Planning commission declines to issue recommendation on contested 'Store It' annexation and rezone after hours of testimony

The Planning & Zoning Commission heard more than two hours of public testimony Wednesday on an application by Store It Self Storage to annex and rezone 9.84 acres at the northwest corner of West Beacon Light Road and North Hartley Road.

Tamara Thompson of The Land Group, representing the applicant, described a fully enclosed, Class A storage facility with 77,550 square feet of drive‑up storage, 15,900 square feet of climate‑controlled interior storage, covered RV parking and a 900‑square‑foot office. She said the development would include live‑on management and dense landscaping to screen adjacent residences.

"This operator is a stable, long‑term operator and employer," Thompson said, adding the use is low impact and explicitly allowed in the proposed MUDA zone via a development agreement.

Staff planner Caitlin Davidson outlined recommended conditions of development, including a 25‑foot minimum setback between the manager’s residence and storage units, a 10‑foot‑wide by 6‑foot‑high landscape buffer where commercial abuts residential, and a requirement for detached sidewalks that meet code. Davidson noted the project requests a development agreement in lieu of a conditional use permit and that final design will pass through the design review board and city council.

Residents who testified opposed the project primarily on compatibility, traffic and safety grounds. Julia Butler, who lives at the end of Hartley Road, said the proposal "does not meet the goals of the comprehensive plan" and argued the village community center designation was intended for retail, office, hospitality and civic uses, not a large storage complex.

Others cited vehicle circulation, possible crime at storage sites, and loss of rural character. Jay Talley, a nearby resident, said he had worked in HR for storage chains and challenged the applicant’s employment claims, saying "you typically got 1 to 2 people working at a site for a day." Several neighbors said they already store RVs and equipment on their own property and do not need local commercial storage.

Supporters and company representatives countered that modern, well‑managed storage facilities reduce pressure on regional demand, generate limited traffic (roughly 7 trips per 100 units per day as presented), and can be required by the development agreement to meet high design and operational standards. CW Hurless, the owner, noted 24‑hour monitored cameras, computerized gate access and cooperation with local police.

Commission deliberations exposed a split: several commissioners said the site did not feel like the right fit for the village community center corridor, while others emphasized that storage is an allowed, low‑impact MUDA use and that staff findings supported the project meeting code. A motion to recommend denial was moved and seconded; it received vocal ayes and nos, but the motion failed to meet a quorum under Robert’s Rules and thus died. Chair explained that without a commission recommendation the application will proceed to City Council for final action.

The staff report and public record contain conditions the commission referenced and the applicant will return to council with the same materials. The council hearing date has not been set by the commission during the meeting.