Madam Secretary, may I do a roll call?

Commissioner Craig.

Here.

Commissioner Dr.

Commissioner Rodman.

Commissioner Reed.

Commissioner Sperber.

Here.

Here.

Yeah.

All right.

Thank you.

Please stand and uh pledge allegiance, please.

Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

And to the Republic for which it stands.

Thank you, God.

All right, I'll open it up for public comment.

This is a public comment where you can comment on anything you want.

All right, I see no public comment.

I will close public comment.

All right, may I get an approval for the agenda?

Mr.

Chair, I move to approve the agenda as submitted.

I second that.

All right, we got a move by Commissioner Pritzo, a second by Commissioner Sperber.

Please vote.

And it passes unanimously.

Shelly.

Oh, Shelley.

Commissioner Shallett Reed.

Aye.

There we go.

Thank you.

All right.

Result passed to unanimously.

All right.

Let's go to the approval of the amendment.

May I get a motion, please?

Mr.

Chair, I move to approve the minutes of the planning commission study session held on Tuesday, December 16th, 2025, and the Planning Commission meeting held on Thursday, December 18th, 2025.

I second.

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

Please vote.

Commissioner Reed.

Aye.

Awesome.

Thank you.

And uh passed unanimously.

Thank you.

All right, we move on to general business.

Consideration, discussion, and possible election of Sparks Planning Commission Chair for 2026 from the following pool of applicants in alphabetical order.

Marilyn Kramer, Carl Nieberline, Evan Pritzos, Shelley Reed, Ricky Rodriguez Elkins, and Steven Sperber.

Is this where I ask for a motion?

Then uh motion and nomination.

Mr.

Chair, I'm nominate Commissioner Rodriguez Elkins to serve as the planning commission chair for 2026.

Thank you.

Okay.

And do we ask for a second?

Yeah.

I'll second.

All right.

Oh Carl beat me to it.

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

Uh any further discussion.

It looks like we're gonna do we're a name tags.

We're a name tags.

We're gonna have to do a verbal vote though.

So let's do a verbal vote.

Oh, here it comes.

All right, let's take a vote.

Commissioner Reed.

Yeah.

Awesome, thank you.

It passes unanimously.

Thank you.

All right, then we'll go move on to a nomination for vice chair.

Mr.

Chair, I move to elect Evan Fritzos as the planning commission vice chair for calendar year 2026.

Oh well.

Sorry.

Okay.

It's all right.

So I move to elect Evan Pristos as a planning commissioner vice chair for the calendar year 2026.

I second that.

All right.

Commissioners, do we have any further discussion on it?

I see I see none.

We got a move by Commissioner Rodriguez Alcans, a second by Commissioner Kramer.

Please vote.

Commissioner Reed.

Yeah.

Awesome.

Thank you.

And it passes unanimously.

All right.

Now we'll move on to 7.2.

We got a consideration, discussion of possible election of a sparks.

Are we doing what?

7.3.

Oh, we're not doing um.

Oh, that's oh, yeah, 7.3.

Yep.

Sorry about that.

Consideration discussion of possible election of the Sparks Planning Commissioner for 2026 to the Regional Transportation Commission Commission's Regional Board Impact Fee Technical Advisory Committee.

From the following pool of applicants, Commissioner Kramer, Commissioner Nieberline, Commissioner Pritzel, Commissioner Rossins, Commissioner Reed, Commissioner Rodriguez Elkins, Commissioner Sperber.

May I get a motion for I move to a point called Nieberlin is Planning Commission's representative on the regional road impact fee, R RAF Technical Advisory Committee TAC for calendar year 2026.

I second that.

All right, we got a move by Commissioner Rodriguez Elkins, uh second by Commissioner Kramer.

Please vote.

Discussion.

Oh, we need a discussion.

I see none.

Please vote.

Commissioner Reed.

Yeah.

Okay.

All right.

Passes unanimously.

I have a question.

Yeah.

Was I supposed to vote for myself?

Yes.

You can.

I just never do.

When I saw the two of you nodded.

I just don't, but it's perfectly fine.

Thank you.

Okay.

I wasn't sure if we're not saying it.

Did I mess up the vote?

It's uh it's a for sure vote.

Okay.

All right, 7.4 consideration, discussion, and possible recommendation to the mayor for two planning commissioners to serve three-year terms on the Truckie Medals Regional Planning Commission beginning January 1, 2026, and ending December 31st, 2028.

Following confirmation by the city council for the from the following pool of application applicants listed in the alphabetical order.

Commissioner Kramer, Commissioner Nieberline, Commissioner Pritzo, Commissioner Rawson, Commissioner Reed, Commissioner Rodriguez Elkins, Commissioner Sperber.

May I get a motion to nominate?

Mr.

Chairman.

Yes.

