STUDY SESSION CITY OF SPARKS PLANNING COMMISSION …Jun 07, 2018 · Sparks of a site 1.9 acres in size located at 2101 Sullivan Lane, Sparks, NV. Upon annexation the parcels shall

STUDY SESSION

CITY OF SPARKS PLANNING COMMISSION

NOTICE OF MEETING AND AGENDA

TUESDAY, JUNE 5, 2018, 12:00 PM TO 1:00 PM

SPARKS CITY HALL DOWNSTAIRS TRAINING ROOM

431 PRATER WAY, SPARKS, NV

Meetings are open to the public and notice is given in accordance with NRS 241.020. The meeting site is accessible to

individuals with disabilities. Reasonable efforts to assist and accommodate persons with physical disabilities desiring to

attend shall be made per NRS 241.020(1). Please call (775) 353-2350 at least (3) business days before the meeting to make

arrangements.

Please Note: Items on the agenda may be taken out of order, the Planning Commission may combine two or more agenda

items for consideration, may remove an item from the agenda, or may delay discussion relating to an item on the agenda

at any time per NRS 241.020 (2)(d)(6).

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL

3. REVIEW OF THE JUNE 7, 2018 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA

4. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS

5. PUBLIC COMMENT - This item is for either public comment on any action item or for general public comment and is limited to no more than three (3) minutes for each commentator.

6. SYNOPSIS OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING

7. COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS

8. ADJOURNMENT

Posted at: Sparks City Hall, Sparks Legislative Building, Sparks Fire Department, Sparks Parks and Recreation Department,

Alf Sorensen Center and also posted at www.cityofsparks.us and www.notice.nv.gov no later than 9:00 a.m. on the third

working day before the meeting.

Support Materials: The designated contact to request support materials is the Planning Commission Secretary, 431

Prater Way, Sparks, Nevada, 775-353-2300. Support materials will also be available at the scheduled meeting.

Planning Commissioners:

Dian VanderWell, Chair

Scott Carey, Vice Chair

Mary Brock

James Fewins

Frank Petersen

Shelley Read

Karim Shabazz

Sparks Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Page 1


NOTICE OF MEETING

CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS

745 4th STREET, SPARKS, NEVADA

THURSDAY, JUNE 7, 2018, 6:00 PM

Public Meeting Notice – Meetings are open to the public and notice is given in accordance with NRS 241.020.

Posting – This agenda has been distributed for posting at the following locations three (3) working days before the meeting:

Sparks City Hall, 431 Prater Way Alf Sorensen Community Center, 1400 Baring Blvd.

Sparks Legislative Bldg, 745 4th St. Sparks Fire Department, 1605 Victorian

Sparks Recreation Center, 98 Richards Wy www.cityofsparks.us www.notice.nv.gov

Supporting Documentation – Documentation supporting agenda items is available on the City’s website at

www.cityofsparks.us – City Services – Boards and Commissions – Sparks Planning Commission, and will be available at the

Planning Commission meeting. For further information you may contact Sparks Community Services at (775) 353-2300.

Order of Agenda – Items on the agenda may be taken out of order; the Planning Commission may combine two or more

agenda items for consideration, may remove an item from the agenda, or may delay discussion relating to an item on the

agenda at any time per NRS 241.020 (2)(d)(6).

Public Comment – Public comment may address any agenda action item or for general public comment. Each person

addressing the Planning Commission shall give his/her name, and shall limit the time of their presentation to three (3)

minutes per NRS 241.020(2)(d)(7). Procedures for a public comment are available upon request.

Restrictions on Public Comments – All public comment remarks shall be addressed to the Planning Commission as a whole

and not to any member thereof. No person, other than members of the Planning Commission and the person having the

floor shall be permitted to enter into any discussion. No questions shall be asked of the Planning Commission except

through the presiding officer.

Disruptive Conduct – Any person who disrupts a meeting to the extent that its orderly conduct is made impractical may be

removed from the meeting by order of the presiding officer.

Accommodations – The meeting site is accessible to individuals with disabilities. Reasonable efforts to assist and

accommodate persons with physical disabilities desiring to attend shall be made per NRS 241.020(1). Please call (775) 353-

2350 at least (3) business days before the meeting to make arrangements.

If you have questions, you may find additional information at www.cityofsparks.us or call the Planning Commission

Secretary at (775) 353-2300.

Planning Commissioners:



Mary Brock

James Fewins

Frank Petersen

Shelley Read

Karim Shabazz

http://www.cityofsparks.us/

http://www.notice.nv.gov/



Sparks Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Page 2

Sparks Planning Commission Meeting Thursday, June 7, 2018, 6:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL

3. PUBLIC COMMENT - This item is for either public comment on any action item or for general public comment and is limited to no more than three (3) minutes for each commentator.

4. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA - Includes taking items out of sequence, deleting items and adding items which require action upon a finding that an emergency exists. (For Possible Action)

5. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

• Review and possible approval of the minutes of the May 1, 2018 Planning Commission Study

Session (For Possible Action)

• Review and possible approval of the minutes of the May 3, 2018 Capital Improvements Advisory

Committee meeting. (For Possible Action)

• Review and possible approval of the minutes of the May 3, 2018 Planning Commission meeting.

(For Possible Action)

6. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMITTE REPORTS

7. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS

PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS

8. PCN18-0020 – Consideration of and possible action on a request for voluntary annexation into the city of Sparks of a site 1.9 acres in size located at 2101 Sullivan Lane, Sparks, NV. Upon annexation the parcels shall convert from a Washoe County zoning designation of E-1 (Estate Residential) to a City of Sparks zoning designation of SF15 (Residential Single Family, 15,000 square foot lots). (For Possible Action)

9. PCN18-0019 - Consideration of and possible action on, for a site 7.72 acres in size in the PD (Planned Development – Vistas) zoning district located at 2255 S. Los Altos Parkway, Sparks, NV, requests for:

• DA18-0002 – A Development Agreement pursuant to NRS 278.0201 between the City of Sparks and Landstar Companies, LLC providing for planning and development of the site; (For Possible Action) and

• RZ18-0003 - Rezoning of the site from PD (Planned Development – Vistas) to MF2/PUD (Multi-family District/Planned Unit Development). (For Possible Action)

GENERAL BUSINESS

10. CA-1-18 - Consideration of and possible action on an ordinance amending Title 20 of the Sparks Municipal Code to permit Wineries in the MUD-DT/VS, MUD/MUC, and MUD/MR Mixed-Use Zoning Districts, the C2 (General Commercial) Zoning District, and the TC (Tourist Commercial) Zoning District, and providing for other matters properly relating thereto. (For Possible Action)

11. PUBLIC COMMENT - This is for general public comment limited to items that do not appear on the agenda and is limited to no more than three (3) minutes for each commentator. Pursuant to NRS 241.020, no action may be taken upon a matter raised under this item until the matter has been specifically included on an agenda.

12. COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS

13. ADJOURNMENT

STUDY SESSION, CITY OF SPARKS PLANNING COMMISSION

Tuesday, May 1, 2018

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

TRANSCRIPT MINUTES

STUDY SESSION



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

Sparks City Hall Downstairs Training Room

431 Prater Way

Sparks, Nevada



2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A P P E A R A N C E S

Commission Members Present:



Frank Petersen

Mary Brock

James Fewins

Shelley Read

Karim Shabazz (phone)

Staff Present:

Alyson McCormick

Assistant City Attorney

Armando Ornelas

Assistant Community Services Director

John Martini

Community Services Director

Ian Crittenden

Senior Planner

Jim Rundle

Planning Manager

Marilie Smith

Administrative Secretary

Community Services Department

Other Participants:

(None)



3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

I N D E X

ITEM PAGE

1. CALL TO ORDER 4

2. ROLL CALL 4

3. REVIEW OF THE MAY 3, 2018 CAPITAL

IMPROVEMENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA 5

4. REVIEW OF THE MAY 3, 2018 PLANNING

COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA 15

5. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 49

6. PUBLIC COMMENT 49

7. SYNOPSIS OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING 49

8. COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS 50

9. ADJOURNMENT 50



4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SPARKS, NEVADA, TUESDAY, MAY 1, 2018, 12:00 P.M.

-oOo-

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: I'm going to call to

order the Study Session of the City of Sparks Planning

Commission for May 1st.

And, also, to remind everybody, when you talk,

if you can please identify yourselves so the person

doing the minutes can know who we are.

So if we can start with roll call.

MS. SMITH: Commissioner VanderWell?

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Here.

MS. SMITH: Commissioner Carey?

COMMISSIONER CAREY: Present.

MS. SMITH: Commissioner Brock?

COMMISSIONER BROCK: Here.

MS. SMITH: Commissioner Fewins?

COMMISSIONER FEWINS: Here.

MS. SMITH: Commissioner Petersen?

COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: Here.

MS. SMITH: Commissioner Read?

COMMISSIONER READ: Here.

MS. SMITH: Commissioner Shabazz?

COMMISSIONER SHABAZZ: I'm here.

MS. SMITH: Assistant City Attorney Alyson

McCormick?



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

MS. MCCORMICK: Here.

MS. SMITH: Assistant Community Services

Director Armando Ornelas?

MR. ORNELAS: Here.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Okay. With that, we'll

move along to review of the May 3rd Capital Improvements

Advisory Committee agenda.

So do I need to call that one to order, also,

Alyson?

MS. MCCORMICK: Since we're just doing Study

Session, you don't need to.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Okay. Perfect. All

right.

MR. MARTINI: All right. Thanks.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Mr. Martini.

MR. MARTINI: John Martini, Community Services

Director. We did this in February. It was so much fun,

I thought we'd just do it one more time.

So just to brief the CIC up on why we -- oh,

come on.

MR. CRITTENDEN: Eh, wrong button.

MR. MARTINI: So, as you guys will recall, on

October 17th, Lewis and Roca, acting as agents for the

property owner for the Highland Ranch property,

petitioned for the land that was annexed. It was



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

actually annexed under Ordinance 2531 within Impact Fee

Service Area 1. Per NRS 278B.290, any review or

modification of the impact fee has to come to you guys

for review for the land use assumptions, capital

improvements program, and then we show you the fees that

the Council could choose to impose based on the

revisions.

As a reminder, this is the current boundary of

Impact Fee Service Area 1. The proposal would add the

Highlands in, so that we'd be extending the boundary.

So, on March 15th, you guys held a public

hearing to review the land use assumptions. Based on

the February 2018 report by House Moran -- oh, I've got

a typo here, I need to fix it -- House Moran

Consultants, Incorporated. You held a public hearing.

You voted to forward a recommendation of the approval of

the land use assumptions, capital improvements plan, and

proposed impact fees.

In fairness, Commissioner Fewins was

questioning the fees that night. I assured you we'd

gone through them. You said, boy, these sure seem kind

of low, because of the net changes. And you were right.

So right after you guys met, Ed Davis with

Stonebrook came in and said, John, you got to check

these flood fees. Something just doesn't seem right.



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

We did. We got ahold of House Moran. And we

did, in fact, have an error in the flood, the

calculation for the flood impact fees. It was super

easy to find once you knew what you were looking for.

But let me tell you, about four or five sets of eyes had

been over it before, and no one picked it up. But,

intuitively, we probably should have known.

We knew that we had reduced some of the capital

improvements plan due to the completion of Reach 4. We

had added some units. So we had a reason why it seemed

okay. But, thank God, you know, we have a great

development community that has experience with this. Ed

came forward and said, just, please, one more, before

you go to Council, check this thing out.

And where it was, if you guys go through your

report, Table 4-4 shows the cost of existing

infrastructure that has already been constructed and/or

paid for or issued credits on. When we did the

calculations, for some reason, when we coded the program

to do it, it did not pick up that cell in Excel, and it

excluded about $2.4 million, I think is the value you'll

see. And that's why the impact fees came in so low.

Again, since it is your duty to check the land

use -- we haven't changed anything. We didn't reanalyze

the land use assumptions. They are the same. As you'll



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

recall, at build-out, we're showing 26,541 service units

in comparison to the last update, which is what our fees

are currently based on, of 26,436. So we add about 105

units between the two analyses, just as a refresher.

Out there, inside the boundary, we have built

about 12,530 of the units in the master plan, leaving

14,012 units of different land use categories available

to participate in the program.

Alyson and I, since we had an opportunity to

repeat this, we spent a little bit of time, a little

more time actually, looking into NRS. And our

procedures, when we do this, remember, we do the

periodic updates. This is the first time we've had

someone petition to join since about 2003. So we were a

little rusty. Alyson pointed out that I probably should

have included the mast spreadsheet that shows the sum of

the analysis for the land use assumptions. It should

have probably been a part of your record for you to

review as the CIAC.

You know, it's a big, giant spreadsheet. This

is the summary table. If you can imagine in Excel, for

each of the land use areas, Upper Highlands all the way

down, you'll see highlighted in yellow is the Highland

Ranch, the assumptions that went in for Highland Ranch.

Those, you know, those could be available for your



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

review if you guys feel you want to go into that much

detail. It's all the work that Ian and I do trying to

figure out, basically, by PD area, and if it's not in a

NUD or a PUD, then we just do the APN. There are still

some parcels out there that aren't in a PUD. We'd be

happy to walk, you know, we could do a workshop and walk

you through it. It's a lot like watching paint dry.

But we'd be happy to do it.

So this is included for your review. You can

see where most of the development potential still sits.

You can see some of the old projects. Like

The Foothills are pretty much wound up. Kiley South is

pretty close to topped out. It is interesting to

review. If you've got questions on where any of those

properties are, we'll be happy to help you out.

So here was the error, and here is the effects

of the error. So in the February 2018 report, for

instance, the flood, the portion of the flood control

impact fee was calculated for a single-family residence

at $281. When we add that 2.4 million back into the top

line, those jump up to 454.

So those of who you are really questioning,

boy, this is, these really seem to have come down, you

were right. And a whole bunch of people missed that

calculation. Again, it was in the coding of the



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

spreadsheet.

On the right side, I show you the net

difference between the two analyses.

Just so the CIAC is sure, four sets of eyes

have gone through every calculation in the impact fee

three times each. And we all concur that they're right.

And I talked to Jeff House on the phone. He wanted me

to personally apologize to you, as a CIAC. It was an

honest mistake. And, again, that's one of the downfalls

of when you get so computerized, that, you know, had we

been doing this on paper, we probably wouldn't have

missed it.

So here are the proposed total impact fees.

Substantially higher, but only changed by the net

difference in flood. None of the others changed.

Here's a comparison. So, you know, this makes

a little more sense. We added a few more units. We did

shift some land uses around. We did add -- we did lose

a little bit out of the CIP due to completed projects

that have been paid for. But, on average, I mean we're

looking at reducing single-family home by about

5 percent. A multifamily's going up by 2.

Remember that in the CIP we did adjust for

inflation for two years. So things are kind of just in

balance. The biggest change is that Tourist Commercial.



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

And, I think, if I remember right, Ian, we actually,

when we got the data back from GIS on actual land use, I

told you guys they've been sharpening up the data all

along. I think, that was one of the changes in

acreages. It's a small land use, so if it changes by a

couple of acres, then it's really going to show an

impact in the calculation of the impact fee.

And that is it. And I apologize for having to

do this again. But I am very thankful that one of our

developers came forward and said, please, please,

please, look. Because the minute we dove into it,

honest to God, I pulled that calculation cell up and

went, oh, man, it's missing a chunk. And it was

immediately obvious.

You will notice in the staff report the

suggested motion this time is a little bit different.

As Alyson researched our duties as a CIAC, the language

is a little more strongly worded that you are

recommending the updates in the land use assumptions,

the revisions to the capital improvements plan, and the

imposition -- thank you, counselor -- of a proposed

impact fee.

So, I think, we're, you know, I think, a step

back in a redo and up on many fronts. One is

procedural. One is getting you data we probably should



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

have gotten you the first time. And the other is we are

very convinced or very confident in the proposed impact

fees.

Those are the only changes. The report's been

updated. Staff report is updated. We'll repeat it with

gusto this time.

Any questions?

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Does anybody have any

questions?

MR. MARTINI: Oh, I'm sorry, that's your job.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: I don't care.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: Scott. Not related to

this project, but I know, in that development agreement

we had at the last meeting --

MR. MARTINI: Yeah.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: -- we'll be doing this

again. I was just kind of curious if you had an idea.

MR. MARTINI: You know, Alyson and I had that

conversation. I said, you know, we really, we really

should probably get our arms all the way around this,

because in about two months we're going to do it again.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: Okay. Yeah.

MR. MARTINI: So, Commissioner Carey, with the

quarry, we have a little bit more, more time. I mean if

you remember, the applicant was really pounding on you



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

guys, you know, they want to develop, they want to

develop.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: M-hm (affirmative).

MR. MARTINI: So we -- I told you at that

meeting, unless there's a hiccup -- well, we just had

one -- I thought I could be done in about six months.

We're on track with that.

We (indistinct) Council last week with this

for -- well, back then, it was going to be a first and

second reading. But now Alyson's pretty sure we can do

this by resolution in one meeting.

So this will, if you guys, as a CIAC, provide

that recommendation forward, our intent is to be at

Council with the resolution to adopt and approve on the

29th, because the 28th is Memorial Day.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Okay.

MR. MARTINI: Just so you know, you guys are a

little bit ahead of development services enterprise

fund, EFAC. We're meeting with them Friday.

MR. CRITTENDEN: Friday.

MR. MARTINI: So they will get a look at this

again, too, since it's updated.


MR. MARTINI: But just for scheduling, we

decided to go -- when we try to pull EFAC together, it's



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

an adventure.


MR. MARTINI: Because everybody's pretty darn

busy right now.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Perfect.

MR. MARTINI: So, yeah. So what we'll probably

do, what I'd like to do, Commissioner Carey, is get to

the end of the year, a calendar year. Like you saw, I

cut off calculations for land use. December 15th, I

think, was our cutoff. Because our GIS guys got to run

a bunch of data. We got to check what maps have been

approved. So I'd really like to get to the end of the

year so there's not kind of like a half year's worth of

development in there. It's all the same math. But

we've historically got an end-of-the-year calculation,

and I'd like to do it again.


COMMISSIONER CAREY: Thanks.

MR. MARTINI: Yeah. And so, hopefully, when we

come forward with that, you know, I'll try and repeat

kind of what we did here. We'll just show the add-ins,

since they're petitions to join, so that you guys can

take a look.

So, for instance, with the Highlands, you know,

they, per their public testimony and then the written



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

document from Mr. Gordon that I included in the staff

report, he wanted 200 multifamily units and then a

certain acreage is acreage of commercial. So that

project adds 374 total service units, 200 of which would

be --

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Multifamily.

MR. MARTINI: -- an apartment, and then 74

service units were the general commercial.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Okay. Perfect.

MR. MARTINI: All right. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Okay. With that, we'll

move on to review of the May 3rd Planning Commission

meeting agenda.

We'll do public hearing PCN18-0013 for a

conditional use permit.

MR. CRITTENDEN: If I could get the --

MR. MARTINI: PDF?

MR. CRITTENDEN: Yeah.

MR. MARTINI: Right here, Ian?

MR. CRITTENDEN: Yep.

MR. MARTINI: Okay. Ian, it might be better if

you stand where I was so Commissioner Shabazz can pick

you up.

MR. CRITTENDEN: Yeah. So Planning Commission

members, Ian Crittenden, City Council, or --



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

COMMISSIONER CAREY: Promotion.

MR. CRITTENDEN: Sorry, my brain's a little

rattled today. Senior Planner.

So the item I'm going to present to you today

is a conditional use permit request for a major

recreational facility located at 7660 Patrina Way in the

county. It's actually not in the City of Sparks. It's

in our Sphere of Influence.

So the Regional Planning Governing Board

included this area into our Sphere of Influence in 2007.

Or, no, 2006. I'm sorry. And then we master-planned

the area in 2007, taking its master-planned land use

from GR, which was -- this is a complicated, weird

process. But it was zoned GR in the county. When it

goes into our Sphere of Influence, that zoning becomes

its land use. We master-planned it, changed the land

use from GR to Open Space and Rural Reserve.

And then, in 2008, it was included, this area

was included in the West Pyramid plan, which then

changed its zoning or its master plan designation to

LLR. I'm pretty sure that's right. No, it's LDR, OS,

and LLR are down here, which is Large Lot Residential,

Open Space, and Low Density Residential. Those were the

master plan land use designations as they were

determined.



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

Okay. So the City of Sparks has exercised

extrajurisdictional authority over this area pursuant to

NRS 278.02788, which gives the City actually really wide

control per that section of NRS. However, we entered

into a protocol agreement with Washoe County, which

essentially limited our authority in these areas that

are in our Sphere of Influence but aren't in the City

to, basically, the planning jurisdiction.

