Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Hey, I'd like to welcome everybody to the Riverdale City Planning Commission meeting for the 8th of September, 2026. Looks like we have everybody present except for Commissioner Melissa Carey. Bet everyone else is present. First item on our agenda would be public comment. We don't have any public here, so we'll move on to presentation and reports. Mr. Cooper?

Okay, thanks, Chair. Welcome back, everybody. I've provided the list that I provide to the council. So I thought I'd share that with you. It just covers most of the things that you already are seeing and know about in a community that are being built. America first is working on a new branch. I think I've mentioned that in the past. It hasn't been formally submitted to us yet, but we have had some meetings about it. So that'll be fun to see next door to Maverick. And they're obviously moving along with their parking structure and, and first phase building. Slick City, we talked about that in the work session. They're going in where Bed Bath & Beyond used to be. I don't know the exact completion date for that. I anticipate based on looking at where they're at, first of the year-ish. So that'll be end of the year, first of the year kind of a thing. So that'll be a new addition right next to Chuck E. Cheese. That'll be fun for the kids. Okay. EOS is making way on the old R.C. Willey building. You can see framing now on 1050 of the new River Park Retail Center. So that's coming out of the ground quickly. First Watch is doing some work as well as Dave's Hot Chicken. The cabin just re-stained the old Ruby River building, so they've stripped off some of the material and put a new stain on it so it looks fresh and new. That's nice. I think Alan mentioned you had a 12-foot ghost princess at your house, and you probably got it at Spirit Halloween.

No, I got it at Savers.

Oh, okay, well... Spirit Halloween wants your business.

They're only open for a short period of time at Joanne's.

And we've had some good conversations with Pink Box Donuts. We had the development review committee with them and approved their exterior design. It's pretty bold, but not as bold as others. There's pink and white and different shades of pink. There's at least three oversized donuts. And to my dismay, there was a... I agree. mascot in the shape of a certain emoji?

Well, what was their... They have pinky and poo.

Pinky and poo.

We'll let you go with that.

So that's their mascot is an emoji.

Why? I looked into it. They're the creator of that emoji. Really? Yes. And it's a donut. It's a one-pound donut. I don't want to eat that. I know.

So that was approved elevation-wise, and they'll come in for a building permit. The Planning Commission won't see anything.

That's going to be located at what location? The Arby's.

The Arby's location.

Will they bring sample donuts?

I'm sure. Not those. Yeah.

The emoji ones.

This is the one ribbon-cutting that you probably don't want to miss. Yeah.

Especially if you like poo donuts. Thanks, Chair. That's it. All right. Thank you, Mr. Cooper. Next, consent items, consideration of meeting minutes from August 25th, 2026, regular meeting and work session. Are there any corrections or additions or changes that need to be made to those meetings?

The time on the meeting minutes says 530. Okay.

That would have been for the work session.

Right. But the other, like our regular session, I think also.

No. No.

Well, it says it's on. Can you hear me now? Okay. The work session said 530 and then the regular session said 530.

She puts those small things in there just to see if you are reading. See if we're paying attention. Yeah, reading. See if anybody's actually reading.

We'll start.

Okay. So we need a motion then.

So I move to approve meeting minutes with a change of the time to 6 p.m. for the August 25, 2026 regular meeting and work session.

Second? Second. Okay. All in favor say yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Any opposed? Okay. Thank you. That is passed unanimously. Item E, action items, will begin with the presentation by Mr. Cooper.

Okay, thank you. Do you mind turning the TV on, please? Thank you. Can you all see this on your screens? Okay, great.

Oh, I forgot we have those, too.

