Commission tables proposed commercial architectural standards to next meeting after extended discussion

The Riverton Planning Commission voted unanimously to table a package of proposed revisions to the city’s commercial architectural standards so staff can incorporate commissioner suggestions and return the draft at the next meeting.

Planning staff presented a consolidated rewrite that would standardize building-height limits, four‑sided architecture, wall-massing breaks, roof-line variation, limits on materials and colors, prohibited materials, cohesion/consistency requirements within centers, and mechanical-equipment screening. Staff said the changes apply across most commercial zones (except the SLR development agreement area) and would also apply to quasi‑public uses in residential zones.

Commissioners asked pointed questions about several elements: whether glass should be counted as an exterior material for the materials limit, whether a previously used 30‑inch wainscot requirement is still necessary, how to measure and screen rooftop mechanical equipment, and how the code would treat existing or renovations to older buildings. Staff said the drafting provides flexibility for the commission to determine which architectural elements are “major” for cohesion-and-consistency findings and that mechanical screening language offers several measurement options (for example, “as seen six feet high at property lines or as otherwise determined by the city”).

Commissioners asked staff to return with clarifying edits and to consider expanding some material limits (for example, increasing allowed material types from a maximum of four to six). After discussion, Commissioner Clough moved to table the architectural-standards amendments to the next planning-commission meeting; Commissioner Rushton seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Staff indicated they will revise the draft to address commissioner concerns (glass counting, wainscot language, potential maximum for glass, and procedural clarity about cohesion/consistency), then return the revised ordinance for the commission’s review and a subsequent recommendation to council.