[0:02] Kelly. [snorts]

[0:06] » Okay.

[0:10] » This is the city of Reno Planning

[0:12] Commission meeting dated Wednesday,

[0:14] January 7th, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. We will

[0:18] start with the pledge of allegiance. Uh,

[0:20] Commissioner Gonfentini.

[0:24] » To the flag of the United States of

[0:27] America and to the republic for It

[0:29] stands one nation under God,

[0:32] indivisible, with liberty and justice

[0:34] for all.

[0:37] >> A2 roll call. Madam clerk,

[0:43] » David Jockman

[0:44] >> here.

[0:45] » here.

[0:45] >> Jacob Williams

[0:46] » Jacob Williams

[0:46] >> here.

[0:46] » here.

[0:46] >> Manny Bera,

[0:48] » Manny Bera,

[0:48] >> present.

[0:49] » present.

[0:49] >> Christina Delviar,

[0:50] » Christina Delviar,

[0:50] >> present.

[0:51] » present.

[0:51] >> Tina Gonantini

[0:52] » Tina Gonantini

[0:52] >> here.

[0:53] » here.

[0:53] >> Carrie Roier

[0:54] » Carrie Roier

[0:54] >> here.

[0:55] » here.

[0:55] >> Alex Belto absent at this time. We have

[0:58] » Alex Belto absent at this time. We have

[0:58] a quorum of the Reno City Planning

[0:59] Commission.

[1:01] >> Item [clears throat] A3, public comment.

[1:03] » Item [clears throat] A3, public comment.

[1:03] Madame Clerk,

[1:05] >> it should be noted for those in the

[1:07] » it should be noted for those in the

[1:07] audience that comments are to be

[1:08] addressed to the planning commission as

[1:09] a whole. Comments heard under this item

[1:11] will be limited to three minutes per

[1:12] person and may pertain to matters both

[1:14] on and off the planning commission

[1:15] agenda. Please note that the planning

[1:18] commission may not take action upon any

[1:20] matter not agendaized for possible

[1:21] action on today's agenda. When you are

[1:24] called on for public comment, please

[1:25] state your name for the record and begin

[1:27] speaking. The timer will begin when you

[1:28] say your name and you will be afforded

[1:30] three minutes. If you are an attendee in

[1:31] the Zoom meeting and would like to make

[1:33] public comment at this time, please

[1:34] raise your hand. Lastly, while in this

[1:36] room, please be respectful. Warnings

[1:38] will be issued by the presiding officer.

[1:40] If there is disruptive behavior and you

[1:41] will be asked to leave chambers if the

[1:43] behavior continues. Our first public

[1:45] comment of the night is from Kevin

[1:46] Kaiser.

[1:49] Kevin, please state your name for the

[1:51] record. You'll have three minutes.

[1:53] You can use this.

[1:55] >> Yep.

[1:56] » Yep.

[1:56] >> He wants to use the podium docu.

[2:11] I also have handouts if you'd like. My

[2:13] name is Kevin Kaiser. Um, I am a

[2:17] resident over off West Plum Lane, uh,

[2:20] number 2160 Carter Drive, just off West

[2:23] Plum Lane. It is part of the Rivermount

[2:25] project um, in District 2. And I would

[2:29] like to make comment on just the recent

[2:31] community meetings that we've had. And I

[2:34] have these handouts for you as well if

[2:36] you'd like to review. Um, in the last

[2:39] presentation, well, let me let me back

[2:41] up. Uh, like I said, [snorts] I moved

[2:42] here. uh owned my house for 20 plus

[2:46] years. And shortly after that at at that

[2:49] same um project site was set forth to

[2:52] include properties on the hill for sewer

[2:56] development back in early 2000. It was

[3:00] ultimately shut down because the city

[3:01] tried to apply a single fee to all

[3:04] because many needed pumping stations and

[3:06] modifications. since it was it was

[3:09] unfairly funded and many were

[3:12] overcharged.

[3:14] But here we are again today. Connection

[3:17] fee is established by a city ordinance

[3:19] of $12,745.

[3:23] AB abatement fee comes to 15 to $30,000

[3:26] per individual. The city is looking for

[3:29] each resident to pay 41 to $56,000.