I would like to move to recommend Marilyn Kramer and Shelley Reid to serve on the Curky Meadows Regional Planning Commission for terms beginning January 1, 2026 and ending December 31st, 2028.

I second that.

All right, we got a move by Commissioner Nieberline, a second by Commissioner Pritzel.

Any further discussion?

All right, please vote.

Commissioner Reed.

Yeah.

All right.

Thank you.

And it passes unanimously.

Thank you.

All right, we move on to 7.5.

Consideration, discussion, and possible amendment of the Sparks Planning Commission rules of procedures.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Members of the Commission, Brandon Sindal, your uh attorney from the city attorney's office.

Do this every year.

We've done a few uh iterations of the rules of procedure.

Obviously, last year we included the prohibition on ex parte communications with applicants.

Uh just a couple of small things this year.

One is incorporating the oath of office.

Uh we realized that we weren't including these in all of our boards and commissions across the the city.

So I know all of you have already been uh sworn in and taken the oath, but we wanted to formally include that for future reminders.

Second is the state updated the document retention schedules uh across all layers of government.

Um the local government uh document retention schedules overwent a really big rehaul.

But one of the uh the the main uh uh provision in there is there's a specific section, it's called Planning Commission records of official records, which I didn't create that title.

But uh in it, but that section includes related correspondence.

So if there's emails uh between any of you and an applicant or really anything related to an item that's going to be in front of the planning commission, that is an official city uh record of correspondence related to the planning commission's work.

So we are supposed to keep those.

So this uh recommended rule clarifies that if if you do have email correspondence, either with an applicant or just uh uh uh and we might get some of these soon with a uh constituent that those should be turned over to the board secretary for record keeping so that we keep those for the correct amount of time, and then they can be purged uh when we no longer need to keep them.

Okay.

And uh, you know, we haven't gotten much, if at all, uh litigation related to any planning and development items, but should there be litigation related to either a denial or approval, it would help me with having all of the records in place because that's if if there is a planning commissioner that is no longer on the commission and we have to go and chase them to find something that's on either their personal phone or a personal email address, it could be a problem.

So that's the whole reasoning behind that.

Otherwise, no changes.

If any commissioners have a recommended change, we can consider that.

Otherwise, we recommend approval uh with the changes that uh are included in your packet.

Okay, thank you, Brandon.

Commissioners, I have a question.

Yes, sir.

Um like with the uh the retention, just like this hasn't happened for quite a while, but there have been times I've received an email from an applicant and then never just haven't responded because of the rules.

But if that happened, should I just forward that to the secretary, or does it only count if if I respond?

I I would say you should probably include that.

It if anything, uh it depending on what's in there, it I mean, it's not in it's not submitted as public comment, but it kind of is public comment, even though it's only directed to one of the commissioners instead of the commission as a whole.

I I'm not saying it carries a lot of weight, but at the same time, I I think it's protecting each one of you individually if there's claims of some sort of backdoor dealing or oh, this person over here influenced this planning commissioner.

Really, the rules are meant to foster uh open openness in government and transparency.

If I were in your position, I would want to disclose everything possible.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Kramer.

So on that note, yes.

Should you get one goes to litigation?

Is there a chance however minute or or whatever it could be that your cell phone is seized and your personal computer is seized?

I mean, just asking because all of us have personal computers and personal cell phones, and that's what we communicate on.

I doubt it.

But but also if you've already in the normal course under the rules, given the board secretary, hey, I received these, here it is, then that shows it's kind of a presumption of regularity that this is the way it's gone.

If anything, I think that would decrease the chances.

That question comes from my husband, not from me, truly.

I'm like, I'm not concerned, but don't worry.

Yeah.

Okay.

That makes that that helps.

Thank you so much.

No minute demons.

No.

All right, commissioners.

Any more questions?

All right, let's I'll take uh a motion, Mr.

Chair.

I moved the support weirdly.

That is.

I've moved to approve the rules of procedure with the amendments proposed by staff.

I second that motion.

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

Any further discussion, Commissioner?

No.

All right.

Let's vote.

Commissioner Reed.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

It passes unanimously.

All right, now we're moving on to public hearing items.

8.1 PCN 03057 forward slash PD 25-0001.

Good evening, Chair Rossin, members of the Planning Commission.

I'm Dani Ray, Senior Planner, here to present this item to you this evening.

Kobe Guillano, the planner for this project was unable to be here tonight.

So I am doing the presentation on his behalf.

So this request uh seeks to amend the Sparks Crossing Final Development Standards Handbook, shown outlined here in blue to modify permitted colors and materials for two pad sites only.

This are outlined in red.

The Sparks Crossing Plan Development totals approximately 39 acres and is generally located east of Pyramid Way and north of Shoppers Way and south of Los Altos Parkway.

So just to orient you, Best Buy is right over here, Trader Joe's is right over here.

