Sparks Planning Commission meeting

CITY OF SPARKS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

Thursday, May 6, 2021

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

CITY OF SPARKS PLANNING COMMISSION

MEETING


6:00 p.m.

This meeting was held virtually

pursuant to NRS 241.023 and

State of Nevada Declaration of Emergency Directive 006

(In-person attendance was not available)



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:

Evan Pritsos, Chair

Kyle West, Vice Chair

Clara Andriola

Scott Carey

Marilyn Kramer

Mike Rawson

Shelley Read

Staff Present:

Brandon Sendall

Assistant City Attorney

Armando Ornelas

Assistant Community Services Director

Jonathan Cummins

Planner II

Dani Wray, AICP

Planner I

Sienna Reid

Planner Senior

Jim Rundle

Planning Manager

Janelle Thomas

Senior Civil Engineer

Jon Ericson

City Engineer

Marilie Smith

Administrative Secretary

Community Services Department

Casey Martinez

Office Assistant

Community Services Department

(continued...)



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

Other Participants:

Thomas Green

Carolyn Harkins

Susan Merritt

Wayne Paterson

Chris Barrett

Bruce Barts

Andy Durling, Wood Rodgers

Tom Winn

Dave Mossman

Biju Abraham

Shane and Rebecca Curtis

Rory and Lauren Fruhling

Marissa Hammond

Katy Harris

Lahela Hatley

Carla O'Day

Mohan Padmanaban

Prudence Shapiro

Marie Smith

George Spatz

Margaret Spatz

Jeff Spitzer

Pioneer Meadows Master Association

(Thomas Green, Dan O'Day, Jacob Ritter)

Maria Stevenson and Michael Gadberry

Dan O'Day

Susan Merritt

Carolyn Harkins

Julie Riggs

Geraldine

Thomas Green

Kevin Grogan

Hannah Carrier

Joni Hammond

Mike Railey, Christy Corporation

Blake Smith Sr., 5 Ridges Development Company

Blake Smith Jr., 5 Ridges Development Company

Jeff House, House Moran Consulting

Scott Christy, Christy Corporation

Seth Padovan, 5 Ridges

Loren and Evelyn Acton

Janet Ayela

Troy Becker

Jackson Booth

(continued...)



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

Brenda Cash

Bill and Danelle Chisholm

Roc Cole

James and Samantha Crowley

Kelli Courson

R. Croak

Leonard and Cherie Danner

Nancy Danner

Bob and Linda Davis

Robin Down

Lisa Durgin

Jason Eastman

Jeffrey and Hayley Eastman

Mike Eastman

Carol and Greg Evans

Courtney Farnsworth

Lorraine Fernandez

Dan and Mindy Flannagan

Karin Fulton

Cheryll and Steve Glotfelty

Joe Granata

Fred Haynes

Joseph and Ora Hoshen

Jamie Klund

Tracy Ladd

Frank Lepori

R. Lucius

Vernie McCrohan

Mike Marbury

Douglas Marsh

Joneux Mensler

The Nelsons

Helga Olson

Adrianne Panelli

Nick Panelli

Nick Panissidi

Wayne Paterson

Ron Paula

Susan Perazzo

Christine Perot

Cindy Peterson

Steven and ToLee Porta

Dan Price

Lorie Price

Martin Reyes

Bill Richards

(continued...)



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

Violet Richards

Mary Jane Roland

Janelle Salsby

Teri Scharosch

Louisa Scoville

Jessie Stevenman

Melinda Stillwell

Trish Swain

Tina Walsh

Maryanne WEller

Lisa Zukoski

Kyle Zukoski

The Arnauds

Larry Grube

Randy Walter, Quest Consulting Services



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

I N D E X

ITEM PAGE

1. CALL TO ORDER 8

2. ROLL CALL 8

3. PUBLIC COMMENT 9

4. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA (For Possible Action) 11

5. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:

Review and possible approval of the minutes

of the April 13, 2021 Planning Commission

Study Session (For Possible Action) 13

Review and possible approval of the minutes

of the April 15, 2021 Planning Commission

Meeting (For Possible Action) 14

PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:

6. PCN21-0002 - Consideration of and possible

action on a request to amend the Final Planned

Development Handbook (Pioneer Meadows

Development Standards Handbook) for the Pioneer

Meadows Planned Development, to add self-storage

to the list of permitted uses in this GC

(General Commercial) land use category; the

Pioneer Meadows Planned Development is generally

located east of the Kiley Ranch North Planned

Development, west of the Wingfield Springs

Planned Development and south of the Stonebrook

Planned Development i Sparks, Nevada on a site

approximately 640 acres in size in the PD

(Planned Development - Pioneer Meadows) zoning

district. (For Possible Action) 43



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

7. PCN19-0040 - Consideration of and possible

action on a request to amend a Conditional Use

Permit (CU20-0005) to increase the disturbance

area to allow development of a site that is 10

acres in size or larger, with slope gradients

of 10 percent or greater over 25 percent or

more of the site, which is 421.58 acres in

size and is generally located at 555 Highland

Ranch Parkway, Sparks, Nevada, in the SF-6

(Single-Family Residential) and MF-2

(Multi-Family Residential) zoning districts.

(For Possible Action) 133

8. CA-2-21 - Consideration of and possible action

on an ordinance to amend Sections 20.03.030

(Outdoor Processing) and 20.03.040 (Temporary

Uses) of the Sparks Municipal Code to allow

temporary outdoor processing including but not

limited to rock crushing on or near

residentially zoned land when associated with

approved projects and subject to use standards. 6

(For Possible Action) 16

GENERAL BUSINESS:

9. PCN17-0011 - Consideration of an possible action

on a request to re-approve an expired Tentative

Map (STM17-0003) for a 448-lot townhome

subdivision on a site 165.5 acres in size

generally located east of Belmar Drive, Sparks,

Nevada (APN 514-010-84) in the NUD (New Urban

District - Miramonte Planned Development)

zoning district. (For Possible Action) 264

10. PUBLIC COMMENT 284

11. ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM STAFF AND COMMISSIONERS 285

12. ADJOURNMENT 288



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

THURSDAY, MAY 6, 2021, 6:02 P.M.

-oOo-

COMMISSIONER WEST: Okay. So it looks like we

have everybody. So I am going to call to order this

meeting of the Sparks Planning Commission on May the 6th

at 6:02 p.m.

Madam secretary, can we please have the roll.

MS. SMITH: Commissioner Pritsos?

CHAIR PRITSOS: Here.

MS. SMITH: Commissioner West?

COMMISSIONER WEST: Here.

MS. SMITH: Commissioner Andriola?

COMMISSIONER ANDRIOLA: Present.

MS. SMITH: Commissioner Carey?

COMMISSIONER CAREY: Present.

MS. SMITH: Commissioner Kramer?

COMMISSIONER KRAMER: Here.

MS. SMITH: Commissioner Rawson?

COMMISSIONER RAWSON: Here.

MS. SMITH: Commissioner Read?

COMMISSIONER READ: Here.

MS. SMITH: Assistant City Attorney Brandon

Sendall?

MR. SENDALL: Here.

MS. SMITH: Assistant Community Services



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

Director Armando Ornelas?

MR. ORNELAS: Here.

CHAIR PRITSOS: All right. So everyone appears

to be here. So we'll move on to item 3, which is public

comment.

Before I open public comment, I want to make a

quick announcement about this. So this is general

public comment. And for all of those listening, there

will be specific public comment times for the three

public comment items later in the agenda.

We have received a great deal of public comment

for this meeting, and most of it submitted through

email. And for those who did submit their email, they

have been asked whether they would prefer that the

secretary read their email out loud into the record or

if they wish to speak live. For those who have opted to

have the secretary read their emails into the record,

that will count as their official public comment. For

those who opted not to have the secretary read their

emails, they will be allowed to speak live once the

emails have been finished.

Because of the rather high volume, the

secretary is going to stick pretty strictly to the

three-minute rule. However, if your email cannot be

finished in the three minutes, be assured that it is in



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

its entirety still part of the public record and has

been made available to both myself and the other members

of the Commission before the meeting.

And so, with that, madam secretary, could you

read the public comment announcement.

MS. SMITH: Good evening, everyone. Thank you

for joining us. I'd like to take a minute to share how

to speak during public comment.

There are five separate public comments for

this meeting. The Commission will take general public

comment during agenda items number 3 and number 10. In

addition, the Commission will take public comment

specific to public hearing items number 6, 7 and 8.

If you wish to speak during any of these public

comment periods, you will need to call in. The

telephone number and meeting ID is shown here on your

screen. This will join you by audio to the meeting.

You will then be prompted by the Chair or the secretary,

when public comment is open, to press star 9 or use the

raise your hand feature in Zoom.

Individuals shall limit their comments to three

minutes per Nevada Revised Statute 241.020. Several

emails have been received on public hearing items

number 6 and number 7. These will be read aloud at the

beginning of the public comment period. These emails



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

will also be given three minutes.

The dial-in numbers will be repeated at the

beginning of each public comment period. Please be

prepared to write them down should you wish to speak.

For those of you who do not have access or only are

listening to this meeting, I will read the dial-in

number. It is 1-669-900-6833. And the meeting ID

number is 918 6277

1011.

Thank you.

CHAIR PRITSOS: All right. Thank you, madam

secretary.

Do we have anyone who wishes to speak at this

time?

MS. MARTINEZ: I have no requests to speak at

this time.

CHAIR PRITSOS: All right. Then, with that, we

will close this first public comment and move on to our

next item, which is approval of the agenda. Do I

have --

COMMISSIONER READ: Chair Pritsos?

CHAIR PRITSOS: Yes, Commissioner Read.

COMMISSIONER READ: I'm sorry. I didn't mean

to cut you off. I would like to suggest that we shift

the agenda a bit. Due to the large number of public



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

comments we already have for items 6 and 7, I suggest we

move item 8 ahead of 6, since that item won't take as

long.

CHAIR PRITSOS: All right. Do you want to --

COMMISSIONER READ: So --

CHAIR PRITSOS: -- phrase that into a more...

COMMISSIONER READ: Okay. I will make, I make

a motion that we move item 8 ahead of items 6 and 7 in

the agenda.

CHAIR PRITSOS: All right. Is there a second?

MR. SENDALL: Please clarify that you're moving

to approve the agenda with that change, Commissioner

Read.

COMMISSIONER READ: Yes. I move we approve the

agenda with the change of moving item 8 ahead of items 6

and 7.

CHAIR PRITSOS: Okay. Commissioner West.

COMMISSIONER WEST: I will second that motion.

CHAIR PRITSOS: All right. We have a motion by

Commissioner Read and a second by Commissioner West.

Any discussion?

All right. Well, seeing none, can we have a

roll call vote?


CHAIR PRITSOS: Aye.



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


COMMISSIONER WEST: Aye.


COMMISSIONER ANDRIOLA: Aye.


COMMISSIONER CAREY: Aye.


COMMISSIONER KRAMER: Aye.


COMMISSIONER RAWSON: Aye.


COMMISSIONER READ: Aye.

CHAIR PRITSOS: All right the. The motion

passes unanimously.

So we will now move on to item 5, which is

approval of the minutes.

So we'll start with the review and possible

approval of the minutes of the April 13th, 2021 Study

Session meeting. Can I get a motion on that?

COMMISSIONER KRAMER: Mr. Chair?

CHAIR PRITSOS: Yes, Commissioner Kramer.

COMMISSIONER KRAMER: I move that we approve

the minutes of the Study Session of April 13th.

CHAIR PRITSOS: All right. Do we have a

second?



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

COMMISSIONER ANDRIOLA: I'll second it.

CHAIR PRITSOS: All right. So we have a motion

by Commissioner Kramer and a second by Commissioner

Andriola. Any further discussion?

All right. Seeing none, may we have a roll

call.


CHAIR PRITSOS: Aye.













CHAIR PRITSOS: All right. The motion passes

unanimously.

So moving on to review and possible approval of

the minutes of the April 15th, 2021 Planning Commission

meeting. Can I get a motion?



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

Commissioner West.

COMMISSIONER KRAMER: Mr. Chair.

COMMISSIONER WEST: Yes, Chair Pritsos. I move

that we approve these minutes from April 15th.

CHAIR PRITSOS: All right. Can we get a

second?

COMMISSIONER KRAMER: I'll second that,

Mr. Chair.

COMMISSIONER WEST: All right. We have a

motion by Commissioner West and a second by Commissioner

Kramer. Any further discussion?

Commissioner Carey.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just quickly want to thank the staff and our

consultant putting together these minutes, 121 pages.

It was a lot of discussion. Well done. Thank you.

CHAIR PRITSOS: Yes. Thank you always to our

staff for all the great work they do.

Any other discussion?

All right. Seeing none, we've had the motion.

May we have a roll call.


CHAIR PRITSOS: Aye.





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

MS. SMITH: Commissioner Andriola? You're

muted.

COMMISSIONER ANDRIOLA: I said aye too fast.

Aye.










unanimously.

So we are now moving on to our public hearing

items. As per the amendment to the agenda, we will hear

item 8 first, which is now, I suppose, item 6

technically, CA-2-21.

MR. RUNDLE: Good evening, Chair Pritsos and

Sparks Planning Commission. Jim Rundle, Planning

Manager, here to present on this item today.

Staff is in front of you today to recommend

that the Planning Commission consider amendments to the

Sparks Municipal Code for temporary outdoor processing.

I'm going to do my best this evening to give



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

you context on just what is outdoor processing, explain

why it was identified as a potential code amendment,

outline the process that staff went through to propose

these amendments to the Planning Commission, and then

provide context on the standards that are associated

with the amendments that are in your packet.

So what is outdoor processing? Chair, I'm

going to try to share my screen.

Did that bring up the Power Point?

CHAIR PRITSOS: Yep.

MR. RUNDLE: Outdoor processing, just what is

it? Well, it is when there is a request to do rock or

concrete crushing which engages in the reduction of that

rock or concrete to a smaller size to be used as gravel

or fill, a very simple context. And if you remember, on

Tuesday we talked about the video that went out to the

public. And that video depicted a large, a crusher, and

machinery was loading that crusher with large rocks, and

it was breaking it down into smaller rocks. Ultimately,

those rocks got there from grading --

COMMISSIONER CAREY: Excuse me. Mr. Chairman.

Sorry. Sorry, Jim.

MR. RUNDLE: Yeah.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: I'm having a hard time

seeing this presentation. Would it be possible for



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

staff to go to the display view? I think that you're

using, you had a couple monitors. And we're only

seeing -- not seeing the full slide.

MR. RUNDLE: It's in the display view. And all

there is is the one slide. But it's not showing?

CHAIR PRITSOS: That actually made it bigger

for me. Did that help for you, Commissioner Carey?

COMMISSIONER CAREY: Yeah, that makes it a

little bit bigger.

MR. RUNDLE: All right. We'll just go with it

in this view, then, if that works, Chair Pritsos and

Commissioner Carey.

CHAIR PRITSOS: Yes, that's fine.

MR. RUNDLE: Thanks.

Okay. The video we reviewed on Tuesday at the

Study Session depicted a typical rock crushing

operation, a temporary rock crushing operation, where a

loader filled a rock crusher with large rocks, and it

broke them down into small rocks. Ultimately, those

came out on a conveyor belt and will be able to be put

back down on the same site to which they were graded

from.

So why does, why does this code need to be

amended? Well, I've got highlighted on this slide --

hopefully, you can see that highlighted component. Can



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

you see that, Chair Pritsos?

CHAIR PRITSOS: Yes.

MR. RUNDLE: The highlighted component

identifies that currently the Sparks Municipal Code does

not allow for temporary outdoor processing if it is on

land that is zoned residential. Now, many of the people

in the development community believed that this meant

they could not do it if they were within 500 feet of a

house or 500 feet of a home. However, the key component

on this standard, it is within 500 feet of land zoned

residential.

And so, oftentimes, the recent projects that

the development community wants to do these on,

potentially Stonebrook, Pioneer Meadows, that is land

that is zoned residential. And even if it doesn't have

one home within 500 feet of it, it is still zoned

residential. And, therefore, they could not operate

temporary outdoor processing, because it was on land

zoned residential.

So that's why we're here today.

Now, we want to make sure that this use is only

utilized on a temporary basis. And I'm going to stop my

sharing, Chair, since it's not coming up that well,

anyway.

We want to make sure that this type of use



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

could only be utilized on a temporary basis. And why

would we want to permit it on a temporary basis? Well,

we believe that not allowing this use currently

increases the trips on our transportation network, which

increases the number of truck trips and trailers hooked

to those trucks, which increases greenhouse gas

emissions, and simply decreases the efficiency of

grading and constructing on the site.

With these considerations, the Sparks City

Council directed the staff to amend Title 20 and provide

a recommendation on allowing temporary outdoor

processing in the City of Sparks.

So staff set off on a process to receive input

from the industry and receive input from our citizens.

The video segment that I mentioned earlier, that we

reviewed on Tuesday, depicted the nature of the use. We

sent this video out to the public to solicit feedback as

to whether this was a reasonable amendment and, if so,

what standards should be applied to such a temporary

use. The video was reviewed by over 3,000 residents,

through Facebook, Next Door, and Instagram. Input was

received, and that has been included in your packet as

Exhibit D.

Staff additionally conducted two industry

outreach meetings with industry representatives. Well,



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

meeting one was very robust. The industry identified

why this was a necessary component to the Municipal

Code, what they desired, and even suggested mitigation

techniques that staff could consider as we began to

draft this code amendment. Meeting two was an

opportunity for the development, or the industry,

development industry to review the proposal and provide

feedback, to which they did.

Now, through this step, staff developed the

standard which you have in Exhibit A and Exhibit B.

I'm going to move to slide two, and I'm going

to try to share my screen again.

Does that, Chair Pritsos, have a proposed

amendment?

CHAIR PRITSOS: Yep.

MR. RUNDLE: Very good. So the proposed

amendment is now visible on your screen. And we want to

make sure that, I want to make sure to bring your

attention to B3, the bottom of that slide. And it says

"Temporary outdoor processing operations may only be

permitted upon obtaining a temporary use permit allowing

temporary outdoor processing."

So we would potentially allow temporary outdoor

processing, which would include rock crushing, to be

conducted on a site when, if you obtain a temporary use



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

permit.

The next component of the amendment, Exhibit B

in your packet, has numerous standards associated with

the possibility of conducting outdoor processing at a

site.

One component that we were very, very concerned

with is that it was in association with a project of

record. For example, a conditional use permit approved

for a site. Maybe it's a conditional use -- or excuse

me. Maybe it's a tentative map that's associated with a

site. But something, a grading permit, a building

permit, that is associated with a potential project that

would allow for outdoor processing. We want to ensure

that the use is temporary and supportive of an approved

project and does not become something that is of

permanent nature and is supporting other projects in the

region not necessarily the project of record.

Now, the next component that I want to bring

your attention to is the key change that we discussed

earlier. Now, as I discussed, currently, the Sparks

Municipal Code does not allow for outdoor processing if

it is on land that is zoned residential. We are

proposing to allow the temporary outdoor processing on

land that is zoned residential as long as it is not

within 500 feet of what comes down to an occupied home.



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

Now, if a developer is constructing new residential, and

they are building homes, but no one is living in them,

they would be able to continue to do the outdoor

processing as long as that house remains unoccupied or

as long as that home remains unoccupied and a

certificate of occupancy or final inspection has not

been issued.

Now, why did we pick 500 feet and not 1,000

feet, for example? Well, in Exhibit D of your packet,

we included a study, a noise study that was done by Q&D,

and it reflects that at 500 feet, decibels are reduced

to 56, 56 decibels at 500 feet.

Chair Pritsos, is that slide showing on your

screen?

CHAIR PRITSOS: Yep.

MR. RUNDLE: So we believe that 500 feet will

be sufficient to operate an outdoor processing operation

and only have a decibel level of 56.

Now, the next slide that I want to show

reflects what a 56 decibel would be equivalent to. And,

essentially, that is rain. You can see on this that 50,

between 50 and 60 is rain and conversation.

So, again, we believe the 500 feet will be

sufficient to ensure that compatibility is maintained

for residences that would be in proximity to a rock



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

crusher or an outdoor processing facility.

Now, some other components that we were

concerned with, and our concern came from input from the

citizens, our historical knowledge and the planning

profession, and also from the industry representatives.

We wanted to ensure that compatibility. That's

something the Planning Commission is always concerned

with. We have put conditions or standards, we have

proposed standards regarding hours of operations, hours

of maintenance, the days of week that the facility could

be used. We've also identified standards for what would

need to be submitted when an application would come in

for a temporary use permit: site plans, circulation

plans, demonstration of air quality permits.

And, lastly, to ensure that these uses are

indeed temporary, we requested, or we are proposing to

the Planning Commission that the size and the amount the

unit can process are limited. The size would have to be

portable, have to be able to be put on a trailer, and

can't be put -- that comes down to not being able to put

it on a foundation and make it more permanent, again

ensuring the temporary units could be permitted and only

remain temporary.

So, Chair Pritsos, in my presentation, I've

outlined why this amendment is considered necessary by



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

many, described the process staff used to process the

amendment. And, third, I've outlined the context to

what the standards were created for the Planning

Commission.

Now, in this respective item, it is a -- it

ultimately will become an ordinance and will be

considered by the City Council. And so the Planning

Commission is acting in an advisory capacity when they

make a recommendation on this item. Staff also included

an outlined motion.

And, Chair Pritsos, that concludes my

presentation. And I'm available for any questions.

CHAIR PRITSOS: All right. Thank you very

much, Jim.

Are there any questions for staff at this time?

Commissioner Carey.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Jim, are there any public noticing requirements

for temporary use permits? And it's my understanding we

have in our -- for construction sites, there's a

requirement to have some sort of a like a notification

or a sign that talks about who the project contact is,

contact. Would there be something similar along those

lines for this proposed use?

MR. RUNDLE: The answer is there is no



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

requirement for public noticing of the code amendment.

Similar to a conditional use permit -- the Planning

Commission will consider a conditional use permit later

tonight on its agenda -- that is required to be noticed.

A code amendment is not required to be noticed, by the

State statutes or our Municipal Code.

But, Chair Carey, you also -- or excuse me.

Commissioner Carey, you also identified -- I guess, you

used to be a Chair at one time. Sorry, Chair Pritsos.

CHAIR PRITSOS: No worries.

MR. RUNDLE: Commissioner Carey, the question

on notification or the project contact. I did skip over

that component. But we did propose that the Planning

Commission consider requiring the temporary use to have

a very, very easy-to-see sign that would identify that

it is an approved temporary use, and a project contact

that is available on a 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week

basis. So if there are issues that are occurring at the

site, that the public would be able to call a

representative of the facility and say, "Hey, there is a

substantial amount of dust," or, "Something is broken

and everything has gone awry." There is a requirement

in the temporary use that the developer or the person

utilizing that temporary use permit would have to

provide to the public on the site that it's being used.



27

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: Thank you.

CHAIR PRITSOS: All right. Thank you,

Commissioner Carey.

Commissioner Kramer.

COMMISSIONER KRAMER: Jim, would the temporary

use permit also have the hours of operation that this

particular use would be in force or in effect, so

7:00 a.m., 7:00 p.m., 6:00, you know, during the normal

construction hours, I mean is that something that's

going to be on there? I mean I know that during

construction hours, there's neighborhoods that are

currently under construction that, you know, neighbors

are going to be complaining that there's a noise level,

there was kids at home. And, currently, with the

current work situation and with construction going on,

there's several people that are working from home. They

have children at home.

You know, is that something that's going to be

on that temporary use permit? Is that something that's

going to be required at that time, that they post the

hours of operation of that particular rock crushing

separation?

MR. RUNDLE: The answer would be no. The

answer is that in the proposal, Exhibit B in your

packet, it does identify that the developer shall limit



28

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 construction hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and

9:00 to 5:00 on Saturday.

Now, why did we not necessarily limit it

further? Well, those are currently in line with what

construction hours are for all sites in the City of

Sparks. And so those hours are not necessarily posted

currently. But it is currently the ordinance in Sparks,

7:00 to 7:00 Monday through Friday, 9:00 to 5:00 on

Saturday. So we did not require that that would have to

be posted. That would be something the developer would

have to comply with. The temporary use permit would

give us -- these, essentially the standards that are

identified in Exhibit B would be the requirements of the

developer. And if there's an issue, we would enforce

it. We also have the ability to add additional

conditions, if we see fit, on that temporary use permit.

COMMISSIONER KRAMER: Thank you.

MR. RUNDLE: But at this point, the proposal,

Commissioner Kramer, would not be that they have to

depict the approved hours, because those are in line

with the hours of the whole project.

COMMISSIONER KRAMER: Okay. Thank you.



Any other questions for staff at this time?



29

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

Okay Seeing none, is it the applicant here,

and do they have anything?

MR. RUNDLE: Commissioner, or excuse me, Chair

Pritsos, the applicant, there is no applicant.

CHAIR PRITSOS: Okay.

MR. RUNDLE: This is here by the City of

Sparks.

CHAIR PRITSOS: Oh, got you.

MR. RUNDLE: And directed by our City Council.

CHAIR PRITSOS: All right. So, then, this is a

public comment item. And so, madam secretary, could you

read the public comment announcement, please.

MS. SMITH: Okay. The telephone number for

call-in participation is 1-669-900-6833. And the

meeting ID is 918 6277 1011. You will press star 9 to

speak, or you can use the Zoom features.

And we did not receive any emails public

comment about this item. So we will now move to any

callers that we have.

CHAIR PRITSOS: All right. Do we have any

members of the public who wish to speak at this time?

MS. MARTINEZ: We do. We have Thomas Green

requesting to speak.

CHAIR PRITSOS: All right.

MR. THOMAS GREEN: Hi. Can you hear me?



30

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

CHAIR PRITSOS: Yes.

MR. THOMAS GREEN: Great. I just wanted to say

I live in Pioneer Meadows. And I've seen that they have

what appears to be a similar situation going on out in

the vacant lot. And Pioneer Meadows has been extremely

responsive to my concerns when there's been dirt or

rocks left on the roadway. So I think that, I think

that your amendment makes sense, and especially given

that it reduces traffic on the Pyramid Highway, which is

where they often go to get the rock. I especially like

that you made sure that that, that that restriction was

in place so that they couldn't do rock crushing in

Sparks and then deliver it to Arrowcreek per se.

So, I think, it's a fair amendment. And, I

think, you guys looked into it well. And, like I said,

Pioneer Meadows has done a good job on the -- or Lennar

has done a good job at Pioneer Meadows. So, thank you.

CHAIR PRITSOS: All right. Thank you, sir.

Does anyone else wish to speak at this time?

MS. MARTINEZ: We have Carolyn Harkins next.

CHAIR PRITSOS: All right. I think, you're

muted, ma'am.

MS. CAROLYN HARKINS: There you go. Can you

hear me?

CHAIR PRITSOS: Yes.



31

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

MS. CAROLYN HARKINS: Okay. You said you did

not receive any emails. And that is not true. I sent

one to Jim Rundle, and he replied to it, he acknowledged

it.

I think, 500 feet is way too close to an

existing residence. I'm saying thousand feet from any

existing residence where people are actually living in

the house. Because that's quite a bit of noise for

quite a bit of time for a lot of people who are working

from home and/or those workers that work at night and

have to sleep during the daytime.


much, ma'am.

Do we have anyone else wishing to speak at this

time?

MS. MARTINEZ: We have Susan Merritt next.

MS. SUSAN MERRITT: Hi. I just had a question

about the times that would be involved. You said that

the times are designated on the paperwork that come with

the use permit. But I noticed that the times designated

were crossed out in your Power Point page. Is it going

to be an issue -- how do I ask this? Do you have to

have that specified in the code, or is it just that it's

on the paperwork that they have to comply? My concern

is, is compliance mandatory when it's not in the code?



32

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

CHAIR PRITSOS: Okay. Thank you, Madam. Jim,

did you want to -- is there maybe like a real quick

answer to that?

MR. RUNDLE: Typically, we finish the public

comment portion, Chair Pritsos, and then --


MR. RUNDLE: -- you can ask me to answer the

questions.

CHAIR PRITSOS: Fair enough.

Does anyone else wish to speak at this time on

this item?

MS. MARTINEZ: Yes. We have a phone call from

a phone number ending in 0190.

CHAIR PRITSOS: Okay. And, caller, could you

please state your name for the record.

MR. WAYNE PATERSON: Hi. This is Wayne

Paterson. I just have a question about this. The

materials you're talking about for these temporary crush

sites, are they going to be the materials that are used

on site, or are they going to be trucked in through the

neighborhoods and all that, or is it just going to be

confined to the site where all this, where this

temporary crusher is?


Anyone else who wishes to speak on this item?



33

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

MS. MARTINEZ: I have no additional requests to

speak.

CHAIR PRITSOS: All right. Then, with that, I

will --

MS. MARTINEZ: Oh, I apologize, Chair Pritsos.

We now have Chris Barrett requesting to speak.

CHAIR PRITSOS: No worries. Go ahead.

MR. CHRIS BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I

appreciate your time on this, and the other

Commissioners.

Hey, we came together, the industry came

together with the City of Sparks to work out some

solutions to some of the noises in the construction

industry, the transportation on your city streets. And

working with your staff, Jim Rundle has just been, he's

been awesome to work with. He understands our issues.

The industry understands his issues. We don't want

phone calls going into your offices, to your mailboxes,

to the City Council, to the Mayor. We want to run our

jobs, and we want to do it efficiently and get out and

come back the next day and do our job.

This change in the ordinance right now

accomplishes so many concerns that the public has out

there. All this work is on-site. We do not want to

work next to someone who is living in their home. And



34

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

Jim came up with a great idea of you can't work within a

house, within 500 feet of a house that has a C of O. So

the house may be built, but no one's living there. It's

not causing any issues. It's not causing any noise

problems. It's not causing any dust issues. It's good

for the neighborhood. And this is mainly for big

projects that are not in the middle of an existing

community to cause problems. Again, we don't want those

issues. We want to get the job done and get out of

there.

The times of construction, we recognize that.

Jim did a great job of putting that in the ordinance.

And there's not going to be any maintenance. There's

not going to be any lights after hours.

So we support this ordinance. We hope you guys

will. This is a 19-plus-year-old ordinance that has

never been adjusted. And it's mainly going to affect

those large developments out there in Spanish Springs

area that are so far away from residents that we'll keep

everything on-site rather than disturbing the

neighborhoods and the peace and the charm of everyone

coming home and relaxing during the evening or the

weekend.

So we support this. We hope you support it.

And if there's any questions you have, we're ready to



35

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

answer them for you. Thank you.


All right. Does anyone, do we have any other

members of the public who wish to speak on this item?

MS. MARTINEZ: I have Nevada Patriot requesting

to speak.

CHAIR PRITSOS: Okay. Could you please state

your name for the record, sir.

MR. BRUCE BARTS: My name is Bruce Barts. I

was just wondering if the Washoe County Planning

Commission has approved this item.

CHAIR PRITSOS: Okay. Thank you.

Do we have any other speakers on this item?

MS. MARTINEZ: We have no additional requests

to speak.

CHAIR PRITSOS: Okay. So with that, then, I

will close public comment on this item and see, do any

of the Commissioners have any additional questions for

staff?

So I have a real quick question, then. So one

of the callers was asking about the hours of operation.

So is that going to be in -- are the hours of operation

part of the code, or you're just sort of tying them to

the standards used for construction?

MR. RUNDLE: Thank you, Chair Pritsos. And I



36

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 like to answer that question and circle back to

Commissioner Kramer's question prior, or comment prior

to public comment. And I'll share my screen. And this

is in Exhibit B of your packet. Did that come up on

your screen, Chair Pritsos?

CHAIR PRITSOS: Yes.

MR. RUNDLE: I've highlighted a condition or

Standard 4. And I'll just read it: Temporary outdoor

processing is limited to weekdays of Monday through

Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. or sunset, whichever

comes first.

And the reason I wanted to circle back to that,

Commissioner Pritsos and Commissioner Kramer, was I said

that it follows typical construction hours for the site.

Which is true, except that it is limited to Monday

through Friday, and they're not permitted on Saturdays.

Which construction hours do currently permit

construction on Saturdays from 9:00 to 5:00.

Additionally, we identified that in the

wintertime, there may be a desire to conduct this use.

Let's say it's late December. The sun is setting early.

And it is 5:00 o'clock, and it is dark. We didn't

necessarily want generators running artificial lighting

for the site. So we limited it to 7:00 p.m. or sunset,

whichever comes first, so that in the wintertime, late



37

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

December, January, as the days are very short, they

would not necessarily be able to operate artificial

lighting to continue to utilize the temporary outdoor

facility.

And that should, that does give you additional

information, Commissioner Kramer, from your question

earlier. So it is limited to just Monday through

Friday.

And, Chair Pritsos, I think, that answers your

question.

CHAIR PRITSOS: Yes.

MR. RUNDLE: I can also attempt to answer some

of the questions in the public comment, if you would

like.

CHAIR PRITSOS: Yes, I would. That would be

great.

MR. RUNDLE: Okay. So one of the questions was

hours of operation. I think, we've just answered that

question.

