Developer previews Mackenzie Park Estates development agreement proposing storage campus; commission asks for detailed exhibits

Developers seeking to redevelop a long‑platted portion of Mackenzie Park Estates introduced a proposed development agreement to the Planning Commission on Feb. 13, outlining plans to rezone and convert the dormant subdivision area to a controlled storage‑unit campus.

Jason (planning staff) explained the site is a recorded subdivision from 2007 that was never fully developed. The owner proposes to consolidate the platted lots and rezone the land to Commercial Regional (CR) with a development agreement that would limit allowed uses on the property to storage units and related, limited functions. The development team told commissioners the project would be built in two phases and that the development agreement will include the site plan and design standards as exhibits.

Crystal Travis of DAI and representatives from Extra Space Storage explained Phase 1 would create a mix of interior and exterior single‑story storage units and RV parking; Phase 2 would add additional storage buildings. The developers requested a long‑term development agreement (up to 15 years) that would allow future expansion if market demand justified it; they said any taller, multistory buildings would comply with CR zone requirements and additional setbacks.

Commissioners asked for clarity on several practical matters before a public hearing and recommendation: the precise limits on building height and how multi‑story expansion would be controlled; the extent of frontage improvements along 4000 West (Fortieth West) and timing for any roadway realignment; buffering and fence treatments along the church property to the north; and specific lighting, drainage and traffic mitigation exhibits. Staff told commissioners the development agreement will be drafted to include detailed exhibits and explicit code carve‑outs or exceptions, so the commission can review any deviations from standard code.

Developers said they had met with adjacent property owners, including the Grama and Dudson families, and plan to memorialize boundary‑treatment and flag‑lot arrangements as part of the agreement. Commissioners encouraged staff and the applicant to return with a development agreement that explicitly lists the concessions and obligations (lighting, signage, landscaping, traffic mitigation and limits on uses) so the commission and public can assess tradeoffs ahead of a public hearing.