Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Do we have the roll call?

Thank you. Can we stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, please?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. Almost fell out of my seat. Okay, it's time for public comment. I have four public comments. We're at item 4.1. The first person is Jackie Moore.

Public speaking makes me nervous, so I'm going to read mine.

Thank you. You have three minutes.

You have three minutes. Oh, thanks. Thank you. My name is Jackie Moore, and I live in Wingfield Springs on the 10th fairway of the Lakes course. We purchased this track home in 2015, and we've put over $200,000 in improvements for our forever home. I've lived in Sparks for 33 years. I understand that the developer is not legally required to continue operating the golf course. but that is not the issue before you. The issue is whether homeowners in a fully built out master plan community have the right to reasonably rely on the fundamental character of the neighborhood they were sold. This is not just about land use. It is about reasonable reliance, fairness, and trust. Families made life altering financial decisions based on what was clearly represented as a golf course community, open space, and a specific quality of life. Homes were marketed and sold at a premium because of those representations. If those promises were never meant to be relied upon, then why were they made and what protections do homeowners actually have? This developer has benefited for 29 years from that vision, profiting from the very expectations they now seek to dismantle. And now after the community is fully built out and homeowners are locked in, they seek to fundamentally change the rules. Yes, the developer owns the land, but does ownership grant them unlimited discretion to rewrite the character of a community after the fact, especially when doing so directly harms those who relied on the original plan. This is precisely why zoning master plans and governing documents exist to provide certainty, stability, and fairness. Critically, this proposal goes beyond simply closing a golf course. It seeks to convert designated open space into additional housing at a density that was never originally contemplated or approved. If those homes had been included in the original plan, many of us would not be here today because we would not have purchased these homes in the first place. There are alternatives. The developer could sell the course or close it and let it remain open space. But what they are asking for is something far more consequential, permission to change the very foundation of this community. And if that is allowed, here it raises a serious question. Where does it stop? Approving this change would send a message that longstanding plans, community designations, and homeowner expectations can be overturned when they're no longer convenient. that undermines not just this neighborhood, but the integrity of the planning process itself. Wingfield Springs was built on a clear and consistent vision. It is that vision that created the value, the community, and the trust that exists here today. Once that trust is broken, it cannot simply be restored. I urge you to consider not just whether this change is legally permissible, but also whether it is equitable, reasonable, and in the long-term public interest. Because at its core, this decision is about whether commitments to a community truly means something or whether they can be changed after the fact. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Moore. We appreciate your time. The second person is David Hendricks. Thank you.

Thank you for the opportunity from the planning commission, the city staff and the interested parties in the area. My name is David Hendricks. My wife and I have lived in Wingfield Springs since 2000. And then we recently built our forever home on the golf course in 2024. We raised our three children here, actively participate in the community through the schools, sports leagues. We ran a business for about eight years in the area. And then we're big supporters of our church. We are huge proponents of the Wingfield Springs lifestyle. The 2015 amended Wingfield Springs development agreement handbook clearly documents a firm overall density cap and specific debt land use designations. And it talks about residential and non-residential density may also be transferred between development parcels, providing the transfer does not conflict with the general intent or specific conditions described in the development handbook. And it refers to a specific approved project unit count. I'm also pretty concerned about the watershed, flood control and wetlands. In my career developing mining projects in Nevada and throughout the world, I have grave concerns that the detailed review necessary to measure and mitigate the impacts to the water table, the flood plan have not been completed and reviewed. The presentation by CINO last week addressed the flood channel through the foothills project, but made no mention about the corresponding concerns by holes 14, 15, and 16. This waterway is established in an area that appears to me to have become a wetland over the last 30 years, but the plan shows that whole area being filled in during the construction of homes. A detailed wetland groundwater level and flood control plan needs to be developed. I believe it's a nexus point to the ore ditch, which would make it part of the Truckee, therefore making it waters of the US. I think that means where the US Army Corps of Engineers would get involved, but it needs a new baseline. They're using information from 30 odd years ago. They're not using the current development of what's happened in the last period of time. And I think that's a pretty big concern in the area. I thank you for your time and your consideration today.

Thank you, Mr. Hendricks. Okay, now we have Cynthia van Klimput. I said that right? Oh, yay.

Thank you for taking the time. I'm one from the Foothills subdivision. And the open area over there, if you haven't been out there, has gone back to natural. It is a beautiful area. People use it constantly. It's a safe area. The kids ride bikes, they play, they fish. The fire department uses the ponds to fight the fires at Golden Eagle every year. I believe the city should go for a grant and purchase the property and have it as a park. Because if you end up getting the property on the hill from BLM to build on, there goes more of our rural property. This area is center. Everybody uses it constantly. And I think it would be a shame to have houses on it rather than allowing the public to use it. And it already has paved paths. So it's set for handicap. City doesn't have to do anything. It's clean, it's well cared for by the people who use it. And it's just a beautiful area. Listening to the birds and watching the pelicans come in and the cranes and everything that's out there, The Red Hawk development goes well. That originally was just flat holes. They turned it into the beautiful area that it is. That is true. We woke up one morning to equipment out there and going, what's going on? The pro said, my name's not going on those holes. So they created the beautiful area that it became. But having it all natural now, it's just gorgeous. And if you haven't been out there, you should take a Saturday or whatever and come out and see what's actually out there. It's a mile walk. So it's convenient for people to go out and get exercise. It's flat. It's not, you know, nobody's tripping. Nobody's having any issues with it. So it's just a really nice public area and to have houses on it would be a shame. Our community really uses it. So thank you for your time. Different point of view.

