Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SROA seeks to finish Corkscrew Village build‑out with 76,000 sq ft self‑storage addition
Summary
SROA Capital presented plans to add 76,000 square feet to the Corkscrew Village self‑storage site to complete the previously approved 170,000 sq ft entitlement; the board probed materials, color, parking and visibility to adjoining properties and the applicant agreed to revisit color and landscaping choices.
SROA Capital representatives presented a proposal on Feb. 20 to complete the originally approved Corkscrew Village self‑storage entitlement by adding approximately 76,000 square feet to existing on‑site facilities, bringing the site to roughly the 170,000 square feet authorized by the 1999 ordinance.
"My name is Beau Raich. I'm a VP of development for SROA Capital," Beau Raich told the Planning, Zoning & Design Board, describing the property as an established, well‑occupied mini‑storage campus that the owner acquired in 2016 and now intends to finish out per earlier entitlements.
Engineer Cenae Brahimi (Kimberly Horn Associates) reviewed entitlements, site location (southeast corner of Corkscrew and Common Way), and noted the project includes two EV charging spaces, bike racks and pavement restoration; the team said it has received South Florida permitting and Lee County utilities stipulations for the project.
Architect Shane Bachelor (Rapid Design Build) described a two‑story, 76,000‑square‑foot Mediterranean Revival‑style building using insulated metal panels with a stucco finish. The board questioned material textures, color choices and how the new massing would relate to adjoining land uses. Several board members urged the applicant to avoid the existing complex’s corporate blue trim, and the applicant said the blue was not required and that the developer will provide alternate color options and additional material samples.
Board members also raised concerns about visibility of the south elevation as neighboring properties (including a planned hospital site) develop, and asked whether the applicant could alter massing or architectural details on the rear elevation to present a more residential‑scale appearance. The applicant said some architectural elements could be reoriented toward the hospital and that mature vegetation provides a buffer on parts of the site.
The board requested additional detail on parking layout, access and landscape buffers; the applicant agreed to return with more refined colors, landscaping and clarifications on circulation. No formal decision was requested at the information meeting; staff noted it would schedule the required public hearings and development‑order review steps.
Board members and staff said the proposal appears to be generally consistent with the site’s prior entitlements but reiterated that final materials, landscape and visibility solutions will be important in the subsequent development‑order application.