So, as I mentioned earlier, this site

previously had a GR zoning designation. That zoning

designation continues to exist some places out there,

but mostly as a point for us to reference with that

area, which is annexed into the City, what would zoning

become. Because there's a whole chart of what, that

happens. That's actually included here.

Oh, that's really small. I'll adjust this.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: You need one to provide.

MR. CRITTENDEN: Eh. Yes. I will have a

better copy of this for the Planning Commission meeting.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: There we go. Very good.

MR. CRITTENDEN: If you scroll down, it's

actually going to be on the bottom half. There we go.

So the general rule here is what it was zoned

in the county. So its reference is A-40. That's only

important because A-40 is the zoning point at which we



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

used for the -- the use standards, when we evaluated

this case, was A-40.

Okay. So, specifically, a use of roping and

cultural, or roping and dancing horses cultural event

isn't listed in our land use table. It's pretty

specific. However, our land use table does talk about

major recreational facilities, which specifically call

it being outdoor, large. Riding stables is listed there.

Event centers is listed there. Not event center, but

entertainment complex, stadiums and arenas. We felt

like these uses were all similar, substantially similar

and up to the use being requested, that we could apply

their major recreational facility use to this use, or

definition to this use.

So major recreational facilities are permitted

in the A-40 zoning district subject to a conditional use

permit, which kind of brings us to where we are today.

Temporary use permits for -- essentially, this

is the same event where the -- the property is operated

with two temporary use permits. Last year, they had,

they got two temporary use permits for a very similar

event last year. They came in this year and showed an

interest that they, hey, we want to do it once a month,

May through October. You know, we want to get our

temporary use permits.



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

And, essentially, the temporary use permit,

that goes beyond the scope of what temporary use permits

are really designed to manage. And so we said, you're

talking about an intermittent seasonal permanent use.

And so we said a conditional use permit is really the

right process really to go through that, kind of moving

along to how we got to where we are now.

So City staff worked with county staff at a

series of meetings, or two meetings we went to. We had,

essentially a pre-app meeting, which we do here locally

with the development community, to kind of go through

the -- it's kind of when you, at the rough stage, hey,

this is what we want to do, here are the things you need

to look at. We did that with county staff. And then we

also, after submittal, we have a plan review meeting.

We did that with county staff as well to get their

input.

Because the City, our jurisdiction is just over

planning, most of the conditions that are going to be,

or are proposed will be enforced by the county. So we

thought it was very important for them to be involved

all the way through this process.

So let's see what happens when we try to change

now. I got to go back to that. Like I said, I'll

change that so it's a little easier to read at the



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

Planning Commission meeting. So.

Okay. Actually, let me go back, so I can be

sure. Okay. So I just wanted to go back to the

vicinity map to kind of give an idea.

So just, and I didn't display this earlier,

but, so this dotted line, or the dashed line is

essentially the City boundaries. It is the City

boundary line that kind of flows around here. This is

the, what was kind of annexed as the access to Sonoma

Highlands, which is back up this way. This is all in

the county, and then so is all of this area, but is in

our Sphere of Influence. Interestingly, none of this is

in our Sphere of Influence, just as a point of

reference.

So City code requires that all access roads and

parking be paved for any, kind of anything that's off

there. However, the paving ends on Dolores about here.

And so from here to here is all dirt road to get in

there.

So we thought that paving was probably a little

overzealous actually. And so we thought, you know,

really improvement by graveling that parking lot and

then doing appropriate improvements to -- or appropriate

care of the private access easement or private access

drive here was a more reasonable approach to take.



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

So that was what staff was recommending in

Condition 3 was that they have to at least gravel it

before approval for their parking area, their required

parking area.

So, as I mentioned, so you've got about 2,800

feet of unpaved road there. We don't know at this time

what exactly their access instrument looks like. We

assume it's an access easement. That's the most common.

We're trying to get that from the applicant now.

And we've actually crafted a condition

requesting that that agreement -- so if there's an

existing easement that says you have vehicular access to

the property and it kind of gives no limitations to

that, they can continue to operate probably with that

easement without a problem. But if that easement

specifically says residential traffic or has some sort

of a limitation to it, they would have to get that

easement amended in order to address the large amount

and nonresidential traffic that they're going to

generate to this site.

So that was one of the requests that we have as

one of the conditions.

Additional to that, just as the City would or

the county would assess people impacts if they were

having an undue or an impact on the roads network as



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

accessing them, they'd have, you know, responsibilities

along that line, we feel it would be, it is fair and

just for them to have that same responsibility to that,

that road.

And so we have a condition in there that there

needs to be some sort of an agreement between them and

the other people that have access to that, that

easement, that are, essentially, co- not owners, but

co -- they pay into it. This road is privately

maintained by all of the adjacent property owners. They

need to contribute a portion that is commensurate with

the impact they're putting on the road. Or they can

provide a traffic analysis that shows that they won't

have any additional impact. Both are justifiable as far

as the way we looked at it.

And so we wrote a condition. We are proposing

a condition that would require them to either get an

agreement or show that you're not having any additional

impact. On a city or county road that's improved, 200

to 250 additional trips per month is not a lot. We

probably would not have additional impact we'd be

looking at. But an unapproved county road that's

probably -- we just don't know what that impact would

be.

Okay. Okay. So, in addition, because Dolores



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

Drive and Patrina Way are not currently paved, another

condition is proposed that they would need to water that

road before and during events as necessary to keep the

dust down, to mitigate dust. And that's listed in

Condition 4.

So, additionally, Truckee Meadows Fire

Protection District has requested that an all-weather

20-foot fire access road be granted along this drive

aisle, however this works, so that it can be test clear

that they could access through. So it doesn't

necessarily mean they need a separate road. It just

means that if you've got this road already, it needs to

be improved to all-weather, and we need to have 20-foot

clear that we can get through if we need to come out for

fire or entry or whatever event they need to come out

to. So that's proposed as Condition 5.

They've also, the Fire Protection District

also, they require that all tents or pop-ups be reviewed

by them, because they have a size limit and for both

fire and health safety issues. The two small areas, or

I think there might even be a third small area there,

that they indicated on this, they said, look, they're

small enough we're not particularly concerned. But we

want them to review their location and size with us

before every event so that we know that we're not



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

getting an issue that we're concerned about.

The Washoe County District Health wrote a

letter details their concerns. Briefly, those concerns

were about non-sewered toilets. There's Condition

Number 6, says that they need to provide 10 for guests

and two for staff.

Additionally, Condition 10 requires that all

food and beverage sales must meet county health

standards and be permitted by them. They have showed an

interest in applying for a liquor license to be able to

sell canned beer.

Additionally, they were talking about food

trucks providing food. Condition 12 says, hey, you got

to have those duly licensed.

And then they have a letter that has some

additional requirements mostly dealing with their well

water and where it can or can't be used. And we just

included a condition, number 14, that says all of the

requirements of their -- of the county health letter

must be approved.

And another concern that was addressed in our

meetings with their staff was about amplified sound. It

also came up when you guys read all of the complaints or

comments from the neighbors.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Yeah.



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

MR. CRITTENDEN: There was a big comment that

came up where you said all of your speakers for

amplified sound need to be oriented towards the inside,

the interior of the property. And there's a 65-decibel

limit at your property boundaries. 65 decibels,

according to a nifty chart I have in my office, says 65

decibels is about the size of how loud a conversation

is, is about 65 decibels. Whereas, it says like an air

conditioner is about 60, just to kind of give you some

reference. And that's to the property line. That

should help, due to the 10-acre properties, it should

help with mitigating that sound to a certain degree.

The applicant has indicated they want to run

events from noon till sunset. And because that's what

they indicated, we said, that's great, we're going to

put that as a condition that your hours will be from

noon to sunset.

And because they're running from noon to

sunset, they shouldn't have any need for exterior

lightings or any during the day. And so there's also a

condition that says, you know, no exterior lighting. If

they decide at some point they want to add exterior

lighting, it's going to require a -- or an amendment to

their conditional use permit.

Okay. So they asked for one event May through



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

October. But the way they wrote it in their

application, I and staff had got a little confused and

thought that they wanted to do one a month, plus one

potentially on holidays. Subsequent discussions with

the applicant is, no, that wasn't really what they were

intending. They want to do one a month. And if there's

a holiday in that month, they may not hold the event on

that holiday, but that will be like the theme of the

event for that holiday. So in June, Father's Day will

be the theme. May, Cinco de Mayo would be the theme.

Okay. And so that was kind of the same.

So in the staff report, it still says 10.

After discussions with the applicant, the conditions

were amended to be six, because that's actually what

they were asking for. So that amendment was changed.

And it's Condition 15. No. That's Condition 9. It's

Condition 9 that talks about the number of events and

that we've limited it to six.

Through public comment, another concern was

raised that we hadn't thought of, which was there was a

comment that there's been a real increase in flies in

the area since the events started to happen. That's a

really hard thing for us to put conditions on, to

specifically address flies. But we know that the two

things that are going to draw flies in going to be,



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

manure and trash are going to be your two big culprits.

So this condition, Condition Number 15, that

says you need to provide a commercial dumpster,

commercial trash receptacle, and trash and manure

produced by the events need to be gone within 48 hours.

So that was our way to try to address that concern.

Additionally, there are five, five findings

associated with conditional use permits. Finding C1

requires compliance or, yeah, compliance with the

Comprehensive Plan.

Go back to the planning map.

We do have three categories on this property.

All three of those list recreational uses as appropriate

nonprimary uses.

And the request supports Goal MG2 by adding

diversity to land use mix, specifically recreational

uses, and then also supports Policy RC24 supporting

cultural resources in the City of Sparks jurisdiction.

So staff believes that finding C1 can be made.

Finding C2 is that, as submitted and

conditioned, the request is compatible with the

surrounding land uses.

So, as you can see, these are all fairly large

properties that are all roughly 10 acres, plus or minus.

And the keeping of horses and livestock is very common.



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

It's permitted and very common in this area. We feel

that a roping event and horses event is not out of

character with the area.

However, there are many concerns, and those are

mostly from an operation standpoint. The operation of

the event is going to cause compatibility. Staff

believes that, as conditioned, as mentioned in the 18

conditions that are proposed, staff feels those

conditions can make this a compatible use.

And then Finding C3 is about impairment of

natural resources. Staff didn't feel that the addition

of this event compromised or had an impact on the

provision of natural resources. And so we felt that

Finding C3 could be made.

Finding C4 is, again, that the application,

submitted and conditioned, as submitted and conditioned,

will identify, will address identified impacts. As

mentioned, we've gone through pretty much those 18

findings. Staff feels that if those findings -- or not

findings -- those conditions, those conditions are

messages to be a compatible use there. So, in our

opinion, finding C4 can be made.

And then the last finding is noticing. For

conditional use permits, the noticing requirement's 500

feet or 30 property owners. In this case, we had to go



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

out to 1,500 feet to get all 30, 30 property owners.

That notice was mailed on April 19th. And it was also

published in the Reno Gazette-Journal on April 18th.

And then the Planning Commission functions as the

hearing for this item.

Staff has received multiple comments from the

public, both in writing and phone calls. There's 26 in

the staff report. We handed out 11 more at this

meeting. That's a total of 37. And then we've had

seven phone, I had seven phone calls at the time of the

writing. I've only had two more phone calls since then.

So we've only had nine.

So. And except for I did break down the pros

and cons a little bit of how many were -- I didn't have

a chance to do it for this meeting, but I can have that

updated.

I am anticipating a lot of public comment at

the Planning Commission public hearing. So be ready for

that. Very, very passionate people there that want to

talk about it.

So that end my presentation. I can make

whatever --

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Commissioners, does

anybody have any questions?

You guys good? Commissioner Carey.



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

COMMISSIONER CAREY: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ian, I had a couple questions, kind of in two

areas. The first area is kind of the proposed use, and

the second area is kind of more the Sphere of Influence

stuff.

I was curious with, in the staff report and in

your presentation, you mentioned that there's, that

temporary use permits have been issued to host this

event. Is that done by City of Sparks, or is that done

through the county?

MR. CRITTENDEN: So the temporary use

permits -- Ian Crittenden.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Thanks.

MR. CRITTENDEN: The temporary use permits for

this property that were granted were granted by the

City.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: And how many of those have

been issued?

MR. CRITTENDEN: Two. I didn't look back any

further than what (indistinct), which is 2000. So,

anyway, two in the last year were the only two temporary

use permits that I found.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: Through the City. And

this is more of an information request. I was just, I

would like to see if maybe we could have some



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

information about these temporary use permits, if there

were any, you know, sheriff issues. Because my

understanding is this is Washoe County's jurisdiction in

that particular use. If there are any kind of

complaints about traffic or business licensing issues.

As a follow-up to that, I'd heard from a member

of the public who's big in the rodeo scene, and they had

explained to me that they believe that the applicant was

associated with an event that was held up at the

Gandolfo Rodeo Arena, which is a City facility. I don't

know if you'd heard from Parks and Rec department about

if there's any issues, you know, if that's the case, if

there are any issues with this particular applicant at

that facility. Because from what the member of the

public explained to me is that there were some

significant law enforcement and just facilities issues,

and they ended up getting kicked out of that, that

facility.

MR. CRITTENDEN: So I couldn't -- Ian

Crittenden again. I couldn't speak to all of the depth

of that. I don't know the nature of, you know, who was

called on, when they were. The applicant is, was

associated with the group that was running the rodeo at

Gandolfo.

I don't know what the depth of, you know, those



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

calls. I know that, talking with Tracy Dominguez, the

Parks director, she did say that they've had issues with

the way that the building, the events center, the rodeo

grounds were kept, that there was issues with that. And

I don't know. Potentially, there's a piece of this that

I haven't heard. But she did not mention them being

kicked out. She said that they came and applied again,

and I don't know if it was this year or last year, for

an event, but the scope of the event was far beyond what

that arena --

COMMISSIONER CAREY: Is permitted.

MR. CRITTENDEN: -- is designed to hold.

They're asking 2,000 people, live bands, like a bunch of

stuff that they were not equipped to be able to do that.

I'll talk to Tracy and see if I can get some

more information along the lines of, you know, that

involvement.

But, yes, I mean the short answer to that is

Mr. Medina was involved with the group that was holding

that rodeo at the Gandolfo.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: Yeah, if you can maybe get

some more information before Thursday on that, I'd

appreciate it.

MR. CRITTENDEN: Specific to?

COMMISSIONER CAREY: The Parks and Rec concern,



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

or.

MR. CRITTENDEN: What happened at the Parks and

Rec location? Okay.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: And any other issues

associated with, you know, the temporary use.

To maybe transition into the Sphere of

Influence questions, I don't know. It's been a few

years. I think, this is my first time on the Commission

since we've had an entitlement in the Sphere of

Influence. But does that protocol agreement require

annexation if a use on a property is intensified or if

it transitions from a -- I guess, what I'm getting at,

this is a single-family residence where --

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: And it's zoned that way.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: Zoned that way,

master-planned that way. And we have a conditional use

permit for us to consider for a major recreational

facility. Is that considered intensification? Does

that have any kind of bearing with the protocol

agreement?

MR. CRITTENDEN: So, typically, and I may

default to the Planning Manager, Jim Rundle, on some of

this. He knows that protocol agreement better than I

do. But, typically, when we look at intensification, if

you're operating within the approved uses for your



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

property, then you get conditional use permits. While

an entitlement are a permit that is based on conditions.

Right. They're not a new use. They're not a rezoning

of a property. They are literally just, hey, this is,

this use is permitted if you go through the process to

talk about how you're going to do it and how you meet

criteria that the City feels you need to meet to make

that an appropriate use.

So in this case, it would be my opinion that,

no, it doesn't, it doesn't reach that level of

intensification.

Do you have any comments beyond that, Jim?

MR. RUNDLE: Madam Chair, Jim Rundle, Planning

Manager. In the former master plan, the intensification

was defined, and it was the subdivision of a parcel.

Because this parcel is not being subdivided, a permitted

use would not be deemed as an intensification.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: Intensification.


COMMISSIONER CAREY: And my last question with

the Sphere of Influence. So we're going to be issuing,

the City will be issuing the conditional use permit, but

a lot of the conditions of approval will be monitored by

the county?

MR. RUNDLE: Correct.



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

COMMISSIONER CAREY: And the majority of the

services will be provided by the county?

MR. CRITTENDEN: Correct.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: Or continue to be?


COMMISSIONER CAREY: I was wondering if we

could maybe get a breakdown of -- or are we just doing

purely planning, we just issue the conditional use

permit?

MR. CRITTENDEN: Planning is our jurisdiction

based on the protocol agreement.

And so, in the conditions, if not specifically

spelled out, like the condition that says, you know, the

Truckee Meadows Fire Protection District, yotty yotty

yotta, we didn't include, then, that'll be kept by

Washoe County, that'll be enforced by Washoe County,

because it's kind of inherent in the description of that

condition.

But conditions that don't specifically call

someone out, if it's the City of Sparks or Washoe

County, we tried to include that at the end of those

conditions to say, hey, this is the entity that will be

enforcing that. Some of them or both of us that would

want to look at -- there's a condition that talks about

the limited times a year, also talks about you need to



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

provide to us their schedule by like March 1st, I

believe is the date that's included there. And so

that's to both us and the county, you know.

So there's some that are dual, some that are

us, and some that are going to be the county. But

they're called out on there, but I can tally that up and

give you that breakdown at the Planning Commission

meeting.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: Yeah, or at least

highlight it in your presentation. Because, I think,

we're going to have -- I think, it's confusing for the

members of the public that may be coming to the meeting.

And if -- I don't know. If there's -- if this

conditional use permit's approved, I'd like to have them

maybe have some information on who to complain to.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Are you done? Perfect.

Commissioner Fewins.

COMMISSIONER FEWINS: Commissioner Fewins here.

Ian, there's a couple things that concern me

right away. You did say the garbage receptacle.

Usually, in summer, in the afternoons, the wind may pick

up in northern Nevada, with some winds coming in the

afternoon. What kind of fencing's going to be around

this property? I'd like to know what, that to keep

garbage from blowing in.



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

And then other items that I noticed, somebody

had put in here from the public about off-road vehicles

within a thousand feet of residentials, residential, if

whether or not, for the maintenance of when the event's

going on, whether or not there'll be ATVs or off-road

vehicles that are servicing the event.

And I'd like to know, from that major -- from

the county there on the east side, I don't know if you

could, how many feet is that from Karen's favorite

color, the --

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Yeah, m-hm (affirmative).

COMMISSIONER FEWINS: -- blue-green there to

the edge of the houses there to the east, the majority

looks like 6,000-square-foot lots or maybe 10,000

square-foot lots, to all the way to the east, if --

MR. CRITTENDEN: How far are they from there,

you want to know?

COMMISSIONER FEWINS: Yep.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: M-hm (affirmative),

because when the wind blows.

COMMISSIONER FEWINS: And what's that big --

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: That's a problem right

there.

COMMISSIONER FEWINS: That's a big, big house.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: It's a big home, uh-huh



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

(affirmative).

COMMISSIONER FEWINS: Okay.

MR. CRITTENDEN: Where at?

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: In the circle up on the

right.

MR. CRITTENDEN: That's a school.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Oh. Sorry.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: Oh, this is Jessie Beck.

COMMISSIONER FEWINS: Jessie Beck. Okay. It

looked like a school, so.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Are you good?

Okay. Commissioner Petersen's next.

COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: Commissioner Petersen.

I have seen an awful lot of conditions of conditional

permits before. But 18 is an arvuna. Has the applicant

indicated to you he feels confident making those

conditions?

MR. CRITTENDEN: Ian Crittenden. I have spoken

with the applicant. His contact is, the contact for

this has actually been through his daughter. And she

says they have looked over the conditions, they feel

comfortable with those, the conditions, as they have

been presented.

COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: Do you know how many

other property owners have an input on that private



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

road?

MR. CRITTENDEN: I do not know that, because we

have not seen the instrument by which those roads are

maintained or exist. So we don't know. But right now,

we're assuming an easement, because it's the most

common. But we just don't know yet.

COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: So part of that

condition is that he has to have their all-approval to

meet that?

MR. CRITTENDEN: Potentially. The condition

really says you need to produce us your access document,

whether it's an easement or so forth.

Potentially, the existing access easement

document gives access in such a way as to provide them

access for this event to the site. If it does not, they

will need to get approval from -- depending on how it's

written, from everybody at least along the route that

they are getting there, to update the description of

that access.

And then the other one will be required, the

maintenance will require some sort of an agreement

between these parties, those parties as well.

COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: That part of that road

is all dirt.

MR. CRITTENDEN: M-hm (affirmative).



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

COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: Okay. The other, the

question that I have on that, then, is I understand that

the governmental body cannot put any conditions on that

private road. Is that not right? Other than the fact

that they all have to get an agreement?

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Right.

COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: I have a couple

questions, and it's a follow-up to Commissioner

Petersen's. Did we request a copy of the private road

maintenance agreement from the applicant? Because they

should have a copy of it.

MR. CRITTENDEN: They should. I did request it

of them. It was -- I hadn't thought about this issue.

We don't run into a lot of private access issues in the

City.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Yeah.

MR. CRITTENDEN: I hadn't thought about this

issue until about Thursday of last week, just before the

sending out of the staff report the next day. I have

requested it from them. I'm not --

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Right. Most of the time,

it is recorded, also.


CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: So we may want to check



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

to see if there's a private road maintenance agreement

recorded.

MR. CRITTENDEN: Uh-huh (affirmative).

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: To find out about that.

And then, also, was the applicant made aware that they

could have been here today to help with some of these

questions, so that it's not vetted out on Thursday?

MR. CRITTENDEN: I did not specifically talk to

them. But we do send them notice of this meeting, do we

not?


MS. SMITH: Well, part of that is it's online.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Okay. Okay. I'm just

curious. Is the applicant or a representative going to

be there Thursday night to answer this?

MR. CRITTENDEN: And we talked to them

extensively about being there on Thursday night.


MR. CRITTENDEN: To be able to talk about it,

answer any questions that the Commission may have. You

know, that was talked about thoroughly with the

applicant, and they did assure me someone would be here.


MR. CRITTENDEN: Potentially, multiple someones

would be here on Thursday night.



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

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Okay. And, I think,

that's all I had.

Commissioner Brock.

COMMISSIONER BROCK: Yes, Chairman VanderWell.

I'm just curious. I mean if this is denied on

Thursday, will they be able to continue to apply for

special events permits and receive those?

MR. CRITTENDEN: My answer to that would be

yes, as long as they're not asking for the -- as often

as they were.

COMMISSIONER BROCK: I was just curious.

MR. RUNDLE: Madam Chair?

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Yes.

MR. RUNDLE: Jim Rundle, Planning Manager.

And, Commissioner Brock, semantics-wise, a

special events permit is something different than a

temporary use permit or a conditional use permit.

Special events in Sparks are what we utilize for

Victorian Square and those kinds of things.

If they were to request a temporary use permit,

it would probably be denied, because of the impacts.

They did come in and ask for a temporary use permit,

which I denied, as Ian talked about earlier in his

presentation, because of the impacts, and the nature of

the number of people going to the event exceeded what we



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

utilize the temporary use permit for.

So, in my opinion, my administrative decision

would be that it's not appropriate for a temporary use

permit.

COMMISSIONER BROCK: Okay. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Good. Any other

questions?

Commissioner Carey.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: Thank you, again, Madam

Chair. This is Scott Carey.

Ian, as I understand it, as it's proposed, if

this conditional use permit is approved, this would

allow for this conditional use to happen on the property

permanently?


COMMISSIONER CAREY: So there's no review

period? Or, you know, they don't have to come back for

a --

MR. CRITTENDEN: Every year?

COMMISSIONER CAREY: Yeah, something like that.

MR. CRITTENDEN: This would, this would allow

them to do this every year, based on the conditions.

You know, they'd get May through October. They'd send

us their dates in March, first part of March. And then

they'd have to apply with us. But, yeah, it would be a



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

right of run to the land.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: And they --

MR. CRITTENDEN: No, they did not -- it does

expire if they don't -- if they don't do the use, they

don't do the event for two years, it would expire. And

then they'd have to come back if they wanted to do it

again.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: So the County and City

would jointly kind of review those conditions of

approval and keep monitoring it?


COMMISSIONER CAREY: Does the Commission have

the ability to require a review?

MS. MCCORMICK: Madam Chair?


MS. MCCORMICK: Alyson McCormick, for the

record. I believe, if the Commission wanted to add a

periodic review as a condition on the conditional use

permit, that that would be an appropriate condition to

have.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Okay. I feel comfortable

with that.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: Thanks for the

clarification.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Thank you for the



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

question.

MS. MCCORMICK: And thank you.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Okay. Any other

questions?

Mr. Ornelas.

MR. ORNELAS: So, you know, I think, in

summation -- this is Armando Ornelas, Assistant

Community Services Director.

In summation, I think, you know, the primary

use on this property is as a single-family residence.

That will continue. So this is an additional use,

again, subject to a conditional use permit.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: Additional use.

MR. ORNELAS: You know, obviously, we work with

County staff. Their concerns and issues that they raise

have been reflected in the conditions, proposed

conditions of approval. And the determination and the

recommendation that we have from staff is that, you

know, the issuance and approval of the CUP, subject to

these conditions of approval, I think, are compatible

with the other uses out there.

You know, if -- and, as it was noted, there's,

you know, there's a lot of conditions of approval. So

those are all, as Mr. Crittenden has said, intended to

mitigate potential impacts. At the end of the day, if



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

your conclusion is that, you know, your approval is that

of compatible use, then, you know, you can make a

decision to deny.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Terrific. Thank you.

Commissioner Shabazz, do you have any

questions?

COMMISSIONER SHABAZZ: I had a couple of

questions. And please forgive me. And I don't have the

document right in the front of me at the moment, because

I'm still driving back.

But my first one is that it sounds like you

stated that there was a school somewhere in the

vicinity. And you were talking about the school being

there, and you spoke to it being a house or whatever it

was at the time. It sounded like somebody said there

was a school. Is there a requirement or any condition

there that alcohol not be at a certain -- within, you

know, a certain radius of a school? And, I believe,

that there is in the City, and I don't know if the

Sphere of Influence.

And so this will be, basically, a monthly deal.

Is there any (indistinct) school (indistinct)?

MR. CRITTENDEN: Commissioner Shabazz, this is

Ian Crittenden. I will look into what, if we have a

separation distance, what that is. I can tell you that



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

I don't know the distance separating this property from

the school. I know that it is over a thousand feet.

And in my experience, that's longer than most of those

separation requirements. But I will look into it and

have that information for you at the Planning Commission

meeting.

COMMISSIONER SHABAZZ: And then the second

question that I had was just getting back to that

private road. It's privately maintained. Any damage

that happens to that road, would they share in that

responsibility? What would be the mechanism, or is

there a mechanism for those property owners that are

already maintaining that road, as a recourse should

they -- you know, should damage be linked directly to

one of these events?

MR. CRITTENDEN: So, Commissioner Shabazz, it's

Ian Crittenden again. That is one of the conditions is

they provide some kind of a document, some sort of an

agreement between them and the other property owners

that maintain that road that shows what their

responsibilities and obligations are for the maintenance

and repair of that road.

COMMISSIONER SHABAZZ: So, I mean, and I

understand that. I know we're looking for that.

However, should they provide that they are maintaining



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

the road, and then, you know, and in the way they need

to do it, my question is, is, basically, regarding, you

know, what next in the event that there's, basically,

going to be damage to this road, if there's --

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Private maintenance road.

COMMISSIONER SHABAZZ: We just pulled their

permit, you know, that doesn't necessarily make the --

that doesn't necessarily make the property, the property

owner's whole, if that makes any sense.

MR. CRITTENDEN: I believe, I understand. The

issue at that point is between private property owners

at that point.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: It's private property.

MR. CRITTENDEN: It's like damages to fences

between properties. That's private property. Those two

entities have to work out how that's going to be

repaired. We are looking for, as I mentioned, that an

agreement that at least sets out some guidelines for

that. But as far as how they actually actuate that,

it's going to be between the property owners.

COMMISSIONER SHABAZZ: Understood.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Is that all, Commissioner

Shabazz?

COMMISSIONER SHABAZZ: That's all, Madam Chair.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Thank you.



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

Next, we'll move along to informational items.

MR. ORNELAS: In terms of informational items,

the next meeting of the Planning Commission will be on

June 7th. We're anticipating that you will have four

cases, two of which will have two parts. One of them

will be the Los Altos Vistas rezoning request, to be

accompanied by a proposed development agreement. So I

would expect that that item will take some time and that

there will be a fair amount of public comment on it,

based on when it was previously before the Planning

Commission and based on the continuing interest of the

neighbors of that property.

And then, just as an informational item, the

quarry will be heard as (indistinct) significance and in

terms of its conformance review on May 9th by the

Regional Planning Commission.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Okay. Public comment?

It doesn't look like we have any.

Synopsis of the City Council meeting.

MR. ORNELAS: So at the April 23rd City Council

meeting, the Council approved an extension of the

tentative map for Pioneer Meadows Number 6.

And then, looking ahead, on the 14th of May,

there are two planning cases on the City Council agenda.

One is that 459-lot tentative map for Stonebrook



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

Phase 2. And then the second is that one-page amendment

for the Kiley Ranch North Phase 7 final handbook.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Terrific. Thank you.

Any comments from the Commissioners?

Okay. Seeing none, I'll take a motion to

adjourn.

COMMISSIONER FEWINS: So moved.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Okay. We're adjourned.

Thank you.

-oOo-

CITY OF SPARKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS

ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING, Thursday, May 3, 2018

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

TRANSCRIPT MINUTES

CITY OF SPARKS

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE

MEETING

Thursday, May 3, 2018

6:00 p.m.

City Council Chambers

745 4th Street

Sparks, Nevada



2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25





Frank Petersen

Mary Brock

James Fewins

Shelley Read

Karim Shabazz

Staff Present:

Alyson McCormick


Armando Ornelas


John Martini


Marilie Smith



Other Participants:

(None)



3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

I N D E X

ITEM PAGE

1. CALL TO ORDER 4

2. ROLL CALL 4

3. PUBLIC COMMENT 5

PUBLIC HEARING:

4. REVIEW, CONSIDERATION, AND POSSIBLE

RECOMMENDATION TO THE SPARKS CITY COUNCIL TO

APPROVE THE ADOPTION OF THE REVISED LAND USE

ASSUMPTIONS, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN, AND

IMPOSITION OF IMPACT FEES FOR THE CITY OF

SPARKS IMPACT FEE SERVICE AREA #1 (For

Possible Action) 5


6. COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE 14

7. ADJOURNMENT 14



4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SPARKS, NEVADA, THURSDAY, MAY 3, 2018, 6:00 P.M.

-oOo-

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Good evening. I'm going

to call to order the City of Sparks Capital Improvements

Advisory Committee. This committee's going to convene

prior to the Planning Commission meeting. So if

everybody will just bear with us so we can get through

it.

So if I can please have roll call.










COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: Present.




COMMISSIONER SHABAZZ: Present.


McCormick?



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


MS. SMITH: Assistant Community Services

Director Armando Ornelas?

MR. ORNELAS: Here.


Next, we'll have public comment. This item is

for either public comment on any action item or for

general public comment and is limited to three minutes.

Do we have any requests to speak on this?

Okay. Thank you. With that, I'll close the

public comment and move along to public hearing, which

is review, consideration, and possible recommendation to

the Sparks City Council to approve the adoption of the

revised land use assumptions.

And, Mr. Martini.

MR. MARTINI: Thank you.

Members of the Capital Improvements Advisory

Committee, I'm before you again. And as I go through my

presentation, as I covered at the Study Session, just as

a quick trailer as to what's to come, we met earlier

this year and brought forth this same data that included

a series of calculations for our impact fee area.

After you had approved it and recommended

approval to forward it to the City Council, we were

contacted by one of our developers in the area, who



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

asked us to take a hard look particularly at the flood

portion of the impact fees. An error was found, and

we're back here tonight with the corrected calculations

and corrected report, again seeking another

recommendation of approval.

So to bring the Capital Improvements Advisory

Committee up to speed with where we are, as you will

recall, this look that we've done was due to a petition

for inclusion into the impact fee area the lands that

were annexed on Highland Ranch Parkway about a year and

a half ago now.

On October 17th, Lewis and Roca, acting as

agent for the property owner, did, in fact, formally

petition to join our impact fee area. This update does

provide the review that is prescribed in NRS 278B to

consider this petition.

In general, we must recalculate all of the

status of the existing land uses inside the impact fee

area, include the proposed land uses for the area to be

included, rereview the Capital Improvements Plan to see

two things, one, the status of where it is for financing

and cost, and, two, to evaluate if the addition of the

land would require additional capital improvements for

consideration within the impact fee area.

As a reminder, this is the current boundary of



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

our impact fee area. To the lower left corner of the

map is the Sparks Galleria area, where Costco is, as a

point of reference. Pyramid Highway runs along the

western border. The northern border is La Posada. And

then the impact fee area encompasses the developments of

The Foothills at Wingfield Springs, Cimarron, Upper

Highlands, and then down through the southern boundary

of Wingfield Springs and the hills course area, and then

back around to the Galleria.

The proposed boundary for your consideration

is -- the only difference is the inclusion of the 67

acres that was petitioned, which is, you know, generally

the southwest corner of Highland Ranch Parkway, about

67.4 acres.

Again, for the record, you did meet on

March 15th. You did review the land use assumptions,

Capital Improvements Plan, and the impact fees

associated with the analysis based on the report in

February by House Moran Consultants, Incorporated.

As a clarification, in your staff report, I did

a typo all through it and wrote HCMI. Please, in your

minds, think HMCI.

After the public hearing, like I said, we did

have an inquiry from one of the developers, who asked us

to check that fee. Once we looked at it, it became



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

incredibly obvious that there was a problem, although it

had been reviewed three or four times previous and no

one saw it.

After considering their inquiry, we did check

all of the fees, not just flood. We exhaustively went

through the computer program to calculate these fees.

We did find an error only in flood. The other three

fees, being sanitary sewer, Parks and Recreation, and,

of course, Fire Station 6, are correct, as they were in

the February report, and are still reflected correctly

in this May report.

Like I said, we did have an error in flood

fees. They have been corrected.

In our 2018 update of analysis land use, which

is a big component of what you are tasked to review and

forward your recommendation, we show a total service

areas within the new boundary, which would include the

land uses proposed for the Highland Ranch property, of

26,541 service units.

We have developed to date or as of -- or not to

date. Excuse me. That is incorrect. As of December

15th of 2017 was a cutoff for looking at this. We had

developed 12,529 service units, leaving nearly 14,012

units still to come.

If we compare the master plan land use analysis



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

within IFSA-1 back to the last analysis, which was done

in 2016 by this CIAC, the net difference between the two

is about a plus 105 service units. That's due to

absorption, small changes in land use that most have

come before you. Plus the addition of Highland Ranch,

as you probably saw from the table I gave you, adds

about 374 service units.

Mr. Crittenden and I did a fairly tight

analysis, and some of the areas where we showed some

service units in 2016, due to some acreage changes, as

we processed new GIS data, we did see a little bit of

shrinking.

So, again, this is it the breakdown of full

build-out service units, where we are in the development

cycle. Inside those, these are separated by the land

uses that are included in Impact Fee Service Area 1.

Interesting that we still have about 7,439 development

units on the residential side. And then a mixture of

Business Park and General Commercial make up most of the

nonresidential. And that is 6,573 service units left.

This probably doesn't show up real well, for

the record, and it is included. This is the master

table that is used to go by each of the development

areas within that border and break it out by those

different land use types. I omitted from our March 15th



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

analysis. I did include it for your record.

The revised impact fee for flood control. So

the flood control fees calculated in the February

analysis were wrong. They are listed on the first

column. The corrected -- I'm calling them the April

2000 HMCI analysis in the report -- brought those up.

And I will admit that as I sat here that night, there

were questions. I think, the CIAC felt that there was

even -- something seemed to be wrong, that the impact

fees had come down too much for such small land use

changes. Your guts were right. Our computer program

was wrong. It is fixed.

You can see that the impact fees come up fairly

substantially. To be more specific, the cost, the

existing cost of existing infrastructure, which was

about $2.4 million that's still left to be paid, was

left out of the analysis. And that's why it's

substantial. It's nearly 45 percent to the whole cost.

The total impact fees, including sanitary

sewer, flood control, Parks and Rec, and fire stations

by land use type, are shown before you here. So for a

single-family home, all said, in total it's going to be

$1,907 per home. For the nonresidential land uses,

remember, these fees are assessed per thousand square

feet of structure.



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

And then, finally, an overall comparison of

where these proposed fees line up with the existing

fees, which are the 2016 fees, you can see the change to

the fee is relatively nominal. You know, some are up,

and some are down. The net changes are -- that's mainly

it's a reduction. Areas that went up, it's probably

changes we found in GIS associated with acreage that

just grew a little bit.

But these are much more in line with the 2016

fees. If you'll recall, in March, there was a

substantial decrease of nearly 25 to 30 percent in some

of the land use categories, which drew the questions

from you.

So, for the record, I would like to add two

more items into tonight's discussion. The land use

assumptions for the Highland Ranch Parkway, in case you

weren't able to see them on that massive table, came to

374 service units. As the developer requested, it

includes 200 multifamily-unit considerations. So that's

200 service units of its own. And then about the

remainder being General Commercial, which, as you will

recall, they don't have a project yet, but they wanted

that allowance in there.

And, secondarily, as the City Engineer and I

reviewed this, as of right now, there is no need to



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

increase the Capital Improvements Program, meaning

adding any more hardware to support the proposed land

uses with the additional land.

With that, that concludes my presentation. I'm

available for any questions.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Okay. Thank you,

Mr. Martini.

Commissioner Fewins.

COMMISSIONER FEWINS: Yeah, Commissioner

Fewins. John, does this go back to January of 2018,

retrodated, or what's the calendar year on this?

MR. MARTINI: So the cutoff for looking at how

many building permits have been pulled was we cut it off

a little early, December 15th of '17. And then we ran

the land use analysis. So that's that developed column

you see, that's of December of last year.

COMMISSIONER FEWINS: Will they go back and

collect any more fees or refund, give credits to people

that have already been pulled?

MR. MARTINI: No. Because I never took these

fees forward to Council -- thank God, Ed Davis from

Stonebrook came in and said, will you please look --

they were never charged at that rate. We are still, as

we sit tonight, we're still on the 2016 rate.

So no harm, no foul. They were caught, they



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

were fixed, now for your consideration.


Commissioner Petersen.


John, on these last figures you gave us, the end of the

project, has the open space been determined up there yet

on that project?

MR. MARTINI: Open space on the Highland Ranch

annexation? No, it has not.

COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Commissioner Carey.


This is Commissioner Carey.

John, has this gone to -- there's also, there's

a technical advisory group. It's the enterprise --

MR. MARTINI: Development Services Users Group.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: Have we received any

feedback from them?

MR. MARTINI: Well, we actually have the cart a

little ahead of the horse. Since most of the folks that

serve on our Development Services Users Group are in the

industry, they're pretty busy like the rest of us. The

earliest we could get them together is tomorrow morning.

So we will present them with this. So as of

right now, I don't have a recommendation from them to



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

you. So you will be considering it without that

knowledge.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Anyone else?

Okay. This is a public hearing. So I'm going

to open the public hearing on this. Is there any

request to speak on this item?

Okay. Seeing none, I will close the public

hearing and bring it back to the Committee for any

comments, questions, motion.

I'm going to call on somebody. Commissioner

Petersen.

COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: I won't make the

motion, but I do like to make a comment.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Sure.

COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: And I'm sure John's in

agreement, and I'm sure every one of us are. I am

certainly glad we found this error.

MR. MARTINI: I am, too.

COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: And it got corrected

before any damage could be done.


MR. MARTINI: And that, Commissioner Petersen,

if you don't mind, I think that speaks to the

involvement of our development community. They have



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

embraced this program. They've been supportive of it,

to the point where they said, boy, that just doesn't

look quite right, will you please look again.

COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: Right.

MR. MARTINI: We're very lucky.

COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: I would give them our

thanks for finding that, too.

MR. MARTINI: Well, I'll tell them next time I

see them.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Do you have a motion,

Commissioner Petersen?

COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: Oh, please.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: If you volunteered.

COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: All righty. I'd like

to make a motion that we forward a recommendation to the

Sparks City Council to approve the adoption of the

revised land use assumption, capital improvement plan,

and imposition of impact fees for Impact Fee Service

Area Number 1.

COMMISSIONER READ: Second.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Okay. I have a first and

a second. Any further discussion?

Okay. All in favor?

(Committee members said "aye.")

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Anyone opposed?



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

Okay. Thank you. The motion carries.

MR. MARTINI: Thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Next, I need a motion for

adjournment of the Committee.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: Madam Chair, this is

Commissioner Carey. I'll move to adjourn.

MS. MCCORMICK: Madam Chair, for the record,

this is Alyson McCormick. And public comment.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Oh, I apologize.

MS. MCCORMICK: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: It's on the agenda. All

right. I apologize. Okay. So is there -- okay. I'll

put in again for public comment. Do we have any

requests to speak?

Okay. Seeing none, I'll close it, and I'll

entertain the motion for adjournment.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: This is Commissioner

Carey. I'll make the motion again to adjourn.

