Like to call this meeting for the Carson City Historic Resources Commission on January 7th, 2026 at four o'clock to order.

You have a roll call, please.

Chair Drews.

Here.

Vice Chair Schmitter.

Here.

Commissioner Block.

Commissioner Darney.

Commissioner Schmidt.

Commissioner Spiolda.

Here.

Commissioner Wright.

We have a quorum.

Thank you.

Next item is public comment.

Is there any public comment on items that uh within the purview of the Historic Resources Commission?

That's fine.

For the record, I'm Eric Brooks from Visit Carson City.

I'm the Arts and Culture Program Manager.

I'm excited to come and present to you an initiative that we've been working on for the past several months.

We were able to receive eighteen thousand dollars from the America two fifty grant cycle.

And we're going to be using those funds for a project called Points of Unity.

So in general, we wanted to find something.

So big picture, there's another program happening called Dust and Wonder Trail, and that's going to be uniting Carson Valley, Virginia City, and Carson City is one destination for people coming to town since they don't see those lines that make us different.

So part of that project was to do a public art initiative that would have something to draw those people there and then have them move around the region.

And the railroad and the train, the VT train is the one thing that really connects those three areas.

So Brewery Arts Center.

So we're contacting people with that are working within all those organizations.

We're super excited to have these first nine go in this spring, and then the larger package will be happening before October 8th.

Thank you so much.

So Eric, these are 53 inches tall.

Correct.

Okay.

So Corten Steel.

And when you hit one, the QR code will have the whole region.

So 30 to 40 is what we're looking at by October.

They're being fabricated by Jeff Schaumburg based out of Reno.

If you're familiar with the belief sign in downtown Reno or the home that's at the ACES ballpark, those are his pieces.

He's got work as a very established artist that has work throughout the world.

So we're excited to work with him on those.

Thank you so much for your time.

Heather, thank you so much as well.

And if you have further questions, you'll feel free to reach out to me at Visa Carson City.

Thank you, Eric.

Any other public comment?

Hearing them will move to item four for possible action approval of minutes from our November 5th or 2025 meeting.

Any questions?

I move a motion.

I move that we um approve the meeting minutes from the November 5th.

Is it November 5th?

Second.

Second.

Motion or second.

Any questions?

Okay.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries unanimously.

Uh next item is uh 5A.

HRC-2025-0417 for possible action, discussion and possible action regarding an historic resources commission annual report for 2026.

Heather.

Thanks.

Heather Ferris for the record.

So the HRC bylaws require the HRC to submit an annual report to the Board of Supervisors, including information about cases reviewed by the HRC, administrative reviews, and information regarding other historic preservation activities.

Staff's provided a draft report for your consideration.

And I'm available for questions.

You guys had a chance to review the draft report.

Any questions, comments, additional information that needs to be on there?

Um I didn't I didn't realize that we'd been doing the scavenger hunt for 16 years.

So that's I haven't been here for 16 years, but that's what the records show.

Yes.

Time just goes by so fast.

Any other questions or comments?

Uh first meeting in February, probably.

Yeah, so um I'm planning on presenting this to the board and with your help, if you would, um, February 5th.

Okay.

Any other questions or comments from the commissioner?

Any public comment on this item?

Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to accept the uh annual report.

Do we need it?

Yeah, that's it's a recommendation to the board.

I move move that we approve the report, annual report prepared by staff for presentation to the board of supervisors.

The motion drive a second.

Motion and second, any questions?

All in favor.

Aye opposed.

Motion carries unanimously.

Uh next item is 5B HRC-2025-0419 for possible action, discussion and possible action regarding nominations for the 2026 Carson City Historic Preservation Awards for outstanding achievements in historic preservation.

Heather, do you want to?

Yeah, so um this is really agendized this month to kind of get you guys thinking about um you know who you might want to nominate um with plans of bringing it back to you for an actual nomination on March 4th at your March 4th meeting.

Um so as a reminder, um there were a few projects or people that you guys had talked about last year that ultimately weren't nominated.

Um those included the owners of 506 North Elizabeth Street, and as I recall that's something that Jed brought up.

I think it was just for the general um rehabilitation of that property.

One was the fence restoration at the Capitol, and then of course RCI's reconstruction of the Lee House.

The fence rehabilitation project is not happening right this second.

Okay.

RCI.

Are you having trouble with it?

Yes.

I think it's the obvious choice.

Are there any other properties we want to put on for the March meeting?

Thank you, Eddie.

