The Douglas County Planning Commission denied a major design review for a proposed personal storage facility at 1608 Pinet Road in Gardnerville following a divided hearing Dec. 14. The project, filed as DP21-0221 by American Recess, called for 79,215 square feet of enclosed self-storage and 60,300 square feet of covered outdoor RV/boat storage on about 25 acres. The commission voted 4-3 to deny the application after hearing competing recommendations from county staff and the Town of Gardnerville.

Sam Booth, deputy director of community development for Douglas County, told commissioners that county staff recommended approval after concluding the project met the relevant Title 20 findings and Douglas County design criteria. Booth said staff considered the Town of Gardnerville’s design guidelines but found those guidelines do not outright prohibit metal siding in industrial and employment areas and that the applicant had proposed revisions — including more earth-tone colors, added stone accents and increased evergreen landscaping — intended to address town concerns.

Town of Gardnerville Manager Eric Nielsen and several town board members told the commission the town’s adopted design guidelines must be enforced “to the greatest extent possible” within the town boundary. Nielsen and the town board argued the design guidelines’ overarching section disallows certain materials, including metal, for exterior walls and that the proposed metal siding and metal screen walls are incompatible with the town’s standards. The town board had unanimously recommended denial at its Nov. 2 meeting.

Reid Hamilton, who identified himself as the owner of American Recess, told commissioners the applicant revised building colors, added stone details and increased evergreen plantings after the town’s review and said the facility responds to high local demand for vehicle and boat storage. Owner James J. “Butch” Perry and other supporters said the community needs additional storage capacity and stressed the economic constraints on construction budgets.

The commission’s vote followed two motions. Commissioner Bryce Klutz moved to approve the design review with the staff-recommended conditions (including a proposed additional condition requiring submission of revised plans prior to issuance of a building permit). Commissioner Christy Kandell seconded that motion. Roll call on the approval motion produced three yes votes and four no votes and the motion failed (Christy Kandell — yes; Bryce Klutz — yes; Chairman Walter — yes; Nick Meyer — no; Mark — no; Brian Olin — no; Maureen — no). After the failed approval motion, Commissioner Brian Olin moved to deny DP21-0221; Commissioner Maureen seconded the motion to deny. The motion to deny passed 4-3 (Nick Meyer — yes; Mark — yes; Brian Olin — yes; Maureen — yes; Christie Kandell — no; Bryce Klutz — no; Chairman Walter — no).

County staff and the town manager differed over how strictly the county should apply the town’s design guidelines. County legal staff reminded commissioners that the Douglas County Board of Commissioners adopted a resolution asking staff to utilize the town design guidelines “to the greatest extent possible” but that the guidelines were not adopted as county code. Commissioners were asked to determine whether the project meets Title 20 findings and county design criteria while taking the town’s advisory guidance into account.

Commissioners and the public raised other implementation questions discussed on the record: Title 20 requires a six-foot perimeter wall for mini-storage facilities (which may be concrete block or a fence with dense landscaping), restrictions on on-site lighting and hours of operation for facilities adjacent to residential zoning (sample condition cited 7 a.m. to 9 p.m.), and a prohibition on storage of flammable or hazardous materials. Several commissioners and the town manager urged clearer guidance in the town design guidelines about allowed exterior materials.

The commission’s denial means the applicant may return with a revised design that addresses town concerns or pursue alternative sites outside the town boundary where the town guidelines would not apply. County staff noted the administrative design-review timeline (staff has 30 working days to act) constrained options for an immediate return to the town board and that the applicant elected to bring the matter to the planning commission for a decision.

Votes at a glance: DP21-0221 (major design review for personal storage, 1608 Pinet Road)
Motion to approve (mover: Bryce Klutz; second: Christy Kandell): Failed, 3–4 (Yes: Christy Kandell; Bryce Klutz; Chairman Walter. No: Nick Meyer; Mark; Brian Olin; Maureen.)
Motion to deny (mover: Brian Olin; second: Maureen): Passed, 4–3 (Yes: Nick Meyer; Mark; Brian Olin; Maureen. No: Christy Kandell; Bryce Klutz; Chairman Walter.)

The commission attached the typical Title 20 conditions described in the staff report and discussed requiring the applicant to submit revised plans consistent with any representations made at today’s hearing before issuance of a building permit.