1 2 4 TRANSCRIPT MINUTES 7 8 9 CITY OF SPARKS PLANNING ...€¦ · 30/10/2018 · study session, city of sparks planning commission tuesday, october 30, 2018 3 1 i n d e x 2 3 it

STUDY SESSION, CITY OF SPARKS PLANNING COMMISSION

Tuesday, October 30, 2018

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

TRANSCRIPT MINUTES

STUDY SESSION

CITY OF SPARKS PLANNING COMMISSION


12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m.

Sparks City Hall Downstairs Training Room

431 Prater Way

Sparks, Nevada



2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A P P E A R A N C E S

Commission Members Present:

Dian VanderWell, Chair

Scott Carey, Vice Chair

Mary Brock

James Fewins

Frank Petersen

Shelley Read

Staff Present:

Alyson McCormick

Assistant City Attorney

Armando Ornelas

Assistant Community Services Director

Karen Melby

Development Services Manager

Ian Crittenden

Senior Planner

Jim Rundle

Planning Manager

Marilie Smith

Administrative Secretary

Community Services Department

Other Participants:

Bill Wagner

Ron King



3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

I N D E X

ITEM PAGE

1. CALL TO ORDER 4

2. ROLL CALL 4

3. REVIEW OF THE NOVEMBER 1, 2018 PLANNING

COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA 4

4. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 18

5. PUBLIC COMMENT 19

6. SYNOPSIS OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING 23

7. COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS 26

8. ADJOURNMENT 26



4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SPARKS, NEVADA, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2018, 12:00 P.M.

-oOo-

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Okay. I'm going to call

to order the City of Sparks Planning Commission Study

Session. And we'll start with roll call.

MS. SMITH: Commissioner VanderWell?

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Here.

MS. SMITH: Commissioner Carey?

COMMISSIONER CAREY: Present.

MS. SMITH: Commissioner Brock?

COMMISSIONER BROCK: Here.

MS. SMITH: Commissioner Fewins?

COMMISSIONER FEWINS: Here.

MS. SMITH: Commissioner Petersen?

COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: Here.

MS. SMITH: Commissioner Read?

COMMISSIONER READ: Here.

MS. SMITH: Assistant City Attorney Alyson

McCormick?

MS. MCCORMICK: Here.

MS. SMITH: Assistant Community Services

Director Armando Ornelas.

MR. ORNELAS: Here.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Great. And we're going

to start with PCN18-0040, consideration and possible



5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

action on to amend the D'Andrea final development.

MR. RUNDLE: Hello. Jim Rundle, Planning

Manager to present on this item.

At the October meeting, staff requested that

the Planning Commission continue this item to this

Thursday's meeting, which the Planning Commission did,

in fact, do.

Staff's recommendation in the staff report has

currently been changed from the recommendation at the

October meeting to the recommendation of denial of both

of the requests from the applicant, which is the

D'Andrea Community Association in this case.

The applicant is asking for the item to be

tabled. We are, staff is fine with the recommendation

to table that item for now.

The reason that our recommendation changed to

denial on the -- it would be the first request, I

suppose, to remove the Monticello, reference to the

Monticello subdivision in the handbook, was outlined in

your new staff -- the staff report for this item, and

that was identification that you remove the 72 units,

would require the property owner's permission within the

handbook. And that was outlined repetitively --

hopefully, not annoyingly repetitively -- but within

that new staff report.



6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

The applicant is still, you know, planning to

work with us on the tree issue. That has been outlined

in the staff report, and that was, essentially, the

views for this whole application. The applicant was in

conversation with me this morning, and I outlined that

we would have this meeting and explained that.

But, currently, their request is that the

Planning Commission table this item.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: All right. Any questions

from the Commissioners?

Okay. Commissioner Carey.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: I guess, Jim, from a

procedural standpoint, I just want to make sure I

understand it. If we, the Planning Commission votes to

table the request, then at a future meeting we'd have to

schedule it to be taken off the table and then another

meeting to take action on it?