An additional component was an identification

that the public provided me email and maybe it was said

you didn't receive any emails. I think, Chair Pritsos,

you were comparing it to way you received emails and

agenda items later for today. However, you did receive

the emails from staff. They are included in your packet



38

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

as Exhibit D. So they were included, the comments that

we received. So the public identifying, you should have

received them. I believe, it is in your packet for the

Planning Commission.

Another, another public comment was, is the

material being trucked in. I did speak to the process

of the application earlier in my presentation,

identifying staff would require a circulation plan.

This circulation plan would require the developer to

identify where the trucks would be moving to and from

when conducting the -- say, a rock crusher.

Additionally, Standard 2 does not allow the

temporary outdoor processing to occur more than one mile

from the approved site, and that is to ensure that it is

with the project of record. Now, there is a component

that if one mile needs to be exceeded, they can apply

for an additional temporary use permit. But staff is

going to really need some explanation as to why that

will promote the reduction of trips on the road, and it

will promote a reduced truck trips on our transportation

network. Potentially, it's on a very big site. The

rock crusher is one and a half miles from where it can

be, and there's no houses that it inhibits. But we did

provide that flexibility in the case that it exceeds one

mile. That doesn't mean we would be looking to approve



39

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

it for six miles from the site. But it does provide

that little bit of flexibility.

So I do believe that staff has proposed a

standard that ensures that it is with the project of

record and it is not being utilized all over, say, North

Sparks.

Another component was, did the Washoe Planning

Commission approve the item. The Washoe Planning

Commission does not have jurisdiction in terms of

planning and zoning authority in the City of Sparks.

The Washoe Planning Commission is restricted to the

unincorporated areas of Washoe County, excluding City of

Reno, of course, and excluding the unincorporated areas

governed by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. Other

than that, the Washoe County Planning Commission has

jurisdictions outside of those areas. This ordinance

would only apply to the incorporated areas of the City

of Sparks or areas that are identified in our Sphere of

Influence.

And, I think -- oh, there was one more comment,

Chair Pritsos, on the hours of operation being struck on

Exhibit A. That is true. Those hours of operation were

struck. But that was on permanent outdoor processing,

not temporary outdoor processing. And Exhibit B depicts

that the temporary outdoor processing is limited, again,



40

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

as we spoke to earlier, Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m.

to 7:00 p.m. or sunset. It would not be permitted on

the weekends and would not be permitted after 7:00 p.m.,

let's say, on June 21st, one of the longest days of the

year.

So those are governed, the hours of operation

are governed, even though it looks struck on Exhibit A,

that was for permanent outdoor processing. Permanent

outdoor processing is permitted in the industrial area

by conditional use permit. It would be reviewed by the

Sparks Planning Commission. And the Planning Commission

would have the opportunity at that point to govern the

operation hours which they see fit in the industrial

area.

CHAIR PRITSOS: All right. Thank you very much

for that explanation, Jim.

I hope that cleared up stuff for the members of

the public.

Do any other Commissioners have any questions

at this time?

All right. Seeing no other questions, is there

any discussion?

All right. Then -- oh, Commissioner Carey.


I'll go take stab at leading off discussion here. You



41

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

know, I think, this code amendment makes a lot of sense.

I think, the proposed changes allow the flexibility that

the construction industry is requesting, and it

mitigates... (The sound was lost briefly.)

COMMISSIONER KRAMER: Opes.

CHAIR PRITSOS: Oh, no.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: I'm certainly not in favor

of allowing rock crushing facilities in established

neighborhoods. But, I think, in the instances listed in

the staff report that these would apply to developing

areas in the city, it makes sense to allow these

on-site, and it would help reduce the impacts on the

City's road network. I think, it would also help for a

lot of other reasons. And, I think, this is a good

thing.


Commissioner Carey.

Is there any other discussion?

All right. Seeing none, I am looking for a

motion.

Commissioner Carey.


I will try to find the motion here.

I move to forward a recommendation of approval

to the City Council of the amendments to Section



42

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

20.03.030, Outdoor Processing, and 20.03.040, Temporary

Uses, of the Sparks Municipal Code, to allow temporary

outdoor processing on or near residentially zoned land

when associated with an approved project and subject to

the use standards as associated with CA-2-21.

CHAIR PRITSOS: All right. Can I get a second?

COMMISSIONER KRAMER: I'll second that motion,

Mr. Chair.


by Commissioner Carey and a second by Commissioner

Kramer. Any final discussion?

All right. Seeing none, madam secretary, may

we please have a vote. I think, you're muted, Marilie.


CHAIR PRITSOS: Aye.













43

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




unanimously.

So we'll now move on to the old item 6, which

is now item 7, PCN21-0002.

MR. CUMMINS: All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If it comes up that you're seeing my main title slide,

thank you.

COMMISSIONER KRAMER: Mr. Chair?

CHAIR PRITSOS: Yeah.

COMMISSIONER KRAMER: Before we get started

with this item.

CHAIR PRITSOS: Yes.

COMMISSIONER KRAMER: I have a disclosure to

make.


COMMISSIONER KRAMER: The representative for

Pioneer Meadows contacted me on Tuesday after the Study

Session to give me a brief rundown of the project. And

I let the client know, the representative know that if I

had any questions whatsoever on this project, that I

would let him know, and I would ask any questions

whatsoever on the project at this meeting. So I just

wanted to put that out there.



44

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

CHAIR PRITSOS: Okay. Thank you very much.

Go ahead, Jonathan.

MR. CUMMINS: Thank you, Mr. Chair,

Commissioners.

COMMISSIONER WEST: Mr. Chair?

CHAIR PRITSOS: Yes.

COMMISSIONER WEST: Yes, I have a disclosure as

well.

CHAIR PRITSOS: All right. Go ahead,

Commissioner West.

COMMISSIONER WEST: I need to disclose that I

was contacted by the developer's consultant to clarify a

question that I had regarding the ownership of the

undeveloped parcels in the QC zoned area in question. I

raised that during the Study Session. And he called

just to clarify.


Commissioner West.

I guess, before we move on, anyone else wish to

make any?

Okay. I'm not seeing any. So go ahead,

Jonathan.

MR. CUMMINS: All right. So thank you,

Mr. Chair, Planning Commissioners. For the record,

Jonathan Cummins from the Planning Division. I'm here



45

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

to present PCN21-0002, which is a request to amend the

Pioneer Meadows Planned Development Handbook. More

specifically, the request is to add self-storage as a

permitted use in the GC, or General Commercial, land use

area within the Pioneer Meadows.

So the 640-acre Pioneer Meadows Planned

Development is outlined in blue in the exhibit here.

The 30-acre GC, General Commercial, land use area is

outlined in red at the southeastern corner. That's the

intersection of Wingfield Hills Road and Vista Boulevard

as it starts to go eastward Golden Eagle. And just for

a little bit more context, to the west of the site is

Kiley Ranch North Planned Development. To the north is

the Stonebrook Planned Development. And to the east of

the site is the Wingfield Springs Planned Development.

So a little bit of background on Pioneer,

Pioneer Meadows overall. The original handbook was

adopt in 2000. It's since been adopted, excuse me,

amended four times. And generally speaking, those

amendments take place in order to sort of fine-tune the

document in order to sort of meet the ongoing

development needs of builders out there. And that's

essentially what we're here doing at this meeting as

well.

So to zoom in a little bit, obviously, the area



46

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

outlined in red is the General Commercial land use area

in Pioneer Meadows. For a little bit more context, I'm

going to wave my cursor over the Raley's shopping center

here. This is, excuse me, the building itself. This is

the Raley's with several smaller retail tenants, which

is a pretty dominant part of the landscape there, if

you're familiar with the intersection of Vista Boulevard

and Wingfield Hills Road.

And so the red area, again, is the GC land use

area. It's 30 acres total. It spans over 11 parcels,

excuse me, across 11 parcels. Four of those have

remained undeveloped since the inception of the project,

and they're currently undeveloped today. Those total

just over 12 acres approximately. And so, essentially,

just by that simple math, just about one-third of the

commercial, General Commercial properties in the Pioneer

Meadows are currently undeveloped.

So to give a little bit of background on the

proposed change to the handbook, the applicant is

proposing to add one new use to the list of permitted

uses in that General Commercial area only. So to give

you a sense of what is currently allowed there, here's a

list from the handbook of approved uses in the General

Commercial land use area. This is the list as it

appears in the handbook, so this is the order in which



47

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

these uses are listed there. And so there are retail

stores, personal services, comparison goods, wholesale

stores, business park, recreational facilities, fitness

centers, sales offices, as well as public facilities,

clinics and medical offices, general office, which

includes banks, restaurants, child care facilities,

assisted living facilities, and convenience stores.

Again, these are all uses that are currently permitted

by right in the General Commercial area of Pioneer

Meadows.

Some additional uses that are allowed through a

conditional use permit in that land use area include

entertainment centers, bars, churches, drive-throughs,

outdoor sales, gas and service stations, as well as

outdoor storage accessory to retail sales.

So as staff pointed out in the staff report

with this item, the proposed self-storage use would

ultimately be less intense than most uses that are

currently allowed in the GC area in terms of traffic

generated and in terms of the light and noise created by

the general operation of that particular business.

So, as you can see, there's a good mix of uses

there that are currently allowed there. But, again, to

the point about the long-standing vacancy of those

parcels in the General Commercial area, and also to



48

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

address the question that the Commission asked at Study

Session about why this wasn't, you know, anticipated at

the original handbook, the original list didn't

anticipate it, that there was eventually going to be,

obviously, some slow but somewhat steady decline in

brick-and-mortar retail. Nor could it anticipate sort

of the growing demand over time for a well designed and

sort of compatible storage use facilities there, storage

facility user that are essentially what we're kind of,

you know, contemplating with this amendment today.

So, again, to that question, we now know, also,

that self-storage is more often than not developed in a

way that there's a private strong resemblance to general

retail in terms of design. And so we will get to that

design component in a moment. But we wanted to make

that clarification that staff does see the request as

appropriate given that the current conditions that exist

there to the particular location, the vacancy of those

parcels, as well as the market trends that have sort of

affected these need for this kind of a change all these

years later.

So back to the lists, a few of these uses are

relatively intense, such as restaurants, retail, grocery

stores, convenience stores, as well as drive-throughs,

gas stations, bars. These are uses that create a good



49

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

amount of traffic, sometimes a good amount of noise,

things like that, at different kinds of hours. And so I

essentially want to come back to that point that we

believe that we agree with the applicant on the idea

that we're proposing to add a use that is less intense

than those things that currently exist there, in terms

of the loud uses.

So in proposing to add self-storage to the

permitted uses, the applicant is requesting to add

language specific to the use in order to guide future

development of the site, but also to mitigate potential

impacts.

So a few bullet points here just kind of

highlights what that proposed new language kind of

captures. It reiterates a bit about what is required of

all General Commercial in Pioneer Meadows, which is that

the architecture has to meet handbook design criteria.

And not just architecture, but the site design itself

overall, the circulation and the different components of

the design, the design itself.

Additionally, the design would have to be

approved by the Design Review Committee, which is a

board of essentially an extension of the HOA kind of

network of Pioneer Meadows. They would have to approve

the site design and the architecture layout before staff



50

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 be able to consider a request to actually build

one of these facilities.

So specific to self-storage units, much like

the standards that we have in the Municipal Code,

there's also going to be restrictions on what can and

can't be done by customers in terms of the use itself.

Well, let me wrap up with the design criteria part here,

because they're proposing things that are going to help

us kind of understand that if a request were to come

through for this kind of a project, that some standards

are going to be in place in order to help bag the design

and approval of that, if that were to happen.

So the facility would have to be screened with

walls and landscaping. And that's a pretty significant

part of a commercial requirement as far as the design

criteria in the handbook. And at the administrative

review stage we're talking to in a minute, essentially

these are things that are looked at pretty closely by

staff in terms of whether or not there's going to be a

dense enough tree coverage, high enough walls, things

like that around the site, in order to mitigate the sort

of visual of establishing a self-storage facility in any

neighborhood.

Another one of the design criteria would be

that adequate parking and circulation for public and



51

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

emergency access be established and be adequate. As you

can imagine, circulation and parking are sometimes

concerns with the development of a self-storage

facility. So by adding criteria into the language,

they're essentially helping us to sort of mitigate what

those kinds of access issues could be.

One of them, for instance, would be, obviously,

there's going to be a need for a general sort of use by

customers, but also that fire trucks can access the site

and then, also, of course, that customers driving moving

trucks can access the site adequately. So those are

things that we kind of called out in the design criteria

that they proposed here today.

And, finally, any portion of the site that

would be used for RV or vehicle storage would be limited

and concealed. And as you know from past cases that

have been before you, RV and vehicle storage is a common

accessory use to a self-storage facility. And so with

that knowledge, we kind of went into this knowing that

we needed to have some standards that would help sort of

foresee what those kinds of impacts could be related to

that.

So to amend a planned development handbook

requires that 10 following findings be made. So I put

these up in just a few slides. But we do, for the



52

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

record, have to read and sort of discuss each of these

findings. So I will, if you will bear with me, I'm

going to go through each one of these. But, again, I

think, I paired them up so that they're, you know,

relatively straightforward.

Finding A asks that you evaluate whether the

request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. By

adding a permitted nonresidential use to a growing

residential area of the city, the request does support

Goal MG1, which looks for economic vitality, as well as

MG2, to foster diversity in the land use mix.

Finding B asks that you evaluate whether the

request is consistent with surrounding land uses. The

only sites available for this particular use in Pioneer

Meadows are adjacent to a grocery store, which is also

surrounded by various office, restaurant, gas station

and minor retail users.

So with the proposed standards in place, a

ministorage use would create less impacts than would be

expected with other permitted GC uses that we've covered

already. And so the proposed standards, again, are

going to help to ensure that use not adversely impact

surrounding property owners.

Finding C asks that you evaluate whether the

amendment is fiscally positive to the City. So the



53

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

applicant provided a full fiscal impact analysis, which

did conclude that this particular amendment would be

fiscally positive to the City. And so to just go into

it just a little bit, just for the for the record here,

the primary assumptions of that study is that

self-storage -- and this is a standard practice in the

fiscal analysis side of things -- that self-storage is

categorized as an industrial type of a use for the

purposes of that kind of review. And that's based on

the nature of the building type and the expectations on

the uses that will be conducted on the site. And for

our purposes here, in this case, it's going to be, you

know, talking about ministorage units that are generally

left alone and not accessed very often. And so the

level of service provided is very low.

So the particular kind of development would be

lower cost to the City to provide services as compared

with general retail, the restaurant users, gas stations,

which you can imagine generate a significantly higher

demand on services throughout the year.

So to expand just a little more and wrap up on

this one, because the course of the -- the report was

included in your packet and posted on the website. So

I'm trying to, you know, summarize the pieces of it that

are, you know, crucial for us to have out here for



54

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

discussion. Various commercial uses that they, that are

currently allowed there, one of the findings that we

highlighted in the staff report was that some of those

uses could be actually fiscally negative to the city

based on the levels of services required. And so this

particular use is going to be fiscally positive, because

generally the level of service and the cost of that

service to the City is very low based on that sort of,

the overall sort of use.

So moving on, so Finding D asks that you

evaluate whether the request furthers the mutual

interests of owners and preserves the plan's integrity.

All right. So the change will only allow the proposed

new use in the remaining GC land use area and will not

increase the size or alter the shape or location or

parcels that are designated GC. The proposed changes

will not affect the integrity of the plan as originally

approved based on that.

Finding E asks that you evaluate whether the

request will impair the reliance of the provisions of

the plan. Self-storage is a use that is not uncommon to

commercial land use areas throughout the city and

elsewhere. And I've stated this a couple times now, so

I apologize. But the use will likely generate less

traffic, less noise, less impact overall than uses that



55

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

are already permitted in the GC area. Therefore, the

change is not expected to impair the reliance of

property owners on the handbook.

And Finding F asks that you evaluate whether

the request will adversely affect the public interest.

The request is intended to facilitate development of

parcels that have remained vacant and undeveloped. As

such, the request is in a manner consistent with the

golden policies of the Sparks Comprehensive Plan and,

therefore, not found to be detrimental to the public

interest.

So the last group of three here, and I'll wrap

up. Finding G asks that you evaluate whether the

request is consistent with the development and

preservation of the entire plan. As you're aware, that

for the past decade or so, maybe even decade and a half,

general retail has been increasingly challenged. And we

point out in our staff report that that's due likely to

online shopping and other factors. But based on the

history of these long-vacant parcels, the uses that were

anticipated at the time of the original handbook have

not been conducive to development of these sites,

ultimately. And that's the reality that we're facing

now, and that's essentially why we're here.

So adding self-storage as a permitted use gives



56

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

an option to the owners, to the developers of these

remaining commercial sites, increasing the likelihood

that the parcels remain undeveloped indefinitely. So,

additionally, frankly, we have a route here to provide a

service to these, to the residents of this part of the

city that currently doesn't exist there or nearby.

Finding H asks that you evaluate whether the

request affects the enjoyment of adjacent lands. No

changes to the land use pattern or street network are

proposed. The request is anticipated to have minimal

impacts on residents and property owners and their

ability to utilize lands adjacent to Pioneer Meadows.

So while these properties were, you know, they're

currently vacant and undeveloped, they were established

as part of the community's framework of road networks

and pedestrian networks. And none of that will be

changed.

And I requires that the amendment not be

granted solely to confer private benefit to any person.

The proposed amendment would allow any property owner to

pursue development of a self-storage facility in the GC

land use area of Pioneer Meadows. So the amendment will

not solely confer private benefit to any individual

person.

And, finally, Finding J requires that we



57

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

disclose our public notice. To amend a planned

development handbook, all property owners within that

planned development have to be noticed directly. So

through -- additionally, 750 feet outside the planned

development has to be noticed as well. So through some

pretty hard work on the part of our administrative staff

here, the City was able to notify 1,265 property owners.

They received that notice after it was mailed on

April 22nd. That notice was also published in the Reno

Gazette-Journal the day before that, April 21st.

And as of noon today, the City staff and the

planning department had received 23 emails with

commentary, which we have provided to the Planning

Commission on the website. So that's been included in

your updated materials as of today.

The applicant and the representative are on the

call with us this evening. I believe that their

representative would even like to make a presentation to

you this evening.

And with that, staff does recommend approval of

the item. And I will be happy to take your questions.

CHAIR PRITSOS: Okay. Thank you very much,

Jonathan.

Do any members of the Commission have

questions?



58

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 Read.

COMMISSIONER READ: Thank you, Chair Pritsos.

I read those comments that were sent to email

by the nearby residents, and many expressed concerns

with noise, increased traffic, 24-hour lighting,

possible crime, and that it may devalue the price of

their homes. Is there any evidence to substantiate

these claims? And can you address some of their

concerns?

MR. CUMMINS: I have no evidence to

substantiate any of those concerns. The one concern

that I can pick out of that, that I know is something

we're, you know, contemplating addressing when we do get

to the point of, you know, doing an administrative

review of a specific actual project proposal, would be

the hours of operation component, which would,

obviously, sort of mitigate, you know, the more

problematic noise, or lack of that, generated on the

site. And, I believe the applicant's can speak to what

they're actually thinking about proposing on that front.

And that would, essentially, again, be something that we

would be able to condition at the time of the

entitlement for a specific project, as to not only the

hours of operation, but the level of buffer between, you

know, other uses and this particular site, in order to,



59

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

you know, make sure that any of those potential

concerns, whether they, you know, become reality or not,

that they be sort of addressed in conditions as we

develop the site.

COMMISSIONER READ: Thank you, Jonathan.


Commissioner Read.

Commissioner Carey. You're muted.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: Thank you, Chair.

Two quick technical questions before we open

this up. I received an email from Mr. Dan O'Day earlier

today, talking about that this would have to, this

proposed amendment would have to be -- go through the

Pioneer Meadows Design Review Committee prior to

approval. I was wondering if you could address that.

And I had another technical question.

MR. CUMMINS: Absolutely. The handbook does

not state that an amendment to the handbook be approved

by the DRC. It does require that any applicants hold a

neighborhood meeting, which was accomplished this week.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: Okay. Thank you for that.

My second question is, is so it's proposed, this related

to the handbook would allow for self-storage through an

administrative review process. Is there a public

notification process associated with administrative



60

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

review?

MR. CUMMINS: No, there's not.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: And why, why does staff

feel that an administrative review process would be able

to mitigate the impacts associated with this proposed

use as opposed to something that requires the public

notification, like a conditional use permit?

MR. CUMMINS: So in the case where a

self-storage facility required a conditional use permit,

it would be coming to the Planning Commission to

essentially establish those development criteria and

those standard, those conditions of approval, which are

actually present in the language that they proposed to

us as the development standard that would be required

for a self-storage facility here. So we agreed with

them that it would be appropriate if we had adopted

those standards into the handbook, that then through

administrative review be, the mitigations that would be

accomplished through a conditional use permit could

actually be accomplished at the staff level with those

standards.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: Thank you, Jonathan.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.


Commissioner Carey.



61

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 ANDRIOLA: Chair, I have a

question, please.

CHAIR PRITSOS: Yes, Commissioner Andriola.

COMMISSIONER ANDRIOLA: The language in the

development standards handbook speaks to the

possibility, if you will, of having a caretaker on the

site that may or may not, you know, be in place. I'm

wondering if your point, and speaking specifically to

the hours, would apply to that resident as well.

MR. CUMMINS: So in the case that the applicant

proposed that they have a manager's quarters on site,

obviously, the hours of operation are going to apply

when customers are able to access the site. The manager

essentially would be a resident of the facility. And

the language that they borrowed, or that they proposed

here in this change is equivalent to what we actually do

call out in the zoning code for self-storage uses, which

is that we limit the maximum number. So we say that you

can have a manager's quarters, but we don't represent

you on that. So they could have one, and they may

choose not to have one.

COMMISSIONER ANDRIOLA: I have a follow-up

question, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR PRITSOS: Go ahead.



62

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 ANDRIOLA: Based on that same

subject that the caretaker resident that's outlined,

does the -- I know it's a little early, but I am curious

if there is a potential location on the property of

where that caretaker property or the resident would be

located.

MR. CUMMINS: Yeah, I can't speak to what's

specifically being contemplated with their proposal for

a site. That's not on the -- that's not the agenda item

this evening. So I couldn't speak to that.

COMMISSIONER ANDRIOLA: I appreciate that.

Mr. Chair, I'm wondering if the applicant, when it's

appropriate, would be able to answer that question.

Thank you.

CHAIR PRITSOS: Yeah, we can certainly ask.

So are there any other questions for staff?

All right. So seeing none, Jonathan mentioned

the applicant would like to make a presentation. So, I

guess, we will do that at this time.

MR. ANDY DURLING: Good evening, Mr. Chairman

and Commissioners. For the record, Andy Durling with

Wood Rodgers.

With me tonight is Dave Mossman and Tom Winn,

who are the owners and operators of the Pioneer

Marketplace. We've got a brief presentation. I'll



63

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

start off, and then Tom and Dave would like to close out

with just a few comments on kind of the history of the

site and what they've been dealing with on an operations

basis.

So I'm just going to share my screen here for a

Power Point presentation. Let me know when you guys can

see that. Got it?

CHAIR PRITSOS: Yep.

MR. ANDY DURLING: All right. So what we have

tonight -- and some of this will be a little bit

redundant, so I'll breeze through, as Jonathan gave a

great overview. It's an amendment to the Pioneer

Meadows handbook to allow self-storage. It's a narrowly

scoped amendment to the overall Pioneer Meadows design

standards handbook. It only allows self-storage in the

General Commercial designation, which is, obviously, at

the corner of Wingfield Hills and Vista.

Just by a little bit of background, Pioneer

Marketplace, as it's referred to, is the shopping center

on both the east and west sides of Wingfield Hills. It

began construction back in 2007. As you can see from

the aerial photo here in the slide, the entire center

was constructed all at once, if you will, or essentially

all at once, with the parking lots, utilities, and

several finished pads left for future buildings. You



64

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

can see that, you know, the large open areas, especially

on this west side here and then a couple pads on the

east. After 15 years of operation, unfortunately, you

know, due to a lack of demand, many of the spaces in the

individual buildings as well as these pads have remained

vacant.

Pioneer Meadows, as Jonathan shared, was

originally approved in 2000. So for over 20 years, you

know, really the retail environment has changed

significantly. And brick-and-mortar retailers have

downsized significantly and, you know, really due, you

know, in large part, to the exponential growth of

e-commerce. I'm sure all of us, you know, regularly

have Amazon packages showing up on our front doorstep.

And for those retailers that have remained in a

brick-and-mortar situation, you know, really they've

opted for locations that have, you know, that are really

grade A locations and have a ton of path-like traffic.

Think, you know, kind of like in the shopping centers

that are there and those retailers that are there.

For this request, the design standards, we did

limit it to 93,000 square feet. And that was derived

from a conceptual site plan that I'm showing on the

screen. This is obviously just a concept at this time.

And we tried to craft a design center that could support



65

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

something like this. But before you tonight, obviously,

is just, you know, just the amendment to the handbook.

It's not the actual project.

But just to give you kind of a flavor for what

we're thinking, you know, 93,000 square feet, really

we're looking up into the large pad areas that are in

the northwest portion of the shopping center to the

north of the Raley's building. We have written in there

that we would be required to maintain the same

architectural standards as the rest of the shopping

center. So these large buildings, in effect, would look

very similar in character to the Raley's building, as an

example.

We are required to minimize the lighting,

especially adjacent to residential, which is consistent

with the rest of the commercial buildings in there.

We originally, in talking with the neighbors,

as Jonathan shared, we had a neighborhood meeting on

Tuesday night, we originally shared that, you know,

typically storage units are open kind of in a 7:00 a.m.

to 9:00 p.m. As we discussed it more as a team, the

center itself right now is open, the Raley's, for

example, is operating between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and

10:00 p.m. Just for consistency, we would propose that

the hours would be the same. The purpose of that is,



66

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

you know, there's already some on-site security during

the closed hours. And so that would be consistent,

that, you know, they would be kind of patrolling the

same area at the same time.

The setbacks would be the same as the

commercial center, which includes a 1 to 1 height to

setback ratio adjacent to residential, which would be

along this western property line here. And we are

anticipating, you know, it would be limited to these

western pads, with additional retail and office being

provided, which is kind of highlighted in the blue here.

So this is not, you know, a complete deviation

from the commercial shopping center. There still would

be the opportunity to introduce additional retail and

some additional restaurants and office-type uses. It's

just, you know, the sheer acreage of the shopping center

out there is just much, much too large for what we would

anticipate as being viable in this day and age. I mean,

quite frankly, if we were planning this in 2021, you

know, I think, the commercial area here would be

probably half the size of what it is.

Just to kind of, again, shed some, you know, a

little bit more light, shine a little bit more light on

what these future storage facilities look like, you

know, this is not the storage, the ministorage of the



67

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

1980s, you know, the metal buildings and rollup doors.

This will be a Class A indoor storage facility, which

will be climate controlled. So, again, the architecture

of this is, you know, a large building with indoor

individual storage units, not your kind of typical

roll-up doors.

There'll be security cameras throughout. It'll

be professionally managed, with on-site management

during the daytime hours, or during the operating hours.

It's still debatable whether or not there would be an

overnight caretaker. You know, the technology

associated with this, you know, each of these units is

individually alarmed. And there's a keypad that

controls the entry and exit. So you have to enter your

unique key pin to enter the facility. If you don't, and

you open your storage unit, then the alarm would sound.

So it's a very secure, it uses a lot of technology in

lieu of the kind of 24-hour caretakers. That's more of

the modern storage facility at this time.

We did conduct public outreach. We sent

letters to all of the residents, all the property

owners, I should say, within Pioneer Meadows, as

provided by City staff. We conducted the neighborhood

meeting on Tuesday night, and just to kind of summarize

some of the concerns we heard and how they compare



68

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

between, you know, what the existing shopping center has

and what the storage facility would entail.

So one of the things we heard is that, you

know, storage facilities are unsightly. And,

effectively, you know, the shopping has current

guidelines that dictate, you know, the architectural

standards and require Design Review Committee approval.

We wrote in that, you know, we must maintain those same

standards. The exterior is really centrally, you know,

look the same and complementary to the existing

buildings out there. And the DRC would still have to

have approval over that architecture. So we feel it's

consistent, effectively.

Hours of operation. As I stated, the shopping

center is operating from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. And

just for consistency, we would look to maintain that, as

I said. We did say 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., oh, slightly

different to the neighbors, but as we kind of talked

about it more internal, we felt it was appropriate to

remain consistent with the rest of the shopping center.

Traffic. We heard traffic concerns. Just

looking at kind of a comparison of a shopping center,

93,000 square feet of shopping center, you know,

generates over 3,500 daily trips. That same

9,300-square-foot, or I'm sorry, 93,000 square feet of a



69

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

storage facility only generates 140 daily trips. I mean

it is drastically different and drastically fewer trips

that are generated by a storage facility.

Security. Currently, you know, open access

around the parking lots with security cameras around the

existing buildings. The storage facility itself would

be a closed access, as I mentioned, with those keypad

access only, limited to the hours of operation, and

security cameras throughout.

And then there was, lastly, a question kind of

why do you need more storage. Right now, you know, the

shopping center has a number of vacant pads. And it's a

really difficult commercial environment to attract those

larger retail users with that movement to e-commerce.

So there's just very few users that could fill those

pads in the future. And we feel like a storage facility

is appropriate to backfill that acreage. And then

looking, and we conducted a market study. Right now in

the City of Sparks there's 98 percent occupancy of the

storage facilities throughout the city. So,

essentially, it's, you know, at full occupancy. And you

can see that, you know, in rapidly increasing rents on

those existing facilities.

Just real quick, you know, we did, Jonathan

covered, we did conduct a fiscal analysis. Ekay



70

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

Economics, who does them often for projects like this,

and analyzed it kind of in two different scenarios,

looking at just the status quo of what the commercial

would look like, and then transitioning to the 93,000

square feet of storage. And it did conclude that it

would be a positive fiscal impact. In fact, it would be

better than the existing commercial. And that's due to

that low cost of service, public services associated

with this.

With that, I will conclude my remarks and turn

it over to Tom Winn and Dave Mossman to kind of give a

little flavor on some of the background of this.

MR. TOM WINN: Hello. My name is Tom Winn, and

I've been the owner of this center and the one on the

east side across the street for the last 15 years, since

their inception. I really appreciate the opportunity to

speak before you.

We began building both these centers about 15

years ago. It was the very early phases of the Pioneer

Meadows development. And around the time we started is

also the time when the iPhone was first introduced,

2007. I bring it up for two reasons. Number one, to

recognize how much our lives have changed in the last 15

years. And, two, to provide a little context for a

15-year period what, how quickly e-commerce has changed



71

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 landscape of retail. 50 percent of all e-commerce

business is actually done on mobile phones.

So it may seem a little odd that we're talking

about Apple at a Planning Commission meeting. And we're

going to talking about Amazon a little bit, too. But

the massive growth of these companies and others like

them have been at the expense of centers like this.

So, you know, at the time we started 15 years

ago, and the planning was done 20 years ago, I don't

think anybody anticipated the changes that we'd be

facing today. As Andy says, if we had, the centers

would have been a lot smaller, we wouldn't have 30 acres

out here.

A few more comments about online sales --

MS. MARTINEZ: Mr. Winn?

MR. TOM WINN: I'm sorry.

MS. MARTINEZ: Sorry to interrupt. We have

about four and a half minutes left on this applicant

presentation.

MR. TOM WINN: Okay. Two points about online

sales. Amazon was a big company when we started.

They're 125 times larger today. Online sales increased

44 percent last year. They make up now 20 percent of

retail sales, and it's growing. And a tremendous amount

of stores are closing every year.



72

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, you know, we don't really have a problem

with this. Change happens. But we do need to adapt.

And this self-storage proposal before you is intended to

go on those large pads that were the back of the center.

Those were designed for big box stores, like Circuit

City, Sports Authority, Borders Books. They're out of

business. My business partner, Dave Mossman, is going

to speak to that in a second.

And it's also important to note that we've had

these pads on the market, listed for 15 years. We have

never gotten a credible offer. We've never signed a

lease in 15 years.

And I know some people have been asking about

whether this is going to eliminate restaurants and shops

for the center and the neighborhood. And it's important

to know that when you add up all the vacant space here,

after this self-storage property is taken out of the

equation, we would have 70,000 square feet of remaining

retail property. That's probably enough for 30

restaurants and shops. I bring it up as a point just

for perspective. We would never be able to build that

many. But there is plenty of retail space remaining.

So. And, I guess, one final point. The health

of a center is really based on traffic, energy and

appearance. And storefronts that are vacant and



73

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

perpetually vacant property is not good for the health

of the center. You know, it's a nuisance. But more

than that, the appearance just detracts from the rest of

the center.

So I respectfully ask for your support, because

we don't have many options at this point. But storage

is in high demand. This is allowed in other properties

similar in the city. It'll put this property to good

use and help the vitality of the rest of the center.

And even with the change, we will still have more than

enough retail and restaurant space for the community's

current and future needs.

So thank you very much. I appreciate the

opportunity.

Dave.

MR. DAVE MOSSMAN: Thanks, Tom. And I'll move

quickly. It looks like we have a little over a minute.