The two pad sites are surrounded by commercial uses to the north, east, and south, and open space adjacent to uh Pyramid over here on the west.

It's BLM land.

The Sparks Crossing Final Development Standards Handbook adopted by the City Council in June of 2005, includes site standards, landscaping requirements, use and operational standards, signage regulations, and architectural standards for the commercial center that have been applied to development within the Sparks Crossing shopping center.

Buildings classified as anchors, mini anchors, and shops were primarily constructed in 2006, and the northwest corner was later developed with two commercial buildings in 2019 and 2020.

The currently developed pad site, which is identified as Pad B was constructed as restaurant and as a restaurant in 2006.

According to City Business License Records, the building was occupied by Chili's, then Campo, and later by Mr.

Crapp.

The pad to the south of Pad B, Pad A, has not been developed and is the last undeveloped parcel remaining within the Sparks Crossing shopping center.

To achieve architectural consistency among buildings within the Sparks Crossing Commercial Center, the handbook requires specific exterior palette with allowed colors and materials.

The palette shown here generally requires earth tone colors and materials throughout the development, including the two pad sites.

The applicant has indicated that the current palette is restricting the ability of the pad sites to attract various businesses and recognized brands.

Therefore, the applicant is requesting to expand the colors and materials listed in exhibit K of the handbook to allow and include a broader range of universal materials, colors, and finishes that would grant pad sites the ability to have unique individual character.

Staff believes that allowing a broader range of colors and materials for pad sites can potentially promote the development of pad A and the redevelopment of pad B.

The proposed additional colors and materials are described in text on the second page of exhibit four in your packets and in the handbook.

The first page of the exhibit is the original color and material board that applies to all buildings within Sparks Crossing Commercial Center.

The new exterior palette for pad sites A and B is being proposed in addition to the existing color and material board.

However, the new colors and materials listed would only be applicable to pad sites A and B.

Primary changes would allow flexibility in terms of color scheme with required primary colors consisting of whites, beige, tans, grays, browns, reds, oranges, blacks, blues, and teal.

These primary colors would be required on at minimum 75% of the exterior of the buildings.

Accent colors would vary and not be limited to a specific type.

However, accent colors are proposed to be limited to 25% of the exterior of the building and would be subject to discretion by city staff.

The proposed changes also include additional exterior materials, such as brick and tile resembling stone, ceramic, manufactured metal or wood.

So this slide shows the proposed color and materials palette applied to the existing restaurant building.

The primary changes would allow flexibility in terms of color scheme with required primary colors consisting of whites, beighted, tans, gray.

Oh, I already read that, sorry.

This presentation isn't the one that I had already prepared.

This is a different one.

So sorry if it seems like I'm skipping around.

So the pad sites shown in exhibit three in your packets are functionally disconnected from the rest of the Sparks Crossing shopping center.

For example, the pad sites lack pedestrian connectivity to the rest of the commercial center.

There are no sidewalk connections between them and anchor buildings.

Further, the existing building located on Pad B is oriented toward Pyramid Highway and away from the other buildings with the commercial center.

Materials for these two pad sites only will allow the buildings on them to create their own unique character and draw more business opportunities to the site.

Staff believes that allowing additional colors and materials for buildings located on the two pad sites is consistent with the city's design standards for commercial buildings located in commercially zoned areas, such as C1, C2, and MUDMUC.

In accordance with Title 20 of the Sparks Municipal Code.

Additionally, an approval letter from the master developer and current owner of the Sparks Crossing Commercial Center is included in the application for this request, signifying master developers' consent of the proposed changes.

There we go.

So with the background and analysis concluded, I'm now going to transition over to the findings.

There are 10 findings the planning commission is required to consider in order to recommend approval to the city council.

So for findings PDA, staff believes that allowing the proposed additional colors and materials for the pad sites within the plan development will incentivize the retention and attraction of tenants for the developed pad site and promote the development of the remaining undeveloped pad site in support of comprehensive plan goals CC1 and MG4.

Allowing additional colors and materials for pad sites will not impact the quality of building design that includes well-articulated building facades and defined entrances for the remodel of the existing building on Pad B and for the future development of Pad A and in support of comprehensive plan policy CC9.

Okay.

For findings PDB and PDH, the proposed additional colors and materials do not alter the type, location, or size of the development allowed in the development, and therefore are not anticipated to adversely impact surrounding uses or the surrounding communities, ability to enjoy the land abutting or across the surrounding streets from the Sparks Crossing Commercial Shopping Center.

Refining PDC, a fiscal analysis was not required with this amendment because there are no proposed changes to density requirements or land use.

Proposed amendment, if approved, will allow additional colors and materials to be utilized on buildings situated on the pad sites within the Sparks Crossing plan development, which staff believes will better provide for the mutual interests of property owners, business owners, and the public, as well as allowing increased economic activity and encourage development of the remaining undeveloped pad site within the plan development, making finding PDD and PDF.

