Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

planning commission meeting for Riverdale City. All of the um planning commissioners are present with the exception of Commissioner Herman. And at this point, we uh as far as our agenda is concerned, we would open for public comment. At this point in the meeting, the public comment that we're seeking is not in relation to the agenda items that we'll be discussing. the public hearings, but would be open for additional um concerns and comments from the public regarding other issues outside of what's on the agenda today. So, if there is anyone that would like to address the planning commission on uh non-aggenda items, we would welcome you to come forward. Seeing none, we will move on to our next uh item on the agenda, presentation and reports, community development update. Mr. Cooper, what's going on?

Thank you, chair. Um, I just uh bring your attention to an invite that went out today for the back n ribbon cutting up on Freeway Park Drive. That was finished a week or so ago. And so we'll have we'll join the chamber to uh welcome them to Riverdale. Uh it's basically a membershipbased uh internal um golf simulator. So that'll be fun for those who like to golf. Uh everything else um is typical updates. Um there's nothing really new to announce. Uh nothing that you don't already know about. So I'd be happy to take any questions if you had any. I saw the other one on America First, the topping.

Oh, right. I forgot about that. Yeah, I think that's the 9th. The ninth. Yep. So, join us for that if you can. Thank you for that reminder.

Okay. All right. Um, next would be uh our consent items. consideration to approve the 2026 planning commission meeting schedule and also consideration of the meeting minutes from September 23rd for the work session and regular meeting and November 25th uh work session and regular meeting for that. Any discussion on those items? If none, we would welcome a motion.

We move that a motion be recommended for approving those items that was just discussed. The 2026 planning commission meeting schedule considering of meetings minutes from September 23rd, 2025 work session. September 23rd, 2025 regular meeting, November 25th, 2025 work session. November 25th, 2025 work session. Okay. Do we have a a second? Second. All in favor? Yes. Yes. Any opposed? Motion passes.

Uh, next would be our action items. Um, were you going to go over the information first or do we want to open the public hearing and then have you present? Why don't I present and then um and then we can open the meeting. Open the public hearing, take comment and then I'll be happy to answer any questions after that. Perfect. Uh so we will proceed with um information regarding the proposed text amendments to Riverdale City Code Title 10 Chapter 22 planned residential or unit development.

Okay. Thank you very much. Michelle will pull up um just the language that uh we're proposing in your packet. you have the current code reference which is being struck or proposed to be struck in its entirety with a new uh section being added um in its entirety and so we can go over that uh as she gets that up. So uh the action before you tonight is um to uh review and take public comment on this um text amendment. The proposals uh will replace and modernize the city's existing planned residential unit development code section 1021. And um it'll replace it with a comprehensive planned development ordinance that accommodates uh residential but also commercial and mixeduse development and better aligning itself with the uh Utah state code. Um th this current PRUD ordinance was drafted in 2007 and there were a couple amendments made to it in 2009 and 2012 and so uh holistically speaking it it is a little stale when you look at other uh cities across the state and as I mentioned in the work session it reflects only residential projects so it doesn't give any flexibility to um new [clears throat] types of developments that are that are happening in the state mixeduse use developments, commercial developments, things like that. Um, and also the Utah state um code that governs municipal land use is also changing. And so, uh, these amendments are meant to coincide with that. As I as I mentioned, [sighs and gasps] um, one of the most important things this does is that it gives the framework in which the planning commission in in most cases will use to um determine whether or not a plan development is

appropriate in accordance with the general plan and it's the the development's own stated goals. It gives the city the ability to deal with from a code perspective um a development that may not have traditional size streets that might need um different types of setbacks or height uh regulations applied to it. So it gives the city flexibility to and a framework to approve things that um may not be the letter of the law written in our current code so to speak. Um there's a couple of reasons and and uh I think they're important um to repeat again. Our current outdoor our current PR framework is outdated. Uh it's very in some cases it's more restrictive um and and conflicts with the with a base zone that it might overlay on. Um, and so it causes confusion as we're looking at how to apply the base zone in in the context of more restricted or or um or regulations that conflict on a PR overlay. Uh, and then again um we're working with our consultant on the overall comprehensive Title 10 updates. So tonight's action if it moves forward uh would is meant to slip into those. So, we might have to tweak a few things once we get that 100% done, but this is meant to um to fold right into the other comprehensive updates that we're making to title 10. And so, the city council will take action um on that in the future and then based on your recommendation, we'll take action on on this tonight at a future date. So, again, everything's meant to be compatible even though this is before you a little bit prematurely as it relates to the the rest of the title 10. Okay. So, if we uh can get right into it. Michelle, if you don't mind scrolling to the red part.

Okay. So, this is broken down in a structure that's going to be consistent with the rest of our zoning code updates um with a well- definfined purpose. So again, the purpose of of a planned development is to fold in those large-scale um developments that are being proposed that are are residential but also commercial mixeduse in nature. Uh encourage quality environment and a unique sense of place. Uh that's that's kind of fuzzy squishy language, but it is important that we uh telegraph and broadcast these types of um intentions as we look at uh these types of um zone changes. Uh B one B there is to encourage more efficient use of the land. Uh that is ever becoming ever more important given that uh we're a small city geographically. we're relatively built out and so we're looking at ways that we can use our land in more um efficient ways instead of monolithic building more of a mixeduse nature and this code change uh allows for that. Going on to uh section two applicability uh I've restricted this to um to some of the zones. So, you'll notice there that not all zones uh this would apply to uh the R um the RE15 and RE20, those are residential estate zones. It wouldn't be applicable there. Um it wouldn't be applicable to our RCP regionally planned zone, the R145, the R16, and the RMA uh RMH1 zone. So those are the zones that are omitted, but the other zones uh generally allow for um the land that would the minimum land that would need that would be needed for this. And if you look down in 2B, um that's actually uh I I noticed this this morning, so I apologize. In 2B 1 and two, those are the minimum site areas that would be required for a plan development. They're actually uh

backwards. So a minimum for a res a predominantly residential plan development would be 3 acres and the minimum for a commercial or mixed use which could include residential would be 5 acres. That's why those zones uh that's why this applies to the zones that I've described and not some of the zones that have smaller lots. Uh the approval authority is important because um the Utah state code has changed what the um land use authority can be in certain things and so most uh things related to subdivisions which uh uh PD would be a subdivision in most cases. Uh it's it's relegated to the planning commission. Um and so you would be the final decision maker on most uh planned developments. And uh 2D is the relationship to the base zoning. This is important. Um, upon approval, the the recorded PD development plan, so a plan that would accompany a plan development project, um, would supersede any conflicting zoning that that would be at the base level. So if an a PD overlay was applied to let's say a a CP3 zone, then the development agreement that you all would approve would supersede the the base zone of a CP3. Uh section three, I won't go through all of these, but these are the design objectives for plan developments. This is a key element because again we want to give as much structure to the applicant and to the proposed project as we can while retaining the flexibility to be adaptive to market conditions and other things like that. Uh and so there's there's some language there that talks about arranging buildings harmoniously with open spaces, circulation and parking and things like that. The internal street system should be designed for efficiency and safe

movement. So these are just general guidelines that um would help guide the applicant. The actual the actual um design elements and the development requirements are are listed afterwards. Uh you can go to the next page please. Thanks. So section four is development requirements. uh you have to be an owner of course to to um have a plan development approved or there has to be some um approved representation. Uh that's typical of what we do. Now I did include in in 4B a 20% uh open space requirement. And so this would be a requirement to have um 20% of the overall site be retained as open space. So that could be private open space, public open space, common area, things like that. And that just ensures that uh we're not just packing homes into into areas, but we're creating neighborhoods that would allow for things like amenities, um trails, access to parks, things like that. Uh the interior streets is a big change because right now our PRUD ordinance requires that all city streets be to the city standard, which is a 60oot rightway. It's pretty big. But again, if we're looking at how to mix uses and use our land efficiently, sometimes a 60- foot ride ofway is not appropriate. And so this gives the um gives the planning commission based on approvals from the city engineer and the public works director and myself. It gives you the uh ability to approve an alternative street design, which means it could be a narrower ride ofway. It could be the omission of a sidewalk on one side. um it could be uh modified cross-sections, modified approaches, things like that. In addition to that, um it does allow the city to approve private streets, meaning that in a planned development, not every street is required to be

public, and therefore that creates a whole host of other issues with HOAs and management and maintenance and those kind of things, but I've tried to address that here. Uh it does allow the the city to approve uh uh private streets that are maintained privately and and and uh owned privately. And that creates scenarios where you now can have rear load um rear load uh buildings, right? Instead of having every single building face the front of the street with a drive approach and a driveway, you now can internally circulate projects, which makes for a safer environment, which reduces all the connections to the main local road and generally can make things safer. Right now, we don't allow that under a platted environment. It's a single lot group dwelling kind of a thing. Um, and this would allow for uh individual lots to be platted and sold with private streets. uh parking is is uh always a concern. So, I've allowed some language here that basically gives the planning commission um to uh provide some alternative parking requirements if there is uh certain situations. So, you could do that for the overall apparent appearance and density of of a project. you can do it for um some of the low to moderate income housing requirements that either HUD or our moderate income housing plan would have. So there's a number of um alternatives that could be applied in a plan development based on the overall design and and focus of the project. If not, then um all of the parking of the base zone would apply. Uh E is uh building materials and and design standards. Uh this is meant to promote a higher standard of

construction. It's difficult to do with well it's illegal to do with individual single family homes. Uh the city can't regulate unless it's in a historic district or some other special overlay. We generally don't regulate uh what a single family home looks like. But in a plan development that's based on um a development agreement, then there are some architectural and and design standards that we can apply and impose. And these are meant to lift the quality of the neighborhoods. Uh and so there's some uh primary building materials here that are that are um allowed mainly masonry um large format glazing and storefront architectural metals uh cementious materials like fiber siding and things like that. architectural concrete things that are going to be durable and long lasting and hardy. Uh that is set to be for about 60% of the building facade. Uh the secondary materials that are allowed are engineered um wood products, exterior grade wood products, uh stucco systems, and non-structural metal elements. Um again, that's a secondary material meant to be 40% of the building uh facade. And then there's some prohibited m uh materials. If you uh advance the page for me, please. Thank you. So, in a plan development, there'd be no vinyl sighting. There would be no plywood, of course. Um you couldn't have any reflective panels or glass. Um the Ephus system, which is a form of a stucco system, but sandwiched in insulation basically. uh that would be allowed but not without the the impact resistant um uh drainage plane that's applied to those systems and then um standard CMU block would be prohibited as well. So you can just have a block faced building and then that corresponds with um

