Council weighs land‑use change for proposed autonomous vehicle fleet site after public‑safety concerns

Councilmembers debated whether to amend the comprehensive plan and zoning to allow an autonomous vehicle (AV) fleet storage, dispatch and maintenance operation at an industrial parcel near Horizon and Royal during the May 7 work session.

Planning director Jocelyn Murphy described the property and its recent redevelopment into three industrial buildings and said the central land‑use question is whether outdoor storage/dispatch of an AV fleet should be allowed at that location. The applicant plans to use one lot for outdoor storage (staff counted about 212 parked vehicles in the proposed layout) and lease the corner building for indoor maintenance and cleaning. The applicant confirmed that fleet movement between the two leased sites would use public streets rather than an internal drive.

Fire Chief Victor Connley and Assistant Chief Darren Steel (Police) told the council they have unanswered operational questions about driverless vehicles on public rights of way: how to direct/stop vehicles when no operator is present, how first responders access vehicle interiors, battery thermal‑runaway and towing protocols, and how the city will receive timely operational data from providers. Connley said peer cities’ experiences with similar operations were mixed and recommended broader stakeholder exercises and training; both chiefs said 30 days would not be enough and recommended a longer review, roughly 90 days, for training and interagency coordination.

Planning staff noted the request is principally a future‑land‑use/zoning decision: if council is not prepared to amend the comprehensive plan to allow the use, the rezoning cannot proceed. Staff said they had recommended denial because the requested use would conflict with the parcel’s adopted business‑office future land use.

Why it matters: The proposal raises land‑use and public‑safety tradeoffs — a new type of transportation facility that could support future mobility services versus potential emergency‑response complications and a stretch of zoning policy the city recently clarified.

What’s next: The applicant has asked for a one‑month postponement to address questions; staff had suggested a three‑month delay to allow police and fire to complete their reviews. Council will decide whether to postpone, deny, or schedule further review after additional public‑safety briefings and stakeholder coordination.