Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
North Port planning board recommends approval for four‑story self‑storage at Tuscola Commons
Summary
The Planning & Zoning Advisory Board voted 5–1 June 4 to recommend a development‑master‑plan amendment allowing a four‑story, 29,209 sq ft self‑storage building at 5632 Tuscola Boulevard in Tuscola Commons. Staff found the amendment consistent with North Port’s comprehensive plan; board members raised parking and impervious‑surface questions but approved the recommendation.
The Planning & Zoning Advisory Board of the City of North Port voted 5–1 on June 4 to recommend approval of Petition DMA‑23‑249, a development master plan amendment that would allow a four‑story, 29,209‑square‑foot self‑storage building at 5632 Tuscola Boulevard within the Tuscola Commons condominium subdivision.
The applicant’s planner, Linda Stewart of Pape Dawson, told the board the amendment would replace an earlier approved convenience store and gas station plan that was projected to generate about 2,600 daily vehicle trips. By contrast, Stewart said the updated traffic study estimates roughly 146 weekday trips with AM and PM peak hours of about nine vehicles entering and nine exiting. “This amendment request is to revise the site to a self‑storage facility,” Stewart said, adding that a self‑storage use is a “notoriously low trip generator.”
Planner II Adriana Silva said staff reviewed the application for consistency with the 2017 City of North Port Comprehensive Plan and the 2010 City of North Port Unified Land Development Code and recommended approval. Silva said the petition had been through the city’s development review committee and the applicable comprehensive‑plan policies for future land use, transportation and economic development supported the amendment, subject to standard site‑development and infrastructure plan conditions.
Board members focused their questions on parking, impervious surface and practical loading for customers using elevators to access upper floors. The city’s code requires parking only for the on‑site office (6 spaces) for this use; the applicant proposes nine spaces, including one handicapped space. Stewart described a covered pull‑up breezeway and adjacent parking where customers could load and then access elevators to upper levels.
Laurie Barnes, deputy director of development services, told the board the city cannot lawfully require parking beyond what the Unified Land Development Code specifies because imposing stricter parking requirements could invite a legal challenge under the Bert Harris Act. “We are not permitted to require parking above the minimum requirements in the Unified Land Development Code; that could result in a taking under the Bert Harris Act,” Barnes said.
Board members also sought clarification about the site’s impervious‑surface calculations and employment estimates; staff said the impervious surface ratio had been calculated at the master‑plan level for the unified development and that a precise percentage for the site would be provided at the time of site‑development review. On employment, staff said typical staffing for a self‑storage facility is low and a specific employee count was not available in the hearing record.
The board’s motion to recommend approval—moved by a committee member and seconded on the record—passed by a majority voice vote, with five members in favor and one opposed. Staff noted that compliance with landscaping, buffering, height limits and other UDC requirements will be demonstrated at the site‑development and infrastructure plan stage.
The board closed the public hearing, recorded the recommendation, had no future agenda items to raise, and adjourned at 9:35 a.m.
What happens next: The action taken by the advisory board was a recommendation; any further approvals or conditions will be addressed during site‑development review as required by the city’s code and in subsequent decision‑making steps.
