Meeting colors

OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD

Record of Proceedings

Riverton City Council Meeting Summary - September 1, 2026

Meeting Portal — Tuesday, September 1, 2026

BodyRiverton, Utah

SessionMeeting Portal

DateTuesday, September 1, 2026

StatusFILED

Video Record

0:00 / 3:36:27

Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it

5:03

I tried.

5:03

Oh, can you hear me?

5:04

There it goes.

5:05

Now we're there.

5:06

Okay, council.

5:09

I don't know, it's not very loud, I guess.

5:11

It's not very loud, is it?

5:14

Testing, testing.

5:16

No, no, no, that's fine.

5:24

No respect.

5:27

This is a very disconcerting way to start a very appropriate official meeting.

5:34

It's been a minute.

5:35

Okay, welcome everyone to the work session.

5:38

Um I'll call this meeting to order, and we will start immediately with accessory dwelling units.

5:45

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?

5:55

And and uh Jason, do you have a presentation regarding this one or not?

6:01

I I won't call it a presentation.

6:03

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.

6:12

So do you want to start with that?

6:14

Yeah, is that acceptable?

6:15

Yeah, start with the presentation, the feedback.

6:19

Okay, yeah.

6:22

Okay, sir, you're on.

6:23

Oh, sorry, was it okay if I just briefly said just the kind of thing?

6:27

You want to level set it?

6:29

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?

6:43

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?

6:50

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?

7:00

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.

7:07

But I I'm not again not necessarily saying that I'm pushing for that.

7:12

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?

7:23

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?

7:34

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.

7:43

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.

7:56

And uh so I think uh Mr.

7:59

Lethbridge can share that information and then we can have an additional discussion.

8:03

I've scheduled about 15 minutes for this portion.

8:05

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.

8:35

Um, you know, with people adult people, it's not necessarily the same as family.

8:40

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.

8:46

That made me think about do we have any guardrails or is it just what it is?

8:50

So okay.

8:51

Yeah, so um maybe I'll I'll start with that question.

8:55

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.

9:09

It's it's basically registration.

9:12

Uh just make sure that uh they're they're generally compliant with our code and and then we have a record.

9:18

That really is focused on the space.

9:21

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.

9:28

So our permitting process really is looking at saying um are they meeting the requirement for space?

9:34

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.

9:47

So we allow those, uh the state has made them uh allowable by right, but the ADU permit permits the space itself.

9:58

That's a little more straightforward.

10:00

Somebody gets an ADU permit, they are allowed to put you know living space into an accessory structure or into their basement.

10:06

The the question of use becomes a little bit more complicated.

10:11

One of the parts of that is as council member Smith indicated is how how many people can rent a single space.

10:18

If you have an ADU, you know, if you have a basement rental that has three bedrooms, uh, that could be rented to one family, but then the question of what about someone who says, Well, I'd like to rent those bedrooms out to three individuals.

10:32

We have interpreted, we being staff have interpreted our code thus far to say you can have one accessory dwelling unit and one rental contract.

10:42

So someone says, Well, I've got a basement, I'd like to rent out uh each bedroom to a different person.

10:48

We where we are aware of that, we said nope, that's only allowed if it's one rental contract and they're just sharing it.

10:55

Because as far as tracking and defining an ADU, it becomes more complicated if they have three different contracts, they're essentially renting each room as a separate ADU.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting

Land Use Regulation███████████████████████████████31%

Zoning Regulations███████████████15%

Transportation Safety█████████9%

Immigration Policy████████8%

Accessory Dwelling Units███████7%

Procedural███████7%

Community Engagement██████6%

Youth Programs████4%

Public Engagement████4%

Summary of Proceedings

Riverton City Council Meeting Summary - September 1, 2026

The Riverton City Council held a work session beginning at 5:33 PM and a regular meeting at 7:00 PM on September 1, 2026. The work session focused on a discussion of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and high-density zoning options. The regular meeting included approval of a consent agenda (with one item pulled for separate discussion), a resolution regarding Western Hills Drive access, public hearings on two development agreements (Timberline and Majestic Homes), and citizen comments on the city's 287(g) agreement with federal immigration authorities. The council voted to deny both development agreements and passed the Western Hills Drive resolution with a 4-1 vote.

Consent Calendar

The council approved the Consent Agenda (items a, b, and d) with a unanimous vote, after removing item c (Resolution No. 26-42) for separate discussion. Items approved included: Minute Approval from August 4, 2026; Resolution No. 26-41 declaring equipment surplus; and Resolution No. 26-43 authorizing a franchise agreement with Comcast of Utah II, Inc.

