Massively Underutilized Retail Properties. Park Lane is getting all the hate right now, but it is not the only huge hole that needs fixing.
I’m calling out these MURPs right now because Reno is embarking on a much-needed update to their Master Plan. There has been so much focus on the South Virginia Corridor that the much more forlorn Kietzke Corridor is being forgotten.
I was also blown away by the extent of the mobile home parks in this golden triangle.
I’m hoping that our Planners will be let loose to actually plan – Reno’s staff is pretty talented, if overworked and understaffed at the moment. The update will probably end up being another Balkanization into defensive Neighborhood Plans promoted special interests with a few major developer oriented give-aways thrown in, but a blogger can hope. Here are a couple of key issues and directions I would like to see:
– INTENSIVE emphasis on driving development back into the urban core. Sewer Connection fees ($7000 per unit) and Transit Impact Fees should be waived here where the capacity already exists, as well as Park fees. These fee waivers would be for the Transit Corridors, Regional Centers, and Redevelopment zones. Existing fees within the McCarran Loop. Triple fees in the outlying areas.
– Increase taxes/fees on undeveloped land in the Urban Core to nudge redevelopment.
– Standardize Regional and Neighborhood Plan standards when reasonable. The current system is Reverse Polish (TI calculator reference) and impossible to decipher. Reno Planning has been wrong 75% of the time on their plan check comments on my recent permit submissions because even they can’t decode the code.
– Update and/or eliminate the Neighborhood Plans. West University was pushed through by residents primarily concerned with parking. Newlands and Plumas by anti residential to office conversions which is now deterring office to residential conversion, ironically. Wells is an unwieldy mess that covers too many disparate uses, and lead to West of Wells and the Conservation District.
– Recognize that Reno in 5 years will not resemble the Reno of today. There is a place where Woodland Village can coexist with Midtown. Where does the new workforce we are attracting want to live, and how can we make that happen?
So what do you think are the important issues that need to be addressed in the Master Plan? What’s your vision of the New Reno?
geopower said:
That’s not just a TI reference, it’s a an OG (Original Graphing) TI reference. By the ’90s TIs used standard Polish and parentheses.
I fully support the idea the promote development in the center and penalize underutilized land. There are several owners, particularly in downtown, who are sitting on holdings, waiting for the development work of others to make their dirt worth more. If they want to do that, I say they pay for the privilege of making us look at their dusty, bum-attracting lots.
I’d also love to see non-conforming uses not proscribed, but allowed under Special Use Permits. Maybe every SFR yard isn’t appropriate to run an organic veggie or craft stand, but if a person can convince their neighbors to support the use, I think the city should permit it. Washoe County has been moving that direction, at least in broadening the land uses that can do commercial vegetable farming.
geopower said:
I’d add the 7 acres of airport authority dirt at Plumb and Terminal to your list. Talk about a property with great transportation access and no current utility whatsoever.
Steve Jobs said:
Gents, I believe it was HP calculators that exclusively used RPN (Reverse Polish Notation). I had both TI and HP calculators back in the day (mid to late 70s) and trust me – HP were the RPN guys. The HP12C RPN financial calculator is still sold.
Brian said:
Fix parking. By fix parking I mean break it. Show me a thriving neighborhood where parking is free and easy. They don’t exist. By relaxing parking requirements the value of urban land increases, density increases, and the productivity of the place increases.
We have paid untold millions for 36′ wide streets in Reno. We should thrive to fully utilize them. You can entice early developers with reduced or zero parking requirements. Once parking on the street is full then requirements can be tightened and this will not likely stifle development because the value of land will have increased to support expensive on-site parking.
geopower said:
Brian, I was onboard until your last 2 sentences.
But, it’s a pretty self serving argument to say, “relax rules for now, then tighten them on future people.” If you think Reno needs fewer parking setasides, which I don’t disagree with, then have the courage of your belief and trust that future Reno won’t need more. One of the biggest problems with zoning laws is they privilege incumbents over future residents. I think planning zoning laws to become more stringent as time passes is exacerbating that problem. And, frankly, the idea that a city needs higher per-capita parking requirements as it gets denser is backwards.
