Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. I'm calling the meeting of the planning commission to order at 6:00 p.m. Madam Secretary, can I get a roll call, please? here.

All right. Thank you. Uh please join us standing in for the pledge of allegiance. 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.

All right. All right. I'll open it up for general public comment. Does anybody want to make a general public comment? I see none. I will close public comment. May I get a motion to approve of the agenda, please? Mr. Chair, I move to approve the agenda as submitted. I second.

All right, we got a move by Commissioner Pritzo, a second by Commissioner Kramer. Can we vote electronically? Oh, there we go. Okay, it passes unanimously. Thank you. Can I get an approval for the minutes? Mr. Chair, I move to approve the minutes on Thursday.

Second. All right, we got a move by Commissioner Kramer, a second by Commissioner Pritzo. All right, it passes unanimously. Thank you. All right, we have a public hearing item PCN25-000013 CU25-000011. Good evening, Chair Austin, members of the planning commission for the record, Kobe Wano, planner with the city of Sparks. Uh, this item is a request for a conditional use permit to construct and operate a child facility and medical office use in the MF5 or multifamily zoning district on a 1.4 acre site located on the southwest corner of Sullivan Lane. The subject site is outlined in red and is located just north of the Audi project right here and then southwest of Grizzly Elementary. In accordance with the Sparks Municipal Code, in order to operate a child care facility or a medical office in the MF5 zoning district, a conditional use permit is required, which is the reason request. The 1.4 4 acre site consists of two parcels.

Hey Colby, can we take a Yes, we a recess. Absolutely. All right, Commissioner Elkins.

Yes, Mr. Chair, I have a disclosure to make. I need to disclose that I've attended fundraisers in the past and have contributed a $100 a couple of different times to the Life Change Center over the past several years and have um donated a gift basket to the Life Change Center for a fundraiser. After realizing this and I've conferred with the city's attorney's office in order to avoid an appearance of impropriety, I'm going to recuse myself from this item. Given my past financial donations and support of the applicant's operations, I believe that there is clear situation where the independence of judgment of a normal person in my position could be affected. I will not advocate for or against approval of this item and will not take part in any discussions and will abstain from voting on this matter. Although the donations and fundraisers were several years ago, I still have an affinity for the organization.

Thank you.

All right. You want me to where I left off? Where you left off?

Thank uh the 1.4 acre site consists of two parcels with the northern parcel in the MF5 zoning district and the smaller southern parcel in the C2 zoning district. That's where the smaller building is located. Uh the southern building was developed in 1970 subject to a building permit and the northern building was developed in 1977 subject to a special use permit that allowed for the construction of a commercial office building on the site. Both have been used for commercial purposes since their development. In 2009, the Life Change Center, which classified as a medical office, obtained a business license to operate within the smaller building and has been operating since that time. The northern own or the property owner of the Life Change Center recently acquired the parcel to the north and intends to expand and renovate the existing office building to include medical and professional offices as well as the child care facility. Um, and that child care facility would be open to the to the public. In addition, the Life Change Center plans to construct site improvements across both parcels uh to enable integrated site functionality between the two parcels. Uh the existing 3,795 foot building located on the southern parcel is not proposed to be modified or renovated and will remain a medical office for the staff analyzed three main components with this request. access and parking, landscaping and architecture. Primary access to the site is from Sullivan Lane. Two entrance driveways are proposed that direct customers throughout the site to the shared parking areas. One exit driveway is also proposed on the southern portion of the site along Solivan there. There's an existing driveway on the north site, north side of the site from Capuro Way, which is proposed to be removed from the site to accommodate for the new building