section four there with the illustrious facade standards. So this talks about what the building articulation looks like. It it models after a base, middle, cap type of a philosophy where your building has portions of it that work together, but it's identifiable as a base, middle, cap. And so I've gone through there um and how those um how those are are delineated and what the articulation looks like horizontally, vertically. So, it's a little bit prescriptive, but in general terms, it's meant to create a form of a building that looks a little bit more urban um and is easily integrated into multiple uses. So, think of a building that might have a a single use on the ground floor, but then it could have different uses on upper floors. Uh you want to make sure that that building looks like a cohesive building instead of four different buildings. uh fenistration standards in in uh section four there which are basically openings. 25% of the ground floor would need to have um window fenestrations and then any mechanical or service type um elements would need to be screened either on the rooftop through a parapit or on the ground with landscaping or building materials. Moving on to the landscaping. This uh is generally what we require now. Water-wise landscaping. I've added some coverage ratios. Right now, we're seeing landscaping that is um heavy on rock and and kind of weak on plant material. And so in section F there, it looks at having a 75% coverage ratio of plant material in any given landscape area um at maturity. So our architectural people can design a landscape knowing how big the plants get and then they space them accordingly to

get that 75% coverage. So I think that's going to create a beautiful environment in terms of the 20% landscaping that we require. Uh yep go on. Thanks. Uh it talks about some fencing street lights. Uh not a big deal there. Although there is an added section that prohibits chain link. So in these types of plan developments, uh chain link would not be allowed. Utilities are mentioned pretty heavily. Uh that's because uh this that's one of the major focuses of this change is to allow for different types of situations instead of just having everything city- owned and citymained. This allows for a private developer to create an HOA to where the streets and the utilities are owned and managed by the HOA. So we've talked a lot about what those systems can be, how they're to be managed, um what type of documents are required. So typical HOA documents are going to be they're required now, but we've maintained that requirement. Uh a new feature is a fund. So typically HOAs are based off of initial reserve fund and that's what sets the first year budget. So when you create an HOA, you you have someone an engineer study your your built environment, the roads and the streets, everything you're required to pay for, and it looks at what that's going to cost in the future. So it establishes a reserve fund, and that is what your typical budgets based on in the first couple of years, and then it is amended to reflect what your actual costs are of those uh maintenance items. So, we just reiterate some of that that those maintenance funds for roads and utilities need to be established at the front end at the HOA level. Um, if you'll go ahead and advance, uh, I've talked about some, uh, maintenance failure remedies that we currently have under state law, but I've

I've made it very specific here where, uh, in the case that there is, um, uh, maintenance failure of privatelyowned facilities, whether it's road or utilities, then we have the ability to um, perform that necessary maintenance. or or make a connection basically move that connection from private to public. Part of the reason for this is um in some cases we have HOAs that have private utilities now that do not perform the maintenance that's re required and that includes uh fire hydrants. They're connected to a water system that's private. And so in the in that case where there is no oversight from the city because we have no maintenance obligation then um there's a real risk of a fire happening and us responding to the fire and that fire hydrant being dead because there hasn't been ongoing maintenance. The city is obligated to uh to operate and maintain their fire hydrants on an annual basis and certify them. Um and so if we have subdivisions in this city, which we do, that have private systems, then there's a real risk there. So in this case we still want to allow for private systems to take place but there is going to be a more ownorous maintenance requirement and then some recourse if that maintenance isn't done on those type of things that goes for backflow that's a state law and some other things like that. Uh so section four is the and the subsequent sections are um are really the the process so the development standards for the application and then um and then going on through uh through what the process of review is. Um so I won't cover those I those are pretty standard to what we currently do now. um maintenance of common facilities. I mentioned uh that it's pretty similar to the maintenance requirements of the uh

privately held um utilities and roads. Uh I have added some desirable amenities. So, we do want to see these plan developments with open space and other amenities that are associated with um a good quality of life and and a and a unique type of a neighborhood. Um so, that's really the the gist of it. You all have had this in your packet. you've read most of it, I'm sure. Um, so I'll stop there and just uh answer any questions that you might have.

Okay. Thank you. Um, [clears throat] commissioners, do you have any questions for Mr. Cooper? If none, then we would entertain a motion to open the public hearing. propose a motion to open our public hearing. Can you identify the specific? Yes. Thank you. Um, which one is it? The zoning text amendment or RCC 1022 PRUD. Thank you. So, we have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor?

Yes.

Yes. Any opposed? Seeing none, we will open the public hearing. At this point, we welcome um members of the public to step forward. If you have concerns regarding that which has just been discussed, we will be discussing the Ritter Drive um in a separate uh meeting or a separate hearing. Um so um you're welcome to step forward as you do. We're requesting that you take um no more than three minutes to uh give us your your views and opinions. We welcome those. Um and if you would state your name and city of residence as you do. Good evening. Uh Jill Gracie. I own a couple of pieces on Ritter Drive. Uh Brandon and I have uh had some interesting discussions. I have a couple of questions. Um first question is um uh who prepared that comprehensive list that you just went through?

Um that's my job. So you did that whole list? Yes. And then I sent it for review to our city engineer, our building official, and our um city attorney and public works director. And how much time uh was involved in that? Um between all of us, I couldn't tell you hours, but over the course of about three weeks, for the last three weeks, Mhm. that was put together.

Thank you. Thank you. I have I have a question about the uh stipulation on uh multi-use being limited to five acres and more. Why is that? Um, as I mentioned, you know, again, this is just our our thinking based on best practice and what we've seen. That's why we bring it to the commission to and to have a public hearing is to get feedback. But typically, when you look at mixeduse type of projects, they include commercial uh elements. And those commercial elements largely have they have a typically a larger land use demand than a straightforward residential development. you have parking lots, you have loading areas, you have storefronts, sidewalks that are typically wider, um things like that. And so we figured that if there's mixeduse uses being proposed, then that should happen on a larger scale of a of a minimumsized area.

Uh so it it you mentioned earlier that there is a limited amount of space in this small city for these developments. It seems just on the on the face of it, Brandon, that that's unreasonable. Five and more when you have limited space in a city and you want to incorporate these uh newer ideas as from 07. It would seem that uh smaller space could be incorporated and it seems arbitrary. That's all. That's my only comment. Seems arbitrary. Uh I have another question. Um, you mentioned switching the landscaping from uh 2575 from 25% uh shrubbery and grass and so forth to uh 75% shrubbery and grass and 25% rock as like what Tesla has done. Uh I mean all their trees are dying. It's just rock over there. Um, why change it from 25 to 75 when we haven't had any uh snow yet? And the state a couple of years ago offered money to drycape. Why would a city propose more grass, more shrubbery when we are having a serious water issue? I'm wondering why you would uh do that.

I I think probably the best way we could do this is have all of the um all of the folks come up that want to speak to this and then I'll answer the all the questions kind of in series instead of having a question and answer. So, if you don't mind, I I'm I'm happy to answer all the questions, but I think we should take all the questions first and then I'll answer them. Okay, that's all mine. Thanks. Thanks, Brandon. Thank you. Thank you.

Do we have any other public comment? This isn't the Ritter Drive. No, this is not.

Okay. So, if if that's our last question, um maybe I misunderstood you, maybe you misunderstood me. So, the the required landscaping that is in other sections of our code isn't changing. Um what's being proposed in this amendment is that of that required landscaping there's a 75% coverage ratio. Meaning that if you have um a a 200 square ft uh landscape bed, then whatever you plant there should at maturity cover 75% of that landscape bed. It's not requiring more square footage of a landscaped area. Does that answer your question? Yeah. Yeah. So, a mature tree would be

Yes. A tree canopy is cons would be calculated into that 75. It isn't necessarily grass that were No, the grass um requirements are still again in other sections of the code and they're still limited. So, we're not expanding um the the types of material that are being used. We're just saying that once you have a landscape bed, then instead of having it be largely rock and calling it landscaping, we're saying that you need to still abide by the landscape um provisions in other parts of the code. It just needs to have a a larger coverage area

and having that I mean know from my perspective a mature tree will reduce the heat the reflective heat if you've got a lot of rock base around and so it doesn't create additional the heat island that we hear so often referred to that you have with commercial developments with pavement rooftops Right. This would help to m mitigate that and to minimize that so it doesn't become so heat intensive.

Right. And more attractive. I believe the heat island effect is real and we're, you know, we could swing that pendulum too far in the other direction if we're not careful with the reduction of grass and other plant materials. And so we're still encouraging water-wise materials. We're still encouraging limited grass use, especially in areas that grass doesn't make any sense. But those plants that you do plant, use the plant material that will get bigger so that it covers more area. Okay. Thank you. Yep.

Do we have any other comments? All right. Uh motion to close the public hearing then. I propose a motion to close the public hearing for the zoning text amendment RCC 1022 P RUD. Thank you. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Okay. Motion and a second. All in favor? Yes. Yes. Okay. Motion passes. Um, commissioners, any um comments on uh what we've heard, any concerns that you have?

I don't have any concerns, but I do have a a technical question. So, we're we've got you had that little mix up between 2B 1 and two with the three and the five acres. Do we need to prepare a modification to approve that? Um, yeah. I think I think you would modify it to to make that change because the notice was given with that with that mistake. All right. And then any other modifications that you might want to add based on conversations? I have one. I thought you might

and we mentioned this in in the work session. Um I didn't see anything specific regarding amenities developments. I know that in other areas of our code, we have requirements that the amenities which would be club houses, um um grassy areas, those kinds of things that they are to be completed with the first phase of the development and if not then they are appropriately bonded so that [clears throat] we see that those amenities are followed through. and I would like to have that considered as a modification to be included with this code.

I think that's a good one and a good spot for that is 4B where we've talked about the desirable amenities that are generally um applicable to these types of plan developments. That would be a good spot to then require the phasing of those developments or the required bonding. It could be redundant to our existing code, but as we get through the title 10 comprehensive update, then we'll cross reference those and make sure it fits tight. I just think if it's local, it doesn't get overlooked. That's right. So, any other comments, Commissioner.

Right. Then we would entertain a motion. um for action on this on this item. I move that the planning commission recommend approval of the proposed text amendments to title 10 chapter 22 planned residential unit development approved subject to the following modifications. That section 2B 1 and two be corrected so that one shows three acres and two shows 5 acres. And in section 4B that we add that amenity ad amenity development should be completed in the first phase or bonded if it is not.

Okay. Any actually let me also address some findings. Okay. Um, I'm finding that the amendment as modified is consistent with the Riverdale City general plan, that it provides predictable and equitable application of regulations, that it establishes clear and objective objective standards, and promotes the public health, safety, and general welfare welfare of Riverdale City. Any discussions on the motion? If none, do we have a second? Second. So, we have motion and a second. All in favor? Um, let's see. Do we do this one by

Yeah, Michelle, if you would. [clears throat] Sorry. Commissioner Hinstra, yes. Commissioner Francis, yes. Commissioner Anderson, yes. Commissioner Bothorp, yes. Commissioner Hilton, yes.