And just for context, I've been involved in this center

since its development 15 years ago. And we've been

trying to bring services to the community during this

time. As Andy and Tom mentioned, e-commerce has changed

the leasing landscape. And I'll break that up into two

aspects. Box leasing. Best case scenario 10 to 15

years ago, this was a secondary site for boxes other

than a grocery store, the primary location being on



74

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

Pyramid Highway. Ten years ago, there were roughly 65

possible box tenants we could talk to. Today there's 16

of those. Others have gone bankrupt. They're not

looking to expand anymore. Consolidation has happened.

And we've experienced that ourselves. We signed the

drugstore lease on the east side with Long's. And

shortly after that, CVS bought Long's and goes and --

only to open it for one day and then they closed the

store.

So as Tom said, this site, we have 25,000

square feet of shop space on the west side, 21,000 on

the east side. And today we have 26,000 square feet of

vacancy. When you add that to -- if this amendment was

approved, we'd have 51,000 square feet of unbuilt space,

for a total of 75,000 square feet of space that we could

lease to future tenants, and we hope we can find them.

So we feel like we're leaving enough space to

be filled or built to roughly double the tenants that

are there today.

So to summarize, even after this amendment, we

believe we will have enough retail space to serve the

community.

Thank you for your time and consideration.


gentlemen.



75

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

Are there any questions at this time for the

applicants?

Commissioner Carey.


Thank you, Andy for the -- and Tom and Dave for

the information. I think, that it is very helpful to

kind of see the type of a project you're looking at.

I'm just curious, with a typical Class A

self-storage space, how many employees typically work at

that kind of a facility?

MR. DAVE MOSSMAN: I'll provide it for Tom, if

you wouldn't mind. You know, it's probably a couple, if

I had to guess, but.

MR. TOM WINN: Yeah, it's not, the self-storage

facilities of the modern age do not have a lot of

employees. They have a lot of technology. And, but we

have -- our plan is to, one of those shop buildings in

the front, one of the blue buildings in the front, to do

the office for the self-storage facility there. It

would also potentially be a UPS-type office or packing,

moving supplies. And then we also are seriously

considering doing executive office suites there, maybe a

dozen office suites, small offices for people to lease,

with conference facilities. And the employees there

would then service those folks, too. So that's -- but



76

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

not, self-storage facilities do not have a lot of

employees.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: A follow-up, if I may,

Mr. Chair.

CHAIR PRITSOS: Go for it.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: Thank you.

And, Tom, it's safe to say it's less than a

typical retail kind of a service oriented business?

MR. TOM WINN: Yes.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: Okay. Thank you very

much.

CHAIR PRITSOS: All right. Commissioner Read.


I just have a question. Do you, you own other

similar storage facilities?

MR. TOM WINN: No, we don't. I've been in the

real estate business for 45 years and own shopping

centers, rental homes, office buildings. Dave is the

same, apartments, shopping centers. So we are, we are

seriously looking at doing this or we will -- we will

have professional management, but we may also venture it

with a storage facility operator. So we're looking at

options right now. But can't do anything right now

actually.

COMMISSIONER READ: Thank you.



77

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

CHAIR PRITSOS: All right. Are there any other

questions for the applicant or staff at this time?

Okay. Well, seeing none, this is a -- oh,

Commissioner West.

COMMISSIONER WEST: I'm sorry. I didn't mean

to do that.

CHAIR PRITSOS: No worries.

Okay. So this is a public comment item. And

so we will be opening public comment. I would like to

reiterate what I said at the beginning of the meeting,

for those who may not have joined us yet, we received a

very large volume of public comment on this item and the

next item as well.

If you requested that the secretary read your

email into the record, then that is going to count as

your public comment. If you asked to speak live, then

you'll be prompted to do so after the emails have been

read. If the secretary is not able to complete reading

your entire email in the three-minute time, rest assured

that the entirety of your email is part of the public

record and has been sent and viewed by both myself and

the other members of the Commission.

So with that, madam secretary, could you please

read the announcement.

MS. SMITH: Thank you, Chair Pritsos. On your



78

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

screen you'll see the meeting information for tonight,

along with the Zoom link. If you wish to join by phone,

you'll dial the 1-669-900-6833. Meeting ID is

918 6277 1011. You will be given three minutes to

speak. You will press star 9 or raise your hand

feature.

As stated, we have received several emails

regarding this project. We will begin the public

comment by reading those into the record. Myself and

Ms. Martinez will alternate the reading of those. And

we will be setting a timer for each. The emails will be

read in alphabetical order.

And we will now begin with our first email,

Ms. Martinez.

MS. MARTINEZ: This email was received by Biju

Abraham:

Dear Commissioners, I'm a homeowner at Pioneer

Meadows. My wife and I love -- sorry. My wife and

I love Sparks for several reasons and chose this as

a potential place for my retirement. We are

concerned about the newly proposed storage facility

in Pioneer Meadows. This storage facility was not

part of the development plan at the time we

selected this property. We were actively looking

for a neighborhood where we can settle down. A



79

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

storage facility in this area can cause increased

crime, worsening drainage, and the lack of

emergency vehicle access. In addition, there will

be traffic and people always moving in and out of

the area in rental trucks and heavy vehicles. All

of these cause high light, sound, and dust

pollution in this area. A storage facility also

increases the chances of fire danger. A potential

fire causes the challenge of how people will

ingress and egress in the community. All of these

will eventually bring down the value of the

property in this area. As the housing market

increases, the city has several avenues for

bringing in revenue. And storage facilities should

not be one of them. It encourages a terrible habit

of hoarding and buying things beyond the means.

Instead, the city should be investing in more parks

and schools, not promoting storage facilities at

this point. As a property owner at Pioneer

Meadows, I strongly opposed the proposal of having

a storage facility in my community. Thank you for

your time and consideration.

MS. SMITH: Okay. this next email is from

Rebecca, Shane and Rebecca Curtis:

In regards to PCN21-0002, amendment to the



80

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

Pioneer Meadows Development Standards handbook. We

strongly oppose the amendment request to add

self-storage to the list of permitted uses in the

General Commercial land use category for our

community. We believe that there was a reason this

type of business was excluded from the original

planned development use category. We have been

residents of this valley since 1992, and residents

of the Wingfield Springs and Pioneer Meadows

communities since 2003. Over the years, and as

more and more residential neighborhoods continue to

fill our valley, it is becoming ever more

noticeable at the limited remaining space for

commercial community needs. As we look forward to

the future, we need to keep the long-term view at

the forefront with this decision. As evidence from

the picture provided, this proposed change would

affect a large portion of our undeveloped

commercial space that is remaining for the Pioneer

Meadows and Wingfield Springs residents, which is

conveniently located off our main travel artery,

Vista Boulevard, as well as within walking distance

of an assisted living facility, large apartment

complexes, and residential communities. We believe

the space use limitations should remain as is, and



81

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

left for future development for more community

service needs such as restaurant, small retail

businesses, medical/dental/vision offices, banking

institutions, and such. With no community

transportation options, in parenthesis, bus

service, it is even more important to allow room

for community service needs that are within walking

distance for our community. Not for a large

unsightly storage facility that could be placed

elsewhere and would take up the small bit of

remaining, easy access, commercial space for our

large community. There is already an unsightly,

large brick walls and metal roofs, self-storage

facility being built at the corner of Pyramid and

La Posada and Eagle Canyon. I am sure you will get

an argument from the current landowner and

prospective self-storage business owner, that this

property has been left undeveloped for a number of

years. Please consider that this commercial

development was just taking root right before the

real estate market crash in 2007, and was starting

to rebuild before the pandemic hit last year. It

will take time for businesses to recover, but with

the large growth in housing, I have no doubt this

commercial development will start to flourish again



82

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 start to grow into an amazing community center

of commerce and services. Please seriously

consider the long-term impacts a change like this

would do to our community down the road and how we

can build a better community by leaving room for

essential services that a growing community will

need in the future. Sincerely, Shane and Rebecca

Curtis.

MS. MARTINEZ: This next email was received

from Rory and Lauren Fruhling:

In regards to case PCN21-0002, amendment

request for Pioneer Meadows Development Standards

handbook. We strongly oppose the amendment request

to add self-storage to the list of permitted uses in

the General Commercial land use category for our

community. We believe that there was a reason this

type of business was excluded from the original

planned development use category. Our family has

been residents of Wingfield Springs and Pioneer

Meadows since 2018 and have had the opportunity to

grow our family here. In the short time that we've

lived here, it's readily apparent the needs for

various businesses to have opportunity to expand and

meet the needs of our growing city, notably

healthcare. We are a dual healthcare family that



83

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

has seen our healthcare system overrun and

overworked before, during, and likely after this

pandemic. Reno is in desperate need for many

services, including general practice and pediatric

clinics and offices. We need to look at the

long-term outcome of the decision to use this land

for anything besides essential businesses. By

taking up space for storage facilities, a plan

initially decided against during zoning, our

community will be limiting the safe and healthy

growth potential for our community. As it stands

now, it takes months of calling pediatrician office

after office to find openings to see your children.

Let our community stand with the initial intention

of this land. Not all changes are for the better.

Please seriously consider the long-term impacts a

change like this would do to our community down the

road, and how we can build a better community by

leaving room for the essential services that a

growing community will need in the future.

MS. SMITH: This next email is from Marissa

Hammond:

I oppose the proposed amendment to add


GC, General Commercial, land use category. If the



84

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

amendment is approved, and the new self-storage is

built adjacent to Raley's, my house is across the

fence from the proposed self-storage buildings.

This will add noise, add 24-hour lighting, increase

traffic, be an eyesore, be a magnet for crime, and

may devalue my home. The Raley's shopping area was

built as a retail area serving the community.

Self-storage does not fit that use. I understand

there is a need for self-storage. There is plenty

of commercial and industrial property available for

self-storage. I bought a home in this community

without self-storage as a neighbor. Please vote no

on this request. Thank you, Marissa Hammond.

MS. MARTINEZ: The next email was received from

Katy Harris:

Board members, I come before the Board to voice

my opposition to the requested change to the

planned unit development for Pioneer Meadows

Master. As a resident of this community since 2010

and member of the Pioneer Meadows Homeowners

Association, I want to explain to the board why I

oppose the matter and what factual basis I would

ask the board to consider. The original planned

development surrounded a village-style community

with designated use for general commercial, homes



85

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 a business park. An objective of the PUD was a

one-stop living approach and a reduction in

traffic. The concept of live, shop and work in the

same area was embraced by the city. The common

trails in the community all come together at the

marketplace, a clear indication of the desire to

maintain a common gathering area. Why would we

change that? Pioneer Meadows established the rules

and the PUD, and they have already reduced the

initial planned general commercial. They also

reduced the planned parks by one and a half acres

and completely abandoned a 10-acre school site in

favor of higher density residential. In a PUD the

needs and desires of the homeowners are paramount.

The board is aware that the future growth of Sparks

to the east on La Posada towards Storey County will

eventually increase the demand for general

commercial, and we can expect retail space to

expand. Although the pads have remained vacant for

15 years, the Great Recession, housing crisis and,

most recently, COVID, should be considered before

any modifications to the PUD. Simply put, the

retail has not been given a chance. The roads

leading into Pioneer Meadows are still not fully

open, and the feeder to Pyramid opened during a



86

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

pandemic. Other storage units are under

construction now, within five miles of the

requested exchange. In fact, a large storage

facility is under construction less than 8,000 feet

from Raley's. The developers acknowledges it will

be 18 to 24 months before these proposed units

would be built, therefore the demand is conceptual

at best. We know that there is a demand now for

shopping and food. The owners also acknowledged

that based on market changes, years later that they

may scrap the storage idea and return for retail

space. It comes down to cost per square foot to

them. Thank you.

MS. SMITH: This next email is from Lahela

Hatley:

Good morning. I received a letter from Wood

Rodgers concerning a Zoom meeting on May 6th about

the proposed storage unit plans adjacent to Raley's

on Wingfield Hills Road. Unfortunately, I cannot

make that meeting. However, the members of my

residence are not in support -- are in support of

the proposed storage units. Sorry. That was my

bad. Let me say it again. Are in support of the

proposed storage units. With the increase of

residential homes and apartments in the area, more



87

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

storage is needed. My personal experience in

finding a storage unit is that most larger sized

units are wait listed or are too far away from my

house to be considered. The proposed location is

perfect for our storage location needs. I would

like to know if there will be space within the

enclosed storage area for RVs, boats, trailers,

et cetera, for homeowners like myself, to park our

toys since our HOA does not allow us to park them

in our back or side yards. I do hope the

builder/owner will consider our need in this

capacity for homeowners who are looking for more

toy storage as well. Also, if enough community is

in opposition of the proposed location, hopefully

the City of Sparks will find another location

nearby to accommodate this storage need. For

example, at the back end of the Eagle Canyon

Baseball Park, before the gun range. I think that

is an excellent area to accommodate the need of

storage and alleviate the eyesore according to many

residents in the Wingfield area. Thank you, Lahela

Hatley.

MS. MARTINEZ: The next email is received from

Carla O'Day:

Good evening, Chairman Pritsos and members of



88

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 Sparks Planning Commission. I live in Pioneer

Meadows and oppose amending the Pioneer Meadows

Master Plan to add self-storage to the list of

uses. A self-storage facility would be

incompatible with the current surrounding land

uses, which include residential, open space,

community facility, and commercial. There is

already a myriad of storage facilities in the

Truckee Meadows. Anyone wishing to develop another

storage facility needs to consider placing it in an

industrial lot, not near homes. The stretch of

Wingfield Hills Road between Pyramid Way and Vista

Boulevard has three roundabouts and is mostly

residential. The road is not appropriate for

oversized trucks, which will most likely be driven

to and from the storage lot by people who are

renting them and unaccustomed to operating large

vehicles. Since rental trucks aren't considered

commercial vehicles, almost anybody with a standard

driver's license can operate one. This presents a

safety issue as a senior living facility is across

the street from the Raley's shopping center and

many residents walk across Wingfield Hills Road

near the roundabout. There are also people who

live in nearby neighborhoods, including children,



89

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

who ride their bikes and walk to places such as

Raley's and Starbuck's. I understand that grocery

delivery trucks and school buses run on Wingfield

Hills Road, but truckdrivers and school bus drivers

have been trained and have special licenses to

operate subpoena vehicles. Additionally, the staff

report states that general retail is not likely to

be developed next to Raley's in the foreseeable

future. I find that hard to believe. Pioneer

Meadows isn't fully built out. The Sendero and

Pele developments are in their early stages, along

with several other housing developments further

west off of Wingfield Hills Road. I enjoy shopping

and dining close to home and others probably would,

too. Keep in mind that Wingfield Hills Road

extension between Rolling Meadows Drive and Pyramid

opened in March 2020 as COVID-19 pandemic hit.

Prior to that, there hadn't been any access to the

Raley's shopping center from west of Rolling

Meadows. Now there's access all the way to Pyramid

and it appears we're climbing out of the pandemic.

This could mean great opportunity for retail to

expand at this shopping center in the foreseeable

future. The Pioneer Meadows Master Plan needs to

stand as it is. Thank you for your time.



90

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

MS. SMITH: This next email is from Mohan

Padmanaban, and I'm sorry for that pronunciation of your

name:

As an owner of a property at Pioneer Meadows, I

oppose the proposed amendment to add self-storage

at the Raley's lot. When I purchased my property,

I was told that area is built for

retail/restaurants only. I prefer it to remain the

same. I kindly request my opposition message to be

read into the record for the agenda, storage

facility at Pioneer Meadows, and be provided to the

board in written form before noon tomorrow. Thank

you for your consideration.

MS. MARTINEZ: The next email was received from

Prudence Shapiro:

To whom it may concern. I reside in Pioneer

Meadows, Riata. It is my understanding it has been

requested to change the zoning to allow

self-storage to be built next to the homes in my

neighborhood. I am against the changes requested

because of the additional noise, possible crime,

and nuisance this type of building my add. Also,

it will devalue the homes in this small

neighborhood. But built originally with smart

living in mind, these homes exist on small



91

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

footprints, some with solar panels, and allow for

living in a nature setting. Self-storage could be

built in better areas in Spanish Springs. Thank

you for your time.

MS. SMITH: Next email is from Marie Smith:

I oppose the proposed amendment to add


General Commercial land use category. I live in

the Riata community. If the amendment is approved,

and the new self-storage is built adjacent to

Raley's, it will add noise, add 24-hour lighting,

and be an eyesore. It will be a magnet for crime,

and may devalue our homes. It is already difficult

to exit my neighborhood due to the increased

traffic, and this will just increase the traffic.

I understand there is a need for self-storage.

There is plenty of commercial and industrial

property available for self-storage units not

adjoining residential housing. Please vote no on

this request.

MS. MARTINEZ: The next email is from George

Spatz:

Dear Sparks Planning Commission members, I want

you to know I am strongly opposed to the proposed

amendment to the final Planned Development



92

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

Handbook, Pioneer Meadows Development Standards,

which adds self-storage to the list of permitted

uses in the GC land use category, case number

PCN21-0002. With the increase in population coming

to Pioneer Meadows and Wingfield Springs, this land

is better suited for retail and eating

establishments. The City of Sparks would benefit

as well because having more restaurants and retail

brings more revenue to the city versus a

self-storage facility. Self-storage facilities are

an eyesore. They resemble a prison with high walls

and security gates. They can also become a draw

for crime. I'm concerned the quality of life in

Wingfield Springs could suffer if this amendment is

approved. The developers of this land accepted the

current use when they purchased it. I understand

they have an investment, but my largest investment

is in the home I purchased in this area. I do not

want it negatively impacted by this amendment.

MS. SMITH: This next email is from Margaret

Spatz:

Dear Sparks Planning Commission members. I

strongly oppose the amendment to the final planned

development handbook, Pioneer Meadows Development

Standards, which adds self-storage to the list of



93

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

permitted uses in the GC land use category. There

are many potential land uses under the current

regulations. With the increased population in

Wingfield Springs, there is a need for more

restaurants, shops and other retail establishments,

which will also bring more revenue to the city of

Sparks, more so than a self-storage facility will.

There are many other areas in Sparks for a storage

facility that will not negatively impact the

quality of life of the community. Additionally,

the storage facility may decrease the values of the

nearby homes. The developers of this land accepted

the current use when they purchased it. It is

understandable that they have had a hard time

finding tenants during the pandemic. But it is

excessive to change the permitted use simply to

accommodate them. I understand that they have an

investment. But my home is my largest investment,

and I do not want to negatively impact it by

changing the use I was guaranteed when I purchased

my home. Sincerely, Margaret Spatz.

MS. MARTINEZ: The next email was received by

Jeff Spitzer:

My name is Jeff Spitzer, and I have been

involved in the Pioneer Meadows master plan since



94

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

development began in 2004. I currently own several

single-family homes in Pioneer Meadows and I am in

the community on a weekly basis. I would like to

share my thoughts on the proposed amendment to the

Pioneer Meadows handbook that would allow a

self-storage facility on a portion of the

commercial property located in the master planned

community. While the existing commercial

development provides a great value to the cut

residents of Pioneer Meadows and the surrounding

area, for the most part it has struggled since it

was built. There are many storefronts that have

sat empty for years due to a lack of demand

resulting from an excess of retail options and the

emergence of e-commerce over the years. Because of

the above, the undeveloped commercial properties

have sat vacant for the past 15 years providing no

benefit to the community or the city. My fear is

that this will continue to be the case for the next

15 years and beyond. After reviewing the proposed

amendment to allow a self-storage use on the

commercial parcels, I am strongly in favor of the

City approving this amendment to the Pioneer

Meadows handbook. There is no question there is a

great need for this type of facility in the area.



95

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

Throughout Washoe County, the cost of renting a

storage space unit has increased by over

200 percent over the last few years directly as a

result of lack of availability. The residents of

the homes I lease in Pioneer Meadows are told to

use their garage for parking, but I am constantly

finding that they end up uses them for storage.

This means that they are cluttering up their

driveways and the streets with their vehicles

leaving little room for visitors to park. While I

realize there are those that will oppose this

amendment, I can see no disadvantage to it. It

fulfills a need from the local community and will

allow for the remaining commercial area to be put

to public use rather than sit vacant for another

decade or two. I am confident the City, through

the planning process, will ensure the design and

future development of a self-storage facility on

this parcel would be done in a quality and

aesthetically pleasing manner. Thank you for the

opportunity to share my views on this matter.

MS. SMITH: This next email that I will read is

actually a -- it is a letter. And it was signed by

several individuals from the Pioneer Meadows Master

Association:



96

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

To whom it may concern. The Pioneer Meadows

Master Board of Directors is in receipt of the

public hearing notice that is scheduled for

Thursday, May 6, 2021, to discuss the consideration

of the possible amendment to the final Planned

Development Handbook of the Pioneer Meadows planned

development. The board of directors would like to

bring to the Planning Commission's attention that

the proposed amendment was not brought forth to the

applicant, being the Pioneer Meadows Master Board of

Developers per the handbook Section 11-11.

Furthermore, per Section 11-12, "It is the intent of

this handbook to assure the developer that the

design requirements for Pioneer Meadows are

understood and agreed upon between all parties

involved." That was in quotes. "And the

applicant," in quotes, "was excluded from this

process." The Pioneer Meadows Board of Directors

does not feel this process was followed

appropriately and the proposed amendment is not

considered a, in quotes, "minor change," as

indicated by Wood Rodgers. There are concerns that

this may potentially bring home values down and an

overall security concern to the surrounding

community. This was signed by the president of



97

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

Pioneer Meadows Association, the vice president, and

the treasurer.

I have one more letter to read in this email

group. This email is from Maria Stevenson:

Hello City of Sparks, we are homeowners in the

Saddlebrook neighborhood of Pioneer Meadows

Homeowners Association. We are writing to voice

our disapproval of the proposed storage facility

for the area near Raley's supermarket. We have a

number of reasons why this storage facility will

not benefit this community. First, the added

traffic, for an already horrible roadway, will add

to the burden we are already facing with

individuals who choose not to follow the rules of

the road. At this time, the entrance to that will

be utilized by the proposed storage facility, will

take away one of the ways into Raley's, and will

cause an increase in traffic using the main

entrance at the roundabout. The Wingfield Hills

Road is not equipped for such increase in traffic

and not to mention the decrease in convenience for

individuals that use that specific entrance. The

added lighting that will be required to monitor

storage will contribute to light pollution and will

pose an issue, having added light that is not



98

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

wanted, to those homes closest to the proposed

location. Honestly, no one should want to look out

their window to see the lights of a storage

facility. The added noise pollution from cars and

trucks coming in and out of the facility at all

hours will be a huge issue. These lots should be

reserved for businesses that will contribute to

what is needed in the area versus storage. Stores

in the area will operate during reasonable times

versus having long or 24-hour access such as a

storage facility. We have noticed that a number of

storage facilities are being built throughout

Sparks and Reno. With existing ones being as close

as on Pyramid and on Vista, and they are away from

most homes, there doesn't seem to be a need for

another storage facility in the area. Moreover, it

has been reported that across the nation and in

Reno that the crime rate related to storage

facilities is increasing. With the high

probability of having an increase in criminal

activity that has been reported to occur with

storage facilities, there will be an increased

concern for safety and well being of our children

and our homes. For instance, KOLO TV recently

reported on a storage facility where someone stored



99

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

explosives. Even though the device was fake, it

still caused a disruption to the community. And,

honestly, no one can guarantee that explosives

would not be stored in the facility where they

could be inadvertently detonated and cause massive

harm. In conclusion, we are firmly against having

a storage facility in our neighborhood. Maria

Stevenson and Michael Gadberry.

That concludes the emails that we were asked as

clerks of the board to read into the record.


for that.

So do we have any members of the public who

have called in who wish to speak on this item?

MS. MARTINEZ: We do have requests to speak.

First is a phone number ending in 6329.

CHAIR PRITSOS: Okay. And, caller, please

state your name for the record.

MR. DAN O'DAY: All right. Can you hear me

now?

CHAIR PRITSOS: Yes.

MR. DAN O'DAY: I'm Dan O'Day. I speaking to

voice my opposition to this amendment. Mr. Carey

referred to an email I sent earlier regarding omission

of the DRC committee approval. Before I get started,



100

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'd like to urge the Board to read page V-2 in the

handbook. It specifically mentions DRC approval for

these type of modifications to amendments.

Now, as a resident of Pioneer Meadows, I was

sold on the area because of the amenities in the

original plan, agreed to the promise of a robust

Marketplace area with shops and restaurants. The

Marketplace is at the nexus in our community. Our

senior center and rehabilitation facility are directly

across from this area. So there's some can walk to the

Marketplace.

Now, the Marketplace was built in 2007, shortly

before we entered the most severe economic recession of

our lifetimes. New construction in the area came to a

dead stop. Construction went empty for years.

Wingfield Hills Road, which is a road that connects the

shopping center to Pyramid Highway, wasn't even open

until a year ago. We've obviously entered a global

pandemic and we're all stuck at home.

I can understand why Pioneer Marketplace

struggled. We all struggled. All of us, in places

related to the development, and delivering on its

potential. Now we're entering a rapid economic impact.

Houses are being built. Here in the neighboring

development. That's going to bring shoppers into the



101

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

area during the day and during the evening. Without the

robust marketplaces which you plan, these people are

going to have to leave the area to even shop. That's

going to cause increased congestion on Vista and Pyramid

Highway. This runs contrary to the core objective of

the development as stated in the handbook, increasing

miles to travel and negatively impacts.

The handbook did not equate self-storage as one

of the acceptable uses. The current development zoning

for the City of Sparks states that uses not listed in

the use data are presumed to be prohibited. Are these

the developers' intended to prohibit that?

Now, the proposed amendment negatively impacts

the residents of the development, changing all land use

in a manner the original developer did not include, and

runs contrary to the development stated objectives and,

contrary to the findings, does not preserve the

integrity of the plan. Changing the plan now on a large

chunk of the Pioneer Meadows Marketplace and replacing

it with a self-storage facility is incredibly

short-sighted and is based on past economic conditions,

not on likely new conditions.

I urge the Planning Commission to reject this

amendment at this time. Thank you for listening.




102

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 who do we have next?

MS. MARTINEZ: We have a phone caller ending in

9891.

CHAIR PRITSOS: All right. And, once again,

caller, please state your name for the record. You

might be muted.

Caller with phone number ending in 9891, are

you there?

MS. MARTINEZ: Would we like to move on to the

next?

CHAIR PRITSOS: Yeah, we'll see if they can

figure the audio problem out.

MS. MARTINEZ: Okay. So next we have Susan

Merritt.


MS. SUSAN MERRITT: Hi. I object to the

projected handbook change to include self-storage in the

proposed permitted area. That 15 years of vacancies

represents a time of yearslong economic issues and the

cessation of construction that are no longer the case.

Things have changed drastically. Because of renewed

residential development in this neighborhood, I believe

that property designated in the proposal needs to be

retained for additional public facility services and

retail spaces needed by both the current neighbors of



103

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 area as well as the new neighbors coming in.

There is already light industrial property

closer to Pyramid that would more appropriate placement

for a storage facility. With Wingfield Hills Road now

going all the way to Pyramid, that happened only last

August, the massive number of new residents here in

Pioneer Meadows and the opening up after COVID, are

going to make a need for expansion at the only community

or commercial center and marketplace that we have in our

community. People coming now are able to come across to

that Raley's area, whereas before they had to either go

north or south on Pyramid in order to get to shopping.

That's no longer the case. It has changed.

So I think that that needs to be left to bring

in new business to the property without a storage

facility there because of the current growth in this

area. Things have changed a lot.

CHAIR PRITSOS: All right. Thank you, caller.

And who do we have next?

MS. MARTINEZ: Next we have Carolyn Harkins.

CHAIR PRITSOS: All right. Go ahead.

MS. CAROLYN HARKINS: Okay. Can you hear me?

CHAIR PRITSOS: Yes.

MS. CAROLYN HARKINS: Okay. I oppose the

change for most of the very same reasons. The owners



104

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

are citing that they haven't been able to, you know,

sell this property to big box stores and that e-commerce

or commerce is down. But they are building so many

houses out there now, and they've built so many

apartments, that the demand for restaurants, medical,

dental is just going to be huge in the next few years.

And if you put in ministorage that takes up a bunch of

that area, you're just killing the potential for that

shopping center to grow. It's a beautiful start to a

shopping center. It's a really nice one. And if you

put a bunch of ministorage in there now, it's just going

to kill it.

I bought a house in there two years ago, and I

did not envision any kind of ministorage in that area

whatsoever. I think, it belongs in an industrial area

and not in an area surrounded by homes and apartments.

I mean having restaurants nearby, instead of having to

drive five or 10 miles to go to a restaurant, is a huge

plus. People can drive to it without burning up a lot

of gas. It's less pollution. They can walk to it.

We've got some beautiful walking trails out there now.

And it's just, I just don't think it's the

right thing. You know, you've had a pandemic. You have

a recession that has slowed things down. But the

building out there of new homes is just going crazy.



105

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 I just think you're going to ruin that shopping

center by allowing ministorage in.

That's it.


All right. Do we have others who wish to speak

on this item?

MS. MARTINEZ: We do have additional requests

to speak. Next would be Julie Riggs.

CHAIR PRITSOS: All right. Go ahead.

MS. JULIE RIGGS: Hi. My name is Julie Riggs,

and I am a Pioneer Meadows homeowner. And I am in favor

of this project. Specifically, I think, this is an

appropriate use for this commercial space. And it

offers a convenient location for self-storage, that

whole area does, for all of those homeowners and all of

the new homes that are being built until area.

I've been driving past this vacant commercial

space for many years. And, I think, this use will

complement the existing shopping center and will be of

benefit to the entire Pioneer Meadows residents.

Thank you.


much.

Who do we have next?

MS. MARTINEZ: Geraldine is going to speak



106

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

next.

CHAIR PRITSOS: All right. Go ahead, caller.

GERALDINE: Hello. This is Geraldine speaking.

And live in the Riata homes. And I strongly oppose the

addition of a storage facility at the proposed site.

Listening to call this, it sounds like approving this is

the last resort, since the space can be filled with

anything else. There are a number of uses. And it

sounds like this is what is left or what has not been

considered yet.

While I understand that the big box stores will

probably not be coming back, there are other uses for

the community, such as medical or business offices, that

could very well fill spaces like that. Our own storage

facility has been broken into. And there are enough of

these and unsightly items stored in those spaces, that

this would be an eyesore all the way around. It's just

not fitting into the neighborhood with a residential

neighborhood. But ministorage should be part of an

industrial area, not residential area.

And fiscal benefits for the owners seem to be

the only thing that it has going for it, because only, I

think, employees won't be required for this facility,

which will not add to employment, either.

Thank you.



107

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


Who do we have next, Casey?

MS. MARTINEZ: We have Thomas Green next.

CHAIR PRITSOS: All right. Mr. Green, I just

want to clarify. Are you the same Tom Green who had an

email read during the first part of this public comment?

MR. THOMAS GREEN: Did I have an email read,

Ms. Smith?

MS. SMITH: Hold on. I'm checking.

CHAIR PRITSOS: There was one from a Tom Green.

I'm just checking.

MS. SMITH: Chair Pritsos, for clarification.


MS. SMITH: That was a letter from the

homeowners association.

CHAIR PRITSOS: Oh.

MS. SMITH: And Mr. Green was one of the

signers.

CHAIR PRITSOS: Okay. Then, in that case, go

ahead, Mr. Green.

MR. THOMAS GREEN: Thank you, board. And I

want thank all of you for your service for the city and

the residents. I know you're all volunteers, and it's

appreciated.

I comment before the board to voice my



108

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

opposition to the requested change in the planned unit

development Pioneer Meadows. I've been here since 2007,

and I oppose this change.

An integral component of the PUD was a one-stop

living approach and a reduction in traffic to the city

for homeowners who could live, shop and work in the same

area. The common trails in the community all come

together at the Marketplace, a clear indication of the

desire to maintain a common gathering area.

Pioneer Meadows established the rules and the

PUD, and they've already reduced the acreage for the

initial planned General Commercial. They also reduced

the planned parks by one and a half acres and completely

abandoned the 10-acre school site in favor of higher

density residential.

While we understand the developers' desire to

make a profit, in the PUD the needs and desires of the

homeowners outweigh that. This is codified in the

Sparks Municipal Code. We've seen Sparks commercial

space struggle over the years. We get it. As Sparks

has grown, however, vacancy has declined. Look back at

Legends and how long the original commercial spaces

remained vacant, and yet it's vibrant today.

The board, more than anyone, is aware of the

future growth of east Sparks to La Posada and eventually



109

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

to Storey County. This will drive demand to areas such

as Pioneer Meadows for retail.

Although the pads have remained vacant for 15

years, consideration of the Great Recession, housing

crisis and, most recently, COVID, should be weighed

before any modifications to the PUD. I believe, there's

a strong demand for restaurants, boutique, retail and

office space coming soon.

Other storage units are under construction

right now, many within five miles of this marketplace.

Just 8,000 feet away, a storage unit facility is going

to open soon. The developers acknowledge that it'll be

18 to 24 months before these units would even be built.

So the demand's conceptual at best. We know there's

demand now for shopping and food.