[3:36] Hence, I bring you to this um attachment

[3:39] that I brought up. As you will see, as

[3:41] presented and proposed by fairness and

[3:43] equity, total cost is granted minus the

[3:46] NDP grant um is equal to fi final cost

[3:51] divided per household. So, they're

[3:53] asking for $12,427

[3:56] per household.

[3:58] Um grant is equally distributed across

[4:01] both parties. What they did not tell us

[4:04] during the meetings is they would not

[4:06] tell us the number of residents. They

[4:08] did tell us the number of residents, but

[4:10] they didn't tell us the cost cost

[4:11] differences between phase 1 and phase 2.

[4:15] P1 phase 1 has 38% of the parcels and

[4:19] requires 36% of the costs. Cost of the

[4:23] funding for that portion is $1,584,000.

[4:28] equally applied minus the the the grant

[4:30] fund and DP P1 residents would each

[4:34] would pay 10,122

[4:37] by math.

[4:39] P1 residents are actually paying 8 plus

[4:42] 18.5%.

[4:45] P2 has

[4:48] sorry

[4:48] >> 30 more seconds. Go ahead.

[4:49] » 30 more seconds. Go ahead.

[4:49] >> P2 has 62% of parcels and 64% of funding

[4:53] » P2 has 62% of parcels and 64% of funding

[4:53] $2.816 $816 million equally to applied

[4:58] minus NDP pit would pay 13,846.

[5:02] P2 residents are actually paying 11

[5:04] minus 11.4%.

[5:07] P1 is proportionally disproportionately

[5:10] funding P2 even after the grant funding

[5:12] is is equally applied. These numbers

[5:15] have been validated by Katie, Carrie,

[5:17] Collie, Na Naomi and are not denied.

[5:20] This is not fair inequity.

[5:25] Madame clerk, do we have any other

[5:26] requests for public comment?

[5:27] >> I do not have any other requests. Kevin,

[5:30] » I do not have any other requests. Kevin,

[5:30] if you'd like to provide me with those

[5:31] handouts, I'll provide them to the

[5:32] commission. Would

[5:34] >> you like additionals?

[5:38] » If we do we have any other requests to

[5:39] speak online?

[5:41] >> I do not have anyone online. No.

[5:44] » I do not have anyone online. No.

[5:44] >> Hearing none, we will move forward with

[5:45] » Hearing none, we will move forward with

[5:45] the next item on the agenda. That is

[5:47] approval of the agenda for today's date,

[5:50] January 7th, 2026. Can I get a motion to

[5:53] approve our agenda?

[5:55] >> So approved. So moved.

[5:57] » So approved. So moved.

[5:57] >> Commissioner Mura.

[5:58] » Commissioner Mura.

[5:58] >> Second.

[5:59] » Second.

[5:59] >> We have a motion and a second. All in

[6:01] » We have a motion and a second. All in

[6:01] favor say I.

[6:02] >> I.

[6:03] » I.

[6:03] >> I.

[6:04] » I.

[6:04] >> Any opposed?

[6:06] » Any opposed?

[6:06] >> Hearing none. Motion carries

[6:08] » Hearing none. Motion carries

[6:08] unanimously. Item A5, approval of the

[6:11] minutes. This is for our December 4th,

[6:13] 2025 meeting. Can I get a motion to

[6:16] approve that set of minutes?

[6:18] >> Commissioner Williams, motion to

[6:19] » Commissioner Williams, motion to

[6:19] approve.

[6:19] >> Commissioner Gianiantini. Second. Motion

[6:21] » Commissioner Gianiantini. Second. Motion

[6:22] and a second. All in favor say I.

[6:24] >> I I

[6:24] » I I

[6:24] >> I. Any opposed? Hearing none. Motion

[6:28] » I. Any opposed? Hearing none. Motion

[6:28] carries unanimously. Item A six,

[6:30] approval of minutes from our December

[6:32] 17th, 2025 meeting.

[6:35] >> Motion to approve.

[6:36] » Motion to approve.

[6:36] >> Commissioner Williams, motion to

[6:37] » Commissioner Williams, motion to

[6:37] approve.

[6:37] >> Commissioner Gianini second.

[6:39] » Commissioner Gianini second.

[6:39] >> Motion and second. All in favor say I.

[6:41] » Motion and second. All in favor say I.

[6:41] >> I.

[6:41] » I.

[6:42] >> I.

[6:42] » I.

[6:42] >> I.