Motion passes and that will be forwarded to the city council. All right. Next on our agenda, we have a public hearing uh to receive and consider public comment regarding the proposed general plan amendment, which would modify the Riverdale City general plan as it relates to future land use map and a proposal to reszone approximately 4.35 acres at 1526 West Ritter Drive from the single family residential R18 to multiple family residential R4 zone. Um before we open the public hearing, Mr. Cooper, if you would give us a background on that, please.

Sure. And if you want, I can do both presentations and then you can open up the public hearing or um actually maybe let's do the general plan first and then we'll we'll do that. Okay.

Okay. So, as you mentioned, um this proposal is intended to update the future. I need a clicker, I guess. No clicker. Okay, you're my clicker. Thank you. Um to amend the the future land use map in the general plan as it relates to uh the designations that it shows. So if you're familiar with the future land use map, it's up here on the wall. Uh this one here. And the general plan in its entirety was adopted by the city council in in September of 2023. It's intended to be the future roadmap of the city in terms of um what you use as the basis as your land use decisions. It's not this prescriptive zoning. It's not um it's not legally binding and it doesn't uh give any vested rights to property owners. just is um something that the public was involved in creating and is meant to guide the decision-making of the legislative and administrative bodies. So tonight's request is to just look at the um the future land use map as it relates to the area along Ritter between 1500 and uh Freeway Park Drive. It's there shown in the yellow as R16. Uh this is um a precursor to the next topic on the agenda which is the the uh request for reszone. We want the land use decision and the land use policy to reflect and be consistent with the general plan. And so you're being asked to look at the general plan first and then the reszone second. So right now um disregard the actual zoning but if we'll go to the uh

next slide um pay attention to this designation. So it this is the important um part of this step of the process and that is that the future land use map is showing this as detached residential. Um and you can kind of see that all of that yellow area is being um regarded as detached residential. Um so what does that mean? Uh detach residential is not a zone. It's not a zone. Um it could mean um many things, but most importantly it means that those are single family homes generally. Um that's a that's a uh a low density type of a use. And so as the general plan was created and adopted, that's the designation that was given to this area. Um the request is to amend that from detached to attached which would essentially um facilitate a medium density to high density type of a situation. Again these are not zoning designations but with a uh attached residential as a general guidance. That could mean town homes, that could mean apartments, that could mean other things. Uh so that's a medium to high residential kind of um guidance in an [clears throat] an attached residential type of a designation. Um so as you look at this tonight, uh there's a couple of things that uh you'll need to be aware of in terms of the scope of your review. So number one, is it consistent with uh Utah code? uh Utah code gives broad-based authority to cities and their planning commissions to essentially zone their own cities and and and dictate what they want their land use to be. And so that's your your purview tonight. Uh is is this request consistent with the rest of the general

plan? Uh that's a big one. So inside the general plan, there are other um narratives, there are other objectives, there are other strategies outside of this map that um that have sway on the decision in terms of what guidance has been given to the city in terms of its land use as it relates to affordable housing, as it relates to giving people um housing options, unit types, those kind of things. uh is is what you do tonight um able to be implemented? That's another consideration that you'll want to take a look at is uh is your decision on the general plan amendment going to then uh create a situation that c can be implemented by city administration. So we don't want to create a plan that is so far out there that that the market can't respond to it. And then most importantly, does it promote public health and safety and the welfare of this of the city? Uh so let's go back to the screen here. Uh if we'll go to the next page, um as we look at the map of the area, um I've outlined or I've identified kind of what this neighborhood looks like. So to the west there, you've got some commercial properties along Freeway Park Drive. You're all familiar with uh this area. To the north, you've got highdensity multifamily. And to the uh east you have some more commercial and then some more single family lowdensity residential. So that's the context of the neighborhood. Uh 1500 and Ritter are local roads. Uh Freeway Park Drive I think would be considered a local road, but it acts a little bit differently. It's not quite a collector. Um

but it is uh it is attached to those two. Um so in terms of looking at what the attached residential designation would lead to which is medium to higher density. Uh some of the things you should be thinking about is in this area um the area of the vacant land specifically where it's already designated detached. um does it promote a a nice transition a nice uh buffer between the lower density to the higher density which is the commercial that's one element that um would be important for you to look at uh is it does it support the orderly growth so again as I mentioned we're a built city but there are pockets of the city mostly infill or redevelopment that allow to grow and to expand um its resident base which is important and to provide options for people who want to live in Riverdale. And so does changing this from a a lower density, lower intensity use to a medium to high, is that going to support orderly growth and the efficient use of land and and infrastructure? Um let's go to the next slide. some of the analysis that um that we did as we as we looked at this proposal is to uh [clears throat] as I've mentioned kind of look at the the interpretation of detached and attached and I've kind of spoken to that but I wanted to show this slide. Um the general plan explicitly states that the land use designations are intended to uh indicate the general type of and character of development not zone it. I I've mentioned that. Um [clears throat] and I think it's important to note that the general plan also recognizes that attached uh residential is um is a

complimentary residential category that uh transitions between um attached and and detached forms of development. So that's what the general plan is currently saying in terms of the interpretation of those two designations. Go ahead please. Um, what does the general plan say about our housing goals as it might relate to this type of a proposal? Um, the general plan encourages the city to reszone certain property to higher residential densities to facilitate the pro uh production of moderate income and affordable housing and just general uh choice in housing types. Um, so that's a key element of the general plan and also our moderate income housing plan that the state requires from us. Um it states that a mix of housing types and densities is necessary to meet the econom to all meet the needs of all economic segments of the community. So having a a diver diverse community with diverse types of people, diverse incomes, diverse backgrounds that creates a real quality uh sense of place. And so by allowing for um a mixture of housing types, especially as transitions from one type to another, it really promotes that. uh general plan says that the infill and redevelopment areas uh need to essentially be located next to existing infrastructure so that it might um uh leverage that infrastructure instead of the typical development patterns that we see in Utah which is sprawl. How how far can we go to new land? this our general plan really looks at where can we fit new developments into pockets of the city that currently have road systems in place um utilities that can handle additional development. And then I mentioned the moderate income uh uh housing element that we have in the general plan. So again, the the the

plan did anticipate some of these areas being reszoned. Go ahead. In terms of transportation and infrastructure analysis, uh the general plan identifies Ritter as a corridor plan for future bicycle and pedestrian improvements, including some bike lanes and things. And so going back to that emphasis that high d higher density developments should be uh located on these corridors that have these type of infrastructure uh improvements planned. That's a that's some something that the plan is guiding us to do. proximity to employment, um access to uh transportation and um and transportation routes. All of those things are in the general plan. Go ahead. And then a big one which is compatibility with uh neighborhoods. So um the general plan doesn't does not prohibit multifamily development um within areas as detached residential. So again, that's where those two kind of things where the general plan is is uh is guidance and the zoning is law. Uh the guidance does not actually prohibit. It just encourages that that that area should be that type of a designation. In fact, the general plan emphasizes the importance of compatibility and scale. So that's the flexibility that's needed to look at proposals like this and to um to make smart decisions about how do buildings fit with buildings and what's the current infrastructure, what's the the transportation uh network look like and and I'll discuss that in just a minute actually on our next item. Uh so the general plan explicitly supports transition transitions between residential uh density so lower density single family to a medium to high density. That is important and is called

for in the plan. um supporting multif family developments that are compatible with uh with surrounding neighborhoods generally um lower density neighborhoods and then the use of the zoning and development standards to mitigate any impacts that might come from that. So tonight's discussion in terms of this item isn't going to regulate those standards, but know that as you make the decision on the general plan and the subsequent reszone that follows that all of that will be regulated by the current zoning standards and then if the PD ordinance is a is passed, that would be a whole new layer on top of this type of a thing. Go ahead, please. So, I've mentioned a couple of these things. Um, I'll just uh mention it again. So, tonight's review for you is consistency with Utah uh state code. Um whether these types of things apply and uh really it's in the form of are we providing clear guidance um and are we implementing uh clear standards. That's really what Utah's code wants us to do. Is it consistent with the general plan? As I've mentioned, we've reviewed some of those things. You're all familiar with the general plan. Uh, does it meet the goals and objectives and policies related to what that plan says regarding transportation, housing, um, economic development, public facilities, and community character? [snorts] Uh, is what you're being asked to decide on, is it implementable? We talked about that a minute ago. and then public health and safety. Is it going to um impact the general welfare of the community or is it otherwise going to promote the general welfare? And then again, some of the factors that um [clears throat] you're being asked to consider are uh will advance the visions and goals of

the city. Uh orderly growth, we mentioned that. Is it going to enhance our flexibility to provide housing options to as many people as possible? uh does it coordinate our in with our infrastructure planning um clear guidance uh on our policy and uh does it act as an effective implementation tool? So these kind of things are are important and I've mentioned them already. So, uh, I've reviewed this, our city engineers reviewed this, public works director, and in terms of the general plan amendment and its consistency with the general plan, uh, itself and um, the uh, relevance to those things that I've I've identified and talked about a couple of times already. We find that it's compatible with all of those things, those approval standards that I've mentioned. And uh we actually recommend that the planning commission uh move forward with a positive recommendation to the city council to amend the general plan from detached residential to attached residential in this specific area.

Okay. Thank you. Any questions of what's been presented so far? Just remind me with with the space that it currently has, how many single family homes would fit there? That's a good question for the um for the next uh part, but I think it's relevant here, too. Um and that right now it's R1 uh six. Um that would allow on a 6,000 foot lot about 23 to 24 homes. In fact, in 2021, [snorts] there was a proposal for 23 homes. Okay. And I'll get I'll get into that more.

Yeah. On that reszone, we talked about an overlay zone. Mhm. Is that applicable at this point or I mean the commercial overlay zone and and so that that um the you mean the the plan development you brought it out out upstairs uh in the work session that the mixed use zone the mixed use

right um so if you look at the map it's really hard to see but um there's a hatched mark over this area here. Um, actually, never mind. It's not there. So, scratch that. There is no overlay zone. So, we didn't that did not apply what we previously discussed then. Yep. Because that's across the street, it looks like. Yeah, it looks like it goes around it.

Okay. But the the plan development overlay if it moves forward as proposed uh would then overwrite in in a certain way the base zone. So even if this if this general plan amendment was forwarded to the city council and the city council approved it, then the general plan would be amended to attach or detached, excuse me, attached residential and then despite the base zoning, the um the plan development ordinance would would be effective there if passed. One more time. [laughter]

Do we need a break? I got lost in translation. [laughter] The base zoning today is R16, right? The general plan designates it as uh detached residential in terms of the intent. So if the general plan plan amendment as proposed was to go to the city council and be approved the and despite the zoning then the plan development overlay which is what we just discussed could be applied there and a development agreement would control the development. So if we required a development agreement that could control that

under the new ordinance as I've proposed it and as you have um recommended approval. That's my chief concern. Yeah. Um is that there's better control as to what goes in there and we'll talk about that um more as as we discuss the reszone. Right. Right. Yep. Okay. So, um, let's open the public hearing if there's no further discussion. Do we have a motion? Motion to open the public hearing regarding this uh action. Do we have a second? Second.

