Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Commissioner here, assistant secretary here. Community services director here. Thank you. Uh please stand for the pledge of allegiance. I 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. Okay. I'll open it up for general comment on the public comment. This is for any particular comment that anybody wants to make. Do I see any Does anybody want to make a comment? All right, I'll close public comment. May I get approval for tonight's agenda? Mr. Chair, I move to approve the agenda as submitted. I'll second that. All right, we got a motion by Commissioner Kramer, a second by Commissioner Pritzell. Those that have computers, please vote. Those of us that don't, please, yay or nay. Okay. I

I All right, it passes. All right. May I get approval for the minutes? Mr. Chair, I move to approve the minutes of the planning commission study session held on July 15, 2025 and the planning commission meeting held on Thursday, July 17th, 2025. Second. All right, we got a move by Commissioner Kramer. Uh, a second by Commissioner Neberline. Those have computers. Please vote. The other ones, please vote. Yay or nay?

I. Ricky. Commissioner Elkins. Is that a yay? Yes. Okay. Very enthusiastic. Thank you. All right. We're moving on to public hearing item PCN19-00004M AJ25-00001.

Thank you, Chair Rosson and members of the planning commission. For the record, Sienna Reid, city planner. Um, with your permission, Mr. Chair, could this presentation uh cover both agenda items 7.1 which is the major deviation as well as 8.1 which is the tenative map? Sure. Uh perfect. Um just uh before starting out do want to note that um ultimately at the end of uh this presentation the major deviation does require a public hearing. The tenative map uh does not. But okay, we'll proceed forward with the uh grouped presentation.

Right. On this slide, you can see the Five Bridges Village 1B project site. It's outlined in red. It totals 7.46 acres and is located on the north side of Highland Ranch Parkway and uh west of the intersection uh with it or west of its intersection with Five Bridges Parkway. As you can see, village 1B is generally located in the southern portion of the Five Bridges project site. That larger Five Bridges project site is outlined in blue. Uh for some of you the requests before you tonight will look a little bit familiar. Uh that is because both uh tenative map and major deviation requests were previously approved for Five Bridges Village 1B in August of 2021 and the request before you tonight would effectively renew those entitlements. Uh notably a final map for village 1B is currently under review. However, it's not going to be certified by city council or finally recorded prior to the tenative map expiring leading to the need to renew the tenative map and associated major deviation. As proposed, uh the major deviation request seeks to reduce the required minimum minimum residential density that applies in the MF2 zoning district from 12 dwelling units per acre to 6.17 dwelling units per acre. That's a 48.6 6% decrease. Uh this density reduction is increased from what was previously approved in 2021. That's because the parcel or project site is actually larger than what was considered in 2021. Uh but that larger parcel size is really due to just how uh the parcel was ultimately created through the parcel map process. It ended up having some sloped areas that will be maintained by the Five Bridges Landscape Maintenance Association, a detention basin that

serves a lot of land area within the Five Bridges Project beyond the Village 1B subdivision, and then also an area that's set aside for the future widening of Highland Ranch Parkway. So when those areas are removed um from the overall site size, the true effective size of the subdivision for ownership lots and site improvements is almost identical to what was in the 2021 approvals. And ultimately the municipal code does allow for a major deviation to be granted uh for from a development standard so long as it's greater than 10% and less than 50% of that measurable standard. And ultimately uh if the planning commission uh chooses to recommend approval of this uh major deviation request, it would allow for 46 dwelling units to be constructed in the MF2 zoning district. Uh looking at the tenative map request, it proposes a 46 lot duplex subdivision and the lots are arranged as 23 2-unit buildings or duplexes. The lots themselves range in size from 1,769 to 2,257 square ft. Uh and they comprise on their own 2.14 acres of the site. Then uh surrounding the lots you have 4.85 85 acres of common area. That's for open space, community amenities. There's private streets throughout the subdivision, as well as disturbed slope areas, and that detention basin. And then another47 acres of the site is set aside on the south side for the future widening of Highland Ranch. Um, as discussed, the 46 uh town home units as proposed on the site yield a gross density of 6.17 dwelling units per acre. That's less than the 12 dwelling