[6:43] » I.

[6:43] >> Commissioner Basser abstain. I was

[6:45] » Commissioner Basser abstain. I was

[6:45] absent.

[6:47] >> Uh, we have one abstension from

[6:49] » Uh, we have one abstension from

[6:49] Commissioner Bisera. Do we have any uh

[6:51] opposed

[6:53] hearing? None. Motion carries uh with

[6:57] one abstension from Commissioner Visera.

[7:00] Item B, staff announcements. Mr.

[7:03] >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a couple

[7:05] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a couple

[7:05] quick announcements. Um I know this is

[7:07] of interest to several of the

[7:09] commissioners. Angela Fouse and her team

[7:11] have developed a series of trainings

[7:13] that we will be bringing forward um just

[7:15] based on agenda case load. Um so far

[7:18] what we have are um the following

[7:21] trainings. Understanding infill

[7:23] development, purpose of the master plan,

[7:26] understanding the legal framework that

[7:27] governs public meetings and

[7:29] decision-making bodies, planning

[7:31] commission ethics and communication and

[7:34] community engagement principles and

[7:35] strategies for effective public outreach

[7:38] and not in any particular order, but

[7:40] those will be coming forward um you know

[7:42] agenda case load permitting. Also just a

[7:45] couple quick updates. The Riverbend

[7:47] conditional use permit, which you

[7:48] approved along with the tenative map, um

[7:51] is scheduled to go to city council next

[7:54] week in order to get council support for

[7:56] a regional plan amendment for the

[7:58] utility corridor relocation portion of

[8:00] that project. And also the Lakeidge

[8:03] resort specific plan district will go to

[8:05] city council on January 28th. Those are

[8:07] my only announcements. Happy New Year.

[8:10] >> Thank you, Mr. All right, we will move

[8:12] » Thank you, Mr. All right, we will move

[8:12] on in our agenda

[8:14] uh to public hearings. This is item C1,

[8:17] a staff report for possible action and

[8:19] recommendation to city council. Case

[8:22] number LDC26-25.

[8:26] This is 386 Hulcom zoning map amendment.

[8:29] We will start with a presentation from

[8:31] staff. Mr. Foster, please proceed.

[8:34] >> Okay. Excuse [clears throat] me. Good

[8:35] » Okay. Excuse [clears throat] me. Good

[8:35] evening, me members of the planning

[8:37] commission. Uh Jeff Foster, associate

[8:39] planner for the record. Uh, as Chair

[8:42] Jockman said, I'm bringing you case

[8:44] LDC26-25,

[8:46] the zoning map amendment for 386

[8:48] Hulkcom.

[8:49] The project site is a single parcel that

[8:52] is.17 acres in size located at the

[8:55] northeast corner of Hulkcom Avenue and

[8:57] Stewart Street. Uh, it is developed with

[9:00] an approximate 5,000 square foot office

[9:03] building that was built in 1980. And

[9:05] that is the former Reno City Employees

[9:08] Federal Credit Union. The request before

[9:10] you is a zone change from professional

[9:12] office or PO to mixeduse downtown

[9:15] riverwalk district or MDRD.

[9:18] Uh and also to remove the Wells Avenue

[9:20] neighborhood planning area overlay

[9:22] district WP designation. Thank goodness

[9:26] for acronyms because that is an absolute

[9:29] mouthful.

[9:30] All right. Uh zooming in here. Um the

[9:35] multi you can see to the north we have

[9:37] multif family. There are small office

[9:40] conversions to the east and to the south

[9:43] and to the west uh you have an office

[9:45] building. The key issue that staff

[9:47] analyzed is compatibility of the

[9:49] proposed zoning with the surrounding

[9:50] zoning and development.

[9:53] So turning to zoning um again the

[9:56] current zoning for the parcel is

[9:58] professional office as you can see on

[9:59] the left. PO please note does not

[10:03] conform with the master plan

[10:05] designation. The proposed change is to

[10:08] the mixeduse downtown riverwalk district

[10:10] or MDRD zone as you can see on the right

[10:13] and also as you can see there that zone

[10:16] is also found to the north and to the

[10:18] west. MDRD is intended to support the

[10:21] downtown regional center. Minimum

[10:23] densities are applied to support the use

[10:25] of transit and other alternative modes.

