Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Entertainment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Long-running dispute over nightclub at 214 West Commercial Row draws neighborhood opposition; council hears testimony but takes no final vote
Summary
Reno council heard competing appeals April 9 over a conditional‑use permit for a late‑night nightclub at 214 West Commercial Row; opponents tied to adjacent Montage ownership urged denial over noise and safety concerns, while the applicant said upgraded acoustics, security and an economic case support extended hours.
A contested application to allow extended late‑night live entertainment at 214 West Commercial Row drew lengthy testimony for and against at the April 9 Reno City Council meeting; the council heard both the property owner's appeal and a separate appeal from the Montage owner group but did not record a final council decision during the evening's session.
Background: The property was previously operated as a nightclub known as "1 Up." An earlier special‑use permit had lapsed when the prior operation stopped and more than a year passed, so the current applicant submitted a fresh conditional use permit (CUP) application seeking live indoor entertainment to run past the city's 11 p.m. baseline and — at the applicant's request — as late as 5 a.m. on select nights.
What staff said: Carter Williams, associate planner, told council that the zone (downtown mixed‑use entertainment district) allows bars and accessory live entertainment, but live entertainment beyond 11 p.m. requires a CUP. Staff recommended the council affirm the Planning Commission's decision to approve the CUP with conditions (the Planning Commission had approved live‑entertainment hours until 3 a.m., not the applicant's full 5 a.m. request), and included recommended sound‑mitigation measures and a security plan as conditions.
Arguments at the hearing - Opponents (including Montage North owner Mary Babbis and several condo owners): urged denial, citing noise, vibration, off‑site crime and parking/traffic concerns. Babbis argued the permitted nightclub use would "damage the character or quality" of nearby parcels and could impede future redevelopment that she said might be sensitive to having an active nightclub next door. - Applicant (Fadi Mahana) and supporters: said the applicant has made significant sound‑proofing investments (vestibule, sealed roof and sound walls) and presented a consultant sound study that reported measured decibel levels well below nuisance thresholds at nearby receptors during a test; the owner said the business is economically infeasible without the later hours and that the location has been vacant for years following a lapsed lease. - Technical testimony: Sound engineers and experienced event operators explained directional subwoofer and line‑array techniques that can reduce low‑frequency propagation to nearby buildings; others argued that one measured event in the exact building had produced high indoor decibel readings reported by some residents and that the sound study's weighting method should be considered.
Status and next steps At the transcript cutoff the council had heard public comment from both sides and multiple council members had asked staff and applicants technical questions about the CUP conditions, noise monitoring and public safety. No recorded final council vote appeared in the provided transcript excerpt.
Ending Because the transcript ends during council discussion, the council's final disposition (if taken later in the meeting or on a subsequent date) was not recorded in the available text. Councilmembers asked staff for additional details about prior permit history, complaint records and proposed enforcement procedures for any extended‑hours authorization.
