[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:10] This is the City of Reno Planning Commission meeting, dated Wednesday, January 7th, 2026, at 6 p.m., we will start with the Pledge of Allegiance Commissioner going to continue.
[0:27] To the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, liberty and justice are all.
[0:35] A two roll call, Madam Clerk.
[0:43] David Jockeman.
[0:44] Here.
[0:45] Jacob Williams.
[0:46] Here.
[0:46] Mani Bacera.
[0:48] President.
[0:49] Christina Delvier.
[0:50] President.
[0:51] Tina Gompion, Tina.
[0:52] Here.
[0:53] Carrie Romyer.
[0:54] Here.
[0:55] Alex Belto.
[0:56] Afton at this time.
[0:58] We have a quorum of the Reno City Planning Commission.
[1:01] I had a May 3 public comment, Madam Clerk.
[1:05] It should be noted for those in the audience
[1:07] Comments are to be addressed to the Planning Commission as a whole.
[1:10] Comments heard under this item will be limited to three minutes per person and may pertain
[1:13] to matters both on and off the Planning Commission agenda.
[1:16] Please note that the Planning Commission may not take action upon any matter, not agendas
[1:21] for possible action on today's agenda.
[1:23] When you are called on for public comment, please state your name for the record and begin
[1:26] speaking.
[1:27] The timer will begin when you say your name and you will be afforded three minutes.
[1:30] If you are in attendee in the Zoom meeting and would like to make public comment at this
[1:33] time, please raise your hand.
[1:35] Lastly, while in this room, please be respectful.
[1:38] Warnings will be issued by the presiding officer if there's disruptive behavior and you'll be asked to leave chambers if the behavior continues.
[1:44] Our first public comment of the night is from Kevin Kaiser.
[1:49] Kevin please state your name for the record and you'll have three minutes.
[2:11] So I have handouts, if you'd like.
[2:13] My name is Kevin Kaiser, I am a resident over off West Plum Lane, number 2160 Carter Drive just off West Plum Lane.
[2:23] It is part of the Rivermont project in District 2 and I would like to make comment on just the recent community meetings that we've had.
[2:34] And I have these handouts for you as well if you'd like to review.
[2:38] In the last presentation, let me back up, like I said, I moved here on my house for 20 plus years and shortly after that.
[2:48] That same project site was set forth to include properties on the hill for sewer development back in early 2000.
[2:59] 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.
[3:13] But here we are again today.
[3:15] A connection fee is established by a city ordinance of $12,745.
[3:23] Abatement fee comes to $15,000 to $30,000 per individual.
[3:28] The city is looking for each resident to pay $41,000 to $56,000.
[3:36] Hence I bring you to this attachment that I brought up.
[3:40] As you will see as presented and proposed by fairness and equity,
[3:43] total cost is granted minus the NDPE grant is equal to final cost divided
[3:51] per household. So they're asking for $12,427 per household.
[3:59] Grand is equally
[4:00] distributed across both parties. What they did not tell us during the meetings
[4:04] is they would not tell us the number of residents, they did tell us a number of
[4:13] in Phase 2. P1, Phase 1, has 38% of the parcels and requires 36% of the costs. Costs of the
[4:23] funding for that portion is $1,584,000. Equally applied, minus the grant fund and DEP,
[4:32] P1 residents would pay $10,122 by math. P1 residents are actually paying 8 plus 18.5%
[4:44] P2 has 62% of parcels and 64% of funding, $2.816 million, equally to apply minus NDPP,
[4:59] it would pay $13,846. P2 residents are actually paying minus 11.4%. P1 is proportionally,
[5:09] This proportionally funding, P2, even after the grant funding is equally applied.
[5:14] These numbers have been validated by Katie, Kerry, Kully, Naomi, and are not denied.
[5:20] This is not fair in equity.
[5:24] Madam Clerk, do we have any other requests for public comment?
[5:27] I do not have any other requests.
[5:29] Kevin, if you'd like to provide me with those handouts, I'll provide them to the commission.
