City of Reno
Nevada

Ordinance
7029

Staff Report (For Possible Action): Ordinance Introduction - Bill No. 7005 Case No. LDC17-00049 (Sierra Senior Care PUD Amendment) Ordinance to amend Title 18, Chapter 18.08 of the Reno Municipal Code, entitled "Zoning", Section 18.08.102(b).1351, to change the text in the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Design Standards to: add a 32 bed memory care facility and an 82 bed assisted living facility as an alternative to a 48 bed memory care and a 12 unit independent living facility on the north ±3.2 acres of the ±5.09 acre PUD located in the area bounded by Mountain View Drive to the north and Beck Street to the south in the PUD zone; together with other matters properly relating thereto. This item was continued from the August 23, 2017 City Council meeting.

Information

Department:Community Development - Planning & EngineeringSponsors:
Category:OrdinanceWards:Ward 2

Recommendation and Proposed Motion

Recommendation:  The Planning Commission recommends Council adopt the requested zoning text amendment by ordinance, subject to compliance with Condition A, which includes the changes to the PUD Development Design Guidelines.

Proposed Motion:  I move to uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve the Minute Order attached hereto as Exhibit B; and refer Bill No. _____ for a second reading and adoption.

 

Staff Report Formal Body

 

             

             

                           

Summary:  This is a request for a zoning map amendment to amend the Sierra Senior Care Planned Unit Development (PUD) Handbook.  This amendment would allow for the development of a 32 bed memory care facility and an 82 bed assisted living facility as an alternative to a 48 bed memory care and a 12 unit independent living facility on the north ±3.2 acres of the ±5.09 acre PUD.  The ±5.09 acre site is located in the area bounded by Mountain View Drive to the north and Beck Street to the south in the PUD zone.  The site has Master Plan land use designations of Mixed Residential (3-21 units/acre) and Urban Residential/Commercial.

 

The Planning Commission recommends Council approve the requested amendments to the Design Guidelines by ordinance, subject to compliance with Condition A.  Exhibit A, attached to the report, contains the findings (Minute Order) Council must make to approve this project as required by NRS 278A.  It is recommended the Council incorporate these findings by reference as part of their motion.  All of the proposed changes to the handbook are contained in Exhibit B attached to this report.  A full analysis of the project can be found within the Planning Commission staff report in Exhibit C. Planning Commission minutes can also be found in Exhibit D

 

The existing Sierra Senior Care PUD Handbook, as most recently amended in February, 2015, can be found at the following link; and may also be reviewed at the Community Development Department including all appendices.  http://www.reno.gov/home/showdocument?id=50781

 

Previous Council Action: 

 

August 23, 2017                            This item was continued to ensure the correct exhibits were attached to the staff report.

 

Ayes:                            Bobzien, Brekhus, Delgado, Duerr, Jardon, McKenzie, Schieve

Nays:                            None

Abstain:              None                                                        Absent:              None

 

Background:  At the July 5, 2017 Planning Commission public hearing, the applicant’s representative provided an overview of the current request and a history of the site including prior proposals on the site.  She highlighted the standards that address architecture, building massing and scale, lighting, signs, landscaping, screening, setbacks, and parking. 

 

One of the issues raised during the review of previous proposals and in some of the comments received by neighbors during the outreach focused on the compatibility of the proposed facility with the surrounding neighborhood.  Several residents believed that the proposed facility was commercial in character and did not adequately transition to the surrounding uses.  The applicant’s representative explained that the assisted living and memory care use was considered a residential use in the City’s code and would be more residential in nature than the prior proposal of a skilled nursing facility.  She stated that residents will reside longer term and there will be less employees than in a skilled nursing facility.  She also explained that standards in the PUD handbook require a large landscape buffer and berm along Mountain View Drive, a setback of 160 feet from Mountain View Drive for the two story portion of the proposed facility, and a single story porte-cochere transitioning to the two story component of the building.  She explained that the surrounding properties to the south contain two to three story structures while the properties to the north contain primarily single story structures.  With the proposed standards, the applicant’s representative affirmed that the proposed facility will be designed in a manner to transition from the single family neighborhood located to the north to the higher density neighborhood located to the south. 