MR. RUNDLE: I don't know that we will need a

subsequent meeting --

COMMISSIONER CAREY: Okay.

MR. RUNDLE: -- to take it off. But, I

believe, we'll need two agenda items on a meeting. So,

potentially, it would be to untable it as item eight, or

whatever number it would be, and then item nine would be

to hear that item.



7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

COMMISSIONER CAREY: To take it up. Okay.

MR. RUNDLE: So it could be at the same

meeting.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: Thank you.

MR. RUNDLE: And, additionally, for the

Planning Commission, the applicant has waived any

statutory timeline that may be applied to the applicant,

the requirement that the Planning Commission render a

decision. And we have that, through the attorney's

office, within the file.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Perfect. Any other

questions?

Go right ahead.

COMMISSIONER FEWINS: Commissioner Fewins.

Jim, why are we, again, why table this? For their

request, well, okay, but.

MR. RUNDLE: The request from the applicant is

on a tabling so that they have the time. Remember, keep

in mind, from their respective, they are the officers of

the D'Andrea Community Association. They would like

time to go back and speak with their constituents on

this new, this new occurrence with the Monticello

property owners, that they've identified, the letter

that the Planning Commission got.

COMMISSIONER FEWINS: Yeah.



8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MR. RUNDLE: They would like time to speak with

their constituents in D'Andrea and identify what they

want to do with the tree issue. So we did support,

stepped in and support that. And then, also,

potentially discuss the issues with maybe the property

owners coming forward on the Monticello, and they can

discuss it with them.

And staff believes it's appropriate to do.

There's nothing lost for us tabling this for a short

time.

COMMISSIONER FEWINS: Okay.

MR. RUNDLE: We have identified to the DCA that

we still have those violations within the D'Andrea area.

And those will be rectified.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Okay. So if we -- yes.

MS. MCCORMICK: May I add to that?

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Sure.

MS. MCCORMICK: Alyson McCormick, for the

record.

Commissioner Fewins, there are also questions

about who the rightful owner of the Monticello property

is.

COMMISSIONER FEWINS: Sure.

MS. MCCORMICK: To tabling would allow time to

figure that out.



9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

COMMISSIONER FEWINS: Okay.

MS. MCCORMICK: But whether to table or not is

up to the Planning Commission's discretion.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Okay. I have a follow-up

question, then. So if we say we'd like to table it, do

we have to table it to a time certain --

MR. ORNELAS: No.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: -- or we can just table

it? Okay. Perfect. All right.

Any other questions?

Good. Okay. Thank you.

Next, we'll move on to general business,

PCN18-0055, consideration and possible approval of

revised building elevations for Walmart on Pyramid.

MS. MELBY: Good afternoon, Planning

Commissioners. I'm Karen Melby, Development Service

Manager.

Before you today is a request to change the

Walmart elevations. The Walmart, well, most people know

where it probably is located. But the Walmart is

located at 5056 Pyramid Way.

You can see in the vicinity map, it's the

building there outlined in cyan. This would be Pyramid

Highway. Los Altos dead-ends into this property.

The Walmart is north of the Kohl's department



10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

store and is located on an approximately 22-acre site.

Walmart submitted an administrative review to

allow them to change their building architectural

elevations for the four sides of their building.

The site plan review for this site was

originally approved for the construction of the Walmart

in June of 2004. Condition 4 of SR040012 requires that

there be compliance with the conditions of approval for

the special use permit for the entire site, which

included the construction of the Kohl's department

store.

Condition 20 of that special use permit

requires that the architecture for the bounds of the

shopping center shall be compatible with the quality,

materials, texture, color and design as the Kohl's

department store, subject to the approval of the

Planning Commission as agendaed for this item.

