Can we have roll call please?

Here.

Here.

Thank you.

Can we have the pledge of allegiance?

And to the republic for which it stands.

One nation, another God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Okay, we're gonna 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 Sasinski.

Hi.

And please unstate your name for the record.

My name is Kim Sasinski, 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 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.

It would unplan Wingfield 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.

That's just under $300,000 a year.

Makes no sense.

Okay, 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 gonna read from this.

I'm I'm gonna speak from uh 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 uh there was a development that was built off the fifth hole of the Lakes Golf Course.

Uh built probably uh I don't know the number, a couple hundred patio homes, and uh 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 are 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 uh plan to build homes in the middle of a fairway will impact me gratefully.

Um 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 gonna is it does that mean they're not gonna 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 1,500 homes in that community trying to egress 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 gonna 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 motion by Commissioner Priestos and a second by Commissioner Kramer.

Is there any discussion?

So no discussion, please vote.

And uh the uh motion passes.

Okay, and now we're at 6.1.

Maybe show you that we don't have a motion yet.

Don't have a motion.

I'll show up.

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.

Okay, Madam Chair, I move to approve the minutes of the planning commission study session held on Tuesday, January 13th, 2026, and the planning commission meeting held on Thursday, January 15th, 2026.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Kramer to approve the minutes and a second by Commissioner Priestos.

Is there any discussion?

Seeing no discussion, please vote.

And the motion passes.

And now we go on to our public hearings.

Okay, we're at 7.1 PCN 12029 PD 25-0002.

Good evening, Chair, members of the planning commission.

My name is Danny Rain, Senior Planner here to present this item to you today, which is an amendment to the Kylie Ranch North Phase 3 Plan Development Handbook.

So on this slide, you can see the blue boundary of the Kylie Ranch North Plan Development in its entirety, which actually encompasses 12 individual handbooks at this time.

It's 874.2 acres, and outlined in red is the 98.4 acre 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 tentative handbook, as several changes have been made as a result of the adoption and modification of several other of these 12 Kylie Ranch North handbooks.

The tentative handbook was the initial handbook that was adopted.

The other 12 came in line.

Once the 12th one was adopted, the tentative 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 AR25-0013 for a master development plan to guide the development of a 371,886 square foot shopping center that is tentatively 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 FAR we refer to is the ratio of total building area to land area.

This slide shows an illustration of how FAR can be applied to a parcel or site.

You can see one story covers the parcel completely.

Two stories, 50% lock coverage, but it's still a one-to-one ratio.

Or four stories, it's 25% lock coverage, but it's still a one-to-one ratio in terms of square footage to land area.

With a uh the current uh the handbook currently requires a 0.25 FAR for the 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 508,563 square feet of commercial buildings.

Reduct one eight far reduces the total required minimum square footage by 142,398.

The substantial amount of square footage.

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 FAR 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 million deficit for the smaller footprint developed under a 0.18.

So why would we be considering doing something that overall, you know, is creates a deficit.

When the entire Kylie Ranch North planned development of all 12 handbook areas, all 800 and some odd thousand or 87 acres is considered as a part of the calculation, estimated revenues of 66.4 million dollar surplus are generated over the same analysis period.

This general fund surplus is sufficient to cover the 20.2 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 reflect the northern Nevada agricultural and ranching 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 traffic impact analysis estimated trips for land use designations, specified it in the tentative 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 three handbook based on acreage, utilizing land uses and trip generation approved in the most recent 2018 traffic analysis as shown on the table in this slide.

So we can see each of these villages, 13, 15, 25, and 26 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 adjacent land uses immediately surrounding the subject site or industrial, single family and multifamily 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 mixed use land use categories.

So this concludes the background and analysis portion of my presentation.

An amendment to a plan development has 10 required findings that must be considered by the planning commission.

So I'll go into those now.

So for findings PDA, PDB, and PDH.

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 infrastructures such as sewer, water, storm drains, and police and fire services are available.

