City of Reno
Nevada

Staff Report
10412

Staff Report (For Possible Action): LDC18-00025 and LDC18-00037 (Daybreak Master Plan and PUD Zoning Map Amendments) Request to establish a Planned Unit Development (PUD) on a ±979.4 acre site to include 4,700 residential units, associated public facilities, open space and commercial development. The request includes: 1) a Master Plan amendment to change the existing land use designation on 11 parcels totaling ±979.4 acres from ±89.4 acres of Mixed Neighborhood, ±70.2 acres of Single Family Neighborhood, ±25.3 acres of Large Lot Neighborhood, ±734 acres of Unincorporated Transition, and ±60.5 acres of Parks, Greenways and Open Space to ±307.3 acres of Single Family Neighborhood, ±175.5 acres of Suburban Mixed Use, ±20.7 acres of Multifamily Neighborhood, ±219.9 acres of Mixed Neighborhood, and ±256 acres of Parks Greenways and Open Space; 2) a zoning map amendment to amend the existing zoning designations from ±217.5 acres of Planned Unit Development-Butler Ranch, ±13.7 acres of Specific Planned District-Alexander Specific Plan (SPD), ±23.6 acres of Large Lot Residential-1 acre (LLR1), ±147.3 acres of Large Lot Residential-2.5 acres (LLR2.5), and ±577.3 acres of Unincorporated Transition-40 acres (UT40) to ±979.31 acres of Planned Unit Development-Daybreak and ±0.09 acres to Single Family-6,000 square feet (SF6); and 3) tentative approval of the associated Planned Unit Development Handbook. The project site is generally located north of South Meadows Parkway, south of Mira Loma Drive, west of the eastern Reno City boundary, and east of Washoe County Huffaker Hills Open Space, Reggie Road, and Hombre Way. This project is of Regional Significance for: Housing not less than 625 units, Sewage not less than 187,500 gal/day, Water usage not less than 625 acre feet per year, Traffic not less than 6,250 trips daily, Student population (K-12) not less than 325 students and a transmission line that carries more than 60 kilovolts.

Information

Department:Community Development - PlanningSponsors:
Category:ResolutionWards:Ward 3

Recommendation and Proposed Motion

Recommendation:  The Planning Commission recommends City Council adopt the requested Master Plan amendment by resolution, zoning map amendment by ordinance and approve the tentative Planned Unit Development (PUD) Handbook by Minute Order, subject to a Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Commission determination that the request is in conformance with the Truckee Meadows Regional Plan.

 

Below are possible motions for consideration when deciding this request:

 

Master Plan Amendment

 

a) Possible motion regarding the requested Master Plan Amendment

 

Motion to Approve

In Case No. LDC18-00025 (Daybreak Master Plan Amendment) based on compliance with all the required considerations, I move to approve Resolution ________ adopting the proposed Master Plan Amendment, subject to Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Commission determination that the request is in conformance with the Truckee Meadows Regional Plan. 

 

Motion to Deny

In Case No. LDC18-00025 (Daybreak Master Plan Amendment), based on all the evidence and information received in written materials and at the public hearings on this matter, I move to DENY adoption of the proposed Master Plan Amendment because upon reasonable and practical means: 

 

Master Plan Consideration a. 1. -  I cannot determine that the proposed master plan amendment will serve as a pattern and guide for that kind of orderly physical growth and development of the City which will cause the least amount of natural resource impairment [NRS 278.230 (1) (a)]

                            Because of the following stated reasons:

 

Master Plan Amendment Consideration a. 2. -  I cannot determine that the proposed master plan amendment conforms to the adopted population plan and ensures an adequate supply of housing, including affordable housing; [NRS 278.320 (1)(a)]

                            Because of the following stated reasons:

 

Master Plan Amendment Consideration a. 3. -  I cannot determine that the proposed master plan amendment forms the basis for the efficient expenditure of funds relating to the subjects of the City of Reno Master Plan [NRS 278.320 (1)(b)]

                            Because of the following stated reasons:

 

Zoning Map Amendment and Tentative Planned Unit Development Handbook Approval

 

Motion to Approve

In the case of LDC18-00037 (Daybreak PUD Zoning Map Amendment), upon consideration of all the information received in written materials and at the public hearings, I move to INTRODUCE AND REFER Ordinance _______ for a second reading and (subject to adoption) to TENTATIVELY APPROVE the Planned Unit Development Handbook, subject to conditions, by Minute Order based on favorable determination of all the required considerations under Nevada State Law and the Reno Municipal Code as discussed in the staff report, subject to review by the Regional Planning Commission for conformance with the Regional Plan and as a project of regional significance.

 

Motion to Deny

In the case of LDC18-00037 (Daybreak PUD Zoning Map Amendment), based on information received in written materials and at the public hearings on this matter, I move to DENY the zoning map amendment and the tentative approval of the Planned Unit Development Handbook because I am unable to make the following required zoning map amendment and/or Planned Unit Development findings:

 

For the zoning map amendment:  I am unable to make the finding(s)_____________________ as it relates to _________________________________.  Therefore, I also cannot approve the PUD Handbook.