Thank you for your time. Thank you. And now we have Kelly Teeter.

Hi, my name is Kelly Teeter. My husband Greg and I moved to Winfield Springs two and a half years ago. We live on the beautiful street, Raydale Sierra Drive, and our backyard faces Hole 5 on the Lakes course. To start, I want to compliment the City of Sparks for supporting the Red Hawk Golf Course in the Winfield Springs community since it was built over 20 years ago. A little background. Our oldest daughter and her husband graduated, met and graduated from UNR in 2018. They fell in love with the Reno area during college and never left. When our first grandbaby arrived, we were living in Idaho. Our youngest daughter had already moved to Reno to be near her sister, and we knew it was now our time to make the move and start the next chapter of our life with our adult daughters and our new grandson. We spent six long months driving all over the city of Reno looking for somewhere to live, and the very last place we ended up was Sparks and Winfield Springs. My husband will say I wasted six months of his life because we should have started out here. I can tell you nothing like this area exists in Reno, a master plan community with open space, walking trails, townhouses up to custom homes on a golf course, much less two golf courses. It feels like Mecca to us, something for everyone at all income levels. And the people of this community have been so friendly and welcoming. It's been amazing. We wanted an active community, a golf course, and we bought our home specifically because our backyard is the golf course. We have beautiful views of the mountains, and in the evenings, we can hear the kids playing at the park. The thought of losing this is absolutely heartbreaking. My ask today is that the planning commission and the city council consider leaning into the Red Hawk golf course. and the Windsprings Master Plan to make this destination a premier place on the West Coast instead of turning our backs and tearing it down. Communities like this are rare and it would be a shame to have it end. We understand the enormous pressure you are all under because of this project and we hope you come to the best decision for our community. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, ma'am, we appreciate it. Thank you all for your comments. Is there anyone else here that wants to speak in public comment? No? Okay, we're gonna close public comment and move on to 5.1, approval of the agenda. Can I have a motion to approve the agenda?

Possibly.

Yeah, I know. It's like not coming very quickly. Pardon me? Maybe. What happened? There it is. It's slow.

Madam Chair, I move to approve the agenda. I second the motion.

Okay, we have a motion from... No, Lieberlin, thank you. And we have a second from Mrs. Kramer. So it was the commissioner part that wasn't coming out from Commissioner Kramer. Thank you. And can we have a vote by the commission maybe? Just call it. Okay. Calling for a vote. All in favor. Aye. Thank you. Sorry. Here it is now. Maybe. Okay. Okay, computers are great most of the time. And now we have an approval of the minutes, 6.1.

Madam Chair, I move to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission study session held on Tuesday, April 14th, 2026, and the Planning Commission meeting held on Thursday, April 16th, 2026. I second that motion.

Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Priestos and a second by Commissioner Kramer. Can I, all in favor? Sorry, any discussion? No, okay, please vote. Go back. 6.2. Was that included in the last one? Is that separate? So 6.2, consideration, discussion, and possible action to approve the minutes of the CIAC study session. If I can get it to open. There it goes.

Madam Chair, I move to approve the minutes of the CIA study session held on Tuesday, April 14th, 2026, and the CIAC meeting held on Thursday, April 16th, 2026.

I second that motion. Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Priestos and a second by Commissioner Cramer. Oops. Are y'all on?

Yeah, it's not coming.

Okay, could we have a voice? Any discussion? Any discussion? No discussion? Please mark your vote. Okay, all in favor? Passed. It's all in favor. Item 7.1, public hearing. PCN 12029 PD26-0003. Hi, Danny.

Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Dani Rae. I'm Senior Planner here to present this item to you today. So on this slide, you can see the blue boundary of the 874.2-acre entire Kiley Ranch planned development. Outlined in red is the 98.4-acre Kiley Ranch North Phase III planned development, generally located east of Pyramid Way, west of David Allen Parkway, south of Wingfield Hills Road, and north of Sparks Boulevard. The city council initially adopted the Kiley Ranch North phase three development handbook, which I'll just refer to as handbook from this point forward, in 2007, which established residential, commercial, community park, and open space land use categories. There have been several amendments to the handbook, the most recent just last month, which brought the handbook, which brought the handbook into conformance with the tentative and modified the minimum floor area ratio FAR villages 13 and 15, modified commercial architectural development standards and allocated trips based on approved traffic analysis to villages 13, 15, 25, and 26. So this request seeks to amend the handbook by modifying parking ratios applicable to medical uses in Kiley Ranch North phase three plan development and decreasing the overall parking counts for the medical campus in Village 25. Modifying medical campus signage to reflect renowned branding changes to provide more flexibility for signage design. and by removing parking area landscaping requirements when parking area is located in shade or photovoltaic structures. So of note, staff are currently reviewing a companion administrative review. It's AR26-0009 to construct a 125,203 square foot, three story medical office building on an 11.48 acre portion of Village 25. The medical office building, which includes an ambulatory surgical center and treatment center and an urgent care facility is identified as phase one of the medical campus. A hospital and two additional medical office buildings are identified as phase two. Approval of the administrative review is contingent upon approval of this request to amend the handbook. So this request also seeks to modify the minimum parking ratios for certain medical uses to align with the Institute of Transportation Engineers or ITE parking rates as shown on the table in the screen. The analysis provided by the applicant demonstrates that while the parking ratios for various use types are proposed to be modified, the overall parking space count would increase by only 45 spaces from the currently required by the handbook in Village 25. Staff supports modifying the parking ratios as requested because the ITE parking demand rates are based on peak parking demand data collected at multiple hospital and medical sites. And these rates will support development, not only of Village 25 with envisioned medical uses in the medical campus, but also medical uses in other portions of the phase three handbook. So the handbook contains specific signage standards related to the medical campus land use category that no longer represent renowned branding. This request seeks to remove the illustrations related to renowned branding from the handbook, as well as certain standards related to materials and dimensions of the medical campus signage. Because those illustrations and standards are no longer representing the renowned branding and they want to provide flexibility within an adopted framework for ease of permitting at a later date. In addition, this request proposes to modify sign standards to exchange an electronic message gateway sign that's currently permitted in the handbook for an internally illuminated LED sign. Want to increase the height of the gateway sign from 35 feet to 60 feet and increase the maximum square footage of building signs from 135 feet to 300 square feet, excuse me, per building elevation. This request also seeks to modify language in the handbook related to parking area landscaping. As proposed, requirements for landscape islands and tree plantings would not apply under parking shade structures, including those designed to support photovoltaic or solar array systems, since a lack of direct sunlight would impact the sustainability of the landscaping. A fiscal impact analysis was provided, and according to the FIA, between 2026 and 2039, the project is proposed to add 228,590 square feet of medical office space, a 595,000 square foot hospital, and 125,000 square foot parking structure. This project is anticipated to generate a revenue surplus to the City of Sparks General Fund in the amount of $16.3 million over the 20-year analysis period. The project is anticipated to generate a revenue surplus to the City's Road Fund in the amount of $33 million over the 20-year analysis period. However, the analysis only pertains to Village 25, which doesn't give us really a clear picture, which Typically, historically, we have utilized the entire Kiley Ranch North plan development to analyze fiscal impacts. When analyzing the impacts of the potential medical campus project in conjunction with the greater Kiley Ranch North plan development, the analysis shows a revenue surplus to the general fund of $86.1 million, which surplus is sufficient to cover the anticipated $20.7 million project. a deficit expected to be generated for the road fund with remaining net surplus of 65.4 million. Land uses immediately surrounding the subject site are educational, industrial, commercial, and residential. We have to the north, we have the Bolimo Industrial, and the south, single-family residential and multi-family residential. To the east, Bohatch Elementary School, Sky Ranch Middle School, and Kiley Ranch Senior Assisted Living. And to the west is undeveloped land. So this concludes the background and analysis portion of the presentation. An amendment to a plan development does have 10 required findings, must be made by the Planning Commission. So I'll go ahead and go over those right now. I have combined them where appropriate to combine. So for findings PDA and PDB, the requested modifications to development standards are consistent with the comprehensive plan, because they'll facilitate commercial development in an area planned for commercial uses, promoting compact development, and development flexibility in a location where infrastructure such as sewer, water, storm drains, and police and fire services are available, and providing potential for the continued growth of the Kiley Ranch North community for residents and businesses, supporting goals MG1, MG11, goals CC1, EV1, and EV2. Pursuant to the 2024 Truckee Meadows Regional Plan, the phase three handbook has a tier two land use designation and is located within the Truckee Meadows service area. The proposed amendment supports the construction of suburban type commercial uses with limited massing based on the height and setback standards. Oops, sorry. The proposed amendment does not alter the type or amount of development permitted in the phase three handbook, rather the proposed amendment would permit greater flexibility and implementation of medical uses that are already permitted in the handbook. For these reasons, the reliance of residents and owners upon the provisions of the plan will not be materially impaired supporting finding PDH. Analyzing the impacts of the potential medical campus development across the greater Kiley Ranch North area, the FIA prepared in support of the proposed modifications finds development will continue to generate significant positive revenue for the city's general fund. Supporting finding PDC. For findings PDD, PDE, PDF and PDG, The proposed amendment modifies parking area ratios, landscaping design standards, as well as signage standards for development within the community commercial medical campus land use category. This amendment is intended to support the potential construction of medical campus uses in a manner that is consistent with its original intent of the plan and furthers the mutual interest of residents, property owners, and the public by supporting updated construction plans consistent with that plan. The proposed amendment does not alter the type or amount of development permitted within the phase three handbook. Rather, the proposed amendment would permit greater flexibility and implementation of the medical uses anticipated within phase three. Medical uses are already permitted by the handbook. For these reasons, the reliance of residents and owners on the provisions of the plan will not be materially impaired. And finally, for findings PDI and PDJ, as proposed, the changes will allow any interested party to pursue development within the plan development and according with the handbook, accordance with the handbook. A public notice was given as required by NRS and the sparse municipal code on May 5th. Total of 91 notices were mailed to all owners within the phase three plan development and within 750 feet of the boundary, as well as published in the Reno Gazette Journal. As of noon today, there's been no public comment received by staff. Staff does recommend the Planning Commission recommend approval of this amendment to the City Council. And with that, I am here for any questions, as are the applicants. Thank you, Danny. Anybody have questions?

