Planning Commission Minutes 07-17-14

CITY OF SPARKS PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JULY 17, 2014
Planning Commissioners:
Barbara Sanders - Chair
James Fewins - Vice Chair
George Cammarota
Tom Lean
Mitch Nowicki
Art Sperber
Doug Voelz
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
Barbara Sanders, James Fewins, Thomas Lean, George Cammarota, Mitch
Nowicki, Art Sperber, and Doug Voelz.
ABSENT:
None
STAFF:
City Planner Armando Ornelas, Chief Assistant City Attorney Shirle Eiting, Senior
Planner Karen Melby, Senior Planner Tim Thompson, Senior Code Enforcement
Officer Joe Rodriguez, Administrative Assistant Janet Stout, and Administrative
Secretary Marilie Smith.
3. PUBLIC COMMENT
None
4. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
MOTION: Planning Commissioner Voelz moved to approve the agenda.
SECOND: Commissioner Lean.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAINERS:
ABSENT:
Passed.
Planning Commissioners Sanders, Nowicki, Sperber, Fewins, and
Cammarota.
None.
None.
None.
Page 2 of 6
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Review and possible approval of the minutes from the June 19, 2014
Planning Commission meeting.
MOTION: Planning Commissioner Lean moved to approve the minutes from the June 19, 2014
meeting.
SECOND: Commissioner Nowicki
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAINERS:
ABSENT:
Planning Commissioners Sanders, Fewins, Cammarota, and Sperber.
None.
Commissioner Voelz.
None
Passed.
6.
ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
There were no announcements or committee reports.
7.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
There were no informational items.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
8. PCN14016 – GOLDEN TRIANGLE, LLC, Consideration of and possible action to rezone from A40 (Agriculture) to NUD (New Urban District) on a site totaling approximately 43.8 acres located at
6000 Vista Boulevard, Sparks, NV.
An agenda item from Senior Planner Karen Melby for consideration and possible recommendation
to forward to City Council the approval of a zone change from A-40 (Agriculture) to NUD (New
Urban District). This zone change request is in conjunction with a master plan amendment request
on the same property. The master plan amendment request was approved at the June 19, 2014,
Planning Commission Meeting. The Master Plan Amendment is scheduled to be heard at the
Regional Planning Commission Meeting of July 23, 2014. Upon approval of the rezone request,
the applicant will submit a handbook for approval to both the Planning Commission and City
Council before development can begin.
Melissa Lindell with Wood Rodgers, representing the applicant, introduced herself. Ms. Lindell
stated that Ms. Melby did a great job summarizing the project. This is one of the last parcels in the
area zoned A-40 while all of the rest are NUD.
The public hearing was opened.
The public hearing was closed.
MOTION: Planning Commissioner Voelz moved to forward a recommendation of approval to City
Council for the rezoning associated with PCN14016 based on the Findings Z1 through Z3, and the
facts supporting these Findings as set forth in the staff report.
SECOND: Commissioner Cammarota.
City of Sparks | Community Services Department | 431 Prater Way, Sparks, Nevada 89431
Page 3 of 6
AYES: Planning Commissioners Sanders, Fewins, Lean, Nowicki, Sperber,
NAYS:
None.
ABSTAINERS: None.
ABSENT:
None.
Passed.
9. PCN14017 – SACRAMENTO VALLEY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, DBA VERIZON WIRELESS,
Consideration and possible approval of a Special Use Permit request to allow for the construction
of a new 90-foot tall cell tower on a site 0.85 acres in size in the TOD/MU-C (Transit Oriented
Development/Mixed Use-Commercial) zoning district located at 2380 Oddie Blvd. Sparks, NV.
An agenda item from Senior Planner Tim Thompson presenting a special use permit request to
allow for the construction of a 90-foot cell tower located on the southwest corner of a parcel at El
Rancho and Greenbrae west of the former Lowes building. The applicant (Verizon) is seeking to
improve communication service in the City of Sparks. The Oddie Boulevard/El Rancho Drive area
suffers from poor service. Generally, cell towers are permitted through the administrative review
process, however, the applicant in this case is requesting to reduce the setbacks from the property
lines. If the setback requirements had been met upon submittal, the tower would have been
approved at 90 feet tall.
The minimum setback requirement is 75% of the height of the tower. The tower is proposed at 90
feet which requires a minimum setback of 67.5 feet. The applicant is proposing a reduction to the
setback from the west and south lot lines. The proposed setback would be approximately 20 feet.