If Jed was here, we'd probably have 10 or 12.

So we typically also will advertise this.

So I'll advertise it probably in February for the month of February, and then any nominations that we get from the public.

Sounds great.

Any other directions for Heather?

Hearing none, we'll move to item 5C, HRC-2025-0345 for discussion only.

Discussion regarding an application for a zoning text amendment.

ZA2025-0394 to allow for the use of the same setbacks when relocating a building within the historic district.

Heather.

So you all discussed this at your September meeting.

On November 3rd, we actually received an application for the text amendment.

And it's really to amend the setback requirements within the historic district when a historic structure is being relocated from one parcel to the next, essentially transferring those, um, allowing for those um setbacks from the original parcel to be transferred to the parcel that the structures relocated to.

So since the last staff report, or since since the staff report was released, um we continued, staff continue to work with the DA's office on the language, and what was presented in the memo has changed uh from what's from what's in the memo to what's shown here on the screen.

Um so subsection D is has been deleted, and the requirement for approval by the planning commission has been um put in the um intro paragraph for for subsection three, and this modification um more accurately reflects the um the recommendation from the planning commission.

Um and the requirement for the special use permit was really it was a suggestion by staff kind of after the fact.

Um following the planning commission meeting, um, staff um really kind of took a step back and um really thought about what kind of um framework um we would be um the planning commission would need in order to make a decision um on a project such as this.

So our recommendation going forward to the board, um the language in the ordinance is going to appear like this, but staff will mention to the board that we would recommend uh a special use permit if the planning commission is the approving body, um, and we'll see what the board does with that.

Um this is currently scheduled for the January 15th Board of Supervisors meeting, and um that would be for introduction of the ordinance, an ordinance takes uh two readings.

So if the board introduces the ordinance, I would anticipate bringing it back to the board on the on the February 19th meeting um for adoption.

Questions?

I did have a question.

Go ahead.

Uh is it clear that the property from which the building was removed will use the setbacks in the current code.

So um the code already essentially requires that.

So this language doesn't address that.

Okay.

It is addressed elsewhere.

Yes.

I had a coup thinking through this a little bit.

And I don't know if something I want to bring up with us or at the planning commission meeting.

Something that's on a zero lot line currently, being moved to a different parcel and putting it on zero lot line.

I would think that the adjacent owner would have to have a say in that.

Because if he's already got a building on the zero lot line and you put another one on there, what does that do?

There's complications there that could come up.

Yeah, so for that in particular, um, we have noticing requirements for any HRC application that impacts a specific property.

So we would have to notify surrounding landowners of any of these meetings.

Um additionally, um any essentially if we ultimately go with a special use permit at the planning commission level, we we have noticing requirements there as well.

So much like a variance where we don't require them to get the the adjacent property owners' approval, the adjacent property owner would be notified and would have an opportunity to participate in the public process.

Um the other the other comment I was gonna make is I uh being an architect, I've uh I often have issues with special use permits being required in certain projects.

Um this may be one of most of these things that were probably going to be moved or most likely uh smaller structures.

And I'm I'm not sure what it is today, but what's the cost of a special use permit around?

2500 around 2500 non-refundable.

Correct.

So that's half the budget of something like the little shed that was being moved.

So originally staff um did not recommend that the planning commission um be the approving body.

The recommendation from staff going forward to the planning commission was essentially the HRC would review it, with um subsections 3A, B, and C being essentially you know, the things that you're reviewing it against.

Um the planning commission was uh pretty adamant that they wanted to have be the approving body.

Um with that staff's kind of left trying to figure out what type of application would that best fit under there they're asking for uh the right to deal with that application, but they're just asking for it.

They're not an elected body.

That's ultimately up the decision of the board of supervisors.

That's so we could also state our case pretty much using what Rob's talking about that you know, we're we're trying to help people, we're trying to facilitate just as we did in this last one.

2500 is more than the structure's worth.

So what's gonna happen is we're gonna end up kicking that can again.

And I I sometimes I think uh I understand there's a there's a need for fees, but if we're trying to do some preservation, there's got to be a little give and take.

And I don't know why the planning commission has to be the ultimate authority.

If I I'm gonna take it a step further, I think the ultimate authority should be through uh the the public process, but also through the the building department.

And I've looked at this and I have one really strong question.

When we deal with historic structures, we're basically dealing with the the front facade of the building, correct?

Unless it's on a corner, then we worry about that.

Older buildings uh are fairly flammable.

