Good evening.

I'm calling the meeting of the planning commission to order at 6 p.m.

Madam Secretary.

Can I get a roll call, please?

Here.

Here.

Here.

All right.

Thank you.

Please join us standing in for the pledge of allegiance.

Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands.

One nation under God.

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 Pritzell, 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 that you said held on day August 5 and the Thursday, August.

Second.

All right, we got a move by Commissioner Kramer, a second by Commissioner Pritzow.

All right.

It passes unanimously.

Thank you.

All right, we have a public hearing item, PCN 25-0013 forward slash CU25-0011.

Good evening, Chair Austin, members of the planning commission for the record, Cobig Wano, planner with the City of Sparks.

The subject site is outlined in red and is located just north of the Audi project, right here, and then southwest of Risley Elementary.

In accordance with the Sparks Minister 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 for the request.

The 1.4 acre site consists of two parcels.

Hey Colby, can we take a recession?

Absolutely.

All right, Commissioner Elkins.

Yes, Mr.

Chair, I have a disclosure to make.

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 owner 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.

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 to enable integrated site functionality between the two parcels.

The existing 3,795 square foot building located on the southern parcel is not proposed to be modified or renovated and will remain a medical office for the staff analyze 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 Sullivan there.

There's an existing driveway on the north site, north side of the site from Kapura Way, which is proposed to be removed from the site to accommodate for the new building expansion.

Cumulatively, excuse me, uh Sparks Municipal Code requires a total of 39 parking spaces to be provided.

Two of the spaces must be ADA compliant, 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 88 compliant van accessible.

The proposed access and parking will be shared between the two parcels that comprise the project site, which would be required by the proposed edition 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 spots.

If I may chair to answer Commissioner Kramer's question 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.

Brings a new combination of fiber cement sladding, large wood finished panels, metal rain screen divided with reveals and steel shading elements, and a vibrant uh green metal soffit and fascia for the lifted shed section.

Also proposed are bright steel pergolas pergolas for shading and pronounced entrances, uh raised planters in a slat metal fence that encloses the outdoor play area for the child care facility.

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.

With the background and analysis concluded, I'll transition over to the findings.

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 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 Sparks 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.

The existing uses surrounding the subject site include an office building in the MF5 zoning district and single family homes in the SF 15 or single family residential zoning district to the north across Kapuro Way.

Single family homes in the SF6 or single family uh zoning district and multi-family, 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 child care facility and medical office use on the site is 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 four 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 access ways and 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 in 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.

Finding C4 relates to mitigating impacts through conditions.

Proposed condition of approval number five would require the applicant to submit a final landscaping plan in accordance with exhibit five or what's shown on the screen prior to the issuance of any building permits as well as maintaining the landscaping on the site throughout the life of the project.

Due to the site's proposed shared access and parking across the two subject parcels, proposed condition of number seven would require the reciprocal 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.

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 photometric analysis to demonstrate zero light spillover of property lines prior to the issuance of a building permit.

That's especially essential where it abuts the single family and the multifamily parcels.

And proposed condition of approval number 14, which would limit the hours of construction for the project from 7 a.m.

to 7 p.m.

Monday through Friday and 8 a.m.

to 5 p.m.

on Saturday with no work on Sunday.

For finding C5, public notice was sent to 45 property owners and published an RGJ on September 2nd as prescribed by NRS and Sparks Municipal Code.

And as of today, staff has received no public comment.

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, Colby.

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 Butel.

You want to come up here.

Um state your name, and then you get three minutes to my name is Marvus Butel.

I will be living right across the street on Kapuro from this proposed development.

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 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 in Sulvent, 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 Risley, 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.

And Katie Nepper.

Yeah.

I'm Katie Nepper, and basically the same concerns as as um 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 an uh access to Kapuro, because I don't know if you're um familiar with Capuro, but when you go um west on Kapuro, 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 the otherwise looks really good.

Uh but the concern is if there's gonna be traffic on Kapuro.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

All right, we have Kimberly Luna.

Hey, isn't Kimberly Luna?

I live on away.

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 it's all of it in Audi.

And it always does tend to extend.

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?

I'd like to hear from the outlook.

Okay.

Perfect.

Good evening.

Um Gabe Whitler with Odyssey Engineering uh representing the applicant and owner.

Okay.

Yeah.

A couple of questions is the timeline of the construction, what type of medical facility and what kind of traffic is you're looking at.

So on the timing, uh, you know, we anticipate submitting for building permit by the end of the year.

Uh probably break ground around March if everything goes smoothly.

And it'll probably take about a year to do 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 front edge 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 uh 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 uh they provide uh similar to a re rehabilitation type facility uh services.

They will be expanded into the new building.

So they don't know exactly which tenants those will be.

It'll probably be similar support system to what they do now.

For example, the daycare center will be leased to a different uh entity to operate.

Um so can't tell you exactly what uh professions and and uh 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 and then as far as traffic's concerned, yeah.

Our our intent was to to keep the access uh office, which is a you know um a large street, it's got uh center turn shared turn lanes, so uh ingress and egress is much more efficient off of that roadway and keep them off of the the more residential street uh of Kapuro.

So that was kind of the intent for the circulation there.

Commissioners, do we have some questions for the applicant?

It's just on the end there.

Um there's site building in that area.

Is that um anticipating maybe like mental health services kind of thing?

Yeah, like a psychologist type type.