Considering the size of the parcel and its proximity to the multi-family residential to the north, it is
staff’s opinion the tower has been located in the most appropriate location on the parcel.
Mr. Thompson further stated that there is a requirement to screen the perimeter of the equipment
enclosure with landscaping or other alternative. The applicant is proposing to construct a 6-foot tall
chain link fence with barbed wire on top. The Municipal code does allow barbed wire to be
installed provided it is at a minimum height of eight (8) feet.
Mr. Thompson identified the important criteria submitted by the applicant with regard to the site
selection study. The first criterion of the applicant is to find a site within the “search ring” and then
begin the following process; find a willing property owner, determine whether construction is
feasible, consider access to the site and existing utility infrastructure, and comply with local zoning
requirements.
Staff believes that the request to the setback reduction is warranted and furthers the goals of the
Wireless Telecommunications Ordinance. Staff is recommending approval as submitted, however,
remains concerned about the visual impacts of the structure. Alternative tower designs were briefly
discussed, however, it was stated that they are not required. The two other designs for
consideration are a flag pole or a radome tower.
Commissioner Cammarota inquired about the landscaping requirements. Tim Thompson stated he
envisioned a five-foot wide landscape planter around the perimeter with tall, columnar type shrub
plants possibly prickly in nature. Alternatives might be a block wall, however, the concern would be
graffiti. The City will need to work with the applicant to meet the screening requirements.
Commissioner Voelz inquired about the ongoing requirements to make certain the landscaping is
maintained and kept alive in the event the applicant chooses to put up a fence with shrubs around
the outside of the enclosure. Mr. Thompson stated that a condition of approval in that case would
make it a requirement that the applicant keep the landscaping viable.
City of Sparks | Community Services Department | 431 Prater Way, Sparks, Nevada 89431
Page 4 of 6
Commissioner Lean asked if there was any reason why the applicant couldn’t put in a 50 foot
monopole versus a 90-foot cell tower. Mr. Thompson stated he thought the 90-foot cell tower
option was selected to gain the coverage that is needed for the area. Commissioner Lean also
expressed concern regarding the tower having an anti-climbing device. Mr. Thompson could not
address the concern and the applicant was invited to speak.
Rich Johnson, with Complete Wireless Consulting, Inc., representing the applicant, introduced
himself. Mr. Johnson first addressed the height of the tower. The proposed height of the tower is
necessary to provide line of site connectivity between itself and other existing towers to provide
optimum coverage. Anti-climbing devices are included in the construction documents and will be
included in the building permit submittal.
Commissioner Cammarota asked if roof-top installations had been considered. Mr. Johnson stated
that, yes, they had considered that, but when you add a 40 foot structure on top of an existing
structure it becomes just as obtrusive as a stand-alone structure. If the building is tall enough on
its own, that is a viable option
Comissioner Voelz asked what the dimensions of the area to be enclosed were around the tower.
Mr. Johnson stated it is a 40 x 40 enclosure.
Commission Sperber inquired as to the generator and the noise associated with its operation
during testing and power outages. Mr. Johnson stated that the generator would operate on a very
limited basis. Testing would be restricted to normal business hours. The only other time the
generator would run would be during power outages. Mr. Johnson also stated that the applicant
would adhere to the requirements that the generator would not exceed 60 decibels at the property
line.
The public hearing was opened.
The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Voelz asked if any further discussion was done with staff regarding alternative
antenna structures or if staff was looking for direction from the Commissioners with respect to the
design of the antenna structure. Mr. Thompson stated the tower would be permitted as submitted,
however, approval may be conditioned according to the preference of the Commission.
Commissioner Voelz stated that in light of the negative feedback received by way of letters
addressed to the Planning Commission regarding the tower, it may be appropriate to look at
alternatives to the tower structure. Mr. Johnson stated a radome design can be done and he was
open to discussion regarding that design.
MOTION: Planning Commissioner Voelz moved to approve the Special Use Permit associated
with PCN14017 to allow for the construction of a new 90-foot tall cell tower adopting findings S1
through S6 and the facts supporting these Findings as set forth in the staff report, subject to the
Conditions of Approval 1 through 7 with the addition of the amended condition associated with
Condition 7 as follows; Noise Attenuation: The applicant shall attenuate any noise related to the
operation of the generator so as to not exceed 60 decibels at the property line to the approval of
the administrator prior to the issuance of the special use permit for the project. The applicant shall
only operate the generator for maintenance purposes between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00
p.m.; and the addition of Condition 8 as follows; Alternative Tower Structure: The applicant shall
construct an alternative tower structure, which may include a flag pole, radome tower, or other
innovative camouflaging techniques to the approval of the administrator prior to the issuance of a
building permit for the project.