And when we allow these to go to a zero setback, uh we're we're really bringing uh we should really consider that adjacent property owner and the distance to that building.

And I think I I'm hoping that fire is looked at this because I can see like the the unit that we're talking about relocating, uh it's very old structure, it's it's extremely flammable.

Uh you know, where where we're trying to help somebody, we could really be causing a problem.

And I and I think what we need to do is take a look at that code along with the building department and the fire department and say, look, we can create a one-hour or two-hour wall uh on the property line on the parallel line, as long as it doesn't affect what we're trying to do in the front of the building.

And I I think maybe we're going just a little bit too fast.

I know it's a first reading, right?

It is a first reading, yes.

I is fire been involved at all.

Um so building and fire have both reviewed the um application and did not have any comments.

Uh I I'd sure like to see uh some consideration given there.

I'm gonna add slightly to that also one of the projects I was involved with about two years ago, uh moving a project like we were talking about.

Uh the building as that sat probably was built in 1890, little garage shed uh carriage house.

And uh the problem was that it had a one-foot overhang on a zero lot line draining on to the opposing opposite uh the adjacent property.

So recreating the same problem is not necessarily a good idea.

And so there should be I I can't see where there can't be some fluctuation in how these things get approved, because if there are problems with fire with an adjacent structure that can't be touched, it could be in harm's way if someone gets close to it.

Uh all these little things that can come up.

So I think I'm sorry.

I I was just going to say, based on the comments that I'm hearing, um a special use permit is probably the tool that's needed in order to do that.

I yeah, I think unfortunately I see some agreement.

It does the way this reads, it's like the setbacks transfer.

So it is the setback that was before, but why couldn't we approve it subject to the sub the setback being modified so that we can take into account some of those kinds of issues?

So you could potentially do that.

So nothing says that you only get to evaluate on A, B, and C.

Those are the minimums.

So just like with everything else, you guys have the opportunity to add conditions of approval.

Um that being said, if the planning commission ultimately um gets the final approval, everything that you guys do here would be forwarded to the planning commission as a recommendation.

I I just don't know why they should stick their hands in it.

It's not really their deal.

Um I had the same concerns because uh we have adopted wooy here in Carson City, right?

And I think we should have a minimum five feet, but that's not even that's just a non-combustible zone.

What if there's a fence right up to the back of this structure, and then the fire is just gonna well the the wooy code in in the historic district is really not gonna be applicable.

The wooy is outside the wooy sits outside of the the basic urban area of Carson City.

But where I work where you work, it's very it is wooy in a big way.

It's all woo.

But I just wanted to follow up on what Rob said about the overhang.

If a firewall, that's why I was I wanted to make sure that we can allow a firewall and new construction to occur on the property line, and in the construction of the firewall, uh that could extend up above, and then you don't have to worry about the overhang and draining onto the adjacent lot.

But it creates some problems there, but that's for design professionals.

And other problems that are associated with that in zoning and site planning is also drainage.

Uh, you could affect drainage between two parcels by the placement of a property.

Um I know in the floodplains we argue all the time about putting these little stupid flood vents in the flood in the walls.

And you know, there's a lot of arguments of whether or not that's viable or not.

So there's a lot more to it that I think than the simplicity of the wording I see here is the problem I see.

So I understand what you guys are saying with the inclusion of the planning commission having final approval as it as it's presented currently, um, there would be some other application, whether it's a special use permit or something else.

So there's additional opportunity for review.

In my opinion, the special use permit makes the most sense if the planning commission is going to review it, because all of these things that are being brought up are part of the special use permit review.

Yeah, that's a billage so that's a good idea.

And it's not making it any friendly.

When this comes to us, can we look at that special the items in that special use permit and apply it for our uh recommend or within our recommendation?

I think we would have to do something similar to that, yeah.

Uh whether you see the special use permit application or an HRC application that has very specified questions for this type of application that essentially address the findings and everything for a special use permit as well.

You know, listening to you, Heather, and I don't want to upset the planning commissioner at all, but if we're trying to use this as a way to facilitate things within the historic district, I like what you said about some type of historic commission application rather than a special use application, and that we can go before the board of supervisors and even before the planning commission.

Look, this really belongs to us.

We should be the ones that that take a look at this because it's a ver for a special purpose and a special need.

And that's just me, but I don't know why we can't do that, and we could simplify it.

I don't know why it has to become a long drawn out.

So ultimately the planning commission and the board are the two entities that review and make recommendation or approve any changes to the zoning code.

