Riverton City Council Meeting – September 1, 2026: ADU Discussion, Rezone Denials, and ICE Agreement Comments
Riverton City Council Meeting – September 1, 2026
The Riverton City Council held a hybrid work session and regular meeting on September 1, 2026, at 12830 South Redwood Road. The work session (5:30 PM) focused on accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and high-density zoning options. The regular meeting (7:00 PM) included presentations, consent agenda items, public hearings on two development proposals, and a general public comment period regarding the city’s 287(g) agreement with ICE. Key outcomes included the denial of both rezoning applications and approval of a UDOT cooperative agreement amendment.
Consent Calendar
- Minute Approval: The minutes from August 4, 2026, were approved.
- Resolution 26-41: Declared surplus equipment and authorized its disposal.
- Resolution 26-43: Authorized a franchise agreement with Comcast of Utah 2, Inc.
- The consent agenda was approved after removing item 13c for separate discussion.
Resolution 26-42 – UDOT Cooperative Agreement Amendment
Councilmember Perucci requested separate discussion of this item. The amendment updates a prior agreement with the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) regarding access to Western Hills Drive from the Mountain View Corridor. The change will open a right-in/right-out onto the southbound frontage road, affecting a neighborhood that sends its children to schools in Harriman. Councilmember Perucci expressed concerns about neighborhood impacts but acknowledged the project is under UDOT’s authority. The council voted 4–1 to approve the resolution (Perucci opposed; Smith, McDougall, Heyman, Johnson in favor).
Presentations & Recognitions
- Youth Tennis State Champions: Seth Andrews and Nikko Wray were recognized for winning the singles one and two state championships, respectively, at the U.S. Youth Tennis State Championship on May 9, 2026. They received medallions commemorating the semiquincentennial.
- Youth Council Executive Board Oath of Office: New officers were sworn in, including the youth council mayor, activity director, communications director, and a service coordinator. The youth council provides hundreds of volunteer hours at city events.
- Waste Management Donation: Waste Management donated $2,500 to support youth council scholarships.
Work Session Discussion: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
Councilmembers Smith and Perucci led a discussion on whether to modernize the ADU ordinance. Topics included allowing more than one ADU on larger lots, enforcement mechanisms, the definition of “family,” and the potential impact on neighborhoods (parking, traffic, school capacity). Staff presented data on other cities (Hurricane allows two ADUs on lots over 0.8 acres; Draper redefined “family” to remove the four-unrelated-person limit). Councilmembers expressed varied views: support for exploring strategic tweaks (Perucci), strong opposition to expanding ADU allowances (McDougall), and preference for the current ordinance (Heyman, Johnson, Smith). The consensus was to maintain the existing ordinance while monitoring state-level developments.
Work Session Discussion: High Density Zoning Options
Councilmember Heyman raised concerns about infill development on small parcels with densities (e.g., RM-8, RM-14) that are incompatible with surrounding half-acre and quarter-acre lots. He proposed limiting infill to R-6 (quarter-acre) or matching adjacent lot sizes. Other councilmembers (Johnson, Perucci) cautioned against tying the council’s hands and preferred to address the issue through the upcoming general plan update. The discussion concluded without action; staff will incorporate feedback into the citywide general plan revision, with particular attention to Redwood Road corridor standards.
Public Hearing: Ordinance 26-06 – Timberline Development Agreement
This proposal sought to rezone approximately 4.24 acres at 13518 & 13506 S Redwood Road from RR-22 and C-N to RM-8 with a development agreement for 31 single-family detached homes on lots as small as 2,900 sq ft. The planning commission had recommended RM-6 (5,000 sq ft lots) with no neighborhood road connections, but UDOT later required a public road connection to Redwood Road and preserved a future connection to 1350 South. Public comments from residents (Kennedy, Ford, Clayton, Robenheimer, Dobson, Flynn, Johnson, and others) opposed the density, safety, traffic, and lack of sidewalks, and asked for RM-6 or denial. Council discussion addressed traffic studies, parking (124 off-street spaces), UDOT’s role, and compatibility with the neighborhood. Councilmember Heyman moved to deny the ordinance; the motion passed 3–1 (Smith, McDougall, Heyman in favor; Johnson opposed). The project was denied.
Public Hearing: Ordinance 26-16 – Majestic Homes Rezone
This application sought to rezone 3.14 acres at 13172 S Redwood Road from RR-22 and C-N to RM-14 for 30 twin-home units (9.5 units per acre). The planning commission recommended denial. Public comments (Mobley, Hill, Workington, Jones, Christensen, Cuff, Kidman, and others) echoed concerns about density, traffic near a school, lack of sidewalks, and incompatibility with the existing rural character. Councilmember Perucci moved to deny, citing the project’s inconsistency with surrounding zoning and precedent. The motion passed unanimously (5–0).