Yeah, that side office other than that, okay, or uh possibly yeah, yeah.

Correct.

Yeah, yeah, the the intent is not to have a um you know a small ER.

It's yeah, it's not that type of medical facility.

But these types of uh services do are considered medical office, even though it's kind of a broad range of um of uses that could fit within that.

So no urgent care, no, that's not the R care.

So traffic exactly, and uh based on their use and and what they they need currently for their facility and the code required calc for parking.

We think we're gonna be gonna 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 gonna have a drop zone out on the street or anything, it'll be internal.

So the the professional med support services per that's I think that's the intent, yes.

All right, that's 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.

Well, we'll entertain a motion.

Mr.

Chair, I move to approve the conditional use of permit CU25-0011 associated with PCN 25-0013 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 22,001 square feet and associated site improvements on an approximately 1.4 acre site located at 2105 Kapuro Way and 1755 Sullivan Lane based on findings C1 through C5 and this back 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 Nieberline.

Please vote.

Oh, do we have any further discussions?

All right, let's vote.

All right, good approved unanimously.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, we're moving on to general business PCM 21-0008 forward slash PD 25-0003.

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 Andalin Ranch uh project.

Uh just one thing to point out for the record from a procedural standpoint.

This is a general business item in a public hearing is not required for this.

Planning commission, I'm sure is well aware, well aware of the site, uh 8100 Pyramid Way.

This is the Andalin family farm.

And uh earlier this year, the the commission saw an annexation request, comprehensive plan amendment request, rezone request, and then the tentative approval or the tentative handbook for associated with this development.

Um on June 23rd, the city council approved all four of those requests.

This projects in the in the city of Sparks, um and its approval of the tentative handbook.

City council specified that the applicant had one year to come before city council for final approval 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 adopted and recorded.

And um essentially with the final handbook that acts as the zoning code for for this parcel, and it's basically for a con this exercise for the final handbook is a conformance exercise where we're looking for substantial compliance with the tentatively approved handbook.

As former planning manager Rob Paisell 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 Andalin um family venture farms.

Uh included in the in the handbook are kind of two primary drivers for for the handbook.

The first is to allow for the agritourism use, which has been operating on this site for several for several decades now.

Sparks Municipal Code does not have an agritourism 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 uh if you're gonna have a parking lot, it's gotta be paved.

Um what the proposed handbook is in the northern northwest corner.

There's 10 acres of a current alfalfa field that's used during seasonal festivals for overflow parking.

The proposed handbook establishes a maximum of 80 days per year that that this field could be used for uh special event parking one without it being paved.

Um but overall, one of the one of the key considerations that has been carried over between the tentative handbook and the final handbook is the provision that a minimum of 50 acres of the site would be maintained for ranching operations and be preserved as as a farm moving forward.

As discussed at Tuesday's planning uh planning commission study session, there was there was one update we we need 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 appendage six of the final handbook, and this kind of calls out the how the how the site is gonna have have drainage and how they're gonna do stormwater conveyance.

Um pages 169 and 170 of the PDF on exhibit three 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 the mechanism for this this section of the drainage report we've been asking for.

So good evening, uh commissioners, and my name is Susan Yam.

I am their senior civil engineer.

So for the drainage study, um, it is should follow Chucky Meadows regional drainage manual.

That's quite Chucky Maddows Manual or Manual.

The manual requires their increased flow between the existing and the proposed conditions to be contained on site.

But sometimes there is original study uh for their site.

So the original study usually includes a large area in analysis and estimates the flow from each contributing area and evaluates the current existing JH system and propose a new GNH system or off-site improvement if needed.

So uh when you have a regional study, all you have to do is compare site specific study to the original study.

And however, for this project, um, the original study and a site specific study used a different methods.

So we cannot compare Apple to Apple.

So as a result, we went back to the Chucky Maddows manual and asked it applicant to add a section to the handbook.

By doing this, the city reserved a right to demand a pond in the future.

Of course, it will be evaluated on a case by case basis, and the factors like their size of the project, their type of the project, and the timing of the project will be taken into consideration to determine whether a pond is required or not.

So if you have any questions, I'm here to answer your questions.

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 the question is here is if these are not the case, then you then you can't make make make the finding.

Um so the first one is is very the proposed gross residential density or use.

Uh, the proposed handbook presents the same gross residential density and intensity that was included in the tentative handbook.

Uh the development standards of section of the handbook, which regulates density and and intensity of uses has not changed.

Uh the second finding is vary the proposed ratio of residential to non-residential use.

Uh the residential, uh 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 tentative handbook that was approved by the city council.

Uh the land uses identified in the proposed handbook are 100 acres of agroturism 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 a common open space are included in this final handbook.

Number four is 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 tentative 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 the buildings and what was included in the in the tentative.

So overall, um Mr.

Chairman, staff believes that the uh proposed final handbook is in substantial conformance with the with the tentatively 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 do you have the applicant's representative here as well?

Thank you, Scott.

Commissioners, do we have any questions for staff?

Okay, does the applicant want to add anything?

We uh agree with everything.

No, all right.

I'll take uh I'll entertain a motion.

Mr.

Chair, I move to forward a recommendation of approval to the city council for PD 25-0003 associated with PCN 21-0008 as the end of Ranch final development handbook, is in the substantial compliance with the end one ramp tentative development handbook as the four P Stop 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 Reed.

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 reopen public comment for general public comment.

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.