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.
» here.
>> Jacob Williams
» Jacob Williams
>> here.
» here.
>> Manny Bera,
» Manny Bera,
>> present.
» present.
>> Christina Delviar,
» Christina Delviar,
>> present.
» present.
>> Tina Gonantini
» Tina Gonantini
>> here.
» here.
>> Carrie Roier
» Carrie Roier
>> here.
» here.
>> Alex Belto absent at this time. We have
» Alex Belto absent at this time. We have
a quorum of the Reno City Planning
Commission.
>> Item [clears throat] A3, public comment.
» Item [clears throat] A3, public comment.
Madame Clerk,
>> it should be noted for those in the
» 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.
» 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.
» 30 more seconds. Go ahead.
>> P2 has 62% of parcels and 64% of funding
» 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,
» 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.
» I do not have anyone online. No.
>> Hearing none, we will move forward with
» 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.
» So approved. So moved.
>> Commissioner Mura.
» Commissioner Mura.
>> Second.
» Second.
>> We have a motion and a second. All in
» We have a motion and a second. All in
favor say I.
>> I.
» I.
>> I.
» I.
>> Any opposed?
» Any opposed?
>> Hearing none. Motion carries
» 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
» Commissioner Williams, motion to
approve.
>> Commissioner Gianiantini. Second. Motion
» Commissioner Gianiantini. Second. Motion
and a second. All in favor say I.
>> I I
» I I
>> I. Any opposed? Hearing none. Motion
» I. Any opposed? Hearing none. Motion
carries unanimously. Item A six,
approval of minutes from our December
17th, 2025 meeting.
>> Motion to approve.
» Motion to approve.
>> Commissioner Williams, motion to
» Commissioner Williams, motion to
approve.
>> Commissioner Gianini second.
» Commissioner Gianini second.
>> Motion and second. All in favor say I.
» Motion and second. All in favor say I.
>> I.
» I.
>> I.
» I.
>> I.
» I.
>> Commissioner Basser abstain. I was
» Commissioner Basser abstain. I was
absent.
>> Uh, we have one abstension from
» 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
» 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
» 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
» 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
» Hi, my name is Ryan Mix and thank you
guys all for uh for taking the time
here.
>> Is it in the same thing?
» Is it in the same thing?
>> Uh yeah, the presentation's coming up.
» Uh yeah, the presentation's coming up.
>> Okay.
» 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
» 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
» uh read and review the materials
familiar with the site.
>> Uh Commission read and reviewed
» Uh Commission read and reviewed
materials.
>> Commissioner Williams read and reviewed
» Commissioner Williams read and reviewed
materials and familiar with the area.
>> We will now go online for disclosures.
» 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 Rormire, same disclosures.
Commissioner Bera, same disclosure.
>> Madame clerk, do we have any request to
» Madame clerk, do we have any request to
speak under this item?
>> I do not have any request to speak in
» 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
» 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
» 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
» 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
» 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
» 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,
» That's correct. So the current zoning,
the current zone does not conform. Um,
and so the proposed
>> RD does,
» RD does,
>> the MDRD does and and would bring it
» the MDRD does and and would bring it
into conformance. Yes.
>> Excellent. Thanks, Jeeoff.
» 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?
» in the process?
>> Yes. And in fact, um, as I generally do
» 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.
» Uh Commissioner Bizera.
>> Sure. Thank you, Chair. I was just going
» 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
» Thank you. I believe next was
Commissioner Roar Meyer.
>> Yeah, thank you. Yeah, I just want to
» 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
» 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.
» Commissioner Williams, I'm happy to.
It's right in front of me.
>> Please proceed.
» Please proceed.
>> Uh Commissioner Williams, for the record
» 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
» Commissioner
second.
>> We have a motion and a second. All those
» We have a motion and a second. All those
in favor say I.
>> I.
» I.
>> I.
» I.
>> I. Any opposed?
» 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.
» Nothing this evening. Thank you.
>> Item E, we have the Truckucky Meadows
» 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
» 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
» Do you know where the location of that
meeting?
>> That's the RTC conference room.
» That's the RTC conference room.
>> Perfect. Thank you. Uh item F, a future
» 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
» 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.
» No request to speak online.
>> Okay, I see chambers is empty. We will
» 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.
» Commissioner Williams second.
>> Uh we have a motion and a second. All in
» Uh we have a motion and a second. All in
favor say I.
>> I.
» I.
>> I.
» I.
>> I. Meeting adjourned.
» I. Meeting adjourned.
>> Okay. Good evening.