Public Comments: 287(g) ICE Agreement
Several residents spoke during the general citizen comment period regarding Riverton City’s 287(g) agreement with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Speakers in favor (Clayton, Ford, Mobley) argued that the agreement provides tools for law enforcement and does not turn local police into border patrol; they urged the council to keep it. Opponents (Leishman, Watkinton, Soper, Ferris, Cizanoldra) claimed the agreement violates city code, undermines trust in police, and leads to inhumane treatment; they demanded a public vote or immediate cancellation. No council action was taken on this item.
Key Outcomes
- Consent agenda approved (all routine items) after pulling Resolution 26-42.
- Resolution 26-42 (UDOT agreement) approved 4–1.
- Ordinance 26-06 (Timberline Development Agreement) denied 3–1.
- Ordinance 26-16 (Majestic Homes Rezone) denied 5–0.
- No changes were made to the ADU ordinance; the topic will be revisited if state mandates arise.
- High-density zoning policy will be addressed in the citywide general plan update.
- The council adjourned to a closed session to discuss pending litigation.
Meeting Transcript
I tried. Oh, can you hear me? There it goes. Now we're there. Okay, council. I don't know, it's not very loud, I guess. It's not very loud, is it? Testing, testing. No, no, no, that's fine. No respect. This is a very disconcerting way to start a very appropriate official meeting. It's been a minute. Okay, welcome everyone to the work session. Um I'll call this meeting to order, and we will start immediately with accessory dwelling units. Councilmember Smith and Councilmember Perucci, does one of you want to lead out on your uh issue and concern and why you want to have this discussed? And and uh Jason, do you have a presentation regarding this one or not? I I won't call it a presentation. I put some data together in response to some of the questions, but my thought was I this is as much for staff to listen, so I have that available as the conversation goes. So do you want to start with that? Yeah, is that acceptable? Yeah, start with the presentation, the feedback. Okay, yeah. Okay, sir, you're on. Oh, sorry, was it okay if I just briefly said just the kind of thing? You want to level set it? At least my rationale is absolutely I'm not necessarily advocating for or against making changes to our ADU ordinance, but I think that it's helpful for us to at least consider should we modernize our ordinance? Are there things that we're incentivizing that we don't want to incentivize or are there things that we do want to incentivize that we're not with the current ordinance? So, for example, I I know that there's been a resident that's brought up some concerns about like one ADU per single family home, right? Uh and there are circumstances where it may it could potentially make sense to allow more than one if if parking is covered and dealt with. But I I'm not again not necessarily saying that I'm pushing for that. I just wanted to see what what is the norm and what should we be considering and also do we have the proper enforcement mechanisms in place for our existing ADU ordinance? Because I I get the sense that right now we are enforcing based upon complaint, like almost all of our other code issues, and is that necessarily the best? And if I wouldn't be comfortable tweaking our ordinance to allow for more options if we didn't add more of a robust enforcement mechanism. Well, I do have to commend both of you for bringing the issue up because you're exactly right, and it's prompted the city staff and myself to spend some time discussing it and to examine and explore what our current ordinance is. And uh so I think uh Mr. Lethbridge can share that information and then we can have an additional discussion. I've scheduled about 15 minutes for this portion. If I can't council member Smith, please if I can add to that, I it it was a uh resident that originally brought this up, and the the thing that was concerning to me, or maybe kind of inconsistent that I don't know if I have the answer to the question about is we can have roommates say you know, four adult males can live in an apartment because they're roommates, but there's not like you're saying not any really guardrails because of course a rugby team would be natural to have roommates, but then the roommates creates a lot of parking problems. Um, you know, with people adult people, it's not necessarily the same as family. So that's something as he brought up the concern or the desire to have a second ADU, and he he compare that to the roommate situation. That made me think about do we have any guardrails or is it just what it is? So okay. Yeah, so um maybe I'll I'll start with that question. Um our accessory dwelling unit ordinance uh has some standards as far as as construction and placement, and then there's a requirement for uh obviously any building permits that are needed, but then we have an ADU permit. It's it's basically registration. Uh just make sure that uh they're they're generally compliant with our code and and then we have a record. That really is focused on the space. And and this is where some of the the confusion with the public and some you know what is considered an ADU and how many people. So our permitting process really is looking at saying um are they meeting the requirement for space? And and part of what I mean by that is in a detached accessory structure, our code says you can't have a kitchen or or what would constitute living space in a detached structure unless it is an ADU.
openpublica.com