units per acre required for the zone. And so ultimately, because of this reduced density, a recommendation of approval on the tenative map is contingent upon a recommendation of approval for the major deviation. Uh on this slide you can see the preliminary landscape plan uh for the subdivision. It overall illustrates its overall design. And so just to walk everyone through it, uh primary access to Village 1B is provided here directly from Highland Ranch Parkway. And then as you uh travel along the private street through the subdivision, uh there is also an emergency secondary access uh right here. It connects to Five Bridges Parkway. Each of the town home units is anticipated to have one uh parking space in a garage, one parking space in the associated driveway, and then also there are 38 parking spaces uh surface parking spaces throughout the subdivision. You can see that the there are parking spaces here uh in the western portion of the site, also uh in this middle location of the site, and then also here in the eastern portion. Uh when you add up all of those garage, driveway, and surface parking spaces uh throughout the subdivision, they total 130. And uh what was provided with the application was preliminary floor plans that show two and threebedroom units. And if each duplex is constructed as a three-bedroom unit, that would actually require a parking demand of 138 parking spaces. That's certainly higher than the 130 that are available. Um, however, the subdivision is anticipated to include a mix of two-bedroom and three-bedroom units. It's just that we don't know uh what that exact m mix is at this time.

And so, to ensure parking uh that's provided on site uh aligns with our required parking standards based on the number of bedrooms, staff is recommending the applicant provide final floor plans and a house model mix layout prior to approving a final map. Uh on this slide you can see the typical building setbacks proposed with the village five uh village 1B subdivision. Um as proposed the town homes are arranged as two unit buildings um and each lot and kind of highlighted in the green area uh includes a town home, the driveway uh which would be right here as well as a portion of the front yard and then a 10-ft rear yard. On this slide, you can see preliminary building elevations for the proposed units. Um, here you can see that mix of one and twotory units is anticipated, each having a onecar garage. All right. So, um, at this point, I'll go ahead and shift gears to the required findings that the planning commission will need to consider for each of these items this evening. I'm going to start off with the major deviation findings. There are five of them. And so to uh look first here at finding MD1, it focuses on consistency with title 20, which is our zoning code. Um here in terms of the major deviation, this is a process that was added to the code to provide a mechanism to bridge gaps on a case-byase basis between the city's adopted development standards and then various factors affecting particular development sites. And uh currently our zoning code doesn't provide a great option for residential development between 7.4 and 11.9 dwelling units per acre. This is because the SF6 zoning district maxes

out at 7.26 dwelling units per acre and it doesn't allow for attached housing products. And then the MF2 zoning district, while it does allow for attached housing products, has that minimum density standard of 12 dilling units per acre. And of course, the planning commission is aware um of these code issues from the work that staff is doing on the housing affordability audit. And we do anticipate that there will be future code changes uh that address this uh density gap and just overall kind of missing middle housing products such as the town homes that are before you tonight. Uh that said uh for now to develop either highdensity detached single family housing products that would be like a subdivision uh a single family subdivision on small lots or lowdensity attached housing products like uh these town homes. Applicants must request a major deviation to reduce the required minimum density uh or pursue planned development zoning. Ultimately, approval of this major deviation would allow for development uh within that current density gap, and it would not adversely impact the ability of development in the MF2 zone to act as a buffer between single family neighborhoods that are located to the north of uh the village 1B subdivision and then commercially zoned property that's located on the south side of Highland Ranch Parkway that could potentially accommodate um higher density multif family development or commercial uses. Uh looking next at finding MD2. This asks the planning commission to consider the impact of the request on health, safety, and welfare um as well as the impact to nearby property or improvements. Um on this finding, granting the lower density would reduce the required number of building units on the site from 89 to 46. Um and ultimately development of the site with those 46 units would not have a material

impact on public health, safety or welfare and would not be injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. Finding MD3 focuses on the preservation and enjoyment of property rights possessed by other properties uh nearby in the same land use district. Um so that would be our comprehensive plan land use designation of MF14. Um here there are a variety of properties that are located in that MF14 land use designation located near the subject site. However, on the zoning side, they're all governed by planned development handbooks that don't impose minimum density standards. So granting this major deviation request would reduce the required minimum residential density in a manner that's consistent with properties in the same land use district um but happen to be zoned plan development or new urban district. This would ultimately allow for the preservation and enjoyment of a property right possessed by other owners of MF14 designated property that is not permitted on the subject site unless the major deviation is granted. Uh looking next at finding MD4. This finding focuses on whether or not a special privilege or uh not allowed to other properties would occur due to the granting of the request. Um here other properties within the MF2 residential zoning designation are subject to the minimum density standard of 12 dwelling units per acre and a major deviation could be applied for um and potentially granted to similarly situated property owners. Finding MD5 on this slide requires public notice uh be given and a public hearing held. Public notice was published in the Reno Gazette Journal on August 5th and notices were mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. That was uh 39

