[1:59] Mhm.

[3:53] » Yeah.

[3:56] » Okay, we will go ahead and call this Tooele City Planning Commission meeting

[3:59] to order this Wednesday, March 25th, 2026

[4:04] at the hour of 7:00 p.m. Uh first item on our agenda is the

[4:07] Pledge of Allegiance. If you'll all please rise.

[4:13] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the

[4:18] republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and

[4:24] justice for all.

[4:31] Okay, just a quick announcement for everybody listening, [clears throat] our

[4:34] uh applicants, the public, for everybody

[4:37] involved, uh there is a significant increase in fraudulent fishing requests

[4:41] using information from the public notices that are issued concerning the

[4:44] applicants being heard during our Planning Commission meetings. Uh Tooele

[4:48] City collects fees only at the time of application submittal. Uh Tooele City

[4:53] will never ask for funds to be sent over wire transfers. Uh legitimate Tooele

[4:58] City emails always end with towolecity.gov.

[5:01] If you receive a request requiring you to pay additional fees for an

[5:04] application in an email that does not end in towolecity.gov

[5:08] after your application has been submitted, this is fraud. Uh if you

[5:12] receive such a request, please contact Tooele City Community Development

[5:15] Department immediately. Do not pay that money and please protect yourself and

[5:20] your assets. Moves us on to number two on our agenda

[5:23] is our roll call. Commissioner Hammer. Here.

[5:26] Commissioner Fairclough. Here. Commissioner Proctor. Here. Commissioner

[5:29] Cordova. Here. Commissioner Jensen. >> Here. Commissioner Anderson.

[5:32] » Here. Let's please excuse Commissioners Sloan and Linford. Uh recognize Council

[5:36] members Hansen, Council member Gossett, uh staff member, we got Paul Hansen, Ms.

[5:41] England, Ms. Agard, and Mr. Johnson joining us here tonight.

[5:43] [cough and clears throat] Our Our taker is not here tonight, so if

[5:46] commission members, if you please state your name before you speak so it'll make

[5:49] it easier for her to take the minutes. She will be doing it by recording and

[5:53] our YouTube recording. So, let's make it easy for her as possible.

[5:58] Uh number three on our agenda tonight is a public hearing and recommendation on a

[6:01] proposed text amendment to Tooele City code 7-26-3.

[6:06] This is types of water rights acceptable for conveyance regarding water rights

[6:11] exactions. Mr. Hanson.

[6:14] Thank you, commission [clears throat] members.

[6:15] It's an honor to be before you. I'm usually in the back and listening, but I

[6:18] don't get to present very often. In 1998, Tooele City adopted title 7

[6:24] chapter 26, which required the conveyance of water rights for all new

[6:28] development in the city. It's working up on 28 years since that

[6:32] ordinance was first put in place. I just want to emphasize that this is nothing

[6:36] new. This is just a modification. What we know with water rights is that

[6:41] the state has issued more paper water rights than there's actually sustainable

[6:46] yield for it. It's not uncommon for them to do that around the state.

[6:51] But as we continue to develop water resources for the city, we want to try

[6:55] to make sure that the water rights that the city [clears throat] accepts for

[6:59] development have a little bit more substantial

[7:02] backing and and support so we don't just accept paper that won't be developable.

[7:08] So, what we're proposing to you tonight with the administration's support is a

[7:13] modification to title 7 chapter 26 verse 3.

[7:18] And Andrew's going to put on the screen how that paragraph reads.

[7:22] The only things we're asking to amend is to add the yellow highlighted sections.

[7:28] Which indicates that the city shall evaluate the rights proposed for

[7:31] conveyance and in its discretion may refuse to accept following the

[7:36] information. And it also allows the city to look at

[7:40] water rights that are not associated or developed or identified developable

[7:46] developable water source, water source efficiency, and water

[7:51] quality. Again, we want to recognize the value of

[7:56] water rights. We want to give people the full beneficial use of them,

[8:00] but we feel that this is an appropriate balance to help help protect the city

[8:03] and make sure that what we do receive is appropriate.

[8:07] Uh this has been presented to the city council in discussion format be but

[8:11] because it is in title seven, it falls to you

[8:14] to make a recommendation either in favor of or against

[8:19] um back to the council. So, with that,

[8:22] I'll turn it to you with any questions you may have for me. Okay, let's bring

[8:26] this back to the commission for any questions or comments.

[8:31] Just a comment. I watched the presentation on the Tooele City Council

[8:34] and it's pretty straightforward, so

[8:38] and protects the city. Thank you.

[8:43] Perfect. Thank you, Commissioner Proctor.

[8:46] Anybody else for questions or comments? Okay, looks like this one also does

[8:51] require a public hearing. So, I will go ahead and open the public

[8:55] hearing now

[8:59] for our large audience.