No? Okay, does the applicant wish to speak?

No public comments from us, but happy to answer any questions.

Okay, thank you. Any questions for the applicant? No? Okay, thank you very much. And so this is a public hearing section. Does anybody from the public wish to speak on this item? Okay, seeing no public comment, if we could have a motion I'm sorry. Public hearing. Oh, I'm closing to close the public hearing since we saw no one wanting it. All right, and so can I have a motion, please?

Madam Chair, I move to forward to City Council a recommendation of approval of the request to amend the final approved plan for Kiley Ranch Phase 3, PCN 12029-PD26-0003 based on findings PDA through PDJ and the fact supporting those findings as set forth in the staff report. Second.

Okay, we have a motion to approve by Commissioner Kramer and a second by Commissioner New Berlin. And is there any further discussion? Seeing no further discussion, please cast your vote. Are we missing somebody? There you go, okay. And it's all approved. Motion passes. And now we have a public hearing for three items. Danny, were you going to do all three at the same time, right? Okay. So your public hearing PCN 22-0027, MPA 23-008, and 003, oops, that's a different number, and PCN220027, RZ23-0003, and also PCN22-0027, CU23-0008. I look different.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Members of the Planning Commission, again, I am Dani Rae, presenting these three items to you today. As stated, I'd like to present these three items today, but I do want to remind the Planning Commission we will be having three separate public hearings and motions. Okay, thank you. Okay. Okay, so in this one, the subject parcel, it's 1.88 acre site, according to the assessor. The applicant's own engineers have surveyed it as 1.58 acres. So at some point that will be corrected. It's located at 3940 Pyramid Way, shown here outlined in red. It's generally located near the southeast corner of Pyramid Way and Disk Drive and is currently undeveloped. A residence once existed on this property, but it's been demolished some time ago and there are still some ruins remaining on the site. So immediately surrounding the parcel is Bureau of Land Management or BLM land owned by the United States of America, as well as commercial uses in the Sparks Galleria planned development, which is located to the east and northeast of the site. So the applicant has submitted a comprehensive plan land use amendment, a rezoning request and conditional use permit request to support the use of a commercial mini warehouse facility on the subject site. So this request seeks to amend the comprehensive plan land use designation for the parcel from large lot residential or LLR to commercial or C. to rezone the parcel from SF 40 single family residential to C2 general commercial, and to obtain a conditional use permit to allow a mini warehouse as a primary use in the C2 zoning district. Should the planning commission adopt resolution 247 tonight in support of the requested amendment to the comprehensive plan land use map, the regional planning commission must then determine if the proposed change is in conformance with the regional plan before the request can be considered by the city council for certification. Staff has received a comment letter from the Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Agency, or TMRPA, stating that no potential conformance issues have been identified. While typically the planning commission would render a decision on an application for a conditional use permit because it is included with the MPA and the RZ and dependent upon their approval, the planning commission will make a recommendation to the city council, which will consider the items after certification of the master plan amendment. So for the comp plan amendment, we'll begin there. The current large lot residential, LLR, comprehensive plan land use designation supports single family residential uses up to three dwelling units per acre. This designation also allows open space, trails, schools, religious institutions, private recreational facilities, and public facilities, and is typically found near the outskirts of a city. The subject site is most immediately surrounded by undeveloped lands with a comp plan land use designation of community facilities or CF, but is near the commercially developed Sparks Galleria plan development and shopping center. The proposed commercial land use designation supports a wider range of commercial and multifamily uses, including but not limited to banks, restaurants, retail, offices, daycare facilities, assisted living facilities, clinics, hotel, motel uses, parks, personal services, religious institutions, many warehouses and multifamily residential uses. The city's commercial centers are primarily located along its arterials and primary streets, such as Pyramid Way, Vista Boulevard, Sparks Boulevard, Prater Way, Los Altos Parkway, and Disc Drive. Changing the comprehensive plan land use designation as proposed would reflect the existing land use pattern by creating a new commercially designated area adjacent to Pyramid Way. a major arterial and state highway near its intersection with disk drive. And for the rezoning portion, the existing single family residential SF 40 zoning permits uses including but not limited to detached single family dwellings with a maximum density of 1.1 dwelling units per acre. home occupation, group homes, in-home childcare, religious institutions, college or trade schools, public or private schools, parks and open space and mining. The proposed C2 zoning district permits a range of residential, commercial and institutional uses, as well as limited number of industrial uses rezoning the site as proposed would increase the number of commercial institutional and industrial uses that may establish on the site in the future. Rezoning the site as proposed is compatible with the mix of land uses surrounding the site, which are generally commercial and middle density housing products farther away to the east. Properties to the north and west are undeveloped and zoned PF and OS, respectively. Wedekin Regional Park, which is zoned SF-40, is located immediately east of the site. Lands 450 to the east are developed with commercial uses in the Sparks Galleria planned development, and multifamily residential uses are located further east on the north side of Disk Drive. Now for the conditional use permit portion of the presentation. The CUP request seeks approval to construct and establish a 108,900 square foot four story climate controlled mini warehouse use in the 1.88 acre parcel that's undeveloped currently. If the comp plan land use amendment and zoning requests are approved, the CUP request would allow for the construction and establishment of a mini warehouse use in the C2 zoning district as a conforming use in that zoning district. Development of the subject site with a mini warehouse as proposed is discussed below or continue to discuss it. Existing topography, traffic patterns, sewer facilities and parking demand and site lighting are each analyzed and where appropriate to mitigate potential impacts are further addressed in the proposed conditions of approval. For slopes, the site is currently undeveloped with natural vegetation. The site slopes down from south to north from an elevation of 4,605 feet to 4,570 feet. And approximately 72% of the site was previously disturbed. Due to this disturbance, the site does not contain slopes of 10% or greater over at least 25% of the site and is not subject to standards governing natural slopes. As proposed, the project is respectful of the natural constraints of the land. Preliminary grading plan minimizes the cut and fill needed to construct the proposed mini warehouse. While the project area is presently covered in native vegetation as is surrounding BLM land, the project proposes to install 10,324 square feet of landscaping area. This represents 15% of the parcel, which complies with the minimum landscaping requirements in the Sparks Municipal Code. The project proposes adding 23 trees, 138 shrubs, and of the 23 trees provided, two trees are required for the 15 parking spaces along the Western Pyramid Way frontage are 12 trees, eight of which are evergreen and four are deciduous. Five ornamental trees are provided in other locations on the site. The parking analysis was prepared. And it identifies 15 parking spaces that are needed to serve the project. While a sparse municipal code requires 55 parking spaces based on a parking ratio of one space per 2000 square feet. It also allows for alternate parking ratios when supported analysis are submitted. The ITE parking generation manual identifies 15 parking spaces are sufficient to serve the proposed use. Given the very low trip generation nature of a mini warehouse use, staff are supportive of the ITE analysis providing or finding that 15 parking spaces are adequate. The applicant also submitted a trip generation letter that identifies trips associated with the mini warehouse use. According to this letter, the mini warehouse use on the subject site is anticipated to generate approximately 158 average daily trips, 10 a.m. peak hour trips and 16 p.m. peak hour trips. Given the average daily trips is below the city's threshold of 80 ADT per hour, or ADT, a traffic impact analysis was not required. So a sanitary sewer main is located on disc drive, north of the site. However, the distance to connect to the main exceeds a thousand feet. SPARC's municipal code requires new development to connect to sewer facilities located within 300 feet of a site. While it is possible to connect to sewer facilities within disk drive, it is impractical. Staff and the applicant have worked with Northern Nevada Public Health and the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection to obtain permission to install a septic tank to serve the proposed mini warehouse use. Staff believes the septic tank is appropriate in this specific instance to serve a mini warehouse use that is estimated to generate a minimal 200 gallons per day of sewage. At Tuesday's study session, the Planning Commission asked whether or not the access road will be paved, as currently the paved area is only partway down the roadway, while the remainder is unpaved. So the paved portion is here and ends right about there. So this is a short video to orient the Planning Commission to the project site. Go ahead and play that for you.