Therefore, to fulfill this condition of the

special use permit, the revised architectural elevations

must be reviewed and approved by the Planning

Commission. If the Planning Commission does not approve

these proposed elevations for Walmart, the submitted

administrative review will have to be not approved.

The current building is constructed of -- this

is a photograph of the current building. The current



11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

building is constructed of masonry rock with horizontal

banding in the block pattern, with variations added to

the front facade and side elevations through the

patterns, planes, the materials, and colors, changes in

planes, materials, and colors. The current color scheme

consists of a mixture of gray, tan, and brown. The

existing architecture gives the building the appearance

of articulation in part by varying the colors to

distinguish the building's various materials and

elements.

You can see in this photo here.

In 2004, the Planning Commission approved the

Walmart elevations is consistent or compatible with the

Kohl's. This is the elevation that was approved for

Kohl's. And here's an existing photograph of Kohl's.

The requested color scheme for the Walmart

represents an adopted new color scheme for its store,

which Walmart has done.

Exhibits 6a and 6b propose a color change --

this is the proposed color change theme -- and maintains

the use of the gray on the building, the brown and the

tan, while refreshing the elevations with a darker shade

of gray and brown. The proposed elevations maintain the

horizontal banding in the masonry block.

For these reasons, staff believes that the



12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

proposed color scheme is compatible with the Kohl's

color scheme and recommends that the Planning Commission

approve the new architectural elevations.

That concludes my presentation. I'm available

for questions.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Thank you.

Do any of the Commissioners have any questions?

We're good? Thank you.

Next, we'll move on to PCN18-0048,

consideration and possible recommendation for a

tentative map.

MR. CRITTENDEN: Madam Chairman, Planning

Commission, Ian Crittenden, Senior Planner.

This is a request for a tentative map for a

69-lot townhome subdivision on a property zoned MF2/PUD

located in the Vistas.

Here on the vicinity map, you can see Los Altos

Parkway. It comes up and past the property. Here's

Vista out here. And then Los Altos, as we know, kind of

goes back around and hits Vista again down on the map

here. This area outlined in cyan is the 7.72-acre site

that has been here at the Planning Commission and the

City Council for various items previously.

This site was previously rezoned. And a

development agreement was approved for this site, that



13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

detailed some of the development characteristics that

would be required as additional things came in, like

this, the tentative map being considered now.

Those items specifically were:

Maximum of 75 units. The proposed number of

units is 69.

Also, the permitted unit type was single-family

detached or attached or multi-family. Townhomes,

depending on who you're talking to, are considered a

multi-family product in the City of Sparks. They are

listed as multi-family product in our zoning code, and

so we treat them as such. Some other people call it

single-family attached, so forth. But the definition

given in the development agreement was broad, and that's

to capture what they wanted to do. And that's what

we're considering today is a multi-family attached

subdivision townhome.

The last one was a density of 10 to 1 units per

acre. It has 7.72 acres, and 69 units were just sub-10

building units. That was a maximum density of building

units per acre. They're just under that.

And then minimum reservation of open space is

1.54 acres. That actually accounts or amounts to 20

percent of the site. And they actually met that

requirement as well for open space.



14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

So all of those requirements of the development

agreement are met with the proposed tentative map.

A traffic analysis was submitted with this

application. I have a letter from Traffic Works, as was

an additional letter from Traffic Works, who performed

the analysis. The letter detailed improvements that

would be made on Los Altos, specifically at the

roundabout, where the entrance to the site will be.

Those improvements will be required by Condition 16 of

the Conditions of Approval in the staff report.

Staff has also received some public comment

concerning this item. That public comment was passed

out to the Planning Commission. Those comments supplied

to the Planning Commission focus primarily on issues of

parking and traffic.

The site is multi-family. As I stated, this is

a multi-family zoning district. It also is a

multi-family land use by the City of Sparks code. The

parking requirement for a multi-family in the City of

Sparks is 1 per unit.

