Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Steamboat RV and mini-storage site proposed for South Reno; developer says fire suppression and stormwater detention included
Summary
Garrett Banks presented a conditional-use permit for a roughly 9.47-acre Steamboat RV and mini-storage facility totaling about 153,780 square feet of enclosed storage. The proposal includes on-site sprinklers, perimeter fencing, downward-directed LED lighting and stormwater detention; board members asked about access, hydrology and aesthetics.
Garrett Banks, representing Steamboat Commerce LLC, presented a conditional-use permit application on Jan. 5 for a multi-building RV and mini-storage facility on a roughly 9.47-acre parcel identified as APN 017011-33.
Banks said the site plan includes five RV buildings totaling 57,080 square feet, multiple mini-storage buildings totaling roughly 96,100 square feet and a 600-square-foot wood-frame rental office, for about 153,780 square feet of enclosed storage area in total. He described site improvements that include paved drive aisles, perimeter security fencing with controlled access gates, downward-directed LED lighting, landscaping along property boundaries, on-site stormwater collection and detention and required fire hydrants.
Board members pressed on safety and operations. When asked about fire suppression for stored RVs, Banks said there will be “adequate fire suppression sprinklers.” Board members also asked whether access would be 24-hour; the applicant confirmed the facility would not offer 24-hour access. Concerns about truck turning and a nearby roundabout were raised; Banks said he did not believe the roundabout would be a problem for circulation.
Several board members asked for architectural treatments and visual mitigation; Banks said the metal buildings would include articulation and color changes and that the rental office would be architecturally enhanced to present a more attractive street frontage.
No formal board action was taken; a board officer volunteered to submit the project worksheet to planning staff to record the board’s comments for the planning commission’s review.