Okay, so this presentation is related to item one and two on the agenda. So as I mentioned, let me just give you a brief rundown of what the proposal is, and then you can move into your public hearing. So this is related to, we'll wait for the, there we go, okay. This is related to a couple of things, mostly Riverdale City Code Title 10 Chapter 9B. So this is residential zones, and this specifically relates to R110, R18, R16, and R145. Okay, this is working. What the proposal is, is under permitted uses, and I've provided the actual language of the code and the strike through in your packet. So what the proposal is, is just to remove the cluster subdivision. as a permitted use and then there is one small clarification in there as well which changes planned residential unit developments to planned developments. If you recall, we changed that ordinance a number of weeks ago and so that's just a clean up there to reference it as a planned development as it is officially called. So the proposal is just to remove cluster subdivisions from the permitted uses in these residential zones. So the question is what is a cluster subdivision? So I've got a little drawing here in my crude way. Conventional subdivision on the left there with the six blocks, that's meant to show yield, so the number of units. And we have a pretty robust residential subdivision ordinance, as does the state. And Density is determined by the type of zone you're in. R16 is a 6,000 square foot lot that determines certain density based on the size of the parcel. A cluster subdivision is a trade-off. It allows reduced density in the underlying zone. So in this case, those zones that I've mentioned, R110, R18, R16, and R14.5. So it would allow a reduced density, meaning a smaller lot size, in exchange for public open space or permanent open space, let's call it that. And this code is pretty common across all communities in Utah. It is an old code, and it's kind of an archaic planning method. This was established in 1985 when we created our code and hasn't really been amended much since then. And it was really just a tool to allow developers to get smaller lots, more density in exchange for what we deemed as important, which would be that permanent open space. So why would we want to remove it? I'll get to that in just a minute. As I looked at this and as I've studied this in the past, rarely does, especially for a city like Riverdale that's built out, rarely does a cluster subdivision yield the things that we're looking for because of the way that we are. So the meaningful intent behind cluster subdivisions was to preserve land, to preserve agricultural land, to preserve park space, something with a public benefit. Our development lots that are available to be developed except for Stringtown and its proposed intent, most anything else that's going to get developed in the city would not provide that preservation benefit. It wouldn't bring about the preservation of agricultural land or the preservation of open space or park space or anything like that. So what it ultimately does is it provides smaller lots without that equal value. So the developer is getting what they want, which is a smaller lot, more density, in exchange on paper for some public benefit. But usually those are relegated to the homeowner's use or not useful at all. So for instance – I don't want to give a specific example, but there are some cases where there are some subdivisions that benefited from the cluster subdivision ordinance that's been in place since 1985. But then what has been returned back as benefit is maybe a small tot lot that – is unused or is not very accessible, doesn't get maintained over time, and that on paper met the ordinance at the time, but really doesn't have any benefit. Yet the benefit of the increased density has been received and utilized for years. So I've looked at a number of cities and towns across Utah, and the places that are benefiting from this most, I looked at us, Ogden, Ogden Valley, and Garland. you can see the Ogden Valley and Garland are actually – they can get a benefit because there is lots of space to be preserved. And so this ordinance would be something that would be beneficial for them in trade for increased density because there's actually some things to preserve. With our urban infill lots and with Ogden's established urban – patterns, there's just not a whole lot of benefit to receive from a cluster subdivision. And there's a better way. So the better way is what I just alluded to a minute ago, which is our plan development ordinance. As you recall, that was passed by the city council and adopted. And that gives the city to essentially... review and I would dare say negotiate all the benefits that the city would need from that particular proposal without being guided by something like a cluster subdivision. So it could apply to a lot of different zones It also gives flexibility for the preservation of open space, but it is actually more nuanced and more skillful in creating the value that the city wants in exchange for that increased density. Almost always the developer is going to want increased density. Land prices are high, development costs are high, and the only way to yield profit is to have more units to sell. So they're almost always going to offer more density. So we do need to ask for more density. We do need a tool that allows us to preserve the things that we want, whether it's preserved open space or trail connections or whatever it might be. We do want a tool to do that. The planned development tool, which we've already put in place, is a more useful surgical tool than the cluster subdivision. This also came about As a request from the city council. So this started with the Ritter Drive proposal where the R16 on multiple occasions was requested to change to R18 and some other things in the past. And those changes were inevitably denied in all cases. But the cluster subdivision was always an option for those developers. Had they taken advantage of that option, they could have applied for a cluster subdivision overlay on the R16 zone, which effectively reduced those lots to the equal amount of open space that they could provide back. Does that make sense? And so that was kind of an eye-opener for the for the uh for the council and also for some of the staff to say this ordinance is is a little bit old it doesn't really benefit in the way that we want it to what what's a better way that led to the plan development ordinance which i've mentioned has been adopted and so now it's time to just get rid of cluster subdivision that's the proposal It is a little bit premature due to the fact that we're working with Mr. Hansen and his firm to redo the whole code. The only reason for that is that we passed a temporary ordinance that prohibited any applications for cluster subdivisions six months ago. I don't know if you recall that. It was – It was they call it a moratorium. The technical term is a temporary ordinance. So that was established by both you and the city council that essentially prohibited any cluster subdivision applications for six months, which is the end of August. And so now we're back to actually make the change that we said we were going to look at during those six months. So here we are. So the recommended action today is to do a couple of things. To remove the cluster subdivision from the 10, Title 10, Chapter 9B. So that would effectively remove it as a permitted use. Number two, repeal Chapter 10, I'm sorry, that should say 1023. So that's the actual cluster subdivision ordinance 1023. So it would repeal 1023. It would remove that as a permitted use in 109B. And then the third thing would be to essentially create a legal non-conforming use provision, which we already have in the ordinance. We would go back and look at that and make sure it's inclusive here. But essentially that means that any lawful cluster subdivision that has been approved prior to today could remain as a legal non-conforming use and they wouldn't be in jeopardy of any problems. So those are the recommendations, and I've provided that to you in some sample motion language there in your sheets that I provided. Any questions? Yes, sir.