expansion. Cumulative cumulatively, excuse me, Sparks municipal code requires a total of 39 parking spaces to be provided. Uh, two of the spaces must be ADA compliant. Um, one of which must be van accessible. According to the site plan and parking analysis, a total of 44 parking spaces are being provided with this proposal and three of those 44 will be ADA compliant van accessible. The proposed access and parking will be shared between the two parcels. uh that comprise the project site which would be required by the proposed addition of approval number seven. In accordance with Sparks Municipal Code, the required landscaping area for the site is 11,153 square feet and a total of 39 trees are required. The preliminary landscape plan shown here complies with these minimum standards. Um, if I may, Chair, to answer Commissioner Kramer's question, uh, during the Tuesday study session, there is transmission lines located near the subject site. However, they're located on the east side of Sullivan and therefore they won't be impacted directly by the proposed landscaping or the significant the addition to the northern building is proposed to be 2,420 square feet. Uh the building is proposed for architectural renovation. The the existing or entire building um is proposed for architectural renovation. Expanding the existing openings in the structure to increase natural lighting coming into the building. The cladding while keeping and refernishing the existing brick sections uh brings a new combination of fiber cement slatting. Large wood finish panels, metal raincreen divided with reveals and steel shading elements and a vibrant uh green metal sophet. and fascia for the lifted shed sector. Also proposed are bright steel pergolas

pergolas for shading and pronounced entrances, uh raised planters, and a slat metal fence that encloses the outdoor play area for the childcare facility. It's staff's opinion that the proposed architecture of the northern building exceeds the architectural requirements of the MF5 zoning district. I've included the architectural rendering seen in exhibit six. These ones show the uh with the background and analysis concluded, I'll transition over to the findings. Uh there's five findings that the planning commission is required to make in order to approve the conditional use permit. um all of which staff has been able to make for finding C1. Uh use of the subject site for a child care facility and medical office would provide for continued uh non-residential land uses on the site in support of goal MG1. The site was previously developed with a commercial office building um approximately 50 years ago and is located adjacent to existing single family homes. staff believes the proposed building addition and site improvements across both parcels provide a unique infill development opportunity in support of goal MG4. Additionally, the proposed development of this parcel would result in a total of 39 trees on the site directly increasing Spark's urban tree canopy in support of policy RC10. For these reasons, uh, city staff believes the request is in compliance with city's comprehensive plan. We're finding C2. The existing uses surrounding the subject site include um an office building in the MF5 zoning district and single family homes in the SF-15 or single family residential zoning

district um to the north across Capo Way. single family homes in the SF6 or single family uh zoning district and multifamily a multifamily apartment complex in the MF4 zoning district to the west a child care facility and multifamily apartment complex in the MF4 and MF5 zoning districts to the east an existing funeral and internment services building and commercial center in the C2 zoning district to the south um staff believes the proposed childcare facility and medical office use on the site is compat compatible with the adjacent surrounding uses. The two subject parcels were again developed with commercial buildings and utilized for commercial purposes for approximately the past five decades. In addition, staff believes the site layout shown in exhibit 4 is well considered with the primary parking area in the center of the site and with significant landscaping along the exterior boundaries of the site uh creating separation between the proposed parking and internal accessways um in the adjacent residential uses. And for these reasons, staff believes that finding C2 can be made for finding C3. The potential impairment of natural resources and the total population which natural resources will support without reasonable impairment was previously considered when the site was designated a commercial land use designation in the city's comprehensive plan. And city staff does not believe approval of this conditional use permit will impair the availability of those natural resources. Uh, finding C4 relates to mitigating impacts through conditions. Uh, proposed condition of approval number five would require the applicant to submit a final landscaping plan in accordance with exhibit 5 or what's shown on the screen uh, prior to the issuance of any building permits as well as maintaining the landscaping on the site throughout the life of the project. Uh due to the site's proposed shared access and parking across the two

subject parcels, proposed condition of number seven would require the recipro require a reciprocal access and parking agreement be recorded and on file with staff prior to a certificate of occupancy for the northern building that's being renovated and expanded. Uh due to the project's adjacency to existing residential uses, uh staff is proposing condition of approval number six, which would require the applicant to submit a site lighting and phototric analysis to demonstrate zero light spillover at property lines prior to the issuance of a building permit. That's especially essential where it abuts the single family and the multif family parcels. and proposed condition of approval number 14, which would limit the hours of construction for the project from 7 am to 7 pm Monday through Friday and 8 am to 5:00 pm on Saturday with no work on Sunday. Uh for finding C5, public notice was sent to 45 property owners and published in RGJ on September 2nd as prescribed by NRS and Sparks Municipal Code. And as of today, staff has received no public comment. Uh staff believes that the required findings can be made and is recommending approval of the conditional use permit today. And with that, I'm available for any questions as is the applicants.

