Councilmember Ryan Horton’s ordinance to amend a planned‑unit development (PUD) overlay district at 5845 Charlotte Pike — to allow additional self‑storage units and site improvements — advanced on second reading after a public hearing in which the property owner’s representatives and neighboring landowners clashed over easement limits and construction impacts.

John Cooper of Holland & Knight, representing Extra Space Storage (the property owner/applicant), told the council the site has operated as self‑storage since a 1997 PUD amendment and that the project would add 354 storage units. Cooper said the planning commission unanimously recommended the PUD amendment, described planned stormwater improvements that would move new runoff underground, and said the proposal includes more than 394 parking spaces shared among the storage facility, a restaurant, retail, and an international market.

An engineer for the applicant, Blair Seymour, described changes made after neighborhood discussions: increased parking, truck‑maneuvering plans, a stormwater maintenance plan, improved entrance striping, repaired signage, and adjusted landscaping to improve sight lines.

Opposition speakers included Gavin Dwyer, outside counsel for adjacent landowner SK Food Corp., and Dennis Salisbury, an owner of nearby property. Dwyer entered a recorded easement restriction and option agreement into the public record and said the applicant’s proposed building footprint and square footage would violate a mandatory parking line in that agreement; Dwyer said his clients filed a lawsuit that afternoon seeking injunctive relief. Salisbury urged the council to consider construction impacts, citing bedrock close to the surface and warning hydraulic hammers or blasting could create high noise (he cited machine noise levels and concerns about vibration‑related damage), dust, and heavy truck traffic.

Horton said the item was on its second of three readings and amendable on third; he encouraged neighbors to email him with particulars so he could follow up. Planning staff told the council conditions relating to operations and construction activities are not typically included in PUDs because they are not land‑use matters; special counsel noted that a lawsuit should not prevent council consideration but might affect outcomes later.

On the vote to advance the ordinance on second reading, three council members recorded abstentions: Councilmembers Kimbrough, Hancock and Stiles. Several committees had recommended approval and the planning commission had recommended the PUD amendment.

The item will return for a third reading where councilmembers can propose amendments; neighbors may seek remedies through ongoing litigation and through discussions with the sponsor and planning staff.