COMMISSIONER BROCK: Second.


a second. All in favor?

(Committee members said "aye.")


The Committee adjourns. Thank you.

-oOo-

CITY OF SPARKS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING


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


MEETING


6:00 p.m.

(Following the Capital Improvements

Committee Meeting)

City Council Chambers

745 4th Street

Sparks, Nevada



2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25





Frank Petersen

Mary Brock

James Fewins

Shelley Read

Karim Shabazz

Staff Present:

Alyson McCormick


Armando Ornelas


John Martinez


Ian Crittenden

Senior Planner

Marilie Smith



Other Participants:

Linda Davis

Midge Bevilacqua

Yajaira Medina

Rubiceli Nunez

Veronica Cortes

Yisey Medina

Nancy Danner

Cherie Danner

Wayne Paterson

Jerry Pringle

(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

Cheryll Glotfelty

Jeff Ghiglia

Violet Richards

Dan Price

Dan Flanagan

Jarl Grunseth

Bill Richards

Deborah Walker

Rob Hooper

Duane Coder

Roc Cole

Diane Pargeon

Carmelita Holton

Dana DePella

Mindy Stillwell

Linda Collins-Pringle



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

I N D E X

ITEM PAGE

1. CALL TO ORDER 6

2. ROLL CALL 6

3. PUBLIC COMMENT 7

4. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA (For Possible Action) 7

5. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:

Review and possible approval of the minutes

of the April 3, 2018 Planning Commission

Study Session (For Possible Action) 7

Review and possible approval of the minutes

of the April 5, 2018 Planning Commission

Meeting (For Possible Action) 8

6. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS 9

7. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 9

PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS

8. PCN18-0013 - Consideration of and possible

action on a Conditional Use Permit request to

allow a major recreational facility (roping and

dancing horse cultural arena) located at

7660 Patrina Way, Washoe County, NV. (The City

of Sparks has planning authority because the

City has exercised extra-territorial

jurisdiction through a NRS 278.02788 protocol

agreement between the City of Sparks and Washoe

County.) (For Possible Action) 9

(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

GENERAL BUSINESS

9. SELECTION OF A COMMISSIONER TO SERVE ON THE

TRUCKEE MEADOWS REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION

TO FILL A TERM BEGINNING ON JULY 1, 2018 FROM

THE FOLLOWING POOL OF APPLICANTS, MARY BROCK,

SCOTT CAREY, SHELLEY READ, KARIM SHABAZZ AND

DIAN VANDERWELL (COMMISSIONER VANDERWELL'S

TERM EXPIRES ON JUNE 30, 2018) (For Possible

Action) 114


11. COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS 115

12. ADJOURNMENT 117



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

SPARKS, NEVADA, THURSDAY, MAY 3, 2018, 6:00 P.M.

(Following the Capital Improvements

Committee Meeting)

-oOo-

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Next, we'll call to order

the Sparks Planning Commission meeting for Thursday, May

3rd.

If I could please have roll call.










COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: Present.




COMMISSIONER SHABAZZ: Present.


McCormick?




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

MS. SMITH: Assistant Community Director

Armando Ornelas?

MR. ORNELAS: Here.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Okay. Thank you.

Next, we'll move on to public comment. This,

again, is on items, either an action item or general

public comment. It's limited to three minutes.

Do I have any requests to speak on this?

Okay. Thank you.

Next, we'll move along to approval of the

agenda.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: Madam Chair, this is

Commissioner Carey. The agenda looks fine to me. I'd

like to make a motion to approve the agenda as

submitted.

COMMISSIONER FEWINS: Second.


a second. All in favor?

(Commission members said "aye.")

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Okay. Thank you. Motion

carries.

Next, we'll move along to approval of minutes.

Review and possible approval of the minutes of the April

3rd Planning Commission Study Session.

COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: I have found nothing



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

wrong with them. So I'll make a motion that we approve

those minutes for the Study Session.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Thank you, Commissioner

Petersen.

Second?

COMMISSIONER FEWINS: Second.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Okay. Commissioner

Fewins. Any discussion?

Okay. All in favor?


CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Thank you. Motion

carries.

Next, we'll move to review and possible

approval of the minutes of the April 5th Planning

Commission meeting, for possible action.

COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: Again, I'd like to make

a motion that we approve the minutes as read.


Petersen.

COMMISSIONER READ: Second.


a second. Any discussion?

All in favor?


CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Thank you. Motion



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

carries.

Next, we'll move along to announcements and

committee reports.

MR. ORNELAS: The only announcement, Madam

Chair, is that the next meeting of the Planning

Commission will be on June 7th.


Next, we'll move along to informational items.

MR. ORNELAS: We don't have any informational

items for you today.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Great. Thank you.

Next, we'll move to public hearing items. And

it's PCN18-0013, consideration and possible action of a

conditional use permit.

MR. CRITTENDEN: Chairman VanderWell, members

of the Planning Commission, I'm Ian Crittenden, Senior

Planner.

As stated, this is a request for a conditional

use permit for a major recreational facility. This is

at the property address of 7660 Patrina Way. This is a

10.66-acre parcel. This parcel is not in the City of

Sparks, it's in our Sphere of Influence. But the City

of Sparks has had planning jurisdiction on this item, on

this property.

Looking at the vicinity map that's before you,



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

I have actually had it brought to my attention by a

member of the public and by Commissioner Fewins that I

have the wrong parcel highlighted. The notice was

correct. The only thing that changes here is I've

highlighted the wrong parcel. And then, as we look at

the Comp Plan map, it actually changes the designations,

although it doesn't change them in a meaningful way.

As you can see, this parcel is -- here's

Pyramid Way here. It's kind of to the southeast on the

map. And Dolores Drive and the long drive that comes up

here and terminates in a private road here, where the

parcel is, this, this parcel here, if you can see my

selector there.

So the highlighted in yellow now is the correct

parcel.

To give you a little background on how this

parcel, this area became the City of Sparks's

jurisdiction, this area was included in our Sphere of

Influence by the Regional Governing Board in 2006. The

City of Sparks subsequently master-planned this area.

To give you a little, again, a little more

depth on this, so this parcel was zoned GR in the

county. When this area was incorporated into, or I

should say included into the City of Sparks Sphere of

Influence, that zoning goes away. It disappears. It



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

becomes their land use designation.

When the City of Sparks in 2007 master-planned

this area, we changed that designation from GR, which

was its zoning that became its land use designation, to

OS, which is Open Space, and Rural Reserve.

Then, in 2008, this area was included in the

West Pyramid Plan, which changed its designation

further -- again, we're on the wrong parcel

highlighted -- down here to Open Space and LLR, which is

Large Lot Residential.

So the City of Sparks exercises

extrajurisdictional jurisdiction, or extraterritorial

jurisdiction -- sorry, it's a long stream there -- over

this area pursuant to NRS 278.02788, which actually

gives the City very wide control over areas in our

Sphere of Influence. But through a protocol agreement

with Washoe County, we actually have limited our Sphere

of Influence to planning issues. We regulate that, the

City, or the county, Washoe County still regulates

business licenses, building permits, and so on and so

forth. But building permits, the City does do a

planning review of those building permits.

To add a little extra layer of confusion to

this, when those parcels come to us, if a parcel in this

area wanted to just do a building permit, we would



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

review that parcel. But we have to have a zoning

designation with which to apply our zoning code to it.

That designation comes from this chart. This is,

essentially, our annexation conversion chart, and it

uses General Rural, which is still a designation that

sits on our property, but only for purposes of giving us

a point with which to correlate City zoning to, if that

makes sense. So this is, this property has -- A-40 is

the governing zoning for the City of Sparks that

regulates the uses and development on this parcel.

So the use of the parcel as a roping and

dancing horses cultural event is not called out in our

zoning code. However, major recreational facility does

include -- staff felt that it met that definition

because it's large, it's outdoor, and it's substantially

similar to a riding stable, an entertainment complex, a

stadium and arenas, which are all listed as uses that

fall under the category of major recreational facility.

So a major recreational facility is a permitted

use in the A-40 district, subject to a conditional use

permit, which gets us to where we are tonight reviewing

this conditional use permit.

So this use or a very similar use was granted

temporary use permits twice last year to hold a rodeo,

roping, dancing horse type of event. The applicants



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

came to us this year. And due to the size of the event

and the frequency that was being requested, it was

determined by the Planning Manager, who oversees the

temporary use permits, that it was over the scope of

what a temporary use permit is designed to accommodate,

and so that a conditional use permit was the more

appropriate route with which to seek approval for this

use.

City staff worked with county staff as we went

through this process, both through our pre-application

process and through plan review for this request, worked

with them to determine the conditions that with which

they thought this use would be appropriate.

And so all of the conditions that are mentioned

here, in a moment I'm going to go through those

conditions and what kind of concerns they are designed

to address. All of those were done with county input,

so that we -- we know that they are going to have a lot

of the responsibility for enforcement. We wanted to

make sure that they were included in any discussions

about what kind of conditions they were looking for in

this, for this request.

We'll go forward to the site plan for the site

that was submitted.

So the Sparks City Code requires that all



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

access roads and parking be paved for uses in the City.

After reviewing this, staff felt that because this is on

a private dirt road and is going to a residence, it's

not in the City, that gravel improvements would be

sufficient to accommodate for the parking area. And in

Condition 3, or proposed Condition 3 addresses that

issue.

If we go back to the map, the pavement ends

roughly here on Dolores Drive. And from that point on,

this is a private roadway that is maintained or exists

by easement on these parcels. And so, since the

pavement ends there, we know that -- and this was

brought up by the Washoe County staff as well -- that

dust will be an issue. And there is a requirement or a

proposed condition, condition -- oh, I'm sorry, I've

gone ahead of myself. Give me one moment.

Oh, okay. So step back a little bit. Like I

mentioned, this is a private easement that these roads

are maintained by. Staff does not have a copy of that

easement yet. But we would like a copy of that

easement. There's a condition, number 16 requires that

that easement or some other instrument be produced that

references that this level and type of traffic is

permitted per the easement that grants access to this

parcel. And Condition 16 would require that that, that



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

be produced in order to hold these events.

Additionally, if this were a city or county

street and there was additional impacts being put upon

it, those impacts would need to be accommodated for by

the applicant. And so we feel that this is a similar

situation, that the applicant will need to produce some

sort of an agreement that shows what kind of maintenance

repair they will -- what would be their burden and

responsibility for that kind of a -- that kind of

development. Or they need to produce a traffic study

that can prove that there is, there's no associated

impact with the level of traffic that they would

generate.

That takes me to the last part that I kind of

got ahead of myself on, is that there will be additional

dust on this dirt road associated with their events.

There is a requirement in Condition 4 that will require

that the roads be watered before and during events as

necessary to reduce dust.

Additionally, there is a new condition that

wasn't supplied to you in the staff report, and they

didn't have an opportunity to talk about at Study

Session, because I hadn't heard back from air quality

from Washoe County Health's Air Quality Management

Division. They submitted a letter with rules that they



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

have for air quality. And there's an additional

condition -- I believe, it's Condition Number 18, that

will require that they abide by all of the regulations

that are set forth in that letter.

Going back to the site plan, Truckee Meadows

Fire Protection District requires that a 20-foot

all-weather access, fire access road be maintained

around the exterior of the site. The opinion of the

Fire Protection District is that this road that's kind

of designed for the horse trailers and the horse trailer

parking will suffice as long as those, those

qualifications exist, that it's all-weather, and it's

20-foot that will remain clear at all times, so that if

they need to come through, they have the route to be

able to do that.

They also require, the Truckee Meadows Fire

Protection District also has regulations on the location

size and setup of all tents and pop-up kind of shelters.

And so any tents, pop-up shelters would need to be

reviewed prior to any event, by the Fire Protection

District to verify that they don't have any issues.

Looking at the site plan that was provided,

they didn't believe that they had any issues with what

was currently, where they were currently located, but

they wanted to make sure that if there was a change,



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

they were aware of it and that they could make comments

as needed.

The Washoe County District Heath also wrote a

letter detailing their concerns and requirements for

this request. Their concerns briefly were the number of

non-sewered toilets. They said 10 needed to be provided

for guests and two for staff. There's Condition 6

requires that, or is to that effect.

Also, that all food and beverage sales must

meet the county health standards and be permitted by

them. Condition 10 would require that.

And that food trucks may be, must be

appropriately licensed. Condition 12 addresses that.

And then they also submitted a letter with

additional requirements specifically talking about the

well water, where it can or can't be used on the site.

And all of those requirements and all others

that are listed in that letter dated April 20th from

James English would need to be required. That's

Condition 14.

Additionally, one of the conditions that we

looked at initially with county staff is amplified

sound. In order to mitigate amplified sound,

Condition -- oh, I didn't write down which condition

addresses it here.



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

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Seven.

MR. CRITTENDEN: Oh, seven. Condition 7

requires that all speakers be oriented towards the

center of the property and that the decibel level at the

property boundary should not exceed 65 decibels. For

reference, that's about the sound, how loud a normal

conversation is, about 65 decibels. So that would be a

requirement.

The applicant indicated in their application

that the events are intended to run from noon till

sunset. So it is proposed that those hours of

limitation be adopted by condition. And Condition 8

addresses that. Because of these limited hours, there

should be no need for outdoor lighting. And so

Condition Number 13 requires that no lighting be

allowed. And if lighting is requested, it would have to

be through amendment to this conditional use permit.

The applicant has also requested that they be

able to hold these events once a month May through

October. There's a typo in the -- staff misinterpreted

what was asked for in the application and thought they

wanted some additional dates around holidays. That not

the case. The staff report still says that we're

allowing 10. But the Conditions of Approval have been

amended for six. There would be six events, once a



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

month May through October. Yeah, so, but that's in

Condition 9, which has been corrected.

Comments from the neighbors and from the public

also brought to the attention that there has been an

increased issue with flies. That's very hard for us to

specifically target. But a condition has been proposed

that would require that a commercial trash enclosure be

on the premises and that all trash and manure be, manure

generated by the events be removed from the events, from

the location within 48 hours. That's in Condition 15.

And then there are five findings associated

with conditional use permits.

Finding C1 is that their compliance is in --

that the request is in compliance with the Comprehensive

Plan. If we go back and look at the Comprehensive Plan,

you'll remember, there were one parcel lower. The land

use designations on this parcel are OS and LLR. Both of

those designations list recreational uses as acceptable

prime -- or nonprimary uses. Based on how often these

occur and what's being requested, the primary use of

this property will still be residential. And so we felt

that that was in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.

Also, this request supports Goal MG2 of the

Comprehensive Plan by adding diversity to land uses,

specifically recreational land uses.



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

It also supports Policy RC24, which is that we

support cultural resources in the City's jurisdiction.

And so, with that, staff feels that Finding C1

can be made.

Finding C2, if we look at the vicinity map

here, is that the request is compatible with the

surrounding land uses. So the site is, as mentioned,

about 10.66 acres. And it is surrounded by, plus or

minus, 10-acre parcels on all sides. The keeping of

horses and livestock are common and permitted uses in

the area. And the use of the subject property as a

roping and dancing horse event is not out of character

for the area. Concerns about compatibility are based on

the operations of that event and not the nature of the

event itself. As conditioned, staff believes that

Finding C2 can be made.

Finding C3 is about the impairment of natural

resources. Staff does not believe that the use of this

site for the requested use will have any impact on the

provision of natural resources to the City has a whole.

And so we believe, staff believes that Finding C3 can be

made.

Finding C4 is that the application, as

submitted and conditioned, will address identified

impacts. There are 18, I believe, conditions of --



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

proposed conditions of approval, as I kind of went

through and discussed all those. And staff believes

that if these conditions are met, that this item is --

that will address the identified impacts of this use.

So it's staff's opinion Finding C4 can also be made.

Finally, Finding C5 is the requirement for the

notice. Conditional use permits are required to notice

all properties within 500 feet of the site. In

addition, they're also required to notice a minimum of

30 property owners. In order to meet the 30 property

owners requirement, the notice actually went out to

1,500 feet. And that notice was mailed on April 19th.

There was also notice published in the Reno

Gazette-Journal on April 18th. And the Planning

Commission functions as the public hearing for this

request.

In addition, either in this packet or handed

out to you at this meeting or the Study Session meeting,

there have been 40 emailed responses about this, this

request, primarily those are in opposition. And then

staff did also receive 10 phone calls, or phone calls

from 10 individuals -- they received multiples from a

few -- that were also in opposition to this item.

I believe, that covers my presentation. I am

available for any questions that the Planning Commission



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

may have.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Great.

Is the applicant here, and do they wish to

speak?

Come on up.

If you'll please state your name for the

record. And you have 15 minutes.

MR. LUPE MEDINA: Thank you. My name is Lupe

Medina.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Go ahead.

MR. LUPE MEDINA: Okay. So what I have to say

is we're trying to do this. And we've been doing this

in different areas. We started at Gandolfo Arena five

years ago. And we're doing like these special events,

Cinco de Mayo, and then Christmas Parade in Sparks.

We've been doing it for quite a bit. And this is just

about keeping and show our culture about team roping and

dancing horses show. And this is more like friends and

family events, that we will now keep doing on our

community. In our town, we do days for fund-raising for

people that really need, they're hurt, they need help.

And that's what this is about.

All the requirements from the City of Sparks, I

am willing to do everything that is in there, sort of

dust control, road maintenance, you know, and



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

everything. I have no problem to agree with that.

We're just looking for this to be able to keep our

culture and show the kids and the family what we can do

with the horses.

That's all I have to say. This is not about

business or changing our zone to commercial, like a lot

of people are thinking. This is not that, this is not

that big of events. We're just trying to keep our

family together and show and share our culture and have

fun. Six events a year. We're okay with that, no

problem.


COMMISSIONER FEWINS: Thank you.

COMMISSIONER READ: I have some questions.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Okay. Mr. Medina, can

you please sit for a moment? Because, I think, the

Commissioners may have some questions.

MR. MEDINA: Okay. Yeah. Sorry about that.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Okay. As far as the

Commissioners, do we want to ask questions now, or do we

want to wait until after public comment? Would you like

to ask now?

COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: We can have him return

after public comment?

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Yes, of course.



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

COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: All right. That's

fine. Thank you. I'll wait.

COMMISSIONER READ: I'll wait till after the

public comment.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Is that acceptable?

Okay.

COMMISSIONER READ: It's fine.

MR. LUPE MEDINA: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Just be prepared, you'll

be called back up. Thank you.

MR. LUPE MEDINA: M-hm (affirmative).

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: With that, it is a public

hearing item, and I'm going to open the public hearing.

Madam secretary, requests to speak?

MS. SMITH: Madam Chair, I have a number of

requests here. And then I also have a number of

requests who I want, that and for the Commission I'd

like to put on the record, that are either in opposition

or in favor, just by reading their names.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: That's fine.

MS. SMITH: I have a single submittal in favor

of, and that is from Maria Medina.

The names that I will read now are all in

opposition of this project.




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

MS. SMITH: Cecilia Garay. Bill Richards. Bob

Davis. Steve Glotfelty. Leonard Danner. Howard

Danner. Linda Collins-Pringle.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Here.

MS. SMITH: Joe Granata. Lola Granata.

Dana Rae Phenix. Rob Hoerd. Mindy Stillwell. Barbara

Eastman. Diana Pargeon. Mike Pargeon. Mike Flannagan.

Mindy Flannagan. Myrna Wadsworth. Lorie Price.

Deborah Walker. Nick Panissidi. Kim Grunseth.

And then we have these names that wish to

speak.


Okay. So I'm going to call you up. And we

have about 17 requests to speak. So I'll call the first

one to come up. And then I'll call the second one. And

then, if you'll just pick a seat in the front row, so we

can kind of move it along quickly. So first up is Linda

Davis.

MS. LINDA DAVIS: Over here.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Okay. Great. If you'll

just please state your name and address into the record,

that would be wonderful.

MS. LINDA DAVIS: Linda Davis, 7595 Marie Way,

Sparks, this neighborhood. We have a very peaceful and

quiet and wonderful neighborhood.



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

I live four parcels west. So that's on up

Dolores, outside of what normally would have been

notified. But I can tell you, when he held his first

event, I heard music and loud speakers from noon into

the evening. When I went down Dolores, which is our

only way of getting out of our house, I saw many, many,

many cars parked at his property, and I thought they

were having a special birthday, wedding, something,

event, and I thought, wow, wonderful, and had no reason

to complain. The music did go on. It stopped. I was

not in town for his second event.

So I do object to becoming a repetitive noisy

and, arguably, a commercial event, because there will be

food sales, there will be alcohol sales, there will be

stuff going on.

I don't want to see this neighborhood

commercially developed. It might start with these

special events, and then we're going to have some

special businesses. I don't want to see that happen in

this area.