individual notices. Um also mailed on August 5th. And to date, staff has been contacted by two individuals that were seeking additional information about how to provide public comment on these requests and then one individual seeking information on emergency access. staff did return that call and explain uh the emergency access that's in place for f Bridges. Uh in addition, there has been one written comment that was received. It was forwarded to the planning commission uh that stated support for the widening of Highland Ranch Parkway before additional units in five bridges are constructed. Looking next at the tenative map findings, and I I know the planning commission is well familiar with uh the fact that there are a number of them. So there are 12 to to step through here. Uh and on the first uh slide here we have finding T1 which is conformance with our comprehensive plan. In relation to this finding the 46 lots proposed by this tenative map would provide a town home housing product that enhances housing diversity in the city of Sparks advancing policy H2. City services uh to the site can be provided at acceptable service levels with the improvements outlined in the five bridges development agreement uh complying with policy CF1. And then for sidewalks, the tenative map plans do show a sidewalk will be provided on one side of the private local street uh providing access to the lots. Uh next finding T2 and T7 they each relate to streets and for conformance with the city's street master plan per finding T2 project access as discussed is provided from Highland Ranch Parkway to ensure safe turning movements uh condition 17 requires the paved approach that connects Highland Ranch Parkway to the local access road meet a specific

NDOT design and also the 2050 regional transportation plan does identify that Highland Ranch Parkway from Sun Valley Boulevard to five Bridges Parkway will be widened uh from two to four lanes in the 2025 to 2034 time frame. Finding T7 focuses on impacts to public streets. Uh trip generation for this tenative map request is estimated at 434 average daily trips with 43 of those trips occurring in the PM peak hour based on a traffic study memorandum that updates the previous traffic study that analyzed uh the impact of five Bridges village 1B. Uh this study found that the Highland Ranch Parkway Five Bridges Parkway intersection will operate at acceptable levels of service with the Village 1B trips. And then for the access to Village 1B, uh the study did find that the leftbound movement out of the subdivision, so heading east on Highland Ranch Parkway, was found to operate at a level of service E. Um that is below the acceptable level of service. However, the queue was found uh to be less than one vehicle length as estimated and also not to occur within the public rightway and so no improvements were recommended. Uh in addition, the updated study uh does not evaluate whether the construction of the village 1B units will degrade level of service on Highland Ranch Parkway or its intersection with Pyramid Way below the thresholds identified in the development agreement and thereby trigger the off-site uh roadway improvements that are required in that agreement. So, we do have condition 15 um that requires a traffic analysis evaluating those level of service thresholds be provided prior to approving a final map uh to determine

if the off-site improvement off-site improvements will be required with this subdivision. Um it is notable uh that the improvements which is the widening of Highland Ranch Parkway from Five Bridges Parkway to Pyramid as well as intersection improvements to Pyramid and Highland Ranch Parkway. Those are being pursued by the master development master developer at this time. Uh they have been improved by NDOT and are in the queue for proceeding forward. So did did just want to mention that even though we are requiring an updated study, those improvements are are in process and moving forward. Uh moving on to finding T3 agencies that regulate environmental impacts did not provide comments. Um however, the developer does have to meet local, county, and state requirements in regards to environmental impacts. And then finding T4 focuses on availability of water to the site. Here the domestic water requirement for the 46 units is estimated at 5.52 acre feet per year and water service will be provided by the Sun Valley General Improvement District. Finding T5 looks at the availability of utilities to serve the site uh including sewer and storm drain capacity. The 46 units would generate um a bit over 40,000 gallons of sewage per day. And the applicant does have to provide uh evidence that there's adequate capacity to serve the project prior to approving a final map. And a final storm water and drainage plan is also uh required prior to approving a final map. Looking uh next here at finding T6 uh it focuses on the availability of schools, police, transportation, and parks. Uh for schools, the site is zoned for Hall Elementary, Shaw Middle, and Spanish Springs High. Uh the WO County School District did not provide any comments regarding this request. Uh likewise, the Sparks Police Department, which provides uh services to the site, expressed no

