Riverton Planning Commission Meeting – June 26, 2025

The Riverton City Planning Commission convened at 6:30 PM on June 26, 2025, in City Hall (12830 S. Redwood Road) to hold five public hearings and approve minutes. Following roll call, the Commission unanimously approved all five agenda items and the June 12, 2025 minutes, while the May 22, 2025 minutes were later unapproved due to a duplicate document error. The meeting adjourned at 8:04 PM.

Public Hearings & Discussion Items

2.a – Sarai Gonzalez CUHO (Home Beauty Salon)

• Project: Conditional use permit for a hair salon in the garage of a townhome at 4244 West Fremont Park Court. Applicant Sarai Gonzalez, a licensed cosmetologist, proposed operating by appointment only (one client at a time), 10 AM–6 PM, with 2–3 clients per day, using less than 50% of the garage and providing off‑street parking.
• Public Comments: One neighbor called to express concern that the HOA prohibits home occupations; the applicant stated the HOA said it was acceptable. A written email from the Parkside HOA for a different application was received but not clarified for this salon.
• Commission Discussion: Commissioner Rushton questioned whether the Commission should enforce HOA rules; City Attorney Ryan Carter confirmed cities do not enforce HOA regulations. Commissioner Matheson asked about water supply for the salon; the applicant will hire a plumber to connect to the adjacent bathroom. No other public testimony.
• Outcome: Approved unanimously (5‑0) with 8 conditions, including: max 8 customers per day, operation between 7 AM and 7 PM, use of up to 50% of garage, and off‑street parking. The condition about HOA bylaws was removed at the Commission’s request.

2.b – 13331 Trestle Lane CU‑Private Lane

• Project: Conditional use permit for a 20‑foot private lane to serve a 2‑lot subdivision at 13331 Trestle Lane. The existing home will stay on Lot 2; the lane will access Lot 1. The property is in the RR‑22 zone.
• Public Comments: Charlie Newman, a neighbor, asked that the condition limit the lane to only one lot (Lot 1) rather than “up to two lots.” The applicant agreed.
• Commission Discussion: Staff confirmed the lane qualifies as private because the depth prevents a public street, and a fire turnaround may be required. Commissioner Cannon supported the lane but urged a recorded maintenance agreement.
• Outcome: Approved unanimously with 9 conditions, including: lane width at least 20 feet paved, fire turnaround per Unified Fire Authority, and condition #2 changed to “one lot accessing the private lane.”

2.c – Meidell CU‑Private Lane

• Project: Modify the configuration of two previously approved private lanes (3525 West Private Lane and Tree House Lane) to rebalance users: 3525 West will serve 2 lots (requires 20 ft pavement), Tree House Lane will serve 3 lots (requires 25 ft pavement). No new lots created. Applicant Josh Meidell.
• Public Comments: Mark Kraft, a nearby resident of 30 years, supported the proposal, noting emergency vehicles had accessed the area without issues. He expressed concern about covering utilities if widening beyond 20 ft. He confirmed the parties will enter a legal maintenance agreement.
• Commission Discussion: Commissioner Cannon praised private lanes and encouraged a recorded document for maintenance. Commissioner Rushton asked about variance mechanisms; staff noted a variance could be sought through the Board of Adjustment, though the Commission cannot grant a width reduction.
• Outcome: Approved unanimously with 10 conditions, including: 3525 West limited to 2 users with 20 ft pavement, Tree House Lane limited to 3 users with 25 ft pavement, and a written shared‑access and maintenance agreement required.

2.d – Myers Cove Subdivision Preliminary Plan

• Project: Preliminary plan for a 4‑lot residential subdivision on 1.08 acres at 3807 West 11800 South. Zoning R‑4 with an SD designation (Ordinance 24‑11) limiting the property to 4 single‑story units with bonus rooms. Lots exceed 10,000 sf. Applicant Thom Belchak.
• Public Comments: None.
• Commission Discussion: Commissioner Rushton acknowledged the long process. Commissioner Cannon asked about demolishing the existing house; the applicant confirmed. Staff noted fencing is not required due to compatible zoning; existing vinyl fencing may remain.
• Outcome: Approved unanimously with 12 conditions, including: compliance with SD designations, final plan approval by staff, and existing fencing may remain or be replaced per code.

2.e – Myers Park Phase 2 Subdivision Preliminary Plan

• Project: Preliminary plan for 15 single‑family residences on 4.2 acres at 2400 West 11800 South. Zoning R‑4 with SD designation (Ordinance 24‑12). The development shares access with Phase 1 via a single connection to 11800 South. Lot 201 will access directly onto 11800 South. A 6‑foot masonry wall is required along the canal and Midas Creek due to incompatible zoning.
• Public Comments:
  • Brad Lifferth (Phase 1 resident): expressed concerns about lot sizes, price points (he feared $1.2M+), potential blind spots at the entrance, construction debris cleanup, and fencing. He questioned the need for masonry fencing along the canal.
  • Ryan Almond: asked why homeowners must build masonry fences based on a 2011 drowning incident in a city park. City Attorney Carter explained the policy rationale: vinyl fences create a false sense of safety, and the council prioritizes public health/safety.
  • Ken Higgins (downstream irrigation user): requested that the new valve box have two turn‑valve controls, both pipes at the same elevation, and that both valves be accessible from the new box. He noted the current design omitted the two‑pipe split.
• Commission Discussion: Commissioner Cannon suggested adding an acknowledgement of proximity to a canal (groundwater risk). City Attorney Carter noted that would be handled at building permit. Commissioner Rushton noted that the Board of Adjustment has granted three exceptions to the masonry fence requirement along canals. Applicant Randy Moore requested permission to use 6‑ft vinyl instead of masonry along the canal, but the Commission stated it cannot waive the code requirement. The applicant clarified that the irrigation concerns have been addressed: two pipes will be run instead of one, and both valves will be in the new box.
• Outcome: Approved unanimously with 13 conditions, including: coordination with downstream irrigation users (condition 10), 6‑foot masonry wall along the canal and Midas Creek (condition 13), and compliance with all SD designations. The irrigation design details (valve controls, pipe elevations) were not formalized in the conditions but are expected to be resolved during final plan review.

Minutes Approval

• May 22, 2025 Minutes: Initially approved, but immediately discovered that the wrong set of minutes (duplicate of June 12) had been provided. The Commission voted unanimously to unapprove the May 22 minutes; they will be reviewed at a future meeting.
• June 12, 2025 Minutes: Approved unanimously (5‑0).

Key Outcomes

• All five public hearing items were approved unanimously (5‑0 votes) with the conditions detailed above.
• The May 22, 2025 minutes were unapproved due to a document error; the correct minutes will be presented later.
• The June 12, 2025 minutes were approved.