[10:28] Primary uses include a mix of

[10:29] employment, retail, and cultural

[10:32] facilities as well as highdensity

[10:33] residential.

[10:35] Uh in contrast, the PO zone provides for

[10:38] office conversions and small office

[10:40] development such as the existing office

[10:43] building on the site. The proposed MDRD

[10:46] zone allows for minimum density of 21

[10:48] units per acre with no maximum density.

[10:52] Surrounding densities vary. Higher

[10:54] density development exists to the north

[10:56] and to the southwest with lesser

[10:58] densities to the east. The 43 unit

[11:01] apartment building to the north has a

[11:03] density of about 64 units per acre.

[11:06] Given the general development pattern in

[11:08] the area, surrounding uses and zoning,

[11:10] the proposed amendment to MDRD is

[11:13] considered to be consistent and

[11:14] compatible with the surrounding zoning

[11:16] and development. Since the WP does not

[11:20] include any mixeduse downtown riverwalk

[11:22] districts, sorry, mixeduse downtown

[11:24] districts as conforming base zoning

[11:26] districts, reszoning to MDRD

[11:29] necessitates removal of the WP overlay

[11:33] designation. Given that the subject

[11:35] parcel is at the northwest edge of the

[11:38] WP, removal of the designation will not

[11:41] create a gap or inconsistency in the

[11:44] overlay or its continued and future

[11:46] application.

[11:49] The master plan land use is downtown

[11:51] mixed use or DTMU and on the screen are

[11:54] eight goals and policies that are in

[11:56] support of the proposed zone change

[11:58] request.

[12:00] On the screen before you are the allowed

[12:02] uses in the MDRD zone.

[12:06] At the bottom of the screen uh uh

[12:09] highlighted in yellow are the uses that

[12:11] require either a minor conditional use

[12:13] permit uh which is an administrative

[12:16] review or a full conditional use permit

[12:18] with approval by the planning

[12:20] commission.

[12:23] Here are the development standards for

[12:24] the existing PO zone and the proposed

[12:27] MDRD zone.

[12:30] And here are the recommended findings.

[12:32] Staff can make all recommended findings.

[12:36] And here's the recommended motion. And

[12:38] again, because this request involves

[12:40] removal of the WP designation that is

[12:44] also part of the proposed motion. That's

[12:46] it for me. Uh the applicant is here and

[12:49] does have a very brief presentation and

[12:51] then we will both be available for

[12:52] questions. [clears throat]

[12:56] Please proceed with your presentation

[12:57] and state your name for the record.

[12:59] >> Hi, my name is Ryan Mix and thank you

[13:01] » Hi, my name is Ryan Mix and thank you

[13:01] guys all for uh for taking the time

[13:02] here.

[13:03] >> Is it in the same thing?

[13:05] » Is it in the same thing?

[13:05] >> Uh yeah, the presentation's coming up.

[13:07] » Uh yeah, the presentation's coming up.

[13:07] >> Okay.

[13:07] » Okay.

[13:07] >> And then you just press the right.

[13:17] » I'm gonna let Nick cue that up just for

[13:19] a second. Don't want to mess it up.

[13:21] [laughter]

[13:29] So, I guess while that's getting pulled

[13:31] up, uh, my name is Ryan Mix. Uh, I'm the

[13:33] owner of the building, real estate

[13:34] developer here locally. We were excited

[13:36] to acquire this property about eight

[13:38] months ago, um, from the Reno Federal

[13:40] Credit Union. I'm sure you guys have

[13:42] seen the big red building. As you drive

[13:43] down Hulcom Street, after they were

[13:46] acquired, the building fell into a bit

[13:47] of disrepair. the first time we saw it

[13:49] walk through it seemed like it really

[13:51] fit the area to become multif family

[13:54] nice units brand new units has the walk

[13:56] up feel with a lot of the surrounding

[13:57] buildings do as well so that was our

[13:59] plan that's our plan uh through the

[14:01] zoning change to be able to achieve that

[14:03] that dream here did a little AI mockup

[14:06] of what the building could look like

[14:07] here bringing up the current standards

[14:08] with landscaping bike racks off streetet

[14:12] parking etc

[14:14] and that's our plan with the building so

[14:15] we want to try to develop eight multif

[14:17] family units There'll be four

[14:18] one-bedroom one baths, four two-bedroom

[14:21] one baths bringing in modern amenities,

[14:24] heating, cooling, in-unit laundry. Um,

[14:28] and also due to the previous use had

[14:30] great parking on site. So, able to

[14:32] provide 10 parking spaces off street,

[14:35] which I know is always a challenge in

[14:37] that area. Um, so we're excited to

[14:39] breathe some new life into this building

[14:41] and appreciate everyone's time here.