[5:34] Would you like additional?
[5:37] If we do we have any other requests to speak online?
[5:41] I do not have anyone online, no.
[5:43] Hearing none, we will move forward with the next item on the agenda.
[5:47] That is approval of the agenda for today's day, January 7th, 20th, 20th, 26th.
[5:52] Can I get a motion to approve our agenda?
[5:55] So approved, so moved.
[5:56] Commissioner Messera.
[5:58] Second.
[5:59] We have a motion and a second.
[6:01] All in favor say hi.
[6:02] Hi.
[6:02] Hi.
[6:04] Any opposed?
[6:06] Here are none, motion carries unanimously.
[6:09] Item A5 approval of the minutes, this is for our December 4th, 2025 meeting.
[6:15] Can I get a motion to approve that set of minutes?
[6:18] Commissioner Williams motion to approve.
[6:19] Commissioner Gompi and Teeny second.
[6:21] Motion in a second, all in favor say aye.
[6:23] Aye.
[6:24] Aye.
[6:25] Any opposed?
[6:27] Here are none, motion carries unanimously.
[6:28] Item A6, approval of minutes from our December 17th, 2025 meeting.
[6:35] Motion to approve.
[6:36] Commissioner Williams, motion to approve.
[6:37] Commissioner Gombi and Teanyi, second.
[6:39] Motion and second, all in favor say aye.
[6:41] Aye.
[6:42] Aye.
[6:43] Any of us are abstain?
[6:45] I was absent.
[6:47] We have one abstention from Commissioner Bacera.
[6:50] Do we have any opposed?
[6:53] Hearing none, motion carries with one abstention from Commissioner Bacera.
[6:59] Item B, staff announcements, Mr. Rayleigh.
[7:03] Thank you, Mr. Chair, just a couple quick announcements.
[7:07] I know this is of interest to several of the commissioners, Angela Fouce and her team
[7:10] have developed a series of trainings that we will be bringing forward just based on agenda
[7:16] caseload.
[7:17] So far, what we have are the following trainings, understanding in fill development, purpose
[7:24] of the master plan, understanding the legal framework that governs public meetings
[7:28] 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, you know, agenda, caseload permitting.
[7:44] Also, just a couple of quick updates. The River Bend conditional use permit, which you approved along with the tentative map, is scheduled to go to City Council next week in order to get council support for a regional plan amendment for
[7:58] the utility corridor relocation portion of that project and also the Lake Ridge Resort
[8:03] specific plan district will go to City Council on January 28th. Those are my only announcements.
[8:09] Happy New Year. Thank you, Mr. Reilly. We will move on in our agenda to public hearings.
[8:16] This is item C1, a staff report for possible action and recommendation to City Council case
[8:21] Please number LDC26-25.
[8:25] This is 386 Holcomb's Zoning Map Amendment.
[8:29] We will start with a presentation from staff, Mr. Foster, please proceed.
[8:33] Okay, excuse me, good evening, members of the Planning Commission.
[8:37] Jeff Foster, Associate Planner for the Record.
[8:41] As Chair Jockeman said, I'm bringing you case, LDC26-25, the Zoning Map Amendment for 386 Holcomb.
[8:49] The project site is a single parcel that is 0.17 acres in size located at the northeast corner of Holcombe Avenue and Stewart Street.
[8:58] 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.
[9:09] The request before you is a zone change from professional office or PO to mixed use downtown Riverwalk District or MDRD.
[9:17] and also to remove the Welles Avenue neighborhood planning area over late
[9:22] district WANP designation. Thank goodness for acronyms because that is an
[9:28] absolute mouthful. Alright zooming in here the multi you can see to the north we
[9:37] have multi-family there are small office conversions to the east and to the
[9:42] south and to the west you have an office building. The key issue that
[9:47] The staff analyzed his compatibility of the proposed zoning with the surrounding zoning
[9:51] and development.
[9:53] So turning to zoning, again, the current zoning for the parcel is professional office
[9:58] as you can see on the left.
[10:00] PO, please note, does not conform with the master plan designation.
[10:06] The proposed change is to the mixed use downtown riverwalk district or MDRD zone as you can see
[10:12] on the right. And also as you can see there, that zone is also found to the north and to the west.
[10:19] MDRD is intended to support the downtown regional center. Minimum densities are applied
[10:24] to support the use of transit and other alternative modes. Primary uses include a mix of employment,
[10:30] retail and cultural facilities as well as high density residential. In contrast, the PO zone
[10:37] It provides for office conversions and small office development, such as the existing office building on the site.
[10:44] The proposed MDRD zone allows for minimum density of 21 units per acre with no maximum density.
[10:52] Surrounding densities vary, higher density development exists to the north and to the southwest, with lesser densities to the east.
[11:00] The 43 unit apartment building to the north has a density of about 64 units per acre.
[11:05] Given the general development pattern in the area surrounding uses and zoning the proposed
[11:11] amendment to MDRD is considered to be consistent and compatible with the surrounding zoning
[11:16] and development.
[11:17] Since the WAMP does not include any mixed use downtown river walk districts, sorry mixed
[11:23] use downtown districts as conforming based zoning districts, rezoning to MDRD necessitates
[11:30] removal of the WAMP overlay designation.
[11:33] Given that the subject parcel is at the northwest edge of the WAMP removal of the designation will not create a gap or inconsistency in the overlay or it's continued in future application.
[11:49] The master plan land use is downtown mixed use for DTMU and on the screen are eight goals and policies that are in support of the proposed zone change request.
[11:59] On the screen before you are the allowed uses in the MD RD zone.
[12:06] At the bottom of the screen highlighted in yellow are the uses that require either a minor
[12:12] conditional use permit which is an administrative review or a full conditional use permit with
[12:18] approval by the planning commission.
[12:23] Here are the development standards for the existing PO zone and the proposed MD RD 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.
[12:38] And again, because this request involves removal
[12:41] of the W-A-N-P designation,
[12:43] that is also part of the proposed motion.
[12:46] That's it for me.
[12:47] The applicant is here and does have a very brief presentation,
[12:51] and then we will both be available for questions.
[12:55] Please proceed with your presentation
[12:57] and stay your name for the record.
[12:59] Hi, my name is Ryan Mix,
[13:00] and thank you guys all for taking the time here.
[13:03] Is it in the same thing?
[13:05] Yeah, the procedures is coming up.
[13:07] Oh, okay.
[13:17] I'm gonna let Nick cue that up just for a second.
[13:19] I don't wanna mess it up.
[13:29] So I guess while that's getting pulled up, my name is Ryan Mix.
[13:32] I'm the owner of the building, real estate developer here locally.
[13:36] We were excited to acquire this property about eight months ago
[13:39] from the Reno Federal Credit Union.
[13:41] I'm sure you guys have seen the big red building as you drive down the Holcomb Street.
[13:45] After they were acquired, the building fell into a bit of disrepair.
[13:48] The first time we saw it walk through it seemed like it really fit the area to become multi-family.
[13:54] Nice units, brand new units, has the walk-up feel with a lot of the surrounding buildings
[13:57] do as well.
[13:59] So that was our plan.
[13:59] That's our plan through the zoning change to be able to achieve that dream here, did a
[14:05] little AI mock up of what the building could look like here, bringing up the current standards
[14:08] with landscaping, bike racks, off-street parking, et cetera, and that's a plan with the building,
[14:15] so we want to try to develop eight multifamily units. There'll be four one bedroom, one baths,
[14:20] four two bedroom one baths, bringing in modern amenities, heating, cooling, in-unit laundry,
[14:27] and also due to the previous use, had great parking on-site. So we'll divide 10 parking spaces
[14:33] This is off street, which I know is always a challenge in that area.
[14:38] So we're excited to breathe some new life into this building and I appreciate everyone's time here.
[14:45] Thank you for the presentation.
[14:47] We will now move to disclosures and then public comments.
[14:51] So Commissioner McGon Fientini.
[14:52] Red and review the materials familiar with the site.
[14:55] Commissioner come on, red and reviewed materials.
[15:00] Mr. Williams, red-and-reviewed materials and familiar with the area. We will now go online for disclosures.
[15:07] Mr. Delvierre, red-and-reviewed materials, and I am familiar with the site.
[15:13] Commissioner Romero, same disclosures.
[15:17] Mr. Besera, same disclosures. Madam Clerk, do we have any requests to speak under this item?
[15:23] I do not have any requests to speak in person, and I do not have anyone online.
[15:26] Thank you very much. We will now move to questions from the commission and Madam Clark, if you could put the Zoom participants on the screen so that I could see if there's a request to speak, I would appreciate it.
[15:41] Thank
[15:44] you.
[15:44] Commissioner Basera.
[15:46] Great.
[15:47] Thank you, Chair.
[15:47] A solid record for what I can tell and a great package, Jeff and crew.
[15:53] Jeff, could you just confirm for the record that any future non-residential views would require
[15:58] a site plan review due to the residential adjacency?
[16:03] Commissioner Basera, that is actually not correct.
[16:08] Okay.
[16:08] was included in the staff report, but I was, it was clarified to me by our principal
[16:13] planner, that because that is in the MDRD zone, the downtown district, there's an exception
[16:20] in code that eliminates the requirement for a minor site plan review for non-residential
[16:26] development adjacent to residential. So my staff report is incorrect on that matter.
[16:32] So, what does that mean, I guess, for folks with that clarification or correction, what should we consider?
[16:41] So, the proposed use is for multi-family, which would obviously be residential development, and it's just redevelopment of an existing structure.
[16:50] However, as you know, zone changes can lead to any number of other uses should the applicant demolish the building or another owner procure the building, et cetera, and want to do something else.
[17:02] So, if a another use came through that was non-residential, if it was one of the uses that was on the bottom of my one slide that was highlighted in yellow, those would require either an MUP or a CUP.
[17:19] But if not, then the uses would be allowed by right with application of the standard development
[17:27] code requirements.
[17:29] Okay, great.
[17:30] Thanks, Jeff.
[17:31] And just for further clarity, since there was a correction, really we're also trying to
[17:37] get things in alignment.
[17:38] Correct?
[17:38] Could be because the current PO zoning doesn't conform with the downtown PIXU semester plan
[17:43] designation.
[17:44] That's correct.
[17:44] the current zone in the current zone does not conform and so the proposed R.D. does the M.D. R.D. does and would bring it into conformance. Yes.
[17:55] Excellent. Thanks, Jeff. You bet.
[18:01] Commissioner Jockeman, I'll just ask one question. Obviously we have some conceptual site plans in front of us.
[18:07] Should we be looking at those at this time? Obviously there could be questions about parking and so forth, but is it correct that that will be addressed at a later stage in the process?
[18:17] Yes, and in fact, as I generally do with zone change requests, I did a more in-depth analysis
[18:24] of the potential development of the site based on the applicant's request for those eight
[18:29] multifamily units.
[18:30] So I have already given him a heads up on all of the considerations that he needs to factor
[18:36] in in terms of parking and landscaping, et cetera, et cetera.
[18:39] So he's already aware of the different things that would need to be addressed down the line
[18:46] at subsequent building permit stage.
[18:48] Thank you.
[18:52] Do we have any other questions from the commission?
[18:58] I do not see any online.
[18:59] If we do not have any other questions and chambers,
[19:02] we can now move to deliberations or a motion.
[19:06] Commissioner Bazarra.
[19:08] Sure, but thank you, Chair.
[19:09] It's just going to make a quick rebar.
[19:12] Because I also just think it's good practice to state
[19:14] for the record why we support an application when possible
[19:16] and not only when we kind of have to explain it
[19:19] when we get checked, but as I think Jeff confirmed,
[19:21] And this is really about alignment and I think it's good that we're trying to get things
[19:26] square away with the master plan and I think Jeff and the applicant did a great job
[19:32] with what we were presented tonight and coordinating with folks through the NAB.
