[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6538574,"mediaKeyId","3806859-9b236ed6ecad20756e9823965daca234","parentId",3806859,"title","Votes at a glance: planning commission actions June 5, 2025","audioSeconds",7209,"startMs",1008000,"endMs",8217000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3806859-9b236ed6ecad20756e9823965daca234&start=1008&end=8217","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3806859-9b236ed6ecad20756e9823965daca234/thumbnail_1008000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6538574/Nevada/Votes-at-a-glance-planning-commission-actions-June-5-2025","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6538574-88a75433caf848ef755d0e657d9e4fb6/orig.mp4?Expires=1770485334&Signature=R8tBY0Pu49K00i0KjFD6mNfyBJ-A6LfLfbO9FIyA8MlKTAjU~vYSkWX0qL2E-B776TWpsyacbbjswCRvnB4QojGP-tF6RbdaMRIbzKRR19er6Nsp4IbwzeudJjXEaImgExHlqNNyckQKKyRL2dZew1iSbC8s82cWkNs2N3JJ1BrU4KrsfO9qBC7~bnZJDpChUSpp1Mi0jnl5RkkEkDPbG-WYBFtSa8ar1yp4EPFrsFtli6RSJiIupJzTTWjMELUt54AIbEes6Hw85pYsLvVqBIAvzijs0zG2YBWroHwBnVxjtA0y-XHDCE3~hpt94XhL42Z48J35OShzebYsHF2mgw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Reno, NV","date","2025-06-06T15:55:07Z","article","At its June 5 meeting the Reno Planning Commission acted on multiple land-use items. Below are the formal actions, outcomes and key details taken during the meeting.

- LDC25‑00054 — Dave & Buster’s conditional use permit: Approved unanimously. The commission expedited the item with no public comment and approved the CUP per the staff recommendation.

- LDC25‑00053 — Schwartz major deviation: Approved unanimously. The commission approved a major deviation to permit an existing fence to exceed the allowed height by 9 inches (to 6 feet 9 inches), closing a code enforcement case after receiving letters of support from adjacent property owners.

- LDC25‑00018 — Mount Rose Junction master-plan amendment and zoning map amendment (specific plan district): Motion to adopt master-plan amendment and recommend City Council approval failed on a technical 3–3 tie at the Planning Commission; the matter will proceed to City Council and then regional conformance review. Key points in debate included the proposed change from MF‑14 to an SPD using neighborhood commercial as the base zoning, an increase in maximum height to 38 feet, and an increase in potential density to 40 dwelling units per acre; staff added a minor site‑plan review trigger for any building exceeding 27.5 feet.

- LDC25‑00049 — Talus (Talus) Valley Village 22 tentative map: Approved unanimously. The commission approved a 144‑lot tentative map across two village subareas, with required construction of backbone infrastructure (including a signalized intersection at Talus Valley Parkway / South Meadows Parkway) before issuance of certificates of occupancy.

- LDC25‑00055 — High Desert Paving storage yard (conditional use permit): Approved unanimously with conditions. The approved CUP covers an approximately 11,200‑square‑foot fenced area on a 5.31‑acre parcel; conditions include limiting access hours to 7 a.m.–7 p.m., surfacing regularly trafficked unpaved areas with asphalt grindings, installing screening slats in the perimeter fence, prohibiting on‑site washing and installing five speed bumps along the access route through the mobile‑home park to protect adjacent residents.

