Commission delays vote on planned-development rezoning for Dixie Farm Road self-storage after detailed staff concerns

Commissioners postponed action on a request to rezone roughly 15.91 acres at the Dixie Farm Road/Main Street area from M1/M2 industrial to a planned development (PD) to allow a self-storage facility for boats, RVs and trailers.

City planner Patrick Bauer presented the proposal and a lengthy staff analysis of requested deviations from the Unified Development Code (UDC), including exceptions to the Corridor Overlay District transparency and articulation requirements, parking and guest-stacking provisions, and use restrictions related to climate-controlled storage. Bauer said staff found the site would serve as a transition between a major corridor and adjacent uses but did not fully meet certain PD approval criteria, particularly those related to creating a "superior" development and meeting façade articulation standards.

Applicants Paige and Jay McKee, long-time local residents, told commissioners they plan a higher-end boat and RV storage facility and asked for flexibility on some standards because of existing vegetation and operational security concerns. "We're literally your neighbors," Paige McKee said, describing the owners’ local ties. Jay McKee and the applicant team explained site constraints including a pipeline easement and a narrow city-owned strip along Dixie Farm; they said the gate and driveway dimensions were misunderstood in earlier drawings and that driveway/stacking details are being revised.

Commissioners and staff debated multiple technical points: whether required guest parking outside the fenced area could be relocated inside, whether the gate needed on-site stacking space to avoid queuing into adjacent driveways, the acceptability of nonwindow "wall light" panels to meet transparency rules, required minimum planting sizes and evergreen screening, and whether the PD was justified because the use could not be located with direct corridor frontage under current UDC rules.

Several commissioners said the parcel is a difficult infill site adjacent to a landfill and recommended working with staff to tighten design and landscape details. The commission expressed concerns about an apparent discrepancy between two site exhibits that showed different gate/driveway layouts and about ensuring required engineering approvals if a new driveway alignment were proposed. Given missing or inconsistent engineering and landscape detail, and the applicant’s stated need to revise drawings while their architect deals with a family emergency, the commission voted 5-0 to postpone action to allow the applicant to resolve plan, engineering and landscape issues before returning.

The postponement was framed by commissioners as allowing time to reconcile exhibit differences, provide clearer landscaping and façade solutions that meet the Corridor Overlay intent (or document appropriate deviations), and secure engineering approvals for any driveway changes. Staff listed specific conditions and information it expects when the PD returns, including precise landscape preservation limits, a minimum on-site stacking space, and clarified façade articulation language in the PD document.

No formal zoning decision was made; the item will return to the commission after the applicant submits revised materials.