We'll just keep it brief here. Okay. All in favor? Yes. Yes. Yes. Any opposed? All right. So, the public hearing is open. Um, keep in mind that this is for the amendment to the general plan for future land use map. Uh, this has nothing specific to the proposed development that will follow, but uh we open the public hearing now. And so, if any of you have comments that you would like to make at this time, we welcome you to come forward. and if you'd state your name and city of residence, please. My name is Janet Desaw and I'm a Riverdale resident. I live on

Thank you. Um, what I'm thinking is if we don't even change this general plan thing, we don't have to worry about the next meeting, right? [laughter] Really, why would we change the general plan? It just doesn't make any sense. It's a residential area. I've lived there for 35 years. It's a residential area. Why would we put in what's it called? A attached whatever detached. I mean, the detached part is going to be hard enough for us that have lived there for that many years because it's been a pasture, you know. Sure.

And we've we've we've known for years that eventually there's going to be houses there. But as you start putting in three-story town houses, it just doesn't what was that word? They don't coincide. Yeah, it doesn't coincide with the area at all. Yes, Cherry Creek Apartments are back behind there, but they're if you go up Ritter Drive, I mean, I don't know how long you guys have been on the commission, but we've been going over River Ritter Drive for years.

But I mean, you know what it used to look like. It was just a little country road going down with trees on both sides and and now it's already, you know, with the Coleman property all developed, you know, that's I used to look at trees and now I look at houses, but if those were threetory town houses, you know, you wouldn't even see the mountains anymore. So anyway, what I my in my opinion is if you don't promote this change to the general plan, we don't have to worry about it. Thank you. Thank you.

Would you um explain multif um attached what types of attached uh properties could go in that? Um, again, it's kind of vague in the general plan and our our code doesn't carry over the same language, but generally speaking, uh, attached would mean anything that shares a wall. So, town homes, duplexes, multif u, apartments, things like that. All right. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Melissa Kerry. I live on Ritter Drive. Um I I am just wondering my question regarding the general plan and changing it is we had this meeting a few years ago. We went through this once already and if the previous owner was declined to have theirs changed to an R4, why can this owner come in and then get it changed to R six when it was literally just changed? It was A1. It was going to be this transitional overlay zone. It got reszoned to R six. We knew that that was there, but how is that fair to tell the last owner, "No, you can't do R4, change it to R six, and then let somebody new come in and buy it and reszone theirs a few years later." How is that legal? I don't understand how that works.

Okay.

I mean, I have other things to say about it, but is in relation to that, the reasonzoning, I just don't understand how that can work. A few years later, somebody else comes in and poof, it's like, oh yeah, it's a positive thing. when on map it looks great like oh yeah we've got commercial all around and then we have apartments but the lay of the land is different up there like what the part of the land that we're all looking at it doesn't look like that on the map and so to look at it and say oh yeah this is just an this is just a transition like it says in the thing that we should look at it and say hey this is commercial this is a perfect transition to this neighborhood when you're looking at an old farm neighborhood old apartments, weird little businesses that have been tucked into the neighborhood, and then you've got all the other, you know, insane amount of concerns there. But this is not just a general new part of the city where like I get where these places fit. I'm all over Ogden all the time. Like there are places where these fit. Right there at the top of Ritter is not where this fits. Okay.

So, can we make a list of these questions so that they can be addressed? Yes, please. You got that? Okay. Thanks, Michelle. And so, we welcome others. Um, Mike Dunley. I live on Ritter Drive. Can we go back to that map of the colors, the zoning? I have a question on my house and two other houses. The one below it, please. What's going on with that being mixeduse, non-residential? because I live in one of those spots. So, I'm curious like what's going on with that.

You have an excuse. Yeah. Um I wasn't here when the general plan was created. So, I'm not sure why that um that overlay applies to that. Um that's mixeduse non-residential. So, uh, my hunch would be is that the contiguous nature of those parcels to the commercial zone and how they might, uh, get developed, but I can't say that for sure. That would just be a kind of a a basic hunch. Gotcha. Okay. So, like I bought that house as my forever home and I've been upgrading the house and doing all that. Like,

that to me is a red flag sitting in this meeting because I have no idea what that means, right? That it's like I plan on living there till I die. So, what does that mean? Does I mean, is that like if we were to sell out that could be used for commercial, but that's not the city trying to push us out, right, with that zoning,

right? Zoning. Um, I mean, as a private property owner, you have rights. And so, if the neighboring property uh that is zoned commercial wanted to expand and they bought your property, then they would have a legal right to then expand their commercial as a mixeduse u based on this. Well, not a legal right, but our plan would facilitate the um the request of them to use that land that way, but it doesn't mean that it's obligated by you. Gotcha. You're not being forced to do anything. All right. Thank you. Just wanted to clear that. [laughter]

Any other comments from the public? Maybe if you could address the previous question then.

It's a good question. Um, so the the land has been um reszoned a couple of times as mentioned in 2017. It went from A1 to an old zone called LIT, low impact transition. Um and then in in 2021 it was um there was a request to do R4 which was denied and then it ultimately came R16. Um the reason why there's so many bites at the apple is because land owners have a right to request a land use review and decision on their land. this land has um has a new owner from when it was um requested to be reszoned in 2021 and so that land owner has a right to request u a consideration and that's what's happening.

I think you mentioned uh previously that the prior request included approximately 100 units. Uh the pre the 2021 application was 109 town homes under an R4 designation and the 2017 designation for LIIT was for uh senior living. Okay. Any other questions? Brandon, what was the reason for the denial previously? What was the

I looked at the minutes and some of the notes. So, the planning commission uh recommended uh no to the city council and then the city council ultimately um said made the final decision of no. Um and so that was in in 2020. So maybe I got those dates backwards. I have some notes here. So in 2020 there the R4 request was denied and then in 2021 it was zoned to the R16 from the LIT zone. Um my hunch from the notes was the fact that the uh the density was too great. So it was 109 units and they didn't do a traffic analysis. So no one knew what the traffic was going was going to do to the roads. Okay,

we gonna and are we going to discuss that traffic analysis? The next one in the next item.

So, chair, if I may recommend. So, we've had the um we've had my presentation. We're still in the public hearing for the for the uh general plan. Once you close the public hearing, uh you may, if you choose, um move on to the next item without taking action and then you can take action on both items once you hear the next presentation and and hear uh from the public on that. Okay, if that's makes more sense,

be of benefit to do that. So, um let's consider um a clo uh closing the public hearing on this portion. So, do we have a motion? A motion to close. They're the same agenda item. So, we were going to do just one, but talk about the one and then talk about the next. We don't need to close it. just need to move on to the next and then after that these legal proceedings. [laughter] Sorry I gave you bad advice. I forgot they were the same public hearing.

Okay. Thank you for keeping us on track, Michelle. Um let's move on then. In addition to this um to have uh you explain the proposal to reszone approximately 4.35 acres at 1526 West Ritter Drive from single family residential R18 zone to multiple family R4 zone. Okay, great. Thank you. Um Michelle, do you have that that slideshow? Okay. So, what we've been talking about is the amendment to the general plan, specifically the future land use map that facilitates then the um reasonability and the justification for a potential reszone. And so, now we'll be talking about that request for reszone. And we're actually um joined by Luke Martin with J. Fisher Companies. He is the applicant on behalf of the property owners. And so, uh, Luke, if you don't wouldn't mind just stepping up and, uh, introducing yourself and just give us a, a brief overview of your request today and then I can take it from there. Thank you all for your time tonight. Uh, Luke Martin with J. Fisher Companies in Centerville. Um, we took a look at this piece of property working with the property owner and um, many of the things that Brandon has said in the in the past presentation on the zoning map amendment um, are are some of our thoughts with this property is we're thinking 59 town homes in this area, which would be a good transition from your business, your multif family to a lower residential type of area. Um, we've done this in a few different areas around the state. And what we focus on is legacy projects. We don't want to come in here and build cheap housing

that will not benefit anybody. We want we want to uplift the area. We want to take it um and make it as good as Riverdale City is. We want to go to the standard that the city is already at. Um, and I I think Brandon has the rest of the presentation and um, any of the details that you'd like to know. If there's more questions about the traffic impact study or any of those other details, um, feel free to call me back up and we'll we'll discuss those. Thank you. Thank you. Stay close. [laughter]

Okay. Thanks, Luke. Uh, so, as mentioned, uh, this is a a request to amend the zoning map. uh so a a reszone um from the existing R16 to R4 which allows for a higher density uh type of a a dwelling unit. And as uh Luke mentioned uh this would then facilitate a 59 unit town home project which I'll I'll show you there. Uh go ahead please. Uh so this is all in your packet as well but um I wanted to just show the specific land that is under the request. Um it's important to note that the general plan amendment would affect the parcel to the uh to the left to the west there. Um, so the reszone would only affect the parcels in the blue, but the general plan amendment, if you were to take action on that, would would cover that parcel to the west as well. That's not part of tonight's action. Uh, that's owned by Mr. Gracie.

So, what does that mean, Brandon? Excuse me for speaking out. Mhm.

Um what that means is that um if this is approved by the city council that uh your parcel would remain the R14 unless you would want it to be included in the R or excuse me R16 unless you wanted it to be included in the in the R4 zoning designation. That's up to you. Okay. So again with with um your scope there are some approval standards that that are important u based on our code and and state law. Um there in your in your packet there's a a brief write up from the applicant on some of these things. Uh so you're to look at sufficient justification on the pro proposed amendment. That can mean a lot of things. Um, we've talked about what the general plan gives us guidance on in terms of um using our land near infrastructure to promote um additional residential units that give a variety of housing types. That's one sufficient justification. Uh there could be many um whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character um of the existing development in the vicinity. We've talked about that as um being more of a transition. that's a harmonious type of a type of a use. Um, you're you're not making a decision on architectural standards or architectural uh elements in terms of whether building types or excuse me, building colors and materials are being harmonious with the neighbors. It's more of a use-based type of a decision. Um, we've talked about this before. Is the proposal consistent with the general plan? Currently, without an amendment to the general plan, um this proposal would be inconsistent given the fact that the general plan calls out uh detached instead of attached.

