Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay. Call to order. Can we have roll call, please? Here. Here.

Here. Here. Thank you. Can we have the pledge of

allegiance? Pledge algiance 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. Okay, we're going to open up with public comment if anybody has uh anything. I do have two. If anybody else would like to talk, then please remember to fill out the form and hand it to the secretary. Uh the first one on my list is Kim Sinski.

Hi. And please uh state your name for the record.

My name is Kim Sazinski and I am a resident of Sparks. It's a tough name, I know. Almost 30 years ago, my husband dragged me down a two-lane road out towards Spanish Springs. It ended up to be a dirt road and he was so excited to show me a property that was being developed which is Wingfield Springs. It was brand new and he is a lifelong resident so he was super excited about it and we saw something special a thoughtfully designed community and it is now and still is the most beautiful design development in Sparks. Now, we couldn't afford to buy um or to build a house out there at that time, but we scraped enough money to buy some property out there with a dream that someday we would live out there. Three decades ago, developers came to this very room and talked to commissioners and they carefully planned and had a vision for the community that respected wildlife, offered diverse home prices, and used the golf course as an open space that tied the whole community together. Wingfield Springs became the crown jewel of the city of Sparks. You will still you will soon receive a proposal that is opposite of that vision. It would unplan Winkfield Springs by tearing the golf course out and replacing with 764 small patio homes to a billionaire developer who only wants to maximize their profit. When it comes to this proposal, there

will be so many things to consider, but I ask you to look closely at a couple different things in that 3,640 page application. There is a two-page financial feasibility report and it concludes that the city will benefit 5.9 million over 20 years. That's just under $300,000 a year. So, in other words, our community and the character of Wingfield Springs would be dismantled for roughly less than 1% of the city's budget makes no sense. And secondly, the traffic report, which relies heavily on future road improvements that are unfunded, unscheduled, and not guaranteed. Our community doesn't have a million dollars to go fight this proposal. We have our voices, our history, and the belief that thoughtful planned planning matters. It matters not to unplan a community. I come before you and and this proposal will come before you to simply ask to look beyond the size of that application and to ask a fundamental question. Is this the right decision for the heart and the soul of Sparks? I believe when you examine it fully, you will be clear that it's a no. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. The second person that we have is Mike Daniel. Hi everyone. My name is Mike Daniel. I'm a resident of Wingfield Springs and Kim's husband was uh the best man in my wedding. um which really doesn't mean anything but um so I'm not going to read from this. I'm I'm going to speak from from the heart. I've been a resident of Sparks, actually graduated from Reed High School, was born and raised in Northern Nevada and bought a home in Wingfield Springs and also bought a golf membership at the club which includes two golf courses. I'm on the golf course, actually the fifth hole. And what concerns me is a couple of things. headlights. Um, driving down a street in my backyard was which was once a fairway and mountains. The traffic that will impact my home. Um, currently there was a development that was built off the fifth hole of the Lakes Golf Course. Built probably I don't know the number, a couple hundred patio homes. And since that has occurred, the traffic uh um in front of my home has doubled. And I anticipate that if they put roads through the middle of a golf course that that will also impact me uh on a daily basis. Um I also mentioned I'm a golf member. Um and I spent money for that. Was was uh promised that I'd have two golf courses to play. And obviously that would not be the case. that would be taken away from me. Um, I also feel like it's a little bit of a bait and switch. You build a

development master plan that says that you're going to have two golf courses and please as a community, please come out to our development and buy homes, which I have done. I spent my hard-earned money and now there's a potential because of the the the uh plan to build homes in the middle of a fairway will impact me gratefully. Um, a couple things I want to mention that Kim said about traffic, which I found a little bit laughable when I read this in the Reno Gazette Journal and who reads the newspaper, but I have it on my phone. um about the fact that they would build these homes and it would not impact traffic for 20 years. So they're not going to is it does that mean they're not going to build a home until 20 years from now? Because that is that that is laughable. When you build 762 homes, I don't know the number of cars that would be in those garages or driveways, but my guess would be probably close to 1500 homes in that community trying to eress off Wingfield Springs Parkway onto Vista Boulevard. If anybody lives out in that area, since I've been there in 2009, the traffic has increased. And I I really don't have an issue with that. We have to have a community. We have to have places for people to live, but to to blow up what was originally planned as a golf course development. Um anyway, thank you very much. I hope you take this into consideration and make the right decision for our community. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Is there any additional public comment? Okay, seeing none, we're going to move on with the agenda. I need an approval for the agenda. Thank you. It's coming. Madam Chair, I move to approve the agenda as submitted. Second that motion.

Okay. We have a a motion by Commissioner Ptos and a second by Commissioner Kramer. Is there any discussion? See no discussion. Please vote. And the uh motion passes. It goes. Okay. And now we're at 6.1. Maybe. No, we don't have a motion yet.

It's not showing up yet. Okay, there it goes. There you go. All right. Just a little slow today. Uh, I need a motion to approve the minutes of the planning commission. Madam Chair, I move to approve the minutes of the planning commission study session held on Tuesday, January 13, 2026 and the planning commission meeting held on Thursday, January 15, 2026. Second. Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Kramer to approve the minutes and a second by Commissioner Pristo. Is there any discussion?