And providing potential for the continued growth of the Kiley Ranch North community for residents and businesses, supporting goals MG6, CC1, EV1, and Policy MG11.

Pursuant to the 2024 Trucking Meadows Regional Plan, the Phase 3 Handbook has a tier two land use designation and is located within the Trucking Meadows service area.

Properties in the tier two 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 massing based on the high it can set back standards.

Proposed modifications to the handbook's FAR and architectural standards are not anticipated to adversely affect surrounding uses as they provide for increased flexibility and 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 FAR 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 dollars 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 dollar deficit in the road fund with over 45 million dollars in net surplus revenue remaining to fund expenditures throughout the city.

The proposed amendment modifies design standards for development within the community commercial land use category, including a reduction of FAR and additional flexibility to vary roofline architecture and does not alter the type or amount of development permitted within the phase three 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 the approved 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 any interested party to pursue development within the span of 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 three plan development and 750 feet beyond the boundary, as well as published in the Reno Gazette Journal.

As of noon today, there's been two public comments.

Uh they've both been provided to you.

Uh I think one on your desktop right there, and one in in your packet.

Uh the one in your packet uh was initially in 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.

Um do any commissioners have any questions?

I do.

Yeah.

So it's a 66.4 million dollar surplus minus the 22 million dollar deficit.

So explain the math to me.

I'm 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, actually.

Um, so overall, you know, Kylie Ranch North is 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 red 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 staff uh transportation staff to work together to figure out figure it out.

So overall, that 2018 uh I think it was the 2018 study, the fiscal impact analysis original, uh 66 million dollars.

Okay, positive.

This is a 20 million deficit, but it would be higher, a higher deficit if it had if we kept the FAR requirement, because that deficit is created by additional service calls, police and fire service calls.

So by reducing that FAR, 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 amortize over 20 years?

Do we anticipate that?

Because 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 gonna defer to our city planner to answer that question, whether or not I don't mean to be the chain here, but just still try to understand the math.

No problem.

Um 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 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.

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 I hope that clarifies a little bit more.

Thank you.

Have a follow-up.

So the traffic part.

You said if one village went over theirs, they could take from another village.

Is that is that how I understand it?

Or can we give me 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 adjustment.

So we're working on that master development plan right now, that administrative review 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, 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 your packets, there's a red line version of the handbook and the clean version, and all of that is in there in that text.

Okay.

And then eventually we're gonna put all those handbooks together.

Is that the plan?

That's the plan.

All right.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

Thank you, Sam Chair.

I hope that's good, Commissioner.

I don't know along the same lines.

With the I was just trying to make sure I just understand with the traffic analysis in the villages 14 and 15.

So they're like adjacent lots, right?

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 of the trip generation per village.

Right.

Okay, thank you.

That helps.

Okay.

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 Barclay group behind me with the Barclay group are Colby Bencham and Morgan Randis, um, as well as our traffic engineer David Jockman.

I had a brief presentation, um, but I know not to talk too much sometimes with 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 gonna be commercial warehousing or like a grocery store, kind of like the galleria or let me cue up my presentation and show a slide commissioner if that if that's okay?

Yes, that is because if you do warehousing, that's gonna increase truck truck traffic.

Right.

It's um for the record, Greg, it's certainly not um manufacturing or truck traffic.

It's two anchor stores, uh, 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, Barclay, and the Kylie 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 the number of other restaurants, retail shops, etc.

Um, the FAR, the change of the FAR 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 can see that first bullet point throughout.

Mr.

Sandelo and I with our legal minds, we could not figure out what throughout 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 the building.

So just a visual, some renderings.

You can see the Smiths 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's really came up with a unique concept here that fits into uh 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, uh which does fit into the articulate uh the architecture elements that are proposed.

And then the rest of the shopping center, you could see just a variety of materials, roof lines, articulation, the your point restaurants and retail were 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 could we're allowed up to 1961, Commissioner, to your point, combining 13 and 15.

Uh, the proposed site plan that's going through the administrative approval is at 1959.

And I don't do this very often in the presentation, but this took a lot of work by your staff.

