Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Commercial Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues review of a proposed warehouse at 6013 Rodman Street; staff sought stuccoed exterior
Summary
The Planning and Development Board continued action on a proposal for a 2,040-square-foot prefabricated warehouse at 6013 Rodman Street after members and staff requested the applicant return with refinements to the exterior materials and design to better match neighboring buildings and to address operational details.
The board continued action on a design and site plan for a 2,040-square-foot prefabricated warehouse at 6013 Rodman Street, owned by Grace Harrison, asking the applicant to return with revised exterior materials and design to better fit the neighborhood.
Staff presented the request as a small warehouse in the South Mixed Use (SMU) district within the Transit Oriented Corridor. The applicant proposed three parking spaces (including ADA), a pitched roof and a prefabricated metal building with brick accents. The applicant also requested a curb‑cut variance to allow a 22‑foot driveway opening (44% of the lot width) where code limits curb cuts to the lesser of 15 feet or 30% of lot width. Engineering had already reviewed and recommended the curb‑cut, and planning staff recommended approval of the variance and the project if design changes were made to the exterior material.
Board members raised concerns about context and compatibility with adjacent uses — the property sits between an office building and a house that staff said is a legal nonconforming residential structure in the TOC. Several members said the metal, corrugated appearance did not fit the street and asked the applicant to present alternatives. Staff suggested stucco or decorative panels as an option; the applicant’s team said prefabricated metal panels can accept stucco-like finishes or attached panels to produce a more traditional look.
The applicant’s son, Anthony Harrison, explained the long-standing family ownership and said the intended use is non‑retail storage for the owner’s textile business, with limited delivery traffic (FedEx/UPS) and no customer foot traffic. He noted the design choices were partly guided by code and fire-department egress requirements; he said the family is willing to explore façade options to address the board’s concerns.
Given board feedback and requests for a different exterior treatment, a board member moved to continue the application to the September meeting to allow the applicant time to revise the design and return with options; the motion passed unanimously on roll call. Staff said the continuation gives time to evaluate alternative cladding or panel systems and resolve any outstanding engineering details before permits are sought.