Seeing no discussion, please vote. And the motion passes. And now we go on to our public hearings. We go. Okay, we're at 7.1 PCN12029 PD25-00002. Good evening, chair, members of the planning commission. My name is Danny Ray, senior planner, here to present this item to you today, which is an amendment to the Kylie Ranch North phase 3 uh plan development handbook. So on on this slide uh you can see the blue boundary of the Kylie Ranch North plan development in its entirety which uh actually encompasses 12 individual handbooks at this time. Uh it's 874.2 acres and outlined in red is the 98.4 acre uh phase three plan development. It's generally located east of Pyramid Way, west of David Allen Parkway, and south of Wingfield Hills Road, and north of Sparks Boulevard. The city council initially adopted the Kylie Ranch North phase 3 development handbook in 2007, which established residential, commercial, community, and park, and open space land use categories. There have been several amendments to the handbook. the most recent in 2019 which brought the handbook into conformance with the tenative handbook as several changes had been made uh as a result of the adoption and modification

of several other of these 12 uh Kylie Ranch North handbooks. The tenative handbook uh was the initial handbook that was adopted. The other 12 came in line. Once the 12th one was adopted, the tenative handbook ceased to exist. So this request uh is to amend the handbook by reducing the floor area ratio required for commercial development within villages 13 and 15. Modifying commercial architectural standards related to roof lines and to provide a more orderly allocation of trip generation across villages. Of note, staff are currently uh reviewing a companion administrative review that's uh AR25- Z0013 for a master development plan to guide the development of a 371,886 square foot shopping center that is tenatively named the Kylie Ranch Marketplace. It's proposed to be located in villages 13 and 15 of the phase three handbook area. Approval of the administrative review for a master development plan is contingent upon approval of this request to amend the phase three handbook. So floor area ratio or F we refer to is the ratio of total building area to land area. This slide shows an illustration of how F can be applied to a parcel or site. And the example shown here, it's a one:one ratio. You can see one story covers the parcel completely. Two stories, 50% lot coverage, but it's still a 1:1 ratio. Or four stories, it's 25% lock coverage, but it's still a 1:1 ratio in terms of square footage to land

area with a uh the current uh the handbook currently requires a 0.25 25 F for the com uh community commercial land use category with a total of 46.7 acres just for villages 13 and 15. The site would be required to construct uh construct a minimum of 58,563 square ft of commercial buildings. Reduction to a 0.18 FAR reduces the total required minimum square footage by 142,398, the substantial amount of square footage. Uh this represents a 28% decrease. A fiscal impact analysis provided a study of the impacts of the proposed F reduction. It found that the reduction in square footage actually reduces overall the overall negative impact to the city because of primarily a reduction in police and fire service calls. An F of 0.25 which is required currently by the handbook is estimated to produce a $3.6 million deficit to the city's general fund of over the over the 20-year analysis period compared to a $2.2 2 million deficit for the smaller footprint developed under a 0.18. So why would we be considering doing something that overall, you know, is is creates a deficit when the entire Kylie Ranch North planned development of all 12 handbook areas, all 800 and some odd thousand or 800 and some acres is considered as a part of the calculation estimated revenues of 66.4 4 million surplus are generated over the same analysis period. This general fund uh surplus is

sufficient to cover the 20.2 uh million dollar deficit to the road fund with over 45 million in net surplus revenue for the greater Kylie Ranch North development. So architectural standards in the handbook uh reflect the northern Nevada agricultural and ranching uh settlements with gable hip and other dimensional roof lines. This request seeks to modify these architectural development standards based on the size of buildings to allow greater variation in allowed roof lines in response to changes in commercial retail architectural design standards since the Kylie Ranch North plan development was initially adopted. No other changes related to architecture are proposed. So trip allocation as development has continued across the Kylie Ranch North plan development as planned in all 12 of these handbooks a mechanism is needed to allocate trips for undeveloped land in Kylie Ranch North to preserve development opportunities for those lands. There was an initial traffic analysis in 2003 for the entire Kylie Ranch North development. that uh traffic impact analysis estimated trips for land use designations, specified it in the tenative handbook, and served as the foundation for traffic comparison as development requests came forward throughout I'm going to call it KRN from this point forward, a little shorter. Since the original traffic impact analysis in the 2018 land use revision, the nature of commercial development has intensified with a greater number of fast food restaurants with drive-through facilities and gas stations being requested. These types of businesses generate large volumes of traffic. To

ensure trips are reserved for undeveloped land and to avoid rendering the last undeveloped parcels undevelopable, changes to the phase three handbook are proposed that proportionately allocate trips to the four villages within the phase 3 handbook based on acreage utilizing land uses and trip generation approved in the most recent 2018 traffic analysis as shown on the table on this slide. So we can see each of these villages 13, 15, 25, and 26 uh encompass all of phase three and the corresponding acreage for each of those villages are shown here and what their zoning. CC is community commercial, MU is mixed use. The trip generation category used for all of these villages is shopping center which has a specific ratio. So that calculation comes out to for village 131 trips for village 15 860 and so on. This amendment also requires all development applications, conditional use permit, for example, administrative review, parcel map, and building permit applications to provide a trip generation letter that identifies the proportional allocation of village trips to the project site and demonstrates the request conforms to that proportional acreage. In addition, allocated trips may be transferred between villages 13 and 15, which is where the Kaid Ranch Marketplace uh shopping center is proposed with an approved administrative review for a master development plan. Notably, if a development application proposes to exceed its propo uh proportional share of trips, a traffic impact analysis must be prepared that identifies roadway improvements needed to mitigate the additional trips.

