The battle for the soul of Midtown kicks off Wednesday night at 6 PM, when the Planning Commission gets its first presentation of sweeping changes to the Midtown Neighborhood Plan. You can catch the meeting on Charter 213, stream if from the City of Reno web site, or better yet, attend the meeting at city hall.
Update: Due to a noticing error, the Midtown Zoning item has been pulled from Wednesday’s Planning Commission meeting, and will be rescheduled at a later date.
Reno establishes base zoning districts, regulating allowed uses, density, lot size, setbacks, and parking requirements. Superimposed on the base districts are Neighborhood Plans, which alter and generally intensify the uses allowed under the base districts plan.
Reno established the South Virginia Street Transit Oriented Development Corridor base zoning district. The intent was to allow more dense development along the SVA corridor, increase reliance on public transportation, and spur redevelopment with the density bonuses. Later, the Midtown Neighborhood plan was overlaid on top of the TOD. Reno is reevaluation their entire stance on TODs, but the current proposed revision is specific to the Midtown Neighborhood Plan.
The Midtown Plan is divided into 3 zones:
– The SVA Corridor allows heights up to 75′ and 5 floors for buildings fronting Virginia Street. The minimum residential density is 18 dwelling units per acre (DUA), above the 14 DUA minimum for the base zoning district. The maximum density is 45 DUA if you can meet all the other plan requirements. I don’t have any issues with the proposals for this strip
– The Midtown Commercial zone is generally the areas east of SVA between Center and Holcomb Street, south of Sinclair. The current maximum density is 45 DUA, and the proposed revisions reduces that to 30 DUA. Realistically, most single lots can only be developed to about 32 DUA due to setback, parking, landscape and height restrictions. So not a big change. Front setbacks are defined as 0′, but new regulations would limit the distance you could build in front of adjacent structures to 5′. This helps maintain neighborhood character, but at the expense of density.
– The Midtown Residential zone is defined as the plan Neighborhood Plan area west of SVA to Humboldt in the norther section, Plumas in the southern section, south to Mount Rose Street, and north to Marsh. The proposed revisions to the Midtown Neighborhood Plan gut the development potential of this portion of the TOD. The existing underlying allowed density is 14 DUA with a maximum of 45. Again, other constraints realistically limit what is possible on an individual lot to about 32 DUA, 4-5 units on a standard 50’x140′ 7000 SF lot. The proposed density is 16 DUA, only 2 units per standard 7000 SF lot. THIS IS A TRANSIT CORRIDOR. Though the defined front setback generally stays 0′ from the lot line, a maximum 3′ step up from the adjacent properties is allowed. Not only does this further reduce density, it starts creating a street wall.
The proposed ordinance to be discussed at the Planning Commission can be found along with the meeting agenda on the City’s web site. THIS draft document is easier to navigate, as the proposed changes are highlighted.
Why this sucks: I have a client with a little duplex that also has a 200 SF barely habitable shack on the alley in the Midtown Residential zone.. They would love to tear down the shack and build a new duplex in its place, and the current Midtown Neighborhood Plan and TOD Plan would allow and encourage this. The incentives to develop underused land is WHY they purchased in this neighborhood to begin with. If the proposed revisions to the Plan are enacted, it will not be financially feasible, and the shack stays for another generation. That’s not how to encourage redevelopment of a neighborhood.
So why this overcorrection in the Midtown Residential zone downgrade? Look no further than Redfield Park at Midtown, originally designed as 54 townhouse units surrounding the historic Redfield Stone House and since reduced to 44 units. This site should never have been within the TOD, but was included due to pressure exerted by the developers. It is one of only 2 “assembled” properties in the zone consisting of former multiple parcels where large scale development is possible. Instead of reasonable infill housing on existing 7000 SF lots, the neighborhood got slammed with a block long modern development that somehow met all the planning standards.
It is important to encourage redevelopment along the SVA transit corridor. It is reasonable to accept that some fine tuning of the Midtown Neighborhood plan is justified. But it is neither reasonable nor acceptable to zone this core urban area to the same density as the Village in Somersett. So step up and let your City Council representative know how you feel.
Lee Andrew Pfalmer said:
I’m new to Reno City Council meetings. As a Mid Town resident, how can I be most effective (after showing up to the council meeting on wednesday) in helping shape these policies?
Steve Jobs said:
What’s the scoop on the Redfield Park condo project? The signs have been up for quite a while – is this actually going to be built, or will it be another Reno condo pipe dream that never happens?
Brian said:
While I hope to see the ball keep rolling on the Redfield Park development, I am a little confused as to why you feel it shouldn’t be a part of the TOD.? It sure looks like a well planned and complimentary project to the neighborhood, creating more vibrancy and residential density fronting a minor arterial into a lower density residential area (with the 7-11/Bibo spot being a hot traffic area for the locals, even a block further in). I sure think that more rooftops to support urban development further in the core, and an in demand product for a market currently lacking inventory in the price range seem like a no-brainier for anyone inspired by the positive growth going on within the greater downtown area would be in favor of an intelligent transitional development, but if I’m reading this correctly maybe you don’t see it that way. I would be very interested in knowing why. Great post, however, and thank you for an informative and interested glimpse into the workings of our community.
Brian said:
*and anyone inspired. Sorry…where’s the spell check!. 😉
REreno said:
The point of the TOD is to stimulate growth and development along the SVA mass transit corridor. If I remember back to Planning 101, people will walk 1/4 mile to utilize mass transit, so the TOD zoning should be limited to about 3 blocks from the transportation lime.
The Mount Rose / Watt corner of the Redfield project is right at this 1/4 mile threshold, and the far western corner of the project is over 2000′ from SVA. So my general beef is with the overall depth of the whole Transit Corridor, and not the Redfield project. I could make a very good case that the eastern portion of the project is appropriate. But I can;t make that finding for the western half beyond the Redfield Stone House.
The specific problem with the Redfield site is that is may be the only place in the entire TOD district where the increased density backs up to single family zoned house (Ardmore Street). I don;t think the site should ever have been included in the TOD, and meeting Reno’s residential adjacency standards has given the developer and architects fits. Meeting these requirements is why the project has been downsized from 54 to 44 units.
Here is a map to show what I’m talking about: https://rereno2.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=2118
Trust me, I am a big believer in density and infill housing in the urban core. I recognize the need for clean, well lighted roofs in the neighborhood.
thanks for the comment.