Elbert County commissioners deny Peak Vista RV and mini storage EDZ site plan amid compatibility concerns

Elbert County commissioners voted 2–1 on April 23 to deny the Peak Vista RV and Mini Storage Economic Development Zone site development plan (case EDZ2024-4358), a proposed storage and RV-parking development along Kiowa Bennett Road.

County land-use planner Danny Klebanner presented the staff analysis, saying the three-parcel site totals about 114 acres and the proposed development footprint covers roughly 77 acres. Klebanner said the applicant, represented by CJ Kirst of Tahoe Consulting, proposed approximately 46 mini-storage buildings with roughly 1,500 indoor mini-storage units (about 225,000 square feet of building area) and more than 1,700 outdoor RV parking spaces, plus RV dump and water-fill stations. Klebanner told the board the site is currently zoned Agriculture and lies adjacent to five residential lots in the Peak Vista subdivision; larger planned developments (EC East, EC West and Morstead) are approved nearby and would add thousands of new residential units when built-out.

Klebanner said the Elbert County Zoning Regulations Article 3.H.4 requires site development plans to meet compatibility and infrastructure criteria. He reported that referral agencies generally raised no outstanding technical objections: public works and public health had comments that were addressed; traffic review required improvement to Pavo Avenue to the entrance and commercial-access standards for four access points; and a fire-protection form had been signed by the Rattlesnake Fire Department even though the district did not respond during the referral period. Despite meeting many technical criteria, staff concluded the project "may not be in harmony or compatible with the surrounding area" and therefore did not recommend approval because of the size and scale relative to agricultural and planned residential contexts.

Applicant representative CJ Kirst disputed the compatibility assessment and said the proposal is a permitted use within the EDZ overlay. Kirst noted the regional demand for RV and boat storage tied to entitlement of nearby master-planned communities and Bennett-area growth, and described phasing over many years to match demand. "All the other criteria were met," Kirst told commissioners, adding the applicant was open to additional phasing and to negotiating site controls.

Several nearby residents and property owners spoke in opposition during public comment, raising concerns about traffic safety on Kiowa Bennett Road (including sight-line issues at a curve), road wear from large vehicles, lighting and light pollution, wildlife corridor impacts, septic/wastewater handling at the RV dump station and compatibility with existing rural residential character. One resident said the Peak Vista subdivision covenants might not accept a chain-link screen fence proposed for screening. Multiple commenters described having purchased large-lot, rural residential property expecting a nonindustrial neighborhood.

During deliberations a commissioner asked whether the applicant would agree to a development agreement with specific trigger points for mitigation measures (lighting, access, turn lanes, phasing). The applicant indicated willingness to negotiate such a development guidance agreement.

A motion to deny the EDZ site plan passed on a recorded tally of yes=2, no=1. One commissioner expressed that the scale and timing made the proposal incompatible with adjacent and planned residential development; a second commissioner agreed. The board’s denial was final at the hearing.

Votes at a glance: EDZ2024-4358 — Denied (motion passed; yes=2, no=1).

Why it matters: The decision prevents a large-scale mini-storage and RV-parking facility on the three parcels in question. The case raised recurring county issues: how to balance economic development in EDZ overlays with the character and infrastructure needs of nearby established and planned residential communities, and how to use phasing or agreements to manage impacts.

What’s next: The applicant indicated openness to a development guide and to negotiate mitigations; commissioners and staff discussed the idea of returning the proposal for future consideration if the parties reach an enforceable agreement with specific triggers for improvements.