 

It is recommended that if the City Council is unable to make the required PUD findings to approve the PUD Handbook, that the zoning map amendment also not be approved. 

 

 

Staff Report Formal Body

Summary:  This is a request to establish a Planned Unit Development (PUD) on a ±979.4 acre site to include 4,700 residential units, associated public facilities, open space and commercial development.  The request includes: 1) a Master Plan amendment to change the existing land use designation on 11 parcels totaling ±979.4 acres from ±89.4 acres of Mixed Neighborhood, ±70.2 acres of Single Family Neighborhood, ±25.3 acres of Large Lot Neighborhood, ±734 acres of Unincorporated Transition, and ±60.5 acres of Parks, Greenways and Open Space to ±307.3 acres of Single Family Neighborhood, ±175.5 acres of Suburban Mixed Use, ±20.7 acres of Multifamily Neighborhood, ±219.9 acres of Mixed Neighborhood, and ±256 acres of Parks Greenways and Open Space; 2) a zoning map amendment to amend the existing zoning designations from ±217.5 acres of Planned Unit Development-Butler Ranch, ±13.7 acres of Specific Planned District-Alexander Specific Plan (SPD), ±23.6 acres of Large Lot Residential-1 acre (LLR1), ±147.3 acres of Large Lot Residential-2.5 acres (LLR2.5), and ±577.3 acres of Unincorporated Transition-40 acres (UT40) to ±979.31 acres of Planned Unit Development-Daybreak and ±0.09 acres to Single Family-6,000 square feet (SF6); and 3) tentative approval of the associated Planned Unit Development Handbook.  The project site is generally located north of South Meadows Parkway, south of Mira Loma Drive, west of the eastern Reno City boundary, and east of Washoe County Huffaker Hills Open Space, Reggie Road, and Hombre Way.  This project is of Regional Significance for: Housing not less than 625 units, Sewage not less than 187,500 gal/day, Water usage not less than 625 acre feet per year, Traffic not less than 6,250 trips daily, Student population (K-12) not less than 325 students and a transmission line that carries more than 60 kilovolts.

 

The Planning Commission recommends Council approve the requested Master Plan amendment by resolution, zoning map amendment by ordinance and tentative approval of Daybreak Planned Unit Development Handbook.

 

Previous Council Action: 

 

November 14, 2018              -              The City Council continued this item to their November 28, 2018 public hearing.

 

Ayes:                            Duerr, Jardon, Weber, Schieve

Nays:                            Bobzien, Brekhus, Delgado

Abstain:              None                                                        Absent:              None

 

October 10, 2018              -              The City Council continued this item to their November 14, 2018 public hearing.

 

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

Nays:                            None

Abstain:              None                                                        Absent:              None

 

September 12, 2018              -              The City Council continued this item to their October 10, 2018 public hearing.

 

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

Nays:                            None

Abstain:              None                                                        Absent:              None

 

Background: On November 13, 2018 prior to the 5:00 p.m. deadline the applicant’s representative submitted a request for continuance.  At October 14, 2018 City Council Meeting the item was opened and a motion made to vote on granting the request for continuance.  The council voted three against and four in favor of granting the continuance.  The item(s) is scheduled to be heard on November 28, 2018 at 6:00 p.m..  Public comment related to the item(s) was heard and the item was closed.

 

On October 9, 2018 prior to the 5:00 p.m. deadline the applicant’s representative submitted a request for continuance to further address City Council concerns.  At October 10, 2018 City Council Meeting the counselors unanimously approved the request.

 

On October 7, 2018 an internal meeting was held with the applicant’s representatives, Reno City staff and the Truckee Meadows Flood Project (TMFP) representatives to discuss the TMFP review of the hydraulic analysis as requested by City Council.  The applicant provided a cumulative impacts analysis, groundwater modeling report, FEMA HEC-RAS Analysis and supporting GIS data, presentation discussing the hydrologic and hydraulic analysis supporting the CLOMR and Daybreak Planned Unit Development Handbook to City Staff to relay to TMFP for review.  A thorough analysis and comments of the overall flood mapping was provided by TMFP consultants and no fatal flaws were identified in the consultant’s proposal.  TMRP consultants had recommendations and minor modifications to refine and model for the FEMA CLOMR application.  Tentative Maps for the proposed project would not be issued prior to the CLOMR approval.  

 

Staff has requested that the applicant prepare an analysis of the proposed flood plain in comparison to the existing flood plain including illustrations, cross sections, estimated volumes and other details to clearly demonstrate grading and mitigation proposed. The applicant plans to present this information at the next meeting.

 

A Memorandum was distributed to City Council members for the October 9, 2018 meeting outlining proposed changes to the PUD handbook per draft agreements. This memo shall be abandoned.

