Ms. Laughlin explained that the intent was to screen outdoor storage from public view and that the condition could account for finished grade if the combination of slope and fence height met the screening intent. The two sides visible from the front would have to be eight-foot tall. Mr. Shippy understood and reasoned that the Conex containers were taller than eight feet so the fences would need to be 8’6” tall to fully block them from view. They would need to be engineered, so any relief on the property line abutting the residential uses would be beneficial. Secretary Kamps stated that he wanted the requirement to be clear so the applicant would not be penalized mid-project. Ms. Laughlin suggested amending Condition No. 8 to clarify that topography could be considered, and that if the finished grade elevation and existing fence height effectively provided the required eight-foot screening, the condition would be satisfied. There were no public comments. ** A motion was made by Secretary Kamps, seconded by Commissioner Mendive to conditionally approve Conditional Use Permit No. 1-26 subject to the conditions in the City of Elko Staff Report dated May 19, 2026, listed as follows, and as modified by the Planning Commission: 1. The permit is granted to the applicant Shippy Properties LLC. for the proposed use and site as presented in the application. 2. The permit shall be personal to the permittee and applicable only to the specific use and to the specific property for which it is issued. However, the Planning Department may approve the assignment of the conditional use permit to another owner. 3. CUP 1-26 to be recorded with the Elko County Recorder within 90 days after the commencement of the construction of the new building. 4. Sewer infrastructure shall be extended along the frontage of Mountain City Highway unless waived by the City Council. 5. Hydrology Report to be submitted prior to building permit issuance. 6. All parking lot lighting is to be shielded or cut-off design. 7. An illumination schedule is required to ensure lighting is adequate for safety with minimal impact to adjacent properties. 8. All exterior storage buildings shall be painted to match the principal structure and screened by a solid fence a minimum of eight feet (8’-0”) in height. A solid fence and gate enclosure shall be constructed around the storage area to control access. The June 2, 2026 City of Elko Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 12  enclosure shall be designed to provide durable, consistent visual screening compatible with the surrounding area. Roof structures or coverings over the shipping containers are prohibited. The entire storage area shall be fully enclosed and maintained so as not to be visible from public rights-of-way or adjoining properties. 9. All landscaping required by Elko City Code shall be maintained in a manner acceptable to the City of Elko at all times by the property owner. 10. Any signage must be permitted and comply with Elko City Code 3-9. Illumination may be restricted to brightness and hours of operation to protect the abutting residential district. Planning Commission: 1. When determining compliance with Condition No. 8 listed above, the existing 6-foot screen fence on the north and east sides of the property may be used to satisfy the screening requirement for the storage area, provided that measurement from finish grade elevation to the top of the fence confirms conformance. Secretary Kamps' findings to support the motion are the proposed development is in conformance with the Land Use Component of the Master Plan. The proposed conditional use permit meets Objectives 6 & 8 of the Land Use Component of the Master Plan. The proposed development is in conformance with the existing transportation infrastructure and the Transportation Component of the Master Plan. The site is suitable for the proposed use. The proposed development is in conformance with the City Wellhead Protection Program. The proposed use is consistent with surrounding land uses. The proposed use is in conformance with City Code 3-2-10 PC, C Commercial Districts with the approval of the Condition Use Permit. Development under the proposed conditional use will not adversely impact natural systems, or public/federal lands such as waterways, wetlands, drainages, floodplains etc. or pose a danger to human health and safety. The parcel is not located within a designated Special Flood Hazard Area. The proposed development is in conformance 3-2-3, 3-2-4, 3-2-17, 3-2-18, and 3-8 of the Elko City Code. The motion passed unanimously. (6-0) VII. REPORTS B. Summary of Redevelopment Agency Actions Ms. Laughlin reported that the Redevelopment Agency had reviewed proposed amendments to the Redevelopment Plan at its May 26th meeting. The amendments would be considered next month at a public hearing and every property owner within the redevelopment area would be notified. Many of the amendments were intended to update language to reflect changes in Nevada Revised Statutes since the plan was originally adopted in 2008. The Agency approved landscaping improvements in the 300, 400 and 500 blocks of the downtown corridor planter areas. The work was awarded to Ruby Rose and would include adding new plants and replacing the bark with decomposed granite. The planted areas in the blocks further west could be cleaned up later on. June 2, 2026 City of Elko Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 12  She also reported that the Agency ratified a $1,700 increase to the purchase price for a set of pedestrian signals planned for the Silver Street and 4th Street intersection. The change in cost was due to an increase in aluminum and shipping costs after the original quote, which was around $35,000 for two sets. The signs for the Silver Street and 3rd Street intersection have already been installed. A. Summary of City Council Actions Ms. Laughlin reported that there would be several items on the upcoming City Council meeting agenda. At next month’s Planning Commission meeting, there would be a public hearing for a Parks and Recreation Master Plan amendment. It had been heard by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board recently. The Planning Commission would also review it and provide a recommendation to City Council. VIII. COMMENTS BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Jeff Dalling, Chairman Garret Kamps, Secretary June 2, 2026 City of Elko Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 12