[9:04] Those watching on YouTube, you are welcome to join us in chambers. We'd

[9:07] love to have you. Seeing no one approach, I'll go ahead

[9:10] and close the this public hearing and bring it back to the commi- uh

[9:14] commission for further action. Chair, I'd like to make a motion. Go

[9:18] ahead, Commissioner Proctor. I'd like to

[9:22] propose that we make a positive recommendation

[9:25] for the lent proposed language as presented to the city council.

[9:30] Okay, I got a positive recommendation uh from Commissioner Proctor. Do I have a

[9:33] second? I'll second it. And a second from

[9:37] Commissioner Anderson. Any discussion before we take this to a vote?

[9:43] Commissioner Hammer, how do you vote? I. Commissioner Fairclough. I. Commissioner

[9:47] Proctor. I. Commissioner Cordova. I. Commissioner Jensen.

[9:50] » I. Commissioner Anderson. I. I am Chairman Hamilton. I also vote I. That

[9:53] one passes with the positive recommendation 7 to 0. Thank you,

[9:57] Commissioners. Thank you, Mr. Hansen.

[10:01] Moves us on to number four on our agenda. It's also a public hearing and a

[10:04] recommendation on a proposed text amendment to Tooele City code 7-4-7.

[10:09] This is parking location regarding the parking of operable motorized vehicles

[10:13] in the front and side yards of residential properties in single-family

[10:17] residential zoning districts. Mr. Eggett. Thank you, Commissioners.

[10:22] This is an ordinance amendment that we've been working on for quite a while.

[10:26] I have taken it to uh I think three City

[10:30] Council work sessions and and received their

[10:33] their input concerning this item. Uh this ordinance amendment did

[10:37] originate with direction from the City Council.

[10:41] Uh there are some issues in Tooele City involving

[10:45] residential property owners turning their front yards into literal parking

[10:48] lots. And some of those areas are are

[10:53] it's not a pleasant situation what's happening.

[10:56] So, the Council asked me to bring to them some proposals in regards to how

[11:00] the city can better uh monitor and possibly enforce these

[11:04] situations. They also asked me to do some research

[11:08] and see what other cities in the area have done in regards to this

[11:12] and then I did do that research and uh I discovered or I found at least six

[11:18] cities that do regulate parking in the front yard. Well, almost all of those

[11:22] cities prohibited that, but some of them did so to varying

[11:26] degrees. But, every city that I mentioned in your staff report

[11:31] did prohibit parking in the front yard. So, this request is not

[11:35] unique to cities in the Wasatch Front area.

[11:40] The problem we're encountering is Tooele City codes really don't regulate this

[11:45] currently. We do have some ordinances in our in

[11:50] Tooele City codes that do regulate some parking of vehicles in residential zone,

[11:54] but but not operable vehicles. Uh in Tooele City codes title 8 chapter

[12:01] 4-3, there's there's some language there regarding uh inoperable or wrecked

[12:06] vehicles. So, we have a mechanism to enforce the

[12:09] situation where there are inoperable vehicles.

[12:13] Uh we also have an ordinance Tooele City code 7-4-4

[12:16] section 4 that restricts where RVs, boats,

[12:21] trailers, and motor homes can be parked. And then we also have an ordinance that

[12:26] requires a certain number of parking spaces per unit. And then we also have

[12:30] Tooele City code 7-4-4 access requirements,

[12:34] which regulates drive approaches, driveway locations, and so forth.

[12:39] We do not have any language in our ordinance that regulates where you can

[12:43] park an operable vehicle in a residential property.

[12:48] So, as it stands right now, you could literally convert your entire

[12:52] yard to a parking lot as long as the cars are registered and operable, and

[12:57] the city has no enforcement recourse against any of that

[13:01] type of situation. So, we are proposing some ordinance

[13:05] amendments to try and provide the city with a mechanism of

[13:10] enforcement for situations that have gone to the extreme and are

[13:15] turning their yards into literal parking lots.

[13:19] We're proposing the addition of section 5 or paragraph No, section 5 to Tooele

[13:24] City code 7-4-7 parking locations.

[13:29] And paragraph A reads, "The established driveway or it says, 'Parking a vehicle

[13:33] shall be limited to the following, the established driveway

[13:37] and to the side yard adjacent to the driveway, garage, or carport,

[13:41] as well as to the rear yard.'" Then it says, "Vehicle parking may be

[13:45] permitted in the side yard opposite to the driveway if the parking complies

[13:50] with the following criteria. Number one, there is a there is direct

[13:54] access to a detached accessory garage behind the home on the same side of the

[13:58] lot. Number two, the parking spot and access

[14:01] lane are paved as per this code section. Number three, drive approach meets the

[14:08] requirements of Tool City code 7-4-8-1 access requirements. That's the old

[14:14] That's the code that >> [snorts]

[14:15] » regulates the number and the width of drive approaches.

