The meeting unfolded with a detailed examination of the self-storage facility’s design and its compatibility with the surrounding area. Questions arose about the visibility and lighting of these windows, with some being false and designed not to emit light. The landscaping plan was also reviewed, particularly the positioning of new trees to obscure the facade from certain perspectives, such as Donahue Road and from the southwest view along Route 22.

The board probed the applicant about the building’s design efficiency, noting that the current utilization was less than optimal. The architect described the building’s segmented sawtooth shape, which was designed to increase efficiency but fell short of the ideal rectangular shape. Concerns about the north elevation’s appearance led to suggestions for adding faux windows to diminish the warehouse-like aspect, which the architect agreed to consider.

Lighting was another focal point. Real windows would be located at the office entrance and two towers facing Route 22, with the architect clarifying that light would not be directed outward. However, questions about the internal lighting of facade signs and the potential for 24/7 lighting remained partially unanswered. This extended to the handling of trash, as the facility lacked a dedicated trash enclosure. The architect explained that trash would be managed through scheduled pickups and that customers were expected to remove their garbage.

Public comments echoed the board’s concerns, particularly regarding the impact on residential neighbors. Suggestions included adding faux windows to mitigate the building’s industrial aesthetic. The architect reassured that the design considerations would include these community inputs.

The debate also delved into the technicalities of the project, such as compliance with the hillside development ordinance and its impact on drainage and wastewater systems. The engineer reevaluated the floor area ratio calculation to ensure it adhered to zoning codes, despite a higher ratio resulting from the corrected method. The board members were particularly interested in the potential improvements to the area’s flooding conditions and the additional stormwater management measures proposed for the west side of the building.

The professional planner’s testimony highlighted the limited number of permitted uses in the C5 district and the adaptive reuse of an existing office building to the proposed self-storage facility. Citing high vacancy rates, the planner supported the site’s suitability for the new development and the economic benefits it could offer. In response to concerns about the variances required, the planner delineated the balance between the community’s interests and the need for the development’s variances.

The planner also presented statistics to justify the need for the self-storage facility, noting a demand for over 1 million square feet of such space in the trade area and the modern amenities the facility would provide. Despite the potential for traffic congestion, the facility was deemed a low-intensity land use that would not impact the area’s population or activities.