[0:07] Yeah, I am.
[0:08] Ready?
[0:10] Okay. Welcome. It's 5:30 p.m. on
[0:12] Wednesday, April 1st, 2026.
[0:16] The Tooele City Council and the
[0:17] Redevelopment Agency of Tooele City are
[0:19] meeting in a work meeting. This meeting
[0:21] is being held at Tooele City Hall in the
[0:23] Council Chambers located at 90 North
[0:25] Main Street in Tooele, Utah.
[0:27] We're also streaming this electronically
[0:29] on the Tooele City YouTube channel.
[0:32] We will start with the roll call.
[0:34] Councilman Gossett. Present.
[0:36] Councilwoman Gochis.
[0:37] >> Present.
[0:38] >> Councilman Hanson. Present. Councilman
[0:40] McCall. Present. And Councilman Brady,
[0:42] and I'm present.
[0:43] We'll move on to item three, the Mayor's
[0:45] report.
[0:46] Thank you, Council. I have a couple of
[0:48] things tonight. First of all, um
[0:50] you some of you were there, and many of
[0:52] you probably saw in the news that the
[0:54] state has gone after a nuclear life
[0:56] innovation center bid that's been put
[0:59] out by the federal government. Um it is
[1:01] a located out in the middle of nowhere.
[1:05] By everybody says, "By what city?" And
[1:07] I'm like, "There's not a city that it's
[1:08] by." So, um off of exit 62.
[1:12] And there is nothing there. It's some
[1:13] sitler land. Um but there are a lot of
[1:16] questions about it. It's not a done
[1:17] deal. It's [clears throat] just um a bid
[1:20] to uh Utah and Tooele in particular,
[1:23] Tooele County in particular does have a
[1:25] met meet all the criteria of the bid,
[1:27] and I believe we are the only state who
[1:29] has met all of the criteria. A lot of
[1:31] the other states are pairing together
[1:32] with different states. Um but what it is an innovation center. Um it's kind of
[1:37] like compared if you compare like the
[1:39] Pentagon oversees all of the bases, it's
[1:43] kind of an an innovation center that
[1:45] would oversee other nuclear reactor
[1:47] sites. So, it's a campus that has a lot
[1:50] of things involved in it. Um but there
[1:52] are still a lot of questions. It's just
[1:54] a bid, so we'll see what happens. And uh
[1:57] President Trump, it's a priority for
[1:59] him, and so he's wanting to get going in
[2:01] by 2029. So, there's still some time to
[2:04] work out a lot of the details, and I'm
[2:05] sure that the state will be putting
[2:07] forth a lot of information for the
[2:09] residents so they know what's going on
[2:10] as as it progresses.
[2:12] Um
[2:13] we've also had a number of calls today
[2:15] about some work being done up on
[2:17] Skyline, and everybody's assuming the
[2:19] light is going in. Um no, not to diss
[2:22] UDOT, but I've never seen UDOT work that
[2:24] fast in my life. So,
[2:26] I
[2:27] it's actually digging for the gas
[2:29] company. They're moving a gas line or
[2:32] doing something with their gas line. So,
[2:34] um we don't have any updates on the
[2:36] Skyline light yet. There's that's still
[2:38] in the works. So, if anybody asks, then
[2:41] um that's information for that. And then
[2:44] um I wanted to report that I have met in
[2:46] budget meetings with all of the
[2:47] directors now. Um so, we are we have the
[2:51] budget discussions going ongoing, and
[2:54] we're looking we're waiting to see what
[2:55] our revenue is like uh before we start
[2:58] making those allocations, but we have
[3:00] been through personnel, of course, which
[3:02] was your first priority. And we've been
[3:04] through all the directors' um
[3:06] needs and and few wants, and we're
[3:09] looking at those. We do have a lot of
[3:11] needs in this in the community. Um the
[3:13] reclamation facility, as you know, is um
[3:16] at capacity and needs some work. Our
[3:18] fire and police and needs some help. So,
[3:22] there are a lot of needs, and we'll be
[3:23] bringing to you those in the near
[3:25] future, and hopefully some of the new
[3:26] businesses help out with the revenues
[3:28] coming in.
[3:30] And then I wanted to just also share two
[3:32] We always hear complaints at City
[3:33] Council meetings, so I just wanted to
[3:35] share two letter positive letters that I
[3:37] have received in the last little while.
