Plan Commission approves self‑storage site plan at 300 Marshall Drive

At a Plan Commission meeting called to order at 5:31 p.m., the commission voted to approve a final site plan for a self‑storage development at 300 Marshall Drive. The approval was made with conditions noted by planning and engineering staff, and commissioners recorded verbal “ayes” for the motion.

The property is zoned I‑2 General Industrial District. Lauren, a planning staff member, said, “This property is zoned I‑2 General Industrial District, and a storage facility like this is a permitted use in I‑2.” She told the commission the proposed development matches an existing self‑storage project immediately north of the site and includes landscaping along Marshall Drive to provide a visual buffer.

The plan presented to the commission shows two main driveway entrances from Marshall Drive and an additional driveway that would operate via an easement through an adjacent lot. Lauren said planning and engineering reviews returned only minor comments. Planning staff asked that the applicants record a two‑lot certified survey map (CSM) that adjusted lot lines, provide a cross‑access easement for the northern driveway, and obtain a sign permit for the proposed monument sign. Engineering comments included minor circulation and grading adjustments; Lauren said the applicant and the applicant’s engineer indicated they believe they can meet the conditions in the staff memos.

Melissa Hunt, Plan Commissioner, moved to approve the site plan “as presented by staff,” specifying that planning, engineering and staff requests be satisfied; Mike Steinle seconded the motion. The commission chair called for the question and verbal “ayes” were recorded; no opposition was voiced on the record. The roll call earlier in the meeting indicated the following members were present: Kristen Runge; Chris Selner (serving as chair at this meeting); Joe Zitzelberger; Mike Steinle; Melissa Hunt; Brian Wallace; and Sue Springman. The transcript records the vote as verbal ayes rather than individual recorded roll‑call votes.

Commissioners asked no substantive policy questions during the discussion; one commissioner noted that a lighting plan and other detailed sheets were not in the packet she had received before the meeting but understood those sheets had been reviewed by planning and engineering staff. The commission approved the site plan as a final action, subject to the conditions listed in staff memos and recordation of the adjusted CSM.

Next steps are administrative: the applicants must record the two‑lot CSM, provide the cross‑access easement, secure the sign permit, and address the minor engineering corrections before finalizing construction permits. No appeal, variance requests, or waivers were discussed during this agenda item.