 

At the September 12, 2018 Reno City Council meeting, Counselor Delgado made a motion for a continuance to allow time to provide additional information and address concerns on items that were discussed at the meeting.  This motion was seconded by Counselor McKenzie and unanimously approved.  The City Council continued the public hearing to October 10, 2018 at 1:00 p.m.

 

The main topics of discussion and concern at the September 12, 2018 City Council meeting included:

 

·         Floodplain concerns and requested additional review of the hydraulic model by the Truckee River Flood Project

·         Traffic impacts and the review process throughout the project timeline

·         Public school site donation or fair market value and the School Site identification Agreement

·         Affordable housing approach/strategy

·         The Master Plan and the project alignment with open space, flooding, wetland and historic resources policies

·         The Virginia Range and feral horses

·         On-site mercury contamination and remedial action plan

·         Appropriateness of development

 

The Discussion portion of this report summarizes the comments and concerns discussed by City Council at the September 12, 2018 meeting.  Staff has provided additional information to update, address, and clarify the City Council’s outstanding issues.

 

The original Daybreak Master Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment and Planned Unit Development Handbook draft was received November 13, 2017.  The applicant desired for the project to be reviewed under the new Master Plan and the application was held until the new Master Plan was adopted by Council in February of 2018.  The applicant held community public meetings and attended the Ward 2 and Ward 3 Neighborhood Advisory Boards each twice to present the project.  Staff worked with the applicant during this period on content and completeness of the PUD Handbook and additional drafts were received on March 20, 2018 and April 4, 2018.  A public workshop was held on May 16, 2018 at the Reno Planning Commission meeting to preview the proposal, allow Planning Commissioners to ask questions of Reno staff from various departments and hear public comment.  No action was taken at the workshop.

 

Following the Planning Commission workshop, changes were incorporated into the PUD Handbook including:

·         Integrating minimum densities in PUD land designations

·         Adding an affordable housing proposal

 

An additional community meeting was held on May 30, 2018.  A presentation and question and answer period outlined the project and additional changes to the Handbook that were incorporated from the workshop feedback.

 

A revised PUD Handbook was submitted to City staff and was scheduled to be heard at Planning Commission on July 11, 2018.  Due to last minute changes, staff recommended that the request be continued to the July 19, 2018 Planning Commission meeting.  The request was heard on this date.  Planning Commission recommended approval of the Master Plan Amendment, zoning map amendment and tentative approval of the PUD Handbook had additional comments and recommendations to incorporate into the revised PUD Handbook.  The additional recommendations were:

·         Clarifying the City’s authority to modify the PUD Handbook

·         Defining the timeline to complete the Planned Unit Development (20 years)

·         Clearly defining the process of subdivisions into Village Parcels

·         Defining authority and process for overhead power line relocation

·         Identifying the time and event of the charitable donation

·         Clarification of “Signage Equivalency Table”

·         Revised roadway sections of Rio Poco

 

A revised PUD Handbook incorporating the Planning Commission revisions was submitted August 23, 2018 for review by City staff.  Planning Commission recommendations were verified for incorporation into the PUD Handbook and a clean “City Council Draft September 12, 2018” is provided (Exhibit A).

 

Four agreements are associated with the applicant’s proposal and the PUD Handbook.  The consideration of the agreements will be heard under a separate item.  The signed agreements are referenced in the PUD Handbook, but will not be part of the document.  The agreements are:

·         Affordable Housing Charitable Donation Agreement

·         Fire Apparatus and Station Agreement

·         Residential Construction Tax Agreement

·         School Site identification Agreement

 

The main topics discussed by the Planning Commission on July 19, 2018 are summarized below where applicable changes to the Planned Unit Development Handbook are shown in italics.  The minutes of the July 19, 2018 Planning Commission are attached (Exhibit B).

 

Density: At the Planning Commission workshop on May 16, 2018 Commissioners discussed the desire for increased densities within the development.  The concern was that the PUD as proposed could be built out as low to moderately dense detached single family housing.  The desire was for more density centered around the neighborhood commercial centers and supportive of the Suburban Mixed Use Master Plan land use designation.  As a result of this discussion the applicant revised the development plan, increasing the number of moderately dense units and decreasing the low density single family PUD land designations.  In addition minimum densities were applied to the PUD land designations to maintain a minimum desired density in areas surrounding neighborhood commercial PUD land designations.  The Planning Commission determined that the proposed land designations within the PUD which are consistent with the ReImagine Reno Master Plan Land Use designations and appropriate densities to promote housing diversity.  An analysis of the Reno Master Plan policies, goals, and objectives is included in the Planning Commission July 19, 2018 staff report (Attachment A). Master Plan policies are also incorporated throughout the PUD Handbook to clearly define the intent in appropriate sections.