 

The applicant’s representative also explained the potential impacts from traffic.  It was noted that there are two ways to calculate potential traffic generation: 1) by number of beds; or 2) by number of employees.  While the number of employees may be a more accurate way of calculating trip generation, it was explained that tracking the number of employees is cumbersome and that a change in operator could result in an increase or decrease in number of employees.  Calculations were provided by number of beds and number of employees to show a comprehensive overview of potential traffic impacts.  The applicant’s representative stated that when comparing the proposed amendment to the PUD and the currently entitled project, there would be a slight increase in traffic generation.  However, all streets surrounding the project would be well below the level of service thresholds established by the City with the proposed amendment. 

 

 

Existing PUD

(by Employees)

Proposed

(by Employees)

Difference

Existing PUD

(by Beds)

Proposed

(by Beds)

Difference

ADT

286

312

+26

363

497

+134

AM PHT

21

25

+4

23

30

+7

PM PHT

27

34

+7

31

42

+11

 

The applicant’s representative also explained the access and circulation requirements within the handbook.  Employees would be required to enter from Beck Street and visitors would access the site from Mountain View Drive.  She explained that the PUD handbook required an emergency access gate across the drive aisle to block access for non-emergency vehicular traffic.  This was proposed in order to help disperse traffic to different streets and avoid putting all traffic from the northern portion of the PUD out to Mountain View Drive as currently approved. 

 

Pedestrian safety and traffic calming was also discussed.  The applicant’s representative noted that two speed humps have already been installed along Mountain View Drive, one of which was required by the PUD handbook concurrent with the development of the 44 unit multifamily development, and the other was installed by the City at the request of the public when the previous proposal for the property was denied.  The currently proposed amendment to the PUD handbook requires the installation of a flashing crosswalk fixture at or near the intersection of Mountain View Drive and Lakeside Drive concurrent with the development of the assisted living/memory care facility.  This is in addition to the new sidewalk along the Mountain View Drive frontage.

 

The applicant’s representative highlighted the extensive outreach to the surrounding neighbors.  She stated that five neighborhood meetings were conducted.  Notices for two of the meetings were sent to all property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject site and to anyone who had signed the petition for the prior project.  Even with the large number of notices sent out, there was not a large turn-out at the neighborhood meetings. 

 

Staff’s presentation reiterated the applicant’s description of the project and compared the project to the various proposed amendments to the PUD since its adoption in 2011.  Staff also noted that at the time of the hearing there were two letters and one phone call in opposition of the project and two letters in support of the project.  Those letters that were received before the publication of the Planning Commission staff report were included as attachments and can be found in Exhibit C.  Those that were received after publication have been included with the Public Comments received at the Planning Commission hearing in Exhibit E.  During the public comment period, five people spoke or submitted comments in favor of the project and four people spoke or submitted comments against the project during the public comment period.  Comments in favor of the project commend the applicant on their public outreach and cooperation with the neighborhood, particularly in addressing concerns related to overall traffic, traffic safety, landscaping, and architecture.  Comments against the project were with regards to traffic impacts and general intensification of the use from what is currently approved, the incompatibility of the proposed use with the surrounding neighborhood, and the preference for the cottages along Mountain View Drive. 

 

Discussion: Questions and discussion from the commissioners primarily centered on three main topics: parking, traffic and access, and the transition of the facility to surrounding development. 

 

One Commissioner asked why parking was being provided above the code requirement of one parking space per 6.6 beds (18 parking spaces) when the City is trying to encourage less parking and the use of multiple modes of transportation.  City staff and the applicant’s representative explained that through numerous neighborhood and public meetings from the creation of the PUD to present, the surrounding residents have expressed concerns with the potential for parking to spill over from the subject site into the surrounding neighborhood.  Therefore, the applicant has proposed a parking standard of 0.675 parking spaces per bed (77 parking spaces), which is based on the characteristics of the other facilities managed by this specific operator.  The one Commissioner that was concerned with parking stated that while he did not necessarily agree with providing more parking, he did see that the applicant was trying to address the surrounding resident’s concerns.  

 