[14:45] >> Thank you for the presentation. We will

[14:47] » Thank you for the presentation. We will

[14:47] now move to disclosures and then uh

[14:50] public comments. So, Commissioner

[14:51] Gonfini

[14:52] >> uh read and review the materials

[14:54] » uh read and review the materials

[14:54] familiar with the site.

[14:56] >> Uh Commission read and reviewed

[14:58] » Uh Commission read and reviewed

[14:58] materials.

[14:59] >> Commissioner Williams read and reviewed

[15:01] » Commissioner Williams read and reviewed

[15:01] materials and familiar with the area.

[15:03] >> We will now go online for disclosures.

[15:07] » We will now go online for disclosures.

[15:07] Commissioner Delvr read um and reviewed

[15:10] the materials and I am familiar with the

[15:12] site.

[15:13] >> Commissioner Rormire, same disclosures.

[15:17] » Commissioner Rormire, same disclosures.

[15:17] Commissioner Bera, same disclosure.

[15:20] >> Madame clerk, do we have any request to

[15:22] » Madame clerk, do we have any request to

[15:22] speak under this item?

[15:23] >> I do not have any request to speak in

[15:25] » I do not have any request to speak in

[15:25] person and I do not have anyone online.

[15:28] >> Thank you very much. We will now move to

[15:29] » Thank you very much. We will now move to

[15:29] questions from the commission. And

[15:32] madame clerk, if you could uh put the

[15:36] uh Zoom participants on the screen so

[15:38] that I could see if there's a request to

[15:40] speak, I would appreciate it.

[15:44] Commissioner Visera.

[15:46] >> Great. Thank you, Chair. Uh, solid

[15:48] » Great. Thank you, Chair. Uh, solid

[15:48] record, uh, from what I can tell and,

[15:51] uh, great package, Jeff and crew. Jeff,

[15:54] could you just confirm for the record

[15:55] that any future non-residential use

[15:57] would require a site plan review due to

[16:00] the residential adjacency?

[16:03] >> Uh, Commissioner Bera, um, that is

[16:05] » Uh, Commissioner Bera, um, that is

[16:05] actually not correct.

[16:07] um that was included in the staff

[16:09] report, but I was it was clarified to me

[16:12] by our principal planner um that because

[16:16] that is in the MDRD zone, the downtown

[16:19] districts, there's an exception in code

[16:21] that um eliminates the requirement for a

[16:24] minor site plan review for

[16:25] non-residential development adjacent to

[16:27] residential. So, my staff report is

[16:30] incorrect on that matter.

[16:32] How so what does that mean I guess for

[16:34] for for

[16:36] folks uh with with that clarification or

[16:39] correction what should we consider

[16:41] >> so the proposed use is for u multif

[16:45] » so the proposed use is for u multif

[16:45] family which would obviously be

[16:46] residential development and it's just

[16:48] redevelopment of an existing structure

[16:51] however as you know zone changes can

[16:53] lead to any number of other uses uh

[16:55] should the applicant demolish the

[16:57] building or another owner procure the

[16:59] building etc and want to do something

[17:01] else. So, uh if a uh another use came

[17:06] through um that was non-residential, if

[17:09] it was one of the uses that was on um

[17:12] the bottom of my one slide that was

[17:14] highlighted in yellow, those would

[17:16] require either an MUP or a CUP. But if

[17:20] not, uh then the uses would be allowed

[17:23] by right um with application of the

[17:27] standard development code requirements.

[17:30] >> Okay, great. Thanks, Jeff. And just for

[17:32] » Okay, great. Thanks, Jeff. And just for

[17:32] further clarity, uh, since there was

[17:34] that correction

[17:36] really, we're also trying to get things

[17:37] in alignment. Correct. Because the

[17:39] current PO zoning doesn't conform with

[17:41] the downtown Pixuse master plan

[17:43] designation.