 

Affordable Housing:  At both the Planning Commission workshop and public hearing the issues of affordable housing, attainable housing, and housing availability was discussed.  Following the Planning Commission workshop, the applicant revised the PUD Handbook to include a $500 charitable contribution per dwelling unit at the time of closing to a Reno Land Trust or Designee.  Planning Commission discussed the donation at the hearing and questions were asked as to how the amount was determined.  Staff noted that the charitable proposal and amount was determined and offered by the applicant.  The concept of “affordable by design” was also presented at the hearing, but had not been incorporated into the handbook.  The City Council Draft of the PUD Handbook has the following language added in respect to affordable housing.

 

The Daybreak PUD will assist the City of Reno in providing affordable housing through a multi-prong approach: “Affordability by Design” The Mixed Neighborhood land use category and five of the Single Family Residential Villages provide a density requirement between 8 and 21 dwelling units per acre, or 50 percent of the total allowed units in the PUD. This density range coupled with the new single family attached units styles will help fill in the “missing middle” defined by the Reimagine Reno Master Plan, providing more housing options targeted at 80-120 percent of Washoe County Area Average Median Income (AMI). The Multi-Family Residential land use category will provide additional opportunities for more affordable housing options at higher densities. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) are an allowed use in Daybreak to provide affordability options. The Master Developer has entered into an Agreement with the City of Reno to make a donation to the City of Reno Housing Trust Fund or designee per unit sold with each tentative map giving the City flexibility on providing affordable housing (reference Appendix 9 Affordable Housing Agreement).

 

Timeline for Completion: A section defining the specified timeline for completion, definition of completion, and process if not complete was added to the revised PUD Handbook as follows:

 

The development and build-out of Daybreak will ultimately be dependent on market conditions, and this PUD shall have a 20 year completion timeframe. The 20 year timeframe shall commence upon final approval of this PUD (as evidenced by the initial recording date of the certified handbook). All project phasing must include major infrastructure (i.e. backbone utilities and roadways) to support development. If the project is not completed at the end of 20 years, then the PUD shall require an application to the Reno City Council to determine if it is appropriate to extend the development schedule prior to further development. Completion is defined as the recordation of all Master Developer’s parcel maps (creation of Village Parcels) for all phases; completion of all mass grading for all phases; construction of the community park; construction of all on and off-site backbone infrastructure including water, sewer, backbone roadways identified in Figure 7, and construction of all improvements affecting major drainageways, wetlands, and floodplains. The timeframe shall not apply to the construction of individual homes on recorded lots of approved final maps or for construction of permitted nonresidential uses, as described in the PUD Handbook.

 

Village Parcels: In order to expedite the time that it takes to subdivide land, the applicant has requested to deviate from the normal City of Reno mapping process.  Typically, a parcel may be subdivided into four parcels and subsequent subdivision of the resultant parcels within five years of the recorded parcel map is processed through a tentative and final map process.  The applicant has proposed the creation of “Village Parcels” by recordation of multiple parcel maps as discussed in the Implementation section of the PUD Handbook (Exhibit A).  Additional language to clearly define the Village Parcel process was recommended by staff, accepted by the applicant and incorporated into 2.8-Subdivision into Village Parcels reads as follows:

 

Each phase of development within the Daybreak PUD may be subdivided into more than four Village Parcels utilizing a sequential series of two or more parcel maps, which may be submitted and approved concurrently. The administrator shall review each sequential parcel map and provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission is authorized to issue a final decision on the sequential parcel maps. When issuing a decision on a sequential parcel map, the Planning Commission shall review the parcel maps in accordance with NRS 278.464 and consistent with the criteria for reviewing tentative subdivision maps in accordance with NRS 278.349(3), as applicable, including the issuance of conditions of approval. Prior to submittal of the first application for a Village Parcel Map, the Master Developer and staff will agree to an efficient process for submittal and staff review of Village Parcel Map applications, including defraying any necessary additional costs attributable to extraordinary staff review required for Village Parcel Map submittals. Each application for the initial division of land into Village Parcels through a sequential series of parcel maps shall include the following information to enable review by the Planning Commission: 1) Each application shall include all land within the phase of development in which the Village Parcels are to be created. 2) Each application shall be accompanied by concurrent application for a special use permit for disturbance of a major drainageway (or any other entitlement as deemed required) for the relevant phase of development, if applicable. 3) Each application shall identify common area parcels, access and utility easements, and proposed Master Developer roadway dedication parcels for the subject phase of development. 4) Each application shall include the documents and information set forth in the City of Reno Tentative Map checklist, plus a 24” x 36” display map showing all proposed sequential parcel maps in the Phase. Subdivision of Village Parcels It is anticipated that the individual lot layouts for each Village Parcel will be processed by merchant home builders or commercial developers, as applicable. Subsequent subdivision of any Village Parcel shall be reviewed and processed in accordance with the normal parcel map and/or tentative subdivision map and final subdivision map processes, in accordance with NRS Chapter 278 and City of Reno code, as applicable

 

Process and Procedure: The Planning Commission discussed clarifying the process to relocate electrical transmission lines.  Additional language was incorporated into 3.6- Overhead Powerlines and reads as follows:

 