Thank you, Colobby. Commissioners, do we have any questions for staff? No. The applicant, do you want to add anything? No. Do any commissioners have questions for the applicant?

Okay, this is a public hearing item and it looks like I have three people that wish to speak. So, we'll open it up to public comment. And we have Marvis Butell. Marvis. Marvis. You want to Yes. You can come up here. Um, state your name and then you get three minutes to

Okay. My name is Marvis Butell. I will be living right across the street on Capuro from this proposed development. Um I'm just kind of interested in what kind of a medical facility is going in there. I mean doesn't seem like very many parking spaces for all the people who are going to be working there plus the people who are going to be coming there. So I'm just what kind of a medical facility is this? What do they do there? Is it like an urgent care or do they have some specific

might? Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Next, Samantha Gonzalez. Hello. Um, I'm Samantha Gonzalez. I live a street over on Ponderosa Drive. And so what I the questions I have are the traffic study and if they analyze like how many accidents are insolvent because we see quite a few accidents there probably weekly. There's a lot of motorcycle traffic and we're really concerned about all the kids from Agnes Rley and then especially from the middle school because they don't use crosswalks. They just walk back and forth. Um so that the traffic issues a concern for us and like Marva said what kind of a medical facility is it? We're we're interested in that, too.

All right. Thank you. Thank you. Then Katie Neper. Good. Yeah.

I'm Katie Neper and basically the same concerns as as Marvis and Samantha in that the we don't know how many people are going to be coming in and out, but there's 44 spaces. That's good. And we really appreciate that they have not had uh access to Capuro because I don't know if you're com familiar with Capuro, but when you go um west on Capuro, you can only go right out of there. And uh we walk that my dog, my husband and I, we go that way down Capuro every day, every morning. And if there was more traffic on there because if there's not enough parking places and people are parking on Capuro, that would not be a good thing for the residents on Capuro. So that's the otherwise looks really good. Uh but the concern is if there's going to be traffic on Capuro.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

All right. We have Kimberly Luna. Hey, I'm Kimberly Luna. I live on Broadway. So, I'm just kind of wondering how much the time frame is with the construction because we've had multiple constructions on that street and obviously been an Audi and it always does tend to extend. I just kind of want to know how long we're going to have to stick with one entrance and one exit. All right. Does anybody else wish to speak on this particular item? I see none. I will close public comment. Do any commissioners have any further questions?

Okay. Perfect. Good evening. I'm Gabe Whitler with Odyssey Engineering uh representing the applicant and owner. Okay. Yeah. Couple of questions is the timeline of the construction. What type of medical facility and what kind of traffic is you looking at?

Exactly. So on the timing uh you know we anticipate submitting for building permit by the end of the year probably break ground around March if everything goes smoothly and it'll probably take about a year to do the the remodel and addition. Now most of that because it's an infill site existing most of that will take place within the site. There's a limited amount of utility infrastructure work we need to do and some frontage improvements along the roadways, but most of the impact will be within the the site itself. So, you know, ideally there will be a very limited amount of traffic control and and roadway interference for the construction. As far as the type of medical facility, it will be an expansion. So the life change center owns that existing building to the south and they provide similar to a re rehabilitation type facility services. They will be expanded into the new building. Um but a a good portion of the building will be broken up into lease space. So they don't know exactly which tenants those will be. It'll probably be similar support system to to what they do now. For example, the daycare center will be leased to a different uh entity to to operate. Um, so can't tell you exactly what uh professions and and doctors will be in there quite yet, but uh it'll be it'll be similar and and a portion of it will be expansion um of their existing facility to the south. So um and as far as traffic's concerned, yeah, our our intent was to to keep the access uh off of Sullivan, which is a, you know, a large street. It's got center turn shared turn lanes. So So uh ingress and egress is much more efficient off of that roadway and keep them off of the the more residential street of Capuro.

