Spring Valley board approves vacation but denies design review and waivers for proposed Craigson warehouse project

The Spring Valley Town Advisory Board voted May 13 to approve a vacation of easements and right-of-way related to a proposed two-building industrial development on about 6.47 acres, but it denied the project's design review and a package of waivers including requests to eliminate electric-vehicle parking and to reduce required buffering along the southern property line.

Applicant Hopewell Development sought approvals for a roughly 90,000-square-foot building and a 50,000-square-foot building, two retaining-wall and throat-depth waivers, elimination of eight required EV charging stations, and reduced screening on the southern boundary. Public Works told the applicant it supported the throat-depth waivers and a one-foot increase in a retaining wall; county staff recommended against the EV and southern-buffer waivers.

Stephanie Gurnau, representing applicant Hopewell Development, told the board the project had been rezoned for industrial light use and argued the site is compatible with neighboring industrial-flex uses. “There are 40 chargers that are just half a mile away,” Gurnau said, pointing to a Tesla supercharging station north of the site as evidence employees or visitors could access charging nearby. She said the project proposes robust landscaping — “We have 73 trees where 45 are required” — and offered to add a row of trees along the southern property line if the board would accept that in lieu of a wall.

Board member Geter pressed the applicant on the EV-charger waiver and the permanence of a waiver if a different operator later occupied the site, saying, “I can't help but smile when you can suggest that people are gonna be happy walking a half mile in a 110 degree heat to get to their parked car.” Geter and other board members cited the staff report, which said the EV and buffer issues could be resolved by reducing building size or meeting code standards, and expressed reluctance to grant waivers that could bind future users of the site.

After discussion, the board approved the vacation of the public easements and right-of-way (item 3) with staff conditions and denied the design review and associated waivers (item 4). The applicant was told it could revise the proposal and return to the Planning Commission or Board of County Commissioners with adjustments, including adding the staff-suggested trees or reducing building dimensions to meet the buffer requirement.

Public Works and applicant testimony indicate the approvals and denials were narrowly focused: the county accepted engineering-driven waivers that reduce throat depth and allow a one-foot increase in retaining-wall height, but rejected waivers tied to long-term site-use features such as required EV charging and enhanced buffering between dissimilar zoning categories. The board’s action leaves open the possibility the developer will revise building size, landscaping, or EV-charging plans for later review.