[14:19] And then number four, the parking does not otherwise violate any other laws or

[14:23] regulations. Uh paragraph B, "Where a Where a garage

[14:27] or carport is not present, parking shall be permitted only on the same side yard

[14:32] as the driveway." Sections uh paragraph C, "Circular

[14:36] drives are exempt from front yard parking restrictions as long as the

[14:40] circular drive complies with the access requirements."

[14:45] D, "All parking areas in front yards, side yards, and rear yards shall be

[14:48] paved with concrete, asphalt, gravel, pavers, or other similar paving method."

[14:53] And E, "Parking of vehicles shall be prohibited in the front yard area

[14:57] between the inside edge of the driveway and the front corner of the residential

[15:00] structure." I would also like to include in the

[15:03] ordinance this graphic or this figure,

[15:08] which clearly demonstrates the area in gray as available for parking,

[15:13] and then the front yard area in white, which is identified as parking not

[15:17] permitted. I believe that having a graphic in the

[15:20] ordinance would better assist that. So, how does this ordinance play out

[15:26] in regards to benefits and cons or detriments?

[15:31] Uh staff always tries to anticipate potential benefits with any code

[15:35] amendment as well as potential det- detriments. However, we can't

[15:40] we don't have a crystal ball, so we can't project everything that may happen

[15:43] because of an ordinance amendment. We do anticipate that this ordinance

[15:47] will provide us with a mechanism of enforcement for extreme situations.

[15:52] Uh it may help serve to maintain property values and sale and purchase

[15:57] prices of adjacent residential properties, though I have no report that

[16:02] indicates that, but that's a possibility.

[16:05] The ordinance will help protect the city's precious groundwater supply as

[16:09] the city relies on wells that tap into the deep aquifers to

[16:13] maintain its water system. We would like to try and get more of these parking

[16:16] areas paved. And then the ordinance maintains at

[16:20] least 80% of the lot, not counting the building footprints, to be utilized as

[16:24] vehicular parking for residents, including the entire rear yard.

[16:28] Anticipated detriments may create some non-conforming

[16:33] situations. There are a lot of people that

[16:36] and I'll show some pictures that I'll that'll kind of demonstrate what I'm

[16:39] saying, but there are a lot of people that currently

[16:42] have some interesting parking arrangements and um

[16:46] they may claim that they're legally non-conforming cuz they existed that way

[16:49] before the ordinance. Not really a problem for the commission to worry

[16:52] about, but that's something that enforcement has to deal with.

[16:56] Uh enforcement of this ordinance will result in more work for an already busy

[16:59] code enforcement officer. And uh mitigation of the property, if

[17:05] the property owner refuses to come into compliance, is always an issue. Who

[17:08] removes the vehicles? Uh we'll have to involve the city

[17:12] attorney's office to get warrants and so forth.

[17:15] And then this could be construed as a greater intrusion on the private

[17:19] property rights of Tualatin city residents resulting in resentment of

[17:22] city government. So, how would this ordinance apply in

[17:27] the

[17:29] in the real world, I guess you could say.

[17:32] I've got a collection of pictures here. These are all pictures from Google Earth

[17:36] Street View. So, some of these pictures are 3 years 3 years old. Uh they do not

[17:41] represent current situations, but I want to I thought that the pictures would

[17:45] represent pretty accurately uh what this ordinance will do.

[17:50] In regards to this property, you can see that there is parking of

[17:55] vehicles on both side yards and a trailer

[18:00] in the front yard. The

[18:02] parked vehicles on the far side, they are on non-paved area. So, there'd be a

[18:06] compliance issue here in regards to not having paving for the

[18:10] the cars on the side. And then the cars the vehicles in front of the house could

[18:14] not be parked there.

[18:17] This one has approximately seven cars parked in its front yard.

[18:23] Uh this is the kind of situation that the we need this ordinance to give the

[18:27] city some enforcement mechanism to to address. There's just a lot of cars

[18:32] there. They've got cars parked in the park strip.

[18:35] Um in the side yard in the front yard and

[18:38] pretty much any place you can park a car there. There is a patch of grass there

[18:41] that's maintained, but uh this one could be considered a a a

[18:46] slight uh variation from this proposed ordinance. There's a Jeep that's parked

[18:51] uh on landscaped area, if you will.

[18:55] Uh this would not be in compliance with this proposed code.

[19:01] This one, ignore the RV, that's a different code that we're not addressing

[19:06] today. Um focus on the car the red car and the

[19:10] other car. They they are parked in the driveway.

[19:13] Uh the only compliance issue here would be there's no paving where the red car

[19:18] is parked. So, half the car is is on the on the

[19:22] the bare dirt. Uh otherwise, where they're parked would

[19:25] be in compliance with the code. About RV.

[19:30] This one this property has ample side yard paving and gravel as well.

[19:37] Uh their car however is parked on the front, so that would not be in

[19:40] compliance with this proposed amendment.

