Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

You're also quiet.

We can good. We can go. Good.

Welcome everybody to our uh Riverdale City Planning Commission meeting for uh Tuesday, March 10th, 2026. Um, we have all commissioners uh present tonight with the exception of Commissioner Boworp who is asked to be excused. Um, we will start with the public comment. If there's any public here that uh has comments they'd like to make that are not necessarily um pertaining to items that are on the agenda, uh, welcome to come forward now and uh, make those comments. We ask that you keep them to three minutes or or less. Anybody here? Okay. Then we'll move on to um item C which is presentation and reports uh community development update. Mr. Cooper, anything?

Nothing uh new. I will just reiterate what I mentioned in the work meeting that we are progressing with the code update. Uh we're waiting on some feedback about the uh redirection that we decided on with the neighborhood plans. So we'll hope to get that in the next little bit and just keep going with that. And if we do add that to our scope, if you recall, it'll be about a sixmonth extension to the work that we're currently uh doing now.

Okay. All right. Sounds great. Um item D will be consent items. Consideration of uh meeting minutes from February 24th, 2026 work session and regular meeting. Any um uh updates or changes that need to be made to those minutes? Then a motion is in order. I move that we approve the meeting minutes for February 24th, 2026 work session and regular meeting. Second. Second it. Okay. All in favor? Yes.

Any opposed? Okay. Thank you. Uh item E, action items. Um we'd like to start with uh on action items. Um before we go to the public hearing um I we I guess we have a presentation uh that you'd like to make. Would you just come forward and uh state your name and introduce yourself and uh then you're welcome to go ahead with your presentation. Thank you. Great. Thank you so much.

All right. Decide what what screen to look at. U Thanks so much for having me here today. My name is Kristen Cowan. Um, I'm representing CarMax. Uh, we're my company, Centerpoint Integrated Solutions, is CarMax's national development partner, uh, across the United States, and we're here to request a general plan amendment and, uh, reszone on, uh, 671 West 4400 South. So, um, before I get into the request, I wanted to talk a little bit about CarMax. Um they are the nation's largest retailer of used cars and what sets them apart from other dealerships and used car operations is a customer service driven experience. Uh they have over 250 stores in 41 states. Um, I think that is to uh to be 42 here soon with uh Arkansas and uh CarMax already has a location in South Jordan. Um it is um both a a sales auction and production facility. So you might notice that it is quite large. That's because it is it incorporates both the auction uh and production um in addition to the sales. So our proposal um after uh resoning would be for just a sales uh facility here. So a little bit about uh CarMax as a place to work. Uh they're consistently ranked in Fortune Magazine's best companies to work for. 21 years running. they have competitive pay and unmatched training and associates um often move up um from from sales uh to management. So they their training is really great um

and people really do enjoy work working for them. In addition, uh CarMax encourages associates uh to get involved with the CarMax Foundation and invest in local communities. Uh so they do um team uh opportunities with nonprofits in the local community. Uh and CarMax's financial results um really show that they they continue to grow. um their revenues are are large and vehicles sold and bought continue to be over one million uh per year. So, back to our proposal. Our location or the proposed location at 671 West 4400 South is at at that corner with South 700 West. Uh, and you can see it from Riverdale Road, really just right across the street from here. And the current zoning is R4 or uh attached residential and you can see it zoomed out there circled. Uh the the uh current zoning was changed uh in recent times from mobile home to R4 and historic uses on the property included the mobile home park as well as car's cycles uh which is a motorcycle uh sales and shop. Just wanted to show the adjacent zoning. So the the site is is bordered there in red and on three sides are commercial three uh zones in uses as well as residential 2, residential 5 and uh

mobile home residential to the north as well. So, the reason why we're uh requesting a general plan amendment is because the future land use map uh does identify it as attached residential um for future uses. However, there have been uh proposals that didn't work out and um the adjacent properties are commercial uses and zones. So we believe that the general plan objectives do support the general plan amendment uh because the general plan does recommend smart and sustainable development that places more intense development at major nodes like Riverdale Road and it also recommends optimizing land use designations based on opportunities and constraints. Um the economic development goals of the plan seek to incentivize commercial development along Riverdale Road and promote development of job growth, goods and services in the community. So why should the present zoning be changed? The location along Riverdale Road as well as the railroad really make it better suited for commercial uses. Uh the site is bordered by uh other C3 uses. On the same par or the same block is the Sinclair gas station as well as the Kgarf parking lot. On the same block across Riverdale Road there's the Kgarf Nissan and the Les Schwab Tires. And then across 700 West are the retail and restaurants. And as mentioned before, the Kengarf parking lot was recently reszoned from mobile home and R4 to C3 just in uh 2023.