I just on the record want to thank Amber, Sienna, Daney, uh, your traffic engineer, GCW, Lauren Chillson did a great job.

Our traffic engineer is here, David Joachman from Kimley Horn.

It was just a team effort for a number of months uh to get here.

So just want to thank everyone for those efforts, and just a last slide here to kind of give us 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.

No problem, thank you.

Appreciate it.

And this is a 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 Ole.

Is she is she present?

No.

Okay, so we have this in our record now.

Thank you.

All right, and so uh I need a motion.

Oh, I closed public comment.

Thank you.

Madam Garrett might I move before to City Council recommendation of approval of the request to amend the final approved plan for Kylie Ranch Phase 3, PCN 12029 slash PD 25-002, based on findings PDA through PDJ and the facts supporting those findings is set forth in the staff report.

I second that motion.

Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Nieberlin and a second by Commissioner Kramer.

Uh is there any discussion?

See no discussion, please set your vote.

Okay, and the motion passes.

Thank you.

Thank you, Danny, for your time.

Thank you, sirs.

Okay, we move on to general business.

Good evening again.

Hi again.

For the record, I am Dani Ray here to present this uh item to you today.

So the vicinity map shows uh the blue outline of our legends at Sparks Marina plan development.

And the red line is the core shopping center.

And this red line right here is the tenant space where Cavenders 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 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.

Um Legends of Sparks Marina Plan Development Handbook 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 uh modifications.

It's AR25-0034, and it's under review by staff.

So here in these darker hatched areas are where the exterior elevations are proposed to be quite slightly modified and will accommodate Cavendars Butte 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 fronting SHELS 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.

There's the West, but East and South, across from uh triple A building over in that area.

The West Entrance faces that uh internal shopping center.

So the proposed changes are restricted to the area below the rip line and include a new pilaster on the east side to balance and frame that entry along uh Shields Drive.

And uh the proposed colors and material modifications to the existing building uh shown are for the brick, uh brown flash, Burgundy Valure, and Summer Glacier for the EFIS or stuff similar to stucco is uh 472A Captain and 109 Sunset Yellow.

Masonry Roofing is charcoal and Tuscan cast stone pardon me, champagne, olive, and white, sage, sand drift, wheat, and terrain tote, and cultured stone is storm brown.

Staff believes that the proposed modifications provide compatibility with the existing shopping center and utilize elements throughout the project, such as color, red brick, and choice of EFIS 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 includes my presentation if you have any questions, and the applicant is here as well.

Okay, representative from Red Development.

Anybody have questions of Danny?

Okay, would the applicant like to speak?

It's coming up.

Good evening, madam chair, commissioners.

My name is Todd Doell.

I'm the director of construction for red development, and uh they asked me to come up here from Phoenix this morning to represent Cavendars.

Umward to getting this project moving, and this is a big deal for the shopping center and for Cavendar.

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 Danny.

Thank you.

And look forward to getting the project moving.

Thank you.

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 have an a motion.

Madam Chair, I move to approve the architectural elevations for an existing 23,170 square foot building as proposed in BE25-0003 in fulfillment of the requirements of the fourth of the Legends Sportsman Handbook Plan to Development Handbook.

I second that motion.

Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Priestos and a second by Commissioner Kramer.

Um, and can't is there any discussion?

Signal discussion, please set your vote.

Oh, I did it.

There you go.

Okay, and the motion passed.

Thank you, Danny.

Thank you, sir.

Okay.

And now for general business, PCN25-C0019.

Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the commission for the records, Scott Carey Development Services Manager.

Tonight for the Planning Commission's consideration is uh recommendation to the city council on a regional plan amendment for the lazy five substation and transmission project.

Uh the commission will be uh well aware of this project 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 that are kind of triggering this the this this amendment.

Um the reason we're here today is um exhibit three um 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 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 be and 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 Blazy Five substation site is located here on the corner.

That's where the substation is gonna 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 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 interagency coordination, ensuring that proposed infrastructure is appropriately sited within designated regional utility corridor sites and um sites and and corridors in compliance with the antenna PF11 of the regional plan.