So adjacent land uses uh immediately surrounding the subject site are industrial, single family and multif family residential uses, elementary and middle schools, assisted senior living and undeveloped land. The proposed changes to any architecture and development standards are not anticipated to adversely impact surrounding uses as these modifications will continue to provide a clear regulatory framework for the already permitted and conditional uses within the handbook's community commercial and mixeduse land use categories. So this concludes the background and analysis uh portion of my presentation. An amendment to a plan development has 10 required findings that must be uh considered by the planning commission. So I'll go into those now. So for findings PDA, PDB, and PDH, uh the requested modifications to development standards and the addition of trip allocation methodology are consistent with the comprehensive plan because they'll facilitate commercial development in an area planned for commercial uses since 2004. 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 Kylie Ranch North community for residents and businesses supporting goals MG6, CC1, EV1, and policy MG11. Pursuant to the 2024 Truckucky Meadows Regional Plan, the phase three handbook has a tier 2 land use designation and is located within the Truckucky Meadows service area. Properties in the tier 2 land use designation are characterized by suburban development and are generally less dense with some higher density nodes. The proposed amendment

supports the construction of suburban type commercial uses with limited mousing based on the height and setback standards. Proposed modifications to the handbook's F and architectural standards are not anticipated to adversely affect surrounding uses as they provide for increased flexibility and uh in commercial development already allowed in the phase three handbook. The addition of trip allocation provisions is not anticipated to adversely affect surrounding uses and instead will provide a clear regulatory framework for that allocation of trips to ensure the adequate development of all villages in the phase three handbook area for finding PDC analyzing the impacts of the proposed F reduction across the greater Kylie Ranch North area. The fiscal impact analysis prepared in support of the proposed modifications finds development will continue to generate significant positive revenue for the city's general fund estimated at 66.4 million over the 20-year analysis period and the requested changes result in an improved fiscal impact to the city. The general fund surplus is sufficient to cover the $20.1 million deficit in the road fund with over $45 million in net surplus revenue remaining to fund expenditures throughout the city. for findings PDD, PDE, PDF, and PDD. Uh the proposed amendment modifies design standards for development within the community commercial land use category, including a reduction of F and additional flexibility to vary roof line architecture and does not alter the type or amount of development permitted within the phase 3 handbook. The allocation of approved trips to villages 13, 15, 25, and 26. also provide for

predictable development. This amendment is intended to support the potential construction of commercial shopping center uses in a manner that is consistent with the original intent of the plan and furthers the mutual interest of residents, property owners, and the public by supporting construction that's consistent with the plan. For these reasons, the reliance of residents and owners upon the provisions of the plan will not be materially impaired. The proposed amendment does not alter the type of development permitted within the phase three handbook. Rather, the proposed amendment is intended to facilitate construction by establishing specific site and building parameters for commercial buildings as well as a clear regulatory framework for the allocation of trips. It does not alter the character of app the approved uh any approved plan development since commercial uses are already permitted by the handbook. And finally for PDI and PDJ as proposed the changes will allow uh any interested party to pursue development within the SP uh within the handbook area in accordance with the handbook and public notice was given as required by NRS and SMC on February 18th. A total of 181 notices were mailed to all owners within the phase 3 plan development and 750 ft beyond the boundary as well as published in the Reno Gazette journal. Uh as of noon today, there's been two public comments. Uh they've both been provided to you. Uh I think one on on your desktop right there and one in in your packet. Uh the one in your packet uh was initially an opposition but uh that was through a misunderstanding of what the purpose of the amendment was. They thought it was for additional residential development and I did reach

out to that uh commenter uh to provide that clarification and they had no further comment. Uh we did receive another comment uh yesterday. That's the one uh that specifically is opposed to any uh changes to the handbook that would create development that would bring in more truck traffic. So 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 is the uh applicant. Thank you. Uh do any commissioners have any questions? I do. Clarification. Yeah.

So, it's a $66.4 million surplus minus the $22 million deficit. So, yeah. So, explain the math to me. I'm a little confused on the math part. I'm like, wait a minute. I don't And I didn't understand it during study session, but I still don't understand it. Yeah. So, explain the math.

I think I think you're probably right there, Ashley. Um, so overall, you know, Kylie Ranch North is a very, very large development. It's very complex following following the money throughout this in terms of impacts to the general fund and and the road fund. Uh there's 12 separate handbooks. There's development going on throughout. Uh that really required a lot of work on behalf of this applicant and city staff to understand what the financial impacts were going to be and what the traffic impacts were going to be. So there was a lot of work. I give credit to the applicant and credit to our our traffic sta uh transportation staff to to work together to figure figure it out. So overall that 2018 uh I think it was the 2018 study the fiscal impact analysis original uh $66 million. Okay. Positive. This is a 20 million deficit. But it would be higher a higher deficit if it had if we kept the F requirement because that deficit is created by additional service calls police and fire service calls. So by reducing that F reducing that square footage we're reducing the impact we're reducing that deficit. So yeah it does land right around 45.

Okay. So that is in today's dollars. Because did we anticipate a rate of inflation over 20 advertise over 20 years? Do we anticipate that because roads aren't roads aren't going to cost the same as they do today 20 years from now? I I do know in a fiscal impact analysis when they're they're always they're required to do a 20-year analysis period and I believe but I I'm going to defer to our city planner to answer that question whether or not

I don't I don't mean to be here but just still trying to understand the math.

