Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Self Storage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission reviews larger self‑storage and for‑sale storage condo proposal at 33 Industrial Way
Summary
The commission reviewed a proposal for 1,078 storage units across four new buildings at 33 Industrial Way, including lease units, for‑sale condominium storage units, a manager's unit and site improvements; staff flagged incomplete materials, parking, drainage, floodplain, access and wastewater concerns.
Buellton — Planning staff presented a preliminary review of a proposed self‑storage development at 33 Industrial Way that would construct four new buildings with a mix of lease units and for‑sale storage condominiums and a manager’s unit, staff said.
Staff summarized the proposal to commissioners: the project calls for roughly 1,078 storage units in four new buildings, with Buildings A and B offering lease units (sizes ranging from 5-by-5 to 10-by-30 feet) and Buildings C and D containing larger for‑sale units (about 17 units ranging roughly 900 to 1,600 square feet). The package also includes a manager’s/leasing building with an office at ground level and a caretaker unit above. Staff said the project would require a final development plan, a minor use permit for the caretaker unit and a tentative parcel map, including an airspace condominium map for the for‑sale units.
Staff and consultants identified multiple incomplete or unresolved items. Those included lack of detail on an access easement serving the interior lot; an RV dump station shown on plans that the Public Works director stated would not be permitted because of wastewater treatment constraints; an indicated provision of 12 parking spaces while ITE parking guidance suggests about 14 spaces plus at least one loading zone; and a proposed detention basin and grading details that require more topographic and drainage information. The Public Works director requested that plan sheets show 50 feet beyond property lines to evaluate drainage and grading and raised questions about grading within the floodway and the need for a no‑rise certification if grading affects the floodway.
The architectural review consultant suggested additional articulation and variation to break up large blank wall surfaces in accordance with community design guidelines; staff also asked for clarification of landscape strip widths, confirmation of meeting the 10% landscape area requirement in the industrial zone, and expanded lighting metrics to ensure compliance with Buellton’s lighting ordinance and to limit spillover onto adjacent properties.
Applicant representatives said trash enclosures do exist and that grading plans have been prepared; the planning staff and public works director said they would continue coordination with the applicant to resolve the incomplete items. An applicant representative described the for‑sale units as conditioned, secure spaces intended for higher‑value storage use, subject to CC&Rs and conditional‑use permit restrictions that would limit commercial retail or distribution activities on the site.
Staff said several technical studies (traffic, air quality, greenhouse gas, biological resources) may be required and that, based on current submittal materials, an initial study/mitigated negative declaration (IS/MND) under CEQA appears likely, although the final determination would follow a complete application. Commissioners commented on the site’s visibility, building massing, access and the limited development options for deep interior parcels; several commissioners urged the applicant to address architectural articulation, parking and pedestrian safety and to resolve the public‑works and floodplain issues before the application is deemed complete.
No formal action or entitlement was taken; staff will issue an incomplete letter to the applicant listing required materials and corrections.