The primary discussion point for the commission was traffic.  The Commissioners asked a number of questions about the functionality of the ingress/egress off of Beck Street and Mountain View Drive and how traffic would generally be distributed.  It was explained by the applicant’s representative that employees would access the site off of Beck Street and visitors would access the site off of Mountain View Drive.  An emergency vehicle gate separating the two parking lots would prevent through-access and assist in distributing traffic onto the surrounding streets.  During prior neighborhood meetings and public hearings, surrounding neighbors, planning commissioners, and city council members mentioned concerns with placing all of the traffic resulting from the development of the north ±3.2 acres of the PUD onto Mountain View Drive due to the narrowness of the street.  The applicant’s representative mentioned that this was taken into consideration when placing the gate.  She also noted that there were three shifts for employees that changed during non-peak hours (6:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.; 2:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.; and 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.) and typical visitor hours would be from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.  Most Commissioners agreed that the location of the gate was the most logical placement and would result in less of a traffic impact to the surrounding streets than if the traffic was evenly distributed between Mountain View Drive and Beck Street.  One of the Commissioners asked about the potential for increased development in this area in order to determine if the traffic generated by the subject property would be compounded on the surrounding street network.  Staff explained that there were only a few vacant or underutilized parcels surrounding the area and they were not likely to generate large traffic volumes.  Therefore, the level of service threshold is not anticipated to be changed with the proposed and potential development in the area.  Most Commissioners believed that on its own merits, the proposed project resulting from the PUD amendment would not cause a substantial traffic impact to the surrounding road network. 

 

While all the other Commissioners could make all of the findings, one Commissioner took the approach of comparing the proposal to the current approved plan with regards to neighborhood compatibility and traffic generation.  Several other Commissioners contended that the project could be reviewed on its own merits and did not have to be compared to the existing PUD. 

 

Advisory Commission Vote:  Six in favor; one opposed; none absent.

 

Financial Implications:  None at this time.

 

Legal Implications:  None at this time.

 

Findings:

 

PUD Planned Unit DevelopmentFindings of fact required for approval of a PUD (Planned Unit Development):  In addition to the City's zoning map amendment findings, the Planning Commission and City Council must make the findings that the project is consistent with NRS 278A.410 2(a), (b) and (c), 278A.500 17, and 278A.510.  These findings are listed below:

 

NRS 278A.410 - Modification of plan by city or county. All provisions of the plan authorized to be enforced by the city or county may be modified, removed or released by the city or county, except grants or easements relating to the service or equipment of a public utility unless expressly consented to by the public utility, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.               No such modification, removal or release of the provisions of the plan by the city or county may affect the rights of the residents of the planned unit residential development to maintain and enforce those provisions.

 

              A 44 unit affordable multifamily residential project has been constructed on the south portion of the PUD.  This was originally approved as an alternative option to skilled nursing/assisted living facility.  The only modifications proposed to the handbook regarding the multifamily project are to remove the references to the alternative use as a clean-up.  This will have no impact on the existing residents within that existing project.  The only substantial modifications proposed are in relation to the north ±3.2 acre portion of the PUD.

 

2.              No modification, removal or release of the provisions of the plan by the city or county is permitted except upon a finding by the city or county, following a public hearing that it:

 

(a)               Is consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire planned unit development;

 

All of the PUD design standards are being maintained to provide for a single cohesive development within the Sierra Senior Care PUD.  Standards for the proposed 32-bed memory care and 82-bed assisted living facility alternative require an architectural style and use of materials that will be similar to the multi-family component.  Further, all other development standards (e.g. access, parking, landscaping, etc.) will ensure that there is a consistent development theme throughout the entire PUD and the character of the PUD will be preserved.  

 

(b)               Does not adversely affect either the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across a street from the planned unit development or the public interest; and

 

The proposed memory care/assisted living facility is a residential facility surrounded primarily by residential uses.  The alternative use is not anticipated to be any more intensive than the previously approved memory care and independent living cottages.  The PUD encourages a mix of residential uses supporting various levels of senior care that are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.  Therefore, the proposed assisted living/memory care facility is consistent with the purpose of the handbook.  The PUD contains a number of standards to ensure compatibility with the surrounding properties including increased setbacks, landscape and berm screening of the parking lot, specific lighting standards, and operations standards that will ensure the proposed alternative will be consistent with the surrounding uses. 

 

(c)                Is not granted solely to confer a private benefit upon any person.

 

The 12 independent living facilities (cottages)/48-bed memory care facility and the 32-bed memory care and 82-bed assisted living facility will provide a significant benefit to the public and in particular, to those in need of nursing care and assisted living.  The senior population within the City is increasing and care services are becoming of increasing importance.  Therefore, the proposed development adds a service to a large population within the community, not just a single person. 

 

NRS 278A.500 - Minute order:  Findings of fact required. The grant or denial of tentative approval by minute action must set forth the reasons for the grant, with or without conditions, or for the denial, and the minutes must set forth with particularity in what respects the plan would or would not be in the public interest, including but not limited to findings on the following:

 

1.                   In what respects the plan is or is not consistent with the statement of objectives of a planned unit development.

