Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council committee weighs zoning change to allow large self‑storage on a constrained, non‑street‑front parcel
Summary
Planning staff and an applicant asked council to adopt a limited zoning text and map amendment to permit climate‑controlled self‑storage facilities larger than 20,000 sq ft on narrowly defined Centimeters parcels; the proposal includes new design standards and limits on where large storage can be built.
Lancaster planning staff and the owner/developer Oak Tree Development presented a proposed zoning text amendment and map change at the Nov. 3 community planning committee that would permit self‑storage facilities larger than 20,000 square feet on a narrowly defined set of Centimeters (Central Manufacturing) parcels.
City planners said the current ordinance allows self‑storage up to 20,000 square feet and that larger projects have proceeded by variance without standardized design or siting requirements. The amendment would: allow self storage without a size limit on lots that are at least 3 acres and at most 5 acres, have no public‑street access, and which existed in the mapped configuration as of 07/01/2025; require climate‑controlled buildings with a minimum of two stories for larger projects; and add new design standards for buildings over 50,000 square feet in the Centimeters district (features such as articulated facades, distinguishable entrances, parapet roofs and screening of rooftop equipment).
Applicant Oak Tree described a roughly 2.55‑acre parcel that is now improved with commercial buildings and has access by easement rather than from a public street; the firm said it proposes an interior‑access climate‑controlled facility of about 120,000 square feet tailored to the site’s access and grade constraints. The developer and engineer showed renderings and a site plan that include enclosed vehicle circulation and gated exterior storage contained to side and rear yards.
Planning staff and the applicant said the amendment is intentionally narrow; earlier drafts had contemplated a broader set of locations but the version presented to council limits larger self‑storage to a small number of parcels. Staff noted that relocating large self‑storage away from residential districts and adding building design standards are intentional tradeoffs to address past variance approvals and to impose clearer requirements on large‑scale facilities.
Planner Betsy (staff) said the planning commission reviewed the proposal, requested minor changes and recommended it to council. Public commenters and councilors discussed traffic, access over an existing easement, the effect on neighboring businesses during construction, and whether the site’s constraints make industrial or retail uses impractical. The committee voted to move the proposed zoning amendment and map change to the Nov. 11 full council meeting for first reading.