Our infrastructure will not support this kind

of traffic. It is a dirt road. We all have to use it.

The people whose property that dirt road's on are

responsible to take care of it. The county, the city,

nobody helps us maintain this dirt road.



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

And there are many venues available for his

type of event in a lot of places.

So I read all of the letters in the package.

And I have to say I was particularly offended by one of

the supportive letters. Dana DePello insinuated that

our opposition to this was driven by some questionable

agenda. I assure you, our agendas are not questionable,

and they are not culturally motivated. We want to

maintain a quiet residential quality of life that we

enjoy. Period.

So keep in mind, tonight, this Planning

Commission is making a purely bureaucratic choice for

our neighborhood, because we have no representation

here. We're only under your influence.

Your decision's not urgent, but it's really,

really important to us. I don't think special use

should be a repetitive infringement on the neighbors'

quality of life.

Thank you.


Midge, and I apologize. It looks like

Bevilacqua. If --

MS. MIDGE BEVILACQUA: Bevilacqua.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Okay. Yeah. I apologize

if I slaughtered it.



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

And then if -- it looks like Yajaira Medina.

MS. YAJAIRA MEDINA: Yeah, here.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Okay. If you'll come up

and just sit in the front, you can speak after.

MS. MIDGE BEVILACQUA: I brought notes, so.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Perfect. And, again, if

you'll just state your name for the record and your

address.

MS. MIDGE BEVILACQUA: My name is Midge

Bevilacqua.


MS. MIDGE BEVILACQUA: 3755 Amy Road, Reno,

Nevada.

I've been friends with the Medina family, and

neighbors, for going on 11 years. They have moved from

a local area. But when they -- from where I live. I've

found them to be very family-oriented, community-minded.

And they wish to be able to educate all facets of the

community in their horse-related activities.

There were a number of activities very similar

to this in my neighborhood. They invited everybody in

the neighborhood to come and enjoy these activities.

And I understand the music is loud. But I enjoy it.

And once a month, and if they meet all of the

requirements set out, I hope that you would look in



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

favor of this request. He is planning on meeting every

requirement. And we lived on dirt roads. I still am on

dirt roads. I understand, living in the neighborhood.

But I am in favor and hope that you look on this

favorably.

Thank you.


And then, if Lupe Medina can come down and sit

in the front. Oh, you -- I'm sorry. You didn't have to

fill out to speak, because you're the applicant. So

we're good.

MS. YAJAIRE MEDINA: Good evening. My name is

Yajaire Medina. I am the assistant for the applicant.

So, pretty much, as Lupe has already covered

the basic things, that these events are not to be

business. I understand that we are going to be selling

beverages, and we also are going to be selling food with

the proper food trucks. But the only expenses, or the

only sales that will be going to us would be from the

drinks. But they will not be staying with us. Those

will be to cover the expenses that we have already

previously spent with trying to get this application

done and, also, with any other expenses that will be for

the future, as in getting the further events. Because

to be able to have these events, they are expensive.



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

It's not just everything that we have already there is

provided.

He didn't really clarify much of, for some of

these events, we will base it off of monthly theme. For

an example, Cinco de Mayo is this weekend. So if we

were to be doing it in May, it would be to celebrate

Cinco de Mayo. If we do one in June, it could be also

for a specific event or theme.

Or if someone that we know, a family member,

friends, they need help for anything, as in medical,

just money-wise, financially that they need help, we

will do a fund-raiser. The event will be a fund-raiser

to help out families. It's what we've done in the past

with other areas, not in our home, but in different

areas in Reno, Sparks. We've gone out to Fallon,

Winnemucca, all areas. We will fund-raise to help

families and the theme of having our dancing horses and

the team roping.

With the whole traffic and having a lot of cars

coming, yes, we understand there will be many cars.

But, like we mentioned before, it is, will be a

family-orientated event. We have a large family

ourselves. And our friends also have families. So we

will have more than the normal gathering, which is why

we decided to file for the special use permit and now



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

considered a conditional use.

I think, that's all I have to say. Thank you.


It looks like -- and I apologize if I

slaughter. So please correct me. It's "Rubikel" Nunez.

MS. RUBICELI NUNEZ: Rubiceli.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Okay. If you'll please

come up.

And then Veronica Cortes, if you can sit up

front, please, for the next.

MS. RUBICELI NUNEZ: Hello. My name's

Rubiceli, and -- Rubiceli Nunez. I live in 1450 Rosy

Finch Drive in the Spanish Springs area. I'm nearby.

And I am in favor of this. The reason why,

I've known this family since I was a baby. And all I

know is we're all about a family. I have three kids. I

have a three-year-old baby girl that all she's about is

about horses. She can't wait for the weekend to come

over and just be in the horses.

It's an event that's family. It's friends.

And I see it safe, where other than, you know, youths or

young people just going out partying and being in

danger, I see a friend environment where my kids can

come over and I know they're going to be safe, where

they're going to be, you know, other than just cell



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

phones or, you know, just having fun with horses,

learning our culture, learning more about Mother Nature

where you get to enjoy the horses and get to know other

stuff than just being home or being out partying now.

So I'm in favor of that. I do understand that

there is noise. I do understand that it could be a

little maybe messy. But I mean, as family, that I know

this family, they do control that very well. They keep

in mind of -- they control it where we can pick up the

garbage, pick up anything, and there's no mess. I've

known them for so long, that I know that. If they

comment, they'll do whatever it takes for them to keep

it up, they will do it.

So my -- the reason why I'm also, you know,

looking forward to this is because my kids are also into

it. And I enjoy it. We enjoy everything, that it's

just, you know, getting from just being at home and

where you don't other than communicate with your kids, I

see that as an activity where you can go and be with the

family and enjoy, you know, other than just being on

your phone in that little world. And, I think, it's

fine where you can enjoy other than, you know, outside

and Mother Nature and enjoy horses and learn more about

horses and animals, you know.

And that's all I got to say.



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


Veronica.

And then Yisey Medina, if you can come sit up

front, please.

MS. VERONICA CORTES: Can I get the overhead,

please? Thank you.

Good afternoon. Good evening. My name is

Veronica Cortes. I'm actually out of Sun Valley,

280 Mineral. Graduated Reed High School. So I love

Sparks.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Great.

MS. VERONICA CORTES: Thank you. Thank you.

I'm here actually -- thank you -- representing,

helping out Mr. Medina. The reason I'm here is because

I've worked with Lupe Medina for many years.

And I have a letter here from the Mayor of

Sparks dated in 2012, when we actually started the

rodeos up -- sorry -- in Gandolfo Arena. So that's from

him. He is in total support of us. Mr. Gandolfo was

also in support of these type of events. Because they

are so community-oriented. Like he said, we're in the

Hometown Christmas Parade. we're in the Reno Rodeo

Parade. We do the Nevada Day down in Carson City.

We need a place where we can work our

traditions, work our horses. In regards to other arenas



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

in the area, we've already been denied this year at the

Gandolfo Arena to do these type of events. We've also

been denied in the Hidden Valley Arena. We're looking

at the Ironwood Arena right now, not with Lupe Medina,

but with another organization.

So here's another letter from a racetrack

that's actually out in Spanish Springs. And we actually

helped them, I personally helped them go through the

whole process of getting their special events permit

through the county.

So I can verify, through the events that I've

done with Lupe, that he is very compliant on anything

that's required from the county or the state or the

city.

And I can guarantee that the purpose of these

events are to keep our traditions going. And like I

said, I was born and raised here. My dad's Hispanic.

So I love the dancing horses. I own one myself. I sing

on horseback. And if it wasn't for the opportunities

that Lupe gave me to practice and actually work these

traditions, it would be a dying art.

So when you see us in the parades or, you know,

out doing it, you know, we need these type of places

that we can, because there really is no other places.

That's all I can say is he's always been



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

compliant with the county. And I've pushed some papers

for him. So that's what I do. I've known his family.

I've seen his girls grow up, you know. I've never had

any incidences or problems with them.

Like I said, they just try to be compliant so

that we can finish our, you know, continue our

traditions and cultures. I have a two-year-old, rides

bareback right now. So it's a nice place that we can

just go and take our families to.

So, thank you.


And then, if Nancy Danner can come sit down

front, please.

MS. YISEY MEDINA: Hi. My name is Yisey

Medina. I am the daughter of Lupe Medina.

I'm just going to talk a little about my

personal experience with these events. To me, it is,

it's my father's dream, seeing him grow up with horses.

And I grew up with horses. I remember when I was seven

is when I started to ask him for one, and he made this

one.

Throughout growing up, I would ride horses as a

cowgirl. And I enjoyed it and whatnot. But what I

really wanted to do was be a charra. And that's what

most of these, most of the people that come to our



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

events are charros and charra.

So seeing my dad do these, what we call in our

Hispanic culture "accorralado" is mostly for our

charros. Which I appreciate so much, because since I

was little, I always wanted to wear my big dress with my

big sombrero.

These events, I'm everywhere. I am walking

around. I'm hanging out with my family, hanging out

with my friends. Probably 10, 20 faces that I've never

seen before. But other than that, all the people that

come to my house and are at these events, whether it's

at my house, in Fernley, in Winnemucca, we have seen

growing up. It's not no one who we don't know. And if

it is someone we don't know, it's a friend of a friend,

but we know the person who brought them there.

So these events, to me, aren't just something

that is you're going to see random faces. It's always

family. Always family. It's always friends. I see the

same people. I see the people who have seen me grow up,

see the people who appreciate what I do for them. And I

see the people who tell me, wow, you've gotten so far

into your horse riding, people who compliment me and my

sisters for what we do in this culture.

Being a charra, to me, is so much. So I want

to continue it. I want to continue, and I want to



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

show -- I have a little sister who's 12. I want to show

her that she can earn her dress, too. I can show, I

want to show all the kids that we grow up with that they

can earn their sombrero, they can own their boots, they

can wear them without just fashion, but actually in the

culture.

It's, to us, these events and the stuff we do

here is a prize. If we are, if we all have the

opportunity to be involved in it, it's a prize to us.

It's not just to show, oh, look, I'm so cool. No, it's,

I am part of this, I am, this is growing in my heart.

So I am totally for my father, not just because

he's my father. There's a lot of things I turn my back

on him for. But because I've seen. I grew up in this.

I grew up in this. And this has opened so many doors

for me. This has opened so many doors for me. And I

love what I do. I love what I do. And I love how it's

made my heart grow so I'm not just -- it's made me, in

my personal like growing up, it made me a better person,

and I want to help all these kids have their opportunity

and their spot in our culture, also.

Thank you.


Okay. Nancy Danner.

And then Cherie Danner, if you want to come up.



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

MS. NANCY DANNER: I have a petition here. I

don't know if you want that, or.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: You can give it to the

recording secretary. Thank you.

MS. NANCY DANNER: My name is Nancy Danner. I

live at 7790 Dolores Drive.

And I've picked a couple of things out of the

staff report that I'd like to address. On the

Conditions of Approval, 4, 7 and 8, I'm wondering who is

going to enforce all of these things that you've listed

that he has to be in compliance with, and making sure

that everything is watered during the event, that the

sound is where it's supposed to be, and the noise be on

cooperation. Who within the county is going monitor

that on any given weekend?

I'm also wondering about the Finding Number C3

where he states that the majority of the improvements

have already been made. And I'm wondering why

Mr. Medina would make those improvements without this

being approved even, and if he was in compliance with

(indistinct), obtaining permits for moving all of the

dirt that he moved, the grading permit, whether or not

that was something he did.

And the analysis, on page 4, he says that,

well, this is not a riding stable, which is in the



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

sphere of things that the Sparks can do. We have horses

out there and riding horses. So, you know, I like

horses, but I don't have one. And, I think, there are

probably more people that don't own horses out there

than do.

And so my question to you is that there's

probably a lot of people out in our area that have guns,

and so should we maybe have a shooting range out there,

which falls into that category, because we have guns? I

mean we can. You could approve that. You could change

that and say that, hey, it's okay, because a lot of

people have guns.

A lot of people have motorhomes. Should we

have a recreational vehicle park or a campground?

We're a residential area. I mean where do you

draw the line? Where do you, where do you not make it

okay to make this a huge event?

They are charging a fee, I understand. I could

be wrong. They are selling alcohol. So you are giving

them free rein to have people sit out in the hot sun,

drink alcohol, drive cars and trucks, pickups, trailers

with horses, down Dolores, which we maintain. We walk

our dogs. We jog. We ride bikes. Kids out there on

the skateboards. It doesn't just affect the dirt

portion. All the way up, there are kids playing out



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

there. There are no sidewalks. So if they drink all

afternoon, his -- according to him, because if they sell

the alcohol, then they won't drink so much.

I just think it's a recipe for disaster, that

you are giving them a license to sell alcohol at a,

quote, family event, and then turning them loose on the

highway, Pyramid Highway and Dolores Drive.

I would urge you to deny this for the

neighborhood. And I wonder how a voice of one or two or

three outweighs the voice of 25 or 30 or 40.

I appreciate your time. I know you've put a

lot of effort in this. And, and we appreciate it. All

of us do. Thank you so much.


Cherie Danner.

And then Wayne Patterson, if you can go ahead

and come up and sit.

MS. CHERIE DANNER: Hello. I'm Cherie Danner,

and I live at 7500 Marie Way.

And pretty much Nancy covered what I wanted to

say. I'll just go over it briefly.

My main objection is the traffic that's going

to be generated and that will go through the Desert

Springs subdivision, which is an old subdivision, has

narrow roads, no sidewalks. Children play on it. They



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

ride their bikes, they skateboard, they play ball. And

there's no way to get to this event without going

through the Desert Springs subdivision.

And their proposal said they could have up to

250 people coming and going at all hours of the day on

weekends, and they mentioned holidays, although they

changed that. But that's exactly when children are out

of school and playing on the streets.

So, I think, you need to consider that. And I

would hate for a tragedy to happen. We should maybe

prevent this from being approved in the first place,

before we have that tragedy.

Thank you.


Okay. Wayne Paterson.

And then Jerry Pringle's up next, if you'll sit

up front for me, please.

MR. WAYNE PATERSON: Hi. My name's Wayne

Paterson, and I live at 7325 Patrina Way.

I'm really glad to hear the Medinas are so

interested and have such strong family values. Because,

I think, you're seeing how strong family is out there in

this neighborhood.

We all strict together on these sorts of

things. And we've had a couple other issues come up. I



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

hope you'll read all of those emails, and I hope you'll

read my email. Somebody wanted to build a dog kennel

one time.

So we've been down this path before. And I

kind of feel like, after listening to Mr. Crittenden,

it's like a bunch of bastard children, because we keep

getting passed back and forth to all these different

governing bodies. And everything falls through the

cracks. And one of the big cracks that I see in this

whole thing, besides all the problems with the road, the

noise, I'm a half mile away, and I could hear the music

on my patio last year.

Who's going to, who's going to police all this

stuff? And what it's going to come down to is it's

going to be us, the neighbors. They're going to have to

complain. Because, as far as I know, there's not going

to be anyone monitoring this. And it's going to be left

up to us to go ahead and make a phone call to the Washoe

County Sheriff's Department.

And so here we're going to already -- I was a

little bit disappointed in a couple of emails I read.

Because we're already creating hate and discontent for

no good reason. This, to me, looks like a commercial

enterprise that has no business in a residential

neighborhood.



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

I lived just a few blocks down the way here on

Maureen Drive in Sparks. And I moved out there to get

to exactly what all of us did, that quiet serenity, that

I don't have to deal with all the things like I

understood were in the neighborhood where I lived on

Maureen Drive. You had Sparks Boulevard, Reed High

School, the ball diamonds. You have all those things

right there. And I understood that when I bought down

there.

And when I moved out there and built that house

in 1997, I understood that everyone else was going to be

plodding along about the same way I am, just doing a

nice, having a nice quiet life, live and let live, and

not be making a big production about all of this,

whatever's going on.

But he's bringing 250 people in that

neighborhood and tearing up that road. Which I'm one of

the guys that winds up on a backhoe down there, fighting

fixing the damn thing, like we did last winter on the

culvert.

So there are just too many things that are

going on that are going to create too much turmoil in

the neighborhood for this whole thing. So I hope you'll

disapprove this.




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

Okay. Mr. Pringle.

And then Cheryll Glotfelty. And I probably

butchered it. I apologize. If you'll just come up

front for me. Thank you.

Go right ahead.

MR. JERRY PRINGLE: All right. My name is

Jerry Pringle. I live at 5380 Peralta Way. And thank

all of you for hearing me tonight.

I've got some real concerns. I'm a 100 percent

disabled veteran. And I have to go down Dolores. And I

like to take my wheelchair down and pick up my mail, at

least pick up my mail.

And last year, last summer, when they had these

parties -- they're campouts, as far as I'm concerned --

they come up and down that street. And there's no

sidewalks on that street. Has anybody thought to look

in to see if the Americans With Disabilities Act is

going to require sidewalks down that street?

Kids go up and down. They ride their bikes.

People just walking are in danger, a little danger now.

But most people that pass there live in the

neighborhood. They know. They go by. They give you a

little honk that they're passing you. You wave.

Everything's good.

But last summer -- and I don't care what they



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

get up here and say -- they were zooming up and down

that road like -- I was, I was afraid. I didn't go down

that Saturday and get my mail. And I have to get my

mail almost every day, because I have medications coming

from the Department of Veterans Affairs. And I couldn't

go down that day. And I can see it happening every day.

When they had those parties before, I could

hear mariachi music at 3:00 o'clock in the morning.

Now, I like mariachi music. I also like country and

western music. But I don't like either one of them at

3:00 o'clock in the morning. And they come on then.

This happened before. What's going to keep them from

doing that again?

This is -- just got to be so concerned about

this that I -- I don't know what else to say. Please,

please, do not pass this.

Thank you for hearing me.


Okay. And if -- is Jeff Ghiglia. And I

apologize. You guys all have difficult names tonight.

So if you'll go ahead and come on up and sit up front.

And you can correct me when you come to sit down,

please.

MS. CHERYLL GLOTFELTY: Hi. Thank you for

being here. My name is Cheryll Glotfelty. I live at



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

7535 Starhill. So we are immediately to the east of the

property.

And I wrote a letter of opposition with many

points that I don't have time to reiterate, so I just

assume that you read that. Thank you very much. I also

want to thank Mr. Crittenden, who really was a very good

listener and, I think, did incorporate a lot of

neighbors' concerns in the conditional uses. However, I

continue to just feel it should be declined.

I also really like our neighbors. Thank you.

I'd really like to know the Medinas better. And I

really respect what they're doing, and I agree that

these are family things. I just don't think that this

event belongs in this place. The applicant has a

40-acre parcel in Palomino Valley that seems entirely

more suitable for this type of event.

And I just now want to raise two concerns. I

went to the business address listed in the application.

It is Vaqueros Night Club. So I have to think, I wonder

who's selling alcohol. I have to think, is this -- they

say it's not for profit. Is there any way that this is

ever going to be checked? I'm also really uncomfortable

with the fact that alcohol is going to be sold to 250

people right next to my house.

I have to say, though, that my primary concern



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

is noise. And I want to use a minute of my time to just

play you...

(The speaker played some audio for a minute.)

Okay. I'll stop it before a minute. So you

kind of wanted it to be turned off. Well, imagine that

sort of 12 hours a day. And this has gone on two days

in a row, not just one day, because they play it during

the setup, in addition to the event itself. I don't see

how it can be kept to 65 decibels. 65 decibels is

great. This is not a 65-decibel event. There's two

drums, two saxophones. This is what we're hearing. It

is deafening.

We received no notification of the first time

they had one of these events. It was a day that we

invited over a new friend to our house. We could hardly

have a conversation with her.

It is just really threatening actually, just

that noise is so threatening to me. And if they keep it

to 65, you know, great. But, I think, it just conflicts

with the very point of the event, which is very

celebratory.

So I would just urge you to encourage the

applicant to hold this event at another place. Thank

you.




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

Violet Richards, go ahead and sit up front,

please.

MR. JEFF GHIGLIA: Jeff Ghiglia ("Gil-yah").


MR. JEFF GHIGLIA: 7390 Patrina Way.

I'm actually three parcels down, if you look at

that, from where they're at. And we were home last year

when, I think it was Father's Day, they had their first

event. And like she just played, that was my backyard.

And I'm three parcels down. So the noise, and it went

on and on. Went in the house, still heard it. Very,

very loud.

The dust, that is uncontrollable up there.

Whether they run a water truck or not, they're not

grading it, it gets washboard, they speed up and down

the road. I've seen it, witnessed it. I'm highly

against it, as my other neighbors have spoke. Which I

thought they all did a wonderful job. Everything that

they've said I want to give out even more to it, that

we're very much against this.

Thank you.


And then Dan Price, if you can sit up front for

me, please. Oh, you're already up front. Perfect.

