• All
  • Businesses
  • Committees
  • Departments
  • FAQs
  • News
  • Resources
  • Events

{{item.title | truncate 40}}

{{item.description | truncate 130}}

{{item.categories.join(', ')}}
Sorry, there are no results matching your criteria.
Menu Close

Sparks City Council Meeting 6/11/2018

Planning and Zoning Public Hearings and Action Items: 11.1

Title: Consideration of and possible action on an appeal of the Sparks Planning Commission’s decision to deny a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a major recreational facility (roping and dancing horse cultural arena) on a parcel 10.66 acres in size subject to the A-40 (Agriculture – 40-acre minimum lot size) zoning, located at 7660 Patrina Way, Washoe County, NV. (PCN18-0013)
Petitioner/Presenter: Lupe Medina, Applicant/Ian Crittenden, Senior Planner
Recommendation: The Planning Commission denied this request. On appeal, the City Council may affirm, modify, remand for further consideration, or reverse the Planning Commission’s decision.
Financial Impact: None.
Business Impact (Per NRS 237):
    
A Business Impact Statement is not required because this is not a rule.
Agenda Item Brief:

On May 3, 2018, the Sparks Planning Commission denied a Conditional Use Permit request to allow a major recreational use (roping and dancing horse cultural arena) on a site 10.66 acres in size located at 7660 Patrina Way, Washoe County, Nevada.  Lupe Medina, the applicant, has appealed the Planning Commission’s decision to the City Council.



Background:

The address of the subject property is 7660 Patrina Way (Exhibit 1 – Vicinity Map). The primary use of the property is a single-family residence. This request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Major Recreational Facility, if approved, would permit an additional seasonal and intermittent use – roping and dancing horse cultural events – on this property.

This site is located in unincorporated Washoe County but 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. The site was included in the Sparks Sphere of Influence by the Regional Planning Governing Board on July 27, 2006.  The City of Sparks subsequently master planned the area, by PCN06100, from GR (General Rural) to OS (Open Space/Rural Reserve) in 2007.  The master plan designation was updated again through adoption of the West Pyramid Plan in 2008 to the current split designation of OS (Open Space) and LLR (Large Lot Residential) (Exhibit 2 – Comprehensive Plan Land Use). 

Pursuant to NRS 278.02788, the City has building, planning, and zoning jurisdiction over areas in the City of Sparks Sphere of Influence.  However, the Protocol Agreement adopted by the City Council through Resolution 2939 and amended by Resolution A-2939 limits the City of Sparks’s jurisdiction to planning.  This site has a GR (General Rural) zoning designation in Washoe County, which correlates to a City of Sparks zoning designation of A-40 (Agriculture – 40-acre minimum lot size) (Exhibit 3 – Annexation Zoning Conversion Chart).      

The use of the property for roping and dancing horse cultural events is not specifically identified or defined in Title 20 of the Sparks Municipal Code. City staff have categorized the proposed use as a Major Recreational Facility.  SMC 20.08.02 defines a Major Recreational Facility as:

Large, generally outdoor facilities, such as: outdoor roller or ice-skating rinks; sports stadiums and arenas; amusement and theme parks; racetracks; driving ranges; swimming or wave pools; entertainment complexes; amphitheaters; drive-in theaters; archery or shooting ranges; riding stables; campgrounds; recreational vehicle parks; miniature golf; golf courses, driving ranges, and country clubs, marinas, and similar facilities.

The proposed use is similar to other uses encompassed by the definition such as “sports stadiums and arenas” and “entertainment complexes.” The proposed use is also outdoor, and though not a riding stable, involves the riding of horses.

A Major Recreational Facility is permitted in the A-40 zoning district subject to a Conditional Use Permit. In 2017, the applicant twice hosted roping and dancing horse cultural events with approval through the City’s Temporary Use Permit process.  The applicant now proposes to host this event more frequently – specifically once a month between April and October – than the Temporary Use Permit process is designed to accommodate, requiring the use to be considered a permanent one that requires a Conditional Use Permit.  In his application for a Conditional Use Permit, Mr. Medina stated he expected no more than 250 people to attend each event.

City staff coordinated with Washoe County staff throughout the Conditional Use Permit review process. Because the City of Sparks exercises only planning jurisdiction, Washoe County staff were consulted regarding building, public safety (fire and police), engineering, and business licensing approvals and operations because all these services are the responsibility of Washoe County at this location.  City staff recommended approval to the Planning Commission of the Conditional Use Permit associated with PCN18-0013 subject to 17 Conditions of Approval, most of which would be the responsibility of Washoe County to enforce.  (Exhibit 4 – Planning Commission Staff Report).

