Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves limited rezoning on 1170 North; denies Crestview rezone
Summary
The council approved rezoning roughly 2.25 acres at 1170 North to allow two new lots with deed restrictions requiring minimum sizes of 0.86 acre; a separate request to rezone a Crestview Drive lot to R1‑6 was denied after the Planning Commission recommended denial.
The Richfield City Council on June 9 approved a narrowed rezoning that changes about 2.25 acres on a larger parcel at 1170 North and 700 East from RR‑1 to R1‑10 to permit two lots on the northwest portion of the parcel.
Applicant Corey Winkel described the proposal and said the change would allow construction of a road to loop and relieve a dead‑end water line that staff said must currently be flushed three to four times a year (using as much as 20,000 gallons per flush) to prevent stagnation. Winkel proposed creating two lots measured at approximately 0.91 and 0.88 acres; the council approved deed restrictions making Lots 9 and 10 a minimum of 0.86 acres.
Councilmember Brayden Gardner raised concerns the action might postpone decisions about acreage to the east of the parcel, potentially creating issues later. Councilmember Kevin Arrington described the deal as a compromise reached with neighbors. Councilmember Kip Hansen said the council should judge the item on its merits today rather than speculate about future changes. Mayor Bryan L. Burrows said the applicant did not request anything extraordinary under existing zoning.
Motion to approve the rezone with the deed restrictions carried by unanimous roll call vote (Yes = 4; Andrew Chappell, Brayden Gardner, Kevin Arrington and Kip Hansen; Kendrick Thomas excused).
Separately, the council considered a rezone for Lot 3‑9‑11 at about 730 N Crestview Drive requested to change from R1‑10 to R1‑6. Council members noted the Planning Commission had recommended denial by a 5–1 vote and the council voted to deny the request (motion carried unanimous roll call: Yes = 4).