So if approved, uh the CarMax site operations, I wanted to go show the conceptual site plan even though we won't be talking about the site plan elements at this time, but just what you can expect. So um CarMax operation site layout and operations really um have a the idea of a high-end retail experience for customers and how the layout works is makes things more efficient and and uh s friendly for customers. Um, so you can see here along Riverdale Road is the sales display area. And different from other dealerships and used car operations, this area is separate from customer and employee parking for both operational efficiency and safety. So customers um aren't able to to drive vehicles out of the sales display lot. only associates are able to to uh bring vehicles in and out through the presentation lane for customers to to take a look at and um do test drives. Uh once customers park in the customer employee parking, they can go uh into the sales building which is on the the western side there and then uh and then walk through this the uh sales display lot from there. Uh the attached service building is used for inspections and routine maintenance and service. Uh it's fully enclosed and conditioned with rollup doors. And then another thing that sets Carmax apart is that uh there's no use of outdoor loudspeakers, balloons, or inflatables. And then uh to the north is uh sales staging. So that's where vehicles are staged until they're ready to be put on the lot.

Just wanted to show a couple conceptual renderings that our architect has provided just to show what the what the the building would look like. And then uh in conclusion uh we request uh a favorable recommendation and concur with the staff report. um for this general plan amendment and resoning request uh from R4 to C3. Um we're so glad that you were able to have us here tonight um and happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much for that presentation. We really appreciate it. So um now um we will open the public hearing. Um, uh, chair, if you if you don't mind, I have a a follow-up presentation. Kristen did such a good job of giving my presentation that it'll be fairly short. If you don't mind, I could jump into that and then we can have the public hearing. I'll go ahead and sit down. Yes. Borrow that clicker, please. Of course.

Yeah. Just a few follow-up items. Um, as I mentioned, she did great. And, um, I just wanted to highlight a couple of things. Um, our job as staff is to as is to look at these applications and to, um, provide to you some recommendations and some guidance on on whether or not the U request is indeed compliant and consistent with the with the other parts of the general plan. As uh mentioned, this is um in the current land use master plan designated as the attached residential. This is largely due to the fact that when the general plan was created, the zoning had already taken place and so they just mimicked the zoning that had just happened on the property in the in the land use um plan as the attached residential. As a side note, and I'll come back to this later, you'll notice on this map that there's a there's a hatch mark, a white hatching. That's a mixeduse residential overlay. And we're not proposing to make any changes to that. It's just the underlying zone um or excuse me, the underlying designation as attached residential. The uh adjacent zoning is one of the key considerations that we looked at in terms of the staff review. And as I mentioned in the work session, this is an interesting part of town. Um there are justifications, I think, um for uh the request. There was also justifications at the time that this was um that this was zoned as an R4. So I think it really is um one of these things that could work both ways. And the reason for that is because if you look uh on this map, maybe this one's a little bit better, but 4,400 as it as it goes east to west is really that transition area. So from Riverdale Road

to 4,400, that's the transition area. and the taper from heavy intense commercial to what is essentially single family residential as you move further north of 4400 um makes that area along 4400 the transition area as an R4 or as a designation in this case we're talking about the general plan as a designation of attached residential multifamily homes which is like likely what is coming from an attached residential um is a good buffer from intense commercial to less intense residential and so I can see why that designation was made. Additionally, a commercial use a lower intense commercial a less intense commercial use is also a good transition between the higher the more intense commercial uses and the residential. So this is a really unique zone in the city where it is um it's really the land that's buffering the two the two uses. So this map is just pointing out what Kristen already mentioned that a surrounding it is largely commercial uses but as it goes north then it becomes those less intense um types of residential uses. Um, so the approval standards that um that you would look at are outlined here. I've also put all of this in your packet. So if you've had a chance to look at the packet, I won't cover these um individually because you've had a chance to do that. But really the consistency with the Utah State code is kind of where we start. And then the internal consistency to the general plan. What does that look like? And then can this be uh supported through implementation? Is this something that actually can be um approved and built in terms of the decision that you make tonight? And then ultimately uh is the request to amend the general plan in the