The applicant has proposed 2 spaces per unit in

the form of garages, proposing 138 parking spaces. And

it also had 27 by count on the map, but only 25 by the

text at the bottom. So I'll have to talk to staff about

it, make sure we get that justified and fixed. But it



15

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

does look like 27 parking spaces for guest parking

submitted. So this exceeds the City of Sparks code

requirement for parking.

It also exceeds the ITE manual's demand

analysis for parking for townhomes in suburban states,

or suburban locations. That demand is actually 1.46

vehicles. That's the average peak at 1.46 vehicles per

dwelling unit.

So it exceeds both of those standards.

So staff is still recommending approval based

on the parking is adequate.

I won't go through in detail all the findings

at this time. We'll go through them at the Planning

Commission meeting on Thursday.

But as discussed, we are recommending approval

of this. This type of development has been contemplated

for the site since it was approved in 1988.

We did -- a concern that was brought up during

the rezoning and the development agreement process was

the number of units that would be created. The comments

from the school district indicated that they are

anticipating 5 new students will be generated from this

development, 3 for the elementary schools, 1 for the

middle school, and 1 for the high school.

Ultimately, staff believes all of these



16

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

findings can be made. And we are recommending approval

of this tentative map.

That's the end of my presentation. If you have

any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Perfect. Thank you.

COMMISSIONER READ: I have a question.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Commissioner Read.

COMMISSIONER READ: Yeah, I just, I didn't look

at all the attachments. I didn't have time to print

them all out. But has there been any other slope

analysis or geotech work since the rezoning?

MR. CRITTENDEN: Yes, there was. It was

submitted to staff. It should have been in the -- the

fullness of the packet, I don't know if I called that

one out as a separated one or if it's just in the

application. Off the top of my head, I can't remember.

But it was, that analysis was submitted, and

they do meet the slope analysis requirements for the

City. And there are no -- this site does not contain

any protected slopes or protected -- that's inaccurate.

Protected ridgelines. It doesn't have any protected

ridgelines. It does have slope categories that do

require reduction in the developed area, but they are

addressed in the slope analysis and show that they are

disturbing less land than is it the maximum they could



17

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

disturb for the slopes contained on the site. If that

isn't the longest way to say that.

But, yeah, the slope analysis was done, and

they do meet our, the City requirements.

COMMISSIONER READ: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Commissioner Carey.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: Thank you, Madam Chair.

In the south, I think it's at the southeast

part of the property, I was looking at the site plan. I

think, it's units 9 through 11.

MR. CRITTENDEN: I have the slope analysis.

Okay.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: I was curious how close

units 9 through 11 there are to that existing

single-family to the south.

MR. CRITTENDEN: In this location?

COMMISSIONER CAREY: Yeah.

MR. CRITTENDEN: I don't have that measurement

at this time, but I can have it for you on Thursday.

Yeah. I believe that they actually, the setbacks here

are at least the minimum for the zone, which would be --

I can't remember if was on the side or back. I think,

it's the side, which would be like 20 feet or 10 feet.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: Yeah.

MR. CRITTENDEN: And then there's the



18

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

additional side location that's. But I'll have an

actual distance for you on Thursday.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Commissioner Petersen.

COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: But, Ian, isn't the

development higher than those houses?

MR. CRITTENDEN: I believe that it is.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: Yeah, and the reason I

bring that up -- thank you, Commissioner Petersen --

because, I think, when we had the rezoning, there were a

lot of concerns brought about, you know, how close the

units would be to the existing units and the whole

privacy concerns.

If you could track that down and bring it up in

your presentation, I think --

MR. CRITTENDEN: Absolutely.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: -- that'll help the public

that might be coming.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Any other questions?

Okay. Thank you.

Next, we'll move on to informational items.

MR. ORNELAS: So on the -- Armando Ornelas,

Assistant Community Services Director, for the record.

