Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Change Of Conditions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners defer Matthews Storage change-of-conditions after concerns about four‑story massing
Summary
A requested change to a 1991 square-footage cap for a storage project at 9520 E. Independence Blvd. prompted lengthy discussion about scale, setbacks and materials; after debate the board unanimously voted to defer the item to July 13 for further design revisions and possible adjustments to setback/height options.
A request to change conditions on a parcel at 9520 East Independence Boulevard — including raising an historic 130,000-square-foot cap on gross floor area for Parcel 1B — drew sustained debate at the June 8 Matthews Board of Commissioners meeting and was deferred to the July 13 planning meeting for additional design work.
Planning staff summarized the 1991 zoning limits and said the subject parcel currently accounts for about 112,000 sq. ft. of existing built area; the petitioner requested authority to allow roughly a 70,000-sq.-ft. building that would raise the parcel total well above the 130,000-sq.-ft. limit (the petitioner’s initial request was 190,000 sq. ft.; staff said the applicant indicated comfort with a lower figure around 180,000).
Staff and the applicant reviewed revised site plans and renderings showing landscaping additions (a "hawk garden"), increased glazing and removal of external roll-up doors. Staff also explained the effect of a funded road project (U2509) that changes the future right-of-way and affects setback measurements.
Several commissioners objected to the scale and visual impact of the proposed structure. Commissioner John Urban said he was not comfortable with the building’s placement and scale and later remarked, "I don't want what every other little town has — a four-story storage building coming into the town of Matthews," expressing concern about a tall facade near the future sidewalk. Commissioner Carrie Lamson and others asked whether the building could be moved back on the pad, brought more in line with surrounding facades, or clad more heavily in brick to match local character.
Petitioner representatives said they had reduced the building’s frontage by about 40 feet, widened landscape buffers, eliminated roll-up doors and increased glazing to about 30 percent. Architect Anthony Murphy noted the design meets current zoning standards and that the applicant is seeking only a change to the gross-floor-area cap rather than other variances.
After extended discussion, a motion to deny was introduced but commissioners agreed to amend the motion to defer and ask the applicant to return with modifications; the continuance to July 13 passed unanimously.