MS. VIOLET RICHARDS: Violet Richards,



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

5245 Dolores Drive.

Everybody has kind of recapped what I wanted to

say. And I want the council to know that we have no

issue with the cultural part of it. It's just that we

Don want don't want it in our neighborhood.

Dolores Drive is very narrow. On the weekends,

if this goes on, the music goes very late. We can all

hear it. But the biggest safety concern I have is that

these people are drinking already. They want to sell

booze there. I cannot ride my horse up that road for

fear of not being taken out. Or hike my dog. Or let,

you know, anything off of my gated property.

Gandolfo Arena, I understand that they can't

use that. That happens to be my uncle Joe Gandolfo.

And I think that this should happen for them.

It just shouldn't happen in our neighborhood. It

shouldn't happen a quarter of a mile away from my house.

The bugs, the dust, the noise, it is miserable when it

happens.

They're saying two to two hundred fifty people.

But according to what I think, and you can correct me if

I'm wrong, they can have as many people as they want

there with this use permit. They could double that.

They could have 500. They could have 750. The amount

of dust and the way that it tears up our road is



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

horrible.

And I just hope that you deny this permit use.

We all live out there for peace and quiet, and that's

the way we want to keep it. We don't -- this seems

commercial to us.

Thank you.


Dan Price.

And then Dan Flanagan, if you can go ahead and

move up front for me. Oh, you're up front. Perfect.

Thank you.

MR. DAN PRICE: Hi. My name's Dan Price. I

live at 15 Mac Road.

And we're probably about the furthest away

from, you know, where this event is being done. And

it's like it's right next-door, it's so loud. I mean,

and 12 hours a day, and nonstop, I mean over and over

and over. It just drives you nuts.

And I really have an issue with serving alcohol

all day long and, like everybody's been saying, driving

through the residential area to get to this event and to

leave at the end of the day. It just doesn't make sense

to me.

We've got horses. Love rodeos. We go to them

all the time. But I mean this isn't the area for it,



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

you know. This is residential. You know, it's quiet.

You know, you don't need this type of event there.

You know, they said that, you know, they're

going to follow all the rules and stuff. But,

obviously, they haven't, because 65 decibels, you heard

everybody snicker when, you know, that was one of the

conditions. And, obviously, that didn't happen. I mean

you couldn't even talk, you know, being outside, like a

few people have said.

So, and for that reason, I'm against it. I

just, I don't think it's safe, you know, as far as

driving in and out in the morning. You know, they're

leaving it late at night. You know, there's no, no

enforcement. You know, you haven't seen a cop, you

know, down the street when they're leaving and

everything. So nobody's monitoring it, like everybody's

been saying.

So I'm against it. So, thanks.


Dan Flanagan.

And then, I think -- "Jank" Grunseth.

MR. JARL GRUNSETH: Jarl.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Thank you. Way off. I

apologize.

MR. JARL GRUNSETH: I'll work with you. Tough



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

names.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Yeah. I was tested.

Thank you.

MR. DAN FLANAGAN: Commissions members, Madam

Chairman, council, thank you for being here tonight.

I'll try not to reiterate, obviously, some of the items

that have been hammered into the ground already. And

I'll just agree with their interpretations of the noise.

My name's Dan Flanagan. I live at 7779. I am

directly adjacent to the applicant's property.

I've lived within a mile of this particular

subject property for 39 years. I've seen a lot happen

out there from day one, involved. I was on the original

subcommittees with the development for Washoe County.

And I'm quite versed on the impact of many items that

have come along in the years. When we started out

there, we had more gravel pits than we did schools and

markets.

So that is a very interesting issue of NRS

278.02788, is the succession of the Sphere of Influence

of City of Sparks. The title officials and the other

officials of the divisions that I have talked to

regarding this, the best word I could come up with on

this is called conundrum, when the City of Sparks

applies these approvals. And it's required in Washoe



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

County. And there's, obviously, a conflict between the

master plans, the rules and conditions. The codes that

enforced in the county are similar to the -- of course,

with the City of Sparks. And I'm sure you folks are

aware of all that, that that's occurring.

And I urge everybody in here and, obviously,

the Commission members that, when we got planning

revisions are coming up in spring of next year. So

please get involved with that. That will eliminate some

of these issues that are happening.

We've addressed the staff report, the staff

reports and the errors in the staff report. The one

thing the staff report didn't address was the excessive

use of the ATVs and motorcycles that's been on the

property. They seem to be dominating the roads off and

on the property. And I have talked with the applicant

about that with really not a satisfactory response.

Mr. Crittenden mentioned the county ordinance

under a -- it's a zoning requirement of A-40. That's a

40-acre minimal, minimum requirement. Which means this

application, if they have a minimum to apply for a major

recreational facility, it has to be on a 40-acre parcel.

It is an A-40 zoning, and the applicant's property is

only 10.65.

So I am curious of why the applicant was



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

allowed to submit the application to begin with.

And along with that, if that is the case, under

the section -- it's under section 20 02 0030, and it's

all the way through 20 02 013. And there's numerous

conditions saying regulations in those provisions that

required height size, distance and setbacks. Already

the subject property's in violation of setback

requirements.

So I'm in opposition to this project. And I

respectfully request you deny it. And thank you for

your time.


MR. DAN FLANAGAN: Thank you.

MR. JARL GRUNSETH: Good evening.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Good evening.

MR. JARL GRUNSETH: I guess, I'm the last one

tonight, huh? I'll make it short.

You've heard a lot from the neighbors about all

the concerns. A lot of these neighbors -- I'm only two

years to the area. There's a few of us that have only

lived here a couple years. But I'd say over 90 percent

of the people that live there have lived there 20 years.

They know the area. They've seen the development that

hasn't gotten there. So they have to take care of it

themselves.



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

And I totally respect what Lupe's doing. I

don't think anybody in here is disrespecting what he

wants to do. I think, the main issue is just the

location is not in the proper place. That's it. It's

not -- it doesn't belong in a residential area. Even

they we have 10-acre parcels, it's residential. It's

quiet. Okay.

We all take care of our property. We take care

of the roads. And you heard at all the concerns about

the traffic. Across the street from where I live -- I

forgot to give my address.


MR. JARL GRUNSETH: 7600 Marie Way.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Thank you. And if you

could also put your name, that would be good.

MR. JARL GRUNSETH: Jarl Grunseth.


MR. JARL GRUNSETH: I live across the street

from the BLM land. And Dolores is the only road to that

land. Motorcycles, four-wheelers, horses, you name it.

And that is 24 hours a day. They're up there in the

middle of the night. And they speed past my house to

and fro. and that concerns all the neighbors, because

Dolores is the only road into that whole development.

All these people live off one road.



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

Okay. So we got to look at the big picture.

And we got to look at how long these people have lived

there. And they've seen a lot of bad things happen

because of the speed, the kids, the road, the

four-wheelers, motorcycles, all that stuff. But that's

another world.

But all I'm saying is we respect everything

that's going on here in this room, everybody's say, what

the Medinas are trying to do. But this just is not the

right location for that type of thing.

Thank you.


All right. That's my last request to speak.

Is there anybody that did not sign up that would like to

come up and speak?

You can, sir. And then if you'll just fill out

a comment card when you're done.

MR. BILL RICHARDS: Thank you. Excuse me for

being so slow.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Oh, no worries. And if

you'll just please state your name and address for the

record.

MR. BILL RICHARDS: My name is Bill Richards,

5245 Dolores Drive. I've been there since 1982.

And in rebuttal to what was mentioned about



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

(indistinct) Geno Martini approving that Mexican rodeo

at Gandolfo Arena, Cowboy Joe Gandolfo and I got

together, and we made a recommendation to the Mayor at

that time that they do not rope horses in the arena,

they have a medical unit on the scene.

Every rodeo I've been to. And I've been up

there since the start of the Gandolfo, with junior high

school and Gymkhana rodeo. And I just think that's not,

not the right place for that. And then, I think, if

they do have it, it should be required to have a medical

and peace officer on the scene.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Thank you. If we can get

you to fill out a comment card, that would be great.

Yes, ma'am.

MS. DEBORAH WALKER: Speak?

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Yes, please. If you'll

just state your name and your address. And then, when

you're done, please fill out a comment card.

MS. DEBORAH WALKER: My name's Deborah Walker,

7765 Marie Way.

So I own the parcel at the end of Dolores,

which is a 20-acre parcel, as opposed to all the other

parcels in that area are 10-acre parcels.

So four months ago, I came and met with the



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

City of Sparks to ask if I could have that parcel

subdivided into a 10-acre -- two 10-acre parcels,

because everything out there is 10 or 11 acres. And I

was told that for me to be able to do that, I would have

to improve the road. So I would have to pave the road

to be able to subdivide my property into the same parcel

size as everybody else out there.

So, of course, it's not feasible for me to pay

a million dollars to subdivide a parcel in half. So

that was shut down immediately. I was told to go, when

they do the regional plan, and speak to -- about that,

about subdividing that parcel. But, immediately, I

would have had to improve the road.

So is this change of use going to require that

road to be paved? Because mine would be.

And as far as the road, we pay. I mean people

say it's our road, we maintain it. We pay to maintain

it. We have some owners up there that own heavy

equipment that, luckily, for our benefit, bring that in,

for the benefit of the neighbors. But the neighbors pay

for base, the neighbors pay for the water truck, and the

people have been providing the labor to do that on their

own. But we're not going to do that when 250 vehicles

are going up that road. It's horrible as it is with

just the neighborhood usage.



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

So that's a real huge concern, is the

infrastructure aspect.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Thank you. If you'll

fill out a card.

MS. DEBORAH WALKER: Okay. I did fill one out.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Oh, you did?

MS. DEBORAH WALKER: It said not speak.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Oh, okay. That's fine.

Perfect.

Anybody else?

Yes, sir. Yes, can you come up and speak. If

you'll state your name and your address and then fill

out a card.

If you'll go ahead and come down, you can go

next.

MR. ROB HOOPER: I didn't want to speak, and

then I changed my mind.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Okay. That's fine.

MR. ROB HOOPER: My name's rob Hooper, and I

live at 5050 Dolores Drive. Which the front of our

property, or my family's property is from Starhill to

Patrina. So all this passes in front.

It's a wreck. There was a black Chevy pickup

that went completely sideways all the way down that



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

road.

I didn't want to get up here with these,

because I was just afraid I'd lose my mind.

This is not -- there's no safety here. We

called the law last year. The law didn't show up,

because they were on other calls. I've spoken to law

enforcement. There's one or two officers out there to

patrol that whole area.

There's a serious issue here. Do I think these

people should be able to have one of these, maybe a

year, take place? I honestly do. But one every month,

no way. The rest of us aren't asking for things like

that. I own a trucking company. I wanted to put a

couple trucks there. I couldn't. When I was told no by

Washoe County, I left. The trucks went to another

location.

I follow the laws. I don't try to change

things so my neighbors are mad at me. I don't have 40

people against me. I'm trying to follow what people

have put out there where they want to live, and respect

the neighbors.

Thank you. And I oppose it.

MR. DUANE CODER: My name is Duane Coder. I

live at 7575 Patrina Way, pretty much right across the

road from where the parcel is currently located. I can



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

look right down into it from my porch.

I was there for the last, or the last two

events of the year. And, yes, there was music playing.

Maybe because I've grown up and enjoyed and appreciated

the culture involved that created the music, it didn't

bother me at all. It wasn't as loud as portrayed by the

lady who played the music on her cell phone. And, quite

honestly, I'm not sure how that can give you perspective

as to how loud the event was. I can play loud music on

my phone at full volume. I can play loud music on my

phone at low volume. I don't really feel that

accurately portrays the volume level of what was going

on out there.

Additionally, maybe because I'm pretty tolerant

about noise or whatnot, it does not bother me that they

want to play loud music during the day. If they played

loud music at night, I'm going to have a problem with

that. But seeings how these events are pretty much set

up to be finished by sundown, that doesn't bother me.

Dust and flies don't bother me. If dust and

flies bothered me, I wouldn't have moved out to the

country on a dirt road.

I do understand the concerns about traffic.

The road does get pretty beat up already. But if, if

they're willing to fulfill their requirements and to



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

contribute to the maintenance of that road, I don't have

a problem with it.

I understand there's children out playing down

on the properties that are further down towards, say,

the paved part road and everything. I don't see why

that should be a deterrent, just as much as any other

traffic that would be getting out there for the

residents. Yes, there's going to be an increase in

traffic. Yes, the people driving need to be vigilant of

what's out there, just as much as the parents of those

children need to be vigilant that there's going to be

increased traffic on those six days out of the year.

I think, that's basically everything. I'm very

happy that they want to have this, this cultural

gathering six times a year. Six times a year. I would

be no more bothered than if people on six different

properties around me had a large birthday party or event

for their family members or anything like that.

Things, things are changing. And it's still a

nice and quiet place to live. But I'm more than happy

to give up six days a year for a wonderful event,

something that's going to provide alternatives to people

who may get into less than savory habits or

environments. So I support it.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Make sure that you fill



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

out a -- perfect. Thank you.

Okay. Are we done?

If you'll please state your name and your

address, and then fill out a card after you're done,

please.

MR. ROC COLE: Hi. My name's Roc Cole. I live

at 7410 Marie Way.

I wasn't going to talk, because I've been at

these meetings, and, quite frankly, I think, usually the

wheel's been greased and it's just a formality to let us

even speak. Lately, I was at one, and you allowed 1,800

homes to be built up on the ridge right above our house,

that we were promised was a protected ridge when we

bought General Rural in Washoe County. And with the

swipe of a pen now, it's City of Sparks.

I guess, my question to you would be, if all of

a sudden you guys found out you had an arena moved in

right next to your home, and you were going to be

hearing and smelling and seeing the dust, would you guys

be for that? Put yourself in our situation. We've been

getting some stuff crammed down our throat lately.

Except for you, Scott, you're the only one that

opposed that project. I thank you for that.

It's not the place to have this. Last year --

I sleep with my windows open. Last year, at 3:00 a.m.,



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

I had to close my windows because of the music. And I

am probably a half a mile away.

So I don't care what this last guy said. It's

loud. And it's ridiculous. And if you lived right next

to it, like some of these poor people do... These guys

can't even watch TV without turning it way up. It's

ridiculous. Put yourself in their situation. It's

just, it's not fair, I guess. It's not fair. That's

the bottom line.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Thank you. And if you'll

fill out a comment card, please.

Okay. Yes, please.

MS. DIANE PARGEON: I'd like to come up because

of a comment that was made earlier.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: If you'll just --

MS. DIANE PARGEON: My name is Diane Pargeon,

and I'm at 5675 Dolores Drive.

I am in the first block of Dolores. And

everybody wants to say it doesn't impact the paved area.

It impacts the paved area. It is a main artery. Not

only do people have to come up Dolores to -- because

there is a median. So they have to come up Dolores, do

a U-turn, go back down Dolores to go into town from the

residential areas that are on this other side, by the



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

library.

So we get impacted by a lot of traffic in that

intersection of Pyramid and Dolores. So for them to say

that we do not get impacted in the paved area, we do get

impacted by it. We get a lot of traffic.

It's very fast up and down that street. And

then there's no sidewalks. I'm fearful of taking my

granddaughter for a walk, because the cars are speeding

up and down that thing. And in the evening, the sun's

right in your eyes.

So I just wanted to say, it does impact the

paved area, also.

Thank you.


fill out a comment card.

Okay. With that...

Okay. If you'll state your name and your

address, and then, also, fill out a card. And if you

can come down to the front. Thank you.

MS. CARMELITA HOLTON: My name is Carmelita

Holton. I live at 5645 Dolores, three doors down from

Diane.

My husband and I stood outside all afternoon

during the last event and going like this to people

speeding up the street with their trailers. And most of



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

the time we got flipped off.

It's not the place. It's not the place. We

have enough traffic. We have enough. I guess, we're

going to have to wait till somebody else gets killed

going up that street. And we know that a couple people

have gotten killed at the -- where it is unpaved, from

going too fast.

And we're against it. It does impact the whole

area. You wouldn't want it in your backyard.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: If you'll please fill out

a card, comment card for us. Thank you.

MS. DANA DEPELLO: Dana DePello, 7895 Patrina

Way.

My husband and I, we live about a thousand feet

away. The music did not go till 3:00 in the morning.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Speak up.

MS. DANA DEPELLO: The music did not go till

3:00 in the morning. The music probably went till about

11:30, basically done at that point.

And there's a lot of horses around that area.

I have several horses. My neighbors to the east of me

have horses. There's a lot. There's two stables that I

know of that are right off Dolores. One is called

Jackass Ranch actually. And there's a lot of horse

trailers that go in and out all the time, a lot of



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

horses that ride up and down the road.

It didn't bother us at all. I'm able to eat

outside on my deck. I don't have a problem with flies.

We enjoyed it when they invited us over. We've

been there.

What I would say is I think that you should

visit the property. That's what I think you guys should

do. I think, you should visit the property, drive up

it, drive up Dolores, and look at it yourself, instead

of going by what -- we can do this all day. I think,

you guys should take a drive up there and look at it for

yourself. Then you know. Then you could make a good

decision, the right decision at that point.

I am for it. Thank you.


fill out a comment card.

MS. MINDY STILWELL: My name's Mindy Stillwell,

6950 Dolores Drive.

I do have a stable. It's private. Only I have

horses there. I have a donkey there.

I am impacted by everything everybody has said

tonight. The traffic is bad. I'm scared to ride on the

road. I'm scared to walk my dogs down there.

Everything in our neighborhood is quiet, rural,

peaceful, gorgeous. Not on an event night. I can sit



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

on my porch and hear that music 24-seven. We all can.

Bill and Bob live right across the street from me. It's

very private. It's very rural. It's very residential.

We love our homes.

We don't need any more increased activity

there. Bad enough that we've got ATVs and all these

extra cars going up that street.

I've lived there 31 years, and this does change

our life out there.

Respectfully, please consider opposing.

Please. Thank you.


fill out a comment card for us.

MS. MINDY STILLWELL: I had one, but I just

didn't --

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Oh, you just didn't --

okay. All right.

MS. LINDA COLLINS-PRINGLE: It's been a long

evening for you guys. I apologize. My name is Linda

Collins-Pringle. I live at 5380 Peralta, which is 20

acres, or 10 acres off Dolores.

My fear of me driving off Pyramid onto Dolores,

with all the houses that are there back-to-back, is

frightening. You have to go extra slow. I go about 10

miles, because I never know which person is going to



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

either start backing up. They have to drive, park in

their driveway in order to live in their house. There's

no parking on the street for them.

And little kids are growing up there. And it

just takes run to run out and get killed. And I have

many grandchildren and great grandchildren. And that

would devastate me.

So I would have -- agree that each of you

should drive down Dolores, all the way up to the end at

Marie, before you make a decision. And that's what I

wanted to say. Because that is dangerous. That first

section coming off Pyramid is a nightmare.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Thank you. Okay. Thank

you.

All right. Anyone else?

Okay. With that, I'm going to close the public

hearing, and I'm going to bring it back to the

Commission for questions. So.

COMMISSIONER READ: He had some.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Okay. He had some. And

what I'm going to do is I'm going to start with

Commissioner Shabazz. Do you have any? And I'm going

to work down through.

COMMISSIONER SHABAZZ: Yes, Madam Chair. I did



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

have a couple questions. It actually was for the

applicant.


COMMISSIONER SHABAZZ: Would the applicant be

able to approach?

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Yes. Applicant, if

you'll please come up.


COMMISSIONER SHABAZZ: Sir, thank you for being

here today. And I know it sounds like you've got a

tight-knit community. And it can be, this kind of forum

can be a difficult thing. And I know you'll all work

well to keep that neighborhood as tight and make

everyone feel welcome.

I had a couple questions for you, sir. The

first one was when are you planning to do your first

event?

MR. LUPE MEDINA: Well, the original plan was

to start in on May.

COMMISSIONER SHABAZZ: Right.

MR. LUPE MEDINA: And go once a month. So it's

going to be six months down the road so, afterward, so

the last one.

COMMISSIONER SHABAZZ: So at this moment, right

now, you're planning on Cinco de Mayo to be your first



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

event?

MR. LUPE MEDINA: It wouldn't matter, on time

for that. We're late. It could be the first one would

be next month.

COMMISSIONER SHABAZZ: Next month. Okay. So.

And you had mentioned that your -- that you had made

many of the improvements already. I see quite a few

things that you have to, that you would have to abide by

as a part of this conditional permit.

MR. LUPE MEDINA: Okay.

COMMISSIONER SHABAZZ: Which is fairly

expensive to comply with. Can you, have you worked out

that, that dollar value as to how you're going to do

those things?

MR. LUPE MEDINA: Well, first of all, I was

waiting for this hearing, and then kind of double-check

all the requirements and see what I have to do to move

it on, get this permit, and then go from there.