This amendment aims to support the existing Sparks Crossing commercial shopping center in a manner that staff believes is consistent with the original intent of the plan for finding PDE.

The new colors and materials would be in addition to the exterior existing exterior color and material palette currently permitted by the handbook and do not alter the efficient development of the proposed plan development for finding PEG.

And finally, as proposed, the changes do not benefit any one person and will allow any interested party to pursue development within Sparks Crossing in accordance with the handbook making finding PDI and for finding PDJ.

Public notice was given as required by NRS and SMC on December 30th of 2025.

Total of 234 notices were mailed to all owners within the Sparks Crossing plan development and within 750 feet of the boundary, as well as published in the Reno Gazette Journal.

As of today, staff has received no public comments or questions pertaining to this request.

So staff believes that findings PDA through PDJ can be made and recommends the planning commission forward a recommendation of approval of the proposed amendment to the Sparks Crossing Handbook to the city council.

That I'm available for any questions, as is the applicant.

And I have uh place a recommended motion on the screen for your convenience.

Thank you, Danny.

Appreciate it.

Commissioners, do we have any questions for staff?

I do.

Okay.

So Ricky Rodriguez Hilkins.

Danny, so I'm a little bit confused.

The images that you were showing show a very dark facade.

And and so then you said that that will stay that the additional palette will have some accenting on that on that.

Do we guess that's why I'm confused?

Right.

If these colors are all very bright, and that's all very dark.

So I was just curious as to it in your exhibit, you'll see the the color palette.

Um I'm sorry, the presentation I had uh pre uh prepared had that palette in it.

And it's yeah, we have the palette here.

Um, but it's in your packets.

That's the existing, just that exhibit K is existing in the handbook at this time.

Okay.

The second page behind it, which is all text describes what can be done for the pads and meat.

Okay.

And it has the listing of that additional colors, but they're not shown as color blocks as shown in the as the in the in the primary colors, etc.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yeah, I appreciate it.

You're welcome.

Thank you.

Any more questions for staff commissioners?

Uh does the applicant want to add anything?

Okay.

I'd like to.

Okay.

Uh, my name is Mark Platt.

Come on down here.

Thank you, everyone.

Um, my name is Mark Platt.

My wife uh Caroline is my business owner.

Uh, we have seven restaurants in the area, mostly Sacramento.

We have the one in South Reno.

So uh we came across Mr.

Crab space and uh really uh we're excited to move to this area.

Uh felt there was a great opportunity to bring something a little bit uh on the finer end of things.

Um we've had great success in South Reno, so we decided this would be a great spot for us.

Um hired an architect out of Idaho that had done one of our other restaurants, and uh boy, he boondoggled this whole experience for us.

It it should have been done long ago, and uh I don't know if you drive by, but the building is quite far along.

And uh we were a little surprised to find out that he had not gotten things in in the proper order.

And uh we believe that this is a beautiful restaurant that unfortunately its track record is not beautiful.

Uh, you know, multiple restaurants have failed in that location.

Uh my wife and I have invested two and a half million dollars into this location to really bring it to life to bring it something that is we feel is very special to Sparks.

And uh we're excited about it.

We have probably in a range of 600 applicants already.

Oh, no.

We have we have not even posted looking for employment, but we put up a website, and every day between five and fifteen people apply, which is really exciting for us because usually when you open a restaurant, you're busy scurrying around trying to figure out how you're gonna get employees and convince people that this is a good concept to work for.

Uh, we believe very strongly in taking care of our people.

Uh and I think if you talk to our employees, they would tell you that the plates are very genuine people.

And so, you know, when we found out the other day that we would the architect did not fulfill all the things necessary along the process.

We were flabbergasted.

And uh the building will be ready about February 5th, probably.

Uh, and it sounds like at this point that with approvals, we might be able to open on March 10th.

Uh, we've got a management team hired, we got chefs hired, we're we're ready to go.

Ready to go.

Um, so we apologize for the awkward way this situation has come about.

Um, but I can tell you that out of our eight restaurants, all of them are profitable, successful, uh, well liked uh the communities.

We we give back to the communities.

We're we're it's important to us.

So we saw that building as one of its failure items was the look of the building.

I mean, we went into Mr.

Krabs and walked into the walk-in, they were showing us around the walk-in had two boxes of food in it.

We're like, oh my gosh, this is this is sad.

Uh knowing that it could be a hustling, bustling spot.

And uh we think that Sparks is a great community, needs this type of thing.

And uh we've gone first rate on the whole thing, and the colors needed to change to make sure that the attention was given to make people realize this isn't the same old place that was here before.

Well, so um that's our take on it.

Um, and again, I I again apologize for this process even getting to delay to this point.