So that was kind of the intent for the circulation there. Commissioners, do we have Any questions for the applicant? Yeah, like a psychologist type type, you know,

possibly. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Correct. Yeah. Yeah. That the intent is not to to have a, you know, a small ER. It's Yeah. It's not that type of medical facility, but these types of services do are considered medical office, even though it's kind of a broad range of of uses that could fit within that. So, no urgent care, no, that's not care. So, limited traffic.

Exactly. and uh based on their use and and what they they need currently for their facility and the code required cal for parking, we think we're going to be going to be adequate. And we we are including a drop zone out front for the daycare. So people will be able to drop on site. They you know, we're not going to have a drop zone out on the street or anything. It'll be internal. So the professional support services Exactly. That's I think that's intent. Yes. All right, commissioners. Do we have any more questions?

Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Appreciate it. Do we have any discussions on this item, commissioners? All right. I'll entertain a motion.

Mr. Chair, I move to approve the conditional use. 25-0011 associated with PCN25-000013 to construct and operate a child care facility and medical office use in the MF5 multifamily residential zoning district within a building proposed to be expanded to 22,100 square ft and associated site improvements on an approximately 1.4 4 acre site located at 21105 Capuro Way and 1755 Sullivan Lane based on findings C1 through C5 and this fact supporting these findings as set forth in the staff report and subject to the 14 conditions of approval. Second.

All right, we got a move by Commissioner Kramer, a second by Commissioner Neberline. Please vote. Oh, do we have any further discussions? All right, let's vote. All right, it approved unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

All right, we're moving on to general business PCN21-00008 PD25-00003. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. For the record, Scott Kerry, development services manager. Uh tonight for the commission's review and consideration is the final plan development handbook for the Andel and Ranch uh project. Uh just one thing to point out for the record from a procedural standpoint. This is a general business item and a public hearing is not not required for this. Um planning commission I'm sure is well aware well aware of the site 8100 Pyramid Way. This is the Andalan family farm and uh and earlier this year the the commission saw an annexation request, comprehensive plan amendment request, reszone request, and then the tenative approval or the tenative handbook for associated with this development. Um on June 23rd, the city council approved all four of those requests. This project's in the in the city of Sparks. um in its approval of the tenative handbook, city council specified that the applicant had one year to come before city council for final approval of of the handbook. And um essentially with the uh PD zoning on place, um we don't have a final handbook until the final handbook is is is adopted and recorded. And um essentially with the final handbook that acts as the zoning code for for this parcel and it's basically um for a con this this exercise for the final handbook is a conformance exercise where

we're looking for substantial compliance with the tenatively approved handbook. As former planning manager Rob Pisell used to say, it's kind of speak now or forever, hold your hold your peace because once the once the handbook is recorded, the zoning is in place. It's locked on the property until it's amended. So, uh the proposed handbook covers the northern 115 acres of the subject site which is used currently for the Andolin um family venture farms. Uh included in the in the handbook are kind of two two primary drivers for for the handbook. The first is to allow for the agurism use which has been operating on this site for for several for several decades now. Sparks municipal code does not have have a agurism use. So the proposed handbook would allow this use to continue and it would allow development standards for it to increase in in the future. Another key consideration with the the proposed handbook is to allow for alternative temporary parking standards for special events. Currently, Sparks Municipal Code doesn't if you're going to have a parking lot, it's got to be paved. Um what the proposed handbook is in the northern northwest corner. There's 10 acres of current alpha alpha field that's used um during seasonal festivals for overflow parking. The proposed handbook establishes a maximum of 80 days per year um that that this field could be used for uh special event parking without it being paid. Uh but overall one of the one of the key considerations that has been carried over between the tenative handbook and the final handbook is the provision that a minimum of 50 acres of the site would be maintained for ranching operations and would be preserved as as a farm moving forward.