[3:39] Um
[3:40] One was from uh Karen Gentch, who's come
[3:43] to City Council meetings in a couple of
[3:44] times to complain about the dogs in
[3:47] shopping carts, animals in shopping
[3:49] carts, and she just wanted to express
[3:51] appreciation for putting it in the
[3:53] newsletter what the code is and that
[3:54] people shouldn't do that, and
[3:56] just thank us for for responding to her
[3:59] concerns. And another one was in regards
[4:01] to our Public Works Department that
[4:03] there was some work done in March on
[4:05] Coleman,
[4:06] and the city crew came and fixed some
[4:09] grass around the water meter, and after
[4:11] they left it the I guess the water meter
[4:13] had to be dug out, and after they left
[4:14] you couldn't even tell they'd been
[4:15] there. So, they were very appreciative
[4:16] of the care that our Public Works
[4:19] Department took in making sure that
[4:21] their yard looked as good when they left
[4:23] as it did when they came. So, of course,
[4:25] we know we have great employees, and we
[4:26] appreciate that, but it's always good to
[4:28] hear some good news from our public.
[4:31] That's all I have. Thanks.
[4:33] Thank you. We'll move on to our next
[4:34] item, the Council members' report. We'll
[4:37] start with Councilman Gossett. All
[4:39] righty. I was not able to make it. I was
[4:42] in Nephi when I needed to be in Tooele
[4:44] to head out to the nuclear thing, so I
[4:46] didn't make it to that. Um
[4:49] I have gone out and supported the new
[4:51] businesses that have opened and tried to
[4:53] make sure that I've gone in and seen it
[4:55] and and supported them. Uh one one thing
[4:58] that I did have a a meeting with
[5:00] somebody with the Ladies' Community
[5:01] Club, and they would like to know um
[5:05] from the city standpoint
[5:07] what they can be doing to improve our
[5:09] community. What things could we use help
[5:11] from the Ladies' Community Club? And so,
[5:14] I told her I'd bring it up tonight, and
[5:15] then
[5:16] if anybody has any ideas, I can take it
[5:18] back to her and and let her know, but I thought that was really nice. They've
[5:22] done a lot of good over the years. I've known about them since 2014, and so
[5:26] I feel like they've brought a lot of
[5:28] good things to the community. So, keep
[5:30] that in mind.
[5:31] That's all I got. Thank you.
[5:33] Councilwoman Gochis.
[5:35] Um
[5:36] thank you, Mr. Chair. Um I've been um
[5:38] out of town for the last 2 weeks, but I
[5:41] just wanted to share just some a fun
[5:42] fact. I did visit the NASA Kennedy Space
[5:45] Center, and today the Artemis 2 launched
[5:48] the rocket, and I got to see that on
[5:49] television. It was really fun. My
[5:50] daughter watched it live.
[5:52] Um just a fun fact from about Utah is
[5:55] that the Tooele the twin solid rocket
[5:57] boosters are manufactured by Northrop
[5:58] Grumman in Utah. The rocket motors are
[6:01] produced at the Promontory uh
[6:04] facility, and the testing is done here
[6:06] in Utah. So, we had a big presence in
[6:08] that, and it's really historic. They
[6:10] haven't launched a rocket to the moon
[6:12] since 1972. So, it was very patriotic.
[6:15] It was not part of my official duties,
[6:17] just something a fun fact I wanted to
[6:19] share with the public.
[6:20] Thank you.
[6:22] Councilman Hanson.
[6:25] So, I did attend the governor's party
[6:27] out there at exit 62 and got to listen
[6:30] to that talking. It's It's exciting
[6:32] stuff if it all works out and it's it's
[6:34] safe and everything, and it appears that
[6:36] it is, but we'll like the mayor said, we
[6:38] still have a long way to go before we
[6:40] would be us. So, we'll we'll see what
[6:41] happens.
[6:43] And then we did have Planning Commission
[6:44] last week, and
[6:46] all the things that were discussed are
[6:48] on our work on our Council meeting
[6:50] tonight, so I'm not going to report on
[6:51] them. I'll just know that that
[6:52] everything that we talked about they
[6:54] talked about.
[6:56] Cuz they had to approve everything, and
[6:57] I think everything that that was talked
[6:59] about they did approve and pass it on to
[7:01] us. So,
[7:02] that's what I got. Thank you. Councilman
[7:05] McCall.