I mean, we're hoping to open March 10th right now, hoping to start hiring in early February and say yes to all these people that want to work, uh, which is a good thing.

Good thing.

So, do you have any questions for me that I might be able to answer?

Or yeah, well, commissioners, do you have any questions?

I don't have any questions, I just have a comment.

Okay.

Thank you so much for coming to Sparks.

Um, that is a meeting.

We don't have we don't have minor dining here.

Yeah, um, we have a lot of fast food and we have a lot of um lower middle to lower end.

So I live about two miles from your restaurant, drive to that shopping center every single day because I go to Trader Joe's all the time.

Yeah, and so I can see where changing this would um help.

Um, I frequent I went to the other restaurants and was not impressed.

So um, I've been to your one in South Reno.

Love it.

Great that I don't have to drive that far to get there anymore.

You know, so I I can tell you that our my wife and I are very strong about this family-oriented feeling where I think you could ask the staff and they would go, Who are Mark and Caroline?

Oh, everybody knows Mark and Carrie.

It's not like we are trying to run some big corporate thing.

And so when we got delayed, we were like, Oh, wow, we didn't see this one coming.

And this architect really botches for us.

And the city, Kobe's done a nice job of helping us out and been very uh, you know, when I finally got on the phone with him, I felt like we were moving somewhere, and I at least understood why we got tripped up along the way.

Well, thank you for for stepping in and doing the right thing.

Yeah, thank you very much.

We appreciate that.

It's important, and I think when you see this thing open, I mean, my wife's a great interior designer, and she is kicked ass inside.

So it'll be uh pretty place, and I think it's gonna be something that we're all proud of.

And uh Sparks is in need of a good higher dining quality experience.

We're all very excited.

We're very excited.

Thank you so much.

Welcome to the city of Sparks.

Yes, well, thanks so much.

Appreciate it.

All right, commissioners.

Any more questions?

Nothing.

All right, I'll entertain a motion.

Public hearing.

Oh, public hearing.

That's right.

Anyone from the comp uh public wish to comment on this particular item?

I see none.

I will close public comment.

Now I'll entertain a motion.

Mr.

Chair, I move to forward to city council a recommendation of approval of the request to amend the Sparks Crossing Final Development Standards handbook, PCN 03057 slash PD 25-0001 to modify permitted colors and materials for two pads site-based on findings PDA through PDJ and the fact supporting those findings as set forth in the staff report.

I second all right, we got a move by Commissioner Kramer, a second by Commissioner Nieberline.

Commissioners, do we have any further discussion?

All right, let's vote.

Commissioner Reed.

Yeah.

Thank you.

I'm sure you heard that enthusiasm, right?

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Thank you, Danny.

All right, public hearing item 8.2, PCN 25-001.

Public hearing item 8.2 PCN 25-001 forward slash MAJ 25-0003.

Good evening, Mr.

Chair, members of the commission.

For the records, Scott Kerry Development Services Manager.

Mr.

Chair, with your permission, I'd like to make a voluntary public disclosure before we jive into this item.

Similar to how I disclosed during the variance request earlier last year.

So there'll be a full disclosure as part of the meeting record, but thank you for that indulgence, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you, Scott.

Appreciate it.

So tonight for the Planning Commission's review and consideration is a major deviation request at 1045 Union Street.

This project will be very familiar to the Planning Commission.

We reviewed a variance request last summer.

This home was initially built in 1981.

Early last year as a result of a building investigation for some unpermitted additions to the home.

Currently, there are three structures on the subject site that do not have building permits, and two of which are encroaching into the required setbacks.

Um for a nine-foot rear yard addition.

They have come forward with the proposal to shave off two feet off the rear of the unpermitted area B to have an 11-foot rear yard setback.

In this zoning district, the code requires a 20-foot setback.

So this 11-foot setback represents a 45% deviation of the code, which does qualify for the major deviation.

And the front, the carport structure has a 14-foot setback to the front setback.

And the zoning code requires a 20-foot setback.

You can see that it is encroaching into the required setback here.

And then this off the kitchen to the home is the area unpermitted B, but it's not within the setbacks, not subject to the to the standards.

And then this is a shot of the carport structure, unpermitted area C on the site plan that's encroaching into the front yard setback.

So it's just a a little bit of a reminder or a refresher for the commission.

We have minor deviations, and those are deviations of less than 10%.

Minor deviations are approved administratively without a public hearing and going before this body for approval.

The second level of flexibility in the zoning code from a measurable standard is a major deviations, and those allow for deviation of greater than 10%, but up to 50% maximum.

And so those do require a public hearing, and they do require the review and approval of the planning commission.

Then the last um category is a variance, and those are for anything above 50%.

One of the big differences that I'd like to point out in today's presentation is uh major deviation and a variance.

One thing with the variance under state law and the municipal code is you are required to show a hardship.