Uh [snorts] another approval standard is the extent to which the proposed amendment would adversely affect adjacent property. Um that could be anything from a view to um more serious impacts to the road uh to uh infrastructure. If there is anything that might require a modification or some kind of um improvement to facilitate this that would impact others, that's a consideration you would want to um take to heart. [sighs] uh have any of the effects that we might talk about uh or or propose here in terms of the 59 town homes um are they non-detrimental to the overall public health and safety but or is it um being being beneficial? So is the proposal going to provide as we've talked additional options for residences? Um is it going to generally improve the quality and nature of the of the area? Are the facilities and services adequate in this area? That's an approval standard that you'll need to keep in mind and I'll talk about that in a minute when we look at the traffic study. And the last one is that is the developer or the owner willing to enter into an agreement for the development of land that was attached to your packet. Um that's an agreement that essentially says that if this goes through planning commission and city council both with the general plan amendment and the request for reszone um they would be asked to uh commit to the 59 unit town home project in the general form of the concept that we're going to see tonight. And the reason for that agreement is to provide an interim step between today's reszone and tomorrow's approval of a site plan which will come eventually if this is approved. What happens

occasionally and in the case of this R1 uh R16 um the proposed development that that prompted the R16 reszone never came to be. And so that property went from LIIT to R16 under the guise of a of a development project. That never happened. And so this interim agreement is meant to essentially say that if this is approved in its entirety, there's an 18-month period in which the developer would then have to finalize the the final development plan, the final site plan approval, and move forward with the agreement or with the development. If that's doesn't happen, then the zoning reverts back to the R16 and that protects the city. Uh that that allows you to base a decision on what you think you're going to get instead of just opening it up to um to whatever might come after you reszone it to a more dense zone. So again, there's the current uh zoning, the R16 in the yellow. Um we're not looking to reszone the large parcel to the left. That's just current zoning. Uh R5 is to the north. Um so that again does give some justification in terms of a of a general planning strategy to where you look at transitions and adjacent zones um in as being compatible. Go ahead please. Um we talked about this extensively. uh the general plan would need to be amendment amended to facilitate this reszone. Here's a historic use of the land. This is a aerial from 2019. So, as was brought up previously, uh it's generally a low density um underutilized type of a land use. Now uh in both the subject property and the property to the west which is that larger piece with the house and the tree in the middle and the

swimming pool uh there the land generally looks about like this today except for that house on the corner or not the corner but close to the corner there at the edge of the map. I think that house is gone but for the most part this is what today looks like. So we talked about these uh we won't cover that again. Go ahead. Um one of the factors for consideration that we look at in terms of um our recommendation to you is uh does a development like this provide an edge and create buffering between uh certain types of uses. So that's been a big topic of tonight's um discussion and it really is important because um compatibility is something that we always strive for in terms of planning creating uses that are not in overly impactful from one to another and in this case it's a if you recall that that other aerial I mean there's commercial there's single family there's different types of commercial there's highdensity multifamily um and so compatibility is is a big concern. And the prevailing character of the of the neighborhood is also a concern. What does um the new the new guy in town um look like in terms of who's already there? And that can mean architectural standards. That could mean all kinds of things, but tonight is just the use. Does a higher density product in the form of a town home um does that fit the character of this neighborhood? Uh the other things we look at is zoning boundaries. Um, so we don't cross properties, we don't cut um, uh, boundaries off. And so that's why we've kind of just taken the subject property and proposed that. Uh, in the future, other properties could be reszoned to include the R4 designation, the one to the west that I've already identified. That certainly could be the case. Um, but we didn't want to include anything

that wasn't being proposed by the applicant. Um [sighs] again multif family and and higher density is a good buffer to commercial. Uh we don't want to isolate neighborhoods and having vacant land in between different types of uses along especially along streets is a form of isolation. And so by developing up to those street edges now you're creating a cohesive neighborhood instead of having empty lots everywhere that separates things from each other. Uh and then again avoiding a development pattern that will divide a neighborhood. um albeit uh a more dense use, it is still is residential. It still would be um owner occupied and so that's generally what's across the street and down the road. And so it it does have a a compatibility that reflects the the current nature of the neighborhood. Other factors that we look at is our current um code. So this is um being proposed under the R4 zone classification and the purpose of that is to provide a higher density residential area uh with the necessary public services to provide a transition from less intensive lower density uses um which in this case is the single family homes surrounding it. Um, [gasps] we talked about the general plan being um, uh, being detached residential and so the amendment is uh, at question tonight and needs to happen prior to this, which is why we've talked about it first. Um, and then the R4 does give um, the ability to create some smaller lots and in this case it's the 59 town homes. So that's really your kind of scope and then our factors of consideration. Go ahead. We'll talk about the uh project now. So, it's just the subject land that was identified in that first map. It doesn't

include the the um vacant well semi- vacant land to the west. Uh that would remain R6 under this proposal. Uh so, 59 town homes. You can see that there's two drive approaches uh one on each side of the property and they're pretty much in the general location of the existing drive approaches. Uh, so that was um something that I think was uh well intended. Um, again, this is not a site plan review. So, I won't I'll I'll speak to a few things that I think are important as it relates to your consideration for the reason, but we're not scrutinizing the site. We're not scrutinizing the architecture, we're scrutinizing the use. Um, but because we're looking at the impact on the neighborhood, the density is important. And so I wanted to just focus on the number of units, how it circulates internally, um how it approaches Ritter Drive in terms of the two drive approaches. Um and then the traffic. Let's go to the next one. Uh well, I I I thought I'd actually provide this not for architectural precedent, but to show you that um what a a three-story or twotory town home looks like. um at a setback that would be similar to what you'd see here. So you can just flip through these. These are precedent images from the developer. Um let's go keep flipping through. Go ahead. Go ahead. This is the secret slide spot. [laughter] Uh so there was some talk about uh what was proposed before. So, I wanted to show this map in in relation to the other map that we just looked like. So, under the current R16 designation, this

was the um plan that was essentially the impetus behind the um R16 reszone in 2021. And as you see, there's 23 uh single family lots there, all within that 6,000 square foot and above um uh minimum size. And what you see is um you see the two drive approaches, but then you also would have individual drive approaches from the other homes that don't face those streets. Uh so you'd have lot 22 and 23. Um those two would face uh Ritter as well. So you'd have multiple cuts on the road versus um a an alternative. Um, this was the base model for the traffic impact analysis that we asked the developer to provide. And I've got it here. Um, I don't have it electronically because it was a huge file, but essentially this was the baseline because again, this is the the current zoning. This could be developed uh today with the site plan approval. Um, so what does that mean in terms of traffic that would happen uh today? and the the proposed 59 homes um are estimated to create about 390 um trips per day. The 23 24 residential homes that are currently permitted uh creates about half of that. So that's pretty obvious to to think about. Um trips are looked at during AM and PM peak times. Um and so that's how they're designated. And this engineer looked at four separate um intersections to look at impact based on the current zoning and the proposed zoning. Those those um intersections are Ritter and Freeway Park Drive, Ritter and 1500 and then the

two drive approaches that are being proposed to come out. So Michelle, do you mind going back to the concept map? Uh other way, sorry. There you go. Keep going. Yep. Thanks. So again, Ritter Freeway Park, Ritter 1500, and then those two drive approaches. How based on 59 units, how many um trips would be generated per day, and where do they go and what's the impact? Um those intersections are generally rated with a level of service between A and F. So that's not like your grade school grades. Um there's an E in there. So it's it's generally the level of service. and F is is um requiring modifications. E would require modifications. The base level of service standard for these roads based on national um standards from the engineer is a D. So anything below a D would require modifications. Anything above a D, the current um streets would handle that projected demand. Um, and Luke can speak to this probably more than I can if you have more specific questions, but from my review of the traffic impact study, um, all of those intersections perform at an A or a B. Both currently with the current traffic that's on there with a proposed traffic of a 23 24 unit residential development and a proposed um, development, the traffic from a proposed town home development of 59 units. They all perform between an A and a B which is which is good not requiring any modification. That means that um the queueing is limited to an acceptable level. The um wait times are limited to an acceptable level and essentially the roads are built to handle that kind of

traffic. The um the freeway park drive and Ritter intersection does degrade a bit to a D in 2030. So they've projected out five more years in the study to look at what traffic looks like in five years in this area. And that intersection does degrade to a D. Still acceptable level of service, no modifications required. And that's based on the Wasach Front Regional Council um travel demand model that they pulled from based on how traffic is working um in 2030. So that's my knowledge of the uh traffic impact study. Um it's essentially saying that the roads are for cars and that the demand that a 59 uh unit town home um project would create is um the roads are sufficient to handle that. Does that mean that there's um more traffic than there is now? Absolutely. Would it be potentially double than what a 24 unit uh single family home development would bring? Most likely. But in CA in terms of the the road system needing improvements to handle that kind of traffic uh in terms of not just movement but safety as well. Um then uh I think it scores really well. Um okay let's go down a couple uh go all the way to the end. Um, we'll talk about one last thing. I mentioned that in um 201 17 it was it was uh an LIIT um and then it went to R4 which was denied. This was the this was the development for R4. So you can see how that shapes up um versus what we're looking at. And uh as I mentioned, I believe that's one of the reasons why it

was denied under the previous commission's um review is that it had the it didn't have a traffic analysis to determine whether or not the roads could handle it. The roads were different back then as well. Freeway Park Drive is new and has uh north and south connections that have changed. Uh we will be getting a roundabout at the bottom of Ritter next year. Um, so that I don't think was factored in on the traffic study, but that will have a positive effect on flow of traffic as well. All of which weren't a a consideration back in 2020 and 2021. So that's my analysis. Um again, after reviewing it um in accordance with the general plan, talking to um the developer and getting a commitment that they would commit to that agreement and and if they weren't for some reason able to go forward with the proposed development that it would revert back to an R16 and feeling comfortable with the traffic impacts, um we would recommend approval of the reszone request. Okay, thank you. Um, with our public hearings still open, we would welcome uh other comments.

Melissa Carrie again from Winter Drive. Um, I just want to point out that these studies, like you're asking how many town homes, these pictures aren't apples to apples because the first one included the lot that this guy over here has now, right?

So, if you guys changed that, he could sell that off to them. We now have a much bigger problem that was already declined. So, the other thing that's not on the map is that we have a giant hillside. So, we put a three-story town homes and we've got a canyon going up that road, which is absolutely ridiculous for the landscape that we have up there. Like, my house would be sitting in a canyon between three-story town homes. We went down and looked at the ones behind Lowe's. Those are three-story town homes. They are gigantic. They're like a wall. That doesn't fit what we have up there. It doesn't fit any of Ritter Drive. And it sits so high up there that those things are just going to be towers up there. It doesn't It doesn't fit it. But I just wanted to point that out because everything that is showing I'm like that's not apples to apples. You're saying that was 100. Well, this could easily be 100 if they included that other lot. So

that's a good observation. Um the the the two sides aren't totally equal. So I think if if the land to the west was developed in this manner, it would still be less than 109. It wouldn't be because he had the he has the building on the bottom which they didn't have before. or if he sold all his land, it would be just as big on that wouldn't be um reszoned. That's a frontage to a major road. So that wouldn't be that wouldn't be it. Still would be close. Yeah, you would be close to sell that off because you're not even using it. You should see him after this meeting. [laughter] Brandon,

Janet Desaw again. Hey, I just want to say you we're talking about the character of Ritter Drive. Those town homes are absolutely not the character of Ritter Drive. I mean, I don't know. You guys know Ritter Drive, right? It's always it's treelined. It's no town homes are not the character of Ritter Drive. And you talk about having a buffer between commercial and residential. That is not any kind of buffer. That's an eyesore in my opinion. I know it's just my opinion and I in my also in my opinion, Mr. Cooper, I feel like you're totally on their side.