[19:45] I like this picture cuz this is really kind of what we're looking for in

[19:48] regards to parking in residential zones. You'll note that the RV is behind the

[19:52] front plane of the home in the side yard, exactly where the ordinance

[19:55] requires it. Uh their their side yard there is is

[19:59] paved with gravel. And uh all the vehicles are nicely

[20:03] parked away where they should be. So, this is this is a good example of what

[20:07] our code is intended to do. This is what we This is what we want to achieve.

[20:14] This is an interesting one. They have expanded their driveway into their front

[20:17] yard. The vehicle is parked on impermeable surface and is connected

[20:23] to the driveway. So, technically I believe this one would be

[20:27] in compliance.

[20:32] This one would not be in compliance. Their RV is parked in the park strip.

[20:38] And there are is a trailer and a motor vehicle in their front yard. And then on

[20:42] the side yard where they could park their vehicles, uh there is no paving.

[20:47] So, they have ample room on the side to park those vehicles, but they would have

[20:50] to they would have to do some sort of

[20:52] paving.

[20:55] This is an interesting one. You can see this one they have parking

[21:00] on both sides of the house. They also have two drive approaches.

[21:04] Uh this really doesn't appear to be problematic. The the yard is well

[21:09] maintained and both areas for parking have paving

[21:13] or gravel. Um

[21:16] this is another one that we believe the ordinance

[21:20] is trying to encourage. Uh they've they're keeping their yard

[21:23] open and it looks it looks well and the parking on both sides of the house isn't

[21:27] creating any any aesthetic or visibility problems.

[21:31] This is an aerial photo showing a property on a corner

[21:36] and you can see the driveway on the north side and they have a van and a

[21:39] trailer parked in the back behind the house.

[21:42] Uh this would be compliant under this code.

[21:48] This is another one where they have parked vehicles on both side of the

[21:52] house. There is a trailer, a camper trailer

[21:56] that's located behind the front plane of the home that is in compliance.

[22:01] And they did lay down some gravel for that truck to be parked on and they're

[22:04] maintaining their front yard. So this one would be considered in compliance.

[22:09] Uh landscaping could use a little work, but you know, otherwise they are

[22:14] they are just they would be in compliance with the proposed amendments.

[22:19] Uh this one they they paved the entire side yard. Uh technically that would be

[22:24] in compliance. They could utilize that entire side yard for parking.

[22:30] Uh this one is another one where they've paved the entire side yard and are

[22:34] utilizing it for parking. The property is well maintained, looks nice. That

[22:38] trailer needs to be behind the front plane of the house, but uh otherwise

[22:42] um this would be in compliance with the city's code amendments.

[22:47] Uh this one is not in compliance and I I actually drove by this property just

[22:52] this last weekend and it is considerably worse than what you see in this picture.

[22:56] Uh there's an RV in the front yard as well as a large trailer. You can't even

[22:59] see the house from the street. Uh very very significant issues related

[23:04] to this property as well. So, that's what we're proposing that's what

[23:08] we're proposing for this ordinance amendment. It is a complicated issue.

[23:12] Uh, we did receive a comment from an Andrea Cahoon that expressed concern

[23:16] about vehicles parked in the rear yard and some other concerns. I believe I

[23:20] forwarded that to the planning commission for your reference.

[23:23] I have not received any other comments concerning this item.

[23:26] » [snorts] >> Uh, this does require a public hearing

[23:28] and this is an item for recommendation. So, the city council is the ultimate

[23:32] authority so the planning commission can recommend approval.

[23:36] You can recommend changes or you can recommend denial if you don't believe

[23:39] this ordinance is appropriate. Uh, feel free to make recommendations as you see

[23:43] fit. Uh, that's my presentation on this. If

[23:46] you have any questions for me, I can try and answer those for you. All right, I

[23:49] anticipate lots of questions and discussion on this one cuz this is an

[23:52] eyesore. So, uh, let's bring it back to the commission. Any questions, comments

[23:56] for staff?

[24:00] Commissioner Anderson. >> I do have [laughter]

[24:03] a comment. Surprise, surprise. >> saw that look on your face. Um,

[24:07] actually there there's the the way we're using the wording

[24:11] paved and then throwing in gravel as a as an option. I

[24:20] I just don't like the way we're using that word paved although

[24:24] technically correct, um, I think most people would think

[24:28] that, um, it's either pavers or concrete or

[24:32] asphalt when they think of paving rather than

[24:37] having the additional gravel.

[24:41] And that reflects back to a different part of the code, doesn't it?

[24:45] As it said in your presentation. In regards to the ground cover for

[24:49] parking? >> Mhm.

[24:50] » [clears throat] >> Mhm.

[24:54] The only place where we require paving for parking areas is for commercial

[24:59] zones. And that requires asphalt and concrete.

