On October 12, 2000, the City Council adopted the final Design Standards Handbook for Pioneer Meadows. The Handbook was previously amended in 2004 (PCN03027) to allow direct access from Vista Boulevard for a multi-family area and to allow for the future development of a golf course.  The Handbook was also amended in 2006 (PCN06052) to amend the land use plan.

This is the third request to amend the Handbook.

The existing parking standards in the Mulit-Family (MF15, MF15A) designations are:

• One and one half (1.5) parking spaces per efficiency, studio or one (1) bedroom.
• One (1) parking spaces per bedroom for two (2) bedroom or larger units.

 The requested amendment would change the parking standards in the Multi-Family (MF15, MF15A) designations to:

• One (1) parking spaces per efficiency, studio of one (1) bedroom.
• Two (2) parking spaces per unit for two (2) bedroom or larger units.

This request is to amend the Design Standards Handbook for Pioneer Meadows to reduce the number of required parking spaces in the Multi-Family (MF15, MF15A) districts, as noted in the Background section. The City’s zoning code (SMC 20.04.009) requires one parking space per multi-family unit.  The proposed parking standards will still require more parking spaces than is required by the zoning code.  The requested amendment would require a minimum of one parking space per studio or one bedroom unit and two spaces per two or more bedroom unit.  The applicant believes this is closer to the actual parking demand that the apartments in this development will generate.

Staff compared the proposed change in required parking to the amount of parking in two recently approved multi-family projects in suburban Sparks, the parking requirements of Reno, and the parking requirements of a few similarly sized suburban cities in the United States.  This comparison is based on the unit mix for Lumina at Pioneer Meadows, the proposed multi-family parking standards in Pioneer Meadows, and applying the proposed parking standards for Pioneer Meadows and the standards of other cities.  Using Lumina’s unit mix (number of 1, 2, and 3 bedroom units) this analysis compares the parking requirements from other jurisdictions and approved projects in Sparks.  The results are in the table below.

Beyond Lumina, it is not known what the unit mix will be for future multi-family projects in Pioneer Meadows but this analysis demonstrates that the proposed parking standard is comparable to the parking requirements of other approved projects and other jurisdictions.  It is also noteworthy that while the amendment will change the minimum requirements for parking, the property developer will have to determine how many parking spaces they need to meet market demands.  It should as be noted that Lumina provided 591 parking spaces, more than the minimum number that they were required.       

The amendment of the multi-family parking requirements only necessitates changing one page of the handbook.  This page has been included with the staff report.  If any of the City Council members would like the entire handbook, staff can provide a copy.

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FINDINGS:

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

The stated purpose of a Planned Development per the Spark Municipal Code is:

Section 20.02.012 - Planned development.

Purpose: This chapter provides 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.

 The Pioneer Meadows Planned Development Handbook states in its introductory section:

                GOALS/Policies/Procedures

                                Overall Project Goals

• To help meet the future projected housing needs while maintaining and managing natural resources and open space.
• To create a jobs/ housing balance, while minimizing the impacts of development on air quality and the transportation network.

Objectives

• To provide compatibility between land use and transportation.
• To reduce vehicle miles traveled by providing employment and housing opportunities within proximity to one another.
• To provide a mix of housing types and sizes that reflects demands.
• To integrate the housing to compliment the site’s natural environment.
• To retain and provide access to natural open space.
• To provide trails and bike paths within and Common Areas and right-of-ways in and around the site to the neighborhood parks, and connection of the trails to the regional park within Spanish Springs. 

The proposed change in the parking requirements for the Multi-Family (MF15, MF15a) designated areas does not impact the overall goals or objectives stated in the Pioneer Meadows Handbook.  Therefore, the proposed change in the parking requirements does not change the degree to which the Design Standards Handbook for Pioneer Meadows is consistent with the objective of a planned unit development.

PDb        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 reason why these departures are or are not deemed to be in the public interest.

The amendment to the multi-family parking requirements does not change the density, bulk, or use otherwise applicable to the property.  The density, bulk, use and design standards will remain the same.  The requested amendment will bring the multi-family parking requirements closer to the standards in SMC 20.004.009.  The subdivision regulations otherwise applicable to this property are not being changed by this amendment.

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

The amendment to the multi-family parking requirements will not change the previously approved ratio of residential to nonresidential uses in this planned development.

PDd        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 of the amount and purpose of the common open space as related to the proposed density and type of residential development.

The amendment to the multi-family parking requirements will not change the previously approved open space requirements in this planned development. 

PDe        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 amenities of light, air, recreation and visual enjoyment.

The Handbook’s provision for public services and utilities and for the amenities of light, air, recreation and visual enjoyment will not be impaired or altered by the amendment to the multi-family parking requirements.

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

The amendment to the multi-family parking requirements does not directly affect any adjacent properties.  Any impacts related to the neighborhood from any new multi-family projects would be addressed when a development application is reviewed.

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

The approved Handbook’s terms and conditions intended to protect the interests of the public, residents and owners during an extended development period are not modified by this amendment. 