Public Comments & Testimony

Timberline Development Agreement (Ordinance No. 26-06): Multiple residents expressed opposition, citing incompatibility with the surrounding RR-22 neighborhood, concerns about traffic, pedestrian safety, lack of sidewalks, reduced lot sizes, and the proposed RM-8 density. Speakers included Dave Kennedy, Ellen Ford, Bob Ford (Riverton Heritage Group), Robert Clayton, Simon Raubenheimer, Kelcie Dobson, Christopher Dobson, Bryton Flynn, Skye Flynn, Michelle Dobson, Shane Johnson, and Alicia Clayton. Many requested denial or continuation for further review. The applicant (Fieldstone) presented revisions and addressed questions.
Majestic Homes Rezone (Ordinance No. 26-16): Residents opposed the proposed RM-14 zoning, requesting denial or lower density (e.g., RM-6). Speakers included Ashlee Mobley, Dave Mobley, Brook Hill, Dean Warkentin, Louisa Jones, Travis Christensen, David Cluff, and James Kidman. They cited traffic impacts, school safety, neighborhood character, and the large jump from RR-22 to RM-14.
Citizen Comment (General): Several residents spoke regarding the city's 287(g) agreement. Simon Raubenheimer and Dean Warkentin expressed support for law enforcement and immigration enforcement. Kayla Leishman, Brendan Warkentin (Salt Lake DSA), Matt Soper, Alyssa Ferris (DSA), and Peter Cizmadia opposed the agreement, citing concerns about civil rights, community trust, and alleged violations of city code. Robert Clayton and Dave Mobley expressed support for the agreement, emphasizing lawful enforcement and transparency. Bob Ford also expressed support.

Discussion Items

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) Discussion (Work Session): Councilmember Pierucci suggested reviewing the ADU ordinance for modernization, including allowing additional ADUs on larger properties and improving enforcement. Councilmember Smith raised concerns about consistency and parking impacts from unrelated roommates. Jason Lethbridge reviewed current regulations, noting most cities allow only one ADU per lot (Hurricane allows two on lots ≥0.8 acres). The majority of the council expressed support for maintaining existing ADU regulations. Staff will monitor state-level changes.
High Density Zoning Options (Work Session): Councilmember Haymond proposed limiting infill development to RM-6 maximum density to match surrounding neighborhoods. Some councilmembers supported greater limitations; others opposed blanket restrictions, preferring to address density through the General Plan update. The council generally agreed that the General Plan is the appropriate mechanism for establishing long-term density expectations.
Resolution No. 26-42 – Western Hills Drive Access: Jason Lethbridge explained that the cooperative agreement with UDOT was being amended to reopen Western Hills Drive as a right-in/right-out connection to the southbound frontage road of Mountain View Corridor. Councilmember Pierucci expressed concern for affected residents in Western Springs, noting significant travel pattern changes. The resolution passed 4-1 (Pierucci voting no).
Ordinance No. 26-06 – Timberline Development Agreement: The applicant proposed RM-8 zoning on 4.24 acres at 13518 & 13506 S. Redwood Road, with 31 lots, reduced setbacks, and a future public roadway connection. The Planning Commission had recommended RM-6, but UDOT required road connections. The council discussed density, parking, traffic, and compatibility. Councilmember Haymond moved to deny; the motion passed 4-1 (Johnson voting no).
Ordinance No. 26-16 – Majestic Homes Rezone: The applicant requested RM-14 zoning on 3.14 acres at 13172 S. Redwood Road for 30 twin-home units (9.5 units/acre). The Planning Commission recommended denial. Councilmembers noted incompatibility with surrounding RR-22 zoning and neighborhood character. Councilmember Pierucci moved to deny; the motion passed unanimously.

Key Outcomes

ADU Ordinance: The council decided not to pursue changes to the existing ADU ordinance at this time. Staff will continue monitoring state and other jurisdictions.
High Density Zoning: The council agreed to address density expectations through the upcoming General Plan update rather than immediate code changes.
Resolution No. 26-42 (Western Hills Drive): Approved 4-1 (Haymond, Johnson, McDougal, Smith in favor; Pierucci opposed).
Ordinance No. 26-06 (Timberline Development Agreement): Denied 4-1 (Haymond, McDougal, Pierucci, Smith in favor of denial; Johnson opposed).
Ordinance No. 26-16 (Majestic Homes Rezone): Denied unanimously (5-0).
Closed Session: The council voted unanimously (5-0) to enter a closed session at 9:54 PM to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation. The meeting adjourned at 10:50 PM.

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.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI

TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com