And what this body found when the variance request came forward and ultimately that was appealed, and the city council agreed with this body was that there was not a demonstrated hardship with with this this lot.

And so major deviations do not have that hardship finding.

The uh the first one is um consistent with the stated purposes of Title 20 and the and the zoning code.

Um staff feels that the major deviation process was added to the code um to provide flexibility on a case-by-case basis to allow some flexibility around the development standards.

The applicant here with this request, we believe is seeking to resolve long-standing code compliance issues, and staff use this major deviation request consistent with the title Title 20 provisions and would allow for the unpermitted um additions to um become compatible with with the neighborhood and uh represent a path forward for compliance with with the zoning code.

The uh the second um finding is will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare.

Um primary intent of setback standards in the zoning code is is to provide um mitigation for fire hazards and prevent the fire spread between structures.

Um additionally, these these setback requirements also facilitate proper drainage from roofs and make sure that those do not um affect adjacent structures.

Based on staff's review, um staff feels that the unpermitted structures that are the subject of this variance request, A and C do not obstruct side yard access in a manner that would hinder emergency access or uh drainage flow.

So therefore, staff believes that this major deviation request is unlikely to be materially detrimental to the public safety.

Um finding MD3 is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a property right.

Um staff believes that the approval of the major deviation would allow the applicant to obtain a building permit and to bring all existing unpermitted structures on the property into compliance with building and fire codes, most importantly.

If grant if granted, the deviation would only permit encroachments into the required setback.

Um any future development on the site would be required to meet all Title 20 requirements.

Um staff believes that the uh proposed setback reductions would allow the applicant to enjoy and preserve uh property rights that are available to all residents of the SF6 zoning district.

MD4 is granting the major deviation does not constitute a spread a special privilege.

All other properties within the SF6 zoning district are subject to these um these 20-foot rear and 20-foot front yard setbacks.

Um similarly, um the all properties within this SF6 zoning district can apply for a major deviation, and if granted could encroach up to 50 percent.

Um therefore, staff does not believe that approving the major deviation request would constitute a special privilege.

And then finally, uh public notice.

Public notice of today's public hearing was posted in the uh Reno Gazette Journal on December 30th, and notices were mailed to 164 property owners within the 500 feet.

Um and uh the applicant has expressed a staff as similar to the variance request that all adjacent property owners have some are in support of this request.

Um staff had not received any public comment, uh just one inquiry from a neighbor who was interested in learning more about the project.

Uh overall, staff believes that um the proposed uh variance request is um is consistent and would advance life um and would allow for all most importantly all unpermitted structures to be to be permitted, which is our ultimate goal here.

Um through the building permit process, there are proposed conditions of approval.

Um one of which is requires the applicant to obtain a building permit.

The timeline to obtain a building um or to implement a major deviation request is one year.

That can be uh um extended by staff up to an additional year if if requested.

Um proposed condition of approval number three requires the building permit, and proposed condition of approval number four requires auditions of the home to be painted to match the rest of the home, and that the roof line um match the uh the rest of the structure.

Um Mr.

Chairman, that concludes my presentation.

The applicant is here from Ireland tonight, um, but I'd be happy to answer any technical questions if there are any.

Thank you, Scott.

Commissioners, do we have any questions for staff?

None, okay.

Does the applicant want to add anything?

You don't have to.

I just want to say I appreciate working with me.

This is something that I am not very familiar with.

I'm doing what I think you know gonna help get property in the time.

Oh, sorry, okay.

As you're aware, it is a property that I have inherited.

Uh and uh my main priority is that I want to get the property into compliance and as quickly as possible.

So that's my focus.

Okay.

And if this route gets me there, then that's great.

Uh I've I've, you know, when I've been asked to take things down, I've taken them down.

Um, you know, if I need to get do anything or whatever, I'm more than happy to do it.

I want to get the things sorted.

Uh I want it to be safe, you know, and I want that thing to be in compliance.

All right, thank you.

And I appreciate your support.

Thank you.

Hold on.

Hold on, young lady.

Commissioners, do we have any questions for the applicant?

No.

Thank you.

Yeah, I concur with that.

Thank you, Ms.

Morrison.

Thank you for flying in from Ireland to do that.

I know that it's a great cost to you to do that, but I understand the sentiment behind the your family home.

And I really appreciate the fact that you have taken the route to do it the right way and get it fixed as quickly as possible.

So thank you very much.

We we really do appreciate that.

I I do as well.

I have to say, Scott as well.

I appreciate Scott helping me.

Thank you very much.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

This is a public hearing item.

Do anybody from the public wish to comment on this item?

I see none.

I will close public comment.

I will entertain a motion.

Commissioner, do we have any more further discussion on this?

Okay, I see none.

We got a move by Commissioner Rodriguez Elkins.

I move to approve the major deviation request in AJ 25-0003 associated with PCN25-0010.

