CORNELIA, Ga. — A proposal to expand a mini-storage development near the Cornelia city limits was tabled Monday night after city officials raised concerns about the appearance of the project and its impact on one of the city’s primary gateways.
The request involved a conditional use permit that would allow mini-storage units on a tract of land along Level Grove Road near Ga. 365. Two rear parcels had previously received approval for mini-storage, but the applicant sought permission to extend the use to a third parcel closer to the roadway.
Attorney Harry Barton, representing property owner Todd Campbell, told the council the original plans had been altered after engineering challenges and delays involving Georgia Power made development of the front parcel more difficult than anticipated. He said the owners now wanted to use the remaining tract for mini-storage as well.
The proposal immediately prompted questions from city officials about what the development would look like and whether additional mini-storage units were the best use of highly visible property at one of the city’s entrances.
Commissioner Reed voiced the strongest opposition.
“If he had already built out and maxed out his property where we had already approved his mini-storage and this is a gold venture and there’s a need for it and he wants to expand the business, I can understand that,” Reed said. “But just turning that whole commercial lot into mini-storage doesn’t make sense.”
Reed also questioned whether the city should allow a mini-storage facility to dominate property visible from the highway.
“At the entrance into the city, off the exit ramp, welcome to Cornelia, home of the mini-storage,” Reed said. “Not home of the Big Red Apple, home of the mini-storage.”
Other officials focused on the lack of detail provided during the presentation.
City Attorney Steve Campbell said the proposal was too vague and urged council members to require more specific plans before making a decision.
“The easiest project for the city is when people come in prepared and tell you exactly what they want and how they’re going to do it,” Campbell said. “Whenever it’s vague, you’re going to get vague, and you may not like what you get at the end.”
Questions were also raised about landscaping, buffers near a neighboring cemetery, paving, architectural design and the overall appearance of the facility. Commissioners discussed requiring renderings and a detailed landscaping plan before considering approval.
Barton requested that the application be tabled rather than denied, noting that a denial would prevent the owners from reapplying for six months.
Council members agreed.
Following discussion, the council unanimously voted to table the request and directed the applicant to return with architectural renderings, landscaping plans and additional details about the project before further consideration.
The proposal is expected to return to the council at a future meeting after the requested information has been submitted.
