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

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.