The Riverton Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of Joseph White’s text amendment (PLZ 24‑5006) that would add reception centers as a conditional use in the city’s CN (commercial neighborhood) zoning table. Instead, the commission asked staff to forward a recommendation that City Council consider rezoning Mr. White’s parcel to commercial gateway (CG) as a more appropriate approach.

Staff explained the proposal would change the citywide table of uses for CN properties, affecting all parcels that carry the CN designation. The applicant, Joseph White, told the commission he sought the change so his adjacent building used by a dance studio and a former Pet Planet space could host weddings and other events. White said he prefers a text change to avoid the time and cost of a formal rezoning application and noted that the property currently has substantial parking, including an overflow agreement for adjacent property.

Commissioners raised concerns that a citywide table change would permit reception centers in CN zones across Riverton — including small parcels and residentially adjacent areas — and that mitigation conditions might not fully prevent spillover impacts such as late‑night events, on‑street parking and noise. Staff highlighted thresholds that would still apply: applicants must meet minimum parking requirements for assembly uses (staff identified a likely parking standard of about one space per 175 square feet for public assembly, or 1 per 250 for certain dance uses) and conditional use review would require a site plan that could add conditions (hours of operation, parking plans, screening, walls, etc.). The code also contains a standard that any commercial use within 250 feet of a residential zone shall conduct regular hours between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.

After discussion, Commissioner Clough moved that the planning commission recommend denial of PLZ 24‑5006 (text amendment) and forward a recommendation to City Council that the property be considered for rezoning to Commercial Gateway (CG); Commissioner Knudson seconded. The motion carried on a voice vote with no opposition recorded in the transcript.

The commission noted that a rezone application would have different notice requirements, would be evaluated on site‑specific impacts and would require the applicant to pay rezoning application fees. Staff recommended that Mr. White may choose to file a rezoning application for the parcel; the commission indicated that rezoning would be the preferred path rather than a citywide text change.