Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Continuance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues hearing on proposed San Sebastian self‑storage and quick‑service plan after questions on parking, trees and market data
Summary
A contested application to build a self‑storage facility and a small quick‑service restaurant near US‑1 and San Sebastian View was continued to Feb. 3 after board members asked for fuller tree‑mitigation verification, unabridged market data, and clearer parking calculations.
The Planning & Zoning Board on Jan. 6 continued an application for a mixed self‑storage and quick‑service outparcel at the northwest corner of U.S. 1 North and San Sebastian View, citing unresolved questions about tree mitigation calculations, the applicant’s market analysis and the proposed parking reduction.
Applicant representatives (James Whitehouse and Robbie Moon) asked for three approvals: (1) use by exception for a self‑storage facility in CM2 zoning; (2) a variance to reduce off‑street parking; and (3) permission to remove certain significant trees in Conservation Overlay Zone 3. Staff reported that the applicant had revised materials and submitted an updated tree‑ratio calculation but that staff had not had time to fully review the revised table.
Applicant counsel said the revised plan would retain eight of the significant trees on the property and that the applicant proposes an internal planting and buffer schedule to meet mitigation requirements. "We have since ... revised the layout ... to now we're gonna retain 8 trees and remove only 5," Robbie Moon said, adding that additional buffer and interior plantings would be used to meet mitigation.
Board members pressed for the underlying data supporting a market‑saturation claim (applicant’s market study summarized occupancy and new home counts within a three‑mile radius) and asked for full datasets rather than summaries. Several members said the parking reduction proposed — dropping required spaces from roughly 108 to the mid‑30s or fewer in the applicant’s proposal — needed more substantiation because storage customers may arrive with trucks and movers.
Staff and the applicant agreed to return with clarified tree‑ratio calculations, the raw market occupancy data or an expanded radius analysis, exact unit counts for the proposed storage facility and clearer parking calculations. The board voted to continue the item to the Feb. 3 meeting.