Um with that, Madam 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 codes on pyramid highway.

Oh the most accurate rendition of pyramid highway never seen just by seeing the code, you know where they're for you.

Very good.

Excellent observation, Commissioner.

Thank you.

Any other any other questions or comments?

No.

Okay, would the uh applicant like to speak?

The city's the applicant on the all right.

You already did.

Yeah.

Thank you, Scott.

Um, so we need a motion.

Got into a routine.

Council to sponsor amendments to the 2024 Trucking 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 have we have a motion by Commissioner Sperber and a second by Commissioner Priestess.

Uh any discussion?

Say no discussion, please set your vote.

Why is mine not clicking?

Oh, geez, I almost lost the whole thing.

There you go.

Okay.

All right.

And the motion passes.

Thank you.

Okay, uh General Business PCN 19-0040, STM25-0004.

Daney again.

Yeah, triple.

Good evening again.

For the record, I am Danny Ray, senior planner.

Hi, for the record, I am Danny Ray, senior planner presenting this item, which is a request for a tentative map for a 211 lot single family residential subdivision in the five ridges developed.

So the five ridges villages three and seven project areas, totaling 53.75 acres, are shown here outlined in red, just north of the five ridges parkway and Highland Ranch Parkway intersection.

For some background, a development agreement was originally approved in 2018, amended in 2020 for the now 386.87 acre property generally located at 1,000 feet 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 rezoning requests for the sites or site.

There have been several tentative maps and final maps approved for five bridges thus far.

A complete listing of actions related to the five ridges development is included in your staff reports in the background section.

The tentative map STM 19 0005 was previously approved in May of 2020 and included villages two, three, four, six, and seven of the five ridges development.

Villages two, 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 and a series of final maps, each covering a portion of the approved tenant amount, 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.

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 ridges is 1239, which is above the 1,200 unit minimum as required in the development agreement.

39 lots are proposed for village three that range in size from 6,744 to 9,260 square feet with an average lot size of 7,554 square feet.

172 lots are proposed for village seven, ranging in size from 5,025 square feet to 11,287 square feet with an average lot size of 6,251 square feet.

A private neighbor uh neighborhood park totaling approximately one acre is located here and is to be constructed with village three.

Access to the villages is proposed from Antelope Ridge Parkway and Aiden Ridge Way via Five Ridges Parkway and secondary access to village three is provided from the southernmost split ridge court cul-de-sac to Aiden Ridge Way.

Emergency access to the entire Five Ridges development is provided via an existing 20-foot wide access road from Warhol Drive, located in unincorporated Washoe County to the current western terminus of Analog Ridge Parkway.

Now village three 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 district standards, except for 128 lots, generally located in the interior, that are proposed to be developed using small lot standards as provided in SMC 20.02.004.

Those lots you see are shaded 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 five in your packets.

Undeveloped common area that totals 10.67 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 three expected to be a part component is already a separate parcel from the rest of village three.

So now with the background and analysis done, we can move over to the findings.

The planning commission must consider this evening.

This tentative map request is for 211, a single family subdivision with small lot standards applied to 128 lots as shown on the tentative map.

The proposed subdivision will provide additional residential units and Sparks consistent with this agreement.

Advancing goals H2, H3 and policies CC 8 and H11.

The tentative 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 stormwater 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 tentative map, complying with policy CF1.

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 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 tentative map request is estimated to be 1,918 trips with 196 p.m.

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 below the thresholds identified in the agreement and thereby trigger off-site 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.

Moving on to finding T3.

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 198,900 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 stormwater and drainage plan for the development must also be approved prior to approving a final map.

Pardon me just one minute.

Getting a tickle, mate.

For schools, uh the project site is zoned for Hall Elementary School, Shaw Middle School, and Spanish Springs High School.

Uh Washoe County School District did not provide comment regarding this request.

The Sparks Police Department will provide services to the site, and they express no concerns with the current proposal.

