Extra Space Management Inc.’s application was the centerpiece of the meeting, detailing the construction of a three-story, climate-controlled self-storage building covering approximately 71,500 square feet. John Wcala, representing the applicant, presented the project as a low-impact land use emphasizing the minimal traffic and parking demand it would generate. The proposed facility, which would be situated on the westerly side of the site, also included outdoor storage for RVs and other large vehicles, as well as a billboard.

However, the project’s location on the lot does not meet the required 75-foot setback to a major arterial frontage, and the proposed lot coverage of 62.12% surpasses the permitted 30%. Matthew Kunzman, a project manager at Bowler Engineering, testified about the need to utilize an underutilized grass area of the lot and addressed the board’s questions regarding the site’s existing conditions and proposed modifications.

The board also scrutinized the proposed expansion’s impact on traffic and parking. Paul Ginning, a traffic and transportation engineer, referenced industry standards to support his findings that the expansion would have a low traffic impact. He discussed the number of required parking spaces and the traffic data collection methods used to analyze the project’s impact.

Architectural considerations were also on the agenda, with Richard Penyak presenting renderings of the proposed building. The board’s inquiries delved into the compliance with zoning regulations, the visual impact of the proposed building, and its resemblance to existing structures.

Christina Zaro, the appointed planner, provided an exhaustive overview of the variance relief being sought. Zaro highlighted the legal precedents and the burden of proof associated with the variances, which included expansion of a non-conforming use, violations of conditional use standards, floor area ratio, and height requirements. The proposed development was also discussed in the context of the Envision and master plan for the area, with the planner arguing the benefits of granting the variances would outweigh any detriments.

In addition to the main application, the meeting saw the approval of three resolutions for variances concerning residential property improvements, including patio and shed installation, the construction of a covered porch, and a composite deck. A completeness waiver for an application from Conserva Irrigation was also addressed, seeking approval to replace an existing dry cleaner with an office for an irrigation company in an R20 residential zone.

One key administrative aspect of the meeting was the absence of a court stenographer. Initially, it prompted concerns about the meeting’s compliance with procedural requirements. After a brief recess, it was determined that the meeting could proceed, but no formal action would be taken until a transcript was prepared.