 

Land Use Compatibility – Land uses surrounding the PUD consist of condominiums and multifamily housing to the south and west and single family residences and parks to the north and east.  Both memory care and assisted living fall under the definition of “nursing home” within the RMC.  A nursing home is classified as a residential use. 

 

Proposed standards within the PUD handbook for the memory care/assisted living alternative address architecture, building height, setbacks, landscaping, project access, parking, fencing, and lighting that will ensure the project design is compatible with the surrounding properties.  Analysis of compatibility with surrounding properties resulting from the proposed development standards within the handbook will be discussed in the Urban/Environmental Design section below. Operation standards have also been proposed within the amended PUD handbook including, but not limited to: employee and visitor access, allowed hours for deliveries, maintenance, and trash pick-up, specifications on health provider responsibilities, and noise.  When combined with physical design standards, these operational standards will assist in ensuring there will be a limited impact on the surrounding properties.

 

Traffic Impact Management – The City’s policy is to maintain a Level of Service (LOS) “D,” which translates to a threshold of 13,400 ADT.  With the proposed project, the anticipated ADT on Lakeside is 5,631 ADT.  Also, the local streets will have traffic volumes at or below 560 ADT with the proposed project, which is less than the LOS threshold of 1,000 ADT for local streets.  Employees are restricted to using Beck Street.  Their times for shift change will result in traffic generation outside of the typical peak hours, thereby reducing the potential with conflicts.  While the proposed amendment to the PUD will lead to an increase in overall traffic compared to the existing approved PUD, the resulting project is not anticipated to have any negative impacts with regards to traffic.

 

Jobs/Housing Balance – The existing PUD allows for memory care and independent living cottages and the proposed amendment will allow for an alternative of memory care and assisted living.  The cottages under the current PUD offer an independent living option for seniors without the need for staff care, monitoring, meal service, etc.  The assisted living facility requires staff members.  With this change there will be a greater number of employees and residents living and working in the facility providing a greater jobs/housing balance.  However, due to the nature of the type of housing, it is unlikely that there will be people living and working in the same facility.   

 

Pedestrian/Bicycle Access – The PUD Handbook outlines specific sidewalk and pedestrian connections through the site.  Bicycles can use the existing street network and proposed drive aisles through the site.

 

Cost-Effective Infrastructure – The PUD is located in an infill area where infrastructure already exists.  No new lines are anticipated to be developed with the project.  A full utility review will be completed at the time of building permit.

 

Open Space – The site plan provides for an internal courtyard to be utilized by patients and their families.  The overall site plan requires a minimum of ±27,650 square feet of landscaping.  Further, the site is located within walking distance to Virginia Lake and a number of recreational amenities for those ambulatory residents within the assisted living facility.

 

Water Conservation – Water conservation will be utilized through the landscape design, which will be reviewed at the building permit stage.  Standards exist within the handbook to limit turf area and encourage more drought tolerant landscaping.

 

Housing Variety – The proposed change has no impact on housing, in terms of a single or multifamily development product.  While the proposed amendment offers an alternative that decreases the number of beds for the memory care use, it also increases the number of beds for assisted living.  This facility will provide a variety of housing for the aging population within the City. 

 

Support Uses – Unlike independent living or traditional multifamily uses, support uses are built into the memory care and assisted living facility operations.  There will be employees on site that are trained in dealing with patients with memory impairments such as Alzheimer’s or dementia offering a variety of treatment.  There are games, movies, meals, etc., all provided as part of the amenities of the facility.

 

Straight Forward/Efficient Open Space Maintenance – The management of the memory care and assisted living facility will be responsible for maintaining the facility and the various landscape and outdoor amenity areas.  Access and parking will be done through an owners association or through some sort of maintenance agreement between the two property owners.  

 

2.                   The extent to which the plan departs from zoning and subdivision regulations otherwise applicable to the property, including but not limited to density, bulk and use, and the reasons why these departures are or are not deemed to be in the public interest.

 

The PUD Handbook Design Standards are very similar to the City of Reno zoning code in terms of landscape requirements, access, building articulation, density, building height, setbacks, etc.  The only modification was to the parking standard, in which the applicant provided justification for an increase in parking to reduce any potential for impacts on the surrounding neighborhood.  Generally, the purpose of processing the project through a PUD, rather than through straight zoning, is to allow for a more cohesive design of the overall development and to provide specific development standards to provide the neighborhood with a level of assurance as to what will be developed.  Simple zoning does not provide the level of specificity of the PUD.  With a greater level of detail in development standards and use restrictions, the surrounding residents can lock-in a project that is complimentary to the neighborhood.