[7:07] Um I attended um also the
[7:10] governor's um thing out in the desert.
[7:13] Um
[7:14] it is out there.
[7:16] >> [laughter]
[7:18] >> And the proposed footprint is big. It's
[7:21] miles.
[7:22] Um um but um like she said, I guess we
[7:26] should have to wait and see how that
[7:27] pans out. And I attended two um ribbon cuttings um
[7:33] >> [clears throat]
[7:33] >> over the past couple of
[7:36] since the last meeting we've had.
[7:38] Was it two, Mayor, or was it three? Two
[7:40] or three.
[7:41] Yeah. To the point that I mentioned to
[7:43] the mayor at
[7:45] we're having so many ribbon cuttings, I
[7:47] I'm I'm about to ask for a stipend for
[7:49] gas with $4 a gallon
[7:52] driving all over the
[7:53] >> [laughter]
[7:55] >> Just kidding. That's all I have.
[7:57] All right, thank you. There has been a
[7:59] lot of ribbon cuttings.
[8:00] I haven't been able to make it to a lot
[8:01] of the ribbon cuttings, but I do try to
[8:03] go support the businesses after and
[8:06] taste what they have. Um I've also
[8:09] attended the weekly staff meeting, the
[8:11] mayor's staff meeting, and just want to
[8:13] recognize the staff for the great work
[8:15] they do. It's always interesting to hear
[8:17] the different challenges that they're
[8:19] going through, and they have great
[8:21] discussions and come up with great ideas
[8:23] to address a lot of the residents'
[8:25] concerns. And then met with a developer.
[8:28] It's actually one of our discussion
[8:29] items today and about the Compass Point
[8:31] CSD. So,
[8:33] I don't have anything to report on that.
[8:35] concludes my report. We'll move on
[8:37] to our discussion items. Our first
[8:39] discussion is a discussion on Compass
[8:41] Point CSD 3100 North presented by Andrew
[8:45] Aagard, the Community Development
[8:46] Director, and Anna England, the City
[8:49] Planner.
[8:51] Thank you, Council.
[8:53] This is an application for a commercial
[8:56] special district, which would apply
[8:58] [clears throat] to the 160
[9:00] acres
[9:01] of property highlighted in red on the
[9:03] aerial photograph
[9:05] uh shown on your screen there. You'll
[9:06] see that the Sage Flats Apartments is
[9:08] located northwest.
[9:10] Uh they're currently under construction,
[9:12] and then we have the Compass Point RSD
[9:15] located [clears throat] to the west of
[9:16] the CSD,
[9:17] uh which is currently being reviewed in
[9:20] various uh phases and villages for
[9:22] approval.
[9:24] So, the CSD only applies to the
[9:25] commercial properties.
[9:27] It does not apply to the residential.
[9:30] So, this is the zoning of the property
[9:31] currently. Most of the property is
[9:33] currently zoned general commercial.
[9:36] There's a small sliver of Compass Point
[9:37] RSD on the northwest side that may just
[9:39] be a mapping error.
[9:41] Uh we can correct that when we update
[9:43] the zoning map.
[9:46] So, we're bringing this item to the City
[9:48] Council because we've already been
[9:50] through a couple of iterations of review
[9:52] of the CSD with the applicant,
[9:55] and I kind of feel like we're spinning
[9:56] our wheels. The The applicant wants
[9:58] certain things with the CSD and staff want certain things with the
[10:03] CSD and
[10:05] you guys are the ones that are going to
[10:06] make the decision. So, I thought, well,
[10:07] let's bring it to the city council and
[10:08] get your feedback and your opinions and
[10:11] what you'd like to see with this CSD.
[10:13] The applicant is here as well tonight.
[10:15] I'm sure he would like to discuss this
[10:17] with the council. And I'm also going to
[10:19] be tag teaming with my new city planner,
[10:21] Anna. So, she'll be up here to present
[10:23] some some of her perspectives here.
[10:26] First of all, I just want to touch on
[10:27] what a CSD is. A commercial special
[10:30] district is a new zoning ordinance.
[10:33] It's a zoning ordinance that's written
[10:35] and proposed by the applicant.
[10:37] And basically, it's a tool in the city's
[10:39] toolbox which enables the applicant to
[10:42] write their own commercial zoning code.
[10:45] >> [clears throat]
[10:45] >> It allows them to set their own
[10:46] development standards, set their own
[10:48] architectural standards, and enable
[10:50] maximum design flexibility for the
[10:52] developer and design professionals.
