Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Commercial Site Plan Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Applicant told to file engineered site plan, conditional‑use update for storage building at 1096 Highway 89
Summary
Harrisville staff told an applicant seeking to add a 30-by-40 storage building at 1096 Highway 89 that a formal site plan amendment and possibly a conditional‑use update are required; staff flagged drainage, utilities and building‑code issues that could raise costs if occupants are anticipated.
Harrisville planning staff advised an applicant seeking to add a 30-by-40 storage building at 1096 Highway 89 that the project must begin with a site plan application and be brought into current code compliance.
Jenny Knight, the city administrator, told the applicant that “the first step is to apply for a site plan” and referenced the city code for plan design and review (Section 11.22). Knight and other staff explained the application must include an engineered site plan showing the proposed building location, setbacks, existing buildings and access, and typically a grading plan and elevations to address runoff and stormwater.
The applicant described the proposal as “we just wanna put a, 40 by 30 store shelf,” and said the structure is intended mainly for indoor storage of classic cars and occasional display on the lot. Staff cautioned that if the building will be used for sales or regular public occupancy, the code and required building systems change: restroom plumbing, fire protection, and other occupant‑related improvements may be needed. The building official and Northview Fire representative stressed the difference between a storage building and a building designed for public use.
Planning staff also told the applicant that vehicle storage or auto‑sales uses may require an amendment to an existing conditional use. Knight said the conditional‑use update can be considered at planning commission and “it can happen at the same time [as] site plan amendment approval potentially, in the same meeting.”
Staff flagged site constraints the applicant must show on plans: drainage and retention (the site currently appears to discharge to the street), landscape requirements, utility connections and secondary water availability. City engineering staff said they typically want to see grading and elevation work to confirm amendments will not cause runoff to adjacent properties. The applicant said there is currently no site retention and that earlier engineering work has already cost about $2,000.
City staff recommended the applicant prepare a clear plan for intended use before spending on a full engineered site plan, so the applicant can understand whether additional plumbing, sprinklers or a conditional‑use process will be required. Knight and staff offered to review a site plan application at project management and tentatively schedule review by the planning commission once the full application is submitted.
