Ward 5 resident Steve Van Zee challenges Councilmember Devon Reese’s account of how a storage facility was approved, questioning whether the Council improperly authorized a new land use.
Michael Leonard
A dispute over a two-story indoor storage facility under construction at the northwest corner of Robb Drive and Sharlands Avenue has raised questions about Reno City Councilmember Devon Reese’s explanation of the city’s role in approving the development and how zoning changes are handled.
Ward 5 resident Steve Van Zee has challenged statements Reese made on Nextdoor about the project at 915 Robb Drive, including claims that the Council had secured additional landscaping, restricted rear loading, and had no authority to prevent the development because the property’s zoning was approved nearly 30 years ago.
Van Zee contends that the planning history tells a different story. According to his account of the city’s development documents, the property was originally designated for professional and medical offices. The City Council did not permit indoor mini-storage until it approved Amendment 13 to the Sharlands Planned Unit Development (PUD) Development Standards Handbook.
That distinction raises the central question: Was the City Council obligated to accept a storage facility under existing development rights, or did it exercise unauthorized discretion by approving a change that allowed that use?
The answer matters not only to residents living next to the project but also to the public’s understanding of how development decisions are made by the City Council in Reno, something that has been obscured in many cases.
The Storage Facility Was Not an Original Permitted Use
The most consequential disagreement concerns Reese’s explanation of the property’s development rights. Reese reportedly wrote: “The zoning for this project was approved nearly 30 years ago, so the Council was not free to prevent this approved use.” But was it an approved use?
Van Zee disputes the implication that indoor storage had been permitted under the original development approvals. According to his review of the Sharlands PUD Handbook, the permitted uses for Planning Unit 9 through Amendment 12 were limited to professional offices, medical offices, and urgent medical care.
Indoor mini-storage was added to the list of permitted uses under Amendment 13, which Van Zee says Reese and the other councilmembers approved. When a developer seeks a change to a PUD, the city’s authority depends on the applicable development standards, municipal ordinances, state law, and the nature of the requested amendment.
An amendment adding a new permitted use may involve discretionary approval, although that discretion is not unlimited. The key questions are whether the Council could legally have denied Amendment 13, what standards governed its decision, and what consequences a denial might have carried.
Link: City Council Backs Developer for Lakeridge Tennis Club Expansion
Link: The Lakeridge Golf Course is in Danger from Development
The council has approved zoning changes despite residents' objections, with Lakeridge Tennis and Lakeridge Golf being two prominent examples.
Reese Says the Council Negotiated Protections for Neighbors
The controversy began with comments Reese posted in response to a September 14 Nextdoor discussion that Denise Sullivan started.
Addressing concerns about the storage facility, Reese wrote: “We got the developer to agree to limit hours, provide low lighting, additional trees and buffering, and no rear loading to have the least impact on the adjacent residents.”
The statement presented the Council as having negotiated protections to reduce the development’s effects on neighboring homes.
Van Zee challenged that account in an October 13 post, focusing particularly on the landscaping requirements and the location of the building’s loading docks. He subsequently published a more extensive rebuttal, citing specific amendments to the Sharlands PUD Handbook and the approved building plans.
His central objection is that Reese claims credit for protections that either existed long before he joined the Council or conflict with the building’s approved design.
When Citizens Speak, Reese Attacks: A Pattern of Bullying from City Hall
Reese has attacked Beth Dory in the past for speaking out on behalf of residents.
What Happened to the Promise of No Rear Loading?
Van Zee challenges Reese’s statement that the developer agreed to “no rear loading.” According to Van Zee, the approved building plans show two loading docks and a trash dumpster on the north side of the building, directly facing the adjacent residential neighborhood.
When Van Zee questioned that arrangement, Reese reportedly responded: “My reference to rear loading in the earlier post was about the hours of operation to avoid backup sounds beeping at all hours. There is no other way for cars to access the site than from the rear...”
Van Zee also asked why the city did not require a design that placed the loading area elsewhere on the property to avoid noise being directed towards the houses.