The owners also acknowledge that based on

market drivers years later, they may scrap the whole

thing and tear it down and go back to retail.

I want the board to be aware that only the

property owners were notified per statute. Wood Rodgers

had to admit that none of the residents living in

MorningStar were notified. Even though they represent a

large contingent of Pioneer Meadows, with hundreds of

elderly residents, many confined to wheelchairs and

walkers, that would benefit from the marketplace's



110

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

plans.

Lastly, I'd ask the board to carefully weigh

the needs and desires of the residents of Pioneer

Meadows over the square foot return on investment, as

Mr. Andrew Durling said was important in the community

meeting. The PUD should remain as planned for the

benefit of the community and to fulfill the promises

made to these homeowners. The requested change is not

minor. In fact, it's a foundational change to the

objectives set forth in the PUD.

Thank you for your time. And please vote

against this.


Who do we have next, Casey?

MS. MARTINEZ: We have Kevin Grogan next.

CHAIR PRITSOS: All right. Go ahead, sir.

MR. KEVIN GROGAN: Hi. I'm Kevin Grogan. I

just wanted to go on record that I strongly oppose

adding this use to the property in this area. I agree

wholeheartedly with all my neighbors' comments which

have been read or spoken so far.

And as an owner of a property and occupant

directly adjacent to such a facility, I strongly believe

it would devalue my property to have a storage facility

here. I'm not in favor as I would be overlooking the



111

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

property daily. And I have a backyard bordering such a

thing.

Thank you for your time and consideration.


Do we have any others?

MS. MARTINEZ: We do. We have two additional.

The next is going to be Hannah Carrier.


MS. HANNAH CARRIER: Hello. I am a current

resident here in Pioneer Meadows. And I am actually

agreeing to the proposal, to the amendment. I believe

that it would be very helpful to have a storage unit

close by. I know that, with friends and everything,

it's really hard to find storage. There's waiting lists

and things like that. So having it close by and also

having, you know, potential RV or boat storage would be

very convenient for, you know, us residents here that

have that that are not able to store that in their home

because due to HOA rules.

Again, I just, I agree to this. And I thank

you for your time.


much, caller.

All right. Do we have any other people who

wish to speak at this time?



112

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

MS. MARTINEZ: The last request to speak is the

phone number ending in 9891.

CHAIR PRITSOS: Oh, okay. And please state

your name for the record, caller.

MS. MARTINEZ: Is looks as -- oh, there we go.

CHAIR PRITSOS: Oh, there we go.

MS. JONI HAMMOND: Okay. Chair Pritsos and

Commissioners, thank you for taking comment on this

important issue. My name is Joni Hammond, and I live in

a house at Riata, which is directly adjacent to the

proposed new self-storage.

Riata is the community directly west, not

mentioned by the City in the presentation, and it's

closest to this proposal.

I am also representing the Riata Homeowners

Association Board of Directors and representing 102

Riata community members. Even though the City stated

there were 23 emails, I have a petition that I submitted

with 102 signatures.

All of us oppose this proposed plan amendment

to add self-storage to the list of permitted uses in the

General Commercial land use category. As noted by the

City and the applicant, we live near the Vista Raley's,

with a variety of restaurants, banks, title companies,

and a gym in the immediate area. When we bought our



113

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

houses, we were told the vacant area near Raley's would

be built out with the same type of uses already here.

Nothing like two huge self-storage buildings

that can be built as tall as Raley's. How would you

like to look out your backyard and have a wall rather

than the sun? This change in use is not what we want or

need. The owners of the proposed self-storage property

say that they have tried unsuccessfully to find tenants

to no avail. Other commenters tonight have mentioned

that with COVID, and now we're getting out of COVID, and

also a new road, I think, that could change.

There is plenty of new growth and houses in the

area, which means a lot more people. And there's plenty

of properly zoned property to build self-storage in

Sparks and Reno.

Please vote no. We're opposed to the noise,

dust, eyesore, additional 24-seven lighting, traffic,

potential for crime, and devaluation of our homes.

Thank you.


Casey, do we have anyone else who wishes to

speak on this item?

MS. MARTINEZ: I have no additional requests to

speak.




114

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

MS. SMITH: Chair Pritsos?

CHAIR PRITSOS: So --

MS. SMITH: Chair Pritsos?

CHAIR PRITSOS: Yes.

MS. SMITH: May I just add to that last caller?

CHAIR PRITSOS: Yes.

MS. SMITH: I would like to just say that she

did provide a petition. That petition was uploaded to

the website and was provided to the Commissioners.


much, Marilie.

And then I'll just check one more time. Are

there any, anyone requesting to speak, before I close?

MS. MARTINEZ: No additional requests.

CHAIR PRITSOS: All right. So with that, then,

I will close public comment on this item. Do any of the

Commissioners have any further questions or discussion?

Yes, Commissioner Read.


I was looking through the exhibits, and I did not -- I

mean we're not approving architectural at this point.

But I was just wondering, are these structures going to

be like two-story or greater? As, I think, somebody

asked that earlier.

MR. CUMMINS: I can answer that question, if



115

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

you'd like, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR PRITSOS: Yes, go ahead, Jonathan.

MR. CUMMINS: And so, you're right, we don't

know what the design looks like. You know, they would

be allowed to build to a certain height, which could

include multiple stories, if they chose to do that,

based on the standard they proposed. Again, those

height limits wouldn't be inconsistent with what's

already built there in the commercial center.

And, I believe, that answered your question.

COMMISSIONER READ: Yeah, that's great. And I

have one other follow-up question, if I may.


COMMISSIONER READ: And I can't remember what

the question was.

CHAIR PRITSOS: I'll have to come see you if it

comes to you.

COMMISSIONER READ: Oh, it was about the --

CHAIR PRITSOS: Oh, go ahead.

COMMISSIONER READ: It was about the lighting.

Somebody had, one of the things that multiple people

mentioned was 24-hour lighting. But I was just

wondering, is the whole shopping center generally lit

because of security purposes? And will the storage

facility be lit 24 hours as well?



116

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. CUMMINS: So what I can speak to is that,

yes, there is lighting at the existing commercial sites

throughout the night, but it's -- it's not the full

lighting that you would have during the day or during

the early parts of the evening when, you know, you would

need the lights, but it wasn't after hours.

One of the requirements that staff did

recommend, which didn't get included in the proposed

language, would be that any lighting proposed for this

site would require that the application would include a

photometric plan, which would show that there would be

zero foot-candle worth of light value at the property

lines. Meaning that no lights would be shining off the

property, they'd all be shining downward, so that no

neighbors should be disturbed by any lights.

COMMISSIONER READ: Okay. Great. That's all

the questions I have.

CHAIR PRITSOS: Thank you, Commissioner Read.

I think, the next hand I saw was Commissioner

Carey.


I have a question for staff. The applicant, in

their presentation, talked about the type of facility

they are envisioning. I think, the mention was, the

specific term was Class A self-storage space. And they



117

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

talked about a couple other sort of uses. I'm looking

through the handbook, and I don't see in the

definitions, you know, of what's proposed like what

exactly would be built. And so with the administrative

review process, as you mentioned before, there's not a

public notification period, there's not any sort of

additional public review. It kind of just goes to

staff. I'm curious, if this handbook amendment is

approved, what sort of guarantee or expectation can the

public expect of what sort of self-storage facility

would be built on this site?

MR. CUMMINS: So to sort of call back to the

points that I made in my presentation about how the

design standards, as proposed, are going to guide the

review of projects, is that the design not only has to

meet the requirements of the commercial design standards

of the handbook, also need the DRC approval, but what

staff was looking for based on those standards would be

consistency with the surrounding center.

And so that's where we have -- there may not be

specific language in there that says a self-storage

facility shall look exactly like this or that. But what

they do is guide us through that process where we're

looking for consistency with surrounding based on

materials, colors, and scale.



118

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 there's also setbacks. There's building

height limits, things like that, which are going to

ultimately guide on how the overall site is going to be

required to be consistent with the surrounding

commercial uses, but also to be ostensive to the overall

scope of what's amended, which is residential in some

places.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: All right. Fair enough.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR PRITSOS: Commissioner West.

COMMISSIONER WEST: Yes. My question is for

staff as well. The claim's been made that, basically,

improper procedures for approval have been made that

this project didn't go through DRC before it was

presented to the City of Sparks. Is this correct?

MR. CUMMINS: If the Chair would entertain it,

I would be glad to show my screen.

CHAIR PRITSOS: Go ahead. I will show what it

looks like, which will clarify that for us. Just one

moment.

Are you seeing the handbook page with the

highlighted word "amendments" here?

CHAIR PRITSOS: Yep.

MR. CUMMINS: Any amendment made to the

approved handbook will be processed through the City of



119

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 Planning Commission and City Council. Prior to

that, the applicant shall hold a neighborhood meeting.

Noticing of such meeting shall conform to the noticing

requirements stated in Section 5 of this handbook.

Amendment notices shall be from the perimeter of the

area proposed for the amendment. The City of Sparks may

amend this handbook subject to the provisions of the

development agreement.

Those are the requirements for amending the

handbook.

COMMISSIONER WEST: Thank you.

CHAIR PRITSOS: All right. Armando, did I see

your hand raised?

MR. ORNELAS: I was just going to amplify or

add to Mr. Cummins' comments regarding standards. One

thing I will note is that, with regard to architectural

design, of course, it is subject to the design standards

in the Pioneer Meadows handbook and, as proposed in the

amendment, is subject to the Pioneer Meadows, the

approval of the Pioneer Meadows Design Review Committee.

So, you know, if you go through the standards

in the handbook, the proposed standards for this,

they're pretty -- you know, they address all of the

requirements that staff would be applying to that

project through the administrative review process.



120

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

But I wanted to, again, emphasize something

that Mr. Cummins said during his initial presentation,

which is that it would be subject to approval by the

Design Review Committee in terms of the architectural

design for the project.


for that.

Are there any other questions or any discussion

at this time?

All right. Seeing none, then I will entertain

a motion.

Commissioner Carey.


You know, I appreciate all the public comment

that was brought up tonight. And, I think, there's a

lot of legitimate land use concerns that were brought up

tonight from the public concerning the self-storage use

and this handbook.

I can certainly appreciate the applicant and

the position that they are in. You know, I don't think

it does the City any good from a fiscal standpoint. I

don't think it does the development overall any good if

we have a vacant, vacant property.

And I want to be flexible and allow, you know,

more vibrancy for this center. But I'm just kind of,



121

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'm really concerned. You know, when this handbook was

approved, self-storage was left out for a reason. And,

I think, the people that bought their homes and built

their homes have an expectation that, you know, that

self-storage wouldn't be here. So here we are coming

through, we're amending the handbook. I'm a little

concerned about the proposal to have it be an

administrative review process. I think, there was some

land use concerns that were brought up tonight by the

public that could be addressed through a conditional use

permit process. And, I think, there's some -- you know,

I appreciate the applicants' information and the type of

project that they proposed. And, I think, our staff

would do a good job in the administrative review

process, you know, ensuring compatibility and

consistency with design standards.

But I just feel we're kind of pulling the rug

underneath from everybody who has an expectation. And I

would, I would prefer, if we're going to allow this use,

that the handbook would be amended to allow self-storage

through a conditional use permit, which would require

additional public notification and a public hearing, an

opportunity to further look at those land use impacts

and get it in more perspective on that.

That's my two cents.



122

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.

Any other comments or questions?

All right. Seeing none, I'm looking for a

motion.

COMMISSIONER READ: Mr. Chair, I'm prepared to

make a motion.


COMMISSIONER READ: I move to forward to City

Council a recommendation of approval of the request to

amend the final approved plan for the Pioneer Meadows

Planned Developments based on Findings A through J and

the facts supporting those findings as set forth in the

staff report.

CHAIR PRITSOS: All right. Thank you. Are

there, is there any second?

COMMISSIONER KRAMER: I will second that

motion, Mr. Chair.


by Commissioner Read and a second by Commissioner

Kramer. Any final discussion?

Commissioner Carey.


Just a couple comments. I will not be

supporting the motion, reluctantly. I don't think that



123

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 can make Finding PDe or PDs. We have several other

storage uses in the city that we've seen as a Commission

that have a lot of land use impacts. And, I think,

there should be an additional -- I don't think they

should be allowed by a permitted by right. There should

be additional public input on this.

I think, in all fairness, I kind of mentioned

that a little bit earlier, but to allow self-storage

now, after the fact, to the adjacent property owners, I

don't think that that's sufficient. I believe, there

should be an additional public process. But, I think,

from a land use planning perspective -- and I hope I'm

wrong about this. I hope that if this motion is

approved and whatever self-storage is built, that it's

high quality, it's of the Class A type that was

mentioned. But I'm not seeing in this handbook

amendment that there's any assurances that -- it could

just be any sort of self-storage use that combines with

the -- that complies with the handbook standards.

But, I think, from a land use planning

perspective, and specific Finding PDa, you know, we

spent a lot of time last summer going over and revising

Policy MG3, which is to make sure that the City has and

we're creating employment-generating uses. And here we

are, not six months later, amending the handbook to put



124

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

in a new use that doesn't have, that doesn't require a

lot of employment, employment uses. And I think that

that's just pretty disingenuous to our Comprehensive

Plan. I don't think that helps, furthers that goal or

policy.

So I will not be supporting the motion. Thank

you.


Commissioner Carey.

Commissioner West.

COMMISSIONER WEST: Yes, I want to thank

Commissioner Carey for so eloquently expressing, you

know, the concerns. You've brought some good concerns

forward to all of us for consideration. I think, a lot

of that has resulted, you know, as a result of, you

know, all the comments that we have heard.

I also agree that, you know, that the concept

here, it seems reasonable. However, I think, because

the Pioneer handbook, you know, is being modified or

request for changes, that I would, I, too, would like to

see the approval go through a more comprehensive

process.

So at this time would also have to consider not

approving this amendment request.

CHAIR PRITSOS: All right. Commissioner



125

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

Rawson?

COMMISSIONER RAWSON: Yeah, I want to express

that I don't approve this, either. I think,

Commissioner Carey did a great job on laying out the

reasons why.

So my comment, I'm not going to support it,

either.

CHAIR PRITSOS: All right. Is there any other

comment or discussion at this time?

COMMISSIONER ANDRIOLA: Mr. Chair, may I ask a

point --

CHAIR PRITSOS: Yes, go ahead.

COMMISSIONER ANDRIOLA: Is this an appropriate

time to ask for a point of clarification?

CHAIR PRITSOS: Sure, yeah.

COMMISSIONER ANDRIOLA: I just want to make

sure I understand. Based on the -- everything that was

presented, will the staff, then, take the -- I guess,

what are the next steps? Will this actually come back

to the Planning Commission at some point for a final

review and approval with the design process, or is it

all going to happen through the staff doing, you know, a

lot of hard work to adhere to the standards that are in

place and the provisions that are currently in place?

CHAIR PRITSOS: No.



126

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 ANDRIOLA: Will the Commission be

seeing this? I'm only asking. I apologize for asking

what might be a very rudimentary question. But I would

like that point of clarification.

CHAIR PRITSOS: Yeah, Armando, did you want to

take that?

MR. ORNELAS: Yes, please, Chair Pritsos and

members of the Planning Commission. Armando Ornelas,

the Assistant Community Services Director.

So, Commissioner Andriola, to answer your

question, the item you are taking action on this evening

with regard to this amendment to the handbook, you are

acting in an advisory capacity, if you will, and you're

making a recommendation to the City Council. The City

Council will then consider the proposed amendment,

either the approval or denial, or recommendation of

approval. In whatever form it moves on, it will move on

to the City Council, and they will make the decision

regarding this proposed amendment to the handbook.

As fashioned, you know, if, ultimately, this

amendment were, let's say just for argument's sake,

approved as in the form that you are seeing it tonight,

the actual project, the self-storage project would not

come back to the Planning Commission. It would be

reviewed through the administrative review process, i.e.



127

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

by City staff. And there would not be any notice to

additional property owners. It would be, again,

reviewed by staff as to whether or not it complied with

the standards in the handbook that are before you

tonight.

I hope that addresses your question.

COMMISSIONER ANDRIOLA: Yes. Thank you very

much. That's how I understood it, but I felt the

necessity to get the clarification you so stated. Thank

you so much. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

MR. ORNELAS: You're welcome.

CHAIR PRITSOS: Yes, thank you.

Are there any other, any other discussion?

So I just want to say I share many of the

concerns of many of my colleagues on this. I think that

especially the -- as Commissioner Carey put it, going

through the administrative review process rather than

through the CPU process, or CUP, yeah, CUP, I do, I am

also going to be opposing this motion for the reasons

that Commissioner Carey, Commissioner West and

Commissioner Rawson also noted.

Okay. Is there any final discussion?

Okay. Soy seeing none --

COMMISSIONER ANDRIOLA: Mr. Chair?

CHAIR PRITSOS: Oh. Yes, Commissioner



128

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

Andriola.

COMMISSIONER ANDRIOLA: I am, you know, based

on the clarification and the comments, certainly all of

the comments from the public, and certainly staff has

done an incredible job and a lot of hard work

differently, but I, too, have some concerns as well.

And I will be not approving this motion.

CHAIR PRITSOS: All right. So one more time.

Any other final discussion?

Okay. So seeing none. We have a motion by

Commissioner Read. And, I believe, it was seconded by

Commissioner Andriola. So, madam secretary, could we

please have the roll.

COMMISSIONER ANDRIOLA: No, Chair --

CHAIR PRITSOS: Or Commissioner Kramer was the

second.

COMMISSIONER ANDRIOLA: Point of clarification.

Thank you.

CHAIR PRITSOS: Yeah. Yes. Sorry. It was a

while ago.

All right. Now may we have the roll.

MS. SMITH: Okay. So for clarification right

now, Chair Pritsos, the motion that's on the table is

for approval, correct?

CHAIR PRITSOS: Yes.



129

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

MS. SMITH: Okay. Okay. Commissioner Pritsos?

CHAIR PRITSOS: Nay.


COMMISSIONER WEST: Nay.


COMMISSIONER ANDRIOLA: Nay.


COMMISSIONER CAREY: Nay.




COMMISSIONER RAWSON: Nay.

MS. SMITH: And Commissioner Read?


CHAIR PRITSOS: All right. So the motion fails

with Commissioners Read and Kramer voting aye and

Commissioners Pritsos, Carey, West, Andriola and Rawson

voting nay.

Brandon, just to clarify, because I know we've

had this come up before, all we've done is defeat the

motion. But if we wanted to recommend to Council that

they do not approve this proposed amendment, then we

have to have another motion to --

MR. SENDALL: That is correct. That was the

issue that was updated in the rules, I think --



130

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. SENDALL: -- about a year and a half ago

and then, again, a couple of months ago. So it would

require a second motion.

CHAIR PRITSOS: Okay. And so is there any

like -- we can do that motion now, right? We don't have

to like waive any -- okay.

So would anyone like to make an alternative

motion?

Commissioner Carey.


I'll give this a shot. I'm not sure where this is going

to go. But I'd like to make a -- I'd like to make a

motion to forward to the City Council a recommendation

of approval of the request to amend the final approved

handbook for the Pioneer Meadows Planned Development,

with the change that self-storage would be permitted in

the handbook through a conditional use permit process,

based on findings A through J and the facts supporting

those Findings, as is the forth in the staff report.

CHAIR PRITSOS: Just to make sure, is there

any -- Brandon, is that an acceptable way of phrasing

that?

You're muted. You're muted, Brandon. We

couldn't hear you.



131

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. SENDALL: Sorry about that. I think so. I

didn't see any issues with the form of the motion.

CHAIR PRITSOS: All right. Perfect. So we

have a motion by Commissioner Carey. Do we have a

second?

COMMISSIONER WEST: I'll second that motion.

COMMISSIONER ANDRIOLA: Chair -- oh.

COMMISSIONER WEST: All right. So we have a

motion by Commissioner Carey and a second by

Commissioner West. Any discussion on this motion?

COMMISSIONER KRAMER: You know, Mr. Chair, I

see that there are other storage units within the City

of Sparks that are identical to the ones that they are

proposing at Pioneer Meadows. There's one on Vista

Boulevard. There's one on Los Altos. There's one up

by -- another one on Vista Boulevard. They're no

different than the one that they are requesting out at

Pioneer Meadows. I don't see the difference here. The

one on Vista Boulevard, over by the Post Office, it's

right next to the Post Office. And you don't see it.

You don't see where it is. You don't even notice it.

The one on the corner of Los Altos and Vista sits right

next to Little Bear, and there is apartments next door.

There is a medical facility and office buildings. There

is the City Executive Suites. There are townhouses that



132

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

are going right across the street.

So we are asking this developer to do something

different? I don't get it. So what's the difference

here, guys? I'm not seeing the difference. Because

it's Pioneer Meadows and it's out farther towards

Wingfield, is there a difference that we are now asking

these guys to do?

So those are my comments on this. So now we're

asking them to get a CUP to do something different than

we've just -- than has been done in the past?

So my comments on this. So that's, that's my

comments, guys.



COMMISSIONER KRAMER: You're welcome.

CHAIR PRITSOS: Is there any other discussion

on this?

All right. Seeing none. We have a motion by

Commissioner Carey and a second by Commissioner West.

Madam secretary, may we have the roll call.


CHAIR PRITSOS: Aye.






133

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 KRAMER: Nay.




COMMISSIONER READ: Nay.


five to two. Commissioners Pritsos, West, Andriola,

Carey and Rawson voting aye, and Commissioners Kramer

and Read voting nay.

All right. So before we move on to the next

item, so we've been going for a little more than two and

a half hours. I think, everyone could probably use a

break. So I'm going to order a 10-minute recess to get

drinks, use the restroom, and then we will reconvene at

8:49.

* * * * *

(A recess was taken, 8:39 to 8:50 p.m.)

* * * * *

CHAIR PRITSOS: All right. So we're going to

call this meeting back into order. It is 8:50.

And we are moving on to the last of our public



134

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

hearing items. It had been item 7. It is now item 8.

PCN19-0040. And, I think, this is Sienna's.

MS. REID: Yes, it is. Thank you, Chair

Pritsos. For the record -- and Planning Commission

Planning Commission members. For the record, Sienna

Reid with the Planning Division presenting this item

tonight, which is a request to amend the 5 Ridges

conditional use permit for development on slopes,

hilltops and ridges. This item was continued three

weeks ago from your April 15th Planning Commission

meeting.

The 5 Ridges project site, which you can see

here in red, totals 421.58 acres in size, and it's

located west of Pyramid Way and north of Highland Ranch

Parkway.

The 5 Ridges project is subject to the

development agreement that was approved in 2018. That

agreement specifies that a minimum of 1,200 and a

maximum of 1,800 residential units are permitted, and

dictates the required infrastructure needed to serve the

development based on its impacts. The agreement also

limits the total land area disturbed, or that can be

disturbed by grading to 298 acres and requires a minimum

of 120 acres of open space.

This request that you're considering tonight to



135

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

amend the 5 Ridges conditional use permit, or CUP, for

development on slopes, hilltops and ridges, seeks to

increase the disturbance area for natural slopes by the

total of 19.8 acres. The existing CUP allows for the

disturbance of 138.13 acres of natural slopes. This

area, plus the center of 5 Ridges that was previously

disturbed due to mining and roadway construction, are

shown in green. The requested 19.8-acre expansion area

is shown in tan, and it includes the northwest portions

of Villages 8 and 9 and limited areas on the north sides

of Villages 1A, 1B, 3 and 10.

As you can see, the currently approved CUP

allows for disturbance of most of the 5 Ridges site,

including disturbance within Village 10 in the northern

portion of the site and large portions of Villages 8

and 9 located in the northwest portion of the site. A

mass grading permit has been issued for grading in this

approved disturbance area.

However, it's important to note that the scope

of the review for the CUP amendment is not limited to

just the 19.8-acre area shown in tan. This is because

grading plans for Villages 1A, 1B, 8 , 9 and 10, which

were not provided with the initial CUP, have been

provided with this CUP amendment. This change allows

the Planning Commission to review those grading plans



136

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

for those villages and apply conditions that further

address the final look of slopes and building design

that don't impact the existing mass grading permit.

If this CUP amendment is not approved, future

tentative maps and building permits within the approved

disturbance area would need to comply with the existing

conditions, not the proposed amended conditions that

further address the final look of slopes and building

design.

To remind you of the proposed grading, this

slide illustrates grading in the southern portion of

5 Ridges for Villages 1A and 1B. So for Village 1A,

fill will be used to create a building pad that sits

approximately 50 to 65 feet above Highland Ranch

Parkway. For Village 1B, slopes in the northern portion

of that village will be cut, and fill will be used to

create a building pad that is similar in elevation to

Highland Ranch Parkway on the west site and 15 feet

above it on the east side.

This slide shows you proposed grading for

Village 8, 9 and 10 with a cut/fill map. That map

illustrates cuts in red and orange, and fills are

illustrated in blue and green. As proposed, the grading

plans illustrate that existing hilltop and ridge

features located in the northern portion of the 5 Ridges



137

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

project site will be cut, and fill material will be used

to expand the ridge north of Villages 9 and 10 and west

of Villages 8 and 9.

Graded slopes with a gradient of 2-to-1, or

50 percent, will be stabilized with a revegetated bonded

fiber matrix or riprap. And bedrock cut slopes with a

gradient of 1.5-to-1, or 66 percent, are also proposed

in limited locations, but those slopes don't require

mechanical stabilization.

As you know from the April 15th meeting where

this item was initially heard, CUPs for development on

slopes, hilltops and ridges are complex, and they

require that various code standards and CUP findings be

considered.

The 5 Ridges CUP amendment was analyzed against

each of the code standards and CUP findings that you can

see in this slide in the April 15th staff report

provided to the Planning Commission.

Just to give a little bit of recap, the code

standards for development on slopes, hilltops and

requirements are set forth in Sparks Municipal Code

Section 20.04.011. These standards include design

policies that guide the finished appearance of slopes

and buildings to mitigate the visual impact of

development.



138

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

Grading standards set the maximum area of

disturbance for a site. Standards that require

temporary erosion and sedimentation measures during

construction and associated bonding are also in place,

as well as standards for landscaping and revegetation of

disturbed areas that require 90 percent coverage within

three years. Additional standards govern undisturbed

open space and hilltops and ridgelines determined to be

significant by the City, of which there are none in the

5 Ridges project site.

In addition, this CUP amendment request must

conform with the general CUP findings related to

consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, compatibility

with adjacent properties, natural resource impairment

and the population that can be supported with available

natural resources, how identified impacts are addressed

as submitted or conditioned, and public notice.

In analyzing these findings and code standards,

staff reached a recommendation of approval because the

CUP amendment mitigates the impact of development on

slopes, hilltops and ridges, which is what these

standards and findings collectively require to promote

quality development and limit the visual impact of that

development.

Here, the primary Comprehensive Plan that



139

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

guides the mitigation of development on steep slopes and

ridgelines is shown on this slide.

Policy RC28 supports land area disturbance

limitations in code and the use of architectural

techniques that limit the scenic and environmental

impact of hillside development. This policy does not

prohibit development on steep slopes for ridgelines.

This policy is implemented through all of the code

standards for development on slopes, hilltops and ridges

discussed on the previous slide. However, the design

policies that are specifically shown on this slide

detail how graded areas and buildings on hilltops and

ridges should be mitigated to limit the visual impact of

development.

Not only should development on steep slopes

limit aesthetic degradation, erosion, sedimentation, but

final grading should not include long slopes or short

transitions, so that a natural-looking final slope is

achieved. And the placement of buildings on or near

hilltops or ridges must show a high degree of

sensitivity to the terrain and its visual impact.

Development that uses mitigation techniques to

meet these design policies is permissible.

To mitigate the impact of development on the

5 Ridges site, new and amended conditions are



140

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

recommended.

Condition 3, as amended, would require fill

slopes located at the perimeter of 5 Ridges to provide

additional horizontal relief beyond contouring to result

in a more natural appearance.

Condition 6, as amended, would require homes

and buildings at the perimeter of Villages 8, 9 and 10,

which you can see shown in pink on the map on this

slide, to have an increased rear yard setback of 30 feet

for two-story structures and a 15-foot height limitation

for accessory structures and dwellings. This is in

addition to the current requirement that homes and

buildings on ridgelines use earthtone colors and

rooflines that blend with the natural environment.

Conditions 8 and 10 require retaining walls and

the Village 9 guardrail be designed to blend into the

surrounding natural landscape to ensure these features

are not visually obtrusive.

And to further mitigate the visual impact of

development at the perimeter of Villages 8, 9 and 10,

Condition 9 requires fencing located on rear lot lines

be at least 75 percent open construction.

With these new and amended conditions that have

been recommended by staff, it's the role of the Planning

Commission to determine if these conditions



141

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

satisfactorily mitigate the impact of development in the

manner with the least overall aesthetic degradation of

the site and results in homes and buildings on hilltops

or ridges that show the high degree of sensitivity to

the natural terrain and the visual impact of

development.

During the April 15th public hearing, various

questions and concerns were raised by the Planning

Commission and the public on this CUP amendment. And

you can see on this slide comments from the Planning

Commission.

Regarding the application of CUP Finding 3,

there are two components of this finding that are

interrelated. Those were discussed, one being the

potential impairment of natural resources, the other

being the total population that available natural

resources can support without unreasonable impairment.

And to natural resources, as was discussed,

that support population growth, generally include

potable water resources, treated affluent and air

resources, little impairment to natural resources that

support population growth are anticipated with this

amendment.

While steep slopes are part of the environment,

they are not natural resources necessary to support



142

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

population growth. The Comprehensive Plan and code

govern land disturbance and the appearance of buildings

and creative slopes, and both allow for development on

steep slopes and ridgelines with mitigation.

Moving on to the second point on this slide,

house type in the 19.8-acre disturbance area would be

detached single-family consistent with the single-family

zoning district. In regard to constructing the 5 Ridges

project in previously disturbed areas, that question was

raised. And while it may be feasible to locate lots for

Villages 8, 9 and 10 within the approved disturbance

area by using the small lot standards and code, these

standards would lead to homes on small lots that are

constructed closer together than development under the

regular SF6 standards. And that was for development on

the ridgelines within Villages 9 and 10 but is visually

more obtrusive that development that complies with the

SF6 zoning district.

For comment 4 here on this slide relating to

visual impacts being considered within the currently

approved disturbance area, Condition 6, as currently

approved, addresses ridgelines since they're designed

with the requirement that color and rooflines of homes

blend with the natural surrounding environment.

However, with the submittal of grading plans for



143

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

Villages 8, 9 and 10 in the north of the site, staff is

recommending Condition 6 be amended to further require

that development at the perimeter of those villages to

mitigate the visual impact of homes and structures

constructed on ridgelines.

The Planning Commission also expressed concern

regarding compliance with Policy RC28. Conformance with

this policy and the development standards that implement

it were previously discussed in relation to the

recommended conditions of approval to mitigate the

impact of development on steep slopes.

With written and spoken comments, members of

the public also raised various concerns regarding the

proposed CUP amendment. Briefly, here, topics 1 through

4 are engineering related. As designed, the drainage

system, which includes storm channels, pipes, detention

ponds, sedimentation basins, that system will reduce

peak stormwater flow rates by 50 percent and increase

sediment volume capacity on the site.

For rockery walls, supplemental materials

provided by the applicant indicate one rockery wall is

planned within 5 Ridges, and that's within Village 1A

located at southern portion of the site. A building

permit for that wall was issued because it meets

building code standards.



144

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

Additionally, supplemental materials were

provided by the applicant to get a little bit more

detail regarding the bonded fiber matrix to address

revegetation concerns. So here the Flexterra bonded

fiber matrix product is proposed to provide the native

seed blend with an enhanced earth medium that is capped

and insulated with a long-lasting bonded fiber matrix,

providing sufficient erosion control until those created

slopes are revegetated.

And it's important to note that this treatment

is considered superior to basic hydroseed applications.

And all created slopes must be irrigated until native

growth is established.

Additionally, rock wall practices used during

mass grading activities are documented to detail how

this work occurs safely and addresses comment 4.

Additional public comments provided also

expressed concerns regarding the proximity of created

slopes to property lines. Here code does not require

distance separation between created slopes and adjacent

property lines that apply to the 5 Ridges project site.

And with regards to traffic congestion, this

request does not alter the number of dwelling units that

can be constructed on the 5 Ridges project site

consistent with the development agreement that's in



145

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

place, nor the improvements necessary to accommodate the

development of 5 Ridges that were documented in the

master traffic study and memorialized in the agreement.

Moving on to this next slide, various public

comments expressed concern regarding ridgelines. As

discussed throughout this presentation, both the

Comprehensive Plan and code allow for development on

steep slopes and ridgelines with mitigation.

With regards to rules and policies of the

Washoe County Spanish Springs Area Plan, this plan does

not apply to the 5 Ridges site, only to property use

located in unincorporated Washoe County. Pursuant to

state law, the City of Sparks Comprehensive Plan and the

Municipal Code are utilized to administer the City's

legally established planning and zoning authority.

Additional public comments provided also claim

that the zoning code should be amended to identify

significant ridgelines on the 5 Ridges site.