H.E. said:
Brian, I don’t think I follow you, care to elaborate? I don’t see how street parking is going to save anything, (unless, maybe, you’re talking diagonal “main-street” style parking?). Even then you’re talking about needing 12′ feet for each travel lane, so for one lane each direction you’re only left with 12′ feet for parking, what happens to the turning movements? Talk about a traffic nightmare.
As for West University, having lived there I can understand the need for the parking permit system, if you give a student the option to pay X amount of dollars or get parking for free they’ll choose the economical choice, leaving the residents in the cold for parking.
Lastly, I LOVE the idea the idea of a fee system for encouraging development within the McCarran Loop, if we can get this city a little tighter and get an awesome transportation system that doesn’t revolve around cars I’m all on board.
Brian said:
The cool thing about this site is the discussion! GEO and H.E. Thanks for engaging with me.
GEO – I think we totally agree I just didn’t explain very well. I was not proposing an automatic mechanism for tightening of parking regulations down the road. I think cities are dynamic and we have to take advantage of underutilized resources especially those that already exist. My final two sentences were more a rhetorical response to those who would ask, “well what will we do once all the street parking is full.” One answer is we could make developers build parking or the private sector could step in and build and charge for it where it is demanded. Or we could do nothing and people would need to build things that can exist with tight parking. All options are fine. The point is that cities that try to solve for future parking problems by requiring way way too much of it will never ever become a thriving place.
Brian said:
H.E. – My reference to 36′ wide streets are pretty standard in Reno. This is just two way street with parking parallel parking on both sides. Probably what is outside your house by the university.
The university area is a thriving hub in our community and that is why resources like parking are being used more tightly. (Huge caveat – too many people parking around a university could mean that students are commuting and can’t find all of the things they need near school).
The parking permit system that you mention sounds like a way to balance the rights of residents vs visiting students. This is exactly my point…once parking is used up the community will come up with new ways to manage the public realm.
Top down planners have a really hard time imagining how dynamic cities are and they stress out over parking requirements. Break it first and then engage the community to figure out how to tactically fix the problem.
JVH said:
To mitigate the parking need, more complete and safer pedestrian and bike access is essential. Right now sidewalks go from 2′ to 12′ in Midtown, with power poles to skirt around in places. Street trees add scale to a street corridor and function as refuge/feeling of well-being for the pedestrian – they are sporadic here.
The Millennials like to walk and bike (many don’t get driver’s licenses!). Planning continuous pedestrian routes with safe road crossings (such as the planting medians on Wells) in the downtown-midtown street matrix, especially along Virginia, would alleviate the perpetual need for more parking.
Changing the fee system to encourage development inside the McCarran loop is an excellent idea. Let’s not reduce/eliminating the park fee, though. The parks get so little moneys to start with, and they are a community asset for all.
The City of Reno should look at planning for the change in climate we are experiencing: less snow and more rain. Time to plan for storm water infiltration. Every landscape plan should have LID elements implemented – grading with curb cuts into depressed planter islands, infiltration basins, rain gardens, and permeable paving.
At the residential level, grey water systems should be encouraged. Route shower and laundry water into the landscape. Inside the buildings, mandate dual flush toilets and allow for composting toilets.
Invest In Reno said:
MURPs like Parklane will stay a gull rookery for some time to come. They are too tall in the saddle ($40M) for a property that needs to be bought for around $14M to pencil (they’ve passed on offers in the low $20s).
The real scourge is the NE section of downtown. The slumlords and landholders have been enabled by past inaction. The new administration has an incredible opportunity to reverse that trend. This part of town occupies less than a tenth of a percent of Reno’s landmass, yet accounts for 25-40% of the crime. Combine that with paying uber low taxes (thanx to depreciation) and ‘unusually’ low business tax (most are cash businesses or boarded up). As McG articulated, time to start tightening the thumb screws.
Combine that with the Tesla koolaid property owners are drunk on and we have a recipe for continued stagnation. Case in point: UNR land office was tasked with inquiring about property south of I-80. When the findings came back, the search went into the round file. Moral: UNR will not pay more than appraised value for land or property. Current market value roughly $12/sf for land. Put the juice down.
Until the political will swings in that direction, no investor/developer will wander downtown.
Hey…anyone seen an Apple around town?