I feel like they swept it first.

It's not a 360. I'm just kind of scanning over to where the actual project site is.

There's a fireplace back and through there.

Yeah. I can't run through that again. And there's also tanks, too. Yeah.

As I've discovered. As my dogs have discovered.

Okay. So shown here is that paved portion of the road. The paved portion at Curly Ends where the access road level's off. The applicant will be required to pave the access roadway to their project, not to the park.

There we go.

Now we get to the architecture elevations. Proposed architecture for the four-story building is well-designed, sensitive to the 20-foot change in elevation from the grade at Pyramid Way to the grade of the Sparks Galleria Shopping Center to the east of the site. While the building is intended to be four stories in height, from the perspective of Pyramid Way, it appears to be two stories in height because of the change in elevation. This limits the overall massing of the building from Pyramid Way. The full height of the building is instead seen from the eastern view perspective from the, like Sprouts area. And additionally, the massing of the building is further reduced by the L-shaped southeast elevation. If the CUP request is ultimately approved, the proposed mini warehouse building is required to conform to the development standards of the Sparks Municipal Code commercial districts section. Requires commercial buildings to include articulation on all four sides of the building, pedestrian scale features on the ground floor level, and articulated roof lines, all of which this particular project provides. The preliminary architectural elevation submitted by the applicant comply with those standards because they include considerable vertical and horizontal articulation. In addition, a variety of building materials, including stucco, brick veneer, aluminum accents, provide visual interest to the proposed mini warehouse and a preponderance of windows. The proposed colors are not only compatible with their surrounding terrain, but also the nearby shopping center. So this is the northeast elevation. This is the northwest elevation. This is the southeast elevation. So this is the view from Pyramid. Oops. I'm sorry. That's the view from Sprouts. Yeah. This is the southwest elevation, the view from Pyramid. Okay, so this concludes a background analysis portion of the presentation. So the way I have the findings set up here is we'll do the findings for each case type, but reserve the recommendations in public hearings toward the end. So I'd like to remind the Planning Commission that separate public hearing is required for each item. I'll present each item's findings, the CPA, the rezone, then the conditional use permit, which will be followed by the public hearing, possible action by the Planning Commission for each item separately. So pursuant to the regional plan, the subject site has a tier two land use designation is located within the Truckee Meadows service area and properties in the T2 land use designation are characterized by suburban development with some higher density nodes. The area represents the third highest priority for investment. As many properties designated tier two are already developed with both residential and non-residential uses, public facilities and services are generally in place. No minimum standards or other limitations apply to non-residential properties located in the tier two land designation pursuant to policy RF3 of the regional plan. The proposed amendment to the comprehensive plan land use map supports the use of the subject site for commercial purposes in a location where public services and facilities already exist and meet all applicable non-residential standards specified in regional plan policy RF3. RF11, compatibility factors. Local government master plans must address land use compatibility. The TMRPA will consider the compatibility of proposals at a regional level with regards to existing densities and intensities and surrounding land uses. As outlined in my presentation, the site was historically developed with a single family residence that was demolished. The proposed modification to the comp plan is compatible with surrounding land uses, which are also designated tier two for the reasons discussed in finding CP3 below. For PF1 facilities and service standards, the standards in table 3.2 in your staff report will be reviewed for master plan amendments and project of regional significance. We did get that feedback, will be reported in each initial review memorandum provided by team RPA and will be considered during the jurisdictions development review process. NR 15, source water protection and watershed management. Local government and affected entity master plans and other similar plans shall include policies that reference or utilize integrated source water watershed protection plan for public water systems in the Truckee River and the Truckee Meadows. If the proposed subject site intersects for all regional plan amendments and performance reviews adjacent or is in proximity to a critical water source protection area, comments will be provided and TMRP's comments are as soon as available. Subject sites located in the NRCA due to its interaction with a critical source water protection area. The City of Sparks forwards all planning applications for review and comment. No comments regarding the proposed comprehensive plan land use amendment rezoning or CUP. have been received. In addition, the City of Sparks and all business license applications to TUMWA for comment regarding potential efforts that can protect water, source water. We've not received any comments from TUMWA on this project. City staff received comments stating from TRM RPA that no potential conformance issues were identified during their review.

Okay.