No problem. Um, uh, Commissioner Kramer, I think what I'd like to do is just provide a little bit more background on our fiscal impact analysis guidelines that the fiscal impact analysis was prepared in accordance with. So, um, the city has an adopted set of guidelines that must be used by anybody that prepares a fiscal impact analysis. And so, those guidelines go into a great amount of detail in terms of how you can calculate revenue. that's to the general fund as well as to the road fund and then a lot of detail in terms of how you calculate costs. And so those costs are based on the city's budget and then over time the guidelines get updated. So from a cost perspective they are based on budget dollars. So, we do not ask uh individuals to adjust those costs each year throughout the 20-year analysis period for inflation because we're we have that set of guidelines that we want everybody to be consistent with. Um, and just more broadly with this fiscal impact analysis, it was a little bit complex just because we've analyzed Kylie Ranch North in total, you know, all 12 phases for so long and we wanted to provide that comparison, but then there was also a comparison for just what the impact was for phase three. So, um, I hope that clarifies a little bit more.

Thank you. I have a followup. So the traffic part you said if one village went over theirs they could take from another village. Is that is that what how I understand it or give me give me the the rundown on that one?

It's between villages 13 and 15 because the Kylie Ranch marketplace encompasses both of those villages. So, as their master plan lays out, it there may need to be some adjustments. So, we're working on that master development plan right now, that administrative review that that I told you about. So, we're working on that and that's where those numbers will get massaged potentially. So, a new traffic analysis has to be done if they're going to go over. Is that correct? If if they want to go over,

if they want to go over, they have to provide a new traffic analysis. And we can't rely on something that's eight years old. That is correct. And in in your packets, there's a red line version of of the handbook and and the clean version. And all of that is in there in that text. Okay. And then eventually we're going to put all those handbooks together. Is that is that the plan? That's the plan. All right. Thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a question. kind of along the same lines with the I was just trying to make sure I just understand with the the traffic analysis in the villages 14 and 15. So there are like adjacent lots, right? Mhm.

And the shopping center is basically straddling across both. And so that's why the essentially because different types of businesses have different trip generations depending on what ends up on what side of the shopping center. Then this is giving flexibility to adjust the traffic the trip generation per village. Right. Okay. Thank you. That that helps. Okay. Are there any other questions? Okay. How about of the um of the applicant? Any questions of the applicant?

No. Would the applicant like to say anything? Chair, commissioners, for the record, Garrett Gordon. Um, today on behalf of the Barlay Group, behind me, um, with the Barlay Group are Colobby Fincham and Morgan Randis. Um, as well as our traffic engineer, David Jakaman. I had a brief presentation, um, but I know not to talk too much sometimes at these if it's going the right way. So there's some visuals if anyone's interested, but if not, I'm happy to stand down and answer any questions. Commissioners question. Go ahead. Yes, sir.

What kind of shopping center is this going to be? Commercial warehousing or like a grocery store kind of like the galleria or Let me ceue up my presentation and show a slide, commissioner, if that if that's okay.

Ask that is because if you do warehousing, that's going to increase truck traffic, right? It's um for the record, Gren, it's certainly not um manufacturing or truck traffic. It's two anchor stores, a new Smith grocery store and a Smith representative is behind me tonight. Um as well as a Target and then um certainly a number of other shops, retail, restaurants, um etc. So, I'll just it's called Kylie Ranch Marketplace. Really exciting. Um, you can see here on the right the villages 13, 15, 25, and 26. My client Barlay and the K Ranch Marketplace are 13 and 15. So, Commissioner, to your point, it would allow us to move trips back and forth from those two villages because here's our site plan. Hopefully, it gives you a little perspective. You can see we may need to move those trips back and forth, but the two anchors are Smith's grocery store, a Target. really excited about both of those and then a number of other restaurants, retail shops, etc. Um the FAR, the change to the F allows us to design this with less development. You don't hear that very often. I've come here before asking for increase in development, but this was a compromise with staff and making sure it reduced traffic impacts uh to the area. Um as well as the architectural uh development standards. Um, there was some language in there about roofs and certain elements had to be used. You could see that first bullet point throughout. Mr. Sindell and I with our legal minds. We could not figure out what throughout meant. So, we said let's come here and uh just add some clarity um to what's going on. So, we now have the ability to go gable hip uh flat roof lines based on the sizes of of the building. So, just some visuals, some renderings. You can see the Smith's uh grocery store. Beautiful. Um has some gable roofs, has some flat roofs, has

some great articulation. Um we went back and forth and if I would say um that Smith really came up with a a unique concept here that fits into the Kylie Ranch theme. So give them a lot of credit. The target the same way, more of a flat roof, but there's still articulation, great landscaping, different materials that are being used, which does fit into the articul architecture elements that are proposed. And then the rest of the shopping center, you could see just a variety of materials, roof lines, articulation, to your point, restaurants and retail we're excited about. And as far as the trips, um gosh, I could probably do 12 slides on this, but I certainly won't. Um, but I'm keeping it very simple. Um, we were allowed up to 1961, Commissioner, to your point, combining 13 and 15. uh the proposed site plan that's going through the administrative approval was that 1959 and I don't do this very often in the presentation but this took a lot of work by your staff and I just on the record want to thank Amber Sienna Dany uh your traffic engineer GCW Lauren Chelse did a great job our traffic engineer is here David Gman from Kimley Horn it was just a team effort for a number of months uh to get here so just want to thank everyone um for those efforts and just the last slide here to kind of give some more visuals of what to expect and we're really excited about it and hopefully that answers your questions of no no manufacturing or industrial here sir. Perfect.