Significant hilltops and ridgelines are not identified

for locations in the City of Sparks west of Pyramid Way

based on the cooperative planning effort that produced

the 2008 West Pyramid Area Plan. That planning effort

did not identify ridgelines as significant within the

boundary of the West Pyramid Area Plan. And

accordingly, hilltops and ridgelines west of Pyramid Way



146

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

were not identified on the significant hilltop and

ridgeline map when the zoning code was comprehensively

updated in 2015.

Additionally, public comments expressed concern

regarding rock outcroppings. Rock outcroppings are

present on the 5 Ridges site in the approved disturbance

area in the northwest corner of Villages 8 and 9 and in

the western portion of 5 Ridges where open space is

planned.

While Policy RC30 indicates that new

development should preserve and protect unique features,

such as rock outcroppings and drainageways, this policy

does not indicate that all such features should be

preserved. And as proposed, the CUP amendment preserves

rock outcroppings located in the western portion of the

5 Ridges site.

With regard to the loss of open space and

public access, the 5 Ridges project site is neither

designated open space pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan

land use map not owned by a public entity that allows

public access.

With regard to concerns that were expressed

over habitat loss, there are no threatened or endangered

species located on the 5 Ridges project site, and the

Washoe County Conservation Plan further indicates that



147

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 site doesn't provide habitat for bighorn sheep,

black bear, mule deer, raptors, sage grouse, wild horses

or burros.

Concerns on public notice were also expressed.

Public notice for this CUP amendment was provided in

compliance with state law for both the April 15th and

this May 6th public hearing. And since the April 15th

Planning Commission meeting until noon today, City staff

has received two phone calls and 77 emails in opposition

to the request. Many of the stated concerns with

consistent with the topics just discussed on this slide

and the slide previous.

So in continuing this item to this evening, the

Planning Commission requested supplemental visual

information be provided. Based on the Commission's

direction, the cross-sections are updated to include

photographs of existing topography. These updated

cross-sections are attached to the staff report addendum

prepared for this meeting.

A 3D rendering that provides a visual

simulation of proposed grading and for development was

also prepared by the applicant, as requested. Staff has

reviewed that 3D rendering and believes it accurately

depicts the proposed grading and simulates the location

of homes as proposed by Condition 6 that recommends a



148

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

30-foot rear yard setback for two-story homes located at

the perimeter of Villages 8, 9 and 10. Again, those

villages are the northern portion of the site.

Given that the 3D rendering information is

fairly technical in nature, the 5 Ridges project team is

going to walking through that visual simulation as part

of their presentation. However, before turning it over

to the applicant, staff is recommending approval of the

5 Ridges conditional use permit amendment, with 10

conditions. And you have a motion to that effect on

this slide and then in the April 15th staff report.

And, again, the analysis of the applicable CUP

findings and code sections is provided in the April 15th

Planning Commission staff report. The addendum that was

provided for this meeting really attempts to respond to

the comments and concerns of the Planning Commission and

public as well as provide that supplemental visual

information.

And so with that, I'll conclude my presentation

and certainly be available for questions at the

appropriate time.

CHAIR PRITSOS: Okay. Thank you very much,

Sienna.

Are there questions -- oh, actually,

Commissioner Carey had something to say before we



149

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

continue.


I made a mistake. You know, chalk it up to being three

hours into this. But before they open the item, I

wanted to make a public disclosure to you and my

colleagues on the Commission for the record, but I

didn't want to interrupt Sienna's excellent

presentation.

So I'll just read this off: In an effort to

avoid conflicts of interest and enhance and maintain

public trust, pursuant to NRS 281A.020, I want to, I'd

like to voluntarily disclose that since the last

Commission meeting I've had one meeting with the

applicant project team on April 30th, and I had one

meeting with several property owners who were notified

of this project where I visited portions of the site on

April 19th.

Additionally, as a member of the American

Institute of Certified Planners, AICP, I am bound by a

code of ethics and professional conduct in the spirit of

this code and under principles that AICP members are

bound to uphold. I'd like to disclose and note for the

record that I did meet with the applicant and the

neighbors at their request to discuss this project and

to seek additional information for this agenda item. At



150

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

no time during my meetings did I ever convey any

predisposed opinion on this matter.

In accordance with NRS 281A.420, section 1, I

will note for the record I have not received a gift or

loan. I did not have any significant pecuniary interest

with, nor do I have any commitment in a private capacity

to any of the people that I've meet with concerning this

agenda item.

Thank you very much.

Oh, and I wanted to also note that I will be

continuing to deliberate on this project and will be

voting.

Thank you.


Commissioner Carey.

So before we get to the questions for Sienna,

does anyone else need to make any disclosures?

Commissioner Read.

COMMISSIONER READ: Well, mine's not going to

be as elaborate as Commissioner Carey's. But I did want

to disclose that I did respond to an email from a

Mr. Mike Eastman inviting all the Commissioners to view

his property. I respectfully declined his invitation,

as I have been at the site multiple times on my own.

So I'm not going to cite any other rules and



151

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

regulations. I think, that's sufficient.


Commissioner Read.

Does anyone else need to make disclosures

before we...

Okay. Seeing none, then, do any members of the

Commission have questions for staff at this time?

Okay. Seeing none, I understand that the

applicant is prepared to make a presentation. Before

they begin, I just want to note for the record that like

the previous applicant -- I don't think I said this last

time, but we are going to hold them to the 15-minute, as

dictated by statute or code. I can't remember which.

But whenever you guys are ready, go ahead.

MR. MIKE RAILEY: Good evening, Mr. Chair,

members of the Commission. For the record, Mike Railey

with Christy Corporation. I know it's been a long

night. And we certainly appreciate your time and

consideration.

I'd like to introduce the project team. With

me tonight are Blake Smith and Blake Smith Jr. with

5 Ridges Development Company; Jeff House with House

Moran Consulting; and Scott Christy with Christy

Corporation; along with the land development manager,

Seth Padovan, who works for 5 Ridges.



152

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

With that, I want to pass it over to Blake,

and I see Jeff, for a presentation. And I'll let them

go through the slides.

MR. BLAKE SMITH SR.: Great. Thank you, Mike.

Mr. Chairman and fellow Commissioners, thank

you for the time at this point. And, I think, what I

wanted to present is, reading all the comments and other

things that are happening here, I wanted to step back

and take a look at the bigger picture of what this

approval is about.

This project's been in -- because there's some

confusion, I think, of what this approval's about. This

project, we took this project into the public arena

eight years ago and have had it in, I'm guessing, 30 to

40 public hearing meetings, of which ultimately led to

having a development agreement approved. We were all

involved with that, the Planning Commission, City

Councils all approved that back in 2018.

And in that development agreement, there's

obligations between the City and us. It's basically a

contract between the two of us to go ahead and work

together. It gives us the zoning and it gives us the

rights to go and do different things in here.

But this, I think, is the chief thing to take a

look at. This is the land map that was attached to the



153

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

development agreement. This is the areas that we talked

about and ultimately aired and vetted that these are the

areas that we're going to develop in here.

And if you'll note, and we'll zoom back over to

another one, but if you'll note, the areas that we're

developing in here are identical to what we're looking

for on the approval. The technical approval of the CUP

matches this land plan exactly. There's been comments

about we're expanding the land plan, we're doing

different things and all that. This is the approved

land plan from 2018 with the development agreement.

And so all we're doing at this point is

implementing the development agreement. And we have

broken ground on the project at this point.

And, Jeff, maybe you can go over to the next

one. Because Sienna brought it up earlier here.

But this, if you'll take a look, and if you can

see it underneath, but basically that same identical

land plan is here. And we came to the Planning

Commission and the City Council a year ago. And at that

point, we had Villages 1 through 7 there 7 in escrow.

And that's when we brought this forward and said we'd

like to do the mass grading on this. It was approved by

all of us, I should say by the Planning Commission and

City Council. And we broke ground on this 60 days ago.



154

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

All of that green area, including these

northern areas, Villages 8, 9 and 10, are under full

grading at this point. And, I think, this is where some

of the confusion comes from saying -- people are saying,

hey, we don't want to build on it, we don't want to --

you know, we should stop the development up there.

Those dialogues happened over the past eight years. And

that was culminated in the development agreement

approval in 2018.

What we're doing here now with the CUP is we're

basically, we are going through technical approvals

here. As Sienna said, we now have formal grading. The

reason we're bringing this forward is because Villages 9

and 10 are now going into escrow. And with that, we're

completing the area, the development areas and the

grading for that. And the CUP is the technical

approval. At this point, we're requesting that in order

for us to fulfill our requirements in the development

agreement.

In the development agreement, we must maintain,

build a minimum of 1,200 homes within here. And that,

the purpose of the land plan and where it's spread out

in there was to develop the 1,200 homes under the zoning

that we have.

So this is just an implementation of the



155

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

approved development plan. And the CUP is the technical

approval that we're going through. That approval that

we're doing here, right now, the green areas have no

conditions as far as what can be built there with the

homes and all. And working with staff and all, and

Sienna went through it gracefully on there, we are

adding additional conditions to try and mitigate

concerns and also help with the viewsheds and other

items with the northerly neighbors there. We've had no

comments or concerns from the City of Reno, excuse me,

City of Sparks residents. It is the northerly county

residents that are having concerns here.

And, again, I just want to emphasize, we're not

here to hurt anyone. Our thing was going to state 99

years. This is something that we've gone through a

process here. It is, it's fully approved, and we are

basically just moving for implementation. This would be

the final CUP amendment to it. All the lands around

this project are either homeowners associations or --

basically, the lands around it are all controlled and

would not be developable. BLM has some land adjacent to

it, and homeowners associations.

So this is the project. And I just want to

emphasize that this is, the dialogues are not building

on the ridgelines, those were dialogued over the past



156

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

eight years and were concluded with the approval of the

development agreement. And this is a technical approval

for us to implement that at this point.

I think, that's kind of really, I just wanted

to step back and get a background, because there's a lot

of comments and questions and things that, I think, are

confused, or there might be some confusion on what this

approval is.

The Commissioners here asked some technical

questions. I'm going to hand it over to Jeff House, who

will walk you through and answer some of these, as far

as the hydrology and the 3D presentation and all that.

And, Jeff, if you're still awake, I'm going

to -- Jeff is actually in Atlanta, Georgia. So it's a

little bit later for him there. But I'm going to hand

it over to him, and we will get through this. I want to

make sure that we get the presentation and open it up

for questions for anyone here.

And thank you very much.

Jeff, we think you're on mute. Jeff, you're on

mute. Jeff, can you hear us? You're on mute.

MR. JEFF HOUSE: Yeah, I got it. No, I just

sang a beautiful song and nobody heard it. That's

what's so disturbing.

Anyway, good evening, Chair Pritsos and



157

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

Commission. I'm Jeff House, CEO of House Moran

Consulting. We were retained to prepare the following

slides I'm going to go through that address concerns

expressed by property owners to the north of 5 Ridges

site pertaining to hillside views, as well as stormwater

and sediment management.

To accommodate these concerns, City staff asked

us to prepare a pictorial simulation of the hillside

view with the approved development in place from

Points 1, 2 and 3. How these points were chosen is that

they are located at the terminus of public right-of-way

easements, and they end at driveways for these residents

right here on Starhill Way, Patrina Way, and Marie Way,

slash, Mac Street.

Another thing that's important is that these

points are also at the lowest in elevation of the lots

of 5 Ridges. So you get a really conservative view of

what the hillside, or the worst possible view of what

the hillside's going to be from those observation

points.

All the info was retained from digital sources,

from Washoe County GIS, U.S. Geological Survey, database

clearinghouses, et cetera. So nobody trespassed on

private property.

So this is the overview of where we're going to



158

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

do. I'm going to take shots. I'm going to view east,

south, southwest and south at each one of these points.

And what you're going to see are the views of the

hillside.

A few technical things to go over is that we

used very advanced software to do this imagery. We used

RTIS, 3D Analyst, Spatial Analyst, ArcScene software and

applications and tools to develop this 3D imagery.

And each observation point, we looked at the

hill, we panned left to right, or east to west. And

where the view intersected the digital elevation model,

that is what shows up. We put in the houses at 28 feet

high for two-story homes, 18 feet high for one-story

homes. And we simply alternated one-story and two-story

homes across the ridgeline, the northern ridgeline in

Villages 9 and 10. And our observation height --

MS. MARTINEZ: Chair Pritsos, we have a little

less than five minutes left in the applicant

presentation.

MR. HOUSE: I'm just going to breeze through

this, then.

So, anyway, this is what you're going to look

at from each one of the observation points. This is

called a bare earth view, and this is what we're going

to look at, all the sites from three points.



159

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 starting at Point A, right, or Point 1,

going to view to the east and pan to the west. So you

see a few homes on the eastern cul-de-sac. You see a

few homes where you're looking due south. You see the

partial view of homes as you're looking at Village 9

western cul-de-sac.

From Observation Point 2, similarly, there are

some terrain issues that block the homes, but you see

homes partially from a majority of the site to the

western cul-de-sac.

And then from Observation Point 3, you don't

really see that much of the east. You see the very

eastern most cul-de-sac. In the middle, you see

partially a lot of the homes and then the western

cul-de-sac.

Before this meeting, the Planning Commission

had requested three cross-sections, which were provided

and discussed. I'm not going to go into those in lieu

of time constraints. One of the things that we were

asked to provide was an intersection of the existing

conditions digital elevation model with the proposed

conditions elevation model, digital elevation model, and

take the difference between the two. And that is the

difference in the ridgelines between existing conditions

and proposed conditions. Where you see red is where you



160

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

ridgeline has been cut down. Where you see very

shallow, or yellow, according to the scale over here, is

very little amount of cutting.

So, again, from Observation Point 1, what you

see is just a little bit of difference. The red is the

top of the ridgeline of what it used to be. There's

some artifacts in the GIS that can't do anything about

it, it's just because of the different data sources.

Again, slight reduction in hillside. Slight reduction

in hillside. Minor reduction in hillside.

From Observation Point 2, slight reduction in

hillside. Again, slight reduction in hillside. Slight

reduction in these locations.

So it's not like we're going from a tall

mountain to down. We're staying at basically, you know,

the same view from a majority of the homes. Again, from

Point 3, very little reduction in ridgeline.

So there's been a lot of comments about

stormwater and sedimentation concerns coming off the

site. I've got a very busy slide to show you. And, I

think, I've got two minutes left or three minutes left.

This site was modeled in state-of-the-art

modeling, a dynamic model that models all the ponds,

sediment basins, pipes. Everything, the ditches, are

all in one model. And we went off-site and grabbed all



161

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 -- everything from off-site to on-site to evaluating

what's going off-site from our property. And at every

discharge point on the northern property line, and this

is where a lot of concern was, we reduced the flows

significantly from predevelopment conditions to

postdevelopment conditions. This was achieved because

we reduced the drainage areas by the way the site was

laid out and all the ditches. The sediment was reduced

by temporary sediment traps as well as permanent

detention ponds. We have four major ponds that are

doing a lot of work in attenuating peak flows. And then

we have two permanent sediment basins that take a big

off-site area, and we are providing five to seven times

the amount of sediment storage required for the site.

And then at two key locations near Pyramid Highway, we

reduced flows by over half. And particularly at

Highland Ranch Parkway and Pyramid Way, we reduced it by

over half.

MS. MARTINEZ: Chair Pritsos, we have completed

the 15 minutes.

CHAIR PRITSOS: All right. Thank you, Casey.

MR. JEFF HOUSE: I was almost done. I was

almost done. I was just going to say that we have --

CHAIR PRITSOS: Yeah, just finish your thought,

that's fine.



162

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. JEFF HOUSE: Okay. Thank you.

As a part of the intersection improvements and

the road widening of Highland Ranch Parkway, when that

occurs, we are improving the culvert that is currently

undersized, and we are putting in a double box culvert

here that takes flow down, crosses over Pyramid, and

proceeds down to North Truckee Drain and Sparks

Boulevard.

That concludes my presentation.


much.

All right. So, at this time, are there

questions for the applicant?

Commissioner Read.


I did have one question, is why can't you

increase the current density among the villages so you

don't need a CUP to create a village?

MR. BLAKE SMITH SR.: Do you want me to answer?

Turn me on.

MR. MIKE RAILEY: You're on.

MR. BLAKE SMITH SR.: Oh, okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. I think, one of the

problems that we have here is Villages 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and

6 and 7 are already sold. Those densities, if you



163

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

recall, and, again, some history to this, we had to come

back in and change Villages 1A, 1B and Villages 5 to an

M2 zoning to get this, to get the densities up for us.

But those villages are already set as far as they have.

And so the reminder of Villages 8, 9 and 10 are the ones

that we need for to complete our density to get up to

1,200, if that answers.

MR. MIKE RAILEY: And just so add on that,

those villages are zoned SF6, so we're limited on much

density we can put in those areas.

MR. BLAKE SMITH SR.: Right. Correct.

COMMISSIONER READ: Oh, okay. That answers

that question.

MR. BLAKE SMITH SR.: Okay. Thank you.

CHAIR PRITSOS: Any other questions,

Commissioner Read?

COMMISSIONER READ: Not at this time.

CHAIR PRITSOS: Okay. Then, Commissioner

Carey.


Question for the applicant team, kind of along

the lines of Commissioner Read's questioning. I was

just kind of curious if you have a rough unit count.

Because you've made a couple statements saying that you

need this additional land covering the CUP to be



164

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

disturbed in order to meet the minimum density

requirements. I'm just curious. I know this is, you

know, very preliminary. But I'm curious if you have

kind of a number of how many units you may fall short,

you know, if these brown areas aren't approved, in terms

of meeting that minimum density in the development

agreement.

MR. BLAKE SMITH SR.: Well, I think,

Commissioner Carey, we're hovering around 1,200 units

right now. That area -- but keep in mind, it's not,

it's really not feasible to just say we're not going to

build in that area, because this is a balanced site.

We're moving millions of yards of dirt in here to

balance it. Keep in mind that this was a mining site

for 15 years. They mined out 9 million cubic yards in

here. And what we're doing is coming back in and

balancing it out.

So the tan areas up there, when you say if we

didn't build in them, the problem that would happen to

us is we would lose over a hundred units, number one,

which would probably drop us under the density. And,

number two, the site would be unbalanced at that point.

And I don't even want to venture into studying what that

means to trucks having to import, export. We could be

thousands of trucks. The economics to the project could



165

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

go upside down with it.

It's not just a function of saying we don't

want to build in that area. This is a master plan of a

master balance for the site. It's very critical that

that area get, that those areas in total are graded out

to balance out the site here.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: Thank you, Mr. Smith.

Follow-up, if I may, Mr. Chair?

CHAIR PRITSOS: Yes, go ahead.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: And I apologize,

Mr. Smith. It's three hours into this. I'm just kind

of curious. By balancing, you're talking about grading,

right?

MR. BLAKE SMITH SR.: Correct, the dirt.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: The technical term?

MR. BLAKE SMITH SR.: Yeah, the dirt in there.

As we build the site here, there's cuts and fills that

balance it, so that we don't have to import or export

soils in here. We've been designing this for three

years to make sure that we don't do that. Because I

don't think the community as a whole or anyone wants to

see importation or exportation of dirt in here. So the

site as a whole, the tan is very critical, it's

absolutely critical to balancing the site out as we go

forward here.



166

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: Thank you for that

clarification.


MR. BLAKE SMITH SR.: M-hm (affirmative).

CHAIR PRITSOS: Thank you.

Commissioner West.

COMMISSIONER WEST: Yes. I just have one

question. And I may have missed it. But why wasn't

this area included originally in the CUP that has

already been approved?

MR. BLAKE SMITH SR.: Yeah, good question,

Commissioner. And what we did is, it would have been as

Villages 1 through 7 went into escrow, we went in and

said what do we need to do to accomplish that at this

point. The development agreement gives us the rights to

develop all these areas. But we needed villages, we

needed to grade parts of villages, well, all of

Village 9 and 10 and part of Village 9 to accomplish the

development of Villages 1 through 7.

Now that Villages 9 and 10 are going into

escrow, we're bringing it back, saying, okay, all of the

villages, these villages are going in and we need to

accomplish the CUP for that area at this point.

COMMISSIONER WEST: Okay. Thank you.

MR. BLAKE SMITH SR.: M-hm (affirmative).



167

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 West.

Are there any other questions for the applicant

at this time?

Okay. Seeing none, this is a public comment

item. And so just to reiterate, once again, before we

go into public comment, we have received a very large

number of public comments on this item. So just to

restate, for those who may have just joined us or joined

us more recently, if you requested that your email be

read by the secretary, then that is going to count as

your public comment. If you opted to not have the

secretary read your comment, then you will be called

upon to make a comment once all the emails have been

read.

We are going to be sticking to the three-minute

time limit. But if your entire email is not finished in

that three-minute time, it will still be part of the

record in it entirety and has been distributed to both

myself and the other members of the Commission.

All right. And with that, madam secretary,

could you please read the public comment announcement.

MS. SMITH: Thank you, Chair Pritsos.

As you can see here on the screen, again, we

are showing you the link to join through Zoom. Or you



168

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

can dial in to join using the dial-in number

1-669-900-6833. Meeting ID number is 918 6277 1011.

Star 9 to request to speak on your phone. Or you will

use the Zoom features, if you are joining through the

Zoom link, and raise your hand to request to speak.

We will read through all of the emails that

have been requested that the board clerks read previous

to taking any phone callers. Some of the email public

comment included some photographs. Both Casey and

myself will do our best to share those to the best of

our ability. These are, you know, some are JPEGs and

some are PDFs that were provided. And so the quality

may not be the greatest, but we will do our best.

Moving to the first one, I will have

Ms. Martinez actually read this one, as I do have a

photograph for this one.

MS. MARTINEZ: This was received by Loren and

Evelyn Acton:

We oppose houses on that ridge, the lovely

south boundary of Spanish Springs. As shown in the

attached photo, piles of excavation debris are

already visible on the ridgeline. There is also a

concern as to whether the developer will have

sufficient resources to complete the 5 Ridges

development. Because of the difficult and rocky



169

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

terrain, site preparation and utility installation

will be very costly. At the very least, the

application under consideration should be tabled

until completion of the approved plan is

satisfactorily accomplished. Better yet, vote no

on the application on behalf of all of us who

reside in Spanish Springs and North Sparks.

Development of this topographically-defining ridge

should not be allowed. Thank you for your

consideration of our views.

MS. SMITH: Okay. Our next email is from Janet

Ayela:

Please do not allow construction on the Spanish

Springs mountains. Our homes will be in danger of

flooding with water, mud and silt. Our drainage

system is not capable of handling anything coming

off the mountain from construction. Thank you.

MS. MARTINEZ: The next one will be from Troy

Becker:

I won't waste your time with a lengthy email,

but I and my neighbors and family are opposed to

this. The flood drain issues are concerning. And

frankly, you need about two more lanes for miles

more of Pyramid already, let alone even more

houses. Rubber-stamping every development when the



170

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

infrastructure is already lacking is a foolish

move. Thank you.

MS. SMITH: The next email is from Jackson

Booth:

Given the local public concern over the

issuance of this special use permit amendment, and

the fact that neither the amendment nor the

original permit conform to the existing RC codes,

specifically numbers 28, 29, 30 and 32, I believe

it is only reasonable for the City of Sparks to

demand, at the developer's expense, additional

environmental impact studies be conducted to

confirm the following: Granting of the amendment

and allowing its resulting development would not

result in any risk of erosion due to flooding that

would occur from rain or snow events that are

consistent with historical rain/snow patterns for

the area being considered for development that

would damage existing structures to the north and

east side of the proposed development and ridge

reconfiguration. Granting of the amendment and

allowing its resulting development would not result

in any risk to existing structures to the north and

east side of the proposed development and ridge

reconfiguration that could be caused from



171

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

insufficient water/silt drainage resulting from

flooding due to rain or snow conditions that would

be consistent with historical rain/snow patterns

for the area being considered for development. If

additional EIR studies are not ordered, I think the

City of Sparks should demand, with appropriate

contractual language, that the developer, and any

residents and/or commercial tenants, be held

jointly liable for damages, physical or financial,

that are caused to the residential properties

located to the north and east side of the proposed

development and ridge reconfiguration as a result

of the issuance of the proposed special use permit

amendment. Thank you for your consideration and of

my requests as I believe they are reasonable and

consistent with what any planning department would

require for the long-term protection of our local

community.

MS. MARTINEZ: The next email is from Brenda

Cash:

This is regarding the possible amendment to

conditional use permit for the developer of Old

Granite Construction Quarry 83 Development Company

5 Ridges. I am in total opposition of this

amendment. In 2018, this developer promised not to



172

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

build on the ridge, and it was already approved for

building 3,500 homes before. Now they want to

shear off like 90 feet of the ridgetop and all of

the beautiful rock formations up there. This would

cause considerable flooding and other environmental

concerns to the area. What about RC28, 29, 30 or

32, residential commercial planning codes, or

Section 20.04.011? Please, please, please consider

not passing this amendment and having them destroy

Spanish Springs any more than they already have.

MS. SMITH: This next email is from Bill and

Danelle Chisholm:

We request that the City of Sparks rejects the

request to amend a conditional use permit to

increase the development area generally located at

555 Highland Ranch Parkway, Sparks, Nevada.

Increasing the development area is bad for the

environment, i.e. the drainage issues, traffic

issues. These problems already exist out Pyramid

Highway. Allowing the amendment to pass will only

continue to make it worse.

MS. MARTINEZ: The next email is from Roc Cole:

Good evening, Commissioners. Hopefully, by

now, you have all received the information about

the discrepancy in acreage for this amendment. In



173

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 last meeting the developer kept saying 18 acres

of additional disturbance area. I took the plot

plan to Frank Lepori Construction and had his

estimator do a professional takeoff on Pay Dirt

software and digitalize the plan to come up with

those figures. It is a 200-scale plan, so there

could be a 5 to 10 percent error, but not 100

percent error. I plan on getting another takeoff

done today. I feel like we have all been deceived.

The Christy Corp. has had a cad file and knows the

exact figure of added disturbance. Why didn't we

get the proper number? The most damaging part of

the disturbance area is the percentage of buildable

land versus hillside disturbance in the form of

2-to-1 slopes, creating massive scars on natural

slopes that are over 15 to 30 percent gradient.

The buildable land equals 16.17 acres, the added

scarring on the hillside facing the valley is 22.1

acres, more than tripling the total hillside

scarring in the existing CUP. This is 42 percent

buildable land to destroy and scar 58 percent of a

hillside. How can this even be considered for

development? Staff has recommended approval yet

didn't even analyze the amount of disturbance area.

Codes and policies are in place for hillside



174

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

development. Can you imagine 22 football field

worth of disturbance added to this project, to only

add 16 acres of buildable land. With all of the

drainage off these massive slopes coming down onto

existing property owners, with no mitigation of

sediment and flow, is that legal? When this

project is complete, it becomes City

infrastructure and the City is responsible for it.

Surely you guys don't want another Vistas disaster.

Not to mention an 1,800-foot-long access road

running along a steep hillside just to sewer this

addition. If there is a blockage or breach, where

is that raw sewage going? Down to our backyards.

This is a bad design plan plain and simple. The

developer keeps talking about the 1,200-unit

agreement, the corner of Village 8 is on a 40-acre

parcel that can all be built, as well as other

spots within the project, or the lot size can be

reduced. The cost to reengineer is nothing

compared to the destruction of 22 acres of natural

resources. The developer will surely build more

1,200 homes, when all is said and done, even

without this piece. He's just using that number as

leverage. He stated that this addition was all

part -- all, without this piece -- I'm sorry. He



175

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

stated this was, addition was a part all along. So

why are we just now hearing about it? I submit

that he knew it was a long shot and would just

sneak it in at a later date. RC28 limits the

amount of land that may be disturbed --

The timer is done, and we have a good chunk

left.

MS. SMITH: Okay. The next email is from James

and Samantha Crowley:

We are completely opposed to the Quarry and the

proposed amendment to increase the amount of

land/hills they will remove for further

development. The people that have lived out in

Spanish Springs for decades moved out here for the

open space, quiet neighbors, and our proximity to

wide-open ranges. All this development is

destroying what we love so much about this area.

If you live out here, you are very aware of how

quickly the ditches along Pyramid from Erin Drive

down to Robert Banks flood. If you were to permit

the Quarry to disturb further hillsides, there's a

mass of concern to that will do to during periods

of rain and snow. Please, listen and respect the

people that actually live out here and deal with

your decisions on a daily basis. Please do not



176

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

permit additional land to be added to the Quarry.

Thank you for your time.

MS. MARTINEZ: The next email is from Kelli

Courson:

I am opposed to the additional homes being

added to the 5 Ridges project for the following

reasons: Infrastructure to prevent flooding has

not been established. The inevitable mud and silt

coming down the mountain as there is no drainage

and place to handle it. There are no easements on

the north side for the builder to put proper

drainage in place. Water from the City of Sparks

was not allowed to flow into Washoe County. This

addition does not adhere to RC28, 29, 30, 32 or

Section 20.04.011 of established ordinances.

According to the City of Sparks, our ridgetops and

outcroppings are protected from builders.

Hydroseeding is ineffective in this type of soil.

This additional construction would infringe on our

rights and inflict undue mental anguish, emotional

distress and litigation that would surely follow.

It is upsetting to think of the destruction this

additional construction would cause to our area, as

well as the devastating impact on local wildlife.

Please do not approve this project.



177

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

MS. SMITH: The next email is from R. Croak:

As a resident of the City of Sparks, I am

urging you to stop and do not approve the addendum

to add additional land use and homes to the

5 Ridges project above homes and property. I have

serious concerns about how and why this is

happening. What is the projected effect of

shearing 90 feet off of the ridgetops and removing

rock outcrops? Has this been studied? Was there

an environmental impact evaluation performed? Was

there an evaluation on the effect of the land

stability done? The project does not adhere to

RC28, 29, 30 or 32, or Section 20.04.011. Why

would anyone even attempt to push this addendum

through with this knowledge in hand? It certainly

sets the City of up for a lawsuit for having

ignored these codes if anything goes wrong, doesn't

it? Where is the increased easement allowing for

proper drainage and the additional infrastructure

to keep existing homes and backyards from flooding

with water, mud and silt? The Lemmon Valley

flooding debacle is fresh and should be a wakeup

call for this one. This added amendment was

recently rejected by the City due to insufficient

infrastructure in place by the builder to mediate



178

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 flooding and damage that will occur. Why is it

suddenly being reconsidered now? I cannot locate a

locate a copy of any new/revised infrastructure

plan being submitted. Before handing carte blanche

to the developer, please consider the financial

liability for the City of Sparks as well as the

multiple effects on the existing residents. No one

wants a Lemmon Valley catastrophe on their hands.

MS. MARTINEZ: The next email is from Leonard

and Cherie Danner:

We oppose the request for additional

disturbance limits. We attended the original

community meeting, and the developer assured us

that the building would remain on the other side of

the hill because the hillside was too steep to

build on. So we did not object. To change the

rules now is inconsiderable. And we live at the

bottom of a hill on the north at 7500 Marie Way.

We were not informed of this meeting although we

were unquestionably affected. Please record our

strenuous objection to this action.

MS. SMITH: The next email is from Nancy

Danner:

My name is Nancy Danner. I have lived in the

area for over 25 years. My front porch faces the



179

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

ridge. While I cannot undo what was previously

approved for development of our homes, I am hopeful

my concerns for additional land use will be taken

into consideration before decisions are made. I am

writing in regards to the 5 Ridges request for

additional land use and homes for the development.

We have not been granted any relief from this

onslaught of development in that they keep

requesting more and more. And the council/board

powers that be continue to grant the requests of

the developer. I am hopeful that the Commissioners

members have looked into how detrimental it would

be to allow additional building and land-grabbing

for this development. Without boring all of you

with the residential planning codes, it is urgent

that you realize the impact of building on this

slope. There is no easement to allow for proper

drainage. We have had the drainage ditch on

Dolores Drive flood many times during a rainy wet

year. The drainage ditch is not adequate and

cannot sustain floodwaters without damage to

Dolores Drive and Pyramid Highway. They still have

not been able to correct the drainage issues on

Pyramid Highway. Would it be possible and within

reason to ask that you take into consideration the



180

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

residents who have made their homes out here? I am

pretty sure, if you were living where you live or

where my neighbors actually live, in the path of

this development, you would never be approving this

request. The developer has requested and pretty

much gotten everything he has asked for, with

absolutely no regard for the concerns of the

residents. I am asking you to please deny this

additional land request. Those of us living in

this area have an appreciation of our open spaces,

while developers from out-of-state do not much

regard for the beauty of our valley. I

respectfully ask that you allow us to keep what is

remaining on that ridge. While my email does not

come close to addressing all of the issues the

request entails, I understand there are time

constraints when the public addresses either in

person or email. I am ever hopeful you will do the

right thing and deny this request. Thank you.

