Here’s a summary of the principal points of the Lakeridge development that should be of interest to any Truckee Meadows resident. It is a story of deception and betrayal. The residents’ appeal was denied on April 28, 2021
The basic problems …
- Many residents moved to that neighborhood because of the Lakeridge Club. It offered important amenities and a community hub. The developer has demolished all the facilities.
- The intersection of McCarran and Plumas already has problematic traffic. This was highlighted when residents were fleeing the recent Pinehaven Fire. Adding 314 condos will compound the problem.
- The plan will only provide 392 parking spaces for 314 units. it will provide only one parking space for most of the units. There is almost no on-street parking available in the neighborhood.
- The 57′ high buildings will tower over the neighborhood.
The process was a blatant “bait and switch” approach by the developer.
- The developer proposed a plan that would put 130 condos in 2-story buildings on part of the property leaving the pool, the clubhouse, and some of the tennis courts.
- 2019; The developer claimed to need to get community-commercial zoning so that they could build a restaurant to “support the balance sheet of the property”. The city council agreed unanimously. Councilmember Duerr (it’s her Ward) made the change conditional on the developer moving forward promptly. If the plan was not implemented, Duerr would move to rezone the area to MF-14 (multi-family, 14 units per acre, 2-story).
- The developer revised the proposal to raze the entire property to build 350 condos in packed, 4-story buildings. There would be no amenities and no restaurant. This faced a broad outcry and was withdrawn by the developer.
- June 2020; Nine residents appealed to a Hearing Officer who ruled the plan non-compliant for excess traffic and inadequate parking.
- January 2021; Duerr moved to change the zoning to MF-14 similar to surrounding properties. The City Attorney suggested that she postpone this motion. The planning staff suggested that Duerr “wait and see” what the developer proposed next.
- January 2021; Reno consolidated the different commercial zoning categories into just one: General Commercial that allows for large facilities with high traffic.
- The developer took a new plan to the Reno Planning Commission for 314 condos with few road improvements and few amenities. The planning commission approved this plan.
NineEighteen residents made an appeal to the city council to overturn the approval. The appeal was logical, detailed, and clearly argued. The conclusions were inescapable. The appeal was denied on a 4-3 vote.
These perpetrators contributed to despoiling the neighborhood and endangering public safety.
- Councilmember Delgado who received $144,775 in development-interest contributions (January 2011 to July 15, 2020)
- Councilmember Jardon who received $190,756 in development-interest contributions (January 2012 to July 15, 2020)
- Councilmember Reese who received $108,200 in development-interest contributions (February 2019 to July 15, 2020)
- Councilmember Weber who received $103,700 in development-interest contributions (January 2018 to July 15, 2020)
- Lyon Living management; intent on destroying the quality of life for residents for $$.
- Andy Durling (developer; Wood Rogers) who presented the bait-and-switch deception.
- Garrett Gordon (developer attorney) who argued that the development met the zoning standards.
- Angela Fuss (Reno staff) who worked with the developer and advised Duerr not to remove the commercial zoning.
- Karl Hall who advised Duerr to delay changing the commercial zoning.
- Loren Chilson (traffic engineer) who claimed that the development would improve the traffic at those intersections.
Along with the residents, Councilmember Duerr was betrayed by those listed. Her pleas for good-faith consideration of concrete issues and “hearing” the constituents drew an angry retort from Reese.