Very good. Thank you very much. No problem. Thank you. Appreciate it. And this is the public hearing. So is there any public comment regarding this project? We do have the the one that was in our packet and then also one here from uh uh Jeannie Ol. Is she is she present? No. Okay. Should we have this in our record now? Thank you. All right. And so, uh, I need a motion. Oh, I close public comment. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to thank

I move the for city council recommendation of approval of the request to amend the final approved plan for Kylie Ranch phase 3 PCN12029/ PD25-00002 based on findings PDA through PDJ and the fact supporting those findings as set forth in the staff report. I second that motion. Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Neberlin and a second by Commissioner Kramer. Uh is there any discussion? Seeing no discussion, please set your vote. Okay. And the motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, Dy, for your time.

Thank you, sir. Okay. We move on to general business 07038 BE25-00003. Good evening again.

Hi again. For the record, I am Danny Ray here to present this uh item to you today. So, the vicinity map shows uh the blue outline of our Legends of Sparks Marina plan development and the red line is the core shopping center. And this red line right here is the tenant space where Cavender's Boot City uh is intending to go in. Um it is generally west of Sparks Boulevard and north of Interstate 80. This is a request to review and approve architectural building elevations for a 23,170 square foot existing tenant space retail building which is like I said located here on the eastern portion of the main shopping center plaza. Uh the legends of Sparks Marina plan development handbook uh regulates development and architectural standards for the site. As such, the planning commission reviews the proposed architecture for conformance with the handbook's architectural standards. The applicant has submitted a concurrent request for an administrative review of the exterior mod uh modifications. That's AR25-000034 and it's under review by staff. So here in these darker hatched areas are where the exterior elevations are proposed to be uh quite slightly modified and will accommodate uh Cavender's Boot City, a western footwear and clothing retailer. Modifications are limited to the main entrance accessed in the center of the Legends Shopping Mall right here and on the western side of the building and eastern and southern sides that are uh fronting Shields Drive. These images are the existing elevations

of the space you may remember was formerly a Forever 21. The east and south elevations front onto Shields Drive. Uh there's the west but east and south uh across from uh AAA building over in that area. The west entrance faces that uh internal shopping center. The proposed changes are restricted to the area below the ribline and include a new pilaster on the east side to balance and frame that entry along uh Shields Drive right here. And uh the proposed colors and material modifications to the existing building uh shown are for the brick uh brown flash burgundy velour and summer glacier. For the ephus or similar to stucco is 472A captain and 109 sunset yellow. Masonry roofing is charcoal and tuskcen cast stone pardon me champagne olive and white sage sand drift wheat and terrain taupe and cultured stone is storm brown staff believes that the proposed modifications provide compatibility with the existing shopping counter and utilize elements throughout the project such as color red brick and choice of ephist complimentary colors Staff does believe the proposed building elevations comply with the standards of the uh Legends of Sparks Marina handbook and recommends approval by the planning commission. Uh this concludes my presentation if you have any questions and the applicant is here as well. A representative from Red Develop.

Anybody have questions of Danny?

Okay. Would the applicant like to speak? Come on up. Good evening, Madame Chair, commissioners. My name is Todd Duel. I'm the director of construction for Red Development, and they asked me to come up here from Phoenix this morning to represent Cavenders. um looking forward to getting this project moving and this is a big deal for the shopping center and for Cavenders. This will be their second store uh here in the state of Nevada. Uh third generation family, excuse me, family-owned and operated and they see really good things happening here in Sparks and at the center. So, we're excited about it. We worked with Damian. Thank you. And look forward to getting the project moving.

They want to be open before the Reno Rodeo. Oh yeah. Thank you. Does anybody have any questions? No. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. And so, um, we have an a motion. Madame Chair, I move to approve the architectural elevations for an existing 23,170 foot building as proposed in BE25-00003 in fulfillment of the requirements set forth in the legends of sports handbook plan development handbook. This has been twice. I second that motion.

Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Pritos and a second by Commissioner Kramer. Um in C is there any discussion? See no discussion. Please set your vote. Oh, I get it. There you go. Okay. And the motion passed. Thank you, Danny. Thank you, sir. Okay. And now for general business, PCN25-000019.

Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the commission. For the record, Scott Kerry, development services manager. Tonight for the planning commission's consideration is a recommendation to the city council on a regional plan amendment for the Lazy 5 substation and transmission project. Uh the commission will be well aware of this project. at at your January meeting, you approved a conditional use permit for the substation, which is located at Highland Ranch Parkway and Pyramid and Pyramid Highway as and as well as the uh 8.35 miles of of transmission lines. Here's kind of a rendering of these are 120 KV volt um power lines. These are the big ones um that are kind of triggering this this this amendment. Um the reason we're here today is um exhibit three um in map three in the regional plan calls out regional utility corridors and sites. Um the proposed um substation qualifies as a regional utility site. And so this proposed amendment would add a new a new color on this map to designate the site for the substation. And then also we're looking to add a new a new regional utility corridor for the transmission line. There is an existing transmission line that runs from the Sullivan substation next to Hug High School um up and over Pyramid Highway over to the Spanish Springs um substation. Uh that line would go away and we would be re would be replaced with a new line that would go along that similar route to connect those two um sub substations. Here's a better map that kind of shows all aspects of the project. For reference, here's Pyramid Highway. This is the Walmart. Um the the Lazy 5 substation site is located here on on the corner. That's where the substation's going to