The thought that comes to my mind is regarding string town, because there's spots in there that are very cluster-oriented in some of that string town. How is that affected with this?

If you look... on this map here, you'll see that most of Stringtown is either open space, which is the dark green, agriculture, which is the lighter green, or MU, which is mixed use. Mixed use is an effective overlay in our ordinance that could be applied to Stringtown. Our intent with the comprehensive zone change was to create a brand new zone that encompasses all of Stringtown. So that would come before you as a commission as a brand new zone, likely a mixed use zone, but not the current mixed use zone that we have. So the specific answer to your question is yes, we would create a very specific zone for Stringtown that would allow us to execute the approved master plan.

So because some of those are quite tight...

There's quite a bit of density there.

That's what we'd be doing is to allow that to happen specific to that area only.

That's right. It would have its own zone. It can be its own zone. It could be an MU zone in general with an overlay. There's lots of tools we could do to make it happen the way that we want to see it happen. But we don't really need the cluster subdivision for it. There's better ways.

Are there any subdivisions in Riverdale right now that were developed under this cluster subdivision?

I'm trying to do some research. They would probably accompany a PRUD, so I'm looking at the PRUDs first. But I haven't completed that research to tell you which ones exactly. They would be some of the older subdivisions in my opinion.

Do we have a current PRUD or planned development that has useful preserved open space?

Yes. So the townhomes behind Krispy Kreme is a planned development. And so some of the tradeoffs for the increased density that they want there is connections on that hillside.

So we've been working with that. Have we ever made one?

Oh, no. The planned development ordinance is so new that we haven't done anything that... We actually haven't.

If you're trying to figure out which PRUDs may be a cluster, I'm trying to think of anywhere that has a useful preserved open space. I'm sorry. Any of those. So does the council or planning commission have discretion on If someone is trying to do a cluster subdivision, do they have discretion over what is a useful preserved open space and what is not useful? And can they approve or deny based on what they think is valuable to the community?

Let me read the – some of the words of the ordinance if you don't mind. So essentially it's a – It's a one-for-one reduction. So let's say you want to have increased density, a.k.a. smaller lots in an R16, for instance. So your proposal is to reduce each lot from 6,000 square feet to 4,000 square feet. That would be a 2,000 square foot lot reduction, right? Let's say you have 100 lots. So that would be, what, 200,000 square feet. square feet of open space that you would have to provide in exchange for that lot size reduction if you go to 1023-4b preservation and maintenance recreation and or open space areas to be permanently reserved shall be improved landscaped and maintained in accordance with a plan approved by the planning commission and the subdivision ordinance so yes it would be at the discretion of the planning commission and the council

So if we have that control, I'm just – why get rid of a tool when you have the control either way? You can still do planned developments. This can still be a thing. You can say yay or nay based on what – your discretion on whether you like their open space or not.

So the – one of the – most compelling reasons to go the planned development route and kind of abandon the cluster is the cluster has that mandated by text relationship between lot size and planned open space or preserved open space. With a planned development unit or planned development approval, we don't necessarily need to make that correlation.

We also don't need to do a lot like preserve space either.

Right.

Which is never going to happen because it never has.

In either case. Right. But it's happening now.

Why get rid of the tool if we wanted to? Say, hey, we want open space there. Do a cluster subdivision.

Which then you would automatically guarantee there's a lot reduction. So if you said that under planned development, you said, hey, we want open space there.