Landscaping Requirements Date Back to 2004
According to Van Zee, Amendment 4 to the Sharlands PUD Handbook, dated March 24, 2004, established a 20-foot-wide landscaped buffer along the portion of the property adjoining residential development.
That was approximately 15 years before Reese joined the Reno City Council in 2019.
Van Zee says the 20-foot requirement remained unchanged through subsequent amendments, including Amendment 13, which authorized the storage facility.
Reese also reportedly said the Council limited the project’s impact by requiring more landscape buffering. Requiring a developer to comply with an existing landscaping standard is not the same as negotiating an additional requirement.
Reese may have secured additional trees or landscaping improvements beyond the existing requirements. However, Van Zee’s account does not identify any new conditions as Reese claims.
One Property Requires 30 Feet and Another Only 20
Van Zee raises another question about the landscape buffer. He says the original Sharlands PUD Handbook required a 30-foot landscaped buffer along the northern boundaries of both Planning Unit 9, where the storage facility is being constructed, and Planning Unit 8A, directly across Robb Drive, as both properties adjoin residential development to the north.
According to Van Zee, Amendment 4 reduced the buffer requirement for Planning Unit 9 to 20 feet while the 30-foot requirement remained in place for Planning Unit 8A. When Amendment 13 came before the City Council, Van Zee argues, the Council had an opportunity to restore the 30-foot requirement for Planning Unit 9 but did not.
Does 38% Landscaping Really Protect the Neighbors?
Reese also reportedly pointed out that the project provides landscaping on about 38% of the property, well above the 20% minimum requirement.
On its face, that suggests the developer is providing considerably more landscaping than required. Van Zee argues that the overall percentage is misleading when evaluating the impact on adjacent residences. He attributes much of the additional landscaping to the property’s irregular shape and says it does not increase the 20-foot buffer along most of the neighboring residential lots.
For residents whose backyards face a two-story storage building, the width, location, density, and maturity of the landscaping along their shared boundary may matter more than the percentage of landscaping across the entire parcel.
A Public Disagreement Becomes Personal
Van Zee accuses Reese of spreading misinformation and engaging in passive-aggressive bullying on Nextdoor.
He alleges that Reese used the platform’s laughing reaction on at least seven comments posted by Van Zee and other neighbors.
Van Zee says he considers the reactions inappropriate for an elected official responding to constituents’ concerns.
Residents are entitled to question land-use decisions, and elected officials have an opportunity to explain the legal and planning considerations behind those decisions.
When a Citizen Speaks Up, and a Councilmember Shuts Him Down
Reese has attacked Van Zee in the past for speaking out on behalf of residents.
The Questions the City Should Answer
The dispute presents several questions that could be answered through the city’s planning and approval records:
Was indoor mini-storage permitted on Planning Unit 9 before Amendment 13? If not, what authority did the Council have to approve or deny the amendment?
What additional landscaping requirements, if any, were negotiated during the approval process? Did the Council impose any requirements beyond those established in 2004?
Why did the city retain the 20-foot residential buffer? Did the city consider restoring the original 30-foot requirement?
What restrictions apply to loading activities? Are the two northern loading docks subject to specific operating hours or other noise restrictions?
Why were the loading docks located on the side facing the residences? Were alternative building configurations considered?
How much of the project’s additional landscaping actually benefits the adjacent residential properties? Does the landscaping plan provide additional screening along their shared boundary?
Development Rights and Council Discretion Are Not the Same Thing
As Van Zee notes, the councilmember recently wrote: “There’s a growing distrust of government, and some of it has been earned. We can’t just brush that aside or tell people to trust us.”
The Sharlands dispute offers an opportunity to put that principle into practice. The issue is whether the city can explain what authority it exercised, what alternatives were available, and what protections were actually secured.
If the Council had no legal ability to prevent the project, the city should explain why.
If the Council approved a new permitted use through Amendment 13, the public deserves to understand the reasons for that decision.
The question is not simply whether the storage facility complies with the rules. It is who established those rules, when they were changed, and what choices the City Council made along the way. People deserve to know how the council operates.
Do you have a story to tell? Write to me at: mike@mikesrenoreport.com
Support Reno’s independent journalism. Click to donate: Mike’s Reno Report.