As discussed at at Tuesday's planning uh planning commission study session, there was there was one update we we would like to make um on the record today. That's that's associated with the drainage report. The drainage report is is part of appended six of the final handbook. And this kind of calls out how how the site is going to have have drainage and how they're going to do storm water conveyance. Um, pages 169 and 170 of the PDF on exhibit 3 have been modified to add in this new section 6.11. So, I'd like to invite um our our senior civil engineer, Susan Yang, to explain kind of the mechanism for this this this section of the drainage report we've been asking for.

So, good evenings uh commissioners and my name is Susan Yang. I am their senior civil engineer. So for the drainage study um it should follow trucking meadows regional drainage manual that's called trucking meadows manual or manual. The manual requires their increased the flow between the existing and the proposed conditions to be contained on site but sometimes there is regional study uh for their site. So the regional study usually includes large area in the analysis and estimates the flow from each contributing area and evaluates the current existing drainage system and propose a new drainage system or offsite improvement if needed. So uh when you have a regional study all you have to do is compare side spec side s side specific study to the original study and however for this project um the original study and site specific study used the different methods so we cannot compare apple to apple. So as a result we went back to the trucking meadows manual and asked applicant to add a section to the handbook. By doing this, the city reserved the right to demand a a pond in the future. Uh, of course, it will be evaluated on a case-bycase basis and the factors like um the size of the project, the type of the project and the timing of the project will be taken into consideration to to determine whether a pond is required or not. Um, so if you have any questions, I'm here to answer your questions.

Thank you. Thank you.

There are five findings that the planning commission's um being asked to consider for for this final handbook. Uh for final handbooks, they're a little different sort of findings in that they're in the negative. And basically with this being a conformance review the question is here is if these are not the case then you can't make make the finding. Um so the first one is is vary the proposed gross residential density or use. The proposed handbook presents the same gross residential density and intensity that was included in the tenative handbook. uh the development standards of section of the handbook which regulates density and intensity of uses has not changed. Uh the second finding is very the proposed ratio of residential to non-residential use. Uh the residential the ratio of residential to non-residential use in this final handbook is identical to that that was included in the in the final or the tenative handbook that was approved by the city council. Uh the land uses identified in the proposed handbook are 100 acres of agroourism and 16 acres of future supporting commercial land uses. Uh number three is uh involve a reduction of the area set aside for common open space or the substantial relocation of of such areas. No changes to the area set aside for common open space are included in this final handbook. Number four is sub the substantially increase the floor area proposed for non-residential use. Uh the proposed final handbook does not increase the floor area for any non-residential uses beyond that that was it permitted in the tenative handbook. And then finally substantially increase the total ground areas covered by buildings or involve a substantial change in the height of the buildings. The proposed handbook does not increase the total ground areas covered by buildings or involve any changes to the height of buildings than what was included in the in the tenative.

So overall um Mr. Chairman, staff believes that the U proposed final handbook is in substantial conformance with the with the tenatively approved handbook and we recommend that the uh planning commission recommend approval to the to the city council. That concludes my presentation. Be happy to answer any questions. Um we do have the applicants representative here as well. Thank you, Scott. Commissioners, do we have any questions for staff? Okay. Does the applicant want to add anything?

Mr. Do you have any questions for the applicant? No. All right. I'll take a I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move to forward a recommendation of approval to the city council for PD25-00003 associated with PCN21-00008 as the Andolin Ranch final development handbook is in substantial compliance with the Andolin Ranch tenative development handbook asset for staff report.

All right, commissioners, do we have any further discussion on this item? All right, we have a move by Commissioner Pritzo, a second by Commissioner Reid. Let's vote. Okay, it passes unanimously. Thank you, Scott. All right. Do we have any announcements,

Mr. Chair? I have none. All right. So, I'll reopen public comment for general public comment. Do does anybody have any public comment? I see none. I'll close public comment. Commissioners, do you have any announcements? Nope. All right. Meeting adjourned.