The Douglas County Board of Commissioners denied a site plan for a proposed mini and self‑storage development near the 1700 block of East 902 Road, voting 5-0 to follow staff recommendations that the application did not meet required review criteria.

Planning manager Becky Pepper told the board the proposal covered an 11.6‑acre parcel and would include six single‑story storage buildings totaling about 609 units, a 35‑by‑30‑foot office, 14 parking spaces, on‑site septic and keypad‑controlled gates. Staff found the use permitted in the property’s LI zoning but said two review criteria were not met: a drainage study was not submitted and the applicant’s proposed access from an unpaved East 902 Road raised safety and circulation concerns. Pepper said the traffic study estimated the project would add roughly 109 daily vehicle trips and county engineers determined the existing gravel road would not safely accommodate that volume.

The applicant’s representative, David Hamby of BG Consultants, told commissioners the project has a long history and that he could provide a drainage study but did not want the owner to pay for that engineering before the road‑improvement question was resolved. “I didn’t want to have my owner spend thousands of dollars on a drainage study when the road issue was unresolved,” Hamby said. He also described earlier approvals and a prior conditional‑use permit that was later rescinded.

County staff and commissioners emphasized the traffic analysis as the primary reason for recommending denial and said a site plan should not be approved contingent on a missing drainage study. One staff member also noted the applicant proposed providing a drainage study as a condition of approval, but staff said the regulations and engineering review require the drainage information to be part of the site‑plan package.

Commission debate touched on longer‑term options — possible city annexation, benefit districts and future rezoning — but members said those future possibilities did not resolve the application before them. The board adopted a motion to deny the site plan based on the findings in the staff report.

The denial means the applicant must address the circulation and drainage concerns and could return with a revised submittal or pursue alternative zoning or permitting options; commissioners noted the site could be used for lower‑impact permitted uses consistent with current zoning.

Action: Motion to deny site plan SP250012 (mini/self‑storage) carried 5-0.