Kelly. [snorts] >> Okay. >> This is the city of Reno Planning Commission meeting dated Wednesday, January 7th, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. We will start with the pledge of allegiance. Uh, Commissioner Gonfentini. >> To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for It stands one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> A2 roll call. Madam clerk, >> David Jockman >> here. >> Jacob Williams >> here. >> Manny Bera, >> present. >> Christina Delviar, >> present. >> Tina Gonantini >> here. >> Carrie Roier >> here. >> Alex Belto absent at this time. We have a quorum of the Reno City Planning Commission. >> Item [clears throat] A3, public comment. Madame Clerk, >> it should be noted for those in the audience that comments are to be addressed to the planning commission as a whole. Comments heard under this item will be limited to three minutes per person and may pertain to matters both on and off the planning commission agenda. Please note that the planning commission may not take action upon any matter not agendaized for possible action on today's agenda. When you are called on for public comment, please state your name for the record and begin speaking. The timer will begin when you say your name and you will be afforded three minutes. If you are an attendee in the Zoom meeting and would like to make public comment at this time, please raise your hand. Lastly, while in this room, please be respectful. Warnings will be issued by the presiding officer. If there is disruptive behavior and you will be asked to leave chambers if the behavior continues. Our first public comment of the night is from Kevin Kaiser. Kevin, please state your name for the record. You'll have three minutes. You can use this. >> Yep. >> He wants to use the podium docu. I also have handouts if you'd like. My name is Kevin Kaiser. Um, I am a resident over off West Plum Lane, uh, number 2160 Carter Drive, just off West Plum Lane. It is part of the Rivermount project um, in District 2. And I would like to make comment on just the recent community meetings that we've had. And I have these handouts for you as well if you'd like to review. Um, in the last presentation, well, let me let me back up. Uh, like I said, [snorts] I moved here. uh owned my house for 20 plus years. And shortly after that at at that same um project site was set forth to include properties on the hill for sewer development back in early 2000. It was ultimately shut down because the city tried to apply a single fee to all because many needed pumping stations and modifications. since it was it was unfairly funded and many were overcharged. But here we are again today. Connection fee is established by a city ordinance of $12,745. AB abatement fee comes to 15 to $30,000 per individual. The city is looking for each resident to pay 41 to $56,000. Hence, I bring you to this um attachment that I brought up. As you will see, as presented and proposed by fairness and equity, total cost is granted minus the NDP grant um is equal to fi final cost divided per household. So, they're asking for $12,427 per household. Um grant is equally distributed across both parties. What they did not tell us during the meetings is they would not tell us the number of residents. They did tell us the number of residents, but they didn't tell us the cost cost differences between phase 1 and phase 2. P1 phase 1 has 38% of the parcels and requires 36% of the costs. Cost of the funding for that portion is $1,584,000. equally applied minus the the the grant fund and DP P1 residents would each would pay 10,122 by math. P1 residents are actually paying 8 plus 18.5%. P2 has sorry >> 30 more seconds. Go ahead. >> P2 has 62% of parcels and 64% of funding $2.816 $816 million equally to applied minus NDP pit would pay 13,846. P2 residents are actually paying 11 minus 11.4%. P1 is proportionally disproportionately funding P2 even after the grant funding is is equally applied. These numbers have been validated by Katie, Carrie, Collie, Na Naomi and are not denied. This is not fair inequity. Madame clerk, do we have any other requests for public comment? >> I do not have any other requests. Kevin, if you'd like to provide me with those handouts, I'll provide them to the commission. Would >> you like additionals? >> If we do we have any other requests to speak online? >> I do not have anyone online. No. >> Hearing none, we will move forward with the next item on the agenda. That is approval of the agenda for today's date, January 7th, 2026. Can I get a motion to approve our agenda? >> So approved. So moved. >> Commissioner Mura. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Hearing none. Motion carries unanimously. Item A5, approval of the minutes. This is for our December 4th, 2025 meeting. Can I get a motion to approve that set of minutes? >> Commissioner Williams, motion to approve. >> Commissioner Gianiantini. Second. Motion and a second. All in favor say I. >> I I >> I. Any opposed? Hearing none. Motion carries unanimously. Item A six, approval of minutes from our December 17th, 2025 meeting. >> Motion to approve. >> Commissioner Williams, motion to approve. >> Commissioner Gianini second. >> Motion and second. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> Commissioner Basser abstain. I was absent. >> Uh, we have one abstension from Commissioner Bisera. Do we have any uh opposed hearing? None. Motion carries uh with one abstension from Commissioner Visera. Item B, staff announcements. Mr. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a couple quick announcements. Um I know this is of interest to several of the commissioners. Angela Fouse and her team have developed a series of trainings that we will be bringing forward um just based on agenda case load. Um so far what we have are um the following trainings. Understanding infill development, purpose of the master plan, understanding the legal framework that governs public meetings and decision-making bodies, planning commission ethics and communication and community engagement principles and strategies for effective public outreach and not in any particular order, but those will be coming forward um you know agenda case load permitting. Also just a couple quick updates. The Riverbend conditional use permit, which you approved along with the tenative map, um is scheduled to go to city council next week in order to get council support for a regional plan amendment for the utility corridor relocation portion of that project. And also the Lakeidge resort specific plan district will go to city council on January 28th. Those are my only announcements. Happy New Year. >> Thank you, Mr. All right, we will move on in our agenda uh to public hearings. This is item C1, a staff report for possible action and recommendation to city council. Case number LDC26-25. This is 386 Hulcom zoning map amendment. We will start with a presentation from staff. Mr. Foster, please proceed. >> Okay. Excuse [clears throat] me. Good evening, me members of the planning commission. Uh Jeff Foster, associate planner for the record. Uh, as Chair Jockman said, I'm bringing you case LDC26-25, the zoning map amendment for 386 Hulkcom. The project site is a single parcel that is.17 acres in size located at the northeast corner of Hulkcom Avenue and Stewart Street. Uh, it is developed with an approximate 5,000 square foot office building that was built in 1980. And that is the former Reno City Employees Federal Credit Union. The request before you is a zone change from professional office or PO to mixeduse downtown riverwalk district or MDRD. Uh and also to remove the Wells Avenue neighborhood planning area overlay district WP designation. Thank goodness for acronyms because that is an absolute mouthful. All right. Uh zooming in here. Um the multi you can see to the north we have multif family. There are small office conversions to the east and to the south and to the west uh you have an office building. The key issue that staff analyzed is compatibility of the proposed zoning with the surrounding zoning and development. So turning to zoning um again the current zoning for the parcel is professional office as you can see on the left. PO please note does not conform with the master plan designation. The proposed change is to the mixeduse downtown riverwalk district or MDRD zone as you can see on the right and also as you can see there that zone is also found to the north and to the west. MDRD is intended to support the downtown regional center. Minimum densities are applied to support the use of transit and other alternative modes. Primary uses include a mix of employment, retail, and cultural facilities as well as highdensity residential. Uh in contrast, the PO zone provides for office conversions and small office development such as the existing office building on the site. The proposed MDRD zone allows for minimum density of 21 units per acre with no maximum density. Surrounding densities vary. Higher density development exists to the north and to the southwest with lesser densities to the east. The 43 unit apartment building to the north has a density of about 64 units per acre. Given the general development pattern in the area, surrounding uses and zoning, the proposed amendment to MDRD is considered to be consistent and compatible with the surrounding zoning and development. Since the WP does not include any mixeduse downtown riverwalk districts, sorry, mixeduse downtown districts as conforming base zoning districts, reszoning to MDRD necessitates removal of the WP overlay designation. Given that the subject parcel is at the northwest edge of the WP, removal of the designation will not create a gap or inconsistency in the overlay or its continued and future application. The master plan land use is downtown mixed use or DTMU and on the screen are eight goals and policies that are in support of the proposed zone change request. On the screen before you are the allowed uses in the MDRD zone. At the bottom of the screen uh uh highlighted in yellow are the uses that require either a minor conditional use permit uh which is an administrative review or a full conditional use permit with approval by the planning commission. Here are the development standards for the existing PO zone