concerns with the current proposal. Uh as previously discussed, the roadway network improvements uh needed to accommodate uh the Five Bridges project are identified in the DA, our development agreement, and will be installed consistent with that agreement. Uh, regarding parks, there are no community or regional parks uh, planned in the Five Bridges project site. And the closest public park to the subdivision proposed by this tenative map is Highland Ranch Park, which is approximately a half mile to the west of the site and located on the south side of Highland Ridge Parkway. There are private uh, parks planned, however, within Five Bridges. Uh, finding T8 addresses flood plane, slopes, and soils. The lots proposed within the subdivision are outside of the 100-year flood plane. And then for slopes, the project site has already been graded and it was graded in compliance with the existing conditional use permit for development on slopes, hilltops, and ridges. And so as graded, uh the building pad uh will be at a similar elevation to Highland Highland Ranch Parkway on the western side and then about 15 feet above the grade of Highland Ranch on the eastern side. Uh for soils a final final geotechnical report is required at the time of final map and in terms of outside agency responses proi finding T9 no uh comments were provided and then finding T10 asks you to consider the availability of fire protection services. Um here the village 1B project site is located outside of the fire department's 4minute travel time standard and so the dwelling units will be required to have sprinklers unless they become located within the 4-minute travel time with the construction of the six fire station. Uh it is not anticipated that they will be within that four-minute travel time, but the condition does uh allow for um variation there if by chance the site

does become within it. And then uh for finding T1, uh what are other impacts of the subdivision? Uh staff looked at architecture for the residences, parking, community amenities, and fencing here. Um the conditions address these impacts. Condition 20 requires final architectural elevations be approved prior to approving a final map. Uh condition 21 addresses parking uh with that house model mix layout uh to ensure parking meets minimum parking requirements based on the number of bedrooms. Condition 19 requires at least three community amenities and their associated operations be approved prior to approving a final map. And condition 22 requires any wall uh separating lots from Highland Ranch Parkway be constructed of splitface uh CMU material and design to blend in with the surrounding natural environment. And finally, finding T12 requires the public be notified of this item here. The posting of the agenda satisfies that requirement. Uh but I do want to note that in our mailed notice as well as our newspaper notice, we included both of the major deviation and tenative math requests since they are linked. So uh there was enhanced noticing in that regard. Uh staff is ultimately recommending that the planning commission forward a recommendation of approval to the city council for the major deviation and tenative map requests. Um you can see suggested motions uh for both requests on this slide. Uh again, a public hearing is required for the major deviation request. No public hearing is required for the tenant of map request. And uh with that, I will wrap up and be available for questions.

Thank you, Sienna. Commissioners, do we have any questions for Sienna?

One question. Yeah. Um through you, Chair Russen. Um my understanding is that the fire station is anticipated to be constructed um in the fall of this year. With regards to uh fully staffed and operational, I don't have the exact information on that. Okay. Commissioners, any more questions? Is the applicant here?

Applicant is not here this evening. All right. So, we don't have any questions for them. Just one quick question on the widening. What's the anticipated start of widening the Highland Ranch? Yeah. Um, thank you, Chair Russ. I would actually defer that to one of our engineers because they're more intensively involved in managing those projects. So, looks like Amber is on her way up.

Uh, thank you, chair. For the record, Amber Sosa, city engineer. Uh, the widening of Highland from the project entrance from Five Bridges down to Pyramid is scheduled to start in September of 2025. We're actively working with the developer. They have a contractor on board. Um, and they'll be looking to do major underground utility and drainage and grading through the fall and winter. Um, and then you'll see more of the roadway widening starting in the spring. It's an approximately 16-month project. Uh, so there is some significant infrastructure being constructed. Oh, thank you very much. Appreciate that.

Commissioners, any more questions? All right. Thank you, Sienna. This is a public hearing item. So, we have a comment from Alicia Mayor. Uh, yes. I just um I live up there. Please come up here. State your name. You get three minutes. Oh, okay.