You're either going to have six big houses or six little houses in the same space.

In the case of the one that we're working on now, there was enough room to require increased attention to the open space without necessarily adding more units than what they were proposing. Does that make sense? So they won't always correlate, but most of the time they will. you're not automatically giving up that density as a result. And that's what the council was afraid of in the R16 zone on Ritter is that if there would be an automatic allowance for reduced lot size.

And they didn't want to allow that to happen.

Especially in that zone, yes. So that's when they asked me to review it, and that's what led us to the plan development ordinance that would give us the same flexibility but without the exact requirements of reducing lot size. So we can negotiate and require preserved open space without automatically giving up reduced lot size. Now, Is it what the developer is going to ask for every time, 99 times out of 100? Most likely.

So is this going to affect the buildings that are going in behind Krispy Kreme if we do this?

No, because they've applied under a planned development.

Okay.

It's a good question, though. So what we're proposing is that we move away from what's in place. I think, Cody, I understand what you're saying is that why abandon a tool that we haven't really used in the past anyway for something that gives us the same thing. Is that what you're saying?

I mean, you could have both.

Right. It does become a little confusing.

I think... This was – the genesis of this was the public attention that that specific case got. Otherwise, we would never be discussing this in a million years. You could still do planned development and we would never talk about clusters ever again.

Right. We would probably look at – well, not probably. We have looked at it in the code update. So that would have come to you whether now or then.

There might be an option where you – Why not just let it wait until the neighborhood plans and –

The council's expectation with the moratorium or the temporary ordinance was to get it done before the time was up so that we didn't get an application. That's kind of why you use that tool. What I've suggested to you based on this sheet here is that you remove the cluster subdivision from permitted uses of those zones and repeal it so it doesn't even exist. You could keep it on the books And you could make a recommendation to take it out of permitted uses from one of those zones. The R16, to your point, Cody, was the specific thing that caught the council's attention. So you could make a recommendation just to remove it out of that zone. You can make a recommendation to remove it out of... two of those zones three of those zones all of those zones so it's really up to you based on how you want this tool used and what i'm kind of expressing to you as the thoughts and feelings of the council remembering that this is going to go to them for for final action So, yeah, repealing it does not have to happen. Those are two separate things. You could just trim its use down in certain zones or you can take it away altogether or anything in between.

Okay. Any other discussion, questions?

All right.

Okay. Then we will go to item number one, public hearing on legislative decision to amend Riverdale City Code, Title 10, Chapter 9B, Section 2, permitted use for residential R110, R18, R16, and R14.5. A motion is in order to open the public hearing.

So moved. Okay.

A second?

I second. Okay.

All in favor, say yes. Yes. Yes. Okay. The public hearing is officially open, but we don't have anybody here. So a motion is in order to close the public hearing. I move that we close the public hearing. Okay. Second?

Second.

Okay. All in favor, say yes. Yes. Yes. Any opposed? Okay. Okay. Item two, consideration to forward recommendation to city council regarding amendments to Riverdale City Code, Title 10, Chapter 9B, Section 2, permitted use for residential zones R110, R18, R16, and R14.5. Any discussion?

I don't know where I'm going with this.

Okay.

Last question. The questions have been asked. I'm just dealing with it in my head.

Trying to process it all? Yeah.

Yeah.

So correct me if I'm wrong. But my understanding is that with this ordinance in place, if the owners of the property up on Ritter Drive came back with an application in that 1.6 zone for a cluster subdivision up there, that since we're past August 31st, which the moratorium is officially over right now, then we could not – basically turn it down based on the density or the lot sizes, as long as there was a one-to-one ratio of open space allowed. Is that correct?

That's correct.

So that is one thing that we wouldn't be able to do. We would have to, because it's city code, we would have to accept that. Cody, what were you going to say?

If the open space is acceptable to you.

If the open space is acceptable. Correct. But it's got to be a one-to-one. Right. Correct. But if it is one-to-one, I don't believe that we could say that it's not acceptable.

Agreed.

I think that based on the code, we would still have to accept it.

Would that be... We discussed it. You said there was discretion. It says in the...

Yeah, so there's two thresholds there. Let me read that again. Okay. So the size threshold is kind of the checkbox, right? Okay. So if the lot size was reduced equivalent to the amount of open space they were proposing, then you just check that box. But then the discretionary part was that open space to be permanently reserved – would be proposed in accordance with a plan approved by the Planning Commission and the subdivision ordinance. So, yes, there is some discretion about what the actual open space is doing.