MS. MARTINEZ: The next email is from Bob and

Linda Davis:

We did not receive notice of the meeting even

though we live within a mile of seeing, hearing and

suffering the intrusion of this project to our

quiet neighborhood. We read the original plan for



181

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

this development and had thought that the northern

ridgeline of the development would remain

undisturbed. This amendment and the earthwork that

we see going on will remove the ridges and bring

unwanted noise, destruction of our permit views,

and very possible wreckage to the properties very

near and below the new housing. The construction

of additional drainage into our overburdened

ditches and a likely addition of new roadways for

increased traffic into and through our neighborhood

are an assault on the privacy and security of

everyone in this rural area. Is this other bait

and switch and underhanded way to push just a

little bit further? Please do not approve the

further destruction of the ridgeline.

MS. SMITH: The next email is from Robin Down:

I am opposed to the additional homes being

added to the 5 Ridges project for the following

reasons: Infrastructure to prevent flooding has

not been established. The inevitable mud and silt

coming down the mountain as there is no drainage in

place to handle it. There are no easements on the

north side for the builder to put proper drainage

in place. Water from the City of Sparks is not

allowed to flow into Washoe County. This addition



182

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 not adhere to RC28, 29, 30, 32 or Section

20.04.011 of established ordinances. According to

the City of Sparks, our ridgetops and outcroppings

are protected from builders. Hydroseeding is

ineffective in this type of soil. This additional

construction would infringe on our rights and

inflict undue mental anguish and emotional

distress, and litigation would surely follow. It

is heartbreaking to think of the destruction this

additional construction would cause to the area as

well as devastating impact on local wildlife.

Please do not approve this project.

MS. MARTINEZ: The next email is from Lisa

Durgin:

I am writing to oppose the addendum to the

5 Ridges development which would permit the builder

to add additional homes cut into ridgelines and

potentially create a dangerous situation for

existing homes on the downward slope from this

development. Spanish Springs has already seen what

poor planning and development can do to our

drainage systems and hillsides. Every time there

is a protracted rainstorm, the neighborhood below

these hills are inundated with mud, debris, and

Pyramid highway becomes impaired due to overflowing



183

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

retention basins and ditches. Cutting away more

hillside and adding more homes than what is already

approved to an ill-equipped infrastructure will

have devastating effects on our community. I urge

you to vote no on this addendum. Thank you.

MS. SMITH: The next email is from Jason

Eastman:

As a resident of the Spanish Springs area, it

is greatly disheartening to hear and see that there

is intent to destroy some of our beautiful

ridgelines and scenery in the area off Highland

Ranch Road and the bordering properties to the

north. While I recognize the importance of

development and do believe in appropriate and

reasonable development, neither of which are

occurring in this case, both Washoe County and the

City of Sparks have indicated a desire to preserve

our ridges and hills, crests from development,

which the Christy Corporation is directly trying to

destroy in this particular case. In quotes:

Through cooperation with the Washoe County Board of

County Commissioners and the Washoe County Planning

Commission, the Spanish Springs community will

maintenance and apply objective standards and

criteria that serve to manage growth and



184

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

development in the Spanish Springs area in a manner

that: respects the rural heritage of the area by

encouraging a rustic appearance and preserving

scenic quality; respects private property rights;

provides a range of low density housing

opportunities; provides open space and recreational

opportunities; provides local services and

employment opportunities; and, finally, ensures

that growth is kept in balance with the resources

and infrastructure. End quotes. This already

seems to be falling to the wayside with rampant

development, but this addendum to the original plan

from the Christy Corporation is especially

egregious, with no consideration for the values set

in place above. Additionally, there is little to

no mention of the additional ramifications of the

destruction of this natural ridgeline and the

addition of the homes and people that come with it.

Only a short few years ago, there was enough runoff

in the area of Dolores and Pyramid that the main

road was covered over, and the existing drainage

system was completely overwhelmed. Adding the

additional housing and destruction of the existing

natural slope and drainage would just exacerbate

this issue without serious mitigation. There is



185

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

also a disturbing lack of concern with the

additional traffic to Pyramid Highway, as well as

police, fire and EMS response, including emergency

ingress and egress to the area. As a citizen of

this beautiful area, I sincerely hope that you will

take this letter and others like it into

consideration, and reject these changes so that we

may preserve the beauty of this valley.

MS. MARTINEZ: Next email is from Jeffrey and

Hayley Eastman:

I am a fairly new resident in the Spanish

Springs area as my family and I moved here in

December of 2019. We relocated from the Sacramento

area where we resided for almost two decades.

While living in the Sacramento area, I commuted

about 80 miles round-trip to work on a daily basis.

Over the course of several years, that drive time

greatly increased even though the distance stayed

the same. Growth outpacing infrastructure was

clearly the cause of this and many other problems

for the area. Unfortunately, it seems as if our

new city is following in those poorly thought out

footsteps. We must contain the scope of this

ever-increasing project in order to preserve the

safety and quality of life. Great addition to



186

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

commute times in traffic on an already burdened

Pyramid Highway, increased response times for fire

and police, and simply hoping that current

drainages systems in place don't get overwhelmed

and cause flooding/damage to nearby homes is

obviously the opposite of the above goals.

Continuing to allow for this project to expand is

blatantly a violation of the Washoe County master

plan, "ensures that growth is kept in balance with

resources and infrastructure," end quotes. What is

the point of spending time and resources on

creating these documents if they aren't going to be

followed? Outside of the issues of safety and

quality of life, my largest interest in the

proposed expansion is the effect it will have on

the Nevada desert landscape. As I look across the

valley to the east side of Sparks, I see similar

ridges littered with houses. These houses strip

away the natural beauty of the landscape. I

currently live just north of Eagle Canyon and have

a great view of the ridgeline in question as part

of the horizon. What an eyesore to load the ridge

with houses. It's already a shame that this

committee has turned its back on the preservation

of scenic quality to the extent it has. To approve



187

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 newest proposal which includes great

alterations to the ridge would just add insult to

injury and confirm the committee's total

abandonment of the Washoe County master plan.

Respects the rural heritage of the area by


scenic quality. Again, I ask, why write it? I

appreciate your time and thank you for your careful

consideration.

MS. SMITH: This next email is from Mike

Eastman. I will tell you that this is a two-page email.

I would encourage you to read it in your packet, because

I will not, most likely, be getting through this email:

Dear Sparks Planning Commission and Mr. Blake

Smith, thanks for taking a little, a little extra

time to consider the applicant's request to destroy

more ridgeline. There's so much to say and so

little time. Before I get started, I want to say I

appreciate the work done by the planning staff.

They are very thorough with their review, but it

does seem they are biased towards the development

side of the planning process. More on that later.

I'll start with a rebuttal to Blake Smith's

statement in the News 4 reporting on this

development. Firstly, he acts as if he is



188

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

altruistically setting back homes and reducing

heights of accessory buildings. My understanding

of the planning process is that the planning staff

are the ones proposing those steps to the

application that did not include them. Sorry, you

don't get to get credit for that, Mr. Smith.

Secondly, he states this land plan has been in the

public realm for seven to eight years, implying

that residents should have been expressing their

concern earlier in the process. I think, most of

you Commissioners know we've been fighting this

since the first day we became aware of it, and have

been addressing many, many concerns at every

appropriate meeting ever since. Sorry, Mr. Smith,

you don't get to take that away from us. Though

the requested 3D renderings of the project were

partially included in the article, I'm going to

address them separately. The renderings are

impressive, as is technology. However, we are not

concerned about the view from our homes, but the

impact on the scenic views from everywhere else

along Dolores Drive and points north. Certainly,

some remaining terrain may shield some homes from

some viewpoints close in, but we know fewer homes

will be shielded from views from farther north.



189

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

Please reaccomplish so we can see what the ridge

looks like from Dolores and Pyramid Highway. I

also want to thank you for pointing out how much

more obtrusive the views of the homes on the

additional 19 acres will be. You've supported our

desire to have the Commission deny your request to

raze and fill 19 more acres. In my last statement

to you on April 15th, I asked a couple of questions

that I have seen little effort to address. The

questions of interest are: Exhibit 3 purports to

show slope analysis yet appears to be incomplete

for lands west, northwest and north of Villages 8

and 9. How will completing the slope analysis for

these lands affect your overall calculations so

heavily relied upon to get this CUP approval?

Exhibit 9 says the steep slopes on the north of

Village 9 will be riprap. Exhibit 6 says it will

be revegetated with EFM. The Planning Commission

case summary is inclusive in its review. Which is

it? Keep in mind that the exhibits referenced are

for the last meeting, not this one. Unfortunately,

I do not see the answers to these questions in the

staff report. Effectively, we need more

explanation about how the slope analysis appears to

leave out a portion of the development, Villages 8



190

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 9, but it is unclear how they will affect the

overall calculations when completed. Also, those

of us under the projected Villages 9 and 10 --

MS. MARTINEZ: Our three minutes have

completed, Marilie.

The next email is from Carol and Greg Evans:

We are Washoe County residents of 20 years in

Spanish Springs, Nevada. Although our property is

located outside the city limits, we stand with

residents who will be directly affected by the

subject development project. We are concerned

about the impact on both the county roads and

environment that may be affected if the developer

can proceed. Over two decades we've witnessed

flooding on Pyramid Way and have paid residential

utilities fees for years for the cost of the flood

zone protection area at Pyramid and East

Calle de La Plata. Will the 5 Ridges developer pay

for a similar flood protection, or will the current

residents and new buyers be stuck with it forever?

The small drainage ditches along the roads for

current residences are subject to flooding and

heavy debris from the hillsides if new homes are

built up there. As County citizens, we are opposed

to wham, bam developers who comes and build, impact



191

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

our water, roads, traffic, wastewater system,

schools and environmental beauty, what's left of

it, and then leave without financially offsetting

these problems. Everyone knows there is an

impending water shortage in the area and this

development will contribute to it. Please do not

approve the addendum to increase additional land

use and homes to the 5 Ridges project above the

current residential properties. Thank you.

MS. SMITH: The next email is from Courtney

Farnsworth:

I respectfully request that you deny the

Christy Corporation's application for an amendment

to their conditional use permit. They are

requesting a major revision to their original CUP

that disturbs an even greater amount of sloped

terrain. They are already degrading a major

feature of our regional scenic beauty to allow more

terrain destruction, would add insult to injury.

The Washoe County Master Plan prizes scenic

quality, but, clearly, the Christy Corporation does

not. From the Washoe County Master Plan, in

quotes, Through cooperation with the Washoe County

Board of County Commissioners and the Washoe County

Planning Commission, the Spanish Springs community



192

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

will maintain and apply objective standards and


development in the Spanish Springs in a manner

that: respects the rural heritage of the area by


scene quality; respects private property rights;


opportunity; provides open space and recreational


employment opportunities; and ensures that growth

is kept in balance with resources and

infrastructure, close quote. The Sparks City

Council and Planning Commission have thus far

abandoned their stated objectives, in conjunction

with the Washoe County Master Plan, in protecting

scenic quality. There are ridges throughout the

Sparks area that would never have been built upon

if foothills or ridges were to be protected

according to the Washoe County Master Plan, which

states a planning principle is to protect

foothills, mountains, river corridors and other

natural features, end quotes. This latest venture

on the old Quarry site could have been attacked on

a smaller scale that would indeed have respected

scenic quality for the tens of thousands of



193

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

regional residents. With the full assault on the

top of the ridge, you've allowed for monstrous

damage. Now just because we have come this far in

the planning process doesn't mean we have to bow to

the Christy Corporation in their desire to knock

down even more. I have another reason to reject

the application. The application addresses

decreasing the ridgetop height and moving that dirt

and rock outwards to gain more flat space for

homes. The cost is destruction of natural terrain

and habitat and the presence of even steeper

terrain right at the property line with local

residents. Nowhere in the document is erosion and

runoff addressed and the effect on the properties

below this project. This must be addressed, and if

this project is approved, must be addressed and

mitigated. We have the right to have significant

assurance that this project is, as requested, does

not impact our properties. Thank you for your

consideration.

MS. MARTINEZ: The next email is from Lorraine

Fernandez:

As concerned citizens and residents of Sparks,

we are requesting that the City of Sparks rejects

the request to amend a conditional use permit to



194

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

increase the development area generally located at

555 Highland Ranch Parkway, Sparks, Nevada.

Increasing the development area will be detrimental

to the already problematic flooding, traffic and

pollution we have been facing as of late. Thank

you.

MS. SMITH: This next email is from Dan and

Mindy Flannagan:

This email is to be entered and read by the

Sparks clerk as part of the opposition to the

applicant's request as detailed in tonight's

Planning Commission meeting, agenda item number

PCN19-0040. The applicant did not calculate

existing accurate determination of existing

disturbance areas in the original CUP. The

applicant continues disregarding existing distance

areas in total overall disturbance area

calculations in the current request. The applicant

is currently in violation of the Washoe County

Health Department air quality dust control

requirements due to the lack of water saturation

measures. The applicant has not entered into

development intercommunity cooperation and impact

measures pursuant to the upcoming proposed Regional

Plan amendments. The applicant has not shown



195

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

adequate fire apparatus, primary and secondary

access roads under IFC 2018 Appendix D. The

applicant has not addressed preconstruction fire

prevention measures under the 2018 WC Code. The

applicant has not secured proper waste disposal

agreements with wastewater infrastructure plans for

the City of Reno. The application and staff has

not produced the required Native American and

Indigenous -- I cannot say that word, I'm sorry --

studies report for proposed disturbance areas. The

City of Sparks has not amended Section 20.04.011

for the designated ridges in and around the subject

site. Once amended, the City of Sparks is creating

a double standard by not allowing the visual

impacts under Section 20.04.011 on the City of

Sparks sides of the ridgelines but ignoring

20.04.011 for the Washoe County sides. Excavation

work currently occurring on site exceeds federal

permissible noise exposures, permissible noise

exposure duration per day in our sound level and

decibels 8-906-924-953-972-100 11/2-102 1-105

1/2-110 1/4 or less 115 decibels. Noises not

meeting this definition are considered an impact of

impulse noise, and exposures to this type of noise

must not exceed 140 decibels. Per OSHA publication



196

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

3074, in quotes, hearing conservation, or refer to

the OSHA standard at 29 CFR 1910.95, occupational

noise exposure, section (c). The applicant has not

demonstrated good-faith efforts with the directly

impacted property owners. The applicant did not

abide by representation made at previous

neighborhood CAB meetings. Respectfully submitted.

MS. MARTINEZ: The next email is from Karin

Fulton:

This amendment or the original special use

permit does not adhere to RC number 28, 29, 30 or

32, in quotes, RC meaning residential or

commercial, of the established ordinances. Number

two, per the City and Washoe County, as an

ordinance in Section 20.04.011, disturbances to

slopes, hilltops and ridges, are being ignored.

Number three, if these ridgetops and hilltops are

disturbed any more than what's written in the

special use permit, the homeowners on the north and

east side of 5 Ridges will bear the brunt of excess

flooding, bringing down the mountain tons of mud

and silt. Number four, with no coordinated plans

for drainage and no possibility of easements to

bring drainage into our valley, the natural and

man-made ditches that carry water through our



197

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

neighborhood will most certainly be overwhelmed by

silt. And Pyramid Highway will see the worst

flooding in its history. Number five, sewer

breaches are possible. Number six, this will allow

a developer to chop up 90 feet off these ridges and

hilltops that were preserved, meant to be preserved

in the first place, along with our natural rock

outcrops. Number seven, hydroseeding is not

effective in this type of soil. Erosion and

imminent. Number eight, traffic on Pyramid and

Highland Ranch. Number nine, this guy is

backpaddling for a reason. He bit off more than he

could chew and found out there isn't as much usable

building area as figured to work his numbers game

he promised the City. He didn't take the proper

steps on an engineering level. That's why he keeps

asking for more. Enough is enough. There is no

plan for what's going to come down the side of

these north and east ridges after a major weather

event. Number 10, we live here for a reason. This

will be an infringement to our peace, quiet and

beautiful landscapes. Sincerely, very concerned

citizen in Spanish Springs and North Springs HOA.

MS. SMITH: This next email is from Cheryll and

Steve Glotfelty:



198

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

We are writing to express strong objection to

the application of the 5 Ridges project to expand

beyond the originally approved plan. As residents

who have lived in the area to the immediate north of

the 5 Ridges development for 18 years, we also

opposed the original plan, because we do not want to

see our houses built on -- we do not want to see

houses built on that ridge that we look at every

day. The City of Sparks has a code that protects

ridges, and our argument is that the ridge that

5 Ridges wants to build on is, in fact, a ridge. We

have been told by our neighbors who attended a

public meeting at the library a couple of years ago

that the developer assured residents that the

proposed development would remain in the basin,

since the hillsides were too steep to build on.

Clearly, they have changed their tune, making the

whole thing seem like a premeditated scheme to

pacify opposition. Now 5 Ridges is proposing a

change order to build houses not only on the

ridgeline, but on the steep hillside slopes north of

the ridge. We oppose the plan for the same reason

we opposed the original plan. It will spoil the

view of the natural hillside. It will be as if

houses are marching in on us. Furthermore, in the



199

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

slope analysis, the proposed disturbance area

violates RC28 of the Comprehensive Plan for the City

of Sparks. The red on that same analysis indicates

natural rock outcroppings, outcroppings that RC30

stipulates be preserved. Building on that steep

slope would necessitate massive disturbance and

recontouring of the hillside, not to mention road

building. There would, of course, be problems with

does, noise, fire danger and drainage. These are

not small problems. These are serious issues. That

area was designated open space in the original

plan, for good reason, and we believe that the

5 Ridges developer must be held to that plan.

Finally, as a matter of policy, we object to a

change order that would be significantly different

than the plan that was approved. This strategy to

change horses in the middle of a race on the part of

5 Ridges seems very unfair and dastardly, to be

honest. Please vote no.

MS. MARTINEZ: The next email is from Joe

Granata:

I received information on a public hearing

today concerning the property at 555 Highland Ranch

Parkway, in quote, PCN19-0040. Looking at the

request, it is ambiguous. It says, in quotes, to



200

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

allow development on a site that is 10 acres,

quotes, or larger, end quotes, slope gradient of

10 percent, quotes, or greater, does that mean that

it could be 1,000 acres or a slope gradient of

20 percent? I also understand that there may be a

road that may or may not impact travel on Dolores

Drive. This concerns me. I can understand the

concerns of the residents that live within a

thousand feet of the requested amended property.

So I respectfully request that you deny this

consideration. Thank you.

MS. SMITH: The next email is from Fred Haynes:

Hello. I ask you and the board to please

oppose the PCN19-0040 project coming up at the

May 6th meeting. Do not let the developers take

our mountains away from us. They are the beauty of

our area. Don't turn our valley into an LA-looking

area, please.

MS. MARTINEZ: The next email is from Joseph

and Ora Hoshen:

We request that the City of Sparks rejects the

request to amend a conditional use permit,

CU20-0005, to increase the development area

generally located at 555 Highland Ranch Parkway,

Sparks, Nevada. Increasing the development area is



201

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

bad for the environment and the residents of

Sparks.

MS. SMITH: The next email is from Jamie Klund:

I'm against the Planning Commission allowing

this plan to move forward for environmental and

quality of life issues enumerated below. Number

one, this amendment, or the original special use

permit, does not adhere to RC28, 29, 30 or 32 of

the established ordinances. Number two, per the

City and the Washoe County, an ordinance in Section

20.04.011 is being ignored. Number three, if these

ridgetops and hilltops are disturbed any more than

what's written in the special use permit, the

homeowners on the north and east side of 5 Ridges

will bear the brunt of the excess flooding,

bringing down the mountain tons of mud and silt.

Number four, with no coordinated plans for

drainage, and no possibility of easements to bring

drainage into our valley, the natural and man-made

ditches that carry water through our neighborhoods

will most certainly be overwhelmed by silt. And

Pyramid Highway will see the worst flooding in its

history. Number five, sewer breaches are possible.

Number six, this will allow the developer to chop

up 90 feet off of these ridges and hilltops that



202

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

were to be preserved in the first place, along with

our natural rock outcrops. Number seven,

hydroseeding is not effective in this type of soil.

Erosion is imminent. Number eight, traffic on

Pyramid and Highland Ranch. Number nine, this guy

is backpaddling for a reason. He bit off more than

he could chew and found out there isn't as much

usable building area as figured to work his numbers

game he promised the City. He didn't take the

proper steps on an engineering level. That's why

he keeps asking for more. Enough is enough. There

is no plan for what's going to come down the side

of these north and east ridges after the major

weather event. Number 10, we live here for a

reason. This will be an infringement to our peace,

quiet, and beautiful landscapes.

MS. MARTINEZ: The next email is from Tracy

Ladd:

Please don't approve the addendum to add

additional land use and homes to the 5 Ridges

project above our homes and property, the Quarry.

What makes our area beautiful is the view of the

mountains. The greed and disregard for preserving

our areas' open space has got to stop. There is

plenty of flat lands that can be developed. Let's



203

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

make sure the beauty of the area isn't marred by

greed. Also, there is no easement to allow for

proper drainage and no infrastructure to keep our

homes and/or backyards from flooding with water,

mud and silt. We don't need another Lemmon Valley

situation.

MS. SMITH: In next email is from Frank Lepori:

Good evening. I have a few concerns on the

design of PCN19-0040. My concerns are as follows:

The slopes, scarring of the hillside, does it meet

current code? The 2-to-1 slopes and how long does

the revege get watered. The drainage of the

slopes. The protection of the property owners

below and how, how are the impacts going to know

addressed? The biggest concern is the drainage off

the large 2-to-1 slopes increasing the impact from

runoff and sediment to the property below. Would

someone answer my concerns. Thank you.

MS. MARTINEZ: The next email is from

R. Lucius:

I would like to formally oppose any building

projects on any of the Sparks Spanish Springs

mountains, hilltops or ridges. There is not

sufficient infrastructure in place or available to

support this project or the homes already there.



204

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

Flooding and erosion are of great concern in this

area, and additional destruction of these areas

will only make matters worse. Additionally, or

traffic routes cannot support the increase in

population for this area. We are already dealing

with extremely heavy and dangerous traffic and road

conditions due to overpopulation. Please oppose

any projects in this area.

MS. SMITH: This next email is from Vernie,

Vernie McCrohan:

I am writing in regards to the above-mentioned

case. I am a resident living at 309 Shelby Drive,

Sparks, Nevada. Please, please do not approve this

project. Our beautiful valley has already been

invaded with new homes. It is unconscionable to

consider taking any part of a mountain down to

build homes. This would cause possible flooding

and erosion. I must also mention the added traffic

off of Pyramid Highway. This highway has become a

nightmare for commuting and gets worse every day.

Please consider the current residents of this

valley and deny this development. I may be reached

at -- and she leaves her phone number, but I will

not be reading that into the record. Thank you.

MS. MARTINEZ: The next email is from Mike



205

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

Marbury:

I am against building the homes on the side of

the mountain.

Marilie, would you like me to read the next

one, too?

MS. SMITH: It's okay, Casey.

MS. MARTINEZ: Okay.

MS. SMITH: You got a freebie.

This next email is from Douglas Marsh.

To whom it may concern, I am writing to express

my opposition to the above-referenced request for a

variance to allow a self-storage facility in an

area zoned for retail. There is simply no

justification for approval. That the owner has

been unable to secure --

You know what, I apologize for this. I

believe, this email belonged with the Pioneer Meadows

item. I can continue to read it into the record, for

the record, if you would like, Chair Pritsos.

CHAIR PRITSOS: If they had requested that it

be read into the record for the other item, then, if we

skipped over it, I think, for the sake of fairness, we

should probably read it now.

MS. SMITH: Okay. Okay. So I would like to

apologize for that. And my sincere apologies to Douglas



206

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

Marsh. And I will read his email now:

To whom it may concern, I am writing to express

my opposition to the above-referenced request for a

variance to allow a self-storage facility in an

area zoned for retail. There is simply no

justification for the approval. Number one, that

the owner has been unable to secure retail tenants

as per the master plan is hardly sufficient reason

to allow a currently nonpermitted use. Approval of

one variance in a large undeveloped area is a

precedent slippery slope that will set the stage

for stage for subsequent such various requests.

Close proximity/convenience to self-storage is not

a compelling or sufficient reason to approve the

variance. The proposed use creates minimal jobs

and sales tax revenue. Self-storage facilities

will fill a needed and useful role in today world,

but should not be located in retail zoning. There

is no need to read my comment into the Planning

Commission's minutes, but please ensure that my

email's otherwise included in the official meeting

record. Thank you for your time and attention.

MS. MARTINEZ: Okay. The next email is from

Joneux Mensler:

My name is Joneux Mensler, and I have owned my



207

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

home at 5700 Dolores Drive for nine years, however

lived in Spanish Springs for 17 years. My son went

to elementary, middle and graduated from Spanish

Springs High School class of 2017 and our once

small community. I am very opposed to the new

request for permitting more mass grading on the

hillside. I know this plan previously had been

approved years ago, before the huge boom for our

area, but if I could stop more construction of

homes I will. There's been no evidence that our

environment isn't going to be affected from all

this growth. I've attended City Council meetings

over flood detention and was not, was not heard. I

spoke with Dave Solaro five months later. We had a

devastating flood that took out Dolores Drive

completely. It is still yet to be fixed. I was

told the County will. They haven't fixed the

current flooding problem on our street, so how can

more homes be approved? Water flows downhill.

This project is affecting my neighbors, myself, and

our homes at the bottom of the street. Please, I

ask you, with all due respect, do not allow this

developer to take more land and scenic views from

all of us that have lived here for years.

MS. SMITH: This next email is from Andrew,



208

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

Kristin, Isla and Finley Nelson:

I want it to be known that we are adamantly

opposed to the Christy Corporation's application

for an amendment to their conditional use permit.

We have been against the building project from the

beginning as it destroys so much of what makes

Spanish Springs beautiful. This new application

seeks to not only further destroy the land we love

and hike as a family or see as we drive through

town, but also further encroaches on the quality of

life shared by the residents of Spanish Springs.

The application by the Christy Corporation requests

a significant revision to their original CUP which

destroys a significant amount of land enjoyed by so

many. This is in direct violation of the Washoe

County master plan which states the following, in

quotes: Through cooperation with the Washoe County

Board of County Commissioners and the Washoe County

Planning Commission, the Spanish Springs community

will maintain and apply objective standards and


development in Spanish Springs in a manner that:

respects the rural heritage of the area by





209

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






infrastructure. Close quotes. This is so clearly

a violation of these words and of so many people's

lives. We are well aware of the anticipated

population boom in the area, however, violating the

above words and disrupting the natural beauty of

the area is not the answer to the anticipated

increase in population. One of the attractive

attributes to Nevada broadly, and Reno/Sparks

specifically, is the open land. People come here

to enjoy big skies and find ways to avoid the

ungainly site of stucco. The proposed plan will

only make the area less attractive to current and

future residents. We want it known that we are

against this plan for our own interests in the area

as well as on behalf of the family and residents

who live in the Spanish Springs area, or frequent

it currently, its currently beautiful landscape.

Sincerely.

MS. MARTINEZ: The next email's from Helga

Olson.



210

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

Stop the City of Sparks from approving an

addendum to add additional land use and homes to

the 5 Ridges project above our homes and property

in Spanish Springs, the Quarry. The addendum would

allow the builder to build homes and roads down the

north side of our mountains. They also intend to

shear off up to 90 feet of the ridgetops in removal

of our rock outcrops. This disturbance will cause

the ground to be very unstable. This particular

project does not adhere to RC28, 29, 30 or 32,

residential/commercial planning codes, or Section

20.04.011, slopes, hilltops and ridges, of

established ordinance. There is no easement to

allow for proper drainage and no infrastructure to

keep our homes and/or backyards from flooding with

water, mud or silt. Our small drainage ditches are

no match for the amount of debris that will run

down our mountainside to remember the flood on

Pyramid Highway a few years ago. We were unable to

travel due to the mud and silt on the highway.

This added addendum was rejected by the City two

weeks ago due to insufficient infrastructure in

place by the builder to mediate the flooding and

damage that will occur. I am a near resident of

this project, and I do not want this to happen.



211

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

MS. SMITH: The next email is from Adrianne

Panelli:

Good afternoon. As a lifelong resident of east

Sparks and Spanish Springs, I am writing this email

for a number of reasons. The first being my

concern over our beautiful Spanish Springs valley.

The integrity of our beautiful somewhat rural

ranch-type lifestyle is at risk. Building a

residential community on a steep hillside,

ridgelines included, which will include high

density housing, is exactly what Spanish Springs

doesn't want. Allowing this would set a precedent

that might allow other developers to infiltrate

ridgeline areas and steep hillsides. There is

plenty of land that can be built on that will not

disturb the beauty of our community and still allow

for semirural and spacious subdivisions. This is

why we live in Spanish Springs and not Somersett.

Thank you for your time. And please feel free to

share my opposition verbally and/or in written

format.

MS. MARTINEZ: The next email is from Nick

Panelli:

I am a native Nevadan. I've lived my entire 59

years in the beautiful city of Sparks. I also own



212

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

land where this massive project is taking place. I

understand that this project has already been

approved. What I don't understand is how the

Planning Commission is allowing this to come in

front of their Commission for a possible amendment

when the guideline is already established.

Protected ridgeline natural rock outcropping. What

about the open space that this area has already

been approved for, does that just disappear because

greed takes over and we need a few more homes? We

don't need developers trying to manipulate this

Commission so it turns a blind eye to its already

established guidelines and restrictions. Enough is

enough. I'm asking that you deny this amendment

completely. Leave it the way it was originally

approved. Please deny this amendment.

MS. SMITH: The next email is from Nick

Panissidi:

I have lived in Nevada now for 39 years. I

love this place, mostly because of the beautiful

scenery. That is why I moved north of town where

it is untouched. The mountaintops, ridges and rock

outcroppings are amazing and unmatched. When I

hike up in the area being discussed, I see coyotes,

bobcats, chukar, quail, and too much more wildlife



213

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

to list. This is why there was an ordinance put in

place years ago that prevents disturbance to

slopes, hilltops and ridges from being disturbed

or, in this case, permanently destroyed. And it is

being ignored. Also, this amendment does not

adhere to RC number 28, 29, 30 or 32 of the

established ordinances. I want to build a

two-story workshop out by the edge of my property,

but I can't because there is an ordinance

preventing me from doing it. If this amendment

passes, does that mean I can start construction, or

do I have to be some rich developer? Every day

when I jump on I-80 and see the destruction of

downtown, thinking of how Hot August Nights used to

be 10 years ago, I think I am sure blessed to live

where I do. Please don't let them destroy the

outskirts, also, just to make a quick buck. You

were selected to protect us, protect Nevada,

protect the beauty of this place from people who

just roll in here, make their money, and leave not

caring what problems they have caused. A few years

ago, we had some weather out here that washed away

driveways and roads. The homeowners had to foot

the bill for all the repairs to get back to normal.

With this construction, the problem is just going



214

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

to be exacerbated with a less series weather event.

Who's going to pay for the repairs then? The City?

The developer? Another thing people don't think of

is the garbage. I'm constantly picking up garbage

that blows over the hills from Sun Valley. Paper,

plastic bags, plastic containers. How much more

garbage will be strewn throughout the area blowing

from house to house? Lastly, having dealt with

developers for years, I'll bet my paycheck that

this was in their plans all along. They played the

City of Sparks just to get their foot in the door,

and now they want more. And they will want more

again. It's time to say no. Enough is enough.

Build what was approved and leave the ridgetops

alone and move on. Thank you.

MS. MARTINEZ: Next email is from Wayne

Paterson:

I understand any hesitancy you may have opening

attachments, but I also -- oh, I apologize. That's

before. Oh, okay. Okay.

My name is Wayne Paterson. For 24 years, I've

lived at 7325 Patrina Way, Sparks, Nevada. I am

writing to you in opposition to case PCN19-0040.

Contrary to Blake Smith's condescending remark to

News 4 that residents should have shared the



215

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

concerns earlier in the process, I'm certain I have

voiced my opposition to the 5 Ridges project at

every opportunity. I am still angry about the

violations of your own policies, RC28 through RC32,

to approve the original version of this project. I

must say, I'm livid that Mr. Smith has returned for

a second bite of the apple. My sincere hope is

that you adhere to your policies and deny this

request. I want to focus on Policy RC30, which

states require new development to preserve and

protect significant natural amenities, unique

features, and other natural features. The view

from my front door is the ridgeline, and hillside

covered with slope-stabilizing trees and brush that

Mr. Smith wants to mine for profit. I use the word

mine specifically because to destroy the rock

outcroppings for homesites, he must employ the

mining techniques that made things from blasting.

I worked at mine sites across the state and

appreciate the dangers associated with work on

steep slopes such as those I view from my front

door. Construction hazards aside, what are we left

with when the mining operation is finished? Well,

like the mine sites, there will be barren soil,

rock facing my front door in Spanish Springs



216

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

Valley. In mining, they employ robust efforts to

reseed and irrigate the barren slopes, but still

they are visible for miles. My personal experience

with the result of disturbing the soil within view

of my front door is minuscule and on a minor slope

when compared to this proposal. That experience

that 25 years later I could see the trench line for

the electric service to my neighbor's home, nature

tries and tries, but rock is an unforgiving medium

to nurture vegetation, and the scars are

long-lasting. As for the proposed access road, if

approval will be -- if approved, it will be a gash

across the face of the slope visible from across

the valley and a filthy scar in the center of my

view. Forgetting the visual assault for a moment,

where's the water off that road going? It's not

rocket science. It's coming downhill in the

quantities we've never experienced before and will

flow unfiltered by the vegetation because the water

will channelize and will be left with deepening

going east up into the eye and not much more

siltation will have to be cleared to reopen Pyramid

Highway at Dolores Drive. When there's another

flood, those of us in this drainage will have

culverts washed out again. And heaven help those



217

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

below if the first boat is across Patrina Way.