COMMISSIONER SHABAZZ: Because I do see here

where you're saying that you will comply 100 percent.

MR. LUPE MEDINA: Yes.

COMMISSIONER SHABAZZ: But you're telling me

that you will comply 100 percent before you know what

all of the things are that you have to do. Is that

correct?



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

MR. LUPE MEDINA: Yeah, whatever it takes, I'll

work hard to make it happen, you know. I mean I'm here

to follow what are you guys requirements and do my best

to make it, you know, make it through. So I mean if

there's something that I cannot afford it, then I'll

be -- you know, we'll pretend that wasn't different.

But as of right now, I don't see any problems by, you

know, when you know what your, you know, requirements,

so far.

COMMISSIONER SHABAZZ: And your concessions, is

that simply to defer those costs, or is there any piece

of that, have you worked out that, is there any piece of

those concessions that you're going to be selling that

will go outside the cost of the event?

MR. LUPE MEDINA: I don't know if I get that

one.

COMMISSIONER SHABAZZ: So the money that you

will be charging for alcohol or food.

MR. LUPE MEDINA: Okay.

COMMISSIONER SHABAZZ: Is any of that going to

go to anything else other than the cost of maintaining

or running the event?

MR. LUPE MEDINA: All the sales, all the

incomings will be used for that, yes. Whatever expenses

we can cover with our incomes, that's what we can,



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

that's what we use the money for, every single penny,

yeah.

COMMISSIONER SHABAZZ: Madam Chair, that's all

the questions I have.


Commissioner Petersen.


Can you tell me how many horses you own?

MR. LUPE MEDINA: How many horses I own, four.

COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: Four?

MR. LUPE MEDINA: Four horses, yes.

COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: And do all four of your

horses compete in these events?

MR. LUPE MEDINA: No. This -- okay. This is

not a competition. This is just a show. So, yeah, I

own four horses, but I --

COMMISSIONER VANDERWELL: But there is roping

involved, is there not?

MR. LUPE MEDINA: Yes. Two of them do.

COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: Your horses do roping

and show?

MR. LUPE MEDINA: Two of them.

COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: Two, two of them?


COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: I understand that you



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

put this on in years before.

MR. LUPE MEDINA: Right.

COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: And I've also, from

reading some of these comments, that I find out that

there have been several of your neighbors have attended

these. Do they have horses?


COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: And do they compete in

this?

MR. LUPE MEDINA: They participate, yes.

COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: Oh, yeah. I'm sorry.

You said it's not a competition. That's fine. The

other thing that I have to ask, then, how many other

participants do you expect?

MR. LUPE MEDINA: Participants, we're talking

about, approximately 20 per event.

COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: 20?

MR. LUPE MEDINA: 20 participants, 20, 25,

somewhere in there.

COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: 20. And all of these

participants must carry their horses in; is that not

true?

MR. LUPE MEDINA: That's correct.

COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: The other thing was you

happened to mention, that I saw somewhere in your notes,



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

that you will hire the steers.

MR. LUPE MEDINA: We rent the steers, yes.

COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: And they have to be

trucked in; is that not right?


COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: Thank you, sir. That's

all I have.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Commissioner Petersen,

you're done?

COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Okay. All right.

Commissioner Read.

COMMISSIONER READ: Yes, thank you. I'd like

to ask a couple of questions about the prior events.

From what the neighbors were saying, there's been two

prior events at this location?

MR. LUPE MEDINA: Last year, yes.

COMMISSIONER READ: None before that at this

location, just the two that were last year?


COMMISSIONER READ: Okay. And then, prior to

that, were you affiliated with other organizations and

did the event at other locations?

MR. LUPE MEDINA: Yes, we did put out a couple

of events about five years ago at Gandolfo Arena.



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

COMMISSIONER READ: All right.

MR. LUPE MEDINA: And we couldn't afford it

anymore, because it was so expensive to conduct for once

and then believe that the Gandolfo Arena has being

listening to Reno Rodeo organization. So we're not

allowed to put out these events out there anymore.

COMMISSIONER READ: So you're saying that the

reason that you are no longer doing the events with

Gandolfo and other associations is because it became too

expensive?

MR. LUPE MEDINA: Well, part of that, yes.

COMMISSIONER READ: What was the other part?

MR. LUPE MEDINA: Yeah. That we understand

that the Gandolfo arena has been listening to Reno Rodeo

organization, and they're already booked up. They

don't, they don't rent the arena anymore to just out,

but any other organizations. That's what I am.

COMMISSIONER READ: Okay. Is your event open

to the public, or is it just people that are invited?

MR. LUPE MEDINA: Okay. So I can say, yes,

this is open to the public; 90 percent, if it's not

more, of the people that come to the events, they go to

the Medina's family events. So that means we know them

all. They know the Medina family for years. And they

know that this is what we do.



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

And so it's open to public, but 90 percent of

the spectators and participants, they're family and

close friends that we know, yeah.

COMMISSIONER READ: How many people attended

the prior events?

MR. LUPE MEDINA: The first event, we have

about 75, 85. The last event, it was like a hundred.

COMMISSIONER READ: And where did the people

that attended those events park?

MR. LUPE MEDINA: Inside our property. We have

designated on the south half a parking lot for them.

Every single car is inside the property's fence all the

way around.

COMMISSIONER READ: So nobody parked outside

around the property? What about the horse trailers; are

they --

MR. LUPE MEDINA: They have their own livestock

parking lot inside the property for it. The last event,

it was one horse trailer parking by the street. The

property fence is about 20 or 15 feet from the edge of

the road. So we have that space. And there was one

horse trailer parked in there for 15 minutes. There was

one participant that showed, he was coming from another

event, and then he had no time to get in and out. So

that was for 50 minutes. He got out there, spent 50



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

minutes, got back on the trailer, on the truck, and take

off. That was the only one that was parking outside the

property. But he was not parking on the road. Between

the road and the parking, or the property fence, which

is 15-foot.

COMMISSIONER READ: So everybody that attended

the event, except for those two exceptions, parked

inside the property?

MR. LUPE MEDINA: Yes, ma'am.

COMMISSIONER READ: Is this free, or do you

charge admission? I know that you've got costs that

you've got to cover for the event.

MR. LUPE MEDINA: We accept donations at the

entrance.

COMMISSIONER READ: Donations. Okay.

MR. LUPE MEDINA: And they all know what is

that for. And they know it, they understand what our

attendance for these events. And they all know that we

have expenses that we have to cover. And they all know

that they -- yeah, so we accept donations at the end of

it, yes.

COMMISSIONER READ: And how many people will

typically help out? Or do you employ people to help out

at the event, or is it all volunteers and --

MR. LUPE MEDINA: No, we group up, and then



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

they're all volunteers. We have security guards that

are licensed, security guards that are working somewhere

else and they're volunteers on our crew. All the

participants are volunteer. Everyone that help us,

taking care of the event, were all volunteers. So.

COMMISSIONER READ: Are you aware of some of

the complaints, such as the loud music and the ATVs

going up and down the road?


COMMISSIONER READ: I mean have you witnessed

the ATVs driving up and down during the event, and the

quads, and I don't remember if somebody said motorcycles

and -- coming up the road really fast? Have you

witnessed that?

MR. LUPE MEDINA: The only traffic that we're

getting on the events is the people that are hauling

their livestock, which is a pickup with two- or

three-horse trailers. They can't, there's no way they

can drive that fast on the dirt road, because they love

their horses, and they want to be safe.

There was only one quad that one of my security

guys was using. And that's my own quad that --

COMMISSIONER READ: Okay.

MR. LUPE MEDINA: -- that we keep on the

property. We don't allow any motorcycles or anything on



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

the events whatsoever. So people going up and down on

the events, yes, they are, because we start at noon, and

we end at sunset. So the participants, some of them

start at noon, end at 2:00 o'clock, and then they take

off. And then we got more people come in to participate

from 2:30 to 4:30, and then take off. So they're up and

down from 11:00 a.m. to sunset, you know, at that day

only.

About the music, we -- the event ends at

sunset. Period. There's no loud music. It could be,

last, the last event, we have one of the -- I think, it

was one that they -- or a couple of guys that were

helping us cleaning up, and they turned their own car

radio music. Once the live music was done, and the

amplifier was done, that the system was off, turned off,

and they could listen to that radio when they were

cleaning up. That was the only music that went beyond

sunset on the last event.

COMMISSIONER READ: And then I have one more

question. Thanks for answering the questions.

MR. LUPE MEDINA: Uh-huh (affirmative).

COMMISSIONER READ: When do you typically start

setting up for this event, and how long does it take to

tear down for the events?

MR. LUPE MEDINA: Okay. Setting up, we don't



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

have that much of setting up. We only have two tent

houses, like six by six, where we keep our beverage, you

know, cold. That's about the only setup that we have on

the event. Nothing else. We have the food. There is a

food truck that usually drive in and take off. They

take everything with them. So there's no setup.

COMMISSIONER READ: And so when the event ends

at sunset, everybody is gone by then? Are you -- how

long does it take to tear down?

MR. LUPE MEDINA: When the event's over, 90

percent of the participants and the spectators are --

after, after the sunset, 30 minutes after sunset, 90

percent of them are gone. The other 10 percent are the

people who are helping me with, you know, cleaning up

and, you know, making sure all the animals are out of

the property. But then that's just like 45 minutes

after sunset, and then everybody's out of there.

COMMISSIONER READ: Okay. I have to ask one

more question --

MR. LUPE MEDINA: Sure.

COMMISSIONER READ: -- based on what you were

asked, saying. So is there -- if there's people there

after sunset, is there outdoor lighting --

MR. LUPE MEDINA: No.

COMMISSIONER READ: -- set up? None? Okay.



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

MR. LUPE MEDINA: No. I'm totally against that

lighting.


MR. LUPE MEDINA: Because of my horses. And,

yes, I want, I want the property to keep as it is right

now. We don't, no. I'm totally against lighting.


MR. LUPE MEDINA: A hundred percent.

COMMISSIONER READ: Okay. Thank you for

answering all those questions.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Commissioner Fewins, do

you have any questions?

COMMISSIONER FEWINS: I have just one question.

Thank you for coming, Mr. Medina. What is the fence

that you have on the east side of your property, on the

10 acres, what kind of fence is it, barbed wire?

MR. LUPE MEDINA: What is it?

COMMISSIONER FEWINS: What kind of fence?

MR. LUPE MEDINA: The fence. Oh.

COMMISSIONER FEWINS: The fence on the east

side of your property.

MR. LUPE MEDINA: It's just a two-post with

those wires with no -- with wires.

COMMISSIONER FEWINS: Okay. Thank you.

MR. LUPE MEDINA: Four wires.



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

COMMISSIONER FEWINS: Thank you. That's all.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Commissioner Brock, do

you have any questions?

COMMISSIONER BROCK: No, I do not.

Commissioner Read pretty much hit the ones I was going

to, frankly.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Okay. Commissioner

Carey?

COMMISSIONER CAREY: I don't have any questions

for the applicant. I have a couple questions for staff.

COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: So do I.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Okay. Perfect. Okay.

If you'll --

COMMISSIONER CAREY: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: -- continue to make

yourself available, we appreciate it.


This is Commissioner Carey, for the record.

Ian, I had a couple questions, kind in two

primary areas, public safety, and I had some questions

about land use.

As a follow-up to my question at our Study

Session, were you able to find any information about any

citations or response calls from the Sheriff's Office or



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

noise complaints from Washoe County?

MR. CRITTENDEN: I was able to get ahold of

Washoe County code enforcement and ask them about any

responses or any complaints associated with events last

year, and they did not have any recorded responses to

that. I was not able to get information from the

sheriff.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: Thank you. I had a

question about our automatic, a new automatic aid

agreement between the City and Truckee Meadows Fire

Protection District. I was curious if the automatic aid

agreement has -- changes any of the conditions of

approval or -- because it's my understanding, the

agreement, it's the closest unit that responds. I

didn't know if that, with Truckee Meadows -- I'll

rephrase my question. Does Truckee Meadows Fire

Protection District still have primary response and

would be in charge of those conditions? Would the City

have any?

MR. CRITTENDEN: The Washoe County, or Truckee

Meadows Fire Protection District would be the primary

responder, primary responsibility. Because they are the

agency that we talked with as we reviewed this proposal.

They do still have -- that is still their primary

response area now, Sparks.



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

COMMISSIONER CAREY: And then my last public

safety question was about emergency response and REMSA.

It's my understanding, with other special events that

are issued in other jurisdictions, there's typically a

condition of approval requiring an EMS service to be

on-site. Did you receive any comments from REMSA? I

believe, they have a special events division that

handles large events. I didn't know if that made the

qualifications.

MR. CRITTENDEN: No, we did not receive a

response from REMSA. Although the requirement for them

to have one is a potential possibility that the Planning

Commission could look into.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: Okay.

MR. CRITTENDEN: But, yeah, we did not hear a

response from them.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: And then I'll just get

through my land use questions as fast as I can.

Appreciate the indulgence, Madam Chair.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: No problem.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: So with the exhibit that

was in our staff report for the site, for the property

map, I was curious. And you said that it didn't really

have any meaningful impact on the analysis.

So if we're looking at the property that's to



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

the south of what was highlighted, it looks like the

land uses on the site are LLR and Open Space. One of

the findings and discussion that you have in the staff

report is that to the north, previously, the planned

land use was -- gosh, what was it? It was rural

single-family residential.

My question is, is with the property to the

north, if it has an Intermediate Density Residential

land use, is that still considered a rural single-family

land use?

MR. CRITTENDEN: So. Yeah. Oh, I'm sorry

about that. So the map that I had wrong, the wrong

property highlighted, is that I had the property just to

the north of the subject property highlighted. And it

had three districts on it. That's the LDR, the LLR and

the OS. Those are all larger-lotted, low-density

residential zoning districts.

When in the analysis we talk about the land use

in that, that comparison, a lot of times what we're

talking about is the actual use of the land, not

necessarily the master-planned land use. You know, we

kind of addressed that in Finding 1 that the land use is

compliant with the expected use, or the proposed use,

and we're talking and saying that we're really talking

about what's happening on those properties. And those



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

properties, it doesn't change the fact that they are

still all single-family on rural, large-lot rural

properties.

There is no IDR directly adjacent to this site.

If there is IDR, it would be up north in Sonoma

Highlands. And this doesn't border that. So.

Does that answer your question?

COMMISSIONER CAREY: It does. Thank you. And

this will be my last land use question. In your

analysis, in the staff's analysis, how does this

proposed conditional use permit advance the land use

plan for this area that the City has, and how does it

meet the Comprehensive Plan policies?

MR. CRITTENDEN: So the two Comprehensive Plan

policies that we felt it helped support were -- let me

look it up here in my notes.

Goal MG2, which talks about adding diversity to

our land use mix and specifically calls out recreational

uses as one of those uses that we're looking to add to

the land use mix, add this as a recreational use, we

felt that it helped support that goal.

And then Policy RC24 talks about supporting

cultural resources. We felt that this was a cultural

resource that would be supported through approval.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: Just a quick follow-up.



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

So it's staff's interpretation that cultural resources

are special events?

MR. CRITTENDEN: Not special events, but the

nature of this special event which was specifically

requested was a roping and dancing horse cultural event,

which qualified under the major recreational facility

definition in the code. That's where we made that

association.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: Thank you, staff. Thank

you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Commissioner Petersen.

COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: Yeah. Ian, it's been a

long time since I, a few years back, had to travel

Dolores quite often. But it's been a few years back

since I have. Do you happen to know the width of

Dolores?

MR. CRITTENDEN: I don't know the width of

Dolores off the top of my head. Shoot, I was looking at

the parcel map for out there, and there is an easement

described. And I don't know what it is off the top of

my head. I'm sorry.

COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: I somewhat remember it

was a very narrow road.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: That --

MR. MARTINI: Commissioner Petersen, for the



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

record, John Martini --

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: The road --

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Excuse me. Can

Mr. Martini speak? Thank you.

MR. MARTINI: Community Services Director.

There's a couple of widths that staff found on Dolores

Drive. So the paved portion in what is the

subdivision's of typical size, I believe, is about 50

feet. And then, as you transition -- and that's the

width of the right-of-way. What's actually paved, in my

opinion, is probably more like about 36 feet. It is a

narrow residential street of a design that was used back

in that time. And I understand the concerns. At that

time, the county didn't require sidewalks. If you go

out there, it is a narrow paved road, with drainage on

either side. It is fairly narrow.

When we researched the land maps that are the

western portion of Dolores -- so this, this area was

created a long time ago by division of land into large

parcels, is what it appears to me, and there have been

many subsequent parcel maps that get us to the parcels

you see today.

What I found of note was the portion,

basically, from where the pavement ends up the dirt

portion appears on the maps as a 60-foot easement that



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

was required by court decree. Now, the documents of

that court decree are very old, and they're not online.

Staff was not able to get them. We would have to

request those court documents from the County Recorder.

They'd probably have to be pulled out of archive at this

point. We didn't have time to look into the nature of

whether this is truly a private road, if the court

decree public access, selective access. We don't know

at this point.

COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: I only just

particularly remember it that when I had to take it at

that time, it seemed to me that it would be very

difficult for two horse trailers to pass each other.

But, like I say, it's been two years since I've been up

in there.

And that's all I was requiring, is that if

anybody really knew the width. I do feel for the

handicapped person and not having sidewalks and the

route that he has to take. And I hope in the future

that will be looked into.

But you answered my question very well, John.

I have one more, more of a comment than it is a

question. But I wanted to clear, since at a very early

age -- I was born and raised one-half a block across

from the rodeo grounds, which was then -- where the



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

county administration offices are now is all

wall-to-wall, row after row of single horse stalls. I

first learned to ride over there at an early age. And

when I'm driving that -- and I also attended a lot of

events over there at an early age. I even had my horses

over there at an early age.

But there's a whale of a lot of difference

between riding stables and events put on. Because most

of the events that are put on, the stock has to be

trucked in. On riding stables, they are residents of

that area. And, therefore, the riding stables, they

ride their horses out on the trails on around, and so on

and so forth, so on and so forth.

So I just want to make that point clear that I

find that there's a whale of a lot of difference between

riding stables and events, especially steer roper

events, type of events.

So thank you. And I appreciate your putting on

that.

COMMISSIONER SHABAZZ: Madam Chair, I just had

one.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Commissioner Shabazz.

COMMISSIONER SHABAZZ: Thank you very much,

Madam Chair.

I would like you to clarify for us. It was



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

brought up in one of the comments. I can't remember the

gentleman that presented it, but he did posit that there

is a 40-acre requirement for these large, this type of a

permit. Can you clarify for us whether that can be done

on a 10-acre lot or if that is indeed a requirement that

there be a 40-acre lot?

MR. CRITTENDEN: So a parcel zoned A-40 is

typically required to be 40 acres. I mean that is part

of the definition of an A-40 lot.

However, when we're talking about older lots,

and, essentially, that's a -- not a new designation, but

its current incarnation is new. We've updated zoning

codes over time, and those designations have changed.

And so we have a lot of lots throughout the City that

have a zoning designation that they don't necessarily

fit.

A good example is SF6 parcels are supposed to

be 6,000-square-foot, and a lot of old neighborhoods you

might have a lot of 5,000-square-foot lots. But that's

a consequence of a lot of different things changing over

the years.

In a case like this, what we would say is that

this parcel is substandard. Any time you have a parcel

that, for whatever reason, was developed legally but

does not meet the current zoning standards, they're



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

substandard or a substandard development.

Substandard developments are planned to the

same as any property meeting those standards is, except

that any development or things that have happened there

had to meet the current requirements.

So an example would be, if your house didn't

meet current setbacks, but we can show that you received

a permit to build your house where it is, that house is

fine at that location. You can't increase that

substandard development. You couldn't build closer to

the property line you're already too close to.

If the example of a conditional use permit on a

parcel, conditional uses are permitted uses subject to

conditional use permits. So that use is already allowed

on the parcel subject to review that it can be

conditioned in such a way that it's compatible with

adjacent uses.

So while I understand the concept of, hey, it

doesn't the current zoning, so you can't do anything,

that's not the way we operate. If you don't meet it,

but that lack of meaning makes you just substandard,

doesn't necessarily make you, you know, unable to do

anything on that property.

COMMISSIONER SHABAZZ: So, in essence, we can

say it was grandfathered as --



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

MR. CRITTENDEN: Grandfathered is a very loose

and generic term, but, yes, it is grandfathered and able

to operate.

COMMISSIONER SHABAZZ: I'm a simple guy.

MR. CRITTENDEN: But. Yeah.

COMMISSIONER SHABAZZ: Okay.

MS. MCCORMICK: Madam Chair?


