Even with 90 days worth of revision and a new set of plans, developers of the proposed Walmart Supercenter in south Gardnerville found themselves hitting another roadblock Tuesday night - a deadlocked town board.
A motion to approve the design of the 152,495-square-foot superstore failed by a 2-2 vote. Gardnerville board chair Paul Lindsay was absent for the meeting, board members Michael Philips and Tom Cook voted in favor, and board members Jerry Smith and Robin Bernhard voted against the design.
"The town is unique, this board is unique in what we've tried to do with Gardnerville, and the only decision we can make is to deny this," Smith said. "It's been really, really tough. We have an obligation to the people in town, and we have to hear their voices and make recommendations. This is a big box store. My first inclination is that we don't want a big box store."
"People have property rights and can do things to their property as long as they abide by the law," Cook said. "I've been on this board for 15 years, and we've done a great job making the town look better. This is not going to ruin what we've been doing."
Tuesday's meeting was the only scheduled public forum on the Walmart design. Douglas County Community Development now has to weigh the town board's split vote and make an administrative decision regarding the application by Dec. 11.
New conceptual designs for The Marketplace at Virginia Ranch show 11 separate commercial buildings clustered around the front and west sides of the proposed Walmart, acting as a buffer between the store and Highway 395. Ranging in size from 6,500 square feet to 16,600 square feet, the buildings, along with Walmart, put the total commercial square footage of the project around 267,216 square feet.
Town Manager Jim Park lauded developers' efforts in making the property more pedestrian-friendly and village-like, as called for in the Virginia Ranch Specific Plan. The 226-acre development was approved in 2004 and includes more than 1,000 residential units and up to 100 acres of commercial zoning, including the 24-acre Walmart site.
"Lots of plazas, outside seating areas, courtyards, screened parking - I strongly feel the design substantially complies," Park said. "Walmart has added a cornice element, which from my viewpoint gives it a pedestrian scale, a lower scale of the building."
Park said he was present when the original Virginia Ranch plan was approved in 2004, with little public turnout.
"Is this a big box store? Yes. But the Virginia Ranch Specific Plan doesn't say you can't have a big box retail establishment," Park said. "The building meets the design standards. They've done a good job refining their corporate image. Is Walmart screened? Yes, absolutely, but by choice."
Park also said local businesses may benefit from the large commercial center.
"There is a potential for local business operations to look at all parts of the buildings," he said. "I'm trying to be positive. I think it's a quality development, and I appreciate folks looking to invest in the community I work for."
Critics argued that any additional elements of the commercial project shouldn't be part of the Walmart discussion.
"All that is on the agenda today is one 152,495-square-foot retail store, not any of the other buildings shown, so they are irrelevant," said Foothills resident Jim Slade. "What should be of concern to you, as a board, is that the proposed Walmart would violate both the master plan and the Virginia Ranch Specific Plan. The recent changes to the plan are no more than lipstick on a pig."
Slade said he was not opposed to the project just because it was a Walmart. He said he'd protest any big box retail store in south Gardnerville.
"This will make a mockery of the Main Street program you all support," he said. "Does the public process that was required for passage of both the master plan and specific plan make no difference? Approval of this Walmart would be like signing a death warrant for any number of local businesses. It would lead to more and more shuttered businesses in Gardnerville. Is that what you want your legacy to be? And for what? For a big box store that the specific plan intended to discourage? Do you want your vote to be for the end of the distinctive, historic, rural town that we know and love?"
Philips took issue with Slade's argument.
"You have a lot of questions but no answers, just 'Don't build it!' That's what you're here for - 'Just don't build it,'" Philips said. "I heard the same thing when Raley's went in, when Smith's and Scolari's went in. We have our legal counsel look at things, and if legal says it's legal, that's as far as we can go."
Attorney Mark Forsberg, representing property owner Sierra Nevada SW Enterprises, said developers had been working closely with town and county staff to address concerns.
"We've done everything we can to meet the desires of the community and the Virginia Ranch Specific Plan," Forsberg said. "We were somewhat remiss in the way we approached you with the project before, with one building and not showing all that goes around it."
In September, when Gardnerville first reviewed the plans, neighboring property owners raised concerns about access. Proposed traffic improvements to the site include a roundabout for the intersection of a new street, Grant Drive, and the future Muller Parkway, as well as a new traffic signal at Grant Drive and Highway 395.
Scott Brooke, attorney for Mark Smith Les Schwab Tires, said his client has entered into an agreement with developers that resolves the issue.
"They'll have direct access to Charlotte, and access to a north road between Charlotte and Grant."
Barry Jones of Carson Valley Movers, which also abuts the property, said he was pleased with the new plans.
"I'm happily satisfied and think it will be the opportunity of a lifetime," he said. "I'm thoroughly satisfied with the back road and other concessions they've made for us. With the surrounding people, I think we'll get twice as much business as we do today."
Others were less optimistic about the proposed layout. Ranchos resident Scott Rankin created a stir by mocking the conceptual designs displayed in the front of the room, saying how wonderful the solar power station, amphitheater, dog park and other nonexistent elements would be.
"You're not making any more jokes," Cook said pounding his gavel.
"You think we're a bunch of rubes impressed by this?" Rankin responded, pointing to the schematics. "This took 90 days? Don't we deserve more?"
Despite the stalemate vote, Forsberg said the property owner will move forward with the project.
"We have to deliver a parcel usable to their (Walmart's) intent," Forsberg said. "In my view, this decision by the town means they do not support the project, something the county will have to take into consideration. We'll keep going forward with the design review process. We've done everything necessary, as articulated by the town manager."
In a previous interview, Community Development Director Mimi Moss said that a design review can be appealed to the planning commission within 10 days of a decision. However, according to code, appeals are restricted to "anyone aggrieved that has equitable interest." Moss said state case law identifies that as a person whose personal or property rights are adversely or substantially affected by the decision.