In terms of announcements, we -- I think, I'd

made an announcement at the previous meeting that we



19

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

would have on this agenda an update on the update of the

Regional Plan from Truckee Meadows Regional Planning

Agency staff. I dropped the ball on that. We just --

Mrs. Robinson had agreed to do it, but we failed to put

it on the agenda.

Thank you to Commissioner Carey for bringing

that to my attention. So we will have that on your

agenda for December.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Okay. All right. Next,

we have public comment. So anybody wishing to speak,

you have three minutes.

Go right ahead. And if you'll please state

your name and your address for the record.

Do we have someone that's going to do -- thank

you, John.

MR. BILL WAGNER: Madam Chair, Commissioners,

my name is Bill Wagner, for the record. I currently

live in the Vistas.

My subject is inadequate parking in townhomes,

PCN18-0043, at 2255 Los Altos Parkway.

Let's look at the numbers. 69 units. 69 cars

plus 34, it would be 103 total cars. Where are you

going to get the parking? How many of the 28 are

designated for handicap parking? I don't know. 29

townhomes with two-car garages and no driveways.



20

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Parking which eliminates two additional parking spaces.

This doesn't make any sense.

If 20 percent of the owners use one of their

garages for storage, that places an additional 14 cars

on the streets. What we want to see happen is that cars

are not forced to park outside of the complex on

residential streets.

Thank you very much for your time.


COMMISSIONER CAREY: Thanks, Bill.

MR. RON KING: Ian, could you pull me up the

grade, the slope studies. I'd appreciate that. Thank

you.

My name is Ron King. I live in the Vistas.

I'm a long-time resident of the City of Sparks. I've

served the City of Sparks several years ago on many

boards and advisory subcommittees. Two of those were

legislative committees. So I've been kind of around the

block, and I know what our meetings are about.

And, Madam Chair and members of the Commission,

again, my name's Ron King, for the record.

And I have been somewhat retired from being

involved in the public forum the last few years. And,

but I'm finding that I am extremely opposed to this

proposed development. I know we're a long ways into it



21

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

and that pretty much we can't pull the brakes on it now.

But I'd like to make some suggestions that you,

hopefully, would pass on and discuss and pass on to the

City Council, such items as, I know, in the conditions

of the agreement. Staff has done a yeoman's job. I

mean they've taken a 30-year document, 30-year-old

document, and they've created it to match today's

handbooks.

But handbooks are handbooks, and common sense

is common sense. Sometimes we have to go to the side of

common sense to help us along in deciding what we do and

what we don't do.

Some of the things that I hope will be

addressed, either in the vicinity map, which I don't see

now, or would be addressed in the final map, are the

following items:

The issue of blasting. They are going to have

to blast that basalt rock to get that site flat. And I

doubt that they are going to build on those ridgelines.

The map shows that we're not going to be using the top

of our hill, which a lot of us who walk use that as an

exercise point, we go up and down, and then we continue

on down.

The other item that I had was the hours of

construction operation. I don't want to listen all day,



22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

every day, to the rat-a-tat-tat of pneumatic neighbors.

And the other item that I would suggest is a

soil remover and how it's going to affect Vista

Boulevard. Unfortunately, on a site such as this, they

don't have the luxury of storing material that they

remove, because they're going to be building where

they're going to be storing material. So they're going

to be transporting it out onto Los Altos in large

vehicles. And what is going to be the effect on those

roadways, with all of that weight, all in one spot, on a

cul-de-sac, trying to get over the turn, roundabout.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Can you wrap it up? You

can finish your thought.

MR. RON KING: Oh, okay.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Go right ahead.

MR. RON KING: I just have a couple of others.

Oh, in the item T6 in your staff report, it

talked about the emergency response. It did not mention

REMSA. And having been an originator of that program,

I'm a little prejudiced towards that. And I would like

to see that mentioned, also.

And, also, in T8, there was no mention as to

the slopes, how the slopes will be supported to prevent

debris from falling into the homes below the

development.



