Laserfiche WebLink
REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW; <br />CASE OF SHARP AND ASSOCIATES <br />By: Megan Wald, Associate Planner <br /> <br />CASE # <br /> <br />Background: <br /> <br />Denny Sharp of Sharp and Associates is requesting site plan approval to develop a mini-storage <br />facility on 2.88 acres on the property located at the intersection of County Road 116 and Unity <br />Street. <br /> <br />The following items are enclosed for your information: <br /> <br />a) <br />b) <br />c) <br /> <br />Site location map <br />Site plan <br />City Staff rex)Jew letter dated July 30, 2004 <br /> <br />Notification: <br /> <br />Site Plans do not require a public hearing. <br /> <br />Observations: <br /> <br />The proposed development is located in the E-1 Employment district; mini-storage facilities are a <br />permitted use in this district. The site plan is proposing to develop six mini-storage facilities <br />totaling 39,770 square feet. Lot coverage has been calculated at 32%, which is under the 45% <br />maximum lot coverage restriction established in City Code. <br /> <br />The proposed mini-storage facilities meet front, side, and rear yard setbacks established in the E- <br />l Employment District. The site plan is proposing to derive access from Unity Street. <br /> <br />City .Code requires exterior material finishes to consist of concrete-maso~y units, natural stone, <br />concrete paneling, or brick. The building elevation plan indicates that the 3,687 square foot <br />facility along Unity Street and the 6,250 square foot facility along County Road #1 I6 will be <br />constructed with rock face concrete masonry block. The remaining 4 mini-storage facilities will <br />be constructed with metal paneling that will match the color of the proposed concrete block. The <br />metal paneling is a deviation from City Code and will require City Council approval. Staff <br />supports the proposed deviation due to the fact that the proposed mini-storage project is part of a <br />Tax Increment Financing (TIF) project that will ultimately result in removing existing blight on <br />the subject property. The proposed project will require siganificant dollars by both the City and <br />the developer in order fbr the project to be a successful. It seems reasonable to allow the <br />developer some relief on building material construction costs considering the end result of the <br />project provides high quality development and tax base compared to the existing blight on the <br />property. <br /> <br />The grading and drainage plan will need to be revised according to the comments outlined in the <br />City Staff Review Letter. The landscape plan is generally acceptable in accordance with the City <br />Staff Review letter noting an additional 53 sM'ubs will be required. <br /> <br />77 <br /> <br /> <br />