Preview: The August 28, 2024 Reno City Council meeting
More "Zoning Code Clean-Up" revisions, input sought on potential new policies, the final Truckee River Vision Plan & much more
We’re in a bit of a pre-Labor Day lull, it seems, because the only city meeting this coming week is that of Reno City Council, which meets on Wednesday, August 28. You can find the online meeting agenda with links to all supporting materials here.
I’m going to highlight a bunch of development-related items on that agenda, and first up is perhaps the most complex item (D.3), which relates to the ongoing “Zoning Code Clean-Up.” Under this item, City staff will present a wide array of proposed revisions that appear to be the last collection categorized as “clean-up,” plus seek input on some policy initiatives that Council could direct staff to address separately. Those include important topics like tattoo parlors, a potential downtown noise ordinance, tree protections, permitting for schools and certain industrial uses, neighborhood protections, and more—so be sure to keep reading.
It’s challenging but critical for residents to keep up with proposed zoning and ordinance changes. They can be difficult to understand, particularly in terms of their potential repercussions, but changes to Title 18 (the Land Development code) can have a major impact on our everyday lives by determining what can be built where, what regulations will govern the appearance and function of any new additions to the landscape, and how much (if any) public review they will require. So let’s dive in.
Item D.3 - Title 18 “Zoning Code Clean-Up”
This “Zoning Code Clean-Up” initiative, as you may recall, has been split up into multiple different phases and components, including the Affordable Housing initiatives that were already adopted, the proposed ADU ordinance that has yet to be drafted, and more.
It’s important to note that none of these proposed code revisions will be adopted at the August 28 meeting. Rather, City staff is simply introducing these proposed revisions and how they might be worded, based on input from past meetings, the Planning Commission, and various stakeholders. They are requesting feedback from Council (and the public) in advance of drafting the final revisions, which would then come back to the Planning Commission and then City Council in the form of a text amendment and ordinance. That step is several months away.
Three documents included with this item explain and illustrate all of the proposed revisions, and the reasons they are being proposed:
Staff Report – This 8-page document explains where we are in this process of Zoning Code Clean-Up and includes explanations of the six specific policy areas where staff seeks further input.
Summary Chart (Exhibit A) – This 11-page document lays out the revisions being proposed for the entirety of Title 18, with the staff’s explanation of them and an indication of what motivations or feedback spurred each one.
Redline document (Exhibit B) – This 583-page document is the complete Title 18 (Land Annexation and Development), with all proposed revisions marked in red.
I highly recommend reading through the first two documents in their entirety. It can be difficult to find precisely where these proposed revisions would appear in the actual code (page numbers would have helped!) but it’s there for reference if you want to try to better understand the context in which they would appear (you can also consult and search the current Title 18 online here.)
When you look at the Summary Chart, you can see that a great many of these revisions are indeed accurately described as “clean-up”—making terminology consistent, reducing confusion, updating certain aspects to align with current code, eliminating redundancies, etc.
However, I am struck by the fact that some of the proposed revisions categorized as “clean up” actually comprise changes to the code that would impact regulations like how much public review a new project would undergo, what kinds of setbacks are required for certain types of development, and even what kinds of uses are allowed in different zoning districts.
These may or may not be of concern to you (or to me), but my point is that they are mixed in with clean-up items, and their implications are not necessarily clear.
As the Summary Chart indicates, some of these proposed revisions are said to be “based on community and technical experts feedback.” Chief among those “technical experts” is the “Technical Advisory Committee” (TAC) described in the Staff Report as “a group of 29 individuals….who use the City of Reno Title 18 Annexation and Land Development Code on a regular basis” and are said to include “land use planners, architects, engineers, landscape architects, designers, and City staff.”
Consulting experts and regular users of the code is great. But I think it’s important to point out that what some in the building community might see as obstacles to development, residents might view as important protections. And it’s tough for residents just looking at the technical code to understand the potential repercussions of a specific change.
