Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Grantsville planning commission tables conditional-use permit for equipment-rental business at 40 E. Main
Summary
The commission tabled a conditional-use permit for Spencer Rents at 40 East Main Street after staff and commissioners raised questions about zoning definitions, front-yard setbacks and parking for loading/unloading; the applicant was advised to explore rezoning, lot split or shared access options.
The Grantsville City Planning Commission on Sept. 4 tabled consideration of a conditional-use permit for Spencer Rents, a proposed equipment-rental business at 40 East Main Street, after members and staff raised concerns about whether the proposed operation would qualify as a permitted "equipment rental" or as prohibited "heavy equipment" rental and whether the site could meet setback and parking requirements.
Planning staff told the commission that the city's zoning code treats heavy-equipment rental as not permitted in the CS (commercial shopping) zone while "equipment rentals" are conditional, and that the contract attorney found no explicit code definition to resolve the difference. Staff also said the parcel is a lawful nonconforming lot under Chapter 5, Section 5.2, meaning it can continue in its existing configuration but new construction must comply with current zoning.
The applicant, who identified herself as Lindsay Osler, told commissioners the business would store small, "mini" machines such as mini excavators and skid steers and would be used for delivery and pickup rather than customer parking on site. "It's just to put up a metal storage garage," Osler said, adding she had measured the lot and believed the equipment would fit and be stored without on-site customer traffic.
Commissioners said the two issues that prevented immediate approval were (1) whether the proposed machines meet the city's weight threshold for "heavy equipment," which the commission said would not be allowed in the CS zone, and (2) the site plan's lack of designated parking and concerns that loading and unloading could block McMichael Street, which serves the nearby high school and church. A staff member also noted that accessory buildings in the city's code are permitted only in rear yards, and the proposed structure would be considered in the front yard based on the lot orientation.
Members discussed alternatives the applicant could pursue: seeking a variance if the lot's configuration creates a unique hardship; applying for rezoning to a district with smaller minimum-lot-size requirements (staff suggested CD or CN as possible options); subdividing the parcel into two conforming lots; or negotiating shared access with an adjacent business to address setbacks and parking. Staff emphasized that zoning changes are legislative and not guaranteed.
Commissioner (unnamed in transcript) moved to table the application; the motion was seconded and the hearing was tabled so the applicant can explore the options discussed and return with a revised approach.
The planning commission did not adopt the conditional-use permit at this meeting. Next steps for the applicant include working with city staff on a site plan that addresses setbacks and parking, investigating rezoning or lot-split options, and, if pursued, returning to the commission for further consideration.