I do too.

You the way you're you've presented all of this is pushing for the R4 and the town homes. And I know the city wants more people to come in, but this is totally not the character of Ritter Drive. Ritter Drive has always been that beautiful street on the south bench and putting town [snorts] combs up there. You guys know, you understand, right? It's it's just not the it's not this character of Ritter Drive. It's totally not. [snorts] So, my opinion, just scratch that general plan thing. We don't have to worry about it. Good evening. My name is Matt. I live on Ritter Drive as well, right in between these two.

Say what? Oh, white. Sorry. Um, couple of concerns and comments I'd like to ask and get clarification on as I look at this. We got 59 units and I counted 30 parking stalls. Is that correct? So, when we talk about traffic flow and everything, are we also talking that we're going to turn this street into a literal parking lot? There is 29 less parking stalls than there are homes. I personally am not rich, but I own two vehicles. I'm going to assume every person in the house owns at least one, but you can assume spouses, minimum two. We're looking at 40 cars parked on that street. Are they going to have garages? Yeah, town homes are parked internally. Internally.

So, the 30 uh stalls are for guests. So, every town home has two stalls. I still feel like we're turning it into a bit of a parking lot, but you are right. That will narrow it down significantly. We would we would redline the curb in front of the um property uh in the site plan. I've already talked to the public works director and uh red line. Would you be able or so basically no parking on the shoulder in front of the development at all? And they'll park on our side of the street. So, that's my No, on both sides in front of the the length of the development on both sides. We want to keep that our site is now redlined too for anybody coming to our house and want which that is something I'd also consider if I have people over I can't have a one night of people parking on the street

there's a completely opposite problem that problem I have with that the the the uphill is the more of a concern the downhill you know if that's something that is important then um I don't see that as being as concerning as the uphill shoulder being blocked, especially around that turn.

And then I just want to point out too, I feel like we throw the word transition around a lot tonight that it'll be a nice easy transition, but again, where they're going to be so tall, it's it's a literal wall. It's not a transition into anything. It is a dead stop of what is currently to what will be. And where Cherry Creek is around the corner, I don't feel like it really applies either. You're a half mile of road to get around to where that's at. That personally, I don't feel like it should be considered a transition into that. No one's transitioning from Ritter Drive to that. So my personal opinion is that's not really applicable. It's not a transition. This is a direct change. That's pretty much it for me. So thank you guys for listening.

Thank you.

Thank you. Mike Dunley, live across the street from it. Uh, hearing that it's all going to be red curb sucks for me if nobody can park in front of my house and we have a clear spot for cars. There's enough of a shoulder right now. So, that that would be a definite bad situation for me to not be able to have that. Um, I know inevitability we need more housing and that. But I just feel like this is way too much for that spot, especially with everything that's gone on with the base. I feel like we've had way more traffic. Um, especially with all the chaos of construction and such. So, yes, maybe them pulling out in front of my house wouldn't be that big of a deal, but you factor also all the base traffic that's going up Ritter. Um, both going to work and coming home, I feel like that's just going to make that road a lot worse. Um, so yeah. and then hearing three stories as well. Um, something I really like about Ritter Drive is if you drive down it looking the south side right now because the north side obviously's changed a lot. Um, I love that every house is unique. Um, and that's part of the reason I bought the house I did. There was no other house that looked just like it. And going back to kind of the character of the neighborhood, we Ritter Drive has a lot of character. Every house looks unique. Every house looks cool and different. and this is just kind of a soulless bunch of copy and paste. So I would be against it. So thank you.

Thank you. Yeah, Ben Carrie Ritter Drive right in the middle of it. Um on the last uh layout uh was it 2020 where they proposed or after the designated R16? Can we go back to that that map of the last outline? Yeah. Of the single family homes. Yeah. Yeah. That one. So, proposed 24 homes, right? 23. 23 in a bigger space. Same space. No, it's a bigger space.

No, that's the same property. Okay. Um, and isn't there do you say there's exits? There was four on this, right? One, two, and then you say there's one on each end also, or is it just two? Each house facing Ritter would have its own driveway. Like where would they where would that unit exit? Right there. No, they didn't. That isn't how it was. They all the houses had to exit in internally and then come out the neighborhood exit.

Right. So, lot 22 and 23. So, disregard lots um 1 through eight cuz that isn't part of what we're looking at. So, just uh and maybe that's what you meant. I'm sorry. And he's correct. That top part is his property, right? So, disregard that. Um lot 22 and 23 would face Ritter, right? And so, this plan um could be proposed today and would be required to um receive um a review and approval. That would have been 17 or 18 units in the site that we're currently considering reszone. Yeah. Because the other eight are Mr. Gasey's. That's right. Yep.

So on this though, the proposed exits out of that facto Ritter Drive on lots um 22 and 23. Okay. And that was it for that whole also a road here. Okay. So they all exited a R. Nothing was off the end going to Right. Okay. Yeah. I just feel like with the more 59 town homes, more condensed, more people. It's just going to be worse than this traffic wise. But thank you.

One one quick question. Um, you mentioned that we're going to put a roundabout at the bottom of this. Is that going to go in before the town home? Should, you know, our opinions end up being disregarded. Will there be a temporary window where we have 300 400 more cars traveling through that intersection at the bottom? Uh, the round the roundabout's scheduled to start in the spring. So, it will beat out any construction of this most likely. It'll be finished next year in the summer, I would imagine. All right. I just wanted to make sure of that, but I'm still against this. That's on That's It is on the southern end, but let's people are going to be driving it. Yeah, there's not. We're not talking. Oh, we're not talking about the bottom of River to drive. It's up at the

top view. That's where the roundabout will be. So, Ritter plugs into it. Yeah. But that's the intersection I don't think can handle that. That thing is already kind of ugly when traffic piles into it. Hence, hence the roundabout. Yeah. Yes. But that's why I say I want to make sure it comes faster than anything else does in the event we lose. Yep. It's fully approved, fully funded. They've bid it bid it to contractors. They'll start in the spring, maybe sooner. I just want clarification on that. Look, I'm still against it.

Can I get it one more time? Yeah. Is did you say there was has been a traffic study like counting the cars and do they actually are they the demand is projected? It's forecast.

So we have no idea once all the construction at 5600 and people are used to the roads how much traffic there's going to be. I the other day I was standing in front of my house and a there was screeching of brakes right there at the intersection of 1400 or 1500 in Ritter. It's it's scary. It's scary the the traffic already and I'm I'm just thinking that's a lot more people to take take on our street. But yeah, it's already scary. There's all a lot of near misses. People flying up Ritter and then they turn around in my driveway or their driveways because they missed 1500 and they meant to go down.

And so there's a lot of confusion up there still. And once Yeah, it the traffic it'll never hold the traffic. No way. Should have should have thought of this before we widened Ritter Drive the last time. should have winded it a little bit more probably. We're going to do this kind of thing. Now, we [clears throat] I know that there was an email that we had received. Uh Miss Car's here. Yeah, I showed up. It was in case I didn't make it. Okay. All right. I just wanted to make sure that that voice was heard, too. So, I can address some of the questions if we're ready for that.

Okay. Thank Um, well, I guess do you want to close the public hearing and then I'll address it or do you want to keep it open for Okay. You wanted Mr. Gasey, did you want to make a comment? It's Gracie. Gracie, that's fine. Pardon me. Don't call me late to dinner. [laughter] Um, that's what my dad said. Um, I just [snorts] have one question. Um uh Brandon, what's [clears throat] your opinion as to how would it affect my property if I went along with this new designation? What's the pros and cons? That's my only question. Sure.

Okay. So, if we're finished, I I can answer everything. Just have one question. What's the height of the town halls?

Uh, for this specific project, we haven't done the architecture yet. Um, I would say that on average they're between 33 and 38 feet from from other projects. I guess is the best way to ask you. Oh, we uh oftentimes we do a mix um between three and twotory and it would always be more than that. So the potential is for threetory. Yes.

Okay. Um that was one of my answers to the questions. Um so given the potential of the U PD amendment and it and it being applicable to this project um currently that limits height to three stories or 35 ft. the current zoning um in an R16 is um is going to most likely allow a two-story home. So, if you look at the two-story homes that are prevalent in the area, especially newer ones that are getting built, they're anywhere from uh 24 to 29 ft. So, the difference between a 35T town home and a two-story single family home.

There's a difference, but it's not tremendous.

Okay. There are a couple of question and I know that this is not a site plan obviously. One of my concerns has been I want to be able to have there's a comparison between if we keep R six R16 those homes like Coleman Farms they're running anywhere from 550 to 800,000. Could you forecast an for a town home? What might that cost? Because that that's really a crux here as far as being able to attract and have opportunities for people for housing. That that's a concern for me. Um as is the concern of the additional traffic. But I know that you don't have a sales number as to what they're going to sell for, but a is or a guesstimate.

Um, our goal is always to have it at a price point that makes sense. We would hope to have these in the fours starting and then, you know, as people if they want to upgrade or or do anything on the interior, then they would be able to. Okay. because I want to see people have opportunities, right? Um afford it's virtually impossible for my kids to afford a home now. it is

and to have, you know, a leg up to have an opportunity. And there's other issues that we can discuss later, but uh um those are some of the key things that I'm I'm most interested in as we consider this moving forward. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I have a question for you. Yeah. With your traffic study, did you guys even look at the 1,800 5600 projects in the next 5 years when they're completed of the amount of traffic that's coming into Hill Air Force Base that will be coming onto uh the frontage road and River Drive?

That wasn't anticipated. I actually didn't know about those projects until these have been those projects have been involved for 10 years. Sure. I I I apologize. I just didn't know about them. Um so no we did not anticipate those. Yeah. As part of this traffic study. So the traffic study included the um demand projected by Wasatch Front Regional Council's demand model. Right. That demand model does take in consideration those projects. Okay. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Um did you want to answer? Should we close this? Sure. And then I'll we can go ahead and Okay. If one more comment.

Okay. [laughter] I'm just saying that if those things are in the 400s, they cost more than my home. So that's not affordable housing. That's not bringing in more young couples. Who can afford that? No young couple can afford 400 and something thousand when they can go down the street and get one of those R8 ones for 500 and something. May as well just upgrade. Like these are not affordable housing. Not by any means. These aren't like the affordable housing we have in Ogden that I'm in all the time for my line of work. This is not affordable housing. This is high-end three-story town homes to bring in the biggest bang for your buck. That's my opinion on it anyway. Thank you.