Again, as we’ve seen before, it could have been a good idea here to separate out the “clean-up” from the “new changes.” If staff won’t do that, the best we can do is read through the 11-page chart and flag any revisions that raise questions for us—and then ask staff to explain what they mean, providing examples, if possible. What we’re trying to understand—and this is just being responsible—is the worst-case scenario of what could occur should these changes be made.
For instance, there are a number of instances where the requirement to secure a Conditional Use Permit (which requires review by the Planning Commission) has been changed to a Minor Conditional Use Permit (with review conducted administratively by City staff). That’s an advantage to a developer or builder, for sure, but would residents be more comfortable with public review of such projects—and even more importantly, would it result in a better project?
Here are some of the proposed revisions that drew my attention. You may find others. Again, I’m not saying any or all of these are undesirable, just that I don’t immediately understand what they mean or would do—and you might have the same reaction to these or others (and you may even want to support them), so let’s make sure to get all our questions answered.
Examples listed under 18.02 Zoning Districts
Buildings exceeding 500,000 sf in the Industrial Commercial zoning district currently require approval of a conditional use permit and are required to have multiple tenants. This standard was modified to now require a minor site plan review, instead of a conditional use permit, and are no longer required to be designed for multiple tenants.
Table 2-37: Sign Regulations for Gaming Overlay District identifies specific sign regulations for the Gaming Overlay District. There are broader portions of the City that are within the Gaming Overlay District and do not include a gaming establishment. Language was added to specify that the additional sign regulations only apply to the actual gaming establishment and not to other types of uses.
Examples listed under 18.03 Use Regulations
Tattoo Parlors have been removed and condensed into general personal service.
Bars have been modified to go from a conditional use permit to permitted by-right in the General Commercial zoning district.
The use “Outdoor Amusement or Recreation” has been expanded to be allowed in additional zoning districts.
Use standards specific to Assisted Living Facilities has been modified to be less restrictive.
For both primary and secondary schools, a Conditional Use Permit will be triggered for a school in excess of 400 students. This is based on council feedback for a desire to have more public feedback for larger schools.
Use standards for Live Entertainment have been added to provide clarity on how measurements to and from sensitive uses is determined.
Examples listed under 18.04 Development Standards
Article 1 - Additional requirements and specificity for Feral Horse management was included to address ongoing issues, including adding a boundary that is consistent with the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW).
Article 3 - Added flexibility regarding re-vegetation after grading
Article 5 - Allowing added flexibility with regards to undergrounding power lines for public roadway improvements
Article 9 - Additional flexibility with regards to front yard setbacks for infill lots was included
Article 9 - To increase compatibility between residential uses and adjacent buildings with regards to height, “Stepback” requirements were clarified, as they are difficult to administer.
Article 10 - Removed standards specific to parking structures in an attempt to make parking structures easier to develop
Article 10 - Removed requirements for parking structures in an attempt not to over-regulate and make parking structures more expensive, as they are desired over large open lots. Structures must still follow building articulation, and pedestrian amenity requirements in certain districts.
Article 16 - Updated skyway standards to reflect modern application practices.
There is also some terminology that I see would change, including changing the definition of “Multi-Family Dwelling” from “a building used or designed at two or more dwelling units” to “five or more dwelling units,” and I’m not sure why. Isn’t a duplex or triplex also a “multi-family dwelling”? What are the potential repercussions of that change to associated policies? That’s on p. 528 of the redline draft.
There’s much more here, so like I said, please read through these first two documents for yourself, flag anything that interests or concerns you, and let’s try to get those concerns and clarifications addressed at this stage, if possible.
Broader Policy Topics for which City Staff is seeking input
In addition to all those specific revisions up for consideration and discussion, City staff is also seeking feedback under Item D.3 on some “broader policy topics” that are outlined in the Staff Report.