23

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

If I can step to the map again, as you notice

these contour lines in here and in here. And if you

happen to walk up to that hill -- and I suggest you do,

just for the heck of it, for the exercise. That is

extremely steep. Extremely steep. How are we going to

keep construction debris and then, finally, a retaining

wall, or whatever, from going down into these homes

here, considering the lawsuit that is currently in

progress in northwest Reno for failure of rock walls.

Thank you very much.


Ian, did you want to address the handicapped

spots, please. Thank you.

MR. CRITTENDEN: So Ian Crittenden, Senior

Planner, again, for the record.

There is one handicapped spot designated on the

site plan. It is part of the guest parking spaces. So

that is what's provided at this time.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Perfect.

MR. CRITTENDEN: Okay.


Okay. All righty. Next, we'll go to synopsis

of City Council meeting.

MR. ORNELAS: So, Madam Chair, Armando Ornelas,

Assistant Community Services Director, for the record.



24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

On the October 22nd City Council meeting, there

was no items on that, for the public.

On the 22nd, the City Council approved a

tentative map for the 32-unit townhome project just off

of Galleria Parkway and Los Altos in the Spanish Springs

Town Centre that the Planning Commission had previously

reviewed.

They also approved the tentative map for the

146-lot single-family residential subdivision on just

over 30 acres in Kiley Ranch North Phase 6.

And then they rejected the first readings of

the development agreement, the Comprehensive Plan

amendment -- I'm sorry -- the development agreement and

the rezoning requests for the Wingfield Commons project.

Those two items plus the Comprehensive Plan amendment

will be considered by the City Council at the

November 13th meeting, which is a Tuesday because of the

Veterans Day holiday.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Right.

MR. ORNELAS: And then, just also, two other

items that may be of interest to you. You know, we are

in the process of updating our building codes. And they

conducted the first reading of the proposed 2019

building code package. The second reading and the

public hearing on that will be conducted by the City



25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Council on the 13th.

And then, also, on October 22nd, the City

Council gave direction to the City Attorney's office to

potentially seek judicial review of the Regional

Planning Commission decision that, essentially, denied

the approval for the utility corridor relocation across

the Wildcreek golf course property that is proposed for

Wildcreek High School.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: That's the Governing

Board, not the Planning Commission, correct?

MR. ORNELAS: I'm sorry. You're right. Yes.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Okay. Thank you. Just

want to make sure.

MR. ORNELAS: Yeah.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: We're not part of that.

MR. ORNELAS: I stand corrected. You're right.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Yes, Commissioner Fewins.

COMMISSIONER FEWINS: Commissioner Fewins.

Armando, what, the Governing Board denied the utility

corridor, is that what it was?

MR. ORNELAS: It was a technical denial. So

there was a motion to approve the relocation of that

utility corridor.

COMMISSIONER FEWINS: M-hm (affirmative).

MR. ORNELAS: But there was a motion, and it



26

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

was a 5-4 vote in favor of the motion. However, in

order to amend the Regional Plan, you need a majority of

the body. The body has 10 members on it. So that

requires 6 votes. So because it fell a vote short,

it's, again, a technical denial with that motion.

COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: Any word on our

vacancy?

MR. ORNELAS: On the Regional Planning

Commission?

COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: On our Planning

Commission.

MR. ORNELAS: Oh, okay. I'm sorry. I believe,

that is on the agenda for the 13th with the City

Council, or for the mayor to recommend and the City

Council to ratify a new member.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Was that it for the

synopsis of the City, you were done?

MR. ORNELAS: M-hm (affirmative).

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Okay. Perfect. Thank

you.

Any comment from the Commissioners?

Anybody?

Okay. We're adjourned .

-oOo-

1 2 4 TRANSCRIPT MINUTES 7 8 9 CITY OF SPARKS PLANNING ...€¦ · 30/10/2018 · study session, city of sparks planning commission tuesday, october 30, 2018 3 1 i n d e x 2 3 it

Documents