[25:02] » Mhm. That's the only place where paving is

[25:05] required for for parking. So, as far as this goes, we don't have any

[25:09] other language in the ordinance regarding that. So, this is pretty much

[25:12] for operable vehicles. Inoperable vehicles should not be parked.

[25:16] » Yeah, we and we have an ordinance that clearly gives us enforcement mechanisms

[25:20] there. So, this would be for operable vehicles.

[25:23] And I guess that's the challenge you're going to find is what is operable and

[25:26] what is not. Can be a challenge.

[25:28] » Yep. Okay. It was running yesterday.

[25:36] Uh I did see in in the comments something about fencing, too.

[25:40] Is that something we've looked into requiring some side obscure fencing to

[25:44] be put around behind the house for this kind of stuff? Like if they're parking

[25:48] in the backyard. We do have a fencing ordinance which restricts the height or

[25:53] governs the height of fences and prohibits certain materials for

[25:57] fencing, but there isn't any requirement

[26:01] in our residential codes that require fencing for screening.

[26:06] So. >> [clears throat]

[26:11] » This is normally something like HOAs and CCNRs take care of, but That's what I

[26:15] was going to say. It doesn't my neighborhood. Yeah, no. We're we're

[26:18] we're we're old enough city that a lot of areas don't have this kind of stuff.

[26:21] So, in in when in our work sessions, I

[26:24] believe it was Councilwoman McCall who stated, you know, the city the city is

[26:27] not an HOA. It's not our job to ensure that

[26:30] properties are pretty and well maintained. That's not the

[26:34] city's responsibility. No. But we are dealing with situations here that do

[26:38] need to be addressed. And so, the council's trying

[26:42] in the council work sessions, we we tried to

[26:45] put together a code that is as least restrictive on property rights, but

[26:51] gives us a mechanism to to deal with situations like this.

[26:55] So. That's kind of what I was seeing with the the paved, the

[26:59] gravel, lime fines, things like that would be okay as long as they're a place

[27:03] to park in instead of right on top of your grass or dirt or whatever you may

[27:06] have you.

[27:09] » [clears throat] >> Right. Commissioner Hammer.

[27:11] » Chairman, um so I'm let's see, in the blue in the

[27:16] presentation of number five Well,

[27:21] let's see. And then

[27:25] five three. So it says oh, it's different on my oh, yeah.

[27:33] What am I trying to find? Oh, no, it's number two. The parking spot and access

[27:37] lane are paved as per um this code section. So what does that

[27:41] say about paving? Cuz I am concerned about I know we're not an HOA and we're

[27:45] not um here to govern that kind of thing, but I am worried about the ground

[27:49] water. Yeah. And so um is there I'm just thinking out loud, is

[27:55] there any way that anywhere, like even in your backyard, I

[27:59] think if you're parking cars and things and we're worried about leakage,

[28:05] shouldn't all cars that are parked anywhere have to be have some kind of a

[28:10] ground cover type thing, whether it's paving or gravel? And I don't even know

[28:16] how good gravel is. That was one of the questions that was posed, but That's

[28:19] that's the intent of this ordinance. Uh number two refers you to as per this

[28:24] this code section. If you go to section D, it then requires

[28:28] that all parking areas shall be paved with concrete, asphalt, gravel, pavers,

[28:32] or other similar paving methods. That is the intent of that is that if

[28:36] you're going to park a car or multiple cars,

[28:39] you need to do some kind of paving. Now, the gravel was included in there

[28:43] cuz the city is sensitive to to fact that concrete and asphalt are very

[28:47] expensive. And so some property owners may not be

[28:50] able to do that. Gravel is a less expensive alternative.

[28:53] » Right. And then is there any are we going to say you just have to sprinkle

[28:57] out some gravel or does it have to be um a certain depth or There's no

[29:03] language in there regarding construction of the gravel sites.

[29:07] Are we concerned about that? Like or you know, cuz

[29:11] it is expensive to um not just concrete things, but to use

[29:16] gravel, but a sprinkling of gravel isn't really

[29:20] going to do the job. I don't know. Just I'm just thinking out

[29:25] loud. No, I get what you're saying, too. Yeah, it's almost a concern, but I don't

[29:28] I don't think there's anything that we can require at that particular point,

[29:32] huh? It comes down to the ability to be able to enforce that. I know I I use

[29:37] that as an excuse quite a bit. Um enforcing the ordinance as we have

[29:43] is fairly simple. Um having my code enforcement officer go into a backyard

[29:48] and measure the depth of gravel, it gets problematic. So I I think at

[29:52] this point what we're trying to do is we're trying to get maximum compliance

[29:56] as much as possible. So.

[29:59] Great question, though. >> One more question. On your list of cons,

[30:04] who who does Can you go back to that slide? Sure.