So the comprehensive plan goals and policies that are relevant to this request include goal MG1, support economic vitality by providing a non-residential land use space. Goal MG2, foster diversity in the land use mix and residential commercial industrial employment and recreational areas citywide. Policy CF1, when reviewing new development, the city will not approve an application unless city services can be provided at acceptable service levels. Redesignating the 1.88 acre subject site to commercial as proposed would provide an opportunity to establish a range of commercial office, lodging, entertainment, institutional, and multifamily residential use similar to the existing commercial land use designation in close proximity to the site, supporting goals MG1 and MG2. All city services are available for this site as the Sparks Gallery is generally located to the east and northeast of the subject site, supporting policy CF1. Although sewer services are readily available to serve the site, the connection point is located over 300 feet away and connection is not required pursuant to the Sparks Municipal Code. A septic tank is therefore being proposed to serve the mini warehouse use with the associated conditional use permit. All other uses permitted in the commercial land use designation and associated general commercial zoning district will require connection to city service lines. Subject site is currently undeveloped and is immediately surrounded by vacant BLM land, Wedekind Park and the Sparks Galleria plan development. Changing the comprehensive plan land use designation for the subject site from large lot residential to commercial is compatible with the existing surrounding land use designations and developed uses that are generally commercial. Properties to the north and east are designated open space and commercial and developed with commercial uses, including retail and restaurant uses. Property to the south is designated community facilities and is partially developed with a park with a remainder as open space. Property to the west is designated open space and is undeveloped. And finally, for finding CP4, public notice was provided as required by Nevada Revised Statutes. And this is the case for all application findings. So I won't repeat that one again. A neighborhood meeting was required by NRS and was conducted by the applicant's representative on May 11th via the team's virtual format. I did attend that meeting. There's four people total, which included myself, one property owner, two applicants, and one staff member. The stakeholder that was in attendance did not raise any issues, indicated full support of the project. Okay, now for the rezoning findings. So concurrent with this rezoning request, applicant seeking to amend comp plan land use designation and a C2, CUP. So the proposed C2 zoning is consistent with the proposed comprehensive plan land use designation for the site. And both changes support the following goals and policies of the City of Sparks comp plan. Goal MG1, support economic vitality by providing a non-residential land use space. Goal MG2, foster diversity in the land use mix in residential, commercial, industrial, employment, and recreational areas citywide. Policy CF1, when reviewing new development, the city will not approve an application unless city services can be provided at acceptable service levels. Rezoning the subject site from SF40 to C2 as proposed would expand the range of commercial office entertainment, institutional, and multifamily residential uses that could establish on the subject site, supporting goals MG1 and MG2. The subject site is currently undeveloped, but was previously developed with a single family dwelling that was demolished. The land is located in a previously developed area where city services are already being provided at acceptable levels supporting CF1. Let's see. Okay, staff received comment letter from the Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Agency indicating no conformance issues were identified. Staff received comments from Northern Nevada Public Health indicating no concern regarding the proposed request provided the applicant obtained approval from Nevada Division of Environmental Protection for the proposed septic facilities. Staff also received a letter from the Nevada Department of Transportation stating the agency would require encroachment permits for any work proposed in the right of way. The rezoning request from SF 40 to C2 would allow for a wide range of potential uses I've already discussed. Let's see, either by right or with the approved CUP providing impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods can be mitigated. This range of uses is compatible with the mix of land uses surrounding the site, which are generally commercial and multifamily housing products. Properties to the north are zoned PF and NUD, New Urban District, and developed with Wedekind Regional Park and the Sparks Galleria Shopping Center. Properties to the west are zoned OS and AR by Washoe County and are undeveloped. Properties to the east and south are zoned SF40 and are developed with Wedekind Regional Park. No public comments have been received as of today for this item. So findings for the Conditioning Use Permit, we're almost to the end. Let's see. Sites currently designated large lot residential pursuant to the comp plan request to amend the comp plan land use designation to commercial, however, is being concurrently processed with the CUP request. Self-storage facilities are listed as a primary use within the proposed commercial land use category. The goals and policies of the comp plan that are relevant to this proposal are goal MG1, MG2 and EV1. The use of the separate site for mini