This lives in the zoning code.

Um so ultimately, even if we take this back through the process, if the if the board says no, let's make some additional changes and we have to go back through the planning commission.

Um the planning commission would be the one reviewing it and making recommendation to the board.

That doesn't mean that you guys can't show up under public comment and provide public comment on the item at the at the board, but um, you know, the board will do with that what they will.

I'm really looking at the fee part of it.

Yeah.

Again, if we take click on we're looking at there's there a way we can we can amend the special use permit for applications within the historic district so that we can have some kind of incentive for people to do things like this.

We waive the they waive the fee.

Or like they do the perm the billing permits, do a gradient fee.

If it's so big, it's so much if it's so with this.

With this particular application, it would have to go back to the planning commission.

Um so at this point it has to go to the board on the 15th just because of um statutory timelines.

Um the board may introduce it, or if somebody from the HRC shows up, I can certainly report out to the board what your concerns are.

Um I don't know what the board will do with that.

As far as making changes to the special use permit, I don't think we make changes to the special use permit if the primary concern is the fee.

I think if the primary concern is the fee and not the process and not any of the findings, then the issues the fee, and we would need to evaluate whether or not we adopt a new fee.

Yeah, I agree because it has to be right now.

The problem is it's a flat fee.

Any size, any shape gets the same flat rate, and that's not fair.

If I'm moving a 120 square foot carriage house and the guy next door is moving a three-story building, yeah, that's not something's not it cries foul.

And from my perspective, of course, I'm being very honest here about being an architect.

I'm being paid most times to argue with zoning and and things like that for my client's sake.

And I uh I've always come to the process where I should be able to do it unless you can point to something that tells me I can't do it.

And that's what I'm worried about.

So from from my point of view, reading what's on the board in our discussion today, uh I'd like to see them put the brakes on and uh on the 15th and say, look, uh, there's some things that we need to address here, um, both in uh the fee and the purpose of what we're trying why this was even put on here, uh fire uh drainage.

I I think it can be improved.

And I I would just I would like to uh just for myself uh ask them to please remove this from their agenda on the 15th.

Um Michelle Schmitter for the record.

I have concerns with the fact that our lot lines are not accurate in Carson City as it is, and so if we're gonna have a zero lot line, then the structure might be placed on the neighboring property once they get it survey.

So I feel like we need a minimum away from the property.

The issue here I say I I ask is at whose discretion.

Because every project is going to be different.

This isn't one size fits all is the problem.

So during the discussion, I thought that you said that if we made the um added conditions conditions of approval for our recommendation, and and then that was forwarded to the planning commission, then it wouldn't need a special use permit, which would then not need a fee.

No, so what I said is that your recommendation would include any of those additional conditions of approval.

Um so right now, anything that you guys um any regular HRC application that you guys see, there's always conditions of approval associated with it.

They might be just standard, they might be some that you guys add as a result of the discussion here at the meeting.

So a recommendation would would be the same.

We would then forward that recommendation on to the planning commission for their consideration when they're considering considering the special use permit or whatever type of application ultimately they end up reviewing with with it being kind of up in the air right now because the board hasn't decided on this, it's it's a lot of hypotheticals.

But if it's a special use permit, it would your recommendation would go forward to the board, including all of those conditions.

So again, it's a recommendation, so it would be a recommendation to the planning commission, and the planning commission may or may not, but you guys have to if if you keep in mind the zoning, the underlying zoning district um already has a setback.

So typically you have typically it's five-foot side setback.

Um, and then the rears vary depending on what that underlying zoning is.

Um they could be 10, they could be 20, they could be five.

So the whole point here when we started this process was that the applicant was looking for some sort of relief from the required setbacks for the underlying zoning district.

So the only way in the code right now to get that is through variance.

There's typically no real good case for a variance on a flat lot.

Maybe the size of the lot, but um typically there really isn't a good case for a variance.

It's usually topography or some other constraint like flood zone uh fault line, something like that.

How about we add historic district to that list you're down aiming right now?

Um because it might not apply in all cases, and then we'll have everybody from the historic district wanting to come in for a variance.

But the variance would be subject to disapproval or approval based on all these things that are variables.

That's more expensive than a special use permit.

Okay.

That that's one thing I don't know.

And I need I need someone to tell me that because I have no idea.

And in all honesty, I believe the special use permit findings are for an application like this are a little bit easier to make than the variance findings.

So I I think this I mean it seems to me, yeah.