As previously discussed, roadway network improvements needed to accommodate the five bridges project are identified in the Delp 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 Ridges Project site.

However, small private parks are available to the residents.

The lots proposed with this subdivision do not fall within the 100 year floodplain.

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 prior prior to the approval of the final map.

That's condition 13.

And for soils, the final geotechnical report is required at the time of the final map.

Regarding outside agency responses for uh per finding T9, no comments were provided.

And finding T10 asks you to consider the availability of fire protection services.

Both villages and three and seven sites are located outside the department's four-minute travel time standard, and thus dwelling units are required to have sprinklers unless dwelling units become located within a four-minute travel time due to the construction of a sixth fire station.

We do have our sixth fire station.

Um they may not be required, you know, to have sprinklers at that time.

We'll see 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 five feet in width, located on the exterior side yards 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 for city council meeting served to provide noticing to the public.

With that, um conclude my presentation, and the applicant and the applicant's uh representative are here.

Anybody have any questions for Daney?

No questions for Dana.

Would the applicant like to speak?

And I did that.

Good evening.

Hi, Chair and Commissioners.

My name is Eric Hasty, I'm with Wood Rogers.

Um, I'm representing the applicant.

Uh Dani did a great job of going over the presentation in detail.

Um, again, just to reiterate uh this was a tentative 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 and the tentative 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 uh like you said, Danny did a great job covering it.

There's something specific you'd like to get into.

I'd be happy to do that.

Um, but just I wanted to say that available for questions.

We also have the engineer here as well.

So 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.

Chair, I move to forward a recommendation of approval to city council for the tentative map request STM25-0004 associated with PCN 19-0040 for villages three and seven of the five bridges development adopting findings T1 through T12 and the facts supporting these findings as set forth in the staff report and subject to conditions of approval one through 19.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Kramer and a second by Commissioner Nieberlin.

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 of the Truckie Meadows Regional Planning Commission.

Effective immediately from the following poll of applicants listed in alphabetical order.

Evan Priestos, My Rosson, Ricky Rodriguez Elkins, and Steven Sperber.

Do we have any recommendations?

I I will make a recommendation.

I just recommend that we keep it the same as it is.

Um who is one two, three, four, and four?

Thank you.

Uh thank you, Madam Chair, and Commissioner Kramer.

Uh Commissioner Sperber is our first alternate.

Uh Commissioner Rodriguez Elkins is our second.

Uh Commissioner Rosson is our third alternate, and then Commissioner Pritz is our fourth alternate.

Okay.

So, Madam Chair, I move to recommend Commissioner Sperber to serve on the Truckey Red Trucky Meadows Regional Planning Commission as first alternate effective immediately.

I move to recommend uh Ricky Rodriguez Alkins to serve on the Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Commission as second alternate alternate effective immediately.

I move to recommend Mike Rosson to serve on the Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Commission as third alternate effective immediately, and I move to recommend Evan Pritzos to serve on the Trucky Meadows Regional Planning Commission as fourth alternate effective immediately.

Do you want to hit yeah?

There you go.

Second one.

Okay, so we have a motion by Commissioner Kramer and a second by Commissioner Nieberlin.

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 madam chair, I don't have any particular announcements, but I do believe that Brandon was gonna uh provide a brief announcement.

Yeah, just um I know everybody's starting to get more and more calls, emails, 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 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, you uh and remember to forward anything to uh Ms.

Ruiz for record keeping, but uh avoiding a reply all situation will help.

Um I don't think there would be an open meeting law violation, but uh it'll avoid uh the accusation of an open meeting law violation.

Is that what's 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.

So yeah, and so far I don't think there's there's been that, but I I had wondered as I hit reply all.

And so far I don't think there's there's been that, but I'd 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?

You're getting 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'd 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 gonna 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 Jillian.

So you may be getting repetitive uh emails, but it's no problem.

We're we have a a good record keeping 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 thing.

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, close public comments, sorry, I always forget that.

And any commissioner comments or announcements.

Okay, seeing none, the meetings adjourned.