uh best interest of public health, safety, and welfare. Um I won't go through each one of these. What again this is in your packet but what we did and provided for you are is some general thoughts about this application as it relates to the general plan elements. So the general plans broken up into um six or seven elements. So, I looked at what the existing conditions might present um in terms of the general plan language and it does state in the in the first page that Riverdale uh road is the commercial corridor and the and again that buffer area is the appropriate place to put commercial. The general plan is really um clear about not bringing commercial into residential neighborhoods and to using and to use commercial and um and multifamily in some cases as that buffer between more intense and less intense uses. uh land use. Same kind of a thing that um the general plans def the general plan defines commercial as being the area for that um t typical use. And that use is broad. And so we've broken it up into what it really ends up being is three zones, C1, C2, and C3. And those are all meant to allow for different uses with different intensities. Um and on page eight of the general plan, the land use be best practices focused on um intensities around key intersections, major traffic corridors, and where infrastructure is already accessible. So having a commercial use next to the roundabout where where commercial uses used to exist would be consistent um with at least this part of the general plan. uh the transportation element was favorable uh as it uh looked at maintaining and improving those connections. So making sure that those transitions are happening, that

sidewalks are connected from commercial areas to uh to residential areas to aligning access points, making sure that we're not um creating traffic problems where we have misaligned access points or um or traffic issues. And again, the roundabout circulation and the way that um that site is oriented to the roundabout, I think really works uh in terms of meeting some of the language in this element of the plan. Economic de development again is favorable to uh a commercial um designation here and uh that's because our our great strength is retail is commercial uses. uh that is um no secret and again it focuses all of those commercial uses along the Riverdale Road corridor that is the best place for them in terms of the general plan. Um, and then when we did the general plan, there was some public engagement and although that's not policy language, it's not um it's not something that's going to have uh great bearing on things, it it was the sentiment of the public and again it supports um focusing that growth and that commercial use outside of the neighborhoods and closer towards that that uh that corridor. So, uh, in terms of your consideration, I would, um, recommend that you consider the following bullet points. Does this application advance the visions of the general plan as you understand it and as I've tried to, um, guide you in some of those things? Uh, does it support the orderly growth and efficient use of our land and our infrastructure? Is it um enhancing our flexibility while maintaining predictability and compatibility? That word compatibility is key. Um, does it support our infrastructure planning? Meaning, is it is it requiring stuff that we never

intended to do in terms of our infrastructure investment or is it utilizing current infrastructure in place? Will this amendment provide clear policy guidance to help future developments happen? Um, that's key, I think. We don't want to make policy that is confusing um or uh disruptive. And again, are we able to take what you recommend tonight and implement it um in ways that is consistent with our other land use regula regulations. So those are your factors for consideration. Um based on my review of the general plan and uh the applicant uh information and some of the comments that we receive from staff, uh we would recommend um that the commission forward a positive recommendation to the city council for adoption. um with one modification and that is if you come back to the map, you'll notice that in that orange area, it it comprises the the subject parcel, but it also um overlays the existing new parking lot to the east. The zoning is in place. Whoops, wrong way. So, you can see in this map it says R4, but to the east it's purple, which is C3. So, the zoning designation for the existing parking lot that's there now from Kenarf is correct, but the general plan still shows it as um as attached residential. So, my recommendation would be if you were to forward a positive recommendation to the city council for this general plan amendment, it would include the subject property and that land to the east. And I'll turn the time back over to you, chair. Thank you. Um so with that we'll go on go into our public hearing. Could we we need a

motion please? Motion to open the public hearing. And um all in favor? Yes. Yes.

Any opposed? Okay. Our public hearing is open uh to um review a proposed general plan amendment which would modify the Riverdale City general plan future land use map for property located at 671 West 4400 South changing the designation from attached residential to commercial. Any uh do we have any uh residents that um have comments regarding that? Anybody on the uh the web? Michelle. Okay. Then I a proposal or a Yeah. is in order to uh adjourn the general the uh meeting.

Yep. To close the public hearing. Close the public hearing. Yep. So moved. Okay. Second. Okay. All in favor? Yes. Yes. Any opposed? Okay. Um and then uh were we going to do the public hearing for the We're going to do the vote first, right? Yeah. I would suggest you vote on the general plan amendment because that affects the next item on the agenda.

So, uh we'll go to u item two then. consideration to forward a recommendation to city council of a general plan amendment to modify the future land use map from attached residential to commercial in the location of 671 west 4400 South. Um and so commissioners it's uh time is open to you for uh discussion. I had a question for um community development. Um the regarding the land use development management act, are we required to have a moderate income housing plan?

We are and we do. Okay. And uh so the what is what realistic opportunities do we currently offer? Um, good question. How would this affect that?