 

3.                   The ratio of residential to nonresidential use in the planned unit development.

 

The PUD has been approved for a 44-unit multifamily residential development, which is currently under construction and nearly completed on the south ±2.09 acres.  With the current alternative of a 32-bed memory care facility and an 82-bed assisted living facility, the site is predominantly residential in nature.  The memory care and assisted living facility has portions of the site that function as non-residential, but both uses are classified as residential in nature.  

 

4.                   The purpose, location and amount of the common open space in the planned unit development, the reliability of the proposals for maintenance and conservation of the common open space, and the adequacy or inadequacy of the amount and purpose of the common open space as related to the proposed density and type of residential development.

 

The minimum landscape area shall be 20 percent of the gross site area.  Additionally, a common area courtyard interior to the proposed assisted living/memory care facility is proposed providing additional open space.  All areas will be improved open space and will be required to be maintained by the operator of the facility.  The open space area is common for infill projects of this size and density.  Therefore, it is adequate for the type of residential development.  

 

5.                   The physical design of the plan and the manner in which the design does or does not make adequate provision for public services, provide adequate control over vehicular traffic, and further the amenities of light and air, recreation and visual enjoyment.

 

The proposed modifications to the PUD will not have negative impacts on the provision of adequate public services such as sewer, storm water management, water supply or public safety.  All of these services are currently in place in the surrounding neighborhood and will be added to with the proposed development.  Upon development, the now vacant land will provide for vehicular and pedestrian connections through the property.

 

While the project may result in an increase in overall traffic from the uses and intensity of said uses already approved in the PUD handbook, the overall increase will lead to a negligible impact.  The ADT does not come close to modifying the existing level of service.  Further, the maximum PM PHT is 34, which is well below the 100 PHT threshold needed to trigger a traffic analysis per the RMC.  The site will distribute out to both Beck Street and Mountain View Drive and the surrounding street network. It is anticipated that the low amount of trips will be adequately distributed further diminishing any notified impact. 

 

6.                   The relationship, beneficial or adverse, of the proposed planned unit development to the neighborhood in which it is proposed to be established.

 

The currently vacant property will be developed in a manner that is beneficial to the surrounding neighborhood.  The scale and placement of the structure will ensure consistency with existing surrounding development and reduce visual impacts.  Access to the site will be restricted so as to limit impacts on Mountain View Drive.  Traffic calming devices (speed humps and flashing crosswalk) will be added to Mountain View Drive reducing traffic speeds and enhancing pedestrian safety, of which surrounding residents have expressed concern.  Landscaping will improve the overall aesthetic of the site.  Lastly, the proposed building will be architecturally compatible with the surrounding built environment.

 

7.                   In the case of a plan which proposes development over a period of years, the sufficiency of the terms and conditions intended to protect the interests of the public, residents and owners of the planned unit development in the integrity of the plan.

 

The proposed standards within the amended PUD handbook will withstand the five year time limitation placed on the PUD and allow for the development to be constructed as it has been presented within the handbook.  The proposed amendment to the PUD handbook includes detailed development standards to ensure the new assisted living/memory care facility will be compatible with the surrounding residential uses. These standards are more restrictive than if the site were to default back to the City’s zoning code.  The detail of the PUD will lead to a specific development design in which the surrounding residents have generally expressed satisfaction, which will protect the interests of the public, residents, and owners of the PUD. 

 

NRS 278A.510 Minute order:  Specification of time for filing application for final approval. Unless the time is specified in an agreement entered into pursuant to NRS 278.0201, if a plan is granted tentative approval, with or without conditions, the city or county shall set forth, in the minute action, the time within which an application for final approval of the plan must be filed or, in the case of a plan which provides for development over a period of years, the periods within which application for final approval of each part thereof must be filed. 

 

The original PUD handbook did not include a time frame for completion.  With this proposed amendment, a five year timeline of completion is proposed.  If the project is not completed at the end of the five year time frame, then the PUD will require an application to the City Council to determine if it is appropriate to extend the development schedule prior to further development.  

 

NRS 278.250(2) - Zoning Map Amendment:  General zoning map amendment requirements.  In order to approve any zoning map amendment, the Planning Commission and City Council shall find that the zoning is in accordance with the Master Plan for land use and be designed, as applicable:

 

a.      To preserve the quality of air and water resources.