All approved items will be subject to any appeal rights set out in the municipal code. The Mount Rose Junction master‑plan amendment will move to City Council for final consideration.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Reno City Planning Commission | June 5, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Summary of formal actions taken by the Reno Planning Commission on June 5, 2025, including approvals of a tentative map and several permits and one tied master-plan amendment referred to City Council.","taxTitle","Planning Commission , Reno, Washoe County, Nevada","taxId",69271,"location","Nevada","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6538579,"Planning Commission approves conditional‑use permit for contractor storage yard on North Virginia Street with screening and operational conditions",875,8136000,9011000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3806859-9b236ed6ecad20756e9823965daca234&start=8136&end=9011","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3806859-9b236ed6ecad20756e9823965daca234/thumbnail_8136000.jpg","/articles/6538579/Nevada/Planning-Commission-approves-conditionaluse-permit-for-contractor-storage-yard-on-North-Virginia-Street-with-screening-and-operational-conditions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6538579-70782bee010307a94349704e7cc9ab56/orig.mp4?Expires=1770485334&Signature=FDQqj8Qt6TFz-wKo--9MMhXRuVVA~~Po~6d9W5OtJNTGmCiqoVZnJDFwBPQFuKh3pd0yS1mPopa1-i3O3Fq2xeFap~guCU8ZjWv9rAMkUmmJFchNEtX4liBfuFzZzoL9EEbWs9r6d7cr5XnFEOX6qKTOtAKNV--6Lf5stLVY2gl1X1Ptow98O~r2cXV8VjzFDoVifHISSG5WjMJmavzs5UxHN7EgKJkw0kcNCji5DWdW6iPUhgt8NqTbwRDlB9EpcRhSDIuHlbjUCRbAGCofXMw3hleSS~cmaHhmaR7DBH7rWYi7oMnSZFlV6eEAUvtGlDzVRYfwl8OX1y4Uq2aiNw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Planning Commission on June 5 approved a conditional‑use permit to allow outdoor storage for a paving contractor on an 11,200‑square‑foot fenced portion of a 5.31‑acre parcel on North Virginia Street, subject to operational conditions intended to limit impacts on adjacent mobile‑home residents.

Associate Planner Jeff Foster told the commission the site is part of the Webb Mobile Home Park parcel and that the applicant had established a fenced storage area before obtaining the permit. Staff recommended approval with conditions to address compatibility and ongoing site maintenance.

Key conditions include limiting hours of on-site access to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. (the applicant’s stated hours), prohibiting on‑site vehicle and equipment washing, requiring screening slats in the perimeter fencing, and requiring the operator to surface non‑paved areas used by regular vehicle traffic with asphalt grindings and to maintain those surfaces to reduce dust generation. Foster said the applicant also agreed to preserve a large tree inside the fenced area and to install five speed bumps along the access route through the mobile‑home park so vehicles serving the yard would reduce speeds adjacent to residences.

No hazardous materials will be stored on site, Foster said, and the operator will store company equipment (pickups, rollers, skid steers, trailers) and a shipping container for tools. Staff said the use would primarily be morning pick‑up and drop‑off activities and that any long‑term maintenance or change in use would remain subject to code and code enforcement.

Commissioners asked about long‑term enforcement and whether a change in operator or use would require additional review. Foster said outdoor‑storage uses must meet Title 18 use‑specific standards and that the conditions and standard code requirements provide mechanisms to address noncompliance; residents may also file code‑enforcement complaints. The motion to approve, subject to the staff conditions, passed unanimously.","The commission approved a conditional‑use permit allowing outdoor storage for a paving contractor at an 11,200‑square‑foot fenced portion of a 5.31‑acre parcel, adding limits on hours, surfacing and onsite operations to protect adjacent mobile‑home residents.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":46,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6538585,"Planning Commission approves Talus Valley Village 22 tentative map for 144 single-family lots",1651,6566000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3806859-9b236ed6ecad20756e9823965daca234&start=6566&end=8217","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3806859-9b236ed6ecad20756e9823965daca234/thumbnail_6566000.jpg","/articles/6538585/Nevada/Planning-Commission-approves-Talus-Valley-Village-22-tentative-map-for-144-single-family-lots","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6538585-e0785e633cff534b2c534d7d827e1e30/orig.mp4?Expires=1770485334&Signature=pAh7Wl7Yy9c0A5AL1ggU0SoipMBItN1CUxtzSwJ8RYHWgFLfRYyZ4K~IiwktmdlfuLlI~R9RDj2cfp-uCxK0~8zyQxkQP6IaJhKF0XePj-QqurlKU1xxNAORkj6otaH2Vd-OfF9zdey7oWGfD5bm2Zra~sGsw9j4evsPr87XDmoSe45BZhcZo6xRnrVb~itI38ltO5z1A5GqSpy4shGZa246HEn8~lLz~sCI4S77GY2CvBbDf0jWDzgc58FI-BaWZufsAPKLlszVAbLmUG~iyDHIZx6Nr6Dk9rkpmJE-1uHVSfRCV1lC83-pwKp0TAigOudQ74ONhUdYPSuH2anLvQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Planning Commission unanimously approved a tentative map on June 5 for Village 22 in the Talus Valley planned unit development, authorizing 144 single-family detached lots across two sub-areas and requiring installation of backbone infrastructure and signalization before occupancy.