go. And then there's a transmission line that would run south to the Sullivan substation. And then from the Sullivan substation, there'd be a line that would run across Pyramid Highway to the Spanish Springs uh substation. And so for um as as a matter of procedure um we're asking the planning commission tonight to provide a recommendation on this regional plan amendment to the city council. City council will consider um sponsoring this regional plan amendment Monday at their city council meeting. Overall staff, we find that these proposed amendments to the regional plan will allow for the construction of this project which will um provide much needed um additional capacity to meet growth in this area of the city. We find that the project will uh facilitate continued planning and inter agency coordination ensuring that proposed infrastructure is appropriately cited within designated regional utility corridor sites and um sites and and corridors in compliance with the intent of PF11 of the regional plan. Um with that, Madame Chair, that concludes my presentation. Be happy to answer any questions. We are recommending approval.

Thank you, Scott. Commissioners have any questions? I don't really have a question more of a comment. I just want to say I find it very amusing that whoever did the rendering kept the construction cones on Pyramid Highway. Oh, the most accurate rendition of Pyramid Highway never seen. Just by seeing the cones, you know where they're pointing. Very good. Excellent observation, Commissioner. Thank you. Any other any other questions or comments? No. Okay. Okay. Would the uh applicant like to speak? The city's the applicant on this. All right. Yeah.

Thank you, Scott. Um, so we need a motion. Got into a routine. council to sponsor amendments to the 2024 Truckucky Meadows regional plan to establish a new regional utility site, establish a new regional utility quarter, and remove an existing regional utility quarter based on the facts and analysis as set forth in the staff report.

I second. Okay, we we have a motion by Commissioner Sperber and a second by Commissioner Pritos. Uh, any discussion? Seeing no discussion, please set your vote. Why is mine not clicking? Oh, jeez. I almost lost the whole thing. There you go. Okay, we're good. All right. And the motion passes. Thank you.

Okay. Uh, general business PCN19- 4 STM25-00004 DY again triple

there's my quadruple duty one more Good evening again. For the record, I am Danny Ray, senior planner, presenting this item, which is a request for a tenative map for a 211 lot single family residential subdivision in the five bridges develop. So, the Five Bridges uh villages three and seven project areas totaling 53.75 acres are shown here outlined in red just north of the Five Bridges Parkway and Highland Ranch Parkway uh intersection. For some background, a development agreement was originally approved in 2018, amended in 2020 for the now 386.87 87 acre property generally located at 1,00 ft west of the intersection of Pyramid Way and Highland Ranch Parkway. In conjunction with the agreement, the city council approved annexation, a comprehensive plan land use amendment, and reszoning requests for the sites or site. There have been several tenative maps and final maps approved for Five Bridges. Thus far, a complete listing of actions related to the five bridges development is included in your staff reports in the background section. The tenative map STM19-00005 was previously approved in May of 2020 and included villages 2, three, four, six, and seven of the five ridges development. Villages 2, four, and six have been final mapped and are not a part of this request. In terms of

timelines, if the subdivider presents a successive map in a series of final maps, each covering a portion of the approved tenative map, the map must be presented to the city council within two years from the date of recordation of the last map. In this case, applications for the final maps for villages three and seven would need to have been presented by August 30th of 2025 in order to preserve the required timelines for the submittal of a final map that is successive in a series. A request for an extension was not received uh by the city before the expiration. Therefore, the tenative map STM19-00005 has now expired. So, this tenative map request proposes a single family subdivision on 53.75 acres and will be comprised of 211 single family lots that range from 5,025 square ft to 11,287 square ft and yield a gross density of 4.2 two dwelling units per acre, which is less than the minimum required density of six dwelling units per acre in the RR comprehensive land use designation. However, the density is in conformance with SF6 zoning, which allows up to 7.3 dwelling units per acre with no minimum and takes precedence when the zoning code is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan per NRS. 10.67 67 acres of the site is identified as common area for open space, community amenities and private streets as well as disturbed slope areas in a detention basin that will be maintained by the five ridges landscape association. So this image illustrates the phasing plan for five ridges with a color-coded table that shows the unit count for each

village. The total number of projected units for five bridges is,239 which is above the 1,200 unit minimum as required in the development agreement. 39 lots are proposed for village 3 that range in size from 6744 to 9,260 square ft with an average lot size of 7,54 square ft. 172 lots are proposed for village 7, ranging in size from 5,025 square feet to 11,287 square feet with an average lot size of 6,251 square ft. A private neighbor uh neighborhood park totaling approximately 1 acre is located here and is to be constructed with village 3. Access to the villages is proposed from Analopee Ridge Parkway and Aiden Ridge Way via Five Bridges Parkway and secondary access to village 3 is provided from the southernmost split ridge court culde-sac to Aiden Ridgeway. Emergency access to the entire five bridges development is provided via an existing 20 foot wide access road from Warhol drive located in unincorporated Wo County to the current western terminus of Analopee Ridge Parkway. Now village 3 is proposed to be developed using SF6 zoning standards. Village 7, which is what is shown on this slide, is also proposed to be developed using SF6 uh district standards, except for 128 lots generally located in the interior uh that are proposed to be developed using small lot standards as provided in SMC 20.02.004. Those lots you see are shaded in in gray. These small lot standards allow for some lots that are smaller than 6,000 square feet so long as the maximum