[30:08] Who is going to haul away these cars and under what circumstances? Like those

[30:13] were the questions that were posed, but So we had a meeting

[30:18] yesterday, I believe, with the attorney's office.

[30:21] And if it came down to a point where we had to mitigate that,

[30:25] uh we would need to obtain a warrant and the the attorney's office would handle

[30:28] that for us. And then we would have a tow company

[30:31] that the city contracts with to come remove the vehicles.

[30:35] Uh we would have to have, of course, police service.

[30:38] Uh we have found, however, in in many situations that when we show up with a

[30:43] tow truck to remove a car, the people immediately comply. Yeah.

[30:47] But that's how the situation would be enforced if it ever got to that point.

[30:53] Just more firepower for Chief Days' tow truck, right? Yeah.

[30:56] » [laughter] >> Yeah.

[30:59] And in the past People are we have done

[31:03] something similar with inoperable vehicles under the nuisance ordinance.

[31:07] This would just switch it to not switch it, but give also the ability in this

[31:11] situation for operable proper vehicles. That's good to know, too.

[31:15] This is actually been used for inoperable.

[31:20] And if I could just offer a little little information as to how the code

[31:23] enforcement department works. Um when you look at some of these

[31:27] pictures, like take this Jeep for example, it's really not a big problem

[31:31] with this Jeep's doing. It wouldn't be in compliance, but

[31:35] we're not going to drive by and see that Jeep and jump out of the jump out of

[31:38] jump out of the truck and go cite them for this. Um

[31:42] we're really looking for situations like this

[31:46] or where property owners adjacent to it have registered a complaint and then we

[31:51] respond. And this gives us the ability to

[31:54] respond, where right now we just have to tell them

[31:57] sorry. Can't help you. Mhm.

[32:00] So yes, there are a lot of people in the

[32:03] the thing another concern that was brought to my mind

[32:06] brought to my attention by a member of the city staff is

[32:09] what about during a snowstorm? If someone parks in the front yard during a

[32:12] snowstorm. >> [snorts]

[32:13] » Code enforcement is a slow process. So somebody has a family gathering

[32:19] or there's a snowstorm and they park a couple cars in their front yard and

[32:22] they're gone the next morning. Before we even get to action on that,

[32:26] those cars are going to be gone. So this really applies to more long-term

[32:30] situations, not to you know, junior's home from college for

[32:35] the weekend and he wants to park his car the front lawn, although not in

[32:38] compliance, by the time we get around to enforcing it, he's going to have the car

[32:42] gone anyway. So, just little information as to how

[32:45] code enforcement really works. It's it's a fairly slow process. Mainly

[32:50] complaint-driven as well, too, huh? It is. Once that process gets started, what

[32:55] is that time frame typically? It depends on the code enforcement officer and how

[33:00] he is dealing with the with the

[33:05] I guess you say the violator or the property that's not in compliance.

[33:09] Uh he tries to work with people to and and give them ample time to come

[33:13] into compliance before he issues a fine. We don't We're not in it to get the

[33:18] money. We're in it to get compliance. And so, he'll work with each individual

[33:24] on a case-by-case basis. Typically, he gives 2 weeks between warnings for

[33:28] compliance. But, if he needs to extend that or

[33:32] shorten that, he he can do that. The ordinance actually doesn't specify a

[33:35] time frame. Okay. So. Thank you. He's easy to work with,

[33:39] too. Just having a conversation with him,

[33:42] he's so easy to work with. Yeah, Farley is really good at what he does. Yeah, he

[33:45] is.

[33:47] Great questions, great comments. Anybody have any other ones?

[33:52] I'll make a comment, Mr. I appreciate the work you guys put into

[33:56] this. It's a lot of work and then the city council with your work sessions and

[33:59] stuff, it's really

[34:01] it has to be really hard to balance the public good with property rights and

[34:06] everything. And that's that's really tough and I think for what it is, it's

[34:10] I'm more for property rights myself, but I think for what it is, it's about as

[34:16] good as we could come up with, I think.

[34:21] And then we'll just tag on to that. I think that I've been to all the the city

[34:25] council work meetings and and that type of and

[34:30] the work meetings and the business meetings where this has been presented

[34:33] and there has been a lot of work on it and a lot of back and forth and I've

[34:36] seen how it's been revised and I think now it is actually at a point where it

[34:41] is a fine balance between property rights and city rights. And we're not

[34:48] here to make the city pretty. We're here to make it a livable city and I think

[34:52] that this >> [clears throat]

[34:53] » balances that. Love to have ultimate funds to make it

[34:58] pretty though, right? >> [laughter]

[35:01] » If if I wanted to do that, I would live in an HOA.

[35:05] » [laughter] >> Very, very true.

[35:08] Great questions, great comments. Anything else from the commission?

[35:13] All right. While you're thinking about it, we will go ahead and open the public

[35:17] hearing now. >> [clears throat and cough]

[35:19] » If you'd like to approach the podium, speak about this item,

[35:22] you are welcome to.