Planner Carter Williams said Village 22 sits in the Talus Valley PUD’s mixed‑neighborhood section and proposes two villages: Village 22A (91 lots, average lot size about 3,800 square feet) and Village 22B (53 lots, average about 5,000 square feet). The combined proposal yields roughly 10 dwelling units per acre on the approximately 20‑acre site, Williams said, which staff found consistent with the handbook and master-plan goals for walkability and mixed housing types.

Applicant representatives said the map aligns with earlier PUD approvals and ongoing infrastructure plans. Eric Hastie of Wood Rodgers told the commission the backbone infrastructure that will provide access to Village 22 is being permitted separately and will include a 10‑foot multiuse path along Veterans Parkway and a 10‑foot path along South Meadows Parkway. Hastie said the required signal at the Talus Valley / South Meadows intersection will be constructed as part of backbone work and be completed before certificates of occupancy are issued for homes in the village.

Public comment included a neighbor who asked that the planned commercial town center remain substantial and asked for tree canopy along multiuse paths for shade. William Mantle, who said he lives across the street in the Bella Vista Ranch development, also asked the commission to preserve opportunities for “missing‑middle” housing types in future villages and to consolidate commercial uses near higher‑density nodes rather than placing them deep inside future neighborhoods.

Commissioners asked about relocated commercial acreage within the PUD and floodplain mitigation. Staff and the applicant said prior PUD-level decisions had shifted town-center acreage northward and that floodplain and wetland mitigation and Army Corps authorizations have been addressed in the broader PUD process. Williams said the project’s grading and drainage plan included mitigation beyond minimal ratios required by code.

A motion to approve the tentative map carried unanimously. Conditions require completion of backbone infrastructure and signalization prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy, maintenance of multiuse paths and consistency with the Talus Valley handbook.","The Planning Commission approved a tentative map for Village 22 in the Talus Valley planned unit development, authorizing 144 single-family lots across two village areas and requiring backbone infrastructure and a signalized intersection prior to occupancy.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6538590,"Planning Commission deadlocks on Mount Rose Junction master-plan change after residents raise compatibility concerns",2193,1448000,3641000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3806859-9b236ed6ecad20756e9823965daca234&start=1448&end=3641","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3806859-9b236ed6ecad20756e9823965daca234/thumbnail_1448000.jpg","/articles/6538590/Nevada/Planning-Commission-deadlocks-on-Mount-Rose-Junction-master-plan-change-after-residents-raise-compatibility-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6538590-672d33b93664e254c90750998de2998f/orig.mp4?Expires=1770485334&Signature=oIjCAKQVwekYbUfIFSWmB9UC-BcAqLbFup5S6dhdc~zA8RhieoHn9The1TyiZgjNYwMk6bOTfJUxGRgUTIvVlinsnfx4IYfHFdv4uzEHAi3gHIz2OiowD28xek7sLxU2hTpb5AGIccS1cLEzVI4Y-rH74OwAUgzPhkkPr7Bl6Ud4qAEvRTnpKk2gpJeZpDaiUmm5-j-V9H1Uazp1bkrjU5vcqFjXREbdFKl54UsqsoKoCFBHxVj3c7JhAadzobpSwCSbC1GQdFYbPgdAer4VuHKJsu782lt6796rbRMjIzLaIaYoekAC87BLvmZeWF5Q626xqLM~QmuVNe3VV5xEng__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Reno Planning Commission on June 5 tied 3–3 on a motion to adopt a master plan amendment and zoning map change for the Mount Rose Junction site, leaving the matter to move forward to City Council for final action.