density does not exceed that in the SF6 zoning district which is 7.3 dwelling units per acre and the undeveloped portion of the site is deed restricted. Lot numbers affected are denoted as shaded lots shown on the slide and in exhibit 5 in your packets. Undeveloped common area that totals 10.67 67 acres in size will remain undeveloped open space that is deed restricted from future development in compliance with the city's small lot requirements. That's condition 14. And the common area in the northeast corner of village 3 uh expected to be a park component. There's already a separate parcel from the rest of village 3. So now uh with background and analysis done, we can move over to the findings the planning commission uh must consider this evening. This tenative map request is for 211 a single family uh subdivision with small lot standards applied to 128 lots as shown on the tenative map. The proposed subdivision will provide additional residential units and sparks consistent with this agreement. Advancing goals H2, H3, and policies CC8 and H11. The tenative map plan shows sidewalks will be provided on both sides of the local and collector streets providing access to the lots complying with policy C4 and plans for the provision of water, sewer, streets, and storm water infrastructure were contemplated with the approval of the agreement. Subject to these improvements, the city services can be provided at acceptable levels to serve the 211 lots proposed with this tenative map. uh complying with policy CF1. Uh next findings T2 and T7 each relate to streets. For conformance with the city's street master plan, the project access is provided from Highland Branch

Parkway. street improvements to widen the segment to Highland Ranch Parkway from Pyramid Way to Five Ridges Parkway and improve the intersection of Pyramid Way and Highland Ranch Parkway and geometric modifications to accommodate the widening of Highland Ranch uh Road between the two signals are underway and are anticipated to be complete by the fall of 2026 to the spring of 2027. Finding T7 focuses on impacts to public streets. Trip generation for this uh tenant map request is estimated to be 1,918 trips with 196 PM peak hour trips. These trips were analyzed in comparison to a previous 2020 trip generation update dated April 2020 and found it to be less than those estimated at that time. In addition, as the updated study does not evaluate whether construction of villages three and seven will degrade the level of service on Highland Ranch Parkway or its intersection with Pyramid uh below the thresholds identified in the agreement and thereby trigger offsite roadway improvements set forth in the development agreement. Condition 17 will require a traffic analysis evaluating these level of service thresholds be provided prior to approving a final map to determine if the off-site improvements will be required with this division. Moving on to finding T3. Uh agencies that regulate environmental impacts did not provide comment. However, the developer must meet local, county, and state requirements regarding environmental impacts per condition six. Finding T4 focuses on the availability of water to serve the site. Here, the domestic water requirement for the 211 single family residential units is

estimated at 101.5 acre feet per year. Municipal water service will be provided by Sun Valley General Improvement District. Finding T5 looks at the availability of utilities to serve the site, including sewer and storm drain capacity. The 211 single family residential units are estimated to generate 89,900 gallons of sewage per day. The applicant is required to provide evidence that there is adequate sewer capacity to serve the project prior to approving a final map and construct sewer capacity improvements consistent with the development agreement if necessary. Final storm water and drainage plan for the development must also be approved prior to uh approving a final map. Pardon me, just one minute. I'm getting a tickle on my throat. For schools, uh the project site is zoned for Hall Elementary School, Shaw Middle School, and Spanish Springs High School. Uh Wo County School District did not provide comment regarding this request. The Sparks Police Department will provide services to the site and they expressed no concerns with the current proposal. As previously discussed, roadway network improvements needed to accommodate the five bridges project are identified in the de uh development agreement and will be installed consistent with the thresholds of that agreement. Regarding parks, there's no community or regional parks planned in the five bridges project site. However, small private parks are available to the residents. The closest public park to the subdivision proposed by this tenant map is Highland Ranch Park, which is approximately half a mile to the west of the project site and located on the south side of Highland Ranch Parkway.

Uh, finding T8 addresses flood plane, slopes, and soil. The lots proposed with this subdivision do not fall within the 100-year flood plane. For slopes, the project site has already been graded in compliance with the existing conditional use permit allowing for development on slopes, hilltops, and bridges. An operations and maintenance manual that identifies ongoing and long-term maintenance of created slopes in common areas for use by the landscape maintenance association or LMA or homeowners association must be submitted for review and approval by the administrator uh prior prior to the approval of the final map. That's condition 13. And for soils, a final geotechnical report is required at the time of the final map. In regard to outside agency responses for uh per finding T9, no comments were provided in finding T10 asked you to consider the availability of fire protection services. Both villages and three and seven sites are located outside the department's 4minute travel time standard and thus dwelling units are required to have sprinklers unless dwelling units become located within a 4-minute travel time due to the construction of a sixth fire station. We do have our sixth fire station. Um I they may not be required you know to have sprinklers at at that time. We'll proceed to that with the final map process. Finding T11 looks to other impacts identified in staff's analysis of the proposal. Here we've identified landscaping and architecture for the residences. Condition 18 requires final architectural elevations be approved prior to approving a final map. Conditions 13 and 19 require landscaping plans be submitted prior to the approval of a final map. That will include

landscaping strips a minimum of 5 feet in width located on the exterior sideyards of corner lots between residential fences and sidewalks. And finally, finding T12 requires the public be notified of this item and the posting of the agenda for this meeting and and for city council uh meeting serve to provide noticing to the public. So staff is recommending the planning commission forward a recommendation of approval to the city council for this tendent map request. Uh with that um conclude my presentation and the applicant and the applicant's representative are here. Anybody have any questions for Danny? No questions for Danny. Would the applicant like to speak? Good evening.