warehouse enhances land use mix diversity in the immediate area, supporting goals MG1 and MG2. Additionally, the proposed mini warehouse would allow for the establishment of a new business in the city of Sparks contributing to goal EV1. Many warehouse uses require a higher level of review and consideration when located in the C2 zoning district. This review and consideration is obtained through the conditional use permit process. The currently undeveloped site is located. I won't go through that again. Mini warehouse use proposes to be constructed at a height of 48 feet and four inches in height at the roof line in compliance with the Sparks Municipal Code that limits total building height of 60 feet. For reference, a typical two-story single family residence is 30 feet in height. The architectural elevations for the building incorporate many of the development and architectural standards described in the Sparks Municipal Code commercial district section and found throughout the city's commercial shopping centers. The architectural design reflects that which is near the project site while maintaining individuality in color treatment. Landscaping is utilized on the site not only for the beautification of the site, but to provide a permeable surface to reduce drainage of rainwater runoff into the storm drain system. Also, landscaping provides buffering between uses. As discussed above, the proposed mini warehouse use is compatible with adjacent properties due to the site design that incorporates landscaping and the building design that is consistent with the Sparks Municipal Code, the Sparks Galleria Shopping Center, and the slope topography of the site. Natural resources typically considered to be air and water. And this use does not produce any negative impact directly to these resources since the subject site has been previously reviewed as a part of the comprehensive plan update process. Therefore city staff do not believe approval of the CUP would impair the availability of natural resources or the region's ability to support its population. So development of a subject site with many warehouses proposed is discussed previously in my presentation. Existing topography, traffic patterns, sewer facilities, parking demand, and site lighting are each analyzed and where appropriate to mitigate potential impacts or further addressed in the proposed conditions of approval. The site's currently undeveloped with natural vegetation. The site slopes down from south to north and approximately 72% of the site was previously disturbed. Due to this disturbance, the site does not contain the slopes of 10% or greater over at least 25% of the site, not subject to standards in the code regarding governing natural slopes. So as proposed, the project is respectful of the natural constraints of the land and the preliminary grading plan minimizes the cut and fill needed to construct the proposed mini warehouse. So the project does propose to install 10,324 square feet of landscape area as previously discussed in the presentation and shown on the landscape plan. for parking, the parking analysis provided gives an ITE recommendation of 15 parking spaces as compared to the Sparks Municipal Code of 55. The analysis provided in that parking study has the support of staff because of the low trip generation for that particular use. Let's see. Oops, too hard. There we go.

And I think we're done. I think that's it. That's it?

Are you sure? That's it. I'm sure. The other was just about noticing. We've already done that.

You did a great job.

They were all noticed at the same time. Thank you. You did a great job.

Are there questions for Dani? Yeah, and the drawings were very helpful to see that as well.

Yeah, I'd like to say that the applicant was very accommodating to staff's concerns regarding the natural slopes and topography and wanting the architecture to fit in with the site well, and I think they did a good job.

Very pretty. Yeah, I think so too. Very nice. Is the applicant here who'd like to speak?

Nothing further.

Okay, any questions for the applicant? No? Okay, thank you for being here. Okay, and so we're going to do public hearings for each one individually. Right, so the first one is the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Okay, or the Master Plan Amendment.

Our master plan is called a comprehensive plan, but our codes haven't changed. Oh, there it is. The CPA, they're still MPA. Okay, that's my bad.

I was looking at the code. But I see right there, comprehensive plan. Okay, and so for this is a public hearing for PCN 22-0027, MPA 23-008. Do we have any public comment? Yeah, I do have one comment. Sir, please come to the, and also identify yourself.

My name is David Hendrix. I live up in Wingfield. I like everything that was presented. It all looked good. I understand there is no traffic study because of the number of trips. Is there a separate study that's done for traffic during construction? Because that'll be, you know, end of the day, that road is an absolute mess right now where you come off a pyramid, go on to disc. Is there some kind of control that's done in a construction project to address traffic issues that would happen? Because during construction, there'll obviously be a lot more big vehicles going in and out. And as I say, that corner is an absolute mess at the end of the day, coming from pyramid, going on to disc there. which is where I believe this traffic would be going to, right? Because you can only come in from the one side. You have to come in from Pyramid to get to there, I believe is the way that traffic's set up. So my consideration would, my question would be around the management of traffic during construction, specifically during rush hours.