The proposal would change a parcel just under one acre near Mount Rose and Plumas from a multifamily-14 designation to a specific plan district using neighborhood commercial (NC) as the base zone. The handbook submitted with the rezoning sought to increase the allowed height to 38 feet and raise residential density in the NC from 30 dwelling units per acre to 40 units per acre. Staff added a requirement for a minor site-plan review if any new building exceeds 27.5 feet.

Staff presented the application as an infill opportunity supported by existing infrastructure and transit. “The SMU master planned land use designation is generally considered appropriate in this area,” Associate Planner Leah Piccati told the commission, citing the regional plan’s Tier 1 classification and noting the site’s proximity to commercial services and transit. Piccati said the SPD handbook includes sustainability elements proposed by the applicant and a minor site-plan review trigger intended to give staff an additional compatibility check if a taller building is proposed.

The applicant and project team framed the change as an infill redevelopment opportunity. Brooke Oswald, a land planner representing Park Real Estate Partners, said the site’s location inside McCarran, near transit and neighborhood services, made increased residential density an appropriate fit. Oswald described sustainability features the applicant plans to include if development proceeds, such as drought-tolerant landscaping and infrastructure for electric-vehicle charging.

Residents and members of the neighborhood advisory board spoke in opposition during the public-hearing period, saying the SPD is too imprecise and would allow a project that is incompatible with the surrounding single‑story homes. Donna Keats, chair of Ward 2’s neighborhood advisory board, said the NAB received little detail from the applicant and criticized the timing of notice and the administrative use of an SPD. “It seems to me if you’re unable to evaluate the project, then the motion should be to deny, not give an SPD,” she told the commission.

Other neighbors cited traffic, parking and neighborhood character. Kelly Gesch, who said she has lived two blocks east of the site for 44 years, said morning and afternoon congestion already makes it difficult to exit the neighborhood and that the scale of the proposed allowance would change the character of the area. Pam McAdoo said the neighborhood’s single‑story, historic houses would be “completely incompatible” with a 38‑foot building.

Commissioners pressed staff and the applicant for specifics on safety and compatibility. Commissioner Joachmann asked whether a development over 30 feet would be able to meet the International Fire Code requirement for two points of access. Gabe Whitler of Odyssey Engineering, the applicant’s engineer, said final designs must meet current codes and that different design choices (building height, access layout) would affect how the site meets fire access requirements. Piccati reiterated that zoning deviations do not alter fire code: “There is no deviation. Zoning only,” she told the commission.

Several commissioners said the SPD process normally carries a heightened level of scrutiny and that the application presented an unusual number of open questions for a specific-plan district. Commissioners raised specific concerns about compatibility with the Plumas Neighborhood Residential Core overlay, whether an SPD should remove overlay protections, and whether the handbook as submitted provided sufficient public benefit and design detail to justify the requested deviations.

After discussion, a motion to adopt the master plan amendment and recommend City Council approve the zoning change failed to win a majority; the vote was recorded as a technical tie and the item will advance to City Council for final action under the regional review process. Chair Carrie Romyrer and one other commissioner voted in favor; multiple commissioners voted no or said they could not make the required SPD findings.

The commission’s summary of deliberations notes the staff-added minor site‑plan review for buildings taller than 27.5 feet; that requirement will apply if the master-plan change or SPD is ultimately approved and an applicant later submits a taller building. Any future site plan subject to that administrative review may be appealed to City Council.

The City Council will consider the Planning Commission’s recommendation and the record compiled at the June 5 hearing. If the council approves the change, the regional planning agency will perform a conformance review as required for master-plan amendments.","The Reno Planning Commission tied 3–3 on a proposed master plan and zoning amendment for the Mount Rose Junction site that would create a specific plan district allowing greater height and density. Commissioners and residents raised concerns about compatibility, traffic, fire access and that the SPD lacks a specific site plan.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: planning commission actions June 5, 2025

Planning Commission approves conditional‑use permit for contractor storage yard on North Virginia Street with screening and operational conditions

Planning Commission approves Talus Valley Village 22 tentative map for 144 single-family lots

Planning Commission deadlocks on Mount Rose Junction master-plan change after residents raise compatibility concerns