Planning commission recommends approval of DAI Utah storage development agreement after debate on height, buffers and traffic

The Riverton City Planning Commission on April 24 recommended approval of a development agreement that would rezone about 5.63 acres at 12270 South 4000 West from R‑3 residential to commercial‑regional (CR) with use limited to self‑storage and outdoor vehicle storage. The commission’s recommendation will go to the Riverton City Council for final action on May 6.

Staff described the proposal as a development agreement that functions like a tailored rezone: the applicant, identified in the packet as DAI Utah, proposed storage units, limited building heights (applicant materials showed two taller buildings), and site‑specific exceptions to the standard commercial buffering and signage rules. Staff told the commission the developer had offered to limit most storage building heights to two stories and to use split‑face and smooth masonary with aluminum trim to give the site a residential‑style façade facing 4000 West.

DAI’s presenter, who identified himself as Joe with DAI, said the company planned a neighborhood‑oriented, higher‑quality storage facility with 66 RV/boat stalls, a mix of drive‑up and climate‑controlled units and a staffed on‑site residence. Joe said the project represents more than $14 million of investment and cited two market studies (Bear River Storage Consulting and Self Storage 101) and an Extra Space internal analysis in support of the project’s feasibility. He said the developer would install an eight‑foot precast masonry wall along the residential property lines and asked the commission to remove or reduce several landscape buffer requirements and allow signage on building faces as an alternative to a pole sign.

Staff also told commissioners that an amended traffic study reviewed by the city engineer showed the storage project would generate fewer vehicle trips in its initial phase than the single‑family subdivision previously contemplated for the site, and staff summarized other site elements including phase sequencing, perimeter fencing, and proposed setbacks.

Public comment focused heavily on traffic, access and safety. Multiple residents from nearby subdivisions — including Matt Yore and Bob Coomer — described heavy local traffic, peak‑hour backups on 4000 West and adjacent neighborhood cut‑throughs. Commenters expressed particular concern about large RV and boat turning movements into the proposed outdoor vehicle storage, the condition of nearby local streets, and the potential for future higher‑intensity development across the street. Staff acknowledged current construction on nearby roads (100th/118th South and other projects) is increasing short‑term traffic and noted regional traffic forecasts anticipate significant growth; staff said UDOT and regional agencies are tracking long‑term changes and that the city is updating its transportation master plan.

Commissioners pressed the applicant and staff on several technical issues. Commissioner Rushton and others sought clarity on building heights and setbacks; staff pointed out an inconsistency between the draft development agreement (which included a 32‑foot limit in one clause) and the elevations shown in exhibits (applicant documents and renderings discussed maximum peak heights of about 36 and 41 feet for two building faces). The applicant told the commission phase 1 would be single‑story storage buildings and said that future two‑story construction would require further approvals and neighborhood discussion; he also said the project team had an agreement with one adjacent neighbor that they would not build two‑story structures without that neighbor’s consent.

After discussion, Commissioner Cannon moved to recommend approval of the development agreement (PLZ‑25‑4001) as presented. Commissioner Rushton proposed a friendly amendment to clarify and reconcile height language in Section 5.9 of the draft agreement; the amendment was accepted by the mover and seconded. The commission voted by roll call and the recommendation passed unanimously.

The commission’s recommendation limits allowed uses to storage and outdoor vehicle storage, staggers development in phases, and includes architectural and screening commitments from the applicant. It also asks staff and the applicant to correct inconsistencies in the written agreement — principally the explicit numerical height limits — prior to the city council’s May 6 hearing.

Because the planning commission acted in an advisory capacity on this legislative‑style development agreement, the next step is a city council public hearing and final decision.