[10:54] I'm by trade, I'm a planner. I'm not a
[10:56] design professional. So, we put this
[10:59] tool in the toolbox to
[11:01] enable people who are good at design,
[11:03] and that's what they do every day, to
[11:05] have some flexibility to to um
[11:09] design a project in Tooele City that
[11:11] maybe our rigid zoning codes wouldn't
[11:12] permit to happen. So, that's the purpose
[11:15] of the CSD.
[11:17] Uh what a CSD is not is it is not a PUD.
[11:21] So, we have a PUD ordinance that is a
[11:23] completely different type of
[11:25] development. A CSD is not a PUD and does
[11:28] not function like a PUD.
[11:31] A CSD also does not exceed or supersede
[11:33] building codes or fire codes as those
[11:36] are mandated by state law.
[11:38] So, they would still have to comply with
[11:40] all of the pertinent building codes,
[11:41] pertinent fire codes, and so forth.
[11:44] But, it does allow them some
[11:45] flexibility.
[11:47] I do want to emphasize to the council
[11:49] that a CSD
[11:50] is a legislative item. And
[11:53] [clears throat] as such, the council is
[11:54] not obligated to approve the CSD
[11:58] unless the council is comfortable with
[12:00] the CSD proposal and sees it as a
[12:02] benefit for the Tooele for Tooele City
[12:04] as a whole. So, this is a legislative
[12:06] item. So, you are in a position where
[12:08] you can
[12:10] I guess negotiate with the applicant,
[12:12] get sit this to where you want it to be,
[12:14] and to see what you want to see in this
[12:15] area.
[12:16] And you're under no obligation to
[12:18] approve that. The ordinance actually
[12:19] step spells that out as well.
[12:22] So, the applicant has provided some
[12:24] documentation. I just want to briefly go
[12:26] through the proposals and then turn the
[12:27] time over to Anna and let her touch on
[12:29] some things.
[12:31] Uh the purpose and intent of the Compass
[12:33] Point CSD is to establish a clear master
[12:35] plan framework for commercial
[12:37] development within the Compass Point
[12:39] area.
[12:41] They want to enable a cohesive
[12:42] commercial environment that supports
[12:44] daily services, employment, and
[12:45] destination-oriented retail,
[12:48] entertainment uses,
[12:49] ensure compatibility with with adjacent
[12:52] residential neighborhoods through
[12:53] lighting controls and internal
[12:54] connectivity,
[12:56] >> [snorts]
[12:56] >> and provide predictable development
[12:58] standards for future users.
[13:00] The CSD will be the the ultimate
[13:03] governing document for this area if the
[13:05] council decides to adopt this. Anything
[13:08] in the CSD that doesn't cover
[13:11] or does not
[13:12] have specific development standards for
[13:15] commercial development will then revert
[13:16] back to our standard city ordinances.
[13:19] And we do have some ordinances that are
[13:21] not zoning specific, such as parking and so you know, landscaping and parking
[13:27] areas and so forth. Those are broad
[13:29] ordinances over all commercial zonings.
[13:31] Those will still have applicability in
[13:33] this area
[13:34] where the CSD is silent.
[13:37] Uh some of the things they provided in
[13:39] the CSD, they have a list of proposed,
[13:41] permitted, and conditionally uses.
[13:44] These were generally brought from our
[13:46] existing list, and the applicant has
[13:48] kind of altered which ones are permitted
[13:49] and which ones are conditional.
[13:52] Uh they're proposing bulk development
[13:54] standards such as building setbacks, lot
[13:56] standards, and so forth.
[13:58] Uh here are the lot standards that they
[14:00] are proposing.
[14:02] Pretty standard stuff in regards to what
[14:04] the general commercial zone currently
[14:06] requires. Uh they do have an eight-story
[14:09] setback area A only. To go back to the
[14:12] map here.
[14:14] Um
[14:16] Area A
[14:19] is the area on the west side closest to
[14:22] the the Compass Point RSD. That would be
[14:24] designated as area A
[14:26] in regards to uh taller buildings.
[14:30] So, going back to
[14:32] the setbacks,
[14:34] uh for an eight-story building, they are
[14:36] requiring within the CSD that the
[14:38] building
[14:39] has a setback related to the height of
[14:42] the building. So, if it's an 80-ft tall
[14:43] building, it'd be a a I believe an 80-ft setback of
[14:48] residential uses. So, they they have the
[14:51] height proportionate to the other the
[14:53] setback is proportionate to the building
[14:55] height.