Okay. Um any other comments? Seeing none, uh we would entertain a motion to close the public hearing. I move to close the public hearing. Do we have a second? I second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Um, all in favor? Yes. Yes. Any opposed? Okay, motion carries. Um, the public hearing is now closed. Uh, as far as answering any questions that are addressing any of those questions, please.

Um, I think we've talked about a few of them. Uh the height is is a concern. I think as I mentioned the um the R16 zone currently has a height limitation of of 35 ft. So although a if you looked at a a single family home that's being built today in the adjacent area area, it's not 35 ft, but the current zone allows for 35 ft if they would want to do something like that. Um we talked a lot about traffic. Um the traffic is always a big concern. Um and I'll kind of dovetail that with one of the other questions not or comments not questions and that is I I look as if I'm promoting this. I'm not promoting anything. My job is to make a recommendation as you know and my recommendation has to be a yes or a no. And I try to make it off of um objective based standards. There's a lot of opinions. Um you all have your opinions. I have my own opinions. um the public has theirs. But in order to um to approach this correctly, we try to base it on objective standards. And in the case of the traffic, um it will be an increase to what's currently there today. Um it will be double or more of what would be there. Um in the case of the current zoning, um the the question, that's what roads are for, right? They're to to handle traffic. The question is, does your action tonight create a situation where the the roads need modification to handle the kind of traffic that you would be placing on it by your decision? And I think objectively the answer to that based on this study would be no. Um I think that was all the questions. Affordability is is subjective. Um even our own moderate income housing plan doesn't define affordability. the state

has tried to define affordability in the state housing plan. Um $400,000, believe it or not, is in the realm of affordability in their definition. Um but it's still a subjective weird thing. Um when we're looking at and we don't control that in terms of the price or any of those kind of things. Um the general intent of the moderate income housing plan and what the state has been pushing for in the last few years is trying to bring in more housing types of a of a different variety. Um and what what's happened is town homes have kind of filled that niche of the lower uh cortile of affordability. If you would look down the road, you're going to be uh 550 plus for the single family homes. um uh based on what's being built now.

So, I get it. Affordability is subjective. Um we're not going to define that. But I do think that from an objective standpoint, by providing this by by providing a higher number of units um supply and demand, right? By supplying a higher number of units that are of a different variety than what's currently being built in Riverdale, that does um meet the objective of our moderate income housing. All right. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Another question, please. in your experience with these developments. Um, one concern that I have [clears throat] is from a lending standpoint because I I have been a lender in the past in my past career. [clears throat] Um, there have been units. The the last thing that I care to see is a development that comes in and becomes all rental units

that lowers the in my opinion it lowers the value of of the development and the community

uh because they have um no ownership. They and ownership is key here. Um, I've seen stories where um developers come in and develop a a certain area, but then investors come in and buy the whole series. So, they immediately become rental units. In your development experience, have you ever experienced that at all? I haven't ever seen or at least on our project projects, we've never seen a you know institutional investor come in and buy up the whole uh community. But um in this agreement that we've been going back and forth with city staff on um you know we're willing to at least implement a owner occupied stipulation for a certain number of years so that we can have home ownership in this area. We know that that's important for every city, you know, to have people own and have a sense of community um for where they live. And so that's something that we're we're willing to do and work with the city and bring that element into the development.

Appreciate that comment about the ownership agreement, say two, three years, something like that. But if the people sell it within six months, does that agreement carry over to the next buyer? It is. So it to my understanding it would still be owner occupied for a certain number of years whether someone buys it and sells it or whether they have it for the entire time. If it was constructed and they bought it no matter who's in it the buyer has to agree to say okay three years owner occupied whether I'm buying it from an owner is still going to extend for that three years to whoever's in it.

Is that what you're saying? Yeah. Yep. And that and that's where, you know, an HOA can come into effect. They can help regulate those things. Um we actually recently did this in a project um for Ogden City. Well, not for Ogden City, but in Ogden City where we built 26 town homes. Um and same thing, we want owner occupied. We want this to be a project that uplifts the community and creates a sense of community.

So, we're we're very careful with um these types of restrictions. These are um deed restrictions. Uh that's what's in our agreement right now. That is in your packet. That would be a condition of approval. Um right now it's 5 years. And so uh we haven't worked out the language of those deed restrictions. Um we want to be very careful to promote owner occupancy for that period of time without restricting life events. Um, we don't want people to be in a pickle that they can't sell their house because of some um deed restriction or some um event that would that would cause recourse uh if they have a life event like a death or a relocation of a job or something like that. And so the state's actually becoming these are becoming popular all over the state. And so the state has become really good at at guide guidance on what a good deed restriction looks like to achieve the goal of occupancy for a period of time without really putting a hamper on a person. For instance, we give out um we give out loans through the RDA that uh require you to be occupied be require the home to be occupied for the period of the loan which in some cases can be um 30 years and if you move then you have to pay the loan back um and in full. So, that's the kind of thing that the agreement currently has is a 5-year deed restriction for owner occupancy. But after that deed restriction is up, um then there's no longer any any restriction. And so the second and third cycle of of ownership can certainly be different. HOAs can restrict that kind of thing. It's very difficult to manage, but I've seen it done well

because I know that uh on the flip side with that um certain um lending standards, I don't know if it's I don't remember if it's conventional or FHA, limit um the number of rentals within an area in order to be able to acquire funding, right, uh for subsequent buyers. And so that can be that can create headaches for potential buyers that want to to have a home and to and to stay there. Mhm.

And so [snorts] as part of um the PD um ordinance that we just looked at requires um increased level of disclosure and reporting on HOAs. That's a new thing that was um that was being proposed in that. But even now, our current HOA rules require an HOA to disclose their CCNRs at the time of um platting. Those get reviewed and approved by the city attorney. Um and then uh they're required to renew every year with the city their HOA as well as the state. The state just created a brand new HOA registry. So I think as these plan developments are becoming more popular because of the scarcity of land, they're getting more dense. HOAs are becoming more prominent. Um, and so there's new regulations governing HOAs that are coming out and I think that's good for the for the sake of the residents and the city.

Is this an HOA if approved? Is that what this will be? Yeah. Yeah. Because the way you do it is all the people have to do in an HOA is say, "Okay, present to me your trusted. I want to see whose names on the trusted." It's all they got to do. Simple as that, right? Any additional comments or discussion? Um, I don't have a question for Luke. You can sit down and ask us. [laughter]

Um, I just want to make a comment because I we don't get the public out here very often and so it's it's awesome that you guys are here and I I don't love the comment if you don't take our opinions into consideration because we definitely take your opinions into consideration. Um, I'm a second generation Riverdale citizen. My kid, my my youngest or my oldest son just got married, had to move out of the city because he couldn't afford housing here in Riverdale. Um, and I also grew up with the the land were at home and that whole community shopping area is and we used to climb the trees and had a great rope swing. I I understand the the changes, but also um as I sit on the planning commission, I also understand that we have to be able to balance out all of those things and wanting to keep that authenticity that's part of Riverdale with the changes that the state will mandate to us if we don't make some changes ourselves. And so as [snorts] a as a planning commission, we talk a lot about these different types of housing developments and and kind of the the different types of I don't remember the the right word, but you know, the town houses and the big houses and the apartments with kind of that different mixed um housing environment so that we don't have the state come in and tell us what we can do with our land. So we have to kind of balance all of that out. It's not not always fun, but I just wanted to let you know that your opinions are definitely heard and considered when we're making a decision. And I, you know, I I understand the whole dynamic changing Riverdale. We've seen a lot of it. I grew up in Riverdale, moved away for a few years, so I could say I've been in Riverdale for probably about 60 plus years. And uh I grew up on a street called Cherry Drive.

Know where that is. It's up as if you're going into the terrace. But uh I can appreciate your feelings because there was a time not too long ago, few years ago, that I came to this meeting, one of these meetings, and voiced my opinion before I was on the commission. And the opinion that I voiced was for those really old decrepit mo mobile homes right across the street that have been ripped down. The reason why I voiced my opinion is because we bought one of those for my handicapped son and he got booted out. So don't think that I'm not understanding what you're saying. I can [clears throat] appreciate that. I can really appreciate that. And so luckily enough, my son's in a better situation, but we had no idea where he was going to go as a handicapped person. So I appreciate your comments. I can understand the feelings. I can understand where it comes from, but we're also under a somewhat of a mandate by the state to do certain things. And it's like she said, we don't want the state telling us what to do with our and we want to be able to do what we need to do to make it so that they can't come in and do that.

Likewise, I'm a lifer. I knew the Ritters for which Ritter Drive was named. [laughter] So, um you win the prize. Um the old Cadome Theater. Yeah.

Was my that's where the my dad's alalfa field was and I played army and he'd yell at me for knocking the hay down. Um, so I know I've watched the development through Riverdale. Um, and I've got a headache tonight from all of this because I value you as fellow citizens and I value your opinions and I know what decisions we may make here tonight is going to either make you happy or make you mad at us. Um, but [clears throat] it's all singular votes that determine uh the action that we take tonight. Uh, so I hate these decisions because they're hard, but they have to be are they do they meet fair standards? Do they meet fair requirements? Um, and that's all that we can hope for. Um, but I I am so grateful that you had an opinion to share with us tonight so that we can hopefully balance and make a good decision. So, thank you. Commissioners, anything else to Discuss.

Chair, before you call for a vote, I failed to uh answer Mr. Graciey's question. Oh, what tonight's action would do to his land if it was approved. Um, so I think it's important to mention that no matter what you all decide, it's a it's a recommendation. You're an advisory board to the city council in terms of these types of legislative decisions. So, the city council will make the final decision um in a future, you know, whether you appro recommend approval or denial, it'll still be um a secondary decision.

Yep. Um the uh the land that is owned by Mr. Gracie would if this was approved was to be approved by city council would remain R16. Um the city can um reszone property at their discretion but not without notice. Mr. Gracie was noticed as a an adjacent property owner to this land, not as a subject of the reszone. So if the city council um was to consider adding Mr. Gracie's land to this um then he would have to be properly noticed. he can request that we do that, you know, if that's what his wishes are. Then he he and I can have a conversation and when we notice the city council meeting, we can notice that his land is included in the reszone. Um, and so that would give him the ability to sell it as a more dense piece of property uh with with the applied zoning. Um, if none of that happens and it and it just stays the way it is, then a uh single family home development can be built on it or another proposal for reszone could be um could be put forth by Mr. Gracie to reszone it to commercial to connect to his property to the to the west or something like that. So, there's options.

