Developers present conceptual plan for 57,000‑sq‑ft self‑storage at Harlem Road; panel raises design, scale and compatibility concerns

Developers proposing a self‑storage facility at 6955 Harlem Road told the Rocky Fork Black Liquor Accord development panel on Nov. 21 that they see unmet market demand and have designed a 57,000‑square‑foot, drive‑through building they say would serve nearby multifamily and business users.

"In that 3‑mile radius there's about 50,000 population," said Tom Gustafson (Colliers International), describing the team's market analysis and concluding the area has lower storage square‑feet per capita than the national equilibrium. The applicants said their plan includes keyed gated access, interior elevators, 27 exterior ground‑level units and landscaping at the street.

Panel members and staff, however, repeatedly flagged compatibility issues. "Everything that surrounds it is made up of brick, stone, and wood," a staff member said, urging materials and massing that align with neighborhood character. A panel member added that the building "doesn't fit into that quote unquote rural area feel" and questioned whether a two‑ to three‑story storage building is appropriate adjacent to smaller single‑family parcels.

Applicants and their architects said they can adapt the design. Ross Ferro (Premier Development Properties) said the team can move the building back, revise elevations and work with a landscape architect to retain trees and add street trees. "We can modify this so it has the feel that you want," Ferro said, and committed to submitting revised graphics and materials for the panel’s review.

On technical points, staff and panelists clarified setback and stormwater expectations: the applicant said they were told a 50‑foot setback from the minor arterial right‑of‑way and that they expect to tie into the city storm sewer but would provide detention or other measures if required. Panel members recommended the applicants consult a local engineering firm and emphasized the need to show how stormwater will be handled on revised plans.

The review remained conceptual: staff stated it was not issuing a formal recommendation at this stage but listed four design items for the applicant to address—street trees, refuse screening, elevations/material choices to match the village character (including pitched roof and masonry elements), and breaking up architectural massing. The applicants were advised to return with larger context graphics and revised elevations; staff discussed calendar windows for a December follow‑up and noted the application would later go to a city development commission and possibly City Council.

The panel took no formal vote on the project at the meeting; the only formal action recorded was adoption of the minutes from the previous hearing. The applicant left the meeting with explicit guidance from staff and the panel to revise materials and coordinate with City of Columbus staff ahead of the next scheduled review.