Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Storage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council continues DAI storage‑facility rezoning and development‑agreement to May 20 after public traffic and land‑use concerns
Summary
The council continued action on a proposed DAI development agreement and rezone to allow a phased self‑storage facility with accessory outdoor vehicle storage, directing staff and the applicant to clarify post‑term use rights, drainage and infrastructure language before the May 20 meeting.
Riverton City Council continued action on a proposed development agreement and rezone that would allow a self‑storage facility with accessory outdoor vehicle storage on a previously platted, undeveloped subdivision near 126 South and 4000 West.
Applicant Joe Salisbury (DAI) and city planning staff presented a plan that would vacate an unused interior subdivision road, preserve two existing residences on site, and build storage buildings in phases. The draft development agreement restricts permitted uses to self‑storage with associated outdoor vehicle storage and sets building heights and design standards; the applicant requested three targeted deviations from typical code (reduced landscape buffer in one location because of mature trees on adjacent property, a reduced building setback for two buildings from 40 to 36 feet where adjacent property owners provided written support, and a signage alternative that would allow a faux tower structure instead of a conventional pole sign).
Several residents spoke during the public hearing and expressed concerns about traffic on 4000 West (used as a shortcut), peak‑period turning difficulty at the site driveway, and long‑term land‑use consequences if a temporary zoning change expired. One resident asked the council to consider the cumulative traffic effect and suggested that a larger transportation review could be warranted: "If we think 4000 West is going to handle more commercial traffic...we're gonna have to rebuild that whole road to be able to handle more traffic."
Councilmember McDougall, who moved to continue the item, said he supports the project concept but requested clearer contract language before the council acts. McDougall specifically asked staff and the applicant to add explicit language that clarifies what happens when the 15‑year term in the development agreement expires (whether the use remains allowed or reverts to other uses), to document drainage and infrastructure responsibilities (including an underground detention solution described by staff), and to ensure the development agreement matches the site plan and conditions recommended by planning staff. The council voted to continue consideration of ordinance 25‑15 to the May 20 meeting to allow the city attorney and the applicant to finalize the agreement language.
Action: Councilmember McDougall moved to continue ordinance 25‑15 (the rezone/development agreement) to the May 20 meeting so staff and the applicant can finalize terms; Councilmember Barroker seconded. The motion passed on a voice/roll‑call without recorded opposition.
Next steps: Staff and the applicant will return with finalized development‑agreement language clarifying post‑term permitted uses, infrastructure/drainage commitments, and the final site plan and sign details for planning‑commission/council review on May 20.
