2013 2:00:00 PM

Monday, April 8, 2013 2:00 PM
Sparks Council Chambers, 745 4th Street, Sparks, NV

Planning and Zoning Public Hearings and Action Items: 8.1

Title: PCN12010, Public Hearing, Consideration and possible action on a Master Plan Amendment and Tentative Approval of an amendment to a planned development handbook (Wingfield Springs) on a site approximately 1,645 acres in size within the NUD (Wingfield Springs Planned Development) zoning district generally located north of the Miramonte Planned Development, east of the Pioneer Meadows Planned Development, and west of the Foothills at Wingfield Springs Planned Development, Sparks, NV. A. A Master Plan Amendment request to change the land use designation on 3.7 acres from Open Space (OS) to 4 du/ac and change the land use on approximately 8 acres from 4 du/ac to Open Space (village 27), and change the land use designation on 10.9 acres from Open Space (OS) to 4 du/ac (village 28). B. A request for Tentative Approval of an amendment to the Wingfield Springs Planned Development Handbook to include the addition of several new villages; changes to the land use map and table; and changes to the setbacks within the Builder Lot and Patio Home designations.

Petitioner/Presenter: Red Hawk Land Company/Tim Thompson

Recommendation: The Community Services Department and Planning Commission recommend certification of the Master Plan Amendments. Staff recommends denial for Tentative Approval of an amendment to the Wingfield Springs Planned Development Handbook, see suggested motions below.

Financial Impact: N/A

Business Impact (Per NRS 237):
A Business Impact Statement is not required because this is not a rule.

Agenda Item Brief: Consideration and possible action on Master Plan Amendment requests to change the land use within the Wingfield Springs Planned Development and Tentative Approval of an Amendment to the Wingfield Springs Planned Development Handbook.

Background: On May 17, 2012, the Sparks Planning Commission considered several requests from Red Hawk Land Company to amend the Master Plan and handbook related to the Wingfield Springs Planned Development. Prior to the item being presented, the applicant withdrew several of the requested amendments. The staff report for Planning Commission was prepared prior to the withdrawal request and so it recommended the Commission deny some of the proposed amendments and approve the remainder of the requests. Specifically, the Planning Commission staff report addressed the Master Plan amendments: to change the land use designation on 2.67 acres from Open Space (OS) to 6 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) (village 5A); change the land use designation on 1.8 acres from Open Space (OS) to 4 du/ac (village 20A); change the land use designation on 3.7 acres from Open Space (OS) to 4 du/ac (village 27); change the land use on approximately 8 acres from 4 du/ac to Open Space (village 27); and change the land use designation on 10.9 acres from Open Space (OS) to 4 du/ac (village 28). The handbook amendments included the addition of several new villages, changes to the land use map and table, and changes to the setbacks within the Builder Lot and Patio Home designations. The applicant withdrew the Master Plan amendment requests as well as any related changes in the handbook which would have allowed the creation of new villages 5A and 20A. Staff did recommend approval for the Master Plan amendments associated with villages 27 and 28 and the handbook changes to allow the creation of villages 17A, 19C, and 31. Staff also recommended approval of the changes to the setbacks within the Builder Lot and Patio Home designations. The Planning Commission approved the remaining Master Plan amendments and forwarded them on to the City Council for certification. The Commission also forwarded a recommendation for tentative approval to the City Council for the remaining modifications to the planned development handbook.