and the proposed MDRD zone. And here are the recommended findings. Staff can make all recommended findings. And here's the recommended motion. And again, because this request involves removal of the WP designation that is also part of the proposed motion. That's it for me. Uh the applicant is here and does have a very brief presentation and then we will both be available for questions. [clears throat] Please proceed with your presentation and state your name for the record. >> Hi, my name is Ryan Mix and thank you guys all for uh for taking the time here. >> Is it in the same thing? >> Uh yeah, the presentation's coming up. >> Okay. >> And then you just press the right. >> I'm gonna let Nick cue that up just for a second. Don't want to mess it up. [laughter] So, I guess while that's getting pulled up, uh, my name is Ryan Mix. Uh, I'm the owner of the building, real estate developer here locally. We were excited to acquire this property about eight months ago, um, from the Reno Federal Credit Union. I'm sure you guys have seen the big red building. As you drive down Hulcom Street, after they were acquired, the building fell into a bit of disrepair. the first time we saw it walk through it seemed like it really fit the area to become multif family nice units brand new units has the walk up feel with a lot of the surrounding buildings do as well so that was our plan that's our plan uh through the zoning change to be able to achieve that that dream here did a little AI mockup of what the building could look like here bringing up the current standards with landscaping bike racks off streetet parking etc and that's our plan with the building so we want to try to develop eight multif family units There'll be four one-bedroom one baths, four two-bedroom one baths bringing in modern amenities, heating, cooling, in-unit laundry. Um, and also due to the previous use had great parking on site. So, able to provide 10 parking spaces off street, which I know is always a challenge in that area. Um, so we're excited to breathe some new life into this building and appreciate everyone's time here. >> Thank you for the presentation. We will now move to disclosures and then uh public comments. So, Commissioner Gonfini >> uh read and review the materials familiar with the site. >> Uh Commission read and reviewed materials. >> Commissioner Williams read and reviewed materials and familiar with the area. >> We will now go online for disclosures. Commissioner Delvr read um and reviewed the materials and I am familiar with the site. >> Commissioner Rormire, same disclosures. Commissioner Bera, same disclosure. >> Madame clerk, do we have any request to speak under this item? >> I do not have any request to speak in person and I do not have anyone online. >> Thank you very much. We will now move to questions from the commission. And madame clerk, if you could uh put the uh Zoom participants on the screen so that I could see if there's a request to speak, I would appreciate it. Commissioner Visera. >> Great. Thank you, Chair. Uh, solid record, uh, from what I can tell and, uh, great package, Jeff and crew. Jeff, could you just confirm for the record that any future non-residential use would require a site plan review due to the residential adjacency? >> Uh, Commissioner Bera, um, that is actually not correct. um that was included in the staff report, but I was it was clarified to me by our principal planner um that because that is in the MDRD zone, the downtown districts, there's an exception in code that um eliminates the requirement for a minor site plan review for non-residential development adjacent to residential. So, my staff report is incorrect on that matter. How so what does that mean I guess for for for folks uh with with that clarification or correction what should we consider >> so the proposed use is for u multif family which would obviously be residential development and it's just redevelopment of an existing structure however as you know zone changes can lead to any number of other uses uh should the applicant demolish the building or another owner procure the building etc and want to do something else. So, uh if a uh another use came through um that was non-residential, if it was one of the uses that was on um the bottom of my one slide that was highlighted in yellow, those would require either an MUP or a CUP. But if not, uh then the uses would be allowed by right um with application of the standard development code requirements. >> Okay, great. Thanks, Jeff. And just for further clarity, uh, since there was that correction really, we're also trying to get things in alignment. Correct. Because the current PO zoning doesn't conform with the downtown Pixuse master plan designation. >> That's correct. So the current zoning, the current zone does not conform. Um, and so the proposed >> RD does, >> the MDRD does and and would bring it into conformance. Yes. >> Excellent. Thanks, Jeeoff. >> You bet. Uh, Commissioner Jockman, I'll just ask one question. Obviously, we have some conceptual site plans in front of us. Uh, should we be looking at those at this time? Obviously, there could be questions