The Planning Commission on May 8 denied a property‑owner request to allow front‑yard parking at 1249 Humboldt Street in the Plumas neighborhood, finding the application did not meet the strict legal standard for a variance.

The five-to-two vote followed discussion about neighborhood character embodied in the Plumas neighborhood plan, which prohibits parking in front yards to preserve visual character. Staff recommended denial, concluding the lot’s conditions were not unique and that code‑compliant alternatives existed: on‑alley parking or a revised curb‑cut and driveway on the side of the house.

Applicant representatives said they had sought a front‑yard driveway to accommodate an electric vehicle charging arrangement and to reduce safety hazards created by temporary sidewalk charging cords in the public right‑of‑way. They presented an updated plan during the hearing that places a driveway and parking behind the home’s front façade and said it complies with the city’s five‑foot setback for a curb cut. Applicant Carla Werning House added the rear unit on the parcel is separately metered and rented, creating practical conflicts if access were limited to alley parking.

Commissioners cited two deciding factors. First, the variance finding requires an “extraordinary and exceptional” condition unique to the property; several commissioners agreed many neighboring parcels face similar issues and that the lot’s condition was not unique. Second, staff noted a feasible code‑compliant alternative: the applicant’s revised driveway entry on the side of the lot that would avoid front‑yard parking. Planning staff said if the applicant pursued the revised plan (a curb‑cut and driveway behind the house) they would be able to proceed with a building permit rather than seeking another discretionary variance.

The commission’s formal motion denied the variance; commissioners explained that denying the variance did not remove the property owner’s option to pursue a side‑driveway or alley access solution that meets code. The applicant indicated they would pursue the code‑compliant alternative and not withdraw the application for reimbursement of fees.

The planner’s report noted the Plumas plan contains a long‑standing prohibition on front‑yard parking designed to preserve neighborhood character; neighborhood stakeholders had supported that policy in the plan’s 1995 adoption. Commissioners also discussed the broader context: several older Reno neighborhood plans date from the 1990s and sometimes conflict with current urban infill or ADU policy; staff said removing or updating neighborhood plan provisions requires a separate, multi-step text-amendment process.

Appeal rights: the transcript and staff report explain that a final action may be appealed to City Council within 10 business days of written notice.