Hi,

chair and commissioners. My name is Eric Hasty. I'm with Rogers. Um, I'm representing the applicant. Uh, Danny did a great job of going over the presentation in detail. Um, again, just to reiterate, uh, this was a tenative map that was previously approved. Um what we are proposing today has very minor changes to it. Um pretty much everything that is that was already in the development agreement in the tenative map prior to that um it's the same thing that's presented today. So I could go over my presentation but if there's you know something specific I think like I said Danny did a great job covering it. If there's something specific you'd like to get into I'd be happy to do that. Um but just wanted to say that available for questions. We also have the engineer here as well. So thank you. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant over here? No. Okay, I think we're good. Thank you. Okay. And so I will entertain a motion. Madam Chair, I move to forward a recommendation of approval to city council for the tenative map request STM25-00004 associated with PCN19-000040 for villages three and seven of the five bridges development 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 19.

Second. Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Kramer and a second by Commissioner Neberlin. Is there any discussion? Okay, seeing no discussion, please set your motion. My goodness. Okay, and the motion passes. Thank you, Danny. Thank y'all. 8.4 Consideration, discussion, and possible recommendation to the mayor of the planning commissioners to serve at first, second, third, and fourth alternates in the Truckucky Meadows Regional Planning Commission effective immediately from the following pool of applicants listed in alphabetical order. Evan Pristos, Mice Rosson, Ricky Rodriguez, Elkins, and Steven Sperber.

Do we have any recommendations? I I will make recommendation. I just recommend that we keep it the same as it is. Um, who is one, two, three, and four. Thank you. Uh, thank you, Madam Chair, and Commissioner Kramer. Uh, Commissioner Sperber is our first alternate, Commissioner Rodriguez Elkins is our second. Uh, Commissioner Rosson is our third alternate. And then Commissioner Britzos is our fourth alternate.

Okay. So, Madam Chair, I move to recommend Commissioner Sperber to serve on the Truckucky Red Truckucky Meadows Regional Planning Commission as first alternate effective immediately. I move to recommend uh Ricky Rodriguez Elkins to serve on the Truckucky Meadows Regional Planning Commission as second alter alternate effective immediately. I move to recommend Mike Rosson to serve on the Truckucky Meadows Regional Planning Commission as third alternate effective immediately. And I move to recommend Evan Pritzos to serve on the Truckucky Meadows Regional Planning Commission as fourth alternate effective immediately.

Do you have any hit? Yeah, there you go. Second one. Okay. So, we have a motion by Commissioner Kramer and a second by Commissioner Neberlin. Are there is there any discussion? Seeing no discussion, please set your motion. I mean, your vote. Okay. And the motion is approved. And do we have any announcements, presentations, or

uh uh Madam Chair, I don't have any particular announcements, but I do believe that Brandon was going to uh provide a a brief announcement. Yeah, just um I know everybody's starting to get more and more calls, emails, uh uh inquiries about the Red Hawk applications. Staff's moving those forwards. Just a reminder, it uh I know a lot of them are individual, but some of them are emailing all seven of you at once. Um I would advise against hitting reply all. We don't want everybody on emails back and forth. I don't think it it would, but we don't want to get to where there's discussion or deliberation about it outside of a public meeting that hasn't been noticed. So, if you want to respond and say thank you um and remember to forward anything to uh Miss Ruiz for recordkeeping, but uh avoiding a reply all situation will help. Um, I don't think there would be an open meeting law violation, but it it'll avoid uh the accusation of an open meeting.

That was me doing that thinking I was should I should reply all to everybody just to so that it was public, I guess. Yeah. But I'll make sure to I just Yeah. Just I just do it individually. We don't want back and forth between all seven of you on something that we know is gonna start coming up. Yeah. And so far, I don't think there's there's been that, but I I had wondered as I hit reply all, is that a good thing or a bad thing? So, thank you for defining that. Okay. Anything else? No. Does that mean you want everybody to send all of their emails to you guys,

even if they're repetitive? Sometimes I've gotten them. Yeah, sometimes I've gotten individual ones and I've been collecting them and I as of today I was thinking I probably need to send them to Jules like every day instead of collecting them. So I'll I'll send you a batch tomorrow morning and then start doing that. Your email is going to blow up tomorrow. My dear,

if I could, um, Madam Chair, just in in terms of our rules on procedure, we do have a policy there that identifies any any public comment that's received on your personal email or say a text to your personal phone needs to be forwarded to Julian. So, you may be getting repetitive uh emails, but it's no problem. We're we have a a good recordkeeping system for for all of the public comments that are coming in, whether those are going to city council or to the planning commission broadly or to individual commissioners. So, just go ahead and forward them to Julian and we'll ensure that they stay uh within the public record for requests. Very good. Thank

Thank you. Okay. Um are there any uh comments from the public? You're the You're the public. Very good. Thank you. And uh how about comments from the staff? Was that your comment there? Oh, closed public comments. Sorry, I always forget that. And any commissioner comments or announcements? Okay, seeing none, the meeting's adjourned.