Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/03/1995

Home

z.g. September 1995 -- Page 5 changes did not call into question the original permit's validity. Hunt Brothers' claim regarding the appeal process was not barred. The 60-day period in which to challenge that decision did not begin until March 15, when the agency denied the reconsideration request. Special Use -- City Denies K-Mart Special Use Permits City ofReno v. Lars Andersen and Associates Inc., 894 P..2d 984 (Nevada) J995 Lars Andersen and Associates Inc., an agent for K-Mart Corp., wanted to buy and de~velop into a shopping center 25 acres in the city of Reno, Ney. The land was in a community commercial zone. Before buying the property, Lars Andersen applied for special use permits and variances for the proposed 24-hour shopping center. It needed the permits because of the development's size, the need for more than 10 feet of dirt fill, the plan to operate more than 17 hours per day, the desire to place a lighted sign within 300 feet of an interstate highway, and planned drive-through facili- ties. Lars Andersen needed the variances because it wanted to further divide the property, but did not want each smaller parcel to be subject to setback, parking, and Iandscaping requirements. Initially, the city planning commission unanimously approved the permits and variances, but a local homeowner appealed. In September 1993, the city council considered the appeal at a public hearing, during which several neigh- borhood residents opposed the development. The city council voted on the variances and permits. It had a tie vote on whether to approve the project's size, so it decided to wait until another member was present to decide that issue. It denied the variances and the permits regarding hours, drive-throughs, and the lighted sign. It was not clear whether the council discussed or voted on the permit for the dirt fill. In November 1993, the council agi-eed to reconsider the permits and vari- ances. It denied the permit for the project's size, but did not act on the remain- ing items. The mayor stated, "In light of the previous vote, that disposes of all the items." Lars Andersen appealed. The court held that the council's decisions were not based On substantial evidence. It ordered tl~e city to grant the variances and permits subject to reasonable conditions. The city asked the court to reconsider or clarify its decision, claiming the court should have considered only the permit for the project's size. It said the council did not address the remaining variances and permits, so they should not have been part of the court's decision. The court rejected those arguments and again ordered the city to issue the variances and permits. The city_ appealed. While the appeal was pending, the city council issued Lars Andersen the permits approving the development's size and the dirt fill. The city then withdrew those two permits from the issues to be considered on appeal. I