Okay. But would that be landscaping-wise what the open space is doing, what the intended use for the open space is?

But if they met those requirements from you, if you said – if they've checked the box for the size requirement and you said, I think you should put a pickleball court there, and they say, okay –

Then, yeah. So, yeah, it does kind of tie our hands as far as, you know, what we can allow as far as reducing the lot sizes. You could take an R18 or an R10. And you could shrink those down considerably small as long as you had enough open space left available to do that.

But then as a developer, how likely are you going to want to do that because you just lost half of your lot and now you're selling for smaller parcels. And who's going to want the smaller as opposed to the larger?

Because if the lot has a bunch of useless parcels. area that they're going to want to call use. That's a good point. If you have the discretion to say that's not useful, you still have control.

Like a hillside, you know, maybe part of it is a hillside. And so you just say, you know, we're going to make that open space because it's not usable. That's a good point. Commissioner Hanson?

There is a size reduction limit. So It says the minimum lot area for dwellings may be reduced below the area normally required in the zone, so in the case of R16, 6,000 square feet, in which the cluster subdivision is located, but no lot shall have an area less than two-thirds of the minimum lot area required in the respective zone. So there is a limit.

So basically, in a 6,000 square foot R16, the minimum size could be 4,000 foot. Yep.

And in the case of that particular subdivision proposal, there was a wonky area along the side on the kind of north to northeast side that was deemed open space that

could be up for discussion as to whether it is something that... Well, even in a planned development, they can still say, yeah, we'll kick you down some open space. Sure. And that's what it is. Sure. Landslide area.

So it gives us that option in the planned development if we eliminate the cluster.

Right. You have that option in both. Yeah. Yep, in both.

Okay.

Less confusing to me.

Yeah. Yeah. So the plan development, they would come to us with a plan and we would negotiate with them and work with them and come up with what we considered a reasonable plan that then would come before the Planning Commission and the City Council for approval of that plan, which could also reduce lot sizes and put in density and open space and that sort of thing.

Yeah, the major difference is that the reduction in lot size is not specifically tied to open space preservation in the plan development ordinance. It is in cluster.

Right.

Right.

Okay. Does that clear anything up? It does. Yeah. Thank you.

Okay.

Any other comments or questions? Okay. then a motion would be in order.

I move that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council to amend Riverdale City Code Title 10, Chapter 9B, Section 2, permitted use for residential zone R1 through R10, R1... through R8, R1 through R6, R1 through 4.5, delete cluster subdivisions from permitted use. Repeal Title 10, Chapter 23, clustered subdivisions in its entry and provide legal non-conforming. That would be entirety. Oh, entirety. Excuse me.

No problem. Just want to make sure.

Non-conforming status for existing lawful cluster subdivisions. based on the findings contained in the staff report and the evidence presented in the record. Thank you. Second? Second.

Okay. Any discussion on the motion? Okay. Then all in favor say yes. Yes. Oh, wait. We'll have Michelle pull the Planning Commission.

Yes.

Sorry.

Commissioner Herman. Yes.

Yes.

Commissioner Francis? Yes. Commissioner Hilton? Yes. Commissioner Hansen? Yes. Commissioner Henstra? Yes. Commissioner Bothrup?

Yes.

Thank you. So the motion passes. We will forward that to the City Council. Item 3, consideration to set a public hearing on a legislative decision. to amend Riverdale City Code Title 10, Chapter 22, Planned Development, adding R4 and R5 residential zones as eligible zones and other minor corrections. Any discussion? Then a motion would be in order.

I move to set a public hearing on legislative decision to amend Riverdale City Code, Title 10, Chapter 22, plan development, adding R4 and R5 residential zones as eligible zones and other minor corrections to take place on September 22, 2026. Second?

Second. Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Everyone in favor say yes. Yes. So public hearing is set for September 22nd. Item 4, tentative title 10, updates with Hansen Planning Commission Group. Mr. Hansen was not able to make it tonight, so we will not be doing that. Item F, comments from city staff or planning commission. Then a motion will be in order.

I move to adjourn.

Second. Second. Okay. And all in favor say yes. Yes. Yes. We are adjourned. I think we had a couple of Planning Commission meetings that we got done.