Analysis: The Planning Commission received significant testimony from Wingfield residents during the public comment portion of the hearing. Residents voiced their concern regarding completion of the parks, timing of landscaping improvements, the loss of open space, and water and irrigation issues. Specifically, residents voiced concern about the completion of Silverton Shores Park. Based on further staff research, of the concerns raised by the residents, only those related to the completeness of the parks have a bearing on theses amendment requests. The research staff has done to understand the concerns prior to bringing the amendments to City Council has focused on two residential construction tax (RCT) agreements between the City of Sparks and Loeb Enterprises, LLC, and its successor Red Hawk Land Company. The two RCT agreements contemplate a total of five (5) parks within the Wingfield Springs Planned Development. Park One (Poco Rey Park) was constructed and dedicated to the City. Park Two (Rose Garden) was deeded to the City on October 13, 2004. Although Park Three (Pelican Park) was constructed, it was not constructed in accordance with City standards nor was it ever dedicated to the City. Instead, the City acquired the park from Washoe County via tax sale. Park Four (Silverton Shores Park) was submitted for review and approved; construction started in 2007 but was halted by the developer. The park has yet to be constructed and the building permit has since expired. Park Five appears to have been removed from the planned development handbook, although the RCT agreement shows the park in the vicinity of Unit 19 south of Vista Boulevard. In reviewing previous entitlements, there was never any request to remove Park Five from the plan. It would appear that in updating the map in the handbook the park was simply removed from the plan. Park Five should either be restored within the planned development handbook or the RCT agreement should be amended. While the developer has used RCT credits which were issued based on the estimated value of parks three, four, and five, the developer has yet to fulfill their obligations under the terms of the agreement because Park Three (Pelican Park) was not conveyed in accordance with the terms of the RCT agreement. Therefore, the City asserts that Red Hawk Land Company is in default of the second Residential Construction Tax Agreement (A-2571). Sparks Municipal Code Chapter 20.18 requires several findings be made to support the approval of a tentative handbook. Specifically, 20.18.060 reads as follows: "Findings of fact required. The recommendation must set forth the reasons for granting, with or without conditions, or for denying, 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 and utilities, provide adequate control over vehicular traffic, and further the amenities of light, 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." Item 1 addresses the purpose of a planned unit development. Specifically, Chapter 20.18.010 states: “the purpose of this chapter is to provide for maximum environmental choice for the citizens of the City of Sparks by encouraging flexibility and creativity of design and a greater diversity of building types, open space arrangements and other aspects of land planning while, at the same time, preserving public welfare, health, and the general intent of the Master Plan. An additional purpose of this chapter is to provide a degree of certainty for the duration of build out of a large tract of land, such certainty not otherwise available in other chapters of this title (emphasis added).” Item 5 relates to the adequate provision for public services and utilities. Providing sufficient park facilities to further recreational opportunities is an important aspect of a planned development. Planned Development Findings PD13 and PD15 specifically address these findings of fact. Item 7 corresponds with Findings PD17 and PD21. Finding PD17 addresses project phasing and timing of improvements. When amending a previously approved handbook, Finding PD21 is important to consider because it obligates the City to preserve the integrity of the plan and further the interests of the City and its residents. In concluding that the developer is in default of the RCT credit agreement for failing to deliver parks pursuant to the agreement, City staff no longer believes that all the requisite findings can be made to support the applicant’s requested handbook amendments. As stated, the purpose of a planned development is to provide relative certainty within a development. Park facilities are an important aspect of a planned development. Both the City and residents rely on the plan to provide for the provision of park facilities. The residential construction tax credit agreement set forth the parameters and timing of the park facilities contemplated within the handbook. Since the developer has, to date, failed to meet their obligation to construct and convey the park facilities (specifically, Park Three) according to the terms of the agreement, neither the City nor its residents can be certain those obligations will be met in the future. The developer’s history of starting Park Four and never completing it is cause for further concern. This lack of performance undermines the integrity of this planned development. Approving additional entitlements would not protect the interests of the City and its residents. It is important to acknowledge that staff recommended approval of this application to the Planning Commission. The Commission agreed to approve the Master Plan amendments and forward them on to the City Council for certification. Staff still believes the Findings in support of the Master Plan amendments can be made. The Planning Commission also forwarded a recommendation for approval to the City Council of the requested changes to the planned development handbook. Staff is obligated to present the Planning Commission’s recommendations to the City Council. However, in light of the new information, staff recommends the City Council deny the request for tentative approval of an amendment to the Wingfield Springs Planned Development based on the following Findings. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT HANDBOOK AMENDMENTS PD13 The plan does provide for public services. If the plan provides for public services, then these provisions are not adequate. The public services identified in the planned development handbook are adequate to serve to project. No changes to the public facilities have been proposed. The existing infrastructure includes adequate capacity for the total number of residential units & commercial development included in the City’s Master Plan document. However, the developer is in default of a residential construction tax credit agreement which requires the submittal, approval, and construction of parks based on the number of building permits issued. Given the number of permits issued, the developer has not met their obligation to construct park facilities as required by the RCT agreements, which are the mechanism to implement the park facilities plan for the Wingfield Springs Planned Development. PD15 The plan does provide for the furtherance of access to light, air, recreation and visual enjoyment. The proposed changes do not impair the furtherance of access to light or air. The proposed modifications may have a potential impact to the visual enjoyment of adjacent properties and access to recreation (emphasis added). By not meeting the obligations set forth in the RCT Credit Agreement, the developers are depriving residents of adequate access to recreational facilities. PD17 To the extent the plan proposed development over a number of years, the terms and conditions intended to protect the interests of the public, residents and owners of the planned development in the integrity of the plan are sufficient. The planned development was intended to be completed over a number of years. The provisions set forth in the planned development handbook would adequately protect the interests of the public, nearby residents, and owners of the development. However, the developer is in default of a residential construction tax credit agreement which requires the submittal, approval, and construction of parks based on the number of building permits issued. Given the number of issued permits, the developer has not met their obligation to construct adequate park facilities. Staff is of the opinion that this compromises the integrity of the plan. Therefore, to approve further entitlements would not protect the interests of the public. PD21 Modification of Wingfield Springs Planned Development furthers the interest for the City and the residents and preserves the integrity of the plan. The uses proposed are not deviating from uses already included within the Wingfield Springs Planned Development Handbook. However, the developer is in default of a residential construction tax credit agreement which requires the submittal, approval, and construction of parks based on the number of building permits issued. Given the number of issued permits, the developer has not met their obligation to construct adequate park facilities. Staff is of the opinion that this compromises the integrity of the plan. Therefore, to approve further entitlements would not protect the interests of the City and its residents. For further Background, Analysis, and Findings to support approval, please see Planning Commission staff report.

Alternatives: Master Plan Amendments 1. The City Council may choose to not certify the Planning Commission’s approval of the amendments and remand the item back to the Planning Commission with further direction. Planned Development 1. The City Council may choose to grant tentative approval of the plan as submitted; or 2. The City Council may choose to grant tentative approval of the plan subject to specified conditions not included in the plan as submitted.

Recommended Motion:

Master Plan Amendments: I move to certify Master Plan Amendment Resolution No. 3236 associated with PCN12010 to change the land use designation on 3.7 acres from Open Space (OS) to 4 du/ac and change the land use designation on approximately 8 acres from 4 du/ac to Open Space (village 27) based on Findings MP1 through MP4 and the facts supporting those Findings as set forth in the Planning Commission staff report.

I move to certify Master Plan Amendment Resolution No. 3237 associated with PCN12010 to change the land use designation on 10.9 acres from Open Space (OS) to 4 du/ac (village 28) based on Findings MP1 through MP4 and the facts supporting those Findings as set forth in the Planning Commission staff report.

Planned Development Handbook: I move to deny the request for Tentative Approval of amendments to the Wingfield Springs Planned Development Handbook associated with PCN12010, based on the inability to make Findings PD13, PD15, PD17, and PD21.

Attached Files: