Planning commission declines RV, boat storage after neighbors weigh in

Carson City planning commissioners on Wednesday rejected a proposal for RV and boat storage near a residential area in north Carson after neighbors argued it would fundamentally change the neighborhood.

The vote was 5-1, with Commissioner Greg Brooks voting against and Commissioner Nathaniel Killgore absent, to recommend to the Board of Supervisors denial of a Master Plan amendment to change the land use designation of 3.64 acres east of Emerson Drive from low-density residential to community/regional commercial. Commissioners cited incompatibility with the surrounding neighborhood as one reason they could not support required findings for the amendment.

Following the Master Plan determination, commissioners unanimously recommended disapproval of an ordinance that would establish a tentative commercial planned unit development (PUD) on the property entailing a zoning change from single-family 6,000 to tourist commercial PUD and a special use permit for the new use.

“So, I just don’t think it’s compatible, in this case, for the entirety of the neighborhood,” said Commissioner Vern Krahn. “I think it’s, for lack of a better term, a wedge into the neighborhood that I don’t think necessarily needs to be.”

Brooks was the dissenting vote in the first motion of denial.

“I am not struggling, as my fellow commissioners are,” he said. “I understand that this is a change in the use designation of the land, and I am sensitive to homeowners feeling that nobody wants to see their neighborhood change. Having said that, there have been many, many years where this property could have been developed according to its current land use designation, and it wasn’t.

“And so… I don’t pray at the church of ‘all development is good development,’ but I do like to see — like Commissioner Borders (Charles Borders) — I like to see interesting project proposals that advance the region’s economy, and that to me means I don’t have any issues with the findings.”

The project proposed up to 167 RV and boat storage spaces, either enclosed or covered, on the property that was a remnant from the state’s construction of I-580. Applicant John Krmpotic of KLS Planning & Design Group argued the PUD would limit the property to the single proposed use of storage. He also maintained the storage activity, with gated access and offsite management, would be quiet and compatible with houses to the north.

“They’re void of people. Good management is important. They have good fencing. They have surveillance programs. It’s a very sleepy level of activity,” Krmpotic said.

But neighbors took issue with the unknowns of any commercial use and agreed residential use of the land would be preferable.

“Personally — I think I can speak on behalf of most of us — is that if we had six to a dozen residences, that’s fine. We’ll get to know our neighbors. We know who’s coming, we know who’s going,” said Mark Way resident Eric Antila. “If we turn this into a commercial endeavor, who knows who that is?”

The denial followed the commission’s approval last month of plans to convert the old K-Mart building in north Carson into a storage and commercial facility.

Considering population growth and development patterns, as outlined in one required finding, Commissioner Ellen Dechristopher said there was no “screaming need” for the proposal and stressed it was more reasonable to leave the property as a residential use, given housing challenges in the community.

Wednesday’s hearing also arrived during the ongoing Master Plan update. A draft of the update is available online: https://www.envisioncarsoncity.org/. The update is expected to be presented to supervisors for adoption next year.

“In this particular scenario, you essentially have to set aside what you have just done for the past three hours (referring to an earlier Master Plan workshop) and base your decision on what the Master Plan is today and what the municipal code is today and whether their application fits in with it,” Deputy District Attorney Todd Reese told commissioners before the vote.

After the hearing and the commission’s recommendations, Krmpotic confirmed with the Appeal the project would move forward to the Board of Supervisors for consideration.

In other action:

• Planning commissioners unanimously remanded an appeal of the Carson City Community Development director’s denial of a building permit back to the director for further review.

According to the city, Michael Vicari appealed the denial May 8. The building permit application was for a 62-foot-tall amateur radio tower on property zoned single family 1 acre on South Deer Run Road.

While current code allows such towers up to 40 feet, the applicant submitted additional information on effective radio communications, an area of use regulated by the federal government and over which local jurisdictions have limited control.

“Based on the new information that has been submitted, we are requesting you direct it back to staff, so we have a chance to work with the DA’s office on the supplemental information and in the context of federal law and determine whether or not the decision we initially made will stand, or if we have a different opinion based on the additional information,” said Community Development Director Hope Sullivan.

• Planning commissioners unanimously approved special use permits for existing marijuana production and cultivation facilities in a general industrial zone at 8001 Highway 50 East.

Current operators were in the process of selling the business to the applicant, BCC8001 LLC, and city code requires new SUPs for a change in the operator.

The marijuana facilities reside in a 4,468-square-foot building on about five acres. No changes were proposed to the building.

“The Cannabis Compliance Board (Nevada) has already considered the transfer application and has approved it,” said attorney Paul Larsen, representing the applicant. “In addition, once we have the use permit, we have to present that to Carson City’s Business License Department as well, and they investigate it and approve it as well. So, this is near the next-to-the-last step, but it’s not the last step yet.”