It's blocked with debris from Mr. Smith's mining

operation. (Three-minute sound.)

There's a bit left. So we can move on.

MS. SMITH: This next email is from Ron Paula:

I am emailing you to voice my concern for

amendment to special use permit. Moving to Sparks

a few years ago from the east, as a photographer it

was the hilltops and ridges that helps us make the

decision to relocate here. From what I understand,

this project does not adhere to RC28, 29, 30 or 32,

or Section 20.04.011 of the established ordinances.

Per the City of Sparks Comprehensive Plan out

ridgetops and outcroppings were protected from

builders. If these ridgetops are disturbed anymore

than what's written in the special use permit,

homeowners on the mountain north side of these

ridges will bear the brunt of excessive flooding

with tons of mud and silt. From what I have seen

in time I've lived here, I know hydroseeding will

not be effective. I moved here for peace, quiet

and beautiful landscape to pursue my photography.

I am opposed to this amendment. Thank you for your

time.

MS. MARTINEZ: The next email is from Susan



218

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

Perazzo.

I am a resident of Spanish Springs and have

serious concerns about the Quarry project,

specifically the planned approval on an addendum to

add additional land use and homes to the 5 Ridges

project above existing homes and property. This

addendum would allow the builder to develop homes

and roads down the north side of the mountain and

to shear off up to 90 feet of the ridgetops and

removal of the rock outcrops. This disturbance

will cause the ground to be unstable. This is no

easement to allow for proper drainage and no

infrastructure to keep homes and backyards from

flooding and the onslaught of water, mud and silt.

This has happened a few times where the flood

reaches into the streets of Vista, Sparks, and

Pyramid. My personal experience is that

hydroseeding does not work well with the

composition of the highly erosive soils of

mountains in our area, it tends to wash away. I

have lived in this area for 20 years now and have

witnessed many times of flooding with the result of

muddy debris, overloaded with sediment and clogging

drainages, storm drains, culverts, pipes and

roadways. Not to mention this subdivision will add



219

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

horrendous traffic to an already busy Pyramid

Highway. Thank you for your consideration.

MS. SMITH: The next email is from Christine

Perot:

Dear panel of Commissioners, I am respectfully

requesting my email be read into the meeting this

evening. As a longstanding and concerned homeowner

in the Reno area, I'd like to voice, my voice to be

heard on PCN19-0040. I am formally objecting to

the land development request outlined in the

aforementioned public hearing item. This was not

what was originally communicated and promised to

our community and threatens the scenic beauty of

the land that I and so many of my neighbors have

come to love and cherish. As a good-standing

member of the community I pray you to take my

objection into consideration to protect and

conserve the beauty of the surrounding landscape.

With so much growth and change taking place around

us, we must do what we can to preserve the beauty

that has taken thousands of years to create.

Please heed our cries.

MS. MARTINEZ: Next email is from Cindy

Peterson:

Please accept this comment in opposition to the



220

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 of 5 Ridges in Spanish Springs. What with

all the new construction at Stonebrook, the

addition of a 55 plus community, a new grocery

store, and God knows what else is currently

planned, this development will only add to the

already crowded conditions on Pyramid Highway.

Driving on it for the past few years has been

nothing but a free-for-all. Not to mention where

is all the water going to come from? Where is all

the sewage going to go? We do not need any new

building out here more than what is already

planned, and we don't even need that.

MS. SMITH: Next email is from Steven and ToLee

Porta:

My family and I reside at -- I'm going to omit

their address, just for privacy -- Sun Valley.

Although this use permit does not directly impact

our property, it does affect the hills above us.

We are opposed to the amendment of the conditional

use permit for the 5 Ridges project. The builder

in the past has told residents that they would not

build on the ridgetops due to the steep nature of

the terrain. Now they are proposing to remove

approximately 90 feet of the ridgeline to build on.

It appears that the developer is using tactics



221

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

where they get a small portion of the project

approved, then push for more. The areas for

Villages 1A, 1B, 8, 9 and 10 should have been

addressed in the primary use permit, not after a

portion of the project has already been approved.

Sincerely.

MS. MARTINEZ: Next email is from Dan Price:

I would like to just begin by saying that I

can't believe we are at this point. The property

which this developer is building on, as everyone

knows, was a gravel pit. The owners of the gravel

pit had certain rules and regulations they had to

abide by. Basically, the special use permit

associated with this gravel pit stated that they

had to stay on their side of the ridge and couldn't

mine material on the ridgeline itself. Everyone

agreed that mining the top of the ridge would cause

unsightly blemish for the entire valley to see.

Which is what it is. Not to mention the noise.

Now jump ahead 40 years and there's a whole new

mind set, build, build, build, and to hell with the

scenic value or what agreements have been in place

40 years ago. Somehow the regulations which were

in place to have a gravel pit in our backyard have

evaporated into nothingness. So now not only is



222

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 top of the ridgeline going to be mined, but

houses are going to be visible from our houses as

well. Now to add insult to injury, the developer

wants to regrade our side of the mountain to our

property line, with no buffer between us, along

with a road. Enough is enough. We've been lied to

from day one about this entire project and how it

is going to affect us. We have had numerous

so-called public meetings during this pandemic, and

with every one we lose more of the scenic value

tranquility of our homes. There are some other

issues that need to be addressed in regards to the

proposed regrading of the north slope of the ridge

to the south of our homes. We've already have a

major drainage problem at the intersection of

Pyramid Highway and Dolores. Removal of the

vegetation in a number of drainages along that

slope could be catastrophic to some of the homes

and the roads adjacent to the ridge. We have

already had enough problems in Sparks with areas

that flood during a wet year or a flash flood due

to incompetent engineering and design. Another

issue that needs to be addressed is the problem of

trespassers on our property. The majority of the

existing homes north of the ridge have 10-acre



223

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

lots, which is not fenced off. We enjoy the

openness of the hillside without the clutter a

fence would entail. We've already have problems

with ATVs, people dumping trash, and people

trespassing on our property. There has to be a

buffer between the new development and the existing

residences. In conclusion, I would ask you, please

don't allow the slope to be destroyed by regrading,

building a road or development of any kind.

MS. SMITH: The next email is from Lorie Price:

I'm writing to you in regards to the ridgeline

behind our home. I am not only deeply saddened by

the loss of this beautiful ridgeline that has been

a part of this family home for 30 plus years, I

also have so many concerns about how this project

will impact our homes. The proposed 70-foot slope

is against the policies in place and poses probable

destruction to our properties. We need your help.

Please stop the inevitable damage. Like my

neighbors, we have worked our whole lives to pay

off this beautiful property and looked forward to

being able to enjoy it. I find it sickening that

after a lifetime here we have to fight to defend it

instead of enjoying it. I have written emails,

attended Zoom meetings, and tried to voice my



224

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

concerns which have all failed. I feel so

defeated. Please help us.

MS. MARTINEZ: The next email is from Martin

Reyes:

I saw the article Channel 4 released and felt

the need to share my take. Being born and raised

in Sparks, Nevada, why is the City of Sparks

allowing land, nature to be destroyed? All my

life, that ridgeline has been an amazing place to

catch the northern Nevada sunsets with my pets and

family, a place my kids enjoy hiking, a place where

I've ran into people that have gone up and released

their loved ones and pet ashes due to the beauty,

peace and quiet up there. It is unreal that the

City is allowing the hillsides to be destroyed to

accommodate homes, two-story homes on a 2-to-1

slope. you have the authority to preserve beauty.

Do the right thing, Sparks.

MS. SMITH: This next email is from Bill

Richards:

I am writing to voice my strong opposition to

the proposed amendment by S3 Development. I

purchased, built and have lived in my home here

at -- and I'll omit the address -- since 1982. In

the ensuing years I have seen a lot of growth in



225

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

this valley and my neighborhood. I built my home

here to live in a rural area. I have always

enjoyed living here as it has allowed me to have

horses, sheep, goats and chickens. I used to get

on my horse every morning and ride out for hours.

Those days are long gone as I am nearly 87 years

old. I am a retired Captain who served the City of

Sparks Fire Department and community for 37 years

proudly. As I am in my older years, my greatest

joy is to sit outside in my yard and look at the

mountains to the south. This developer wants to

take those mountains away and replace them with

houses. Not only am I concerned about the

increased traffic and obstruction of views, but I

am deeply concerned about the environmental impact.

We flood out here about every three to four years

and it is bad. It is especially bad on the south

side of Dolores. Every flood, we end up losing

people's roads. If houses go up on that ridge, it

will be worse. The people down below, including

potentially myself and my family, will be affected

by this. S3 Development has been given everything

they have asked for. Please do not give them this.

We deserve a quality of life here too. Please feel

free to contact me at the number below. Thank you.



226

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

MS. MARTINEZ: Next email is from Violet

Richards:

I am writing again to oppose the proposed

special use permit by S3 Development. As I

understand it, the developer is requesting an

additional 1,200 homes that will line the ridge

directly across the way from my property. I live

next door to my dad on Dolores Drive. We moved out

here when I was a kid so that we could have animals

and live a rural lifestyle. I own horses and

frequently ride up to that ridge. I used to ride

behind our property to the north of us, but that

has now been commandeered by motorcycles and

four-wheel vehicles, sometimes until midnight.

Riding out there is not an option for any of us who

live in this area anymore. It has become too

dangerous. If those houses were to be built on

that ridge, not only would it be an incredible

eyesore, but it would block access to any of us

wanting to ride. We would have to ride our horses

down Dolores Drive, which is in no way safe, to

access BLM land. This developer has been granted

everything he has asked for. I am opposed to this

company getting this too. The traffic out here is

already congested. The environmental impact alone



227

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

should be enough to stop this. When the flooding

comes in, and it will, this will ensure that we

will all pay a hefty price for eroding those

mountains. Please note my objection on the record.

If you would like to contact me, you may reach me

here or at the number listed below. Thank you.

MS. SMITH: Next email is from Mary Jane

Roland:

We moved here atop of the hills of Highland

Ranch for several reasons. The gorgeous, beautiful

views, peaceful, quiet sounds of nature, trusting

neighbors, the natural animal habitat, low traffic,

no threats of flooding, mud slides or sewer

breaches are the reasons why we love living here.

All of this love for the area we live in will be

impacted and destroyed if more houses are allowed

to be built on the natural born hillsides. If more

dwellings are allowed to be built, every resident

in and around this housing development could very

well suffer disastrous effects in the future,

referring to flooding, mudslides, sewer breaches,

traffic accidents, water supply, detour emergency

route access, and so on. Before you approve this

bad plan, are you prepared for the severe

consequences that will impact families' lives in



228

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 future? Please do not destroy what isn't

already broken. Thank you for your time and

consideration, to please reject this further

housing development.

MS. MARTINEZ: The next email is from Jane, or

Janelle Salsberg, Salsby, sorry:

My family and I strongly and completely oppose

this building plan of the 5 Ridges project. This

area needs more traffic lanes for an already

heavily congested area in all directions of this

plan. Traffic into Sun Valley as well as Pyramid

needs to be fixed before any of this should even be

considered. Our current infrastructure cannot

handle the proposed new units and population you

wish to build. There would not be sufficient

drainage for potential flooding causing damage to

the man-made hills you wish to create by destroying

the natural rock outcrops and ridges. The drainage

ditches previously created still flood neighboring

houses. This will be disastrous. We request this

be communicated at your next meeting on May 6th.

Please oppose any projects in this area.

MS. SMITH: The next email is from Teri

Scharosch:

It is with a great deal of concern that I share



229

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

with you my opposition to the development proposal

that is presently before you. I'm acutely aware of

the need for quality projects in our region as our

housing crisis is significant. However, trying to

fill a need should not come on the back of improper

planning and approvals. No site development

ordinances are in place for a reason. The visual

blight aside, there is real concern that the

topography of this development site could very well

result in major erosion and flooding issues for the

nearby homes, even reaching Pyramid Highway. In

the past, at various locations the road has

completely washed away. Construction of this

project could exacerbate this problem. I know that

other concerned citizens are voicing their

opposition as well. And so I won't repeat a list

of reasons why we, your constituents, are asking

that you adhere to the development ordinances

already in place that rightfully prohibit this

construction proposal. Please send this project

back to the drawing board until the developers can

properly mitigate our concerns, concerns that are

shared by many in this area.

MS. MARTINEZ: Next email is from Louisa

Scoville:



230

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 am writing to ask that in the matter of

PCN19-0040 the Sparks City Council and Planning

Commission honor the stated objectives in the

Washoe County Master Plan. Specifically those

objects are: Through cooperation with the Washoe

County Board of County Commissioners and the Washoe

County Planning Commission, the Spanish Springs

community will maintain and apply objective

standards and criteria that serve to manage growth

and development in Spanish Springs in a manner that

respects the rural heritage of the area by








infrastructure. Please honor these words in action

by representing the people of Sparks and our

beautiful communities, rather than corporations who

do not have an abiding interest in the lives, well

being, and futures of the people who already live

in and love the spaces of the Spanish Springs

valley.



231

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

MS. SMITH: The next email is from Jessie

Stevenman:

To whom it may concern, I'm writing in to

express some concerns I have with the potential

area of disturbance expansion of the 5 Ridges

project. While I am pro growth and believe a

project is important to our community, there must

be controls put in place to maintain some of the

natural beauty. In the proposal they call for

hydroseeding on the 2-to-1 slopes. In my

experience, the hydroseed on steep slopes never

grows as planned. It works in gentle slopes, as

shown in an exhibit provided by the developer, with

proper installation and irrigation. On the steep

slopes, it is inevitable that a Nevada afternoon

thunderstorm will come through and wash out the

seed, create ruts down the slope, and never be

repaired properly. This not only leaves the land

downstream open to potential damage, but also

leaves the City and developers responsible for

damages and lawsuits, which has occurred in the

pass. In conclusion, please take all the issues

into consideration. The project is moving forward

and will create much needed housing in our area,

but we must not allow our hillsides to become



232

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

scarred, erosion prone areas. We only have one

chance to maintain some natural beauty for future

generations. Thank you.

MS. MARTINEZ: Next email is from Melinda

Stillwell:

I am the landowner, resident, taxpayer, 35

years at this address off Dolores Drive, Sparks,

Nevada, adjacent property to the proposed expansion

of the 5 Ridges PCN19-0040. I have spent the last

35 years riding horseback upon these ridges when I

bought my home with the promise there would be no

building on the ridgeline. The ridgeline was

protected, never to be disturbed in any way, not

even a fence. As I ride, the coyotes follow and

the quails scurry, rabbits bound, cactus bloom, the

hawks fly above, and the owls nest. What is to

become of their habitat? The horror of the

environmental damage makes me cry, then the reality

of what the City of Sparks allowed this developer

to do and is considering allowing more. Below that

ridgeline is a community of people that live here

for peace, quiet and serenity. Where will the

wildlife go? Under the blackness of COVID crisis,

the developer has taken advantage of pushed forward

to expand on the destruction of the environment and



233

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 quality of life of the residents affected. The

City of Sparks has failed to act responsibly and

has not followed the required legal notice to

residents per 20-0503 and codes 20.04.011. Visual,

noise, dust, air pollution, damage to the natural

vegetation. Flooding, flooding, flooding, huge in

our neighborhood because of development cutting off

the natural flow. The human element traffic,

traffic, traffic, crime, trespassing all come with

this development, and expansion increases all of

it. After 35 years of hard work, my property value

declines. Everything I have worked for coming home

to peace and quiet gone. The litigation to follow

from resulting disruption of property, all property

owners below the ridgeline, is the developer

capable of paying for or the City of Sparks?

Respectfully.

MS. SMITH: The next email is from Trish Swain:

Commissioners, I urgently ask you not to amend

conditional use permit CU20-005. There is more

than enough disturbance and rapid growth and

construction in our neighborhood as it is. This

entire plan, much less the alteration of the slope,

is horrendous, in my view. Subdivision after

subdivision and project after project leaves us who



234

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

live here with big city traffic on Pyramid, which

used to be more of a rural boulevard. Almost every

day, we see new streets emptying onto Pyramid,

dumping an unmanageable level of traffic. Has

anyone anywhere in the process that wished all this

upon us thought about our quality of life? We need

public transportation if our population density is

going to be raised to this extreme. We need park

and ride centers up and down Pyramid with regular

bus service to the parking centers and downtown.

Why does downtown get all the bus service and we

here choking on overpopulation get none? Widening

Pyramid will not help. It will be a nightmare.

There will be more irresponsible dangerous drivers.

Give some thought to public transportation. I've

heard the false argument that people won't use it.

That is wrong. We need it and we'll use it. How

come other cities can make it happen? And for

crying out loud, don't approve any more

construction. Thanks for paying attention to my

comments.

MS. MARTINEZ: The next email is from Tina

Walsh:

City of Sparks should not approve an addendum

to add additional land use and homes to the



235

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

5 Ridges project above our homes and property, the

Quarry. This project will increase harmful dust,

affecting air quality, increase erosion, which

could lead to potential damage to homes through

flooding, mud or landslides, and cause the

destruction of animal habitats in the area. This

project will destroy the scenic value of the area,

and our road infrastructure in Sparks cannot handle

the additional large commercial construction

vehicle traffic. I urge you to deny this project.

It will not benefit the City of Sparks, Spanish

Springs or its residents. Thank you for your time.

MS. SMITH: Next email is from Maryanne Weller:

I am a resident of Spanish Springs and moved

from Reno proper to enjoy the country life. By

approving this housing project is to lose this

beautiful area with our lovely mountains and leave

us with destruction. More water, more traffic, and

more sewage, more flooding, more crime. Leave that

BS for California. Vote no on CU0005.

MS. MARTINEZ: The next email is from Lisa

Zukoski:

I am opposed to the amendment to the special

use permit to the 5 Ridges project. We as

homeowners were promised by Washoe County and



236

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

Spanish Springs area planning committees that our

ridgetops and outcroppings were protected from

builders. It is also in the Comprehensive Plan for

the City of Sparks. This project does not adhere

to RC28, 29, 30, 32 or Section 20.04.011 of the

established ordinances. Now the builder wants to

expand the destruction to come down the north side

of our mountains with this project which have no

easements to put drainage in place. Therefore this

disturbance to the land will cause flooding, mud

and silt to drain into our properties. Remember

the flooding on Pyramid Highway a few years ago.

Our small drainage ditches were not built to handle

this kind of debris. What is in place if there is

a sewer breach? The builder, S3 Development

Company, has lied to the homeowner and the Planning

Commission time and time again on record. We were

told they would not build on ridgetops because they

were too steep. Now they want to shear off 90 feet

of the tops of our mountains to build. His tactics

have been to get a small project approved and

continue to add additional land use, and then

additional homes. He is trying to push his agenda

when he knows we were unable to meet in person to

fight due to COVID. I hope the Planning Commission



237

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

will do their homework and learn that this project

needs to be rejected on the points stated. I am in

disbelief that only people living within 1,000 feet

of this project are being notified. The effects

will be felt for miles. We love our Nevada. We

love our quiet homes and lifestyles. We moved out

of town for a reason. Please don't let these

concerns of Nevadans go unnoticed. Thank you for

your time and consideration.

MS. SMITH: The next email is from Kyle

Zukoski. I will do my best. This is also a two-page

email. I most likely will not get through it:

May I begin by thanking the board for taking

this matter seriously. If you hadn't, you wouldn't

have voted unanimously to deny an amendment to this

special use permit last month. You did the right

thing. Along with reviewing community plans, land

use, subdivision, site map regulations, and various

other duties, you're all also employed to work in

the best interest of the homeowner's public health,

safety, and common welfare of our county's

population. I happen to live in the Sphere of

Influence. This project is taking place mostly in

Sparks. But this case effects residents in Washoe

County. With the special use permit S3 Development



238

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 granted in April of 2020, the area that has

already been disturbed on those ridges will most

definitely threaten our properties after rainfall,

flash floods, and snowmelt runoff. This amendment

will make problems worse by 10-fold. This will

allow him to chop up to 90 feet off these ridges,

hilltops and natural rock outcrops that were to be

preserved in the first place by ordinances that

have been in place for decades. The main reason I

moved to this valley in 2020 was because of its

natural beauty, rolling hills, open space, and

serenity. By granting him his special use permit

and disregarding Section 20.04.011, disturbance to

slopes, hilltops and ridges, in April of 2020, he

has already caused significant instability to those

ridges. This amendment would be catastrophic

during weather events. Several of the homeowners

in our community showed up at the very first

meeting at the Spanish Springs library when this

plan hit the drawing board. All of us are

witnesses to this developer looking us in the eye

and assuring us that there would be no building on

ridgetops or slopes. He specifically mentioned

that there was not enough stability, and the slopes

were too steep to build on. Now, ironically,



239

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

naming the project 5 Ridges. Since that last

meeting, we've learned of his past projects and

bully mentality to do whatever it takes to make the

extra buck without consideration to homeowners,

environmental impact, hazards, and residents in the

outlying area that will have to deal with

bottleneck traffic, noise and aesthetics. If these

ridgetops and hilltops are disturbed any more than

what's written in the special use permit,

homeowners on the north and east sides of 5 Ridges

will bear the brunt of excess flooding, bringing

down the mountain tons of silt. With no

coordinated plans for drainage due to regulations

in Washoe County, or easements to bring drainage

into our valley, our natural ditches that carry

water through our neighborhoods will most certainly

be overwhelmed by silt. We know that hydroseeding

has not, and will not work for erosion control in

this area. There is not enough topsoil for it to

take on germination. The thousands of dollars I

spent on digging drainage ditches behind my house

will be worthless once that silt comes down. My

property will be covered in silt. Pyramid Highway

will see the worst flooding in its history. I

would encourage any --



240

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

MS. MARTINEZ: Our time is up, Marilie.

MS. SMITH: Okay.

MS. MARTINEZ: So we have one final email, but

we were unsure if this person wanted to speak

themselves. So it's for the Arnauds. If you would let

me take a look in --


MS. MARTINEZ: -- public comment to see if they

would like to speak for themselves.

CHAIR PRITSOS: Yeah, absolutely.

At this time, I don't see any of their names in

our attendee's list. So I will go ahead and read it.

CHAIR PRITSOS: Okay. Go ahead.

MS. MARTINEZ: Actually, we had a phone number

just pop up. I'm not sure if this is them.

CHAIR PRITSOS: Yeah, let's check, make sure.

MS. MARTINEZ: Okay. It's the phone number

ending in 0786.

CHAIR PRITSOS: All right. Please state your

name for the record. Caller, you're muted. You are

still muted.

MS. SMITH: I have asked the caller to unmute

with the tools. I'm not, not certain.

CHAIR PRITSOS: There we go, they just did.

MS. ARNAUD: I'm unmuted.



241

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

CHAIR PRITSOS: Yes.

MS. ARNAUD: Okay. This is the Arnauds. And I

would like for you to read the letter. But I -- (There

was possible technical difficulty.)

MS. MARTINEZ: Would you like me to move

forward with reading the email?

CHAIR PRITSOS: Yes, let's go, go ahead and

read the email.

MS. MARTINEZ: Okay.

This letter is in opposition to the

consideration to amend the conditional use permit

and requested increase to the disturbance area in

order to allow development. Please see the

attached picture as a visual of our hillside and

the potential impacts this disturbance and

development site would be to existing topography.

To the north of this development are numerous

rural-zoned parcels of Washoe County, not Sparks.

The requested disturbance area, which I understand

to be the leveling off of up to 25 percent of the

hillside, directly abuts approximately 15 property

owners. Each of us chose to purchase these rural

parcels with one benefit of being an enjoyment of

privacy. If what currently is a steep rocky hill

gets basically chopped down for homes to be built,



242

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

current residents will have their land and views

and privacy encroached upon. We consider this an

intrusive loss of enjoyment of our property and

rural lifestyle and also a disingenuous maneuver of

the developer. We have stood on this proposed area

to look down upon our property in order know the

impact. We would experience significant loss of

privacy in our backyard, pool, deck, and side

balcony areas by homes above. A factor in us

purchasing this location was the steep terrain

above us and knowing that nothing would be built

there. When this project first came to our

attention for rezoning and change of use, it was

explained in detail by the City planner that this

development was strictly in the old rock quarry.

When the concern was raised regarding the project's

name of 5 Ridges and that there would be potential

building on the hilltop ridges, assurance was given

that the developer master plan was strictly within

the bowl and would not be done on the ridgetops.

Just this week there was a news interview with

Blake Smith stating this project has been in the

works for the last five to seven years and has

always had the intention of development on the

ridgetops. That clearly had not been addressed in



243

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 prior Planning Commission notices nor

conversations requesting information on notice of

public hearing updates. We now question the good

faith and intention of the developer in naming the

project 5 Ridges with a plan from the inception to

build on the ridgetops, yet at this late date

asking for consideration to disturb that very area.

Why had that not been done at the beginning and

through their previous Planning Commission

requests? Is it the developer, the City planner or

this Commission that has failed to be transparent

with the scope of this development? We are unaware

of the purpose of the black fencing that has been

erected in the last week, as shown in the pictures.

Is this for erosion mitigation, or is it the

developer's outline of the portion of the hillside

they wish to disturb? As you can see, it is quite

significant, especially for the homes that

currently reside directly underneath, in addition

to the drastic visual impact it would have on the

rural parcels and valley residents to the north.

In the pictures provide, you can see the black

fencing that has just been put up on our hills in

the last week. Is that for demonstration purposes

to show the neighborhood --



244

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 timer has run out, and I have about a

paragraph.

CHAIR PRITSOS: All right. So thank you very

much, Casey and Marilie, for reading all of those for

us.

Do we have anyone who wishes to speak at this

time on this item?

MS. MARTINEZ: We do have Larry Grube

requesting to speak.


MS. SMITH: Ms. Martinez?

MS. MARTINEZ: Yes?

MS. MARTINEZ: Give me -- he has images as

well. But I don't have them open yet. So I don't you

to -- I don't necessarily want him to have to wait while

I open his images. So if you could just give me a

minute.

MS. MARTINEZ: Understood.

MS. SMITH: Okay. I think, I'm good to go.

Larry, bear with me, and give me some verbal queues,

because you have four images. So ready whenever you

are.

MR. LARRY GRUBE: I'm ready.

CHAIR PRITSOS: All right. Go ahead, sir.

MR. LARRY GRUBE: Okay. For the record, I'm



245

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

Larry Grube. I've been a Spanish Springs resident for

over 30 years, and I have been Nevada professional land

surveyor 6995 since July 1985.

Secretary Smith, please show Exhibit 1.

Since 1990, I've been the chief

photogrammetrist for Summit Engineering. And now that I

am transitioning into retirement, I'm also Awan

PanSpatial Consulting, which is solely responsible for

the following exhibits.

I've taken the Christy Corp. grading plan for

the 5 Ridges and reverse engineered the north portion on

the ridgeline, first the contours and then to the

digital terrain model, through Google Earth Pro that you

see here. Using the navigation tools of Google Earth

Pro, this is an aerial view looking southerly from

approximately over the intersection of Patrina Way and

Dolores Drive. The proposed development in black

constitutes about 5,000 lineal feet, nearly one mile of

disturbed ridgeline.

Secretary Smith, Exhibit 2, please.

This next display is a Google Earth Pro ground

view from Dolores Drive approximately 300 feet east of

Marie Way. The black, again, at the top of the view is

the terrain grid representing the disturbed ridgeline.




246

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

This is a similar view from Pyramid Highway at

the Dolores intersection, also showing the disturbed

ridgeline. I want to say, while we're waiting for that

to come up, that the tan area that planner Sienna Reid

addressed is not -- is actually 33.6 acres, not 19. By

Village 9, it is over, it is over 20 acres.

I'm primarily concerned that this -- this is

from Pyramid Highway at Dolores.

I'm primarily concerned that these visual

representations show that the project expansion, along

with the existing CUP on the ridgeline, does not meet

the Sparks City Code 20.04.011, ridgeline stuff.

When I had to create visual displays in support

of projects I worked on in the past, most notably,

D'Andrea, I was told by Sparks planners that houses were

not to be silhouetted against the sky. This will be

almost the entire case for the houses at the north edge

of this development.


This is an overlay of Global Mapper software

showing primary ridgelines in black, which includes one

line in the 5 Ridges project. This area was -- the

original designated ridgelines in the ridge were the

ones designated by the City prior to the annexation of

the 5 Ridges project.



247

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

Commissioners and Mr. Chair, thank you for your

time.

CHAIR PRITSOS: All right. Thank you.

And then, Casey, do we have anyone else who

wishes to make additional public comment at this time?

MS. MARTINEZ: I do not see any additional

requests to speak at this time.

CHAIR PRITSOS: All right. Then, with that, I

will close public comment. And I'll bring this back to

the Commission. Are there any questions or discussion

at this point?

Commissioner Carey.


I had a question for Sienna.

Sienna, I was just kind of curious, if you

might be able to remind us, about the development

agreement. What is the -- it was my understanding it's

a spread of total units that are permitted. It's like

1,200 is the minimum, and then, I think, it went up to

like 1,400 or 1,500?

MS. REID: If I could, Chair Pritsos, to your

question, Commissioner Carey, the minimum is 1,200

residential units, and the maximum is 1,800.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: Okay. Thank you for that.

I had a -- Mr. Chairman, if I may.



248

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

CHAIR PRITSOS: Yes.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: I had a -- thank you. I

had question for Janelle Thomas, if she's still awake.

MS. MARTINEZ: I'm adding.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: Janel -- thank you. Thank

you very much.

Janel, I was -- we've heard a lot of public

comment tonight about silt and flows and how that could

impact adjacent property owners. You know, I'm very

familiar with there's a lot of flooding issues that

happen along Dolores Drive that go into, along Pyramid

Highway, and they end up going all the way up to

La Posada, and it floods that whole intersection when we

have a major flood event. I was just kind of curious if

you might be able to address some of those silt concerns

and if you're familiar with the issue along Pyramid

Highway that's kind of been brought forth from, you

know, the lack of treatment of stormwater in the

unincorporated areas. I was just kind of curious if

this development would impact adjacent property owners

and would impact that situation along Pyramid Highway.

MS. THOMAS: Thank you, Commissioner Carey.

Janelle Thomas, Senior Civil Engineer, for the record.

So your question is relative to the existing

flooding that is currently occurring along Dolores and



249

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

Pyramid and up to La Posada. That is a separate

drainage area that does not necessarily include this

development area.

The development, as its planned, and the study

that we have reviewed indicates that the drainage that

is actually going to continue to flow off of the north

bank of that slope is going to decrease. Mr. House's

last exhibit that -- here, I'm going to share my screen

real quick.

Can you see the display for his last exhibit

that he had in his explanation?

CHAIR PRITSOS: Yes.

MS. THOMAS: Okay. So. So this, this really

details what the hydrology report indicates as far as,

you know, how the proposed drainage is going to be

handled for future conditions.

As can you see right here on the western edge,

the amount of flow that exists today is the 72.3 cfs.

And once the grading occurs on the property, that

actually decreases. And that's due to either the

elimination of a portion of the slope, different

grading, so that the drainage actually is diverted

further south into the development and then is addressed

with various detention and sedimentation basins within

the development.



250

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 as you can see, as you move further east

along this northern edge, these are the beginning flows

down to the proposed flows that are going to be coming

off.

So I don't have any real concerns about

increased stormwater runoff occurring along that

northern slope, just because the way that the proposed

grading is going to be pursued.

Does that help answer your question?

COMMISSIONER CAREY: Yes, that certainly does,

and that's an excellent answer for 11:19 p.m. Thank

you, Janel.

MS. THOMAS: Yeah, you bet.


CHAIR PRITSOS: All right. Thank you, Janel.

Thank you, Commissioner Carey.

MR. ERICSON: Chairman, if you wouldn't -- or,

Chair, if you wouldn't mind.


MR. ERICSON: I would like to add to Janel's

comment there.

CHAIR PRITSOS: Go ahead.

MR. ERICSON: We are currently working with the

Washoe County and the State of Nevada to address the

issue down there at Dolores with regards to a regional



251

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

flood facility that has been in place in IFSA, or that

Fee Service Area Number 1. And so it's, basically, it

is a flood facility that we refer to as Reach 9. And so

we, again, we're working with the State of Nevada and

in, or in Washoe County to alleviate the flooding that

occurs there at Dolores.

CHAIR PRITSOS: All right. Thank you for that,

Jon.

MR. ERICSON: You're welcome.

CHAIR PRITSOS: Is there any other questions or

discussion at this time?

Yes, Commissioner Read.

COMMISSIONER READ: I just had a general

question. I did not know the answer to this. But for

Sienna. Has the City of Sparks approved other projects

where the ridge was cut like this? I can't recall any.

MS. REID: To your question, Commissioner Read,

there are a variety of projects that have been approved

at different times under different standards. You know,

some projects with older standard codes, some projects

under planned unit development standards that have

included significant grading and, ultimately, the need

for revegetation.