So, the moderate income housing plan operates as a menu and so, um, cities are required to choose from the menu and have at least a city of our size, I think we're required to have at least five, um, strategies for moderate income housing. I believe our last year's moderate income housing plan had eight. Um, and we identified the reszone from uh RMH1 to uh to R4 back in 2023. We identified that as one of our strategies to implement moderate income housing.

Okay. So, what that means is that if this was to pass fully with the council, then we would have to amend our moderate income housing plan to remove that strategy because it would no longer be effective. They are in the process of changing the moderate income housing plan at the state level. So, the 2026 reporting will be on hold. We won't report for 2026, but we would potentially have a new version of reporting in 2027, which would include all the past strategies that we've implemented.

And so, you're saying that uh removing this would not necessarily negatively affect our u uh compliance with what the state law is at this time. um if they kept the same threshold and criteria into the new moderate income housing plan they call M MI MHP 2.0 No, if this if the criteria and reporting was similar or the same, we would drop from 8 to seven, but we would still be above the required five.

Okay. Thank you. Anybody Anything else? I' I've got one thing. I was re uh reviewing the C3 zone and I think one of the things we need to realize is once we change this zone to C3 um it may or may not um mean that CarMax comes in. We we can't be you know 100% assured that that will actually happen if we change the zone. Um and so we have I think we have to be open as to u uh what the possibilities are you know should Car Max decide not to come in. Uh some of the permitted uh uses of this um would be retail tobacco special businesses and smoke shops um are uh allowed in the C3 zone. Um and uh check cashing, payday loans, title loans, pawn shop businesses are also allowed in the three in the C3 zone. So uh we I I think that it's important that we uh take those into consider those possibilities uh however remote they might be into into consideration uh if we decide to make that change.

Um chair, if I may, I have a a comment about that. So that is a common um concern and in it actually has played out in this case specifically when it was reszoned to its current zoning right

and it had an intended project behind it but that project has not happened and so it does open it up for any R4 use other than the intended project. So, what um what I have not included in the general plan amendment packet, but I believe I included in the zoning packet is an a draft agreement with CarMax, which is um called the agreement for development of land. It's pretty catchy, right? Um it's essentially an interim agreement that says that um once the uh the council, it's a council signed agreement, but once they um take action to reszone the property, if that's what was to happen, then CarMax is obligated to fulfill all the development obligations in terms of permitting and all that stuff within 12 months. And if that doesn't take place, then the um the city council reserves their right to reszone the property back or not back, but reszone it to whatever they want.

So, this is a similar agreement as you saw on the on the Ritter Drive. Um, so it's a common thing and it acts as that that commitment that you're going to do something, the applicant's going to do something and if that doesn't happen the way that it was committed, then the council just is basically stating their existing right of having the ability to reszone it. Okay. Thank you. Any other discussion?

Okay. Yeah, I have Okay. I have a handful of things. Um, so bear with me, but I'm going to refer to my notes a bit. But um first off is uh the multifamily housing zoning is um scarce for one and the likelihood of there ever being more made for those of you that have been paying attention for over the years is slim to none. It's uh it's really challenging to get this and to to give it up I think has to be um well thought out. And as I uh I'm torn because my favorite commercial use is car lots because they they're a solid tax base. They're low impact on our infrastructure and our cops and firemen. They're perfect. um and not not a lot of traffic. Um but as as I went over whether I felt it was consistent with the general plan, um I had some concerns based on not just the general plan but um the public engagement that was uh part of creating the latest iteration of general plan. Some of the items were to maintain balance between commercial and residential and your packet said uh 40% of vacant area is commercial um now which is more than what I could configure is our current usage. So, we're already on the high side of what's available as commercial and changing this would would make that balance even

more off, which goes against that sentiment in the the general plan. Um the they specifically asked um for no more car dealerships during the creating of the the general plan. Um let's see what else. uh that it emphasizes the intention to maintain and improve connections between housing, employment, education, recreation, and commerce. And the multifamily housing zone right on the edge of commercial um perfectly plays into um meeting that uh desire for residents within walking distance of retail services, transit lines. Um and the uh as far as the transitional usage from what I could gather multifamily is uh well the general plan for one calls for step intensities to go down away from major development and multifamily um is a textbook um usage between commercial and single family. so also meets the intentions of the general plan. Um, and then I just had those concerns about the um realistic opportunity and and making sure we're not shooting ourselves in the foot later. And um so yeah, that's that's where I'm at. Those are my concerns with how it meets up with the general plan

