Council considers Galloway self-storage amid neighborhood opposition

Despite neighborhood opposition, a development of self-storage units in south Springfield's Galloway Village neighborhood is being debated by city council.

Located just south of Sequiota Park, the proposed one-story property would include 188 climate-controlled self-storage units.

The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of the units being allowed, while professional city staff recommends approval. A final decision will be made by city council at their next meeting.

Developer Sam Coryell told the city council that there is a need in the Galloway neighborhood for self-storage — claiming there is no similar service within a five-mile radius.

"Americans have more stuff than we do space and apartment dwellers in that area have even less excess space. So I believe this is a feature, a service, that would be used and appreciated in this area," he said — referencing the nearby Township 28 apartment complex that he owns.

More: Proposed project offers coffee, pickleball on Grant Avenue Parkway. Council shows interest.

In Springfield, Coryell is best known as the owner and operator of apartment complexes through his company, TLC Properties. According to the company's website, TLC Properties includes more than 6,000 renters in Springfield.

Given these properties, Coryell argued he has a stake in the Galloway Village neighborhood's prosperity.

"I want pretty things in Galloway village. So we have every intention of achieving aesthetic quality ... We believe that this project adds value to the community."

But the self-storage units faces opposition from the Galloway Village Neighborhood Association because Galloway development guidelines passed by council in 2019 list self-storage as one of six uses "incompatible" with the Galloway neighborhood.

GVNA President Melanie Bach argued allowing these self-storage units would set a dangerous precedent for city council to ignore their own guidelines.

"This is simply not the right space for a self-storage facility. Our neighborhood finds it frustrating that after our extensive participation in the Galloway guideline development process,... that the city's planning department is still recommending projects that are inconsistent with the Galloway guidelines passed by city council," Bach told council members Monday night.

"It was our understanding that participation in the development of those guidelines would prevent us from having to argue against proposals that are clearly in violation of them. This is only the second proposed zoning matter that has been submitted since passage of the guidelines and both we have felt have contained elements that are blatantly inconsistent with the guidelines."

More: Springfield council votes down 7 Brew Coffee proposal on Sunshine after months-long debate

The Galloway Village Neighborhood Association has been in a longtime dispute with the city over another development for several years — with an appeals court ruling in favor of the neighborhood association earlier this year.

Despite this, Bach said she is not "anti-development" and they had good-faith negotiation with the developers. A GVNA vote had 56 percent of voting neighbors opposed the Self Storage business and 44 percent in favor.

But city staff and the developers argue the guidelines do not prohibit a self-storage unit, but they should merely be a "limited" use. Coryell said his climate-controlled storage units were not what guideline writers had in mind when calling such a business "incompatible" with the neighborhood.

"When someone says self storage, I conjure up images that aren't always attractive structures that are all metal and with the old roll up doors. And I would argue that that application could be considered incompatible. But this is a different product. While it does service as a storage facility, this is the climate control variety," he said.

He also noted access to the units will also be prohibited in the late evening and there will be no light pollution that is generally associated with self-storage units.

But another developer opposed to the units countered that those changes should not exempt the units from the city's own guidelines.

"the guidelines don't say incompatible unless it looks nice. I mean, Kum & Go gas stations look really nice. But this clearly would not be a place for a Kum & Go gas station," said Jamie Thomas, an Operations Manager for real estate company Green Circle Projects.

More: Smash My Trash says it saves Springfield customers money and helps the environment

In a rare instance of developers arguing against one another, Thomas maintains she was not "anti-development" but "pro-thoughtful development."

"We need development that provides value to a neighborhood, to our residents and to our citizens. We feel like by contrasting these guidelines, we're going directly against that, specifically given the vote that this neighborhood association has already come to they've said that they're opposed to it. And we feel like we need to honor that," she said.

Development architect Harlan Hill told council they have "no reasonable option but a vote for approval."

"The proposed development does not create a detrimental impact to the health, safety and welfare of the public. There is no apparent cause of harm to community or injury to value and use of the adjacent properties. Staff has already evaluated adherence to the Galloway area recommendations as applicable to the proposed development and has been found to comply in all categories," Hill said.

"I therefore contend that a complete and total prohibition of the proposed development in the absence of a substantiated threat to health, safety and welfare of the public would be a direct deprivation of the owners constitutional rights and privilege to realize the property's best and highest use."

Though a vote will not be taken until their next meeting, most councilmembers seemed inclined to support the self-storage development. Councilwoman Monica Horton was the sole member to publicly express concerns about violating the Galloway guidelines.

"You mentioned said it was limited but not prohibited," she told city staff. "But in the language that I also saw, there's also a descriptor called incompatible. So I was able to read a line in the guidelines, and I saw storage units are listed as incompatible with the character of Galloway."

Conversely, Councilwoman Heather Hardinger said the proposal is "not like the typical model that you see" for self-storage.

"People would be going in and out like they would in any other business in the area. It's not like you can kind of drive up at your leisure and open your unit. You have to go through that secure facility," Hardinger said.

Councilman Mike Schilling called the proposal "relatively benign."

"I am puzzled by this 'incompatibility' with the neighborhood. I can understand if you had a succession of buildings that look like confined animal feeding operations like a lot of storage units look like. That's one thing, but this seems to fit in with that particular style of housing and apartments and whatnot down there," Schilling said.

Andrew Sullender is the local government reporter for the Springfield News-Leader. Follow him on Twitter @andrewsullender. Email tips and story ideas to asullender@gannett.com.

This article originally appeared on Springfield News-Leader: Council considers Galloway self-storage amid neighborhood opposition