Adopting findings MD1 through MD5 and the facts supporting these findings as set forth in the staff report and subject to the conditions of approval one through four.

Second.

And we have a second by Commissioner Schmerber.

Any further discussion?

All right, let's vote.

Commissioner Reed.

Yeah.

Yes.

Thank you.

And the motion passes unanimously.

Thank you, Scott.

All right, we'll move on to 8.3 public hearing item PCN 25-0019 forward slash C25-0013.

Oh, I have to read the whole thing.

Don't you do that to me because it's my last one?

I'm gonna read this whole big old thing.

All right.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Members of the commission for the record, Scott Carey, Development Services Manager.

Um, for the for the commission's review and consideration tonight is a conditional use permit for a minor utility use, um, a substation and associated transmission lines.

Uh, this project has quite a few parcels, both of which are located within the city of Sparks and also the city's sphere of influence.

Uh a little bit of background on this project.

It's a very um large project for the city and the region.

Um, it includes a 4.94 acre substation that's located near the intersection of uh Pyramid and Highland Ranch.

We have an 8.35 mile uh new transmission line, and then this is all part of a larger project by Indian Energy that would um that would ultimately connect a new transmission line up to Lemon Valley.

This project, um the environmental assessment, and the right of way was approved by the Bureau of Land Management Um last month.

Here's an overall project map, and uh I'd like to point out uh this is Pyramid Highway.

This is Highland Ranch Parkway, this is uh Sun Valley.

This would be uh Spanish Springs.

So the proposed uh substation is located uh right here on the this would be the corner of the intersection, and then there's a new transmission line, 120k kilovolt transmission line that would run south uh up on up on the mountains, kind of along the back side of of uh Sun Valley, continuing south, uh and then ultimately to uh the Sullivan substation, which is located next to Hug High School, and then up and over uh Pyramid Highway to the existing Spanish Springs substation, which is located near uh Weddakin Regional Park.

Here's a closer vicinity map showing the location of the substation site.

The substation site on this image is kind of roughly located right here.

Here's a associated site plan for the substation.

You can see there's an access road off Pyramid or off Highland Ranch Parkway.

This would be the entrance to Five Ridges Parkway and the Five Ridges development.

There's a road around it, and there's the associated equipment and buildings inside of it.

Here's uh elevate, one of the elevations just kind of showing you a rendering.

A lot of electrical stuff, um, two buildings.

These are a couple uh light arrest or lightning arrestors that would kind of catch lightning bolts.

It's kind of interesting.

Uh here's a shot of the transmission line.

So these are 120 kilovolt power lines.

So these are up to 30 feet in height.

Um this is kind of a sample of the different types that would be along that 8.35 mile sites.

There were three issues that we took a look at closely with this um conditional use permit, visual impacts, landscaping, and vegetation.

Uh, the big one, I think what this project is is the visual impacts.

This is uh uh one of the exhibits in the staff report, but this provides a cross section showing the location of the substation in relation to the intersection of Pyramid and Highland Ranch.

Uh one thing I wanted to point out with with this one, this proposed substation would be located roughly 130 feet above the the intersection, which we think will help mitigate the visual impact to the city's portion of the Spanish Springs Valley.

Um here's a cross section showing two viewpoints.

Um the top one is A.

This is kind of what you would see from the lazy or the five ridges development.

And then uh B is what you would see on the bottom here, kind of as you were driving along Highland Ranch uh Parkway.

One thing wanna point out the proposed substation is um has a six-foot uh CMU wall, block wall that will help provide additional um visual mitigation as well.

Too uh in terms of the uh the power lines.

This is a good rendering provided by NV Energy showing what it would what the conditions look like today.

This is Pyramid Highway going north up and over into Spanish Springs.

Um the top part shows the current conditions, the bottom shows what it would look like.

And I would point out here, and then there's a new connection across.

Um staff does like about this project is that it does do a good job of siting the transmission lines away from existing developed areas of the city and located in proximity to other existing transmission lines, which we think help help mitigate the visual impact.

Um this is uh a shot of the existing substation site.

This was formerly a uh aggregate mine.

It was permitted uh by Washoe County.

It is a heavily desert disturbed site existing.

So there are five findings that the planning commission is being asked tonight to make tonight with respect to the proposed project.

The first one is compliance with the comprehensive plan.

Um the proposed uh location for the substation site has a commercial land use designation, and the proposed transmission lines traverse lands that have commercial open space, community and community facilities land uses.

Staff finds that the proposed transmission infrastructure supports policy CF-17 by locating these facilities adjacent to existing utility corridor corridors along the south end of the project.

While the project will expand the length and width of these current corridors, creates a new corridor.

Um, it remains consistent with the city's policy by reinforcing the established hierarchy of locating new utility sites.

The proposed uh sites are located near existing above, which um will also follow newly approved federal rights of what federal lands, white rights right away.

