Carson City, Nev., planning commissioners recently rejected a proposal for RV and boat storage near a residential area in north Carson after neighbors argued it would fundamentally change the neighborhood.
The vote was 5-1, with Commissioner Greg Brooks voting against and Commissioner Nathaniel Killgore absent, to recommend to the Board of Supervisors denial of a Master Plan amendment to change the land use designation of 3.64 acres east of Emerson Drive from low-density residential to community/regional commercial. Commissioners cited incompatibility with the surrounding neighborhood as one reason they could not support required findings for the amendment.
Following the Master Plan determination, commissioners unanimously recommended disapproval of an ordinance that would establish a tentative commercial planned unit development (PUD) on the property entailing a zoning change from single-family 6,000 to 
tourist commercial PUD and a special use permit for the new use.
Read now: TSN Free Report on Navigating RV and Boat Storage Entitlements
“So, I just don’t think it’s compatible, in this case, for the entirety of the neighborhood,” said Commissioner Vern Krahn. “I think it’s, for lack of a better term, a wedge into the neighborhood that I don’t think necessarily needs to be.”
Brooks was the dissenting vote in the first motion of denial. “I am not struggling, as my fellow commissioners are,” he said. “I understand that this is a change in the use designation of the land, and I am sensitive to homeowners feeling that nobody wants to see their neighborhood change. Having said that, there have been many, many years where this property could have been developed according to its current land use designation, and it wasn’t.
“And so… I don’t pray at the church of ‘all development is good development,’ but I do like to see — like Commissioner Borders (Charles Borders) — I like to see interesting project proposals that advance the region’s economy, and that to me means I don’t have any issues with the findings.”
The project proposed up to 167 RV and boat storage spaces, either enclosed or covered, on the property that was a remnant from the state’s construction of I-580. Applicant John Krmpotic of KLS Planning & Design Group argued the PUD would limit the property to the single proposed use of storage. He also maintained the storage activity, with gated access and offsite management, would be quiet and compatible with houses to the north.
“They’re void of people. Good management is important. They have good fencing. They have surveillance programs. It’s a very sleepy level of activity,” Krmpotic said.
But neighbors took issue with the unknowns of any commercial use and agreed residential use of the land would be preferable.
“Personally — I think I can speak on behalf of most of us — is that if we had six to a dozen residences, that’s fine. We’ll get to know our neighbors. We know who’s coming, we know who’s going,” said Mark Way resident Eric Antila. “If we turn this into a commercial endeavor, who knows who that is?”
The denial followed the commission’s approval last month of plans to convert the old K-Mart building in north Carson into a storage and commercial facility.
Considering population growth and development patterns, as outlined in one required finding, Commissioner Ellen Dechristopher said there was no “screaming need” for the proposal and stressed it was more reasonable to leave the property as a residential use, given housing challenges in the community.
Wednesday’s hearing also arrived during the ongoing Master Plan update. A draft of the update is available online: https://www.envisioncarsoncity.org/. The update is expected to be presented to supervisors for adoption next year.
“In this particular scenario, you essentially have to set aside what you have just done for the past three hours (referring to an earlier Master Plan workshop) and base your decision on what the Master Plan is today and what the municipal code is today and whether their application fits in with it,” Deputy District Attorney Todd Reese told commissioners before the vote.
After the hearing and the commission’s recommendations, Krmpotic confirmed with the Appeal the project would move forward to the Board of Supervisors for consideration.
