[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.