Sparks Planning Commission unanimously forwards 5 Bridges Village 1B major deviation and tentative map to City Council

The Sparks Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward to City Council staff recommendations to renew entitlements for the 5 Bridges Village 1B subdivision, including a major deviation that would lower the MF‑2 minimum residential density from 12 dwelling units per acre to 6.17 dwelling units per acre and a tentative map for 23 two‑unit buildings (46 total units).

City planner Sienna Reed, presenting the grouped items, said, "As proposed, the major deviation request seeks to reduce the required minimum, minimum residential density that applies in the MF 2 zoning district from 12 dwelling units per acre to 6.17 dwelling units per acre." Reed told commissioners that the proposal would allow 46 dwelling units on the subject parcel and that approval of the tentative map would be contingent on approval of the major deviation.

The tentative map, Reed said, proposes 23 two‑unit buildings on lots that total 2.14 acres with 4.85 acres of common area; the application shows 130 parking spaces across garages, driveways and surface lots. Reed noted a potential parking shortfall if every duplex were built as a three‑bedroom unit, estimating that would require 138 spaces and recommending the applicant provide final floor plans and a house‑model mix before approval of a final map.

Reed also outlined mandatory findings and conditions: staff described five major‑deviation findings (MD1–MD5) and 12 tentative‑map findings (t1–t12). The record shows staff required an updated traffic analysis (condition 15) to evaluate off‑site improvement thresholds before a final map is approved, a final stormwater and drainage plan and a geotechnical report prior to final map approval, and architectural approvals and at least three community amenities before final map (conditions 19–21). Because the site is outside the fire department's four‑minute travel‑time standard, the units will be required to have sprinklers unless response time changes.

Residents testified during the public‑hearing period with concerns about traffic and safety. Alicia Meyer, who identified herself as a nearby resident, said she was concerned about existing congestion and the timing of planned regional work: "I certainly don't wanna wait till 2034 for the rest of, Sun Valley Boulevard to go through," she said, arguing that current development has already narrowed sidewalks and constrained the roadway. New resident Juntasan Hennis said egress from the 5 Bridges community can be slow and unsafe: "To make a left towards Pyramid, to get out, it took me 25 minutes to make a left turn today trying to get here," he said, and stressed risks during emergency events with limited exit points.

Staff responded with technical context. Reed cited a traffic‑study memorandum estimating 434 average daily trips (43 in the PM peak hour) and said the updated study found the Highland Ranch Parkway/5 Ridges Parkway intersection would operate at acceptable levels of service for Village 1B trips; staff noted a left‑turn movement was modeled at level‑of‑service E but that the queue was estimated to be less than one vehicle length and not to occur within the public right of way. City engineer Amber Sosa told the commission the widening of Highland Ranch from the project entrance to Pyramid is scheduled to start in September 2025 and described a roughly 16‑month project schedule that will include underground utility, drainage and grading work in fall and winter followed by roadway widening in spring: "The widening Of Highland from the project entrance from 5 Bridal down to Pyramid is scheduled to start in September 2025. We're actively working with the developer. They have a contractor on board, and they'll be looking to do major underground utility and drainage and grading through the fall and winter."

After questions and public comment, commissioners moved to forward approval recommendations to City Council. A motion to forward a recommendation of approval for the major deviation (MAJ25‑0001) adopting findings MD1–MD5 and subject to conditions 1–3 passed unanimously. A subsequent motion to forward a recommendation of approval for the tentative map (STM25‑0002) adopting findings t1–t12 and subject to conditions 1–22 likewise passed unanimously.

Next steps: both recommendations will be considered by City Council; final map certification and recording, and satisfaction of conditions identified by staff (traffic analysis, utility capacity confirmation, stormwater and geotechnical reports, architectural approvals, and required community amenities), are required before the city can approve a final map and allow construction to proceed.