Zephyrhills reviews indoor self‑storage, RV and outdoor storage rules; no ordinance changes tonight

Todd Vandenberg, Zephyrhills planning director, told the City Council on Feb. 10 that staff has completed a plan-and-report on indoor self‑storage, recreational‑vehicle (RV) and boat storage, and outdoor lay‑down areas and is proposing options for changes to the land development code.

The report matters because the city’s temporary moratorium on new indoor storage facilities has expired and recent development applications have highlighted tensions between demand for storage and the council’s goals for commercial and light‑industrial land use, design standards and visibility from major corridors.

Vandenberg summarized existing stock and recent approvals, noting indoor storage facilities clustered near U.S. 301 and at mixed‑use projects such as Zephyr Commons and a site at Purdy Pond Road and 301. He said the city currently regulates mini‑warehouse and self‑storage in the land development code (section 7.09.16) and cited two recent ordinance amendments: Ordinance 14‑31‑21 (which amended the use table for self‑storage) and Ordinance 14‑39 (2022) that requires new indoor storage facilities to meet the city’s large‑retail design standards for buildings over 25,000 square feet. He also noted the code limits freestanding signs for these facilities to a maximum height of 25 feet.

“There will be no formal action that’s required to be taken this evening,” Vandenberg said, describing the presentation as the start of a policy discussion and asking for council input on possible directions.

Staff outlined three principal options for indoor storage: leave the code as is; restrict where standalone indoor storage is permitted (for example, limit it in commercial C‑2/C‑3 or remove it from light‑industrial zoning); or allow indoor storage only as part of a mixed‑use project (either sited behind street‑facing buildings or vertically integrated above ground‑floor retail). Vandenberg displayed a sample vertical mixed‑use building from outside the city as an example of how storage could be integrated above active uses.

Council members voiced consistent caution about allowing single‑use storage to proliferate in visible corridors and reiterated a desire to preserve limited light‑industrial land for job‑creating uses. Several members said they were open to vertically integrated or rear‑site storage that is screened from major roads, and they favored higher design standards where storage is permitted. On RV and boat storage, council members expressed a preference for locating facilities out of view, requiring improvements (paving, drainage) rather than dirt lay‑down yards, and limiting such uses where they would permanently consume industrial land.

Council discussion also touched on practical access and parking for vertically integrated storage: staff and council noted that multi‑story, vertically integrated designs would require designated loading/unloading areas or cargo elevators and that parking demand for storage customers is typically low but must still be addressed in site plans.

Several council members said the market will supply needed storage if the city makes it reasonably available, but they emphasized they do not want to “dot the landscape” with low‑quality, fence‑and‑gravel storage yards.

Rather than direct ordinance text, the council asked staff to prepare draft code changes and bring back recommendations. Vandenberg said staff will return with proposed language, mapped locations, and suggested standards (design, buffering and limitations on standalone versus mixed‑use formats) for formal ordinance consideration.

The planning report was informational only; no ordinance amendments or formal votes were taken at the Feb. 10 meeting.

Ending: Staff will prepare draft code language and development standards based on council feedback and return to the Planning Commission and City Council for formal consideration and any required public hearings.