I don’t usually directly reprint so much directly from those reports, but I want to make sure that everyone understands what these would involve, so you can contribute to Council’s discussion of whether or not (or how) to pursue them. So here are the staff’s full descriptions of these policy topics, what has prompted discussion of them, and what staff is seeking from Council this week.
Expand where tattoo parlors are allowed
REASON: Tattoo parlors are currently a separate use in the Title 18 Use Table. Based on public feedback and discussion by the Planning Commission, there is interest in modifying the definition of Personal Service and allowing tattoo parlors in more zoning districts. The Personal Service use category currently allows for a mix of businesses including barber/beauty salons, massage parlors, shoe repair, copy centers, house cleaning services, psychics, etc.
DIRECTION NEEDED: Seeking direction from Council to add tattoo parlors to the definition of Personal Service, which could expand the zoning districts where a tattoo parlor business could be located.
Updates to tree protection standards
REASON: The proposed staff changes are based on the previous Tree Ordinance discussions that took place with the Urban Forestry Commission. The changes are specific to the items that were not contentious and are intended to provide clarification and more specificity on when tree protection standards are applicable.
DIRECTION NEEDED: Seeking direction from Council to modify the tree protection standards.
Note: A detailed list of the proposed changes regarding tree protection standards is included in the Staff Report, so please refer to pages 3-5 of that document for more.
Update standards to require a Conditional Use Permit for all new schools with more than 400 students
REASON: The current zoning code regulations allow for schools in most zoning districts with the approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit, which is only reviewed by staff. The proposed changes would modify the standards to require approval of a Conditional Use Permit for all schools exceeding 400 students. This would require review and approval by the Planning Commission.
DIRECTION NEEDED: Seeking feedback from Council on requiring a Conditional Use Permit for all schools that exceed 400 students.
Updates to standards to require a Conditional Use Permit for all industrial operations that want to operate between the hours of 11 p.m. and 6 a.m.
REASON: The current zoning code regulations allow certain types of industrial uses, such as warehouse and distribution operations to operate 24 hours a day. Proposed changes would trigger a Conditional Use Permit and approval by the Planning Commission if they wanted to operate between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. This is based on challenges when residential development is located next to warehouses that operate with trucks coming and going all night.
DIRECTION NEEDED: Seeking feedback from Council on requiring a Conditional Use Permit for warehousing/distribution types of uses that want to operate past 11p.m.
Update requirements for protection of neighborhoods
REASON: As the City continues to grow, infill development continues to be a priority, as outlined in the Master Plan. Several changes are proposed to the zoning code to better protect existing neighborhoods from new development.
DIRECTION NEEDED: Seeking feedback from Council on increased regulations for the protection of neighborhoods including setback requirements, added compatibility regulations, and additional use standards for more intense uses when adjacent to residential development.
Note: Even though there are some examples given here, I’m still not clear on precisely what is meant by all of this. It looks like a lot of it refers to revisions proposed for section 18.04.901 of the code, which starts on page 323 of the Redlined Document.
Creation of a downtown noise ordinance
REASON: Residents living in downtown Reno have expressed concerns with the noise levels in downtown Reno. This includes noise from crowds, bars, nightclubs, outdoor concerts, stereos, vehicles/motorcycles, and generally intoxicated individuals.
DIRECTION NEEDED: Seeking direction from Council if they would like to move forward with a noise ordinance specific to downtown Reno. This would need to be formally initiated at a future Council meeting and processed as a separate text amendment.
A little more background on this one: Many downtown residents have been engaging for months in lengthy discussions with City staff and Councilmembers about downtown noise, and you can view a presentation about it from Assistant Director of Development Services Angela Fuss at the June 11, 2024 Ward 5 NAB meeting here.
In viewing that presentation, you’ll hear that the Glow Plaza can host up to 20 events a year with no limitations on noise (and enjoys extremely generous noise parameters year-round, I’ll add). What you won’t hear is that the parameters on noise levels allowed at the Glow Plaza were set by a narrow 4-3 decision made by the Planning Commission that was upheld on appeal by Reno City Council in May of 2022. Please read my Brief called “The Glow Plaza & Festival Area Appeal” and the preceding Brief “Of Decibels and Demographics” for more explanation of that whole debacle.
