OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Riverton Planning Commission Meeting - October 10, 2024

Meeting Portal — Thursday, October 10, 2024
BodyRiverton, Utah
SessionMeeting Portal
DateThursday, October 10, 2024
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 1:52:07

Transcript — Verbatim
1:40

Let's go ahead and get started.

1:42

I'm Commissioner Matheson, the chair of this uh commission.

1:46

Thank you for being here, interested citizens and those with uh things to present to us.

1:52

Uh we want to make sure that you understand that if you feel a need to address this audience, you will have an up an opportunity to do so.

2:01

Uh we want to have an organized meeting and keep it civil and all of that.

2:05

Uh once whatever item you are here for is finished, we welcome you to stay for the next one if you want to, or be on your way.

2:15

So we won't be offended if a bunch of folks uh take off.

2:20

We will start tonight with a pledge of allegiance, and uh Matthew Bell said that he would lead that for us.

2:27

He consented to do so.

2:28

Thank you, Matthew.

2:29

Please stand.

2:33

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which you stand.

2:42

One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

2:49

Thank you.

3:03

Commissioner Keel.

3:05

Commissioner Matheson.

3:07

Commissioner Cleph.

3:08

Commissioner Beck.

3:10

Commissioner Cannon.

3:12

Thank you.

3:14

Our first item tonight, and this is a public hearing.

3:19

Uh so we will open it and then we will first discuss the McKay Development Agreement.

3:24

PLZ 24-6001.

3:28

An application developed property at 2682 West, 13400 south with exceptions to the city code.

3:37

This item was continued from the September twelfth planning commission meeting.

3:41

The applicant is Daniel McKay.

3:44

And we'll turn time to staff.

3:45

I'll just very quickly go through this since this was uh continued from the previous meeting as you indicated, uh Mr.

3:51

Chair.

3:51

This is right on the corner of 134th and 2700 West.

3:55

It's an existing uh vacant lot.

3:58

A couple of different shots of it, again, point three two acres, uh, looking at from those different directions.

4:04

Uh the applicants uh submitted the application for a development agreement, which is uh a newer tool for Riverton City.

4:12

It it allows for uh things like zoning and uh variations on existing code to be incorporated into an agreement.

4:21

So the planning commission's uh function here is to make a recommendation to the city council uh on the development agreement and any conditions they would like included in it.

4:32

Uh the applicant had submitted uh with the development agreement template, uh some drawings showing a triplex on the property.

4:40

That's the the crux of the agreement is to allow uh additional units on the property.

4:45

It was tabled uh for the purpose to allow the the applicant to uh respond to some of the concerns raised, perhaps present additional information.

4:53

Uh so that is uh our presentation and we'll leave uh time for the applicant in public hearing to uh to address those questions.

5:01

Okay, thank you.

5:03

Uh let's start off with any questions for staff.

5:08

Commissioner Cannon.

5:13

I wasn't at the meeting that this was tabled, but I have reviewed uh the minutes uh at great length, and um I guess I have a couple questions.

5:26

What first one what is the purpose or intent of not going through the regular rezone process and using a master development agreement in this situation?

5:46

And I and I would that's why I said I wasn't here.

5:48

This the questions may have been may have been asked.

5:50

I I'd like I'd like those to be so the purpose and intent that portion of that question really could be addressed by the applicant.

5:59

This is uh an application for development agreement, not the city, because in the in the past when we have used these tools, primarily it has been the city uh kind of initiating the process for for larger developments such as Mountain View Village or developments within our redevelopment area.

6:15

So this is really I believe the first application that we have seen from an applicant requesting this.

6:21

So the purpose and intent would be uh clarification that the applicant could provide.

6:25

It is it is available to them both under state code and Riverton City ordinance to apply for a development agreement as opposed to a rezone or a code change.

6:36

One of the things that you get into when you have smaller projects is that sometimes if you have kind of a desire to put something in that's a little bit different than was previously imagined.

6:48

Uh, even if you do get a rezone for a higher density, you may still run into several problems like setback requirements, things to that effect.

6:55

The development agreement is like a tailored ordinance like a suit is to a person.

7:02

So what that translates to mean in this particular development agreement is that if you were to take a look at page 8 of 32 on it, you will see a list of exceptions to the vested laws.

7:14

And these are areas where the project envisioned by the applicant would not comport with default existing zoning code.

7:23

And so what they're saying in the in the development agreement is that these are the standards that would apply that are unique to this project in page 8 of 32, section 3.2.1.1.

7:33

So the answer is the development agreement is a tool that allows you to make exceptions to the code as it's written, but unique to this project.

7:43

Does it that's my first question?

7:45

Does it um speed up the process um of not having to go through a zone change?

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Land Use Regulation█████████████████████████████████████████████59%
Procedural███████9%
Public Engagement███████9%
Transportation Safety████5%
Private Lane Regulation████5%
Affordable Housing███4%
Developer Relations██3%
Zoning Regulations██3%
Economic Development█1%
Summary of Proceedings

Riverton Planning Commission Meeting - October 10, 2024

The Riverton City Planning Commission met on October 10, 2024, at 6:30 PM at City Hall. The meeting included three public hearings: a proposed development agreement for a multi-family project at 2682 West 13400 South, an amendment to a storage facility conditional use permit, and a private lane request for a new subdivision. The Commission voted to recommend denial of the development agreement (4-1), approved the storage amendment unanimously, and approved the private lane with conditions.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • McCay Development Agreement: Numerous residents spoke in opposition, citing concerns about safety, traffic congestion, precedent for multi-family zoning, and the character of the neighborhood. Speakers included Kenneth Beck (73-year resident, urged single-family home or park), Darren Kirkham (property owner, feared precedent would lead to widespread multifamily), Candy London (argued consistency with previous denials), Heather Fairmont (stated low-class people would be attracted), Kelly Peterson (petition organizer, main concern was precedent for adjacent farm), Nyall London (favored single-family home, suggested city buy land for park), Tammy Chadwell (worried about children's play space), Tracy Halverson (opposed high-density, blamed legislature for affordability), Mike Baird (opposed, said commission's job is to protect property values), and Angel Reyes (alleged conflict of interest due to applicant being a state senator).
  • My Storage Amendment 2: No public comments were received.
  • Myers Park Phase 2 Private Lane: One written comment was received from a neighbor requesting protection of trees along the canal. Tom Davis, a neighboring property owner, spoke concerns about privacy due to tall homes planned and the lane's width pushing homes closer to the canal.

