Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners question 86,000‑sq‑ft storage proposal, raise design and tree‑loss concerns
Summary
Planning staff previewed a two‑story, roughly 86,000‑square‑foot personal storage facility that would remove about 89 mature trees and employ one on‑site staff member; commissioners largely said the proposal does not fit the Southeast neighborhood plan and urged reconsideration, while some noted surrounding uses make it tolerable.
Planning staff presented an initial review of a proposed two‑story personal storage facility on Lot 4 in Liberty Business Park, near the intersection of Wayland Road and Liberty Drive. The applicant’s concept would build roughly 86,000 square feet, require removal of about 89 trees, and include a single on‑site employee, according to staff.
Staff flagged several concerns: the site is identified in the city’s existing comprehensive plan as part of a corridor intended for uses that create jobs and feature high‑quality architecture; the proposed materials (including EIFS and concrete block) were described as inconsistent with the comprehensive plan’s design expectations and may not meet the zoning ordinance’s time‑and‑weather‑tested materials standard. Staff said the draft comprehensive plan would allow more mixed‑use development in the future, increasing expectations for higher‑quality architecture in the area.
Commission feedback was mixed but skewed negative. Alder Swanson said the project “is not a good fit” with the Southeast neighborhood plan and that she could not visualize a personal storage facility meeting the plan’s expectations. Another commissioner (raising concerns about the low employment numbers) said the projected single on‑site job did not align with the area’s goal of producing more jobs. Commissioner Hankard acknowledged storage facilities historically lack attractive architecture and suggested tree removal sometimes is unavoidable for development.
Commissioner Taylor and one other commissioner noted that existing nearby uses—an auto storage facility and engineering offices—make the proposal more compatible with current conditions than with the draft future plan. Staff reiterated that this was an initial review only; the project would require site plan approval and a conditional‑use permit if it proceeds to formal review. No vote or formal action was taken at this meeting.
What comes next: staff will take tonight’s feedback to the applicant. If the proposal advances to formal review, additional details about materials, site layout, tree mitigation, and employment projections will be required for council and planning commission consideration.