[35:27] Seeing no one approach, I'll go ahead and close the to this public hearing and

[35:31] bring it back to the commission for any other further discussion, questions,

[35:35] comments. Mr. Chairman, make a motion.

[35:39] » Yes, Commissioner Jensen, go ahead. >> I move before the a positive

[35:42] recommendation to the city council for the parking and

[35:45] residential zone text amendment required requested by Tooele City for the purpose

[35:51] of amending the Tooele City code regarding the parking of motor vehicles

[35:55] in front and side yards of residential properties as found in

[35:59] Tooele City code 7-4-7 and to include figure 7-4-7

[36:04] in the ordinance. I have a positive recommendation from

[36:08] Commissioner Jensen. Do I have a second? >> [clears throat]

[36:11] » I'll second. And a second from Commissioner Proctor. Any other

[36:13] discussion before we take this to a vote?

[36:18] Commissioner Hammer, how do you vote? I. [clears throat] Commissioner Fairclough.

[36:20] I. Commissioner Proctor. I. Commissioner Cordova. I. Commissioner Jensen.

[36:25] » I. Commissioner Anderson. >> I. I'm Chairman Hamilton. I also vote I.

[36:28] That one is a 7-0 positive recommendation headed up to the city

[36:32] council for further discussion. All right, moves us on to number five on

[36:37] our agenda tonight as a public hearing and a decision on a conditional use

[36:40] permit request by Trevor Jensen representing Bit and Spur Riding Club

[36:44] and Rodeo to authorize the continued use of an open-air theaters and meeting

[36:49] places located approximately 240 West 500 North with the open space OS zoning

[36:55] district and encompasses approximately 15 acres. Ms. England.

[37:00] Um yes, this is this is just for the existing rodeo grounds that we have here

[37:06] in Tooele. Um they've been in operation since 1945.

[37:11] Um they did request to uh build a shed on um

[37:17] the property so that they could store their tractors. However, since we could

[37:23] not find a conditional use permit approval on the property, it's going to

[37:28] be considered a non-conforming property. So,

[37:31] we just wanted to do the conditional use so

[37:35] they could put the shed on there so it's no longer a non-conforming issue. So,

[37:41] that's the reason for it. There's not going to be any other kind of changes in

[37:45] the way that it's operated or any um

[37:49] anything else but that. So, um this is just of um

[37:56] the site plan that they submitted and then just showing what kind of shed

[38:00] they're putting in. Um

[38:04] the uh so uh city staff does recommend approval.

[38:11] Is this bit pretty much some basic housekeeping to kind of go over with

[38:14] them? >> Yeah, just to clean things up and to

[38:17] make sure that this doesn't come up again if they ever want to make any kind

[38:20] of changes to the site, they don't have to um jump through any more hoops or

[38:26] you know, have any more complications or problems with it, so. Perfect. I was

[38:31] kind of hoping they'd be having some heavy metal bands playing there on that

[38:34] northeast corner [laughter] there. I'm sure all the neighbors would love that.

[38:41] » [laughter] >> All right, let's bring this back to the

[38:43] commission. Any questions or comments about this item tonight?

[38:48] I have a question. >> Yes, Commissioner

[38:50] » of about the This might not be germane but to the

[38:53] topic but how long has the city been doing conditional use permits and how

[38:56] does the uh

[39:01] I I I don't understand why they have to do it now if they've been doing it since

[39:04] the 1940s. >> [clears throat]

[39:06] » Because >> bringing up to compliance but if they're

[39:09] already there, like I So, in our ordinance, the non-conforming

[39:15] section of the ordinance says that um the use can continue as long as you

[39:20] don't make any changes to the site. Okay. Um but since they're putting in

[39:24] the shed that's going to be making a change to the site, so we just want to

[39:28] have the conditional use in place cuz I mean in the future they could want to do

[39:33] bigger changes and you know, this just gets them set up so that they can

[39:38] without having to do this again. So. I'm sure. So,

[39:43] is the building are we doing a conditional use permit

[39:47] for the building or for the property? Just for the property, the use in

[39:51] general. It's just going to be uh for the use. The shed itself just needs to

[39:55] get a building permit. So.

[39:58] So then that goes right back to his question.

[40:02] Why are we doing this? Because

[40:06] » because it sounds like the building is what's causing the conditional use

[40:09] permit and not the property. Well, the the reason why is because the

[40:14] use itself does not have a condition a no use approval on it. So, it's

[40:20] considered non-conforming. And so, with us doing the approval,

[40:26] uh the conditional use approval, it makes the whole property conforming so

[40:31] that they can do stuff like that without having to go back to doing any kind of

[40:35] conditional use. So.