On May 3, 2018, the Planning Commission reviewed and denied this request. On May 14, 2018, the applicant submitted a request to the City Clerk appealing the Planning Commission’s decision. (Exhibit 5 – Appeal).



Analysis:

At the May 3, 2018 public hearing, the Planning Commission received a large amount of public comment on the request for the Conditional Use Permit associated with PCN18-0013. While several persons spoke in favor of the request, the majority of the public comment was in opposition.  Opponents expressed various concerns about the request regarding noise, the proposed sale of alcohol, dust, and flies. Many of the opponents also expressed concerns about the proposed use’s impact on the condition of Dolores Drive and its inadequacy to handle event traffic. (Exhibit 6 – Report of Action). 

The Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny this request based on an inability to make Finding C2. Finding C2 states:

The Conditional Use will be compatible with the existing or permitted uses of adjacent properties.

The Planning Commission decided they could not make this Finding, as stated in their motion for denial:

I move to deny the Conditional Use Permit CU18-0006 associated with PCN18-0013 because 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 character for the area;
  • The residential nature of the neighborhood in which the use is being proposed;
  • The limited routes of access to and from both the subject property and adjacent properties; and
  • The inherent intensity, size, and regularity of the proposed event.

In his appeal letter, the applicant proposes two changes to his original Conditional Use Permit request. The first is a reduction in the number of persons attending each event from no more than 250 to a maximum of 100. The second proposed change is that no alcohol would be sold at the events.  

The City Council has the following options: 1) affirm the Planning Commission’s decision; 2) modify the Planning Commission’s decision; 3) remand the case back to the Planning Commission with direction, such as asking the Planning Commission to consider the applicant’s proposed changes or other information that the applicant may submit prior to or at the City Council public hearing on the appeal; or 4) reverse the Planning Commission’s decision and approve the Conditional Use Permit associated with PCN18-0013. If the City Council decides to approve the Conditional Use Permit it will need to make Findings C1 through C5 and specify the Conditions of Approval.



Alternatives:
  1. The City Council could affirm the denial of the Conditional Use Permit.
  2. The City Council could modify the Planning Commission’s decision denying the Conditional Use Permit.
  3. The City Council could remand the case back to Planning Commission.
  4. The City Council could reverse the Planning Commission’s decision and approve the Conditional Use Permit with conditions.


Recommended Motion:

The Planning Commission denied this request.  Possible motions include the following.

To affirm the Planning Commission decision denying the Conditional Use Permit:

I move to affirm the Planning Commission’s decision denying the Conditional Use Permit CU18-0006 associated with PCN18-0013 because 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 character for the area;
  • The residential nature of the neighborhood in which the use is being proposed;
  • The limited routes of access to and from both the subject property and adjacent properties; and
  • The inherent intensity, size, and regularity of the proposed event.

To modify the Planning Commission decision denying the Conditional Use Permit:

I move to modify the Planning Commission’s decision denying the Conditional Use Permit CU18-0006 associated with PCN18-0013 because the proposed use will not be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan contrary to Finding C1, and the proposed conditions will not adequately mitigate the identified impacts of the proposed use contrary to Finding C4, for the following reasons:

  • A roping and dancing horse cultural event use is out of character for the area;
  • The residential nature of the neighborhood in which the use is being proposed;
  • The limited routes of access to and from both the subject property and adjacent properties; and
  • The inherent intensity, size, and regularity of the proposed event.

To remand the request to the Planning Commission:

I move to remand the request for a Conditional Use Permit associated with PCN18-0013 to the Planning Commission for consideration of the applicant’s proposed changes and any corresponding revision of or additions to the Conditions of Approval.

To approve the Conditional Use Permit:

I move to reverse the Planning Commission’s decision denying the Conditional Use Permit CU18-0006 associated with PCN18-0013, adopting Findings C1 through C5, and the facts supporting these findings as set forth in the staff report for the Planning Commission public hearing of May 3, 2018, and subject to the revised Conditions of Approval.



Attached Files:
     01 - PCN18-0013_Appeal.pdf
     02 - PCN18-0013_VicinityMap.pdf
     03 - PCN18-0013_CompPlanLandUse.pdf
     04 - PCN18-0013_AnnexationZoningConversionChart.pdf
     05 - PCN18-0013_PCStaffReport.pdf
     06 - PCN18-0013_ReportofAction.pdf
     6-11-2018 - - PUBLIC INPUT - 11.100000 - DISTRIBUTED AT MEETING BY IAN CRITTENDEN.tif
     6-11-2018 - - - 11.100000 - FROM APPLICANT Y.MEDINA-DISTRIBUTED AT MEETING BY IAN CRITTENDEN.tif

Return To Meeting