 

The proposed detention and storm drain system will help to reduce peak runoff rates below the pre-development conditions.  Final design of the system will be done through the building permit process.  The existing vacant parcel is currently a dirt lot.  Development of the site will assist in keeping the dust controlled and will allow for more landscaping to cover the raw ground.  The new development and landscaping will reduce the dust and earth particles in the air, thereby improving air quality.

 

b.      To promote the conservation of open space and the protection of other natural and scenic resources from unreasonable impairment.

 

Per the PUD Handbook, a minimum of 20 percent of the site will be landscaped and maintained by the project management team.  The addition of the site landscaping will improve the disturbed vacant site.  The site has been previously disturbed and development of the site will remove the existing overgrown weeds and shrubs and replace them with professionally designed ornamental landscaping.  There is no designated open space existing on the site. 

 

c.       To consider existing views and access to solar resources by studying the height of new buildings which will cast shadows on surrounding residential and commercial developments.

 

The proposed assisted living and memory care facility is limited to a maximum of two stories or 35 feet tall.  With the proposed setbacks from the surrounding properties located to the north and the existing right-of-way, the proposed building will not block the southern facing view and solar potential for the surrounding properties. 

 

d.      To reduce the consumption of energy by encouraging the use of products and materials which maximize energy efficiency in the construction of buildings.

 

The specific energy efficient materials and construction methods will be determined during the final design stage. 

 

e.       To provide for recreational needs.

 

Recreational amenities are proposed within the assisted living/memory care facility including an outdoor courtyard and game rooms.  The site provides ample landscaping including 93 trees and 558 shrubs.  The PUD is also within walking distance to Virginia Lake Park.  

 

f.        To protect life and property in areas subject to floods, landslides and other natural disasters.

 

The parcel is relatively flat and located in FEMA Zone X-Unshaded, an area determined to be outside the 100-year floodplain.  The area is not subject to landslides or any foreseen natural disasters. Construction of either option will not be unduly subjected to these any physical or natural constraints.

 

g.      To conform to the adopted population plan, if required by NRS 278.170.

 

The parcel is located within the City of Reno and within the Truckee Meadows Service Area boundary, where an increase in population is anticipated.  The project is located in an area that has adequate infrastructure and public services and facilities to meet the project demands of either option.  The population of Reno is aging.  In order to accommodate the aging population, the City will need more memory care and assisted living facilities. 

 

h.      To develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of transportation and public facilities and services, including public access and sidewalks for pedestrians, and facilities and services for bicycles.

 

RTC Bus Route 6 has stops along Plumas Street and Mountain View Drive and along Brinkby Avenue, which are all within walking distance of the proposed PUD development.  Both the memory care/assisted living facility alternative and the memory care/independent living cottages will incorporate sidewalks for pedestrian circulation.  If employees or visitors need to take public transportation, the site is within walking distance to the property and will be accessible with the proposed pedestrian improvements throughout the site. 

 

i.        To ensure that the development on land is commensurate with the character of the physical limitations of the land.

 

The land is relatively flat with a gradual down-slope from Mountain View Drive to Beck Street.  There are no major physical limitations of the land.  The gradual slope of the site makes it suitable for most types of development.  The grade separations from surrounding properties also assist in reducing the overall scale of what is built on the site.  Per code requirements, any construction on the site will require Best Management Practices (BMP’s) to be incorporated into the site design to reduce erosion, transient dust, and to promote soil conservation. 

 

j.        To take into account the immediate and long-range financial impact of the application of particular land to particular kinds of development, and the relative suitability of the land for development.

 

Leaving the land it its current natural vegetative state does nothing to help with the long range financial impacts of the City.  Development of the site with either option will generate jobs during construction and ongoing operations.  The land will also be improved by adding landscaping and pedestrian access through the parcel thereby improving the value of surrounding properties.  Further, development on the site will increase the taxable value of the land bringing increased revenue into the City.  If the operator of the facility will operate as a for profit enterprise, they will be required to obtain a business license paying taxes and fees to the City. 

 

k.      To promote health and the general welfare.

 

The health and general welfare of the surrounding community is better served by eliminating vacant land and replacing it with a development that complements the neighborhood.  Either option constructed on the site will ensure that the land is developed with the neighborhood in mind.  This includes adequate landscaping, pedestrian access through the site, two story building design, and architectural design standards that enhance the area. 