[19:38] So I really appreciate the work and really, you know, for those reasons and for having
[19:46] appropriate guard rules in place, uncomfortable supporting the recommendation based on the findings,
[19:51] and I'm happy to make a motion to support it when folks are ready.
[19:56] Thank you. I believe next to us Commissioner Roormire.
[20:00] Thank you. Yeah, I just want to say this looks like a really good project. Of course,
[20:06] for the zone change we don't know what the details will be, but this is a nice reuse of this building.
[20:12] I will say it's another wonderful example of why we should sunset some of these really out-of-date
[20:18] neighborhood plans like the Wells Avenue plan that dates back decades. So it is one more barrier
[20:26] to the kinds of development we'd like to see more of which is this kind of infill and redevelopment.
[20:31] So I appreciate this one.
[20:35] Commissioner Delvier. Yeah I just want to second everything.
[20:39] The previous commissioners talked about. I really think that this is a good project. It's a good
[20:45] use of the space. I was really pleased that the neighborhood, the nabs, and the comments
[20:52] that we got were also in support of it. My biggest issue was sort of just the parking
[20:57] issue, but that obviously is part of that. And so, and again, since this is just a recommendation
[21:02] currently for a zoning change for a city council to approve, I can definitely get behind this project.
[21:12] Seeing no other requests to speak, I'll second some of those comments. I think this is a great
[21:18] location for this rezone and likely could be an infill project, so it's adjacent to the
[21:26] same zoning.
[21:27] I think this is a good place and a good appropriate 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] It's right in front of me.
[21:38] Please proceed.
[21:40] Commissioner Williams, for the record, in the matter of case, LDC-26-0025, based upon the compliance
[21:46] with the applicable findings.
[21:47] I move to recommend that City Council approve the Zoni map amendment by ordinance and remove
[21:52] the Wells Avenue neighborhood planning area overlay district designation from the site
[21:57] and I can make all the findings.
[21:58] Commissioner Goffney.
[21:59] We have a motion and a second.
[22:03] All those in favor say aye.
[22:06] Aye.
[22:06] Aye.
[22:07] Aye.
[22:07] Aye.
[22:08] Any opposed?
[22:09] Hearing none, motion carries unanimously.
[22:12] that concludes item C1 on the agenda.
[22:16] Our next item is business items.
[22:19] Mr. Reilly, do we have anything extra that was not covered under staff announcements?
[22:23] Nothing this evening, thank you.
[22:24] Item E, we have the Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Liaison Report.
[22:28] We have not had a meeting since our last city planning commission meeting.
[22:33] Our next meeting is on January 22nd at 6 p.m.
[22:38] I believe this will be held in the RTC, again, Commissioner Rormire correct me if I'm wrong about that.
[22:47] That's correct. And we also, the Regional Code, Regional Coordination Subcommittee is meeting on Thursday morning.
[22:58] Do you know where the location of that meeting?
[23:01] That's the RTC conference room.
[23:03] Perfect. Thank you.
[23:04] So item F, a future agenda items.
[23:08] Do we have anything from staff on this one?
[23:12] Nothing from staff that we haven't already discussed.
[23:15] Okay, thank you for the update on the upcoming trainings.
[23:19] We'll move on to, do we have any other requests under this item?
[23:25] We'll now move on to item G, G1, public comment, Madam Clerk.
[23:30] Any requests to speak online?
[23:32] No requests to speak online.
[23:33] Okay, I see chambers is empty. We will now adjourn the meeting. Can I get a motion to adjourn?
[23:39] Commissioner Pompeo.
[23:40] Motion to adjourn.
[23:42] Commissioner Williams, second.
[23:44] We have motion a second. All in favor say aye.
[23:46] Aye. Aye.
[23:48] Meeting adjourned.
[23:50] Good evening.