There is an existing triple double circuited overhead transmission line and easement within the central portion of the site that is located within a Regional Utility Corridor. Within the easement NV Energy identifies the facilities as 120kV #110 line, 120kV #173 line, and 25kV #290 line. A portion of this alignment will need to be relocated, and according to NV Energy any relocation will need to remain above ground. Any relocation of regional utility lines shall require, at a minimum, approval of a Regional Plan amendment, a Special Use Permit for major utilities, and approval by NV Energy prior to relocation. Conceptual relocation routes, which have been coordinated with and studied by NV Energy, are provided in Figure 11. An alternatives analysis, final alternative selection, and actual relocation will be completed by the Master Developer and NV Energy. In no instance shall the building setbacks from existing or proposed utility corridors be less than 10 feet and all uses within established setbacks shall be limited to passive uses including, but not limited to, parks, trails, parking, landscaping and fencing.

 

Staff recommended at the Planning Commission to amend Section 2.1 (Administration) of the PUD Handbook to clearly state that the City may initiate an amendment to the PUD Handbook be modified to be consistent with Nevada State Law.

 

Agreements: The draft agreements were being negotiated during the time period of the Planning Commission workshop and public hearing and were not reviewed by the Planning Commission However, the Planning Commission discussed trigger events which have been incorporated in appropriate sections of the PUD handbook and included in the table in Section 2.3-PUD Implementation and Responsibility.  The City Council will consider the agreements under a separate item and the agreements will be finalized and signed at the certification of the Planned Unit Development.

 

 

Discussion: Primary Discussion Items at City Council Hearing on September 12, 2018:

 

Hydrology/hydraulics:  Several questions were asked by City Council members regarding the review and process used for review of the various studies that have been completed to date and the anticipated studies to be completed once the PUD Handbook is approved.  The applicant has performed hydrologic and hydraulic analysis of the project area above and beyond the standard of the practice for a PUD application to date.  This analysis reflects that the project, as currently planned, is able to be pursued to the next level of application and review. 

 

At the direction of Council during the September 12, 2018, City Council meeting, City staff has coordinated the review of the current hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by the Truckee Meadows Flood Project (TMFP) staff.  The supporting models and materials to reach the conclusions as presented at the City Council meeting have been provided by the applicant’s representative to TMFP staff.  While comments have not been received from TMFP staff at the time of writing of this staff report, City staff anticipates receipt of comments from TMFP prior to the October 12, 2018, City Council meeting when this item is scheduled to be heard.

 

The next steps for receipt and review of further hydrologic and hydraulic analysis include the following:

·         Once the PUD Handbook is approved, the applicant will refine and finalize an application for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR), which will be reviewed by City staff members and signed off by the Public Works Director prior to submittal to the Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA) for review and comment;

·         Each portion of the PUD will be developed through the village parcel map process as well as the tentative map and subsequent final map process for the residential portions of the project.  Each of the processes will require the submittal of a final hydrology report to support the portion of development being pursued and will be required to be in alignment with the CLOMR application;

·         Once the hydrologic and hydraulic components of the project are fully constructed, the applicant will be required to file a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) through the City of Reno to FEMA for review and final approval.  This final step will result in the FEMA mapping for the project area to reflect all of the final modifications made to the site.

Traffic Study Analysis: City Council members asked questions regarding the City’s process to implement regarding updating of traffic analysis criteria as the PUD is completed.  The applicant’s representative outlined the process.  City staff confirms that the PUD application includes an overall traffic analysis of the anticipated impact of the development on the regional and local roadway networks.  Once the PUD is approved, subsequent applications for village parcels, tentative maps, and final maps will require final updates to the traffic analysis to track the overall impacts to the roadway networks to ensure that maximum traffic volumes originally anticipated are not exceeded.  The updates to the traffic analysis may or may not result in additional improvements to the individual phases of development.

 

Public Schools: An agreement has been drafted with the Washoe County School District that allows the District to review tentative maps and establish site selection for a public elementary school.  City Council members raised concerns that the property would be sold to the District at fair market value when the site was selected and that the site would not be donated.  The applicant’s representative commented that previous PUD developments had donated the land, but in those agreements the District was financially responsible for a proportionate share of the infrastructure cost.  The applicant’s representative presented the case that the sale at fair market was a simpler and more efficient way to provide the land to the District than a proportionate infrastructure cost.  A District representative has communicated to City Staff that the proposal and draft agreement was acceptable.  A District representative was not present at the Sept 12, 2018 meeting to comment.

 

Affordable Housing Strategy: The applicant’s presentation outlined a proposed strategy to address the regional issue of housing availability and affordability.  This was presented as a three pronged approach: (1) Affordable by Design, (2) Multi-family Residential and (3) a donation to The City of Reno Housing Trust Fund or designee. This is further detailed in Chapter 1.3 Development Plan Overview of the PUD Handbook (Exhibit A).  Council had concerns with this approach and if it was proportionate to the needs of the region.  Council discussed the desire for an inclusionary housing option to be incorporated into the project.  Council also discussed a defining a percentage of the “Affordable by Design” units that would be required at an established AMI.