Resident concerns about excessive downtown noise are not confined to concerts and events, as was clarified at that Ward 5 NAB meeting, and much of it involves activity after midnight. This whole issue again raises the question of how downtown Reno should be categorized and regulated when more and more residents are moving into areas (and structures) formerly occupied by casinos and hotel-casinos, changing the composition of this area and the needs of its residents, as their numbers continue to grow and the numbers of gaming properties decline.
Updates to Wild Horse zoning standards
This last topic, about wild horses, was mentioned in the email that City staff sent last week to those who signed up for updates on the Zoning Code Clean-Up, but I don’t see it identified as a focused policy topic in the Staff Report. There are some potential revisions related to wild horses in the Summary, so maybe it will be addressed that way. I’m not sure, but I wanted to mention it.
Now let’s look at items on the rest of the Council agenda pertaining to development.
Other development-related items on the Council agenda
Items C.1 and C.2 would amend the PUD handbook for The Canyons project in south Reno to increase the number of residential units from 81 to 126, among other things. The Staff Report for C.1 (to amend the handbook) is here, and other materials are attached with the agenda. Under C. 2 is the ordinance change, explained here.
As the Staff Report indicates, this amendment would propose a “significant alteration to the current plan, design standards, and development characteristics.” The Planning Commission recommended approving this amendment in a five to one vote, although “there was concern that the additional density would conflict with the existing development context for the area.” Other materials you can access on the agenda include the Planning Commission Staff Report and Minutes, maps, and more.
Item C.4 - This item constitutes a public hearing involving several steps that would result in the City selling six parcels of land at the SW corner of Clear Acre Lane and Scottsdale Road that it acquired from the RTC to the Northern Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council Development Corporation. It includes a public hearing to determine the parcels’ fair market value and approval to sell them in order to enable construction of “affordable and workforce housing” and commercial space without first making the property available to the public. The City approved moving forward with this purchase in May. You can read the Staff Report here.
Items D.1 and D.2 - Modifications to the purchase agreement and legal actions concerning the development project at 0 Riverside Drive. These two items pertain to an unexpected hiccup with the development project at the west end of Riverside Drive (just northwest of the Booth Street bridge). Apparently, title insurance companies have refused to insure the title to the property unless the City “prosecutes a quiet title action in state court to clear the many liens that remain on the title report.” So under Item D.1 staff is recommending amending the purchase agreement with a standdown provision and reimbursement provision to allow the City to reimburse BUILT Investments, LLC for certain prior work undertaken if the City can’t get that quiet title within 18 months, among other things (the amended draft is here). Item D.2 is the request to approve initiating that quiet title action.
Item D. 5 - Presentation on the status of the request for qualifications (RFQ) #2024-13 for Pembroke Flat Field Development. In short, the City issued an RFQ on June 4th to design, develop, build, operate, and maintain a flat-field complex, but received only one “responsive and responsible” submission from a team headed up by the community non-profit Great Basin Youth Soccer League, which the evaluation committee is not recommending for selection. Explanation of their reasons is included in the Staff Report, and you can also view the GBYSL submission here.
Staff is recommending that the City “select a consultant from the City’s Civil Site Design unranked list of consultants” to proceed with the final design and construction documents including a phased build-out plan, and also work toward developing a comprehensive operational and funding plan for the parcel.
JUST A QUICK NOTE HERE: Does anyone else think it’s a good time for us to see a comprehensive accounting of all the ARPA funds that the City of Reno has received, what has been spent, and how much more is allocated and available? I really don’t want us to be in a position where the City just starts doling out unallocated funds a few months from now in order to meet the designated deadline.