[17:44] >> That's correct. So the current zoning,

[17:46] » That's correct. So the current zoning,

[17:46] the current zone does not conform. Um,

[17:49] and so the proposed

[17:51] >> RD does,

[17:52] » RD does,

[17:52] >> the MDRD does and and would bring it

[17:54] » the MDRD does and and would bring it

[17:54] into conformance. Yes.

[17:56] >> Excellent. Thanks, Jeeoff.

[17:57] » Excellent. Thanks, Jeeoff.

[17:57] >> You bet.

[18:01] Uh, Commissioner Jockman, I'll just ask

[18:03] one question. Obviously, we have some

[18:05] conceptual site plans in front of us.

[18:07] Uh, should we be looking at those at

[18:09] this time? Obviously, there could be

[18:11] questions about parking and so forth,

[18:12] but I is it correct that that will be

[18:14] addressed at a later stage

[18:16] >> in the process?

[18:17] » in the process?

[18:17] >> Yes. And in fact, um, as I generally do

[18:20] » Yes. And in fact, um, as I generally do

[18:20] with, uh, zone change requests, I did a

[18:23] a more in-depth analysis of the

[18:25] potential development of the site based

[18:27] on the applicants request for those

[18:29] eight multif family units. So, I have

[18:31] already given him a heads up on all of

[18:34] the considerations that he needs to

[18:36] factor in in terms of parking and

[18:37] landscaping and, etc., etc. So he's

[18:40] already aware of the different things

[18:42] that would need to be addressed down the

[18:45] line at subsequent building permit

[18:48] stage.

[18:48] >> Thank you.

[18:52] » Do we have any other questions from the

[18:54] commission?

[18:58] I do not see any online. If we do not

[19:00] have any other questions in chambers, we

[19:02] can now move to deliberations or a

[19:04] motion.

[19:06] >> Uh Commissioner Bizera.

[19:08] » Uh Commissioner Bizera.

[19:08] >> Sure. Thank you, Chair. I was just going

[19:09] » Sure. Thank you, Chair. I was just going

[19:09] to make a quick remark um cuz I also

[19:12] just think it's good practice to state

[19:14] for the record why we support an

[19:15] application when possible and not only

[19:17] when we kind of have to explain it when

[19:19] we object. As I think Jeff confirmed, uh

[19:22] this is really about alignment and it's

[19:23] I think it's good that we're trying to

[19:25] get things squared away with the master

[19:27] plan and I think Jeff and the applicant

[19:31] uh did a did a great job with you know

[19:33] uh with what we were presented tonight

[19:35] and coordinating with folks through the

[19:37] NAB. Uh so I I I really appreciate the

[19:40] work and really um you know for those

[19:44] reasons and for uh having appropriate

[19:47] guardrails in place uh I'm comfortable

[19:49] supporting the recommendation based on

[19:51] the findings and I'm happy to make a

[19:52] motion support when folks are ready.

[19:56] >> Thank you. I believe next was

[19:57] » Thank you. I believe next was

[19:58] Commissioner Roar Meyer.

[20:00] >> Yeah, thank you. Yeah, I just want to

[20:02] » Yeah, thank you. Yeah, I just want to

[20:02] say this looks like a really good

[20:04] project. I of course with the zone

[20:06] change, we don't know what the details

[20:08] will be. Um, but this is a nice uh reuse

[20:11] of this building. I will say it's

[20:13] another wonderful example of why we

[20:16] should sunset some of these really

[20:18] outofdate neighborhood plans like the

[20:20] Wells Avenue plan that dates back

[20:23] decades. So, um, it is one more barrier

[20:27] to the kinds of development we'd like to

[20:28] see more of, which is this kind of

[20:30] infill and redevelopment. So, I

[20:32] appreciate this one.

[20:35] Uh, Commissioner Delvier.

[20:37] >> Yeah, I just want to second everything

[20:39] » Yeah, I just want to second everything

[20:39] um the previous commissioners talked

[20:41] about. Um, I I really think that this is

[20:43] a good it's a good project. It's a good

[20:45] use of the space. Um, I was really

[20:48] pleased that uh the the neighborhood,

[20:51] the NABS, and the comments that we got

[20:53] were also in support of it. Uh, my

[20:55] biggest issue was sort of just the the

[20:57] parking issue, but that obviously is is

[20:59] part of that. And so, and again, since

[21:01] this is just a recommendation currently

[21:03] for a zoning change, um, for city

[21:06] council to approve, um, I can definitely

[21:08] get behind this project.

