LUZ committee grants appeal to allow expanded self-storage site plan at Yellow Bluff and Starrett

The city’s Land Use and Zoning (LUZ) Committee voted 5–1 on March 3 to grant an appeal of a planning commission denial and approve a minor modification to a 2007 planned unit development (PUD), allowing the property owner to move forward with plans for a large self-storage facility near the intersection of Yellow Bluff Road and Starrett Road.

The committee’s action overturns a January 8 planning commission decision that denied the applicant’s requested update to the PUD site plan. Planning staff had recommended approval and said the proposed personal-property storage facility — described in staff materials as roughly 85,000 square feet across two parcels (about 6 acres) of a 12.22-acre PUD — would generate far fewer daily vehicle trips than the full range of commercial uses originally allowed by the PUD.

“Similar uses that were allowed by right in this PUD would be automotive repair or liquor stores, which could be built here tomorrow,” attorney Mike Herzberg, representing the applicant, told the committee. He argued the application requested a change to the site plan rather than a new use and stressed that the owner is entitled to pursue uses allowed by the existing PUD. “The planning department said, you know what? We probably better get a minor modification for this,” Herzberg said in presenting the applicant’s case.

Residents and community representatives who spoke during the public hearing urged denial. Speakers repeatedly raised concerns about traffic and safety at the Yellow Bluff–Starrett intersection, potential crime and nuisance activity associated with unmanned storage facilities, light pollution from 24-hour access, and the compatibility of storage with the neighborhood’s current residential character. “If there were already concerns about compatibility, security, oversight, and land-use impacts at 522 units, those concerns intensify with 650 units,” Ruth Nelson Peebles said, objecting to what she called an intensification of use.

Members of the public also pressed for additional mitigation: requests included a new traffic study focused on the intersection, stronger masonry walls instead of vinyl fencing, larger landscape buffers, limits on hours of operation, and guarantees about on-site supervision. Planning staff and the applicant responded with technical and legal clarifications: staff said the removal of a proposed driveway did not significantly alter traffic distribution and reiterated that the proposed use is allowed under the PUD; Herzberg said the developer was willing to provide photometric lighting plans and comply with buffering and landscaping requirements in the site plan.

Council members wrestled with the competing concerns. Several members said they sympathized with neighbors but were constrained by the legal standard of review and the city’s zoning code. Council member Gaffney said he would not support the modification, noting strong constituent opposition and the neighborhood’s residential character. “I’m a no tonight,” he said on the record. Others emphasized that the PUD already permits a range of commercial uses and that denying the modification could expose the city to legal challenge.

After debate the committee moved to grant the appeal and approve the minor modification; the clerk recorded five yays and one nay. By the committee’s action the bill was moved as amended. Under the appeal process described by staff, the item now proceeds along council procedures consistent with the city’s land-use review sequence.

What changed: planning staff emphasized that the proposed project is a lower-traffic use than the maximum commercial square footage allowed by the 2007 PUD; opponents argued the revision fundamentally alters the site’s intended commercial role and increases neighborhood impacts. The committee’s vote instructs staff to attach the revised site plan dated 03/02/2026 and the additional rendering presented in committee as the controlling site plan for that parcel.

Next steps: the committee moved the bill as amended; the ordinance will follow the remaining council procedures for final action and implementation details (such as building permits and photometric/landscape compliance) will be handled through subsequent permitting and plan-review steps.