It seems to me that we're gonna going to discuss the things that are we're bringing up here, setbacks and drainage fire and things like that.

I don't have any problem with going before the board and pointing out the fact that the special use permit is gonna be uh really restrictive for people within the district to do this, and maybe we need to look at some kind of sliding uh cost for those.

I mean, I think we support this knowing what the purpose of this was to allow that little shortage garage to be moved and uh be put on the joint and adjoining board property.

So I think we can we can go to the board with our concerns and keep this thing moving and then work on the the sliding scale.

Okay, I said my piece.

So I just have one more question, it's not quite clear to me.

Um if the person comes here with a historic one of our forms for the project and we approve it with and make recommendations for approval with conditions that would take into consideration the setbacks and drainage and things like that.

And that application is then forwarded to the planning commission with those recommendations, and then they would approve that form, right?

That historic resources are form for the project.

Or would they want another form?

It would be a different special use permit application.

So that's a different form with a fee with very specific findings of fact that the planning commission has to make in order to um approve a special use permit.

And they couldn't take that from our form in our recommendations.

With what we have now, no I don't think it would be a big lift for an applicant to um you know essentially take what's what's submitted to the HRC and add a little bit of additional information for the um for the findings for the planning commission.

It just seems to me like it's duplicate work.

We're gonna address all those issues and then they're gonna readdress all those issues.

Is that not so?

We we with the Gilly property, we kind of ran into that same thing, and there was some concern about who got to approve what first.

Which property that was Gilly's property on uh who was it?

It was division, it was a single family property that they wanted to put condos on.

I think they needed a special use permit for that.

Came to us first.

We probably with conditions, yeah.

Um, and then the planning approved uh commission approved it.

Um there were few members of the public who objected to the project.

He said no, you should have let the planning planning uh commission approve it first and then go to you.

Um but I think we're doing the same thing.

I think we're looking at the so this is yeah, so this is real clear that the planning commission is looking for a recommendation from um the HRC, and and maybe what we do is we um you know just get the special use permit permit application and bring it to you first and then take it to the planning commission.

Those are all things that we can work out as far as the process internal process goes.

Um making changes to forms, we can do that fairly easily too.

Um but we need to know exactly what we're working with first before we do any of that.

Any other comments on this item?

Any public comment okay.

So I'll hopefully I'll be here on the twin on the 15th.

Okay.

Um, but I'll let the the board know that there's some concerns with the the cost that goes along with the special use permit.

Yeah, this change.

And the board has the authority to remand it back to the planning commission.

So uh next item is 5D HRC-2025-0418 for possible action discussion on possible action to elect an historic resources commission chairman and vice chairman for a one-year term ending January 2027.

I'd like to make a motion to nominate Mike.

Well, I haven't I haven't called for that yet.

I'll uh open up nominations for uh nominate Mike Drew's for chair advice, same time.

You can do both.

We can do both, sure.

For chair, we can actually write to his right.

So I'd like to nominate Michelle Schmitter.

That's just you know where I'm at.

Can I can I second that nomination?

No, yeah, I'm gonna have to call for any other nominations first.

Any other nominations for chair and vice chair?

Uh hearing none, I'll entertain a second on the nomination we have before us.

All in favor.

I was a little slower this year than last year, Mike.

I was hoping.

Staff reports.

Hither.

I don't have anything to report out other than our next meeting is March fourth at four PM.

We have an update on the what is it?

So we have been working.

The city code enforcement has been working through their regular process with that.

Um courtesy notices were sent.

No, we have not received any response.

No.

Four oh two S.

Robinson.

I don't remember the gable lens or have been modified without approval.

Yeah.

I yeah, I can't remember.

The the one we approved the windows on the upstairs for and the one that's been an eyesore for years, but it's finally been I did go through the photos again yesterday and then the one that I took.

Um after they did it.

I mean it was just not.

I mean, they ruined a character defining feature of closing in that gable.

And it's so disappointing.

Uh any commission member reports or comments other than that.

Future agenda items.

I guess that'll come back to us, and we'll have if you have any can we how about the Ferris mansion and the sheds?

Do we ever figure out what happened there?

I have an email in my inbox from the property owner that I have not gotten to yet.

So I I can maybe bring an update um to the next meeting.

Uh anything else?

Uh item number seven, public comment.

Is there any public comment on HRC or re that relates to HRC uh matters?

Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

So move.

Motion adjourn.

Second.

All in favor?

We're adjourned.