Planning commission continues ‘urban storage’ code change amid questions on overlays and spacing

The Garden City Planning and Zoning Commission on Wednesday continued consideration of a code-text amendment that would create a new land-use category called "urban storage," sending the item back to staff and the applicant for further revision.

The amendment, CPA FY2026‑001, would add an "urban storage" use to Title 8 and establish specific standards — including a minimum 15-foot depth for street-facing ground-floor activation, parking formulas for vehicles and bicycles, and other objective security and lighting standards — intended to distinguish compact urban storage from traditional self-storage sites. Jeff Hatch of Hatch Design Architecture, the applicant, told the commission the application was first submitted in January and has been revised through design review and planning and zoning before arriving at draft 4.

City planning staff outlined the key remaining issues: whether to keep or remove a proposed 1,000-foot separation between similar uses, whether to regulate size through lot-area limits or a minimum-story (three-story) requirement, how the new use should interact with overlay zones such as transit‑oriented development and neighborhood commercial nodes, and whether the definition should cross-reference existing self‑storage code or contain distinct objective standards. Staff recommended removing the 1,000-foot separation and relying on case-by-case conditional‑use‑permit findings.

Several commissioners said they backed staff’s recommendation to remove the 1,000‑foot spacing requirement, calling it potentially monopolistic and better addressed through CUP findings. Commissioner Brown said the CUP process would allow commissioners to weigh neighborhood compatibility and that design‑review and CUP requirements could prevent undesirable clustering. Commissioner Smith said she still had doubts about compatibility with the adopted comprehensive plan and urged caution.

A Zoom public commenter raised a process objection after staff and the applicant submitted a late exhibit the night before the meeting. The speaker said the late posting reduced the public’s opportunity to review materials; applicant Jeff Hatch responded that the late exhibit would be made available while the item proceeds to council and said he would work with staff on overlay verbiage.

"We want this to be suitable and appropriate for Garden City, not another town," Hatch said in his presentation, summarizing revised text and the applicant’s willingness to address staff concerns.

Planning staff and the applicant agreed to refine language so that design‑review and overlay expectations are clear and measurable; staff also emphasized putting objective standards in the 8‑2‑C‑50 code rather than in the definition itself so code can be administered consistently.

The commission voted to continue the hearing to a date certain of Aug. 19, 2026, instructing staff and the applicant to resolve the outstanding definition, overlay and cross‑reference items and to ensure the late exhibit is published for public review before the next hearing.

Next steps: the applicant and staff will revise the draft and publish the revised materials; the commission will reconvene on Aug. 19 to consider the updated record. City council consideration is scheduled for August, but staff said hearing dates may shift depending on the commission’s action.