Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Reno council adopts rezoning for Stonegate development in Cold Springs over residents’ objections
Summary
After extensive public comment from Cold Springs residents and multiple rounds of debate, the Reno City Council approved an ordinance amending the Stonegate planned unit development to allow substantially more industrial acreage (and fewer homes) than the earlier PUD; the final vote was 4–3 in favor.
The Reno City Council on June 4 adopted an ordinance to amend the Stonegate Hines Ranch Planned Unit Development (LDC24-00051), changing the approved land-use mix for the Cold Springs site. The amendment reclassifies roughly 1,767 acres into a mix that increases industrial acreage and reduces the residential component compared with an earlier PUD the developer had proposed. The council’s final recorded vote to adopt the ordinance was 4 in favor, 3 opposed.
The issue drew dozens of Cold Springs residents to the meeting and a stream of public comment. Speakers at the council meeting raised concerns including traffic, road safety on the narrow two-lane approaches to the valley, impacts on groundwater and wells, increased heavy-truck volumes, wildlife collisions, and the loss of recreational and scenic resources residents said attract visitors and protect local quality of life. Several speakers said nearby wells are already deepening and that shifting the water supply model from the originally proposed system could raise costs for existing residents.
Council debate focused on the change from the prior PUD, which had a far larger residential component and included commitments for regional planning items such as a school site and coordinated stormwater management. Councilmember Ebert (who represents part of the area) urged the developer to retain the PUD structure and adjust proportions so the earlier public-engagement commitments would carry forward; she said the latest proposal removed many items community members had worked years to secure. Other council members said the new proposal reduced overall water demand and traffic compared with the earlier, mostly residential plan and argued the city must rely on the technical analyses provided by the applicant and their water provider.
After an initial failed motion to reject the ordinance, the council adopted it in a recorded roll call: Vice Mayor Kathleen Taylor — yes; Councilmember Naomi Doer — no; Councilmember Miguel Martinez — yes; Councilmember Ebert — no; Councilmember Reese — yes; Councilmember Anderson — yes; Mayor Hillary Schieve — no. Outcome: ordinance adopted, 4–3.
City staff and the developer said the project’s water supply would be served by Great Basin Water Company and that Stonegate holds adjudicated water rights; the developer has said it will construct wells on the south side of the valley to serve the project. Great Basin representatives told council their hydrologic records and planned improvements indicate system reliability and that the company expects to serve the project without shifting costs to existing ratepayers. Multiple residents disputed that conclusion in public comment and asked council to delay or deny the rezoning. The council decision concludes the city-level zoning process; future approvals required for construction and grading will proceed through normal building and permitting channels, and opponents could pursue additional administrative or legal remedies outside the council process.