 

NRS 278.250 (Zoning Districts and Regulations) addresses the authority of the City in regards to affordable housing. Specifically:

 (4) Controls relating to land use or principles of zoning that the governing body determines to be appropriate, including, without limitation, density bonuses, inclusionary zoning and minimum density zoning.  In exercising the powers granted in this section, the governing body may use any

 (5) As used in this section:

      (a) “Density bonus” means an incentive granted by a governing body to a developer of real property that authorizes the developer to build at a greater density than would otherwise be allowed under the master plan, in exchange for an agreement by the developer to perform certain functions that the governing body determines to be socially desirable, including, without limitation, developing an area to include a certain proportion of affordable housing.

      (b) “Inclusionary zoning” means a type of zoning pursuant to which a governing body requires or provides incentives to a developer who builds residential dwellings to build a certain percentage of those dwellings as affordable housing.

      (c) “Minimum density zoning” means a type of zoning pursuant to which development must be carried out at or above a certain density to maintain conformance with the master plan.

 

Master Plan Alignment: The applicant’s representative outlined during their presentation the strong alignment and conformance of the project to the Master Plan.  Staff presentation supported the alignment of the Master Plan and explained the applicant had the option to be reviewed under the past Master Plan and deliberately choose work under the Reimagine Reno Master Plan.

 

Council stated concerns with the projects approach to floodplains, wetlands and historic resources as related to the Goals and Policies of the Master Plan.

 

Master Plan Policy 7.1 (Conserve and Protect Reno’s natural resources and environment) sets the framework for this discussion and this policy specifically addresses: Air quality Development Constraint Areas, Environmentally Sensitive Areas, Hydraulic Resources, Major Drainage ways and No Net Loss.  The staff report for the July 19 2018 Planning Commission meeting indirectly addresses these policies through the zoning map amendment findings (a and b) (Attachment A). Staff has recommended that the applicant provide a detailed analysis of alignment of this section for the October 10, 2018 City Council hearing.

 

Policy 6.2E (Flood Management) of the Master Plan states: encourages the use of non-structural solutions to flood control and highly discourages the use of fill for development in floodplains and drainage ways.  If fill for development occurs in hydrographic basins, it should only be allowed when:

·         Flood elevations will not be increased

·         Hazards to the properties in the basin will not result or will be mitigated

·         Fill or associated modifications to drainage patterns will not negatively impact wetlands

 

The applicant has proposed using fill in the floodplain and has provided support to comply with the Policy as discussed above in the hydrology/hydraulics part of this discussion.

 

Wetlands delineation and verification of the property was prepared by a professional consultant.  The consultant provided information on the wetland quality and has identified areas of avoidance and sensitive landscapes.  The development has triggered the requirement for additional permitting from the Federal Government due to the presence of wetlands.  The basic premise of the Section 404 permit program is that no discharge of dredged or fill material may be permitted if: (1) a practicable alternative exists that is less damaging to the aquatic environment; or (2) the nation’s waters would be significantly degraded.  In other words, the applicant must first show that steps have been taken to avoid impacts to wetlands, streams and other aquatic resources; that potential impacts have been minimized; and that compensation will be provided for all remaining unavoidable impacts.

 

Cultural resources on the property will be addressed in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.  These regulations apply due to the application for a 404 Waters of the United States permit from the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).  Archeologists and architectural historians have completed a survey and drafted National Register eligibility evaluations of the cultural resources that occurs on lands slated for future housing and commercial development.  The report is currently under review by the USACE.  Resources that are determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places will be treated per regulations specified in Section 106 of the Nation Historic Preservation Act.  This may include avoidance of mitigation. The process and procedure proposed is in alignment with Master Plan Policy 7.5 (Protect and preserve Reno’s heritage and historic assets)

 

Virginia Range and Horses: City Council had questions and concerns related to the feral horses located on the Virginia Range.  As was discussed between Council members the horses on the Virginia Range are classified as feral livestock and are under the authority of the Nevada Department of Agriculture per NRS 569.040.  The applicant has worked with horse advocates and City staff to determine appropriate measures to ensure safety for the horses and the public.  Chapter 5.8 of the PUD Handbook details that a fence meeting NRS 569.130 (Legal fence) requirements shall be erected prior to any construction on the southeast village and that it be connected to existing fencing and/or cattle guards where appropriate.  The responsibility and ongoing maintenance of this fence will be the responsibility of the appropriate Home Owners Association.  The intent of the responsibility requirement is to reduce the labor and resources of the horse advocate of erecting and maintaining fencing and to allow these organizations to concentrate resources on other projects and goals.