Okay. Thank you. commissioners. Um, a proposal or a motion would be in order. I'm going to do the first one and then I'll have to say it first. I'm going to do the general plan amendment first. Right.

All right. figured out [laughter] lost on the paper. Sorry, I got my head all screwed up on this one. This last one. Pardon me. We need these numbered. Yeah. I don't know where the general right there. Is this it?

Yeah. So, I propose a approval of the general plan amendment for 1526 West Ritter Drive. So, you got to read the whole thing, the motion and the findings. Oh man.

I move that we forward a positive recommendation to the city council for the general plan amendment as requested by Luke Martineau J. Fisher Company representative and for service mortgage corp subject to the information found in the staff report dated December 23rd 2025 and based on the following findings. The applicant has proceeded in accordance with the Utah code title 10 chapter 20 and the applicable provisions of Riverdale City Code. The amendment is consistent with the housing and moderate income housing elements of the general plan. Three, the amendment con constitutes an infill of redevelopment area served by existing public infrastructure, utilities, and transportation facilities. The general plan identifies such areas as appropriate locations for higher density, residential development. The amendment is consistent with the general plan's transportation and mobility policies, including planned pedestrian and bicycle improvements along Ritter Drive and supports land use patterns to that promote efficient use of transportation infrastructure and multimodal access. And the amendment supports orderly growth, efficient use of land, and redevelopment with the city's existing urban area consistent consistent with the long-term land use and infrastructure planning objectives of the general plan. The proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the vicinity of the subject's property. The proposed amendment will not adversely affect adjacent property or

the public health safety or welfare of the community. The developer developer owner is willing to enter into an agreement for the development of the land. Okay. Any discussion on the motion? Then a second would be in order. I'll second the motion. So, we have a motion and a second. Michelle, [clears throat] would you Miss Maragoni, would you please pull the commissioners, please? Commissioner Bilthorp. Uh, reluctantly, yes. Commissioner Francis. No. I want to make this is for the reason. For the reason only.

No, not the This is not the reason. This is the general plan. Yes. Only Commissioner Anderson. Yes. Sure. Mr. Hendra, yes. Mr. Hilton, yes. Okay, the motion passes. Next, we would have a motion for the um reszone. Any discussion on that before we have the motion? Or let's have the motion and then a discussion. Yeah. Can we have a question before the motion? Sure.

Yeah. Um, you talked about putting the red lines, you know, zoning the red so they couldn't park on both sides of Ritter. Would that have to be on both sides? So, it could just be on the town home side and not on the residential property side.

Yeah, that was just a discussion we had. Um, that would be a function of the site plan review. So when we if this was to pass and get to a site plan review then we would look at that a bit closer setbacks from the front of the property into the property that would be all considered as well. And so the closer the setback probably the more we would be inclined to red curb that north side. Um there was a discussion again to do both sides but I think that north side is the is the key side especially with the drive approaches coming out. Um, so I think that's something that can be considered uh as we look at the the site plan review.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Commissioners, do we have a motion? [laughter] So you guys, it is. No, we're doing the zoning map. So, this is for the zoning change. I'll read it since I don't have my glasses, but I propose a zoning text amendment RCC 10-22-P rule. Yep. You need the J the J Fisher Company's 1526 R.

Oh, there it is. Okay. So, you I have to read that. Which one are you doing? Modification.

Approval. Zoning Mac amendment JD Fisher Company's 1526 West Ritter. Motion for recommendation approval. Motion. I move that we forwarded a positive recommendation to the city council for the zoning map amendment as required by Luke Martino J. Fiser Company representative for Service Mortgage Corporation subject to the information found in the staff report dated December 23rd, 2025 and based on the following findings. Findings. One, the applicant has provided sufficient justification for the proposed amendment. Two, the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the vicinity of the subject property. Three, the proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, objects, objectives, and policies of the general plan as amended. Four, the proposed amendment will not adversely affect adjacent property or public health, safety, or welfare of the community. Five facil facilities and services intended to serve the subject property are adequate including but not limited to roadways, parks and recreation facilities, police and fire protection, schools, storm water drainage systems, water supplies and wa wastewater and refuge collection. Six. The developer owner is willing to enter into an agreement for the development of the land.

Okay. Any discussion on the motion? I have one question in discussion on this. Um, can we will the agreement um for the development of the land? That's just broad and nebulous right now. That's not anything. Can we specify anything that we want included in that agreement?

Absolutely. It's not broad and nebulous. A draft copy was um given to you in your packet for review. Uh the there has been some red lines back and forth, but there were mostly um form and function. There was nothing material that changed what's in the packet. So if you would like to add to that, I think that's certainly in your purview. Okay. Based on subject objective standards. Okay. I'm sure you'll correct me.

Okay. [laughter] In in consideration of this, the one thing that I reluctantly am in favor for is the fact that this land uh agreement for the development of the land gives us an escape. that if it doesn't carry out as to what is generally proposed here that it reverts back to R16

because it doesn't leave a blank slate for anyone else to step in behind and put in something that we are not ready to consider. Um, in amendment to that motion, I would offer uh for your consideration that it be included that there is a five-year um homeownership clause. That's already in there. That is in there. That's already in there.

Okay. I overlooked that. I just wanted to make sure that that was there. Um because home ownership is um I'm I'm reluctant to put anything in that is going to be rental. Agreed. Because of the home ownership, right? So you're making a proposal for the No, it it stand it stands as it is. The other one the first thing you said [sighs] about the revertal reverting. No, that that's that's that's what this permits. Yeah. Um that land use agreement will um create an escape.

Yeah. If that doesn't if this doesn't follow through. So, do we have a second then or any further discussion? I'll second. Okay. So, we have a motion and a second. Uh, Miss Maragoni, will you pull the commissioners, please? Commissioner Boowthorp, yes. Commissioner Francis, no. Commissioner Anderson, yes. Commissioner Henstra, yes. Commissioner Hilton, no.

Okay, the motion passes. um we recommend or encourage you because this is just a preliminary step. Um but there are other uh ears to be heard that will hear your concerns. Um we feel like we have hopefully made a decision that is a recommendation. um that allows the property owners the rights to develop and that they um that the current standards with the R16 permits the same height

I don't know that as what these proposed town homes might have. Um but there's your voices are still uh either way valuable and of worth. So, um, when that, uh, meeting is is is scheduled, we invite you back.

And may I add to that just real quick? Um, so there'll be a couple of steps beyond this tonight. Uh, we've talked about the city council meeting. Um, in addition to that, this concept site plan that you've seen tonight will come back to the planning commission uh for site plan approval if it if the zone change is is approved. Um, I would recommend to the developer if you would be willing to organize some neighborhood um discussions uh between now and the city council meeting and we can put we have 30 days to get this in front of the city council. So within that 30 days, if you and the and the neighborhood were willing to come together and discuss the proposal, that could help um you understand some of the concerns that they have. And even if it is approved, then as you get to the site plan, you might be able to design elements that would um that would address some of their concerns. So I would recommend that you all come together as a neighborhood and do that. The city will attend. We don't facilitate or get too much involved. Um but uh I think that's good practice. We don't require it. Uh but it it would be helpful um for the city council to know that you've had that conversation and that you're looking at things to to address some of the questions. Just a thought.

All right. Thank you. Okay. Next on our agenda would be um consideration to approve preliminary Burough subdivision uh a two lot residential subdivision located at 937 West 4400 South as requested by Bruce Burroughs. Mr. Cooper.

Okay, we're on the home stretch. Mr. Maragoni, we have a slide for this. Um, as uh as was mentioned, this is a simple two lot subdivision. Uh, it is taking an existing uh single family home parcel. It has one structure on it owned by uh Mr. Burroughs and his wife. Um, one more slide, please. There we go. Uh, so that's the uh that's the parcel there, 937 4400. Uh, he's proposing to basically um cut this not quite in half, but to separate it into two lots. Uh go ahead with the next slide. You'll see that lot number two is the smaller of the two lots and the existing home would remain on lot number one. Um this is reviewed against our ordinance in terms of um minimum lot size, setbacks, frontage width, uh utilities standards, those kind of things. In addition to the new lot, he can't put the existing lot in jeopardy. meaning he can't create setbacks and minimum lot sizes and frontages that no longer comply. And so we looked at lot number one and lot number two in terms of the compliance of uh the subdivision standards. Um and we found that all of the standards that we have um are have been met. This drawing doesn't actually show the amendments that we're waiting on, but they're not material. their amendments to just uh put labels on things that weren't there and a few um other minor issues. So, uh go ahead with the slide.

There we go. Was that two of those? What's that? I don't know what it was doing.

Um so, our uh uh objective standards include um plat compliance. So, as I mentioned, the configuration of the new lot, um the subdivision ordinance standards with um density, uh phasing, none of that applies here. Uh but minimum lot size and width does. Uh the street design, um there is no [clears throat] new street here, so it makes it pretty easy. There is a water sewer connection and he shows that on the plat. So, we've reviewed that and it's compliant to our standards. Um and then we have received sign off on the fire marshall. public works had a couple of comments that's in the staff report, but again, it's being changed and so your approval tonight would be um subject to those changes. We'll make sure that happens. So, um pretty simple, two lots. Uh they all both lots are compliant. Um Mr. Burroughs is anxious to uh get this subdivided. Single family homes don't require a site plan per se. uh not like a a residential development or a commercial. So when he issues uh submits for a building permit, he'll include a basic site plan that his new house, if you go back one, would be required to fit within that dash line on lot two. That dash line is the setback. And so we'll review his building permit application to determine if his new house is within those lines. And if it is, then he'll be issued a building permit. He'll be able to build a new house. Um and then uh he'll he'll do what he needs to with the existing home. So with that, we recommend that uh this preliminary subdivision subdivision plat is approved. Um keep in mind that uh with the new changes in state code, you are the land use authority on residential subdivision plat. So this does not go to the city council. It's just your approval, your final action.

All right. Thank you. Um, any questions for Mr. Cooper? Any discussions regarding this?

So, should we make a motion then? Let's I make a motion for approval. I move that the planning commission approve the bureau's preliminary subdivision application based on the findings of fact presented finding that the applicant application complies with all applicable objection objective land use regulations of the Riverdale City Code and Utah code title 10 chapter 20 subject to the conditions listed in the staff report and authorize administrative approval of the final plat upon satisf satisfaction of those conditions.

Okay. Any discussions on the motion? Then a second would be in order. Second. So we have a motion and a second. Miss Maraggoni, would you pull the commissioners, please? Commissioner Bthorp, yes. Commissioner Francis, yes. Commissioner Anderson, yes. Commissioner Henstra, yes. Commissioner Hers, yes. The motion passes. All right. Thank you. Um, next we would have um any comments from the planning commission, city staff. I propose a motion to adjourn. There you go. Okay, we have a second.

I second. Okay, meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Thank you for coming to say no. The only reason I changed my mind is that if we wanted it to be single family housing