[14:57] Here's some language in regards to
[14:59] setbacks. Currently, they are requesting
[15:01] a front yard setback of 10 ft.
[15:03] In our general commercial zone, the
[15:05] setback for front yards is 30 ft.
[15:07] So, that would be a reduction in
[15:09] setback. Uh side yard setback on corners
[15:12] of 10 ft. Currently, in the general
[15:13] commercial, that would be 0 ft.
[15:16] As long as it meets building codes. And
[15:19] then building heights, one story
[15:21] uh with a maximum in area A of the CSD,
[15:24] which we just discussed, could could go
[15:26] up to eight stories and must comply with
[15:28] section 4.1 of the CSD, which is the
[15:30] increased setback for taller buildings.
[15:34] Parking, they are proposing a universal
[15:36] parking standard of four stalls per
[15:38] 1,000 sq ft. Now, in our current
[15:40] ordinance, we have varying parking
[15:42] stalls for
[15:43] different types of uses.
[15:45] So, for retail, it's three stalls per
[15:47] 1,000. For medical office, it's five
[15:50] stalls per 1,000. It varies between
[15:52] depending on the use. They are settling
[15:54] on just a basic parking standard for the
[15:56] entire CSD, which is four per thousand.
[16:00] And then there's an exception for an
[16:01] educational facility or hospital which
[16:03] would be determined by the development
[16:04] director, which would be me. We would
[16:06] require a parking study and make sure
[16:08] that they have sufficient parking in
[16:09] that case.
[16:11] Uh they are proposing overall project
[16:13] landscaping for park strips and park
[16:15] strip trees. This is out of our current
[16:17] code.
[16:18] Uh exactly as uh we are currently
[16:20] required for landscaping in those areas.
[16:23] And they can The applicant can explain
[16:24] better why they're doing that.
[16:27] And then landscaping for individual
[16:29] lots, 10% minimum landscaping.
[16:32] Uh percentage of ground may be reduced
[16:33] where project
[16:35] public amenities are provided and the
[16:37] use of sod is prohibited. And then
[16:40] fencing and screening standards,
[16:41] there'll be no fencing standards except
[16:43] where
[16:44] vehicle storage areas for automo-
[16:47] automobile repair businesses are
[16:48] proposed. So, there's requirement for
[16:50] masonry fencing for screening purposes
[16:52] there.
[16:54] Pylon signs, they have some additional
[16:56] language that would allow some
[16:57] additional pylons along Meridian Way,
[17:00] 3100 North, and SR-36.
[17:03] And then they're also proposing a master
[17:05] plan monument sign, a very large sign to
[17:07] designate that as Compass Point. I don't
[17:09] know where that's going to be in the
[17:10] project. I was anticipating it to be
[17:12] somewhere near the entrance into the
[17:13] project. [clears throat and cough]
[17:15] Uh we wanted to make sure we had that
[17:16] codified in the CSD.
[17:18] And then of course, an expansive list of
[17:20] permitted and conditional uses
[17:23] uh are included within the within the
[17:25] CSD.
[17:27] So, that's that's the proposal as
[17:29] currently proposed. Again, we have been
[17:31] through two reviews with the applicant
[17:32] and they have they have tweaked some
[17:34] things and they have held firm on other
[17:36] things and
[17:37] I just think at this point in time we
[17:38] need some impact or some feedback from
[17:41] the [clears throat]
[17:41] decision makers.
[17:43] And uh I'd like to turn the time over to
[17:45] Anna and let her touch on some things
[17:47] that she feels [clears throat] are
[17:48] pertinent. And then of course, the
[17:49] applicant's here to
[17:51] explain talk to the council as well.
[18:11] So, there are a couple things about the
[18:13] CSD um
[18:15] proposed zoning that I wanted to go
[18:18] over. The first thing is that it is located at the most
[18:22] northern part of the city. And that
[18:25] would um
[18:27] impact like just the overall view of
[18:31] people coming into the city off of Main
[18:33] Street. And I feel like that's something
[18:35] that we should um hold into
[18:39] consideration when uh reviewing uh this
[18:42] application.
[18:44] Um another thing that I've found through
[18:48] reading the purpose statement is that
[18:50] the CSD is meant to be used as a
[18:52] placemaking tool.