 

Environmental Contamination: City Council had questions and concerns in regards to mercury being present on the site, the locations and remediation process.  The consultant conducted an environmental site assessment for the presence of environmental contamination.  Mercury was present in the soil as a result of historical mining and irrigation practices that utilized Steamboat Creek water for flood irrigationA Remedial Action Plan was created by the consultant to address the mercury on-site and was submitted to the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) for review and comment.  The remediation plan was approved by the NDEP on October 19, 2017.  Follow up sampling was confirmed to occur to verify the remediation plan was achieved.  The applicant iterated that the remediation areas would not be located in the proposed residential areas and that the site had been designed to remediate in open space, roadways and commercial areas.

 

Appropriateness of development: City Council had questions regarding the existing zoning of the Butler Ranch PUD and UT Master Plan land use designation.  Staff’s presentation detailed the existing Butler Ranch PUD and Tentative Map. These have not been acted upon and the tentative map has expired.  Staff further explained through discussion that the proposed Daybreak PUD was a more appropriate zoning in relation to current surrounding land uses and newly open Southeast connector.  Staff detailed the appropriateness of the proposed PUD zoning as related to the project due to the large project site, existing hydrology, environmental concerns, cultural elements infrastructure, housing needs, service needs, maintenance and concurrency requirements are appropriate for the creation of a PUD and provide for the opportunity to appropriately plan, mitigate, design, phase, build and maintain the overall development and infrastructure in a logical, aesthetic, cohesive, and resilient manner.

 

Staff discussed the current UT40 Master Plan land use designation and explained the intent of the Master Plan land use designation of UT40.  The attached Planning Commission staff report (Attachment A) under Master Plan Amendment Evaluation Criteria (4) further details the intent of the land use designation. UT is defined as “unincorporated land within the sphere of influence that is largely undeveloped.  Unincorporated land does not have immediate access to municipal services, but will likely develop within 20 years.”  While designated UT, the site is located within Reno municipal boundaries and infrastructure and services are located within close proximity.  In addition, areas to the north and south of the site have already been developed with predominantly single-family residences per their adopted PUD zoning. Noting these conditions, the current land designation of UT is not consistent or compatible with surrounding uses, the provision of services, the current City of Reno boundary, or housing needs of the region.

 

Advisory Commission Vote to approve the Master Plan:  Five in favor; one opposed; one absent.

 

Advisory Commission Vote to approve the zoning map amendment and tentative approval of the PUD Handbook:  Five in favor; one opposed; one absent.

 

Financial Implications:  None at this time.

 

Legal Implications:  None at this time.

 

Master Plan Considerations: Below are the Planning Commission and City Council Considerations for a Master Plan Amendment:

 

For the Planning Commission:

 

(a)              Bears relation to the planning and physical development of the City; and

 

(b)              Is so prepared that it may be adopted by the City Council as a basis for the physical development of the City.

 

For the City Council:

 

a.              As may be applied practically to the physical development of the City for a reasonable period next ensuing will:

 

1.               Serve as a pattern and guide for that kind of orderly physical growth and development of the City which will cause the least amount of natural resource impairment; and

 

2.               Conform to the adopted population plan and ensure an adequate supply of housing, including affordable housing; and

 

3.               Form a basis for the efficient expenditure of funds relating to the subjects of the City of Reno Master Plan.

 

b.              Master Plan amendments shall not be in effect prior to the Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Commission finding the Master Plan amendments conform to the Truckee Meadows Regional Plan.

 

Zoning Map Amendment and PUD Findings:

NRS 278A and NRS 250 (2) Findings:

 

              In accordance with NRS, Sections 278A.500 and .510 must be addressed when acting on a zoning map amendment to approve a PUD. In addition, the findings for NRS 278.250(2) must also be addressed. Listed below are the applicant responses to the findings for 278A.500 and 278.250(2). Staff comments are provided, as applicable to each finding. The finding for NRS 278A.510 is addressed in the Phasing section on page 4 of the PUD HB which provides a 20 year period in which to develop the project with the ability to request the City Council to determine if it is appropriate to extend the project past the initial 20 year development schedule 

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

Zoning Map AmendmentGeneral 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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

e.                   To provide for recreational needs. 

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

k.                   To promote health and the general welfare.

 

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

 

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

n.                    

To promote systems which use solar or wind energy.

 

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.

 

 

Meeting History

Nov 28, 2018 10:00 AM Video Reno City Council & Redevelopment Agency Board Joint Regular
draft Draft

M.1 through M.4 were opened together and heard as one item.

Mayor Schieve asked if proper notice was given.

City Clerk Turney stated that proper notice was given. The following correspondence was received: 63 letters in opposition; 5 letters in support; and 5 letters of concern.

COUNCIL MEMBER BREKHUS PRESENT AT 6:09 PM.

Andy Durling, Wood Rodgers representing the Applicant, gave a presentation on the project.

COUNCIL MEMBER JARDON PRESENT AT 6:10 PM.

Brooklyn Oswald, City of Reno Associate Planner, presented the staff report.

Mr. Durling and Steve Strickland, Wood Rodgers, answered questions from Council regarding various aspects of the project.