MS. MCCORMICK: Alyson McCormick, for the

record.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Yes, thank you.

MS. MCCORMICK: If I could add to that.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Please.

MS. MCCORMICK: This use would also be allowed

in an A-5 zoning district, which would be a 5-acre

minimum lot size by a conditional use permit, so the

exact same process that the Commission is going through

right now.


MS. MCCORMICK: Or, excuse me, I should say a

major recreational facility would be allowed in an A-5

zoning district.


MS. MCCORMICK: By a conditional use permit.




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

Do the Commissioners have any other questions?

I have my list now. So, Mr. Medina, if you

could please step back up. Thank you.

Thank you, and I appreciate it.


CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: The last two events that

you had, when Commissioner Read had asked you, one of

the events you had about 75 people, and the other event

you had about a hundred. Okay. How many horse trailers

did you bring in average for those two events?

MR. LUPE MEDINA: Average. So got like, that

was just like three horses per trailer. And you're

asking about the people. But the average riding in a

car is four people.


MR. LUPE MEDINA: You know, per car, that

appears to those, these events.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Okay. So did you have 75

cars in addition to the horse trailers, or what's the

estimate of how many cars and horse trailers did you

have at the event that you had 75 people?

MR. LUPE MEDINA: When we had 75 people, I'm

talking about 25 to 30 cars.


MR. LUPE MEDINA: And probably average of 10



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

horse trailers.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Okay. All right. Thank

you. And it's my understanding that Dolores Way, down

where your property is, is on a private road maintenance

agreement. So that means that all of the people that

live in that area, they all put in to make sure that the

road is up to standards where everybody can drive back

and forth on it. Correct?


CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Okay. At the time --

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Not true.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Please don't interrupt.

Thank you.

So when you did these events, did you check

around with your neighbors, or did you make any -- did

you, because of the fact that the event used it and

probably wrecked up the road, did you make any

concessions to your neighbors to correct any things that

maybe would have damaged the road during those events?

MR. LUPE MEDINA: The last couple events, I

didn't notice any outstanding damage to the road. And

why I'm saying this is because every event, after the

event's over, I personally walk all the way to the paved

road and pick up every piece of trash that is left

there. Even if it is old trash or whatever, I pick



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

everything up myself. I have my team that are helping

me do other stuff. But cleaning up the road, I do it

myself so I can double-check that it's done right, done

the right way.

So I noticed no outstanding damage to the road.

However, we've been putting our money to maintain the

road, when we're being asked for it. And I'm willing to

put, from now on, that the impact -- I know, I

understand the impact is going to be more this year than

the last year. Because we're expecting more people.

Because the type of permit that I kind of am forced to

apply for, which is different from the last year, so

we're expecting more, more traffic. And I understand

it's going to be, it is going to be damage to the road.

So from now on, if I have to double up my money

on the maintenance, or triple up my money that I've

already been putting down on the last three years, I'm

willing to do that.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Okay. And then someone

had spoken that you had applied to do this event at two

other pavilions, and you've been denied?

MR. LUPE MEDINA: No, that's not -- that's --

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Okay. Where have you

applied to do this, you applied to do this event before

you decided to do the special use permit?



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

MR. LUPE MEDINA: I applied to do this event at

Gandolfo Arena about five years ago, and we put down two

events in Gandolfo Arena. And then I applied to do just

a dancing horse show at Vaquero's Night Club parking

lot, and I did get a permit, the special use permit four

times. And we've done the event. So I haven't been

denied, none of my applications for this special use

permit.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Okay. And I apologize.

It's a conditional use permit. Okay. Have you made any

attempts to try to do this event at other pavilions,

like Ironwood or something like that?

MR. LUPE MEDINA: No.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Okay. All right. With

that, I have no further questions. Thank you.


CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Commissioners, anybody

else have any other questions?

COMMISSIONER FEWINS: Commissioner Fewins, I

do.


COMMISSIONER FEWINS: I have some for staff.

If Ian could hop back up here just to get that legwork

out for the night.

Commissioner Fewins. Ian, one of the



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

conditions you stated is about the road improvements.

MR. CRITTENDEN: Sure.

COMMISSIONER FEWINS: And other things. Does

the City have any kind of jurisdiction on private

easement road, roads on -- because there is a condition,

and it says on 17 road maintenance and repair, City and

county. But once you get past the -- and I did drive up

and did look at Dolores Lane, did drive around the

property. I think, it was trash day today, because the

trash truck was out in the middle of the road, and I

couldn't get around it.

And so, when it goes to the private road, and

there's a sign that says private road, what

jurisdictions does the City have on a private road?

MR. CRITTENDEN: So we don't have any

jurisdiction on that road per se. But what we do have

is the ability to condition this, this request to

require the applicant to enter into an agreement that

the County and City can then get a copy of, that shows

that they have entered into an agreement of their --

that shows what their share or their burden for road

maintenance and repair is.

So it's not necessarily that we have

jurisdiction over the road, but it is this is our, the

City's permit to grant. We can condition it that they



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

show some level of maintenance of that road and there's

an agreement that they agreed upon of what that should

be.

COMMISSIONER FEWINS: Okay. And I did ask the

question of the applicant earlier about the fence on the

west side. Or the east side of the property. Excuse

me. Particularly the wind in the afternoon and blows

from the west to the east. And I know you did put a

stipulation about garbage and different garbage

containers and different things.

Could there be a way to condition the east side

of the property to have more of like a chain link fence

that would keep the refuse inside of the property

instead of blowing down to the neighbors on the east?

MR. CRITTENDEN: Absolutely.

MR. ORNELAS: So, having -- this is Armando

Ornelas, Assistant Community Services Director.

Having had that concern raised at the Study

Session, we have taken the liberty of preparing a

potential condition. I will go ahead and provide that

to you, and then I will read it into the record for your

consideration. It could be modified however you see

fit.

COMMISSIONER FEWINS: Thank you, Armando.

And, Ian, one last question.



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

COMMISSIONER FEWINS: On a temporary use permit

that has been granted in the past for this event, the

last two times that it's happened, is there -- when a

temporary use permit is granted, are there noise

decibels requirements on those?

MR. CRITTENDEN: I don't believe that that was

a condition of either of the previous temporary use

permits.

COMMISSIONER FEWINS: Thank you.



Ian, it's not my fault. You got to blame him for

calling you back.

I have one further follow-up question. It just

dawned on me that we have put a lot of conditions on

this applicant, and some of them would need some kind of

oversight to see that they're fulfilled. We have not

that means, do we?

MR. CRITTENDEN: Can you give me an example of

which one you're talking about?

COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: Well, for instance, we

say the road should be watered so often and graveled in

certain places, and these parking lots. So the event

takes place. Say, it's approved and the event takes

place. How do we police these things and make sure that



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

they're done? We don't have that means, do we?

MR. CRITTENDEN: So parts that are things that

we can inspect. As in the requirement for graveling the

parking lot, you know, that's something that we can go

out and inspect and verify that it's done. And then we

could go out intermittently throughout the year to check

that it's being maintained at the level that's required.

As far as dust on the roads, like you said,

that is harder to track. But that is a requirement of

the Washoe County Health District's Air Quality

Management Department to -- they do require that that's

done, and they do have a monitoring protocol to go out

and verify those things are being done.

Unfortunately, most of, you know, these kind of

conditions are a complaint-based thing for monitoring.

Like you said, City staff, any mechanic staff, and both

of us together don't have enough time or manpower to

watch everything. And so we do, we do operate on a

complaint basis. And so if complaint are made that

that's happened, then extra eyes come out to look at it

and verify that things are happening as they ought.

COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: And then there was one

other follow-up I had on the fact that the conditions

that have been placed on there. We are missing one.

Should this application be granted, should we approve



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

it, I think that we should have a condition on there

that it is subject to annual review by this Commission.

MR. ORNELAS: So, Commissioner Petersen, this

is Armando Ornelas, Assistant Community Services

Director. Again, that was an issue that was raised at

the Study Session. We have given that some

consideration.

It is outside, I will say that it is outside

the way or the manner or, frankly, the intention of how

a conditional use permit is intended to work in the

sense that it's intended to allow for a use, once

established, to continue, so long as it, the conditions

of approval, are being satisfied.

Which suggests that, you know, in the event

that the conditions of approval were not being

satisfied, then, you know, we would have to go through

the process of revoking the conditional use permit.

We haven't, since we've gone to, you know, made

the transition from special use permit process to

conditional use permit process, added a condition along

those lines. That's not to say it can't be done. But

it would be out of the ordinary certainly and --

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Mr. Ornelas, could you

speak into the mic.

MR. ORNELAS: Sure.



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

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Because the audience

can't hear you. Thank you.

MR. ORNELAS: It would be -- it's, frankly,

inconsistent with the way a conditional use permit is

approved and, you know, is intended to run with the

property as long as the conditions of approval are

satisfied. That's not to say it couldn't be done.

COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: All right. Well, we'll

cross that bridge when it happens. That's all. Thank

you.


Okay. Commissioner Carey.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: Sure. If there's no other

questions from the Commission, I'll throw it out there

for discussion.

I certainly appreciate the work of our staff

and our friends at Washoe County Planning for all their

work in trying to make this project work with conditions

of approval.

This is a very tough project. It's very

confusing, I think, with the whole Sphere of Influence

issue, I think. One issue I personally have -- I'm not

sure how my colleagues on this Commission feel -- but

it's a little weird, and it's uncomfortable to be voting

for, as a Sparks Planning Commissioner, voting for a



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

City-issued conditional use permit in the county, and

that would be maintained and monitored by the county.

With that being said, there was a lot of

discussion tonight, a lot of comments. Appreciate the

comments, appreciate the emails and calls. But I view

this as strictly a land use issue.

My understanding of the protocol agreement is

that, you know, that the City, this is an area that the

City has identified that we would grow into. And we

want to have input on the land uses and planned land

uses in that area.

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with

the staff recommendation and analysis. To me, it's kind

of tough to meet Finding C1. Certainly appreciate --

and that's compatibility with our Comprehensive Plan and

the land uses.

The one that I have issue with is Policy RC24,

and that's to promote the protection of and minimize

potential impacts on cultural resources within the

City's jurisdiction. Cultural resources, as defined by

federal, state, and the Sparks Municipal Code, are

building sites and other tangible areas that are deemed

historic and that meet four specific criteria outlined

by the Secretary of Interior. Cultural resources are

not special events, and they're not cultural



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

programming.

So I think that that's an incorrect and not

consistent application of that policy. And I'm not able

to meet Finding C1.

To me, RC24, the intent of that policy is to

protect and enhance our cultural resources within the

City. I fail to see how the proposed project will

advance cultural resources. Because under federal,

state and local law, these are not cultural resources.

I'm also -- you know, items just wrap it up.

But I have some trouble with, also, C1. I don't see how

the conditional use permit is compatible with the

planned land uses and helps meet our goals of the

Comprehensive Plan and the policies we have for this

area.

It's my understanding that this was an area

that we chose to grow into. I feel that this proposed

conditional use permit is incompatible with our land use

plans and our Comprehensive Plan goals. I think, major

recreation goals, especially in residential areas and

within the City and in our Sphere of Influence, need to

be compatible, and they need to advance our

Comprehensive Plan. I don't believe that the proposed

project advances our Comprehensive Plan or our land use

goals.



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


Carey.

Any other Commissioners have any comments?

COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: I have a comment.


COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: Since Commissioner

Carey had stole all my thunder. I originally was

discussing this with somebody who cared about this

matter very much. I told her, I said, I don't think

I'll have much to say, because the Commissioners on this

committee with me are very, very sharp people and they

cover all angles.

And it's proved right. But I can't support

this, I must say, because, for exactly what Mr. Carey

said, it is not compatible, in my mind. Any time you

get opposing audience of four to one, it is not a

compatible situation, as far as I'm concerned.

And so I, for that reason, I will not be able

to support this.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Commissioner Read.

COMMISSIONER READ: Yes. Thank you.

I concur with my fellow Commissioners.

Commissioner Carey, Commissioner Petersen, I appreciate

your comments. I also cannot support this conditional

permit based on some of the comments that have already



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

been made.

So, with that said.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Commissioner Shabazz.

COMMISSIONER SHABAZZ: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I do wholeheartedly agree with the assessment,

well, not a hundred percent of the assessment, but the

part where it meets the goals of what we're setting out.

My major concern here is how the applicant will

meet the requirements. The requirements that we set

forth here are gargantuan. And I don't, for that

reason -- I will have, I have difficulty supporting

this. Because I just don't see how the applicant or

any, you know, any, anyone that is not a large

organization can meet all of these requirements a

hundred percent and keep the peace in this neighborhood.

So, for that reason and that reason alone, I

won't be able to support it.


Shabazz.

Any other comments?

MS. MCCORMICK: Madam Chair.


MS. MCCORMICK: If I may. Sorry. Alyson

McCormick, for the record. If Commissioner Shabazz

could elaborate on which of the five findings he



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

believes that his comments go to.

COMMISSIONER SHABAZZ: Absolutely. So what I'm

talking about is mainly the conditions. For instance,

the air quality condition, making sure the road is

watered, how many times it needs to be watered.

The applicant was not able to demonstrate that

he had a plan forward as to when he was going to, you

know, how he was going to do these things. He just said

he was going to meet them.

He also mentioned that he was going to meet

them before he knew what they were. And that, to me,

told me that he did not have a true plan on how he was

going to fund it, how he was going to do it, did he have

contractors already available to available to do it.

And that's my major concern.

It's the air quality piece. It's the proposal

to put new fencing around the property. There's just

quite a few things that the applicant has to meet that I

just can't see any small organization able to do.

MS. MCCORMICK: So --

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: So, Commissioner Shabazz,

I apologize. So you can't make Finding C4, then?

COMMISSIONER SHABAZZ: That is correct.


Any other comments?



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

Mr. Ornelas.

MR. ORNELAS: Madam Chair, I think, you know,

the approach generally here was that the use was allowed

on the site through a conditional use permit process.

So the premise, to some extent, is that it's a permitted

use.

We worked through the process with county

staff. They did not object to the issuance of the

permit but, rather, suggested a series of conditions.

So the staff report that came to you and the

recommendation that came to the Planning Commission was

for approval.

Hearing the comments and the positions that are

being articulated by the Commission this evening, I

would like to ask for a short recess so that staff can

consider what an alternative to the recommendation of

approval would look like and, you know, a possible

motion.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Okay. Is 10 minutes

good?

MR. ORNELAS: Yes, that would suffice.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Okay. We'll be recessing

for 10 minutes, and then we'll be right back.

MR. ORNELAS: Okay. Thank you.

* * * * *



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

(A recess was taken.)

* * * * *

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Mr. Ornelas.

MR. ORNELAS: Chairwoman VanderWell, Armando

Ornelas, Assistant Community Services Director. So --

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Can you move the mic a

little closer, please? Thank you.

MR. ORNELAS: Recurring issue with me. Sorry.

Having heard the Commission's concerns and the

views that are being articulated in terms of the

inability to support this conditional use permit

request, staff has looked and have provide to you an

alternative to Finding C2. And Finding C2 is the one

that we heard maybe most consistently across the board.

And if there's to be a motion made for denial, I would,

I would recommend that it be based on a finding or an

inability to make a particular finding that is shared

across the board by a majority of the Planning

Commission.

So, I think, certainly there's some concerns

that were expressed with regard to the ability to make

Finding C1. There were some condition or concerns

expressed about the inability to make Finding C4. Most

consistently, again, was C2.

So I will review with you what finding, this



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

alternative Finding C2 says, and that is that,

essentially, the application, as submitted and

conditioned, is not compatible with the existing uses of

the adjacent properties. The reasoning being that most

properties within the vicinity of the subject site are

developed as single-family residences on large lots, the

keeping of horses and other livestock is common and

permitted on these properties, but a roping and dancing

cultural horse event is out of character for the area.

So, this is, again, how you might look at it if

you do not feel it's compatible.

The proposed conditions of approval address

operational standards and requirements that may mitigate

those impacts. However, we find, the Planning

Commission would find this use not compatible with the

existing uses on adjacent properties due to the

following: Residential nature of the neighborhood in

which this use is being proposed; and the limited routes

of access to and from the subject property and adjacent

properties; and, thirdly, the inherent intensity, size

and regularity of the proposed event.

So, again, to summarize, this would be an

alternative to the Finding C2 that's in the staff

report. This would support a motion for denial. We

have provided you with an alternative suggested motion



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

based on an inability to make Finding C2.

And with that, I'll address any questions that

you may have.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Do you have any?

Commissioner Shabazz.

COMMISSIONER SHABAZZ: Yeah, Madam Chair. I

just would like to restate, basically, my concerns over

C2. Basically, I'm not satisfied that the condition, as

set forth for the applicant to meet, are proportionate

and will mitigate the concerns of all of the surrounding

community. And that's my major concern.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Commissioner Shabazz,

thank you.

Any other Commissioners have any questions?

Comments?

Thank you, Mr. Ornelas.

Okay. I'll take questions, comments, a motion.

Commissioner Carey.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: I'll give it a shot.

I move to deny conditional use permit CU18-006

associated with PCN18-0013 because of the proposed use,

as submitted and conditioned, is incompatible with the

existing or permitted uses of adjacent properties,

contrary to finding C2, for the following reasons: A

roping and dancing horse cultural event use is out of



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

character for the area; the residential nature of the

neighborhood in which this use is being proposed; the

limited routes and access to and from both the subject

property and adjacent properties; and the inherent

intensity, size and regularity of the proposed event.

COMMISSIONER BROCK: I'll second.

COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: I'll second.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: I got -- I have a motion

and a second. Is there any discussion?

Okay. With that, I'll call for the vote. All

in favor?


CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Any opposed?

Okay. The motion carries. Thank you.

Okay. Next, we'll move along to general

business, selection of a Commissioner to serve on the

Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Commission to fill the

term beginning on July 1st, 2018, from the following

pool of applicants: Commissioner Mary Brock,

Commissioner Scott Carey, Commissioner Shelley Read,

Commissioner Karim Shabazz, and Commissioner Dian

VanderWell. Commissioner VanderWell's term expires on

June 30th.

COMMISSIONER READ: Madam Chair, I'd like to

like to make a motion.



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


COMMISSIONER READ: Thank you.

I'd like to make a motion to reappoint

Commissioner VanderWell to serve on the Truckee Meadows

Regional Planning Commission to fill a term beginning on

July 1st, 2018.

COMMISSIONER CAREY: Second.


a second.

COMMISSIONER FEWINS: Commissioner Fewins.

Second.


a second. Any discussion?

Okay. All in favor?



Next, we'll move along to public comment. Do

we have any requests to speak?

Okay. With that, I'll close the public

comment.

Do we have any comments from the Commissioners?

COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: I would like to make

one comment.


COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: Commissioner Carey



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

already had mentioned how much we do appreciate staff.

I do think they worked extremely hard on this. And it

is awful hard to put conditions together to try to

please every item, that objection to it and for it, and

get the event there.

I think, you did an excellent job. And as I

have stated before, this city has a very fine staff.

And I'm proud to work with you folks.


Petersen.

COMMISSIONER READ: Commissioner Read.


COMMISSIONER READ: I agree with the point you

just stated. I think, the staff is wonderful to work

with. Thank you.

COMMISSIONER SHABAZZ: I would like to just

pile on here a little bit. You know, as we discuss, you

know, items like this, one of the things that makes

Sparks just a great place to live are events like what

the applicant was putting on. Okay. Because, you know,

it shows the deep level of cultural ties that we have to

this land.

So, you know, I truly appreciate, though we did

not vote for this, I do appreciate you bringing this

before this council. And thank you very much.



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

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Any other comments from

Commissioners?

COMMISSIONER FEWINS: Commissioner VanderWell,

I have one more comment.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Yes, Commissioner Fewins.

COMMISSIONER FEWINS: You know, I think, the

main, main reason of this is the compatibility in the

neighborhood. And I would like for -- I think, it's

important to see these kind of cultural, essentially

this kind of nice event, family-oriented event to be in

the City of Sparks.

So I would really like to see that Gandolfo

Arena and the Parks and Rec Commission really look at

Mr. Medina's event that he holds, and especially next

year. I'm kind of am discerning this year that it's all

sold out maybe or filled up for this year. And maybe

they can relook at it in the parks commission to maybe

be able to slot him in somewhere at that location.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Great. Thank you.

With that, I'll take a motion for adjournment.

COMMISSIONER READ: So moved.

COMMISSIONER PETERSEN: So be it.

CHAIRMAN VANDERWELL: Okay. Thank you. And

we're done.

-oOo-

STUDY SESSION CITY OF SPARKS PLANNING COMMISSION …Jun 07, 2018 · Sparks of a site 1.9 acres in size located at 2101 Sullivan Lane, Sparks, NV. Upon annexation the parcels shall

Documents