Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Affordable Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors ask NAB to agendize Reno Housing Authority 44‑unit plan over parking and process concerns
Summary
Residents asked the Ward 2 Neighborhood Advisory Board to agendize a Reno Housing Authority project they say will add 44 low‑income units with insufficient parking and limited neighbor input; staff said the project does not require discretionary review but is subject to staff sign‑offs and limited appeal windows.
Several nearby residents urged the Ward 2 Neighborhood Advisory Board on Dec. 10 to request more formal review and public engagement for a Reno Housing Authority project at the old Holy Child site, which speakers said plans roughly 44 low‑income units and a reduction in parking requirements.
Richard Hill, who said he has lived in Midtown for 40 years, told the board the project "isn't on your agenda" and asked the NAB to agendize the matter so neighbors can be heard. "They're planning to bring in, at this point, ... 44 low income housing units," Hill said, and he warned the reduced parking footprint could create traffic and quality‑of‑life impacts.
Annette Fink Eaton, who identified a property at 450 Reno Avenue adjacent to the site, echoed parking and density concerns and urged the board to forward comments to city staff for "highly reviewed" consideration. Several residents asked whether the city’s sign‑posting and notice procedures had been followed.
Staff response: a council member and staff clarified that the Reno Housing Authority project did not require the same discretionary review as the cell tower item; the city had to sign off on HOME funds for the proposal but did not sign off on design, unit count or style. Staff described the Plumas Neighborhood Overlay (which limits buildings to two stories and pitched roofs) and noted that building permit appeals have a short calendar window (staff cited 10 days for appeals to the council). The board was told the project went to a public meeting the prior month and that neighbors could still appeal building permits under existing procedures.
Outcome: the board did not take a formal vote to change staff authority but recorded public comment and agreed to forward residents’ input to city planning staff. A staff liaison recommended residents submit written worksheets and materials to be included in the planner’s record to ensure community concerns are considered ahead of scheduled staff and council actions.