Jay Aldean, Truckee River Flood Management Authority, explained for Council Member Brekhus that the city has not re-mapped because the City of Sparks, the City of Reno, and Washoe County have not wanted to re-map. Re-mapping would put people back into the floodplain because the flow rates have increased over time. The Flood Project is undertaking a project to re-map FEMA floodplains and will provide the community with a set of maps that are accurate and based on flow rates that we now know exist.

Mr. Aldean explained for Mayor Schieve that the maps are expected to go to Sparks, Reno, and Washoe County for comments in the fall and will then be submitted to FEMA.

Mr. Aldean clarified that they do not stand to benefit one way or the other with this project. They were asked by Community Development to review one specific model and they provided a list of comments that need to be addressed. The applicant agreed with those comments and said they would do that but we have not seen a return on any of those comments. For a development such as this there will be numerous other calculations and drainage work that is done for review by Public Works. Mr. Aldean has not seen any of that and cannot say that any of the claims made in the presentation are true or false. Typically in a development process those would be looked at further down the line once Council has approved a sub-division and established a density. Mr. Aldean would then get more involved in that review process with Public Works. He also stated that the floodplain revision will supersede the southeast connector's letter of map revision they are working on right now. It will supersede the base flood elevations from the early FEMA studies and it will be the superior document for the whole community.

Council Member Duerr discussed past major floods in the area. She also noted that she has asked for re-mapping in the past but got pushback because people didn't want to be forced to pay for flood insurance if they were put in the floodplain. She asked how climate change factors into the modeling being done.

Mr. Aldean explained that there is uncertainty with regard to the impact climate change will have but storms are expected to get warmer, snow will melt faster, and we could see worse floods than we have seen in the past. He also explained for Council Member Duerr that he is not an expert on water tables.

Council Member Delgado expressed concern regarding flood impacts and the uncertainty of potential unintended consequences.

Council Member Weber discussed the fact that we have built in floodplains before and the mitigation planned for this project is appropriate.

Mr. Durling clarified that they used the increased flow rate and explained that they have planned for climate change impacts by including 25% more storage capacity. They provided a complete ground water model based on decades of data on that property and the areas where water is nearest the surface will be in open space.

Dave Cochran, City of Reno Fire Chief, discussed their engagement with the developer on the tentative fire agreement and stated that their concerns are mitigated with the tentative fire agreement.

Mayor Schieve opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak.

Alexis Motare, The Nevada Chapter of the Associated General Contractors, spoke in support of the project.

Mark Krueger spoke in support of the project.

Wanda Cardinelli spoke in opposition of the project.

Kim Rhodemyre, Upper South East Communities Coalition, spoke in opposition of the project.

Cory Miller spoke in support of the project.

Gordon Gossage spoke in support of the project.

John Saludes spoke in opposition of the project.

Tom Dunn, Reno Fire Fighters Association, expressed concerns about the project.

Gerry Conway spoke in opposition of the project.

Terri Thomas spoke in opposition of the project.

Franco Crivelli spoke in opposition of the project.

Jim DeVolld spoke in support of the project.

Aaron West spoke in support of the project.

Brock Marquez spoke in support of the project.

Ryan Hale spoke in support of the project.

Eloy Java spoke in support of the project.

Mike Kinney spoke in support of the project.

Online public comment, did not wish to speak:

In opposition: Joseph Grzymski, Laurie McLanahan, Stephanie Bickerstaffe, Stephen Foster, Elvira Foster, Alexandra Lutz, Ivan Birovljev, Chere Jigour, Patrick Turner, John Hervey, Marc Dodson, Walter Lesch, David Jarrett, Nikki Hertzler, Susan James

In favor: Douglas Erwin, Michael Cutler, Micheal Collins, Catherine Oliver, Nicole Vandicort, Chris Mallow, Teresa (no last name), Andrea Farnsworth.

City Clerk Turney stated that additional comment cards were submitted by 66 constituents who did not wish to speak; 35 were in opposition and 31 were in support of Daybreak.

The Mayor closed the public comment portion of the hearing.

Claudia Hanson, Community Development Planning Manager, explained for Council Member Jardon that the housing market's missing middle refers to a housing type and not a price range.

Council Member Brekhus discussed the inability to make the required findings for the master plan, zoning change, and planned unit development.

Council Member Duerr discussed numerous findings she cannot make.

Council Member Weber discussed the need for housing and jobs and stated that she can make all of the findings.

Council Member Bobzien stated that he is not ready to go forward with this project from the flooding perspective.

It was moved by Council Member Delgado, seconded by Council Member Duerr, to deny the request as Council cannot make master plan amendment finding A1, and zoning map amendment findings A, F, and I.

Council Member Brekhus read comments regarding additional findings that cannot be made.

Motion passed with Council Member Weber voting nay.

RESULT:DEFEATED [6 TO 1]
MOVER:Oscar Delgado, Councilmember
SECONDER:Naomi Duerr, Councilmember
AYES:Hillary Schieve, Jenny Brekhus, Naomi Duerr, Oscar Delgado, Neoma Jardon, David Bobzien
NAYS:Bonnie Weber