The Town Center Redevelopment Plan was originally adopted on February 27, 1978 and amended in 1987, 1993, 2000 and, most recently, in 2005 (“First Amendment”).  This amendment (the “Second Amendment”) to the Sparks Town Center 2000 Amended Redevelopment Plan (the “2000 Redevelopment Plan”) is limited in scope to providing an updated mixed-use development plan and implementation strategy for the Victorian Square project area.

The 1993 amended plan (the Sparks Town Center Phase III Amended Redevelopment Plan) envisioned Victorian Square as an “entertainment hub” for the region and a venue for special and cultural events.

The 2000 Redevelopment Plan acknowledged that some of the entertainment facilities envisioned in the 1993 amended plan were not economically viable outside a theme park environment.  The Redevelopment Plan stated that “retail is a significant component of entertainment based development”.  It focused the Agency’s efforts on completing the redevelopment of Victorian Square by producing a “major retail project in Victorian Square” with a potential scale of 400,000 to 600,000 square feet of new retail space.  The 2000 Redevelopment Plan further stated, however, that if the commercial market does not produce extensive retail development, a mixed-use project of retail, office, residential and restaurant uses is authorized.

Despite a concerted effort, the Agency failed to accomplish the goal of producing a major retail project in Victorian Square in the period since the adoption of the 2000 Redevelopment Plan.  The First Amendment was the outgrowth of the Agency’s experience through mid-2004 and the decision in the fall of 2004 to reevaluate the Agency’s goals for, and approach to, completing the redevelopment of Victorian Square.  This reconsideration led to a six month planning process which produced new development recommendations and a physical development plan for the Victorian Square project area.

NRS 279.608 requires that should the Agency desire to take an action that constitutes a material deviation from the adopted redevelopment plan or otherwise determines that it would be necessary or desirable to amend the plan it must:

• Hold a public hearing on the proposed amendment.  At least 10 days in advance of the hearing, notice of the hearing must be published as well as sent to each owner of real property whom the Agency determines is likely to be directly affected by the proposed amendment.  In this case, the Agency published a notice in the Reno Gazette-Journal on January 13, 2015.  Notices were mailed on January 9, 2015 to owners of property in the area bordered by 15^th Street on the west, Prater Way on the north, Pyramid Way on the east, and Victorian Avenue on the south.
• Recommend approval of the amendment to the City Council.

After receiving the recommendations of the Agency regarding the amendment, the City Council must hold a public hearing on the proposed amendment.  If the City Council concurs with the proposed amendment as necessary or desirable, the Council must amend the redevelopment plan by ordinance.  Agency staff are asking the Council to do the first reading of the ordinance approving the Second Amendment on January 26, 2015.  The public hearing on the amendment and second reading of the ordinance are scheduled for the February 9, 2015 City Council meeting.

Agency staff presented the Second Amendment to the Planning Commission on January 15, 2015.  The Planning Commission endorsed the amendment and determined the proposed changes do not necessitate an amendment to the City’s master plan.

The First Amendment modified the provisions of the 2000 Redevelopment Plan emphasizing large scale retail development.  It shifted the plan’s focus from a predominantly retail orientation to producing a mixed-use project.  This change is enabled by the 2000 Redevelopment Plan, which directs the Agency to consider “alternate uses such as mixed-use development that includes retail, office, and residential based on market potential” if dictated by market conditions.  The First Amendment also fulfilled the 2000 Redevelopment Plan’s call for a “revised development plan for the area that capitalizes on the market opportunity created so far by the development of the Square to date”.  

The Second Amendment is not intended to modify the shift in focus to a phased, mixed-use project that occurred with the First Amendment.  Rather, the Second Amendment only modifies the development plan and implementation strategy.

The physical development plan for Victorian Square is based on the proposed development program.  Exhibit A describes and illustrates the updated Victorian Square Development Plan.  Attached as Exhibit B is the Development Plan approved with the First Amendment.

Because the development plan and proposed uses are consistent with the City’s Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Corridor Area Plan, staff does not believe an amendment to the City’s master plan is necessary.

Based on the market research conducted for the First Amendment, the highest and best use concept most closely paralleling the Agency’s goals for the Victorian Square project area is a mixed-use retail, office and residential development.  This concept of mixed-use retail/residential/office has been shown in recent years to be the optimum program for revitalizing existing downtowns throughout the country, including smaller downtowns outside major metropolitan areas.  Not only does the concept attract new residents who will live, work, shop, dine and recreate in a pedestrian-oriented environment, it also energizes the “heart of the city” for short-term overnight visitors and day-trippers.

The development plan associated with the First Amendment never materialized due, largely, to the Great Recession. This Second Amendment is intended to reflect the challenges and opportunities that exist in 2015. With the announcement in late 2014 that Tesla Motors is constructing a massive battery production facility in Storey County, there is considerable new interest in development sites in Sparks, including Victorian Square.  This has resulted, in particular, in developers seeking sites for apartment projects. Other circumstances that have changed since 2005 include the more constrained financial position of the City of Sparks and the Agency, as well as changes in Nevada law that limit the Agency’s ability to do further site assembly.  This Second Amendment therefore updates the implementation strategy for the Victorian Square Development Plan.

The Redevelopment Agency’s options include, not approving the Second Amendment, approving it subject to changes, rejecting it or remanding it back to staff with further direction.

I move to approve the “Second Amendment” to the Sparks Town Center 2000 Amended Redevelopment Plan associated with PCN15001 and recommend the City Council amend the redevelopment plan by ordinance.