My name is Alicia Meyer and I live in uh the Lifestyle Home area. I live on the corner of Sun Valley Boulevard and Highland Ranch Parkway. And I've I've uh I've lived out there for years and I know they had used to say that they were going to expand Sun Valley Boulevard to the Pyramid Highway in 2025 and I just recently found out that's really 2025 to 2034 the space. So, I'm hearing from this development that they're going to start widening it from the five ridges, just a pyramid. And um west of that, closer to where I live, there's two other developments that are being built right now, one on each side of Highland Ranch, you know, Parkway. So, I know that's not the same development, but you know, my concern is there's major traffic problems there now. And I and then I thought this lady Sienna mentioned that when you're coming out of uh the five bridges area, it's not that congested. Well, there's only one way out. And when the traffic is going up and down that to and from pyramid, those people, you know, it seems like they don't have a a big length of time. But anyway, I'm just curious about that. And I certainly don't want to wait till 2034 for the rest of uh Sun Valley Boulevard to go through or you know the Highland Ranch Parkway um being widened. And already just with these new developments, they've taken out the sidewalks. They've already really cramped the just that, you know, that part of the road in. So I didn't know if you guys were going to answer any questions, but I did get some information from her. So, you know, at least uh they're going to start working on that part,

but it'll still just kind of be a boondoggle from two to four. And anyway, I think Thank you. Thank you. All right. Anyone else to speak on this particular item? Please state your name and then you get three minutes.

Okay. Uh hello, my name is Jenta Han Hennes and I am a new resident at Five Bridges Parkway or Five Bridges Community Home and um I just noticed that the the traffic to get out of make a left or make a right turn depending on the time of day has been increasingly unsafe to make a left towards Pyramid. um to get out. Um it's it's it took me 25 minutes to make a left turn today trying to get here. Um uh not long ago we had a wildfire on near Spanish Springside over there and um there were people that wanting to get out because we thought that it might get closer to us. There's no other way out. there's just that five bridges to um Highland Ranch and then Pyramid. So, I'm I just wanted to learn more about the impact of more communities um for five ridges park uh five bridges and then this new one.

Okay. Thank you. And then fill out a card at at the end of this meeting. All right. Thank you. All right. Anyone else to wish to speak on this particular item? I don't want to speak.

Okay. All right. Well, I'm going to close public comment on this and uh commissioners, do we have any more further discussion on this? All right. Do we want to address Okay. I will entertain a motion. for public 7.1 item.

Mr. Chair, I move to forward a recommendation of approval to city council for the major deviation request MHJ25-00001 associated with PCN19-000040 adopting findings MD1 through MD5 and the fact supporting these findings is set forth in the staff report and subject to conditions of approval 1 through three. I second that motion. All right, we got a motion by Commissioner Pritzo, a second by Commissioner Kramer. Those with computers, please vote. Those without, please vote yay or nay. I Commissioner Elkins.

Sorry, it's turn on. I All right. All right. It passes unanimously. Now we'll move on to 8.1. This is not a public hearing item, so we will not uh seek public comment on this particular item. So, commissioners, do we have any further discussion on this item? All right. I'll entertain a motion.

Mr. Chair, I move to forward a recommendation of approval to city council for the tenative map quest STM25-00002 associated with PCN 19-0040 adopting findings T1 through T12 and the fact supporting these findings as set forth in the staff report and subject to conditions of approval 1 through 22. I second. All right, we got a motion by Commissioner Kramer, a second by Commissioner Pritzos. Please vote. Those of us that don't have computers, please vote by voice. I I I

All right, that passes unanimously. Okay. Do we have any announcements? Any comments, commissioners? Any announcements? All right. All right. We'll open this up for general public comment. Does anybody wish to make a general public comment? I see none. I will close public comment.

Staff, any comments? Yes, chair. If you'd entertain just a minute like Amber Sosa, city engineer speak planned enhancements on Highland Ranch. uh that include the first component that was talked about with five bridges Parkway and then the part that RTC would endeavor if you could Amber.

Sure. Good evening again. Amber Sosa, city engineer for the record. Uh just to add some information to that. The widening uh that we just discussed that is intended to start in September. It goes from the project entrance to pyramid. That does include a signal to be installed at the project entrance um to facilitate the movements in and out of the fiber the majority part of the five bridges development. The widening from the project entrance to the west to Sun Valley Boulevard um is an RTC a regional transportation commission project. They are um working with engineers right now to get a design engineer on board and uh start working through the design. So while in the regional transportation plan it is planned 2025 through 2034. It is actively moving forward now. Uh we don't have a hard time for construction. Uh but the design's the first part and then we move for that. So, they're actively working to get that started now.

Thank you. Thank you, Amber. All right. Commissioners, do you have any comments? Any announcements? I see none. Meeting adjourned.