Item D. 6 - Presentation, discussion, and potential approval of the Truckee River Vision Plan prepared by Dig Studio with regard to the cohesive plan of the Truckee River corridor and adjacent land. This item includes a Staff Report, Graphic Summaries, and the Final Truckee River Vision Plan. Staff is recommending that Council approve the plan “and direct staff to pursue project opportunities outlined in the implementation plan and bring identified projects forward when action can be taken.” There is A LOT here (the plan is 223 pages long), so if this interests you, better start reading. A major recommendation involves partnering with Washoe County and the City of Sparks to create a Truckee River Park District to help generate funds.
Item D. 7 - Presentation, discussion, and potential acceptance of the report regarding downtown updates for the month of July. These monthly updates were requested in April, and you can get a preview in the Staff Report here.
Item F. 1 - Ordinance Adoption – Bill No. 7275 (For Possible Action): An Ordinance to amend Title 8, Chapter 8.10, of the Reno Municipal Code entitled “Offenses Against Property”, prohibiting trespassing upon railroad tracks; and other matters properly relating thereto. As the Staff Report explains, this is the second reading of the ordinance, which will be adopted if passed.
Item I.1 - (PUBLIC HEARING to be heard no earlier than 6:00 p.m.) - Case No. LDC24-00015 (NV Energy Utility Corridor). This is an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to include Condition of Approval No. 9 in their approval of a conditional use permit to a) establish a major utility to allow for the construction of a new overhead 120kV electrical power line, and b) allow for hillside development. Appeals were filed by the applicant, NV Energy, and Heinz Ranch Land Company LLC. You can read the Staff Report here and access other relevant attachments through the online agenda.
There’s much more on the August 28 agenda, so definitely skim through it for items of interest to you. You can attend the meeting in person or virtually by registering here. Public comment can be delivered in person, by submitting an online public comment form at Reno.Gov/PublicComment; (2) emailing Publiccomment@reno.gov; (3) leaving a voicemail at 775-393-4499; or 4) participating via Zoom.
Today’s final word on advance notice & preparation
When looking at a packed City Council agenda like this one, I can’t help but feel—as I’ve stated in the past—that Council can’t possibly give all of these items the attention and discussion that they deserve. Something has to give here, especially with the Council’s self-imposed time limits for discussion of each item, which has normalized interrupting Councilmembers’ comments and questions, often in mid-sentence. That might make the meetings go faster, but it results in less thoughtful, rushed deliberations and frequently comes across as rude and jarring.
At the same time, Councilmembers and the public have so little notice to review all the materials posted for these meetings; this agenda with its abundance of content wasn’t even posted until the morning of Friday, August 23. Don’t they know at least some of the items that will be on certain agendas much sooner than that? Do our City Councilmembers get earlier notice than the public does, and if so, can that notice be shared on an accessible public calendar? The Development Projects newsletters (you can view the August 16 edition here) include tentative dates when projects will be discussed at NABs, Planning Commission, and/or City Council, but that’s just development project applications, and that schedule isn’t easily accessible, either.
Someone needs to take a holistic view of these meetings and assess how well they are actually working. Reno City Council used to meet weekly, as many cities do today. Some cities post a tentative Council agenda followed by a final agenda. Some regularly schedule focused meetings on specific topics. The options abound, and I think it’s beyond time to start considering them, for everyone’s sake.
Be sure to check out my Citizen Guide for helpful resources and links for anyone hoping to become more informed and engaged in issues related to urban development (& more) in Reno.
As always, you can view this and prior newsletters on my Substack site, subscribe to receive each new edition in your email inbox, and follow the Brief (and contribute to the ongoing conversation) on Twitter, Facebook & Instagram. If you feel inspired to contribute to my efforts, sign up for a paid subscription through my Substack site or contribute to my Venmo account at @Dr-Alicia-Barber or via check to Alicia Barber at P.O. Box 11955, Reno, NV 89510. Thanks so much for reading and have a great week.