Discussion Items

  • McCay Development Agreement (PLZ-24-6001): Applicant Daniel McCay presented three alternative site plans (townhomes, twin homes, or separate single-family homes) with a single ingress/egress point on 2700 West, a traffic study projecting 7,900 daily trips on 2700 West by 2050, and a cost analysis showing an 8.5% profit margin. He cited a statewide housing deficit of 37,000 homes and argued the lot has remained vacant due to zoning. Staff explained that development agreements are a tool for site-specific code exceptions, and this was the first applicant-initiated request. Attorney Ryan Carter clarified that approval would not force similar projects elsewhere. Commissioner Cannon supported the proposal as the highest and best use providing affordable housing; Chair Matheson and Commissioner Cluff opposed, citing precedent and safety concerns.
  • My Storage Amendment 2 (PLZ-24-8012): Staff presented changes reducing Building 300 from two stories to one, moving the parking driveway, and removing a row of interior trees. The parapet wall and mechanical screening were added. Staff recommended approval with conditions. Applicant Whitney Bernson noted he met with residents to address concerns.
  • Myers Park Phase 2 Private Lane (PLZ-24-2030): Staff described a 32-foot private lane serving 14 lots, with a single access through Phase 1, matching Phase 1's design. Fire code allows up to 30 lots on one access; the two phases total 29. Applicant Randy Moore explained a shared access agreement was recorded, and a secondary access was deemed impractical due to grading and lot impacts.

Key Outcomes

  • McCay Development Agreement: Motion to recommend denial (keeping existing R-2 Single Family zoning) passed 4-1 (Commissioner Cannon dissented). Commissioner Matheson moved, Commissioner Cluff seconded. The recommendation will go to the City Council.
  • My Storage Amendment 2: Motion to approve the amended conditional use permit and site plan with conditions (including screening rooftop mechanicals and maintaining previously approved improvements) passed unanimously.
  • Myers Park Phase 2 Private Lane: Motion to approve the conditional use permit for a private lane with 10 conditions (including matching Phase 1 width, turnaround, fire code compliance, and maintenance by homeowners) passed unanimously.
  • Minutes: The September 12, 2024 Planning Commission minutes were approved unanimously.

Meeting Transcript

Let's go ahead and get started. I'm Commissioner Matheson, the chair of this uh commission. Thank you for being here, interested citizens and those with uh things to present to us. Uh we want to make sure that you understand that if you feel a need to address this audience, you will have an up an opportunity to do so. Uh we want to have an organized meeting and keep it civil and all of that. Uh once whatever item you are here for is finished, we welcome you to stay for the next one if you want to, or be on your way. So we won't be offended if a bunch of folks uh take off. We will start tonight with a pledge of allegiance, and uh Matthew Bell said that he would lead that for us. He consented to do so. Thank you, Matthew. Please stand. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which you stand. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Commissioner Keel. Commissioner Matheson. Commissioner Cleph. Commissioner Beck. Commissioner Cannon. Thank you. Our first item tonight, and this is a public hearing. Uh so we will open it and then we will first discuss the McKay Development Agreement. PLZ 24-6001. An application developed property at 2682 West, 13400 south with exceptions to the city code. This item was continued from the September twelfth planning commission meeting. The applicant is Daniel McKay. And we'll turn time to staff. I'll just very quickly go through this since this was uh continued from the previous meeting as you indicated, uh Mr. Chair. This is right on the corner of 134th and 2700 West. It's an existing uh vacant lot. A couple of different shots of it, again, point three two acres, uh, looking at from those different directions. Uh the applicants uh submitted the application for a development agreement, which is uh a newer tool for Riverton City. It it allows for uh things like zoning and uh variations on existing code to be incorporated into an agreement. So the planning commission's uh function here is to make a recommendation to the city council uh on the development agreement and any conditions they would like included in it. Uh the applicant had submitted uh with the development agreement template, uh some drawings showing a triplex on the property. That's the the crux of the agreement is to allow uh additional units on the property. It was tabled uh for the purpose to allow the the applicant to uh respond to some of the concerns raised, perhaps present additional information. Uh so that is uh our presentation and we'll leave uh time for the applicant in public hearing to uh to address those questions. Okay, thank you. Uh let's start off with any questions for staff. Commissioner Cannon. I wasn't at the meeting that this was tabled, but I have reviewed uh the minutes uh at great length, and um I guess I have a couple questions. What first one what is the purpose or intent of not going through the regular rezone process and using a master development agreement in this situation? And I and I would that's why I said I wasn't here. This the questions may have been may have been asked. I I'd like I'd like those to be so the purpose and intent that portion of that question really could be addressed by the applicant. This is uh an application for development agreement, not the city, because in the in the past when we have used these tools, primarily it has been the city uh kind of initiating the process for for larger developments such as Mountain View Village or developments within our redevelopment area. So this is really I believe the first application that we have seen from an applicant requesting this. So the purpose and intent would be uh clarification that the applicant could provide.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com