[21:12] » Seeing no other requests to speak, I'll

[21:14] I'll second some of those, uh, comments.

[21:16] I think this is a great location for

[21:19] this reszone and, uh, likely could be an

[21:22] infill project. So, um, it's adjacent to

[21:26] the same zoning. And I think this is a

[21:28] good place and a good appropriate

[21:30] change. So I will now entertain a motion

[21:32] if anyone would like to make one.

[21:35] >> Commissioner Williams, I'm happy to.

[21:36] » Commissioner Williams, I'm happy to.

[21:36] It's right in front of me.

[21:38] >> Please proceed.

[21:40] » Please proceed.

[21:40] >> Uh Commissioner Williams, for the record

[21:41] » Uh Commissioner Williams, for the record

[21:41] in the matter of case LDC 26-000025

[21:45] based upon the compliance with the

[21:46] applicable findings. I move to recommend

[21:48] that city council approve the zoning map

[21:50] amendment by ordinance and remove the

[21:52] Wells Avenue neighborhood planning area

[21:54] overlay district designation from the

[21:57] site and I can make all the findings.

[21:58] >> Commissioner

[22:00] » Commissioner

[22:00] second.

[22:01] >> We have a motion and a second. All those

[22:04] » We have a motion and a second. All those

[22:04] in favor say I.

[22:06] >> I.

[22:06] » I.

[22:06] >> I.

[22:07] » I.

[22:07] >> I. Any opposed?

[22:10] » I. Any opposed?

[22:10] Hearing none. Motion carries

[22:11] unanimously. That concludes item C1 on

[22:14] the agenda.

[22:16] Our next item is business items. Uh Mr.

[22:19] Reley, do we have anything extra that

[22:21] was not covered under staff

[22:22] announcements?

[22:23] >> Nothing this evening. Thank you.

[22:25] » Nothing this evening. Thank you.

[22:25] >> Item E, we have the Truckucky Meadows

[22:26] » Item E, we have the Truckucky Meadows

[22:26] Regional Planning Liaison report. We

[22:29] have not had a meeting since our last

[22:31] city planning commission meeting. Our

[22:33] next meeting is on January 22nd at 6:00

[22:38] p.m. I believe this will be held in the

[22:41] RTC. again. Uh, Commissioner Roar Meer,

[22:44] correct me if I'm wrong about that.

[22:48] >> That's correct. And we also the um

[22:51] » That's correct. And we also the um

[22:51] regional subco regional coordination

[22:54] subcommittee is meeting on Thursday

[22:56] morning.

[22:58] >> Do you know where the location of that

[23:00] » Do you know where the location of that

[23:00] meeting?

[23:01] >> That's the RTC conference room.

[23:03] » That's the RTC conference room.

[23:03] >> Perfect. Thank you. Uh item F, a future

[23:07] » Perfect. Thank you. Uh item F, a future

[23:07] agenda items. Do we have anything from

[23:10] staff on this one?

[23:12] Nothing from staff that we haven't

[23:13] already discussed.

[23:15] >> Okay. Thank you for the update on the

[23:17] » Okay. Thank you for the update on the

[23:17] upcoming trainings.

[23:19] Uh we'll move on to do we have any other

[23:22] requests under this item?

[23:25] Uh we'll now move on to item G1 public

[23:29] comment. Madame clerk, any request to

[23:31] speak online?

[23:32] >> No request to speak online.

[23:34] » No request to speak online.

[23:34] >> Okay, I see chambers is empty. We will

[23:36] » Okay, I see chambers is empty. We will

[23:36] now adjourn the meeting. Can I get a

[23:38] motion to adjurnn? Commissioner Gy

[23:40] motion to adjurnn.

[23:42] >> Commissioner Williams second.

[23:43] » Commissioner Williams second.

[23:43] >> Uh we have a motion and a second. All in

[23:45] » Uh we have a motion and a second. All in

[23:45] favor say I.

[23:46] >> I.

[23:47] » I.

[23:47] >> I.

[23:47] » I.

[23:48] >> I. Meeting adjourned.

[23:50] » I. Meeting adjourned.

[23:50] >> Okay. Good evening.

Reno City Planning Commission | January 7, 2026

Transcript