 

l.        To ensure the development of an adequate supply of housing for the community, including the development of affordable housing.

 

A 44-unit affordable housing development has been constructed on the southern ±2.09 acre portion of the PUD.  The proposed amendment to allow for a 32-bed memory care and 82-bed assisted living facility on the north ±3.2 acres will provide an increased number of housing units for aging seniors.  The community’s aging population is continuing to grow and with it comes the need for more senior care options.  Therefore, the proposed amendment will assist in meeting this market demand.

 

m.   To ensure the protection of existing neighborhoods and communities, including the protection of rural preservation neighborhoods.

 

The proposed site is located in an infill area, where development has occurred over the past 50 plus years.  The proposed amendment will allow for a two story structure and a maximum of 35 feet in height to be developed.  This is consistent with the allowable height in the surrounding single family residential zones to the north, west, and east of the project and is less than the three story, 45 foot maximum height restriction in the multifamily zones to the south, west, and east.  An adequate transition of the proposed facility will provided with the minimum 115 foot setback from Mountain View Drive, the ±eight foot down-slope grade change, the 20 foot landscape buffer with a three foot berm along the project frontage, and the large number of trees planted throughout the site.  Proposed lighting, fence, and operational standards will ensure compatibility with the existing neighborhood.  Due to the very specific design standards within the handbook, the surrounding neighbors will have much more detailed knowledge of the future development of the property as opposed to standard zoning.

 

The subject site is not within a rural preservation neighborhood. 

 

n.      To promote systems which use solar or wind energy.

 

The use of solar and wind energy will be analyzed during the building permit stage.  The PUD does not contain any standards requiring the use of renewable energy sources. 

 

o.      To foster the coordination and compatibility of land uses with any military installation in the city, county or region, taking into account the location, purpose and stated mission of the military installation.

 

The project is not located near any military installations. Therefore development of project, including the affordable multifamily apartments should have no impact on military installations in the city, county or region. 

Ordinance or Resolution

 

ORDINANCE TO AMEND TITLE 18, CHAPTER 18.08 OF THE RENO MUNICIPAL CODE, ENTITLED "ZONING", SECTION 18.08.102(b).1351, TO CHANGE THE TEXT IN THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) DESIGN STANDARDS TO: ADD A 32 BED MEMORY CARE FACILITY AND 82 BED ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE 48 BED MEMORY CARE AND 12 UNIT INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITY ON THE NORTH ±3.2 ACRES OF THE ±5.09 ACRE PUD LOCATED IN THE AREA BOUNDED BY MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE TO THE NORTH AND BECK STREET TO THE SOUTH IN THE PUD ZONE; TOGETHER WITH OTHER MATTERS PROPERLY RELATING THERETO.

 

                            SPONSORED BY:  RENO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

 

                            THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENO DO ORDAIN:

 

              SECTION 1. Chapter 18.08 of the Reno Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding thereto a new section to be known as Section 18.08.102(b).1351 relating to ±3.2 acres of a ±5.09 acre site located in the area bounded by Mountain View Drive to the north and Beck Street to the south in the PUD zone and more particularly described in the attached "Exhibit A"; to change the text in the PUD Standards Handbook to:  add a 32 bed memory care facility and 82 bed assisted living facility as an alternative to the 48 bed memory care and 12 unit independent living facility on the north ±3.2 acres of the ±5.09 acre PUD, the same to read as follows:

 

              Sec. 18.08.102(b).1351.  The zoning of the City of Reno as heretofore established is hereby amended in the manner shown on the map labeled Case No. LDC17-00049, thereby changing the use of land indicated therein, relating to ±3.2 acres of a ±5.09 acre site located in the area bounded by Mountain View Drive to the north and Beck Street to the south in the PUD zone, and more particularly described in the attached "Exhibit A"; to change the text in the PUD Design Standards Handbook to: add a 32 bed memory care facility and 82 bed assisted living facility as an alternative to the 48 bed memory care and 12 unit independent living facility on the north ±3.2 acres of the ±5.09 acre PUD.

 

 

CASE NO. LDC17-00049 (Sierra Senior Care PUD Amendment)

 

 

 


SECTION 2.  This Ordinance shall be in effect from and after its passage, adoption and publication in one issue of a newspaper printed and published in the City of Reno; and upon certification by City Council of the amended PUD Design Standards Handbook for Case No. LDC17-00049 and recordation of the amended PUD Design Standards Handbook for Case No. LDC17-00049.

