• About Us
  • Activity
  • Advertising
  • Books
  • Business
  • Contact
  • Dashboard
  • EB5
  • Entertainment
  • feedback
  • Forgot Your Password?
  • Government
  • Home
  • Interviews
  • Login
  • Members
  • Meme generator
  • National
  • Nevada
  • Nevada News and Views
  • Newsmax
  • NN&V Ads
  • Opinion
  • Pick a New Password
  • Politics
  • Polls
  • Privacy Policy
  • Profile
  • Recent comments by me
  • Recent comments on my posts
  • Register
  • Submit post
  • Subscribe
  • Subscription Confirmation
  • Survey
  • Survey
  • Terms of Service
  • Today’s Top 10
  • Travel
  • Travel
  • Travel
  • Welcome!
  • Yop Poll Archive
Nevada News and Views
  • About Us
  • Advertising
  • Contact
  • More
    • Nevada
    • Opinion
    • Business
    • Travel
    • News
    • Sports
  • Facebook

  • Twitter

  • Pinterest

  • RSS

Nevada

Mt. Rose Highway: Scenic corridor or concrete canyon?

Mt. Rose Highway: Scenic corridor or concrete canyon?
N&V Staff
April 25, 2016

a

(Tom Daly) – Mt. Rose highway is, arguably, the only scenic corridor in Nevada, notwithstanding the Nevada legislature designating the Las Vegas strip as ‘scenic’ (please).

Despite Nevada’s 110,567 square miles only this state route, about a 24 mile-long stretch starting at South Virginia Street and ending at Incline Village, warrants this designation.

So, you might think that those federal, City of Reno and Washoe County entities, who control the zoning and development decisions along this highway, would carefully limit such plans to ensure they do not ruin, for eternity, this very small venue of spectacular views for those who transit this corridor.

Well, you might be wrong.

The City of Reno has approved a massive apartment development on the eastern most end of Mt. Rose highway opposite the Summit Mall.  So much for the Mayor and City Council’s commitment to scenic beauty.  They value only the tax revenue.  Enjoy your thirty pieces of silver, at least until the next election.

Now Washoe County has been asked to approve a high density (94 houses on 20 acres—4.68 houses per acre—on reduced size lots) residential community, called Colina Rose, on the south side of Mt. Rose highway, west of Edmonton Drive.

The project’s applicant, Towne Development of Sacramento, Inc., on April 5th presented their plan, which was demonstratively rejected by local community residents, this Commissioner and the entire county Planning Commission, as not in keeping with the density (adjacent communities are 3 houses per acre) and visual impact appropriate for this scenic corridor.  Further, traffic concerns, the impact on schools and fire issues were not adequately addressed in the applicant’s plan.

Your Planning Commission has continued this matter to their May 3rd meeting for further review.

This proposed high density development would further overwhelm an already overtaxed Hunsberger Elementary School, now at 103% of capacity, without any offer by the developer to, perhaps, provide for one or more temporary classrooms, a band-aid solution   but at least a fig leaf to the community.

Traffic safety issues, including a needed deceleration lane from eastbound Mt. Rose highway to southbound Edmonton Drive and a limitation on exiting northbound Edmonton Drive to westbound Mt. Rose highway, were not in the application as mandatory conditions of approval.  Per NDOT, this intersection does not warrant a traffic signal.

The plan’s western most homes, to be built on proposed dense skinny lots (lot set-backs reduced to 5 ft.) are adjacent to an untreated ‘high hazard’ wildfire zone but show no clear space, as required by the County and TMFPD wildfire code.  Further, on the plan the four new streets with cul de sacs show an island on each, limiting fire vehicle turnaround, as required by the fire code.

Due to a quirk in the county’s development code, this project is not subject to a Special Use Permit, so your Planning Commission has only this one opportunity to impose conditions of approval.

I support residential development for these parcels, now zoned for ‘Neighborhood Commercial (NC)’, but the applicant’s planned excessive density, lack of appreciation for the scenic corridor and unaddressed traffic, school and fire issues are unacceptable.

Not on my watch and not with my vote.

Thomas Daly is the Washoe County Planning Commissioner for District 2.

Prev postNext post

Related Items
Nevada
April 25, 2016
N&V Staff

Related Items

More in Nevada

Lombardo: My Promise to Nevadans

N&V StaffNovember 4, 2022
Read More

Question 1 on Nevada Ballot is Not What It Seems

N&V StaffNovember 1, 2022
Read More

Our Cops Have Had to Pay for This

N&V StaffOctober 5, 2022
Read More

Help a Sheriff Fire a Corrupt Governor?

N&V StaffOctober 4, 2022
Read More

CCSD – MathLITE and Exacerbating the Teacher Shortage

N&V StaffSeptember 29, 2022
Read More

Our Fire/EMS Gordion Knot

N&V StaffSeptember 12, 2022
Read More
Scroll for more
Tap

Subscribe Free By Email

Looking for the best in breaking news and conservative views? Let Chuck do all the work for you! Subscribe to his FREE "Muth's Truths" e-newsletter.

* indicates required
Nevada News and Views
Nevada News & Views is an educational project of Citizen Outreach Foundation, a non-partisan IRS-approved 501(c)(3) organization. It is not associated or affiliated with any political party or group. Nevada News & Views is accessible by the public at no cost. It funds its operations through tax-deductible contributions from donors and supporters and does not accept government money or grants.

TAGS

Featured Article Nevada Politics business Muth's Truths government Opinion Government Muth’s Truths Obama Ron Knecht News Donald Trump GOP Republicans

Copyright © 2022 Citizen Outreach | Maintained by VirtualAlly

Pair of County Commish Candidates Create, Ink New Local Tax Pledge
Nevada AG’s Office Urges Judge To Rule Soon On Case Involving School Choice Bill