The proposed amendment maintains the integrity of the plan by retaining land uses that were originally approved in the handbook for Pioneer Meadows Planned Development while allowing for a change to the parking requirements in the Multi-Family (MF15, MF15A) designated areas. The handbook was approved originally with a mixture of residential and commercial uses and this amendment does not change original concepts for development of the property.

FINAL HANDBOOK

The following is the SMC section on final handbook approval followed by the NRS regulations.

Section 20.18.080           Procedure for final approval

A.            Application for final review by the Sparks Planning Commission and ultimate final approval by the Sparks City Council must be made to the Administrator within the time specified by the minutes granting tentative approval. 

B.             A public hearing on an application for final approval of the plan, or any part thereof, is not required if the plan, or any part thereof, submitted for final approval is in substantial compliance with the plan which has been given tentative approval. The plan submitted for final approval is in substantial compliance with the plan previously given tentative approval if any modification by the landowner of the plan as tentatively approved does not:

1.             Vary the proposed gross residential density or intensity of use;

2.             Vary the proposed ratio of residential to nonresidential use;

3.             Involve a reduction of the area set aside for common open space or the substantial relocation of such area;

4.             Substantially increase the floor area proposed for nonresidential use; or

5.             Substantially increase the total ground areas covered by buildings or involve a substantial change in the height of buildings.

A public hearing need not be held to consider modifications in the location and design of streets or facilities for water and for disposal of storm water and sanitary sewage.

C.             All requirements and regulations pertaining to the application for final approval, substantial compliance with tentatively approved plan, alternative proceedings for final action on plans not in substantial compliance, recourse to courts for failure of city to grant or deny final approval, certification and filing of approved plan upon abandonment or failure to carry out approved plan shall be provided in NRS 278A.530 to 278A.580, inclusive.

Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 278A.540 states what constitutes substantial compliance with a tentative approved planned development application.

NRS 278A.540     What constitutes substantial compliance with plan tentatively approved.

The plan submitted for final approval is in substantial compliance with the plan previously given tentative approval if any modification by the landowner of the plan as tentatively approved does not:

A.            Vary the proposed gross residential density or intensity of use;

B.             Vary the proposed ratio of residential to nonresidential use;

C.             Involve a reduction of the area set aside for common open space or the substantial relocation of such area;

D.            Substantially increase the floor area proposed for nonresidential use; or

E.             Substantially increase the total ground areas covered by buildings or involve a substantial change in the height of buildings.

A public hearing need not be held to consider modifications in the locations and design of streets or facilities for water and disposal of storm water and sanitary sewer.

NRS 278A     Plan not in substantial compliance, Alternative procedures; public hearing final action.

1. If the plan, as submitted for final approval, is not in compliance with the plans as given tentative approval, the city or county shall, within 30 days of the date of filing of the application for final approval, notify the landowner in writing, setting forth the particular ways in which the plan is not in substantial compliance.
2. The landowner may:

(a) Treat such notice as a denial of final approval;

(b) Refile his plan in a form which is in substantial compliance with the plans as tentatively approved; or

(c) File a written request with the city or county that it hold a public hearing on his application for final approval.

If the landowner elects the alternatives set out in paragraph (b) or (c) above, he may refile his plan or file a request for a public hearing, as the case may be, on or before the last day of the time within which he was authorized by the minutes granting tentative approval to file for final approval, or 30 days from the date he receives such notice of such refusal, whichever is later. 

1. Any such public hearing shall be held within 30 days after the request for the hearing is made by the landowner, and notice thereof shall be given and hearings shall be conducted in the manner prescribed in NRS 278A.480.

3. Within 20 days after the conclusion of the hearing, the city or county shall, by minute action, either grant final approval to the plan or deny final approval to the plan.  The grant or denial of the final approval of the plan shall, in cases arising under this section, contain the matters required with respect to an application for tentative approval by NRS 278A,500.

Staff has reviewed the proposal to amend the final handbook for the Pioneer Meadows Planned Development.  Based on the provisions listed in NRS, staff is of the opinion that the proposed amendment of the Pioneer Meadows Planned Development is in substantial compliance with the tentatively approved plan as approved by the City Council.  The final draft handbook:

• does not vary the proposed gross residential density;
• does not vary the proposed ratio of residential to nonresidential use;
• does not reduce the common open space area;
• there is no increase to the floor area; and
• there is no increase in the total ground areas covered by buildings nor is there substantial change in the height of buildings.  There are no changes proposed in the final Handbook.

It is staff’s opinion that the final draft amendment for the Pioneer Meadows Handbook does not substantially vary from the five criteria and conforms to the tentative handbook. Due to the fact that this request is an amendment to a recorded final handbook, staff determined this amendment should be reviewed through a public hearing process.

The Planning Commission reviewed this proposed amendment to the Pioneer Meadows Development Handbook at their August 4, 2016 meeting.  The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the requested amendment.

City Council may choose to deny the request to amend the Pioneer Meadows Planned Development Handbook.

City Council may choose to require a bond as stated in NRS278A.490.

I move to approve a request for tentative and final approval of an amendment to the Pioneer Meadows Planned Development Handbook associated with PCN16017, adopting Findings PDa through PDg and the facts supporting those Findings as set forth in the staff report.  Because the request includes final approval City Council will not require a bond at this time as stated in NRS 278A.490.