[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.