And then additionally, staff finds the proposed substation and the transmission lines will advance policy EV8 by facilitating private investment with critical infrastructure that supports further development in the city.

Finding C2 is compatible with existing and permitted uses adjacent.

Um to the north of the proposed substation across Highland Ranch are developed and approved townhome projects in the MF2 zoning district.

It's part of the five ridges development.

To the south and west of the substation site are lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management that are zoned open space by Washoe County.

Immediately east of the substation is a vacant property with the C2 zoning and further east across Pyramid Highway are additional vacant properties designated as commercial as part of the Kylie Ranch North project.

The transmission lines themselves take place on undeveloped public lands and other vacant properties that are located that are not located near established areas.

Staff finds that the proposed substation and transmission lines are generally compatible with surrounding land uses and are cited to minimize land use impacts.

The third finding is uh natural resources.

Um resources are typically considered air and water, and the construction of the proposed substation and transmission lines are not anticipated to produce negative impacts on these resources.

The substation site, as mentioned before, was um heavily disturbed.

Proposed condition of approval number eight requires the applicant to vegetate all areas disturbed by the substation and construction access roads and submit a vegetation plan.

Therefore, uh staff does not believe that approval of this conditional use permit will impair the availability of natural resources.

Um condition number four are uh condition to address identified findings.

Uh the first one is is landscaping.

This is a copy of the landscaping plan submitted by the the applicant as part of this application.

One thing I wouldn't point out condition of approval number eight requires the installation of landscaping along Highlands Ranch Parkway, but make sure that it's coordinated with the RTC's widening project and that um any landscaping or in particular the placement of trees is done um with the approval of the city engineer.

Um similarly, condition of approval number seven requires um the potential of an installation of a sidewalk adjacent to the site along Highland Ranch um parkway.

Um, additionally, there is the caveat on that one is that it's done in coordination with the RTC project and in consultation with and approval with the city engineer.

Um condition of approval number five.

Um, because this is a uh new utility site, and this will be a new utility corridor.

This would require a conformance review by the regional planning um commission and will require the approval of a new uh an amendment to the regional plan.

So, condition of approval number five requires that um all regional planning approvals are satisfied before um can get going.

There is one um change I would like to bring to the um this came up earlier in the week to condition of approval number eight.

Um working with the applicant.

Um, the initial one that was initially put out was uh an uh with respect to the vegetation, it required a 90% uh coverage on the re-vegetation from with discussions with the applicant.

Um we believe that a 70% um background coverage is is a better way to go.

This is to comply with or line up with the project's water quality permit from the Nevada Division of Environmental Um Protection.

So we do have in front of you and included in um the packets today are uh proposed revisions to condition of approval number eight to make those those two changes.

And then finally, finding C5 is public public notice.

Public notice of today's public hearing was provided in the Reno Gazette Journal on December 30th.

Additionally, on the same date, total of 549 uh property owners were notified of the public hearing.

To date, we've only received one inquiry related to this project, and that was for additional info.

So, overall, staff finds that the proposed project meets all the required findings and um potential impacts have been mitigated to our satisfaction.

We believe overall that this project will allow for uh needed infrastructure that would support the city and the region.

And um you will see this one down the road with the with the potential sponsorship of a regional plan amendment.

So, with that, be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioners, do we have any questions for staff?

No.

No.

Does the applicant want to add to my name is Mark Sullivan?

I'm with NV Energy, and we think that the staff has done a real comprehensive job in an analysis on the project.

We've reviewed staff report all the conditions, and we're in agreement with them.

So we just thank you for your consideration.

Thank you.

Hang on.

Commissioners, do we have any questions for the applicant?

All right.

All right.

This is a public hearing item.

I will open it up to public comment.

Anybody from the public wish to comment on this item?

Okay, I see none.

I will close public comment.

I will entertain a motion.

Mr.

Chair, I move to approve the conditional use permit.

CU25-0013 associated with PCN 25-0019 to construct a minor utility use, electrical substation, and associated 120 kilovolt transmission lines based on findings C1 through C5 and the facts supporting these findings as set forth in the staff report and subject to the 10 conditions of approval as listed in the staff report and including the revisions to condition of approval number eight as presented at tonight's meeting.

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

Commissioners, do we have any further discussion?

No.

All right, let's vote.

Commissioner Reed.

Yeah.

All right, thank you.

And it passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

I will open it up for general public comment.

Does anybody in the general audience wish to make a public comment?

I see none.

I will close public comment.

All right.

Uh Sandy, do we have any step?

Not this evening, Mr.

Chair.

Awesome.

Commissioners, do we have any comments or announcements?

I do, sir.

All right.

Thank you for your service for the last two years, sir.

Oh that was mine too.

So thank you.

One last time for the hammer.

Meeting adjourned.