City of Sparks | Community Services Department | 431 Prater Way, Sparks, Nevada 89431
Page 5 of 6
SECOND: Commissioner Fewins.
AYES: Planning Commissioners Sanders, Lean, Nowicki, Sperber, and Cammarota.
NAYS:
None.
ABSTAINERS: None.
ABSENT:
None.
Passed.
10. CA-5-14, CITY OF SPARKS, - Consideration of and possible action on an ordinance amending
Title 7 (Section 7.16 Nuisances) of the Sparks Municipal Code, including the addition of a
“Property Preservation” section, and Title 20 (Section 20.35 Recreational Vehicle Storage) of the
Sparks Municipal Code, and other matters properly related thereto.
An agenda item from City Planner Armando Ornelas recommending approval to the City Council of
CA-5-14 to amend Title 7 of the Sparks Municipal Code. The agenda item was presented by
Senior Code Enforcement Officer Joe Rodriguez.
Mr. Rodriguez opened the presentation by identifying the history behind the development of the
amendment to Title 7 (Section 7.16 Nuisances) and the addition of the “Property Preservation”
section. In November 2013, the City Council directed staff to work on a limited set of property
conservation/maintenance amendments to the Sparks Municipal Code to address some of the
most common complaints. Staff presented the draft amendments to the Sparks Citizens Advisory
Committee (SCAC) on April 10, 2014. The proposed amendments were endorsed by SCAC.
Following this, a public information meeting was held on May 6, 2014, and over 125 people
attended. The notices for this meeting were distributed to Sparks property owners as inserts in the
April sewer bills and the meeting was also publicized through local media.
The public input was shared with the City Council at a workshop on May 27, 2014, at which time
staff was directed to draft code amendments to Title 7 (Section 7.16 Nuisances), and the addition
of a “Property Preservation” section, and Title 20 (Section 20.35 Recreational Vehicle Storage).
In summary, the proposed code changes provide new definitions of “minor vehicle repair”, “major
repair work”, “inoperable vehicles” and redefine definitions of “wrecked and/or junked
items/vehicles”, and “recreational vehicle”. The new and/or redefined definitions will help both code
enforcement officers and residents understand the terms and expectations of the code better.
Mr. Rodriguez presented a series of slides depicting common problems code enforcement officers
are faced with. The slides showed violations, as well as, non-violations that could potentially be
corrected as a result of the code amendments proposed. The proposed amendments would
provide a platform for enforcement officers to address more issues.
Mr. Ornelas explained that residents who are not out of compliance with the current code may be
violating the new code. This may cause some unhappiness amongst some residents but they
would have a mechanism to appeal a violation and the City will utilize a hearing officer to address
those appeals.
In closing, Mr. Ornelas shared the tentative timeline for the proposed code amendments. Following
action of the Planning Commission, the code amendments will be presented to the City Council for
first and second readings at the August 11 and August 25 meetings respectively. A public
education campaign targeting property owners and property managers will begin October 30,
1014. The effective date of the new property conservation code provisions is tentatively scheduled
for January 1, 2015.
City of Sparks | Community Services Department | 431 Prater Way, Sparks, Nevada 89431
Page 6 of 6
It is the goal of the Code Enforcement Division to move to a more proactive way of doing business
rather complaint-driven as is the current process.
Commissioner Fewins expressed concern regarding the residents who choose not to comply with
the code. Mr. Ornelas stated there are always going to be the difficult cases and those very difficult
non-compliant property owners. The code enforcement officers will do their best to seek
compliance from all.
Public hearing was opened.
Public hearing was closed.
MOTION: Planning Commissioner Lean moved to forward a recommendation of approval to City
Council of CA-5-14 to amend Title 7 (Section 7.16 Nuisances), including the addition of a “Property
Preservation” section, and Title 20 (Section 20.35 Recreational Vehicle Storage) of the Sparks
Municipal Code.
SECOND: Commissioner Voelz.
AYES: Planning Commissioners Sanders, Fewins, Cammarota, Nowicki, and Sperber.
NAYS:
None.
ABSTAINERS: None.
ABSENT:
None.
Passed.
GENERAL BUSINESS
11. PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
12. COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS
There were no comments from the Commissioners.
13. *ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 7:16 p.m.
City of Sparks | Community Services Department | 431 Prater Way, Sparks, Nevada 89431

Download Report