and and I align with Cody. I also went in and started looking at the general plan and um some of the the changes with the modern income strategies that we adopted. Um I get that we're right in that transition, so we could go either way with it and I just think about the people that we displace from their homes to put in apartments and then the land's just been sitting there forever. So I don't I don't know. I I'm kind of mixed as well. I I also think we don't have enough moderate income housing in Riverdale and there's just not a lot of places to to add anything on. So, I've I I I printed a whole page of of notes about um you know, the Riverdale's general plan um key goals. One of them is to maintain residential growth in a neighborhood atmosphere. going through the general plan 2023 changes. You know, Riverdale city leadership is aware of the fact that housing options should be explored and made available to the local community and that we should have more moderate income and affordable housing options. So, I that's kind of where I was leaning to just because I I see that we just don't have a lot of places for people to come and and you know, Riverdale is a community where kids grow up and then they want to come back to Riverdale and there's not a lot of choices that way.

Thank you. I I'm glad that you both brought those up because those are concerns that I've had as well. Uh I was involved in as was mentioned earlier on the city council uh or the planning commission when uh this change was initially made. Um and um we really um felt like that with the way the general plan was written and um uh what the direction uh was stated in the general plan that the uh R4 zone um met uh that general plan better than uh having that as a commercial area at the time. And uh so you know uh I personally uh am not in favor of a of putting a car lot in that area and making it and changing the zone to a commercial zone. So that that's just my opinion. Any other comments? Okay. Well then uh a motion is in order. Cody, go ahead.

I move that we forward a negative recommendation to the city council for the zoning map amendment as requested by Kristen Cohen, Centerpoint Integrated Services representative for CarMax Auto Superstores based on the following findings. I'm sorry that Oh, my bad. General plan amendment. I move that we forward a negative recommendation to the city council for the general plan amendment based on the following findings. The proposed amendment is not consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the general plan. Okay. Second. I'll second.

Any discussion? Miss Margoni, would you please pull the commission? Uh, Commissioner Kerry, yes. Commissioner Hendra, yes. Commissioner Hilton, yes. Hilton, oh, sorry. Yes. Commissioner Francis, no. Commissioner Hansen, yes. Commissioner Herman,

yes. All right. So, um we voted then to forward a negative recommendation on on changing that uh uh general plan amendment. Since um we are doing that, then we won't need to consider um number three. Uh is that correct? I I won't be making a presentation, but I would recommend that you still have the public hearing and take action. Okay. Um given the fact that the zoning would not be consistent with the general plan, then it I I think it's an easy uh easy decision, but I don't need to make a presentation.

Okay. We still need to vote. All right. Thank you. I think so. Yeah. Because again, this will both of these recommendations will go to the council. Your recommendations are are um advisory, so they they need to hear what you have to say on both.

Okay. Thank you. So, um we'll go back to action item E uh number one B uh pro uh for a public hearing uh to receive and consider public comments regarding proposed uh zoning map amendment to reszone approximately 5.51 acres from the multiple family residential R4 zone to the commercial zone C C3 at approximately 671 West, 4,400 South. Um, could we have a motion to open the public hearing? A motion to open the public hearing. Second.

And all of um in favor? Yes. Yes. Okay. Public hearing is open. Any uh public comments on that? Okay. Then we need a motion to close the public hearing. Motion to close the public hearing. Thank you. Second. Okay. And uh all in favor? Yes. Yes.

Okay. And now we'll move to uh item three, consideration to forward a recommendation to city council of a zoning map amendment to modify the zoning R4 multiple family residential to C3 commercial for property located at 671 West, 4,400 South. discussion. I think that uh um it's been decided that since the um um changing the zoning map to C3 um when we are uh sending a negative cons um consideration to the planning commission of u of changing the general planned amendment would not be compatible. Um, so, uh, if, um, if that's the way that everybody feels, would somebody make a motion, please? Go ahead.

I move that we forward a negative recommendation to the city council for the zoning map amendment as requested by Kristen Coen, Centerpoint Integrated Services, representative for CarMax Auto Superstores. Based on the following findings, the proposed amendment is not consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the general plan. And second, a second. Okay. Miss Maronei, would you please pull the commission? Commissioner Hstra, yes. Mr. Francis, yes. Commissioner Kerry, yes. Commissioner Herman,

yes. Commissioner Hansen. Commissioner Hilton. Yes. All right. Um, with those items done, um, are there any comments that, uh, the commission or staff wants to make? Okay. Then a motion is in order. Motion to adjurnn. I'll second. All in favor? Yes. Okay. Thank you very much.