So, you know, hillside projects are not

uncommon for the City of Sparks.



252

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 READ: Right.

MS. REID: And it's a little hard to compare

kind of apples-to-apples when you have, you know, a

project that was constructed 10 or 20 years ago compared

to what's being proposed today.

So, ultimately, you know, as we go forward

tonight in terms of evaluating the request, it's under

the standards and codes that we have today that we need

to consider the request before the Planning Commission.

COMMISSIONER READ: Thank you.


Commissioner Read.

Any other questions or discussion?

All right. Seeing none, I will entertain a

motion. Don't all jump at once.

No one?

Commissioner Carey. You're muted.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: Thank you. I'll jump in.

I'll maybe lead off discussion, and we'll see where,

where this goes.

You know, a couple thoughts and points I'd like

to make for the record. You know, there's been a lot of

public comment tonight saying that our Commission and

our staff don't really care about folks living in Washoe

County and that we're beholden to the developers. I



253

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

really disagree with these comments. And I'd like to

common the hard work of our staff and this Commission.

I think, we've done a good job of listening to the

concerns of neighbors on this.

I would just state, you know, I would hope that

our partners in the region at Washoe County and the

Washoe County Planning Commission, if there was a

similar project, that they would listen to the concerns

from citizens of the City of Sparks and listen to them,

like we have during this, this process.

I'd also like to thank staff and the applicant

for providing the additional visual materials. I think,

this information is really helpful for our review and

better understanding of the project. I think, you know,

with a major grading request, hillsides proposals, it's

really important that we have a public process and we

have good information and 3D renderings to look at this

and base our decisions on.

You know, I, as I said a year ago, I think, we

really need to take a look at protected hillsides and

ridgelines that are in the code. That section of code

is really, you know, it's really outdated and hasn't

been touched. And, I think, it would be good to take a

look at that ordinance, because the City's looking to

continue to grow. We really need to take a look at



254

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

that.

You know, I supported original conditional use

permit last year. And I believe that that original

conditional use permit met the requirements of the

zoning code and it met the intent of the natural

resource policies that are in our Comprehensive Plan.

And I supported it, you know, that I felt that -- I

supported original CUP because I thought that it would

help support the development on this site and help meet

the objectives of the density requirements that are in

that development agreement.

But I'm just kind of really struggling with

trying to make some of the findings with this amendment

to the conditional use permit. And I'm happy to go into

detail on those, but I just thought I'd throw that out

to break the silence, so to speak.

CHAIR PRITSOS: All right. Commissioner Read.

COMMISSIONER READ: Yeah, I'm finding it

difficult, also, to meet some of the findings. I feel

like there is an impairment of our natural resources. I

think, there's a lot of disturbance that's going to

occur in the development of our slopes. And I'm not

comfortable with approving this, this amendment.


Commissioner Read.



255

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 West.

COMMISSIONER WEST: I, too, am having trouble

supporting this request for the amendment, again based

on what I'm seeing in regards to the Sparks

Comprehensive Plan policies RC28, 29, 30 and 32. So at

this point, I don't have intent to support this request

for amendment.


Commissioner West.


COMMISSIONER KRAMER: I'm having a bit of a

problem with this as well. I'm just not comfortable

with it at this point. So I don't have the -- I'm not

looking at -- I'll just not comfortable with it. So I'm

not going to support it as well.

CHAIR PRITSOS: All right. Based on -- well,

is there any other discussion?

COMMISSIONER ANDRIOLA: Chair?

CHAIR PRITSOS: Yeah, Commissioner Andriola.

COMMISSIONER ANDRIOLA: I'm going to echo the

sentiments that have already been expressed,

specifically related to the comments in terms of the

ridge. So I, too, am not going to support this project.


So based on all those statements, does anyone



256

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

want to take a crack at a motion now?

Armando.

MR. SENDALL: Oh. I think, Armando is going to

say the same thing.

Go ahead, Armando.

MR. ORNELAS: Chair Pritsos and members of the

Planning Commission, Armando Ornelas, Assistant

Community Services Director.

So staff, in our original staff report,

addressed the findings for this conditional use permit

that are applicable. In our original staff report, we,

you know, we addressed each of the findings and offered,

if you will, building on the analysis section of the

staff report, you know, why staff believed that the

findings could be made.

Having said that, I would ask that, in crafting

a motion, that the Planning Commission, you know, please

specify which findings cannot be made. You know, and

I'll just kind of walk through, if you will, the

findings.

The first one, C1, basically asks you to consider

whether you believe the application is in compliance

with the Comprehensive Plan. And in this case, for

example, if you do not believe that their proposed

Conditions of Approval adequately mitigate the impacts



257

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

of the project and, therefore, the proposal does not

comply with the Comprehensive Plan, for example, if you

do not real it complies with RC28, then that level of

specificity, I think, would be appropriate for creating

a record of your decision here.

You know, another example that I would offer to

you would be, for example, with regard to Finding C4,

which, you know, essentially states that the

application, as submitted and conditioned, will address

identified impacts. As, I think, I have previously

said, and as, you know, Ms. Reid discussed, to some

extent, in her presentation, you know, the staff

recommendation was based on a view that the proposed

Conditions of Approval mitigated the impacts of this

development. We, you know, I think, we were candid in

saying that they did not fully eliminate the impacts.

But if the Planning Commission, you know, is of the view

that those conditions, while mitigating the impacts to

some degree, do not sufficiently do so, then that level

of, again, of specificity in the motion would be advised

on my part to you.

So Brandon may want, may have something

additional to add. But I wanted to give you a couple of

examples of, if you're going to craft a motion for

denial, then, you know, what I would suggest that the



258

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

Planning Commission do.

CHAIR PRITSOS: All right. Thank you, Armando.

Brandon, did you want to add anything?

MR. SENDALL: No, nothing to add. I was going

to echo the same thing, just to put specific findings

within any motion to specify what findings cannot be

made.

CHAIR PRITSOS: Okay. Thank you. Thank you

both.

So I'm still willing to entertain a motion, if

anyone would like to take a shot at that.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: Mr. Chair, I'll -- or

Commissioner Read has her hand up.

CHAIR PRITSOS: Oh, Commissioner Read.

COMMISSIONER READ: I don't know. Commissioner

Carey may have more findings. But I'll start. Just the

ones that I wrote, that I make the motion not to approve

this conditional use permit based on Finding C1, that it

is not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan; based

on Policy RC28, which limits the amount of land area

that may be disturbed for development on natural slopes;

and Finding C3, an impairment of natural resources.


Commissioner Read.

Is there a second? Or, Armando, your hand is



259

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

still raised. Did you have something to add?

Okay. So we have a motion by Commissioner

Read. Do we have a second?

Commissioner West.

COMMISSIONER WEST: I will second that motion.


by Commissioner Read, a second by Commissioner West.

Any further discussion?

Commissioner Carey.


I will, I will be supporting the motion. Thank you,

Commissioner Read, for jumping in there.

I've got some comments. I have some things

with respect to Finding C1 and C3 that, I think, may

provide some helpful, at least for the record, but,

hopefully, helpful for this. I don't believe that I can

make Finding C1 from a Comprehensive Plan perspective.

I don't think that the proposed development and its

impacts to natural hillsides and ridgelines in this area

of the city will support anything to further Policy RC28

of the Comprehensive Plan.

I disagree with staff's analysis that allowing

further hillside development of more single-family right

side resident residences will support or provide a

diversity of housing types or do anything to advance



260

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

policy H2.

I don't think that allowing more single-family

residences within the proposed disturbed areas will

provide a mix of housing diversity and help advance the

City's housing goals and policies.

Along the lines of Finding C1, you know, the

code, 20.04.011(b), section, subsection 4, does not

prohibit the construction of homes or buildings on or

near ridgelines. Instead, it requires that this

conditional use permit amendment that demonstrates that

the proposed development will show a high degree of

sensitivity to the terrain and its visual impact.

I thought that the original conditional use

permit that we approved last year did this. But what

we've seen tonight, and in particular within the

proposed Village 9 on the west side of the development,

I don't believe that this proposed area demonstrates a

high sensitivity to the terrain and its visual impact as

required by the code.

Commissioner Read's motion didn't include it,

but I would just like to throw out that I don't believe

that I can make Findings T4. I disagree with Condition

Number 6. I don't think that increasing the rear yard

setbacks by 10 feet and limiting accessory structures by

15 feet is going to do enough to show sensitivity to the



261

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

terrain and mitigate the visual impacts from the

proposed future development. I certainly understand

that this is not a protected hillside or a ridgeline per

code, and that building on a hillside is allowed in this

location, but I don't think that these conditions go far

enough in order to mitigate the impacts from the

proposed conditional use permit amendment.

And I would like to see further mitigation with

the future homes and more sensitivity with, in

particular in Village 9.

With respect to condition, or Finding C3, I

think that this proposed amendment is going to have an

impact on natural resources, and it goes against the

goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan with

respect to protecting natural resources. I understand

it's a judgment call, but I believe that this proposed

amendment to the conditional use permit will have a

potential impairment of natural resources and does not

support Goal RC1, Policy RC28, Policy RC30, or Policy

RC31.

In general, I disagree with how this finding is

presented. If Finding C3 is only the availability of

natural resources and their impairment to future

development, there's literally no situation where this

finding cannot be made, because we have a regional water



262

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

plan, we have sewer plans, we have other infrastructure

plans that on paper do not impair resources and provide

for sufficient resources. I think, we should take a

series a serious look at this in the future.

I would add on this, if this project were to

move forward or come back, I would specifically like to

see if the disturbance area around Village 9 could be

reduced, maybe by half, maybe by more. I just think

what they proposed tonight is too much. And that the

secondary access road could be further mitigated from

its visual impacts, maybe some additional treatment

features.

I would also like to see maybe additional

conditions of approval that would maybe limit homes on

this ridgeline to be one-story only. And I would also

maybe would like to see a condition of approval that no

accessory structures would be built in the rear yard on

the hillside development.


CHAIR PRITSOS: No, thank you.

Any further discussion?

COMMISSIONER READ: Well, do you want me to

amend my original motion to include C4, Commissioner

Carey?

COMMISSIONER CAREY: I would be supportive of



263

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

your motion as originally submitted. But --

COMMISSIONER READ: Okay.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: -- I wouldn't be opposed

to C4. I think, I provided enough on record with that

that maybe I could provide enough direction. Thank you.

COMMISSIONER READ: All right. I'll leave my

motion as it is.

CHAIR PRITSOS: All right. Any further

discussion?

All right. Seeing none. We have a motion by

Commissioner Read and a second by -- I think, it was

Commissioner West. Correct me if I'm wrong.

All right. Madam secretary, may we please have

the roll.


CHAIR PRITSOS: Aye.












264

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




CHAIR PRITSOS: All right. Motion passes

unanimously.

So that concludes public hearing items.

We will now move on to general business. And

we will start with PCN 17-0011.

Thanks for hanging in there, Dani.

MS. WRAY: Well, I'm happy to inform you my

presentation is about 12 or 13 minutes, and there are no

comments. So let me get started with this and share my

screen.

Okay. Does everyone see the face page of the

presentation?

CHAIR PRITSOS: Yep.

MS. WRAY: Good deal.

Good evening, Chair Pritsos, members of the

Planning Commission. I'm Dani Wray, the Planner

presenting this item to you today.

Firstly, I'd like to bring to your attention

that there were errors in numbering an omission of the

condition related to landscaping in the Conditions of

Approval. The corrected document has been emailed to

you late this afternoon. And I apologize for the



265

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

mishap. Should you need me to share the revised

Conditions of Approval, I can share that screen at the

end of my presentation.

This is a request to reapprove a tentative map

in the Miramonte Planned Development for 448 townhomes

originally approved by the City Council on May 22nd,

2017 and per NRS is set to expire later this month for a

lack of recorded final maps.

There are no changes proposed in this new

tentative map. The number and design of the lots and

townhomes, as well as access, grading and landscaping

proposed with this tentative map request match the

currently active tentative map STM17-0003.

The applicant, Fort Apache Homes, is requesting

that this tentative map be reapproved, in effect

extending the TM for another four years.

The project is a part of the Miramonte Planned

Development and is shown here on the vicinity map

outlined in red. Let me get my -- there. The tentative

map area is located east of the Belmar Drive and

northeast of Los Altos Parkway, approximately 2,000 feet

from the intersection of those two roadways. The

townhome project is located in the solid red area, right

here.

For your orientation, various nearby planned



266

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

developments are shown in relation to the tentative map

area.

As of the date of the staff report, final maps

have been recorded for 685 units in the Miramonte

Planned Development. The handbook allows for a maximum

dwelling unit total yield of 1,434 residential units in

Miramonte. Approval of a final map for this project

will bring the total to 1,133 residential units.

Approximately 32 acres have a land use

designation of multi-family, MF14, in the comprehensive

land use map, and LMDR14 designation in the handbook.

Both require a gross density of 14 dwelling units per

acre, which this project meets.

This slide shows the primary roadway accessing

Belmar Drive and secondary roadway accessing Iridium.

This is Belmar Drive right here. And right here you can

see the basic layout of the townhomes.

These grading plans illustrate the project in

its entirety, illustrating the townhome project and the

access roads. I have pieced these together to show the

continuity of the road here to Belmar. That's the

primary road. And then the secondary road through here,

to Iridium.

Approximately 35 acres of the 165.5 acres

tentative map area is proposed to be disturbed and is in



267

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 location where slopes are a maximum of 15 percent.

The Miramonte handbook analyzed this disturbance to

slopes and incorporated that analysis into the handbook

at the time of its adoption in 2005. And the project

continues to meet the standards set forth in the current

Sparks Municipal Code for slopes, hilltops and ridges.

There will be substantial grading to provide

access and buildable area for the subdivision. Where

the access roads cross a ravine, right in this location,

earth and fill of up to 50 percent in height with

culverts to convey stormwater will be required, making

this a dam under State regulations.

This is a representative sample of the proposed

elevations for the townhomes. As proposed, the lots are

approximately 19 and a half feet wide and 48 feet long

and a total 918 square feet in size. Both two- and

three-bedrooms range in size from 1,640 square feet to

1,742 square feet and are provided with two-car garages.

The lots are arranged to enable a series of four-, six-

and eight-unit townhome buildings.

So, so far, I've discussed the request for

reapproval of the existing tentative map. And now I'll

spend a little bit of time going over the required

findings. Most of the findings are in numerical order,

but there are a few that I have grouped by topic.



268

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

There's 12 findings required to be considered with a

tentative map.

Finding T1 looks at conformance with the

Comprehensive Plan. As proposed, the subdivision is for

448 townhome lots. And townhomes are identified as

missing middle housing that offers home ownership

opportunities at lower price points, providing an

alternative to apartments and traditional detached

single-family housing, supporting Goal H2, Policy H2,

and Policy H3.

The compact nature of the proposed townhome

subdivision will lower per capita infrastructure costs,

in support of Goal MG6 and Policy MG11.

Sidewalks are proposed on both sides of streets

adjacent to residences, while on local access roadways

there'll be multi-use path sidewalks on one side of the

street, which complies with Policy C4 as no residences

are proposed along these local roads.

The land use designation for the project site

has been in place since 2005 and has been included in

build-out calculations since that time.

City services, with the possible exception of

meeting the Sparks Fire Department's 4-minute travel

time standard, which is addressed in Finding T10, can be

provided to this site at acceptable service levels, as



269

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 anticipated with the prior handbook and original

tentative map approvals and in compliance with Policy

CF1.

Meeting Policy EV10, the provided fiscal impact

analysis shows a net positive to the City of Sparks over

$5 million to the General Fund and $745,000 to the Road

Fund over a 20-year period. Given the increase in

housing prices since the current TM was approved, the

analysis maintains property tax revenues are forecasted

to generate more than $7.9 million over the 20-year time

horizon of the analysis.

In addition, the roadways are private and will

be maintained by the HOA, saving the City an estimated

annual cost of $73,200.

Findings T2 and T7 each relate to streets. The

street network in this tentative map remains unchanged

from the existing tentative map and is consistent with

road design parameters in the handbook, such as road

capacity and other dimensional standards, which was

contemplated in the handbook at its adoption.

The project also is in conformance with the

City street master plan, and access roadways connect to

Belmar Drive and Iridium Way, making Finding T2.

Finding T7 focuses on impacts to public

streets. The applicant provided an updated traffic



270

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

study that shows trip generation for this proposed

subdivision estimated at 2371 average daily trips with

171 a.m. peak-hour and 206 p.m. peak-hour trips.

With the extension of left turn lanes at the

intersection of Los Altos Parkway and Vista Boulevard,

this study finds the existing and currently under

construction public roadway network is sufficient to

accommodate the traffic generated by this subdivision.

City staff has reviewed the traffic impact study and

concurs with the analysis provided, as does the RTC in

their comment letter.

Per Finding T3, this application was

distributed to the agencies that provide these basic

services and administrate environmental and health laws,

and no written comments were provided to staff.

The final stormwater and drainage plan for the

development must be reviewed and approved by the City

Engineer prior to the recordation of a final map for the

project, Condition 5.

Making Finding T4, the developer has estimated

the domestic water requirement for the development at

73.8 acre-feet per year. Municipal water service will

be provided by the Truckee Meadows Water Authority, and

water rights must be in place or dedicated prior to

recordation of final maps as provided for in



271

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

Condition 9.

Finding T5 is concerned with availability of

utilities to serve the site. The developer estimates

that 448 townhome lots will generate 392,000 gallons of

sewage per day. The City sewer model accounts for the

level of development proposed with this tentative map

request. The applicant is required to provide evidence

that there is adequate sanitary sewer conveyance and

treatment capacity to serve the project prior to the

recordation of a final map, Condition 13.

NV Energy will provide electrical and natural

gas services. Electric, telephone and cable services

will be extended underground within the roadway

right-of-way to serve this development.

Finding T6 considers the availability and

accessibility of public services of schools, police,

transportation and parks. The Washoe County School

District has estimated that this tentative map will add

26 new students to Moss Elementary, 12 new students to

Mendive Middle School, and 8 new students to Reed High

School. Each of each of these schools will remain under

base capacity for at least five years based on Washoe

County School District projections.

The Sparks Police Department will provide

service to the site.



272

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 roadway network for Miramonte Planned

Development was designed to accommodate a total of 1,434

residential lots, and the maximum number of lots has not

yet been reached.

RTC provided a comment letter in response to

this tentative map request indicating that the applicant

will be responsible for maintaining the policy level of

service, LOS, of D along Belmar Drive and Los Altos

Parkway.

While no park is proposed in this tentative

map, recreational amenities are provided in the townhome

development. In the common areas, such as group picnic

areas, volleyball, basketball courts, a playground and

fit stations with a running trail. In the center

community building area, there is proposed a swimming

pool and playground and other amenities.

Nearby is the Sage Canyon Park located in the

Miramonte Phase 3A development. A one-and-a-half-acre

park is described in the handbook that will be located

to the north of the project site and will be developed

in a future proposal.

Finding T8 addresses floodplains, slopes and

soil. The property's located within FEMA Zone X and is

located outside the 100-year flood hazard zone. Based

on the preliminary hydrology report submitted with the



273

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

tentative map, the project will not be adversely

affected by the flood plain, nor will it affect

properties downstream. The development has been

designed in accordance with the appropriate standards

and is in compliance with previous studies.

The proposed primary and secondary access roads

to the site will cross a large ravine that runs along

the west side of the site. The grading plans for the

roadway crossing show earth and fill up to 50 feet in

height with culverts to convey stormwater. Due to the

height of the fill, both roadway crossings are

considered dams and must be approved by the State

Engineer, Condition 5.

The proposed townhouse development will disturb

approximately 35 acres of the 165.5-acre site. Of the

remaining 130 acres, 111.5 acres will be reserved as

undisturbed open space. And the remainder of the site

will be utilized as common area for the development.

The proposed tentative map conforms to the

findings outlined in the handbook. Overall, this

represents the site as 21 percent developed, 4 percent

access roads, and 81 percent undisturbed open space,

after development.

A final geotechnical report will be required to

be approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance



274

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

of any building permits, Condition 12. Any

recommendations from that report shall be incorporated

into the building permits to accommodate for soil

conditions.

Finding 9 requires consideration of outside

agency responses. The responses were addressed in my

discussion for Finding T6.

Finding T10 considers the availability of fire

protection services. Fire and emergency medical service

will be provided by the Sparks Fire Department, and Fire

Station 4 is the nearest fire station. The project site

may be located outside the Sparks 4-minute travel time

standard. Further analysis to determine if this project

meets the 4-minute travel time standard must be

submitted prior to approval of a final map. If this

analysis determines that this standard will not be met,

additional mitigation measures to be approved by the

Fire Chief will be required prior to the recordation of

any final map. Condition 14.

Finding T11 considers other impacts identified

in staff's analysis of the proposal. Identified are

earthen fill landscaping and architectural elevations.

Condition 4 requires that a landscaping and irrigation

plan be approved by City staff prior to recordation of a

final map. And Condition 11 requires architectural



275

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

elevations that comply with the handbook must be

approved by City staff prior to the recordation of a

final map.

For Finding T12, the posting of the agenda and

this meeting serve as public notice. This is not a

public hearing, and no public comment is required.

Staff has not yet received any public comment

as of 5:00 p.m. today.

Staff recommends approval of this tentative map

application.

This concludes my presentation. And I am here

for your questions.


much, Dani.

Are there any questions for staff at this time?

Yes, Commissioner Carey.


I apologize, and out of the lateness of the hour, but we

didn't get a chance to ask many questions at the Study

Session.


COMMISSIONER CAREY: So I have two questions

for staff. My first one is, is for Dani and maybe

Armando. Four years ago, we saw this, this project.

There was a fiscal impact study that basically came out



276

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 said it was either going to be over 20 years

$220,000 fiscally positive. And I remember some

discussion from the finance director about, yeah, it

might be fiscally neutral. Now we're looking at it's

fiscally positive to the tune of over $5 million.

My question is, is I'm just kind of curious.

Had the methodologies changed for our fiscal impact

study, have they changed that much so that it -- it's a

big swing from $220,000 to $5 million. I was just kind

of wondering if you might be able to provide some

insight on that.

MS. WRAY: Yes. We have a new fiscal impact

analysis methodology required. I think, that was

adopted last year or perhaps the end of the year before,

by the City Council. And it is different than before,

and the results will be somewhat different.

But, also, what's assumed here in this present

analysis is an increase in value of the properties. As

you know, the median home price has increased just in

this last year almost a hundred thousand dollars.

That's not particularly discussed in this analysis other

than just increase in house prices.

So since they're looking at a 20-year

forecasted timeline, they're applying that along with C

tax, the property tax revenues from that increased



277

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

value. They expect build-out in 10 years. So they give

numbers for 10-year results and then the full 20-year

time period.

And, Armando, if you would like to add anything

to that. You're muted, Armando.

MR. ORNELAS: Thank you.

Commissioner Carey, Chair Pritsos and other

members of the Planning Commission, again, Armando

Ornelas.

To answer your question, Commissioner Carey,

yes, the methodology is significantly different. I

think, some of the assumptions that we had believed to

be accurate prior to the 2019 guidelines are markedly

different. I think, Ms. Wray referred to the -- you

know, there's substantially different valuation now

versus four years ago in single-family home prices, or

townhomes in this case.

One thing that remains constant is that the

reason the Road Fund in this case is positive, versus

most projects where it's not, is that the streets, all

the internal streets are private. So, you know, I

think, that's -- you know, that's the same in this case

as it was previously. But that's one reason why this

one doesn't look like other fiscal impact analysis that

you've seen in recent years, is because, you know, we



278

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

don't have a big negative in the Road Fund and, in fact,

you know, have a positive.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: Thank you very much, Dani.

Thank you, Armando. I have another question, but

I'll -- I think, Commissioner West has his hand raised.

Thank you.

CHAIR PRITSOS: Yeah, go ahead, Commissioner

West.

COMMISSIONER WEST: Yeah, I was just curious.

This is for staff. That secondary access road onto

Iridium.

MS. WRAY: M-hm (affirmative).

COMMISSIONER WEST: Is that like an emergency

access road, or would that be a normal travel, traveled

roadway?

MS. WRAY: Chair Pritsos, if I may respond?


MS. WRAY: Commissioner West, it's my

understanding that it's a secondary access road. It was

originally intended to be an emergency access road but

is now a secondary road.

COMMISSIONER WEST: Okay. Thank you.

MS. WRAY: M-hm (affirmative).

CHAIR PRITSOS: And, Commissioner Carey, did

you have a second question?



279

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: Thank you very much,

Mr. Chairman.

Dani, I was just kind of, I was just wondering

about possible wildfire concerns. I know this is

located in the canyon, an area that has burned in the

past. I was just kind of curious if what you've heard

from the Fire Department, you know, they have any issues

with respect to wildfire with the proposed tentative

map?

MS. WRAY: Commissioner Carey, we -- actually,

Ian Crittenden, our Development Services Manager, spoke

with -- not with Chris McCubbins. I believe, he's out

of office. But the person who's responding in his

behalf. And he's very familiar with the area. And he

said the reason why they didn't require any specific

conditions of approval related to wildland urban

interface is because of the actual type of plant life

that is there is -- it's sparse grass at that point.

This is at the higher elevation. It doesn't have a lot

of the sagebrush and so forth you see at the lower

elevations.

So the likelihood of a wildfire there is very,

very low. So they don't have any concerns.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: Thank you very much.




280

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



Okay. Seeing none, is the applicant here

still, and would they want to add anything?

MR. RANDY WALTER: Hopefully, I unmuted myself.

Can everybody hear me?

CHAIR PRITSOS: Yeah, you're good.

MR. RANDY WALTER: Mr. Chairman and members of

the Commission, for the record, Randy Walter with Quest

Consulting Services. I'm here representing Apache Homes

on their request to reapprove their existing tentative

map.

I guess, it's still -- well, not, not really.

Depending what your watch says, it might be morning

rather than evening.

I don't have anything else to add to it. A

couple of the questions from the Commission, if I could

respond to them.

CHAIR PRITSOS: Sure.

MR. RANDY WALTER: The secondary access is an

emergency access. It will be gated. It's only there

for emergency purposes. I call it a secondary access

because there is two accesses required. That makes it

the secondary access.

The majority of the circulation will all come



281

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

off of Belmar. It won't come off the other access road

at all.

As far as the fire consideration is a couple of

things in addition to what the Fire Department said.

The 4-minute response time, and I don't know how

familiar you are with the Miramonte project itself, but

typically that whole area up in there is at the same

4-minute response time compliance issue. All those

single-family homes out there are served with

residential fire sprinklers. It's assumed that this

project will also have residential fire sprinklers as

part of the mitigation. It's just something from a

building permit standpoint that's probably going to be a

requirement. It's something that the developer

understands and is committed to. So that'll be one of

the mitigations.

The other thing you should be aware of is this

particular site, and I don't know how well you can

really see it from your vantage points on Belmar, but

there's really just a little tiny little ridge that's

kind of in the middle of two relatively large

mountainsides on both sides, that's really being used as

cut and fill to create the fill for the roadways coming

in, as well as the cut for the project itself. So it

kind of sits isolated from a lot of the another points.



282

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

It'll always have at least a cut or fill on either of

the edges that front the wildland interface. So those

edges will be able to be maintained by the HOA and

protect for, create some defensible space for the whole

project.

That will kind of give you an answer of how

that, this project relates to those two issues that were

brought up by the Planning Commission.


Any questions for the applicant?

All right. Seeing none, any discussion?

Okay. Also seeing none, I will entertain a

motion.

Commissioner Carey.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: Yeah, and good morning,

Mr. Chairman. I will, I will find my... I move to

forward to the City Council a recommendation of approval

of the tentative map associated with PCN17-0011/

STM21-0001 for a 448-lot townhome subdivision on a site

approximately 165.5 acres in size located in the NUD,

New Urban District - Miramonte Planned Development,

zoning district, adopting Findings T1 through T12 and

the facts supporting these findings as set forth in the

staff report, and subject to Conditions of Approval 1

through 18. And I will note for the record this motion



283

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 include the revised Conditions of Approval that

the Commission received this afternoon from staff.


Commissioner Carey.


COMMISSIONER KRAMER: Mr. Chair, I second that

motion.


So we have a motion by Commissioner Carey, a

second by Commissioner Kramer. Any further discussion?

Oh, Dani, are you raising your hand?

MS. WRAY: Yes, I am. Due to the change in

numbering on the Conditions of Approval, it's 1 through

17. That's all.


COMMISSIONER CAREY: Thank you for that. Would

I need to amend the motion?

MR. SENDALL: Yes, please, just clarify that

you would be amending it to 1 through 17.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: I would be amending it,

the foresaid motion, subject to Conditions of Approval 1

through 17 and reflecting the changes that were provided

to the Commission this afternoon.


Commissioner Kramer, do you still want to



284

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

second that?

COMMISSIONER KRAMER: And I will second that

motion.

CHAIR PRITSOS: All right. So now we have a

motion from Commissioner Carey, a second from

Commissioner Kramer. Any further discussion?

No. Well, then, madam secretary, can we please

call the roll.


CHAIR PRITSOS: Aye.













CHAIR PRITSOS: All right. Motion passes

unanimously.

So we will now move on to item 10, which is our



285

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

last public comment section.

Madam secretary, could you please read the

announcement.

MS. SMITH: This is our last general public

comment period. The telephone number call-in for

participation is 1-669-900-6833. The meeting ID number

is 918 6277 1011. You will use star 9 on your phone to

request to speak. Or you may raise your hand using the

Zoom features if you have joined by the Zoom link.

Ms. Martinez, do -- I don't see any public

comment. Do you see any?

MS. MARTINEZ: No, I do not.

CHAIR PRITSOS: All right. Then, with that, we

will close public comment and move on to item 11,

announcements from staff and Commissioners. We'll start

with staff. Are there any announcements at this time?

MR. ORNELAS: Chair Pritsos and members of the

Planning Commission, Armando Ornelas.

Just looking ahead, you know, one announcement

regarding an upcoming City Council agenda item that we

anticipate being heard on May 24th, they may be

considering and providing direction to the City Manager

to start on a set of amendments to Title 20 to the

zoning code. This would be sort of a six-year update,

if you will, to address oversights.



286

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

You know, as you're aware, we have some missing

pieces in terms of appropriate zoning districts for

missing middle type housing. You know, the top end of

our single-family districts is not quite dense enough,

and the bottom end of the multi-family districts is not

quite low enough for some of the product that is, you

know, is being proposed. So that type of thing.

At any rate, if we're provided that direction,

then you would be seeing this, you know, at some point

in the future, probably several months out.

The second announcement would be that we may

very well be conducting the June meeting of the Planning

Commission in person in the Legislative Building. But

stay tuned, and we will keep you apprised of if that is

to occur and the particulars around that. But with the

Governor directives regarding the conduct of virtual

public meetings, we anticipate, you know, lapsing. Then

we will be moving to live meetings.

And then, third, this is less of announcement,

but I just want to acknowledge Marilie Smith and Casey

Martinez. They worked harder than anyone tonight and

did a terrific job. And not only did they do that

tonight, but it took actually a tremendous amount of

work and effort on their part to compile the comments

and make sure that your public hearings, with so many



287

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

interested members of the public wanting to be heard,

that that was done as efficiently as possible. It still

took a long time, but every person who wanted to speak

was afforded the opportunity, and either through in

their own words live or through Marilie and Casey. So,

again, I want to thank them for that.

CHAIR PRITSOS: Thank you, Armando. Yeah, I

also just want to thank all staff and for all the hard

work. I know that we had some pretty big items this

meeting, and I really appreciate all of the work that

all of you have done to help us kind of be prepared for

these meetings, then, and just sort of help guide us

through all these complex issues.

Is there any other announcements from members

of the Commission?

Commissioner Read.

COMMISSIONER READ: Yeah, I don't have an

announcement, but in light of the number of public

comments read into the record tonight, could we

discuss -- and, I guess, it would depend on how the

future meetings go. But under certain circumstances,

can we discuss just reading the names and of people that

email? Because we're all reading them. They are posted

on the website. And then just state if they're in favor

or opposed. And I mean I would just like it maybe to be



288

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

talked about to be considered for future, for a future

agenda item.

I know that some of the other entities are

doing this. And I initially was not a big fan of it.

But I can see the value in certain circumstances of

doing that.


Commissioner Read.

Are there any other announcements?

All right. Well, seeing none, we will move on

to our last item on this fine from the morning, which is

adjournment. So can I get a motion to adjourn?

COMMISSIONER READ: Motion to adjourn.


COMMISSIONER KRAMER: Second that.

COMMISSIONER ANDRIOLA: Second.

CHAIR PRITSOS: All right. We have a motion

from Commissioner Read and a second from Commissioner

Kramer.

Madam secretary, can we please call the roll?


CHAIR PRITSOS: Aye.






289

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










CHAIR PRITSOS: The motion passes unanimously.

We are adjourned. Thanks, everyone.

COMMISSIONER KRAMER: Good night.

COMMISSIONER READ: Good morning.

* * * * *

(The Sparks Planning Commission meeting adjourned at

12:11 a.m. on Friday, May 7, 2021.)

-oOo-

Sparks Planning Commission meeting

Documents