The Stan Lucas project located between West Meadows Estates and Somersett/Sierra Canyon will be back in front of the Reno City Council for reconsideration Wednesday night at 6 PM. the Zoom meeting can be streamed live from the City’s web site or viewed on Spectrum channel 194. The Council package is HERE under Item I.1.
The original project was denied by the Planning Commission, appealed to the Council where it was also denied, then submitted for Judicial Review which found in favor of the developer citing “animosity towards the MGOD”. The findings of the Judicial Review were scathing of the Planning Commission and Council, and complimentary of Reno’s Planning staff. Council must now review the project strictly within the terms of the MGOD and must have very, very good reasons to not make the findings for the project.
The revised plan removes 30 or so lot, in general meeting Planning’s original proposed Conditions.
A second gated emergency access road is proposed to connect to Reno’s easement to Cold Creek in the Cliffs. There has been a lot of public comment about this reducing the existing “unmapped public road” that leads north to the properties farther up Peavine, but with gates at each end and sharing the road easement for a few hundred feet this should not be a problem.
MGOD is a planning world to itself, created out a legal settlement and codified in 2004. It has it’s own set of rules and established densities and unit counts for the various Planning Areas. Stan Lucas is Planning Area 1. The 1250 unit Santerra project (also denied by the Planning Commission with the same flawed review standards) is Planning Area 3 and is being protested to Council. The Drakulich Judicial Review will be held up a precedent setting.
REreno 
geopower said:
Interesting to see that despite the MGOD having expired 10 years after it went into effect, Reno is being held to its planning standards. Should we hold our breath for the Washoe County planning consultation that also used to be required under those standards?
pmcneil49aolcom said:
Apologies for not writing sooner – been a fire drill day on lots of levels. LOVE the photo of the tires!!!!!!!
Bronco said:
Judge is Kathleen Drakulich.
Do you think it’s going to pass tonight?
REreno said:
Bronco, the hearing is scheduled for tomorrow evening, and late word is that Stan is asking for a continuance.
Whenever it is heard, I predict the Council will approve the project with some minor conditions on a 4-3 vote. That will give 3 council members the ability to save some face (Brekhus is a NO in any case, Jardon and Duerr). MGOD is sort of like a PUD where a lot of the planning decisions are baked into the original approvals. Reno Planning recognized this, and I do not understand why the Planning Commission and City Council were allowed to run off the rails by the City Attorney’s office. Don’t get me wrong, the project absolutely sucks, but is the result of Reno’s decisions almost 2 decades ago.
Now that Judge Drakulich is saying go by the MGOD Handbook or else, do you think the requirement for a 4 lane plus pedestrian/bicycle Garson bridge will FINALLY be enforced?
geopower said:
“do you think the requirement for a 4 lane plus pedestrian/bicycle Garson bridge will FINALLY be enforced?”
Only if somebody pushes NDOT to magically find it in their work plan, like the Mogul-4th EB truck lane.
Bronco said:
Interesting. There was this post from Devon Reese on why he had voted yes on Daybreak and no on MGOD.
https://www.votereese.com/why-did-i-vote-for-daybreak/
I wonder how he will go.
John said:
My take from the council meeting:
Looks like council voted against it but given their objections it looks only temporizing and that the project will move forward after the proposed changes are made to the development plan