Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ordinance Administration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission weighs whether storage‑facility redesign is a 'minor modification' under city code
Summary
Staff asked whether reducing a proposed two‑story, ~20,000‑sq‑ft storage building to a single‑story ~9,900‑sq‑ft building (cutting unit count from roughly 169 to 87) is a minor modification or requires a new conditional‑use application; commissioners were split but generally agreed staff may process it with clearer minor/major definitions to follow.
Planning staff asked the commission to interpret whether a proposed reduction in scale for a storage‑unit project constitutes a minor modification or requires a new conditional‑use application and public hearing.
The applicant proposes to replace a planned two‑story, ~20,000‑square‑foot building with a single‑story structure of approximately 9,900 square feet that would reduce unit counts from about 169 to roughly 87. Staff noted the use would not change but the footprint and scale would be substantially different.
Commission discussion split. Some commissioners said the reduced scope is a less‑intensive use and could be handled as a minor modification at staff level; others said the change appeared to exceed a 50% change and that, objectively, such a large difference should return to the commission for public hearing. Director Jeff Flory said staff will document the commission's intent in writing and that modifications that materially change approved plans must return to the commission.
The commission expressed interest in clarifying thresholds for 'minor' versus 'major' modifications during the current ordinance rework. Staff agreed to bring definitions and parameters back for future commission consideration.