 

SECTION 3.  The City Clerk and Clerk of the City Council of the City of Reno is hereby authorized and directed to have this Ordinance published in one issue of the RenoGazette Journal, a newspaper printed and published in the City of Reno.

 

PASSED AND ADOPTED this       day of                 ,       , by the following vote of the Council:

 

AYES:

 

NAYS:

 

ABSTAIN:

 

ABSENT:

 

 

 

              APPROVED this           day of                                           ,      .

 

 

 

 

                                                                

MAYOR OF THE CITY OF RENO

 

ATTEST:

 

 

 

                                                                         

CITY CLERK AND CLERK OF THE CITY

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENO, NEVADA

 

 

EFFECTIVE DATE: 

 

 

 

LDC17-00049 (Sierra Senior Care PUD Amendment) - ord - JDB.doc



 

Meeting History

Sep 13, 2017 12:00 PM Video Reno City Council Regular

Mayor Schieve asked if proper notice was given.

City Clerk Turney stated that proper notice was given and two letters in support were received from Sabine Beach, sabinebeach@gmail.com, and Carmen Gage, carmen.gage@gmail.com. One letter in opposition was received from Anne and Paul Vohl, 2470 Plumas Street.

Claudia Hanson, Community Development Planning Manager, and Jeff Borchardt, Community Development Associate Planner, provided an overview of the staff report.

The Mayor called for public comment.

Carl Friedman, P.O. Box 41087, and Juanita Cox, 2965 Lakeside Drive #111, spoke in opposition to the proposed project.

Arline Sala, 2290 Watt Street, and Ken Krater, 901 Dartmouth Drive, spoke in support of the proposed project. Mr. Krater also discussed the meetings that were held with area residents, and amendments that were made in the proposed project to accommodate their concerns.

Angela Fuss, Lumos and Associates, representing the applicant, presented a detailed overview of the proposed project, including details of the community outreach efforts.

Council Member Brekhus discussed her concerns regarding project density and parking, and said that she would find it difficult to make zoning map finding m and PUD findings 2, 5 and 6.

Council Member Duerr stated her concerns about the increase in the number of beds and daily trips. With this increased intensity, it would be difficult for me to support having this for-profit residential use with substandard streets in this residential area.

Mayor Schieve asked how many public meetings the applicant held, and Ms. Fuss replied that five community meetings were held and turnout was at most approximately 15 people at one of the meetings. The biggest concern for the people who attended the meetings was the visual access of getting out of Beck Street onto Lakeside Drive, which we have addressed with the City. All the traffic studies show that, yes, this is infill, and yes, there will be traffic. In any type of development there will be increased traffic, however none of the traffic counts associated with this use at this intensity increases the traffic to a point of concern. We are not creating a level of service issue. We are not decreasing the level of service on the roads that access this property.

Council Member McKenzie said that he usually defers to the Council Member in whose ward the project is proposed, and discussed ways in which the applicant has mitigated traffic, pedestrian crosswalk and roadway access issues. He said that his main concern with putting off this type of project is the limited availability of this type of care facility. The applicant has sufficiently addressed our concerns.

Council Member Delgado discussed the need for this facility, the commitment made by the applicant to mitigate concerns regarding the project, and the lack of opposition to the project at today's meeting as opposed to that presented a year ago. I cannot see a better project for this site that the one presented here today.

Council Member Bobzien noted that many of the improvements were made in response to Council Member Duerr's input, and thank her for her engagement in the process.

Council Member Jardon stated that there has been robust neighborhood input on the project. While I too would generally defer to the Council Member in whose ward the project is located, I believe it would be disingenuous to vote against the project after previously telling them what we would like them to do there.

Council Member Duerr stated that after hearing the various comments from her colleagues she was not inclined to be in the minority and make a motion to deny the project.

It was moved by Council Member Bobzien, seconded by Council Member McKenzie, to uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve the Minute Order attached to the staff report as Exhibit B and refer Bill No. 7005 for a second reading and adoption.

Council Member Brekhus discussed why she would not support the motion.

Motion carried with Council Members Brekhus and Duerr voting nay.

Bill No. 7005 was referred for a second reading and adoption.

RESULT:FIRST READ [5 TO 2]
MOVER:David Bobzien, Councilmember
SECONDER:Paul McKenzie, Councilmember
AYES:Hillary Schieve, Oscar Delgado, Paul McKenzie, Neoma Jardon, David Bobzien
NAYS:Jenny Brekhus, Naomi Duerr