about parking and so forth, but I is it correct that that will be addressed at a later stage >> in the process? >> Yes. And in fact, um, as I generally do with, uh, zone change requests, I did a a more in-depth analysis of the potential development of the site based on the applicants request for those eight multif family units. So, I have already given him a heads up on all of the considerations that he needs to factor in in terms of parking and landscaping and, etc., etc. So he's already aware of the different things that would need to be addressed down the line at subsequent building permit stage. >> Thank you. >> Do we have any other questions from the commission? I do not see any online. If we do not have any other questions in chambers, we can now move to deliberations or a motion. >> Uh Commissioner Bizera. >> Sure. Thank you, Chair. I was just going to make a quick remark um cuz I also just think it's good practice to state for the record why we support an application when possible and not only when we kind of have to explain it when we object. As I think Jeff confirmed, uh this is really about alignment and it's I think it's good that we're trying to get things squared away with the master plan and I think Jeff and the applicant uh did a did a great job with you know uh with what we were presented tonight and coordinating with folks through the NAB. Uh so I I I really appreciate the work and really um you know for those reasons and for uh having appropriate guardrails in place uh I'm comfortable supporting the recommendation based on the findings and I'm happy to make a motion support when folks are ready. >> Thank you. I believe next was Commissioner Roar Meyer. >> Yeah, thank you. Yeah, I just want to say this looks like a really good project. I of course with the zone change, we don't know what the details will be. Um, but this is a nice uh reuse of this building. I will say it's another wonderful example of why we should sunset some of these really outofdate neighborhood plans like the Wells Avenue plan that dates back decades. So, um, it is one more barrier to the kinds of development we'd like to see more of, which is this kind of infill and redevelopment. So, I appreciate this one. Uh, Commissioner Delvier. >> Yeah, I just want to second everything um the previous commissioners talked about. Um, I I really think that this is a good it's a good project. It's a good use of the space. Um, I was really pleased that uh the the neighborhood, the NABS, and the comments that we got were also in support of it. Uh, my biggest issue was sort of just the the parking issue, but that obviously is is part of that. And so, and again, since this is just a recommendation currently for a zoning change, um, for city council to approve, um, I can definitely get behind this project. >> Seeing no other requests to speak, I'll I'll second some of those, uh, comments. I think this is a great location for this reszone and, uh, likely could be an infill project. So, um, it's adjacent to the same zoning. And I think this is a good place and a good appropriate change. So I will now entertain a motion if anyone would like to make one. >> Commissioner Williams, I'm happy to. It's right in front of me. >> Please proceed. >> Uh Commissioner Williams, for the record in the matter of case LDC 26-000025 based upon the compliance with the applicable findings. I move to recommend that city council approve the zoning map amendment by ordinance and remove the Wells Avenue neighborhood planning area overlay district designation from the site and I can make all the findings. >> Commissioner second. >> We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. Any opposed? Hearing none. Motion carries unanimously. That concludes item C1 on the agenda. Our next item is business items. Uh Mr. Reley, do we have anything extra that was not covered under staff announcements? >> Nothing this evening. Thank you. >> Item E, we have the Truckucky Meadows Regional Planning Liaison report. We have not had a meeting since our last city planning commission meeting. Our next meeting is on January 22nd at 6:00 p.m. I believe this will be held in the RTC. again. Uh, Commissioner Roar Meer, correct me if I'm wrong about that. >> That's correct. And we also the um regional subco regional coordination subcommittee is meeting on Thursday morning. >> Do you know where the location of that meeting? >> That's the RTC conference room. >> Perfect. Thank you. Uh item F, a future agenda items. Do we have anything from staff on this one? Nothing from staff that we haven't already discussed. >> Okay. Thank you for the update on the upcoming trainings. Uh we'll move on to do we have any other requests under this item? Uh we'll now move on to item G1 public comment. Madame clerk, any request to speak online? >> No request to speak online. >> Okay, I see chambers is empty. We will now adjourn the meeting. Can I get a motion to adjurnn? Commissioner Gy motion to adjurnn. >> Commissioner Williams second. >> Uh we have a motion and a second. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. Meeting adjourned. >> Okay. Good evening.