Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Commercial Storage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission approves commercial storage project in Wanship with added stormwater consultation after public safety and runoff concerns
Summary
The commission approved a proposed 60-unit commercial storage development in the Red Onion amended subdivision in Wanship, subject to conditions and an added requirement that the applicant consult the county stormwater division about best practices to protect Silver Creek; one commissioner voted no and one recused.
Get email alerts on the Commercial Storage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Eastern Summit County Planning Commission voted to approve a conditional use permit and final site plan for a commercial storage and outdoor storage facility in the Red Onion amended subdivision in Wanship, with an additional condition requiring the applicant to consult the county stormwater division on best practices to protect nearby Silver Creek. One commissioner recorded a dissenting vote and one commissioner recused.
Planner Tiffany presented the application for Lot 3 in the amended Red Onion subdivision, a 6.21-acre parcel located behind the former Chicken Inn. The applicant proposes seven buildings containing 60 indoor storage units totaling about 18,570 square feet and an open outdoor storage area of roughly 17,366 square feet. The plan includes 64 parking spaces; county code requires three parking spaces per 1,000 square feet (roughly 55 spaces). The property contains a Rocky Mountain Power transmission-line easement down the center; units built within that easement will be limited to 12 feet in height, Tiffany said. Portions of the site are inside the floodplain and the county engineer (floodplain manager) has reviewed the plans; the proposal includes required floodplain notes.
Tiffany said the property sits adjacent to the rail-trail corridor; code generally requires a 100-foot setback from the trail corridor, but those requirements do not apply uniformly in the commercial zone. The applicant proposed a 50-foot setback from the rail-trail and additional landscaping and a six-foot fence to screen the outdoor storage area. Lighting is proposed as down-facing, motion-activated fixtures mounted on buildings, not pole lights.
The staff report noted an engineering and stormwater review had been completed; Tiffany said engineering had reviewed materials and provided conditions the applicant addressed. The staff recommendation was approval with the standard findings, conclusions of law and conditions.
Several members of the public spoke. Clayton Vernon, owner of an existing storage facility across the highway, said he supported the project but cautioned that open storage can create oil-leak and visual-clutter issues. TJ Bates, a Wanship resident, opposed the project on community-character grounds, arguing the town should seek uses that bring more community activity rather than additional storage units; Bates also urged caution about nonlocal renters. Other residents asked about runoff and flood risk given proximity to Silver Creek.
The applicant, Sheldon Smith, described security measures including a keyed gate with individual access codes, perimeter fencing and motion-activated lighting; he said he and family live adjacent and would monitor activity. He also said engineering had supplied stormwater controls and that a retention feature would keep runoff on-site.
During commissioner discussion, questions focused on the transmission-line easement, building heights for different unit types (18 feet typical for front units; 12 feet for easement-constrained units), the gravel surface and stormwater controls, and floodplain elevation (structures must be built at least one foot above the floodplain). Commissioners and staff discussed adding a berm or other physical mitigation between the storage area and the creek. The commission added a condition that the applicant consult the county stormwater division on best practices to protect Silver Creek; staff and applicant agreed that if the stormwater division identified a mitigation measure that materially altered the approved plan, the applicant would return to the commission for a site-plan modification.
After motions and discussion, the planning commission approved the CUP and final site plan with the extra condition to consult stormwater; the record shows one commissioner recused and one commissioner voted against the motion. The transcript does not contain a detailed roll-call tally. Staff will require recording of the final site plan and building- and grading-permit-level stormwater protections prior to construction.