Thank you. Thank you for your comment. Danny, would you like to address that?

So when a project is submitted for review, we look at what traffic mitigation measures may or may not be necessary when a permit is requested for, was it just work in the right-of-way, if there's going to be work in the right-of-way. And I don't know that there is in this particular project. It's pretty well contained on the site. There won't be any work on Pyramid Way. There's no access from Pyramid Way to this site. So in terms of any access management, there'd be repaving. So there'd be equipment associated with that. The permits associated with any kind of work in the right of way is not something that planning usually engages in. That's more of the transportation engineering folks. I don't know if Ciena maybe has something to add to that process.

And transportation looked at this project from all of those views.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Danny accurately described where the project is situated and our general understanding of the improvements that would be needed during construction. If at the time a permit comes in and our transportation team takes a look at it and they decide that there is some type of temporary controls needed during construction, they would move forward with a plan to do that. At this point, that hasn't been flagged as part of this review that it would be needed, but there is another checkpoint later, right, with the building permit that comes in. And then I think just more broadly, in terms of the speaker and his questions, this project was reviewed in accordance with city policies regarding for projects that have less than 80 peak hours. We do not require a full traffic study, but again, do wanna note, we do check with building permits to see if any type of traffic control is going to be needed. And if there are any further questions, I'm happy to answer those.

Okay, so my understanding is that at the building permit process, that they will take a look at the potential for impacts on that corner, because that's what I think he's talking about is coming in from Pyramid in either direction, and then that turn on the disc to get into the project.

That's correct, Madam Chair. If there is a potential concern, then there would be additional traffic controls that would be put into place. They have not been flagged at this time with staff.

Thank you very much. And Jules, did you need him to fill out a card? Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you, Danny. Is there any other public comment? Seeing no public comment, if I could have a motion. I'm sorry. Oh, closing public comment. And after closing public comment, may I have a motion?

Madam Chair, I move to adopt resolution number 247, adopting a comprehensive Plan Land Use Amendment MPA 23-0008 associated with PCN 22-0027 amending comprehensive plan use designation for 3940 Pyramid Way from a large lot residential to commercial based on finding CP1 through CP4 and the fact supporting these findings as set forth in the staff report.

Second. Okay, we have a commission from, commission. We have a motion from Commissioner Cramer and a second by Commissioner Priestos. Is there any discussion? Seeing no discussion, please cast your vote. There it goes, okay. And so the motion is approved. And now we go to public hearing PCN 22-0027, RZ 23-0003 for the rezoning. Opening public comment. Do we have any public comment on the rezoning? Seeing no public comment on the rezoning, I'm closing the public hearing. And if I could have a motion.

Madam Chair, I move to forward a recommendation of approval to City Council of RZ23-0003, a request to rezone the site located at 3940 Pyramid Way from SF 40 to C2 based on findings Z1 through Z3. And the fact supporting these findings is outlined in the staff report. I second it.

Okay, we have a motion to approve by Commissioner Priestos and a second by Commissioner Rawson. Is there any discussion? Seeing no discussion, please cast your vote. And the motion is approved. Moving on to the third public hearing for PCN 22-0027, CU 23-008 for the conditional use permit. Do we have anybody for the public hearing? Anybody for the public hearing? Seeing no public comment, I'm going to close the public comment and ask for a motion to approve.

Madam Chair, I move to forward a recommendation of approval to City Council of CU23-0008, a request to allow the establishment of a mini warehouse use at 3940 Pyramid Way based on finding C1 through C5 and the fact supporting these findings as set forth in the staff report and subject to the 11 conditions of approval as listed in the staff report. Second.

We have a motion to approve by Commissioner Cramer and a second by Commissioner Priestos. Is there any discussion? Seeing no discussion, please cast your vote. 7.09 PM. Sorry about that. And I think we're missing one. Mine says six. Okay, and there's seven now. Okay, and so the motion passes. Thank you, Madam Chair, if I may discuss next steps?

Yes, please. For these items? Thank you. So next it will go to the Regional Planning Commission for a conformance review. Okay. And we're anticipating support at this point. Then it would be scheduled to go to the City Council where they would certify the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. and schedule a first read, or it would be a first reading for the rezoning and to schedule for the second reading for the rezoning and the hearing for the conditional use permit. So that's the process ahead.

Okay, so from here it goes to regional planning and then the city council where they'll have the first reading?

For the rezoning, yeah.

For rezoning.

And certification of the comp plan amendment.

Okay, and then there'll be a second reading as well.

Second reading and discussion and possible approval of a conditional use permit. Very good. Thank you. Very helpful. Great job. Thank you so much. Thank you. That's a lot.

Okay. And so item number eight, general business. Do we have anything, Sienna? We do not, Madam Chair. Okay. Item number nine, announcements, presentations, recognitions, and items of special interest. I have no items for the commission. Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay. Thank you. And are there any comments from the board? No, do we have any further comments from the public? Public have any further comment? Seeing none, let us go to staff comments and announcements. Also, Madam Chair, I have no announcements. Thank you. There's a lot of things on this list. And so for the commissioner, any comments or announcements for commissioners? Okay, seeing none, time to adjourn.