[40:39] So, we're cleaning house? Cleaning house, yes. Um We're retroactively

[40:45] » So, moving forward, how is the city keeping track of conditional use

[40:49] permits? We approved 15 daycare centers last

[40:56] year, or in that neighborhood. >> We have much better filing systems now.

[41:02] So. Um all all of our everything is kept

[41:06] electronically. It's very easy for us to find things now. 1945 were it's kind of

[41:13] hard to even find the first zoning ordinance we have. So, um we are going

[41:18] to try and get things a little bit better organized, but in the uh for the

[41:23] time right now, for the time being, this is a much efficient, easier way for us

[41:28] to allow them to get the shed without wasting a lot of their time. So.

[41:36] It's pretty similar to owning a historic building in our downtown. If we want to

[41:39] do a lot of major work, we have to bring it up to code. And so, that's why you

[41:43] don't see a whole lot of work going on. Uh cuz it's sometimes very difficult to

[41:46] do that, and very expensive. Mhm. Yeah. No, I get it. Hopefully that answers

[41:51] your question, though, Commissioner Anderson.

[41:53] Yeah. Any other questions from the commission?

[41:58] Perfect. Looks like this one also does require a public hearing.

[42:01] So, I'll go ahead and open the public hearing now.

[42:07] » [snorts]

[42:09] » Seeing no one approach, I'll go ahead and close the public hearing, bring this

[42:12] back to the commission for any further questions, comments, or I'll entertain a

[42:17] motion. Mr. Chair, I will make a motion. Yes,

[42:21] Commissioner Proctor. I move we approve the conditional use permit requested by

[42:25] Trevor and Christina Jensen to authorize the use of open air theaters and meeting

[42:30] places to be conducted on property located at 240 West 500 North,

[42:34] application number 2026-018 based on the findings listed in the

[42:39] staff report dated March 20th, 2026. I have a motion to approve from

[42:45] Commissioner Proctor. Do I have a second?

[42:47] I'll second. And a second from Commissioner Hammer. Any other

[42:50] discussion before we take it to a vote?

[42:55] Commissioner Hammer, how do you vote? I. Commissioner Fairclough. I. Commissioner

[42:58] Proctor. I. Commissioner Cordova. I. Commissioner Jensen. I. Commissioner

[43:02] Anderson. I. I am Chairman Hamilton. I also vote I. Uh, that one passes 7 to 0.

[43:09] Moves us on to number six on our agenda is our city council reports.

[43:13] Mr. Dossett.

[43:17] We love to see you all dressed up for us.

[43:20] You thought that uh you thought I dressed up for you. It was a funeral

[43:23] today. >> Oh. Well.

[43:25] » [laughter] >> Um we appreciate you guys and everything

[43:29] you do and showing up for these meetings and uh

[43:33] I'm assuming you're not in it for the money, but uh this is it's it's

[43:36] appreciated what you do. Um a lot of the things that you guys have talked about

[43:40] are the things that we've talked about, the things that we've heard and that

[43:43] were presented tonight. So, there's not a lot of new stuff to bring up. So,

[43:47] anybody have any questions for Councilman Hansen?

[43:51] » [laughter]

[43:55] » Yeah. >> Nothing? When's the chief going to get

[43:57] his tow truck? >> Yeah. Yeah. [laughter] Chief Day needs

[43:59] tow truck. We're pushing for him. We need it. Hey,

[44:03] we've used his tow truck a couple of times for me. So, that's a that's a good

[44:07] thing. [laughter] So, not because I was inoperable.

[44:10] » Uh-huh. It's cuz your yard's all messy, we know.

[44:13] » inoperable. >> [laughter]

[44:15] » Well, if you don't have any questions for us, we appreciate all you do, and we

[44:18] appreciate the staff. So, thank you guys. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman

[44:22] Gossett. Thank you, Mr. Hansen. We appreciate

[44:26] you, too. >> [laughter]

[44:28] » All right, moves us on to number seven tonight. It's a review and decision.

[44:31] These are the March 11, 2026 Planning Commission meeting minutes.

[44:35] Are there any additions or corrections to those minutes?

[44:40] I'll entertain a motion.

[44:44] I move to approve the minutes from March 11, 2026. Motion to approve from

[44:49] Commissioner Hammer and a second from Commissioner Anderson.

[44:52] Any discussion [clears throat] before we take it to a vote?

[44:57] I mainly say that so I can finish writing.

[44:59] Commissioner Hammer, how do you vote? Aye. Commissioner Fairclough. Aye.

[45:02] Commissioner Proctor. Aye. Commissioner Cordova. Aye. Commissioner Jensen.

[45:05] » Aye. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. I am Chairman Hamilton. I vote aye. Those

[45:09] pass 7 to 0. Moves us on to number eight on our

[45:12] agenda. I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

[45:16] So moved. We are adjourned at 7:41 p.m. Thank you. Thank you.

Tooele City Planning Commission Meeting, March 25, 2026

Transcript