[18:54] Um the CSD district is meant to provide
[18:57] a master plan or a master planned and
[18:59] architecturally designed non-residential
[19:03] development. Um the plan should include
[19:06] design standards for all aspects of the
[19:08] project, including methods for
[19:11] integrating separate uses and other
[19:13] developments, CC&Rs for the project,
[19:17] um
[19:18] and then also
[19:23] Sorry. See, conceptual plans that show
[19:28] um [clears throat]
[19:29] the total acreage of each proposed use,
[19:32] such as retail, office, entertainment,
[19:34] public space, and then also
[19:36] illustrations um that show the block
[19:39] design and building elevations as well.
[19:44] Um
[19:45] another thing to um that this type of
[19:49] development should include would be
[19:53] sign and lighting package showing
[19:57] um
[19:58] you know, what how the designs how it's
[20:00] all going to be cohesive
[20:03] to make this a significant or separate
[20:05] place from other places in the city. Um
[20:10] Uh so that would also include
[20:13] illustrations of proposed lighting and
[20:15] signage. There's also um some bonus
[20:18] things that we could consider would be
[20:21] um doing things to integrate um
[20:26] like a um
[20:29] uh landmarks and references to um
[20:35] the history of a place.
[20:37] Um on this on these
[20:39] the sign and lighting package we're
[20:41] looking at Thanksgiving Point. We're
[20:43] looking at the water tower. That's like
[20:45] a extra
[20:47] like a place-making type of um landmark.
[20:51] And then also if you look at the new new
[20:54] Park Boulevard which is by Park City.
[20:58] Um that has like um
[21:01] mine shaft type of tower um lights which
[21:05] is I thought was kind of a cool little
[21:08] unique thing.
[21:09] >> [clears throat]
[21:09] >> Um and then
[21:12] like other places like in Lehi there's
[21:15] um
[21:16] Cabela's where you have big box retail.
[21:20] But then there's also things that are
[21:22] specific to that particular development
[21:25] that
[21:26] would be [clears throat] good to
[21:27] integrate. And then you just have like a
[21:30] sign package and and lighting package
[21:33] um included in that. Um
[21:38] So as far as the review standards go, um
[21:43] the CSD results in a development that
[21:46] couldn't be created with just the
[21:48] underlying zone.
[21:50] That is one um
[21:52] standard that we would need to also
[21:54] consider. It will substantially benefit
[21:57] the city and then the development will
[22:00] be unique to the community.
[22:04] Um
[22:06] From what I've seen and what I've
[22:08] reviewed, there's
[22:10] a few things that would be different,
[22:12] but it would mostly be what you could
[22:15] achieve with just the general commercial
[22:17] zone.
[22:19] So
[22:20] um that would be very similar. Um
[22:23] and questionable if that would meet that
[22:26] first review standard.
[22:29] Um
[22:34] So another thing that we can also look
[22:36] at is that it is in the gateway overlay.
[22:39] There's also going to be some additional
[22:42] require
[22:43] like considerations for building design
[22:46] orientation
[22:47] Excuse me, orientation.
[22:50] Signage, landscaping, location of
[22:53] off-street parking areas, and then
[22:54] street improvements such as trees,
[22:56] pathways, and other amenities.
[23:01] Um and then this is just this street
[23:04] view of 3100 North and then the overall
[23:07] subject property. [clears throat]
[23:09] Um so I mean there's some really neat
[23:11] things that we could consider
[23:14] going into that place.
[23:17] Um to have like a
[23:19] better than average
[23:21] development. We'll put it that way. Um
[23:25] Some examples of good entry ways we're
[23:28] looking at um
[23:30] Daybreak and then Thanksgiving Point and
[23:34] you know, Brigham City having the
[23:36] archway over the street. That type of
[23:39] thing with um
[23:41] this type of
[23:43] um
[23:45] zone we could integrate like neat little
[23:50] things that you couldn't do other places
[23:52] in the city like that.
[23:54] Which would be another thing we could
[23:56] potentially consider.
[23:59] And then other design elements to
[24:01] consider I know that we are going
[24:03] through a drought.
[24:05] But we could also make it look nicer. Um
[24:10] there's other things that we could do
[24:12] such as
[24:14] Daybreak where they've um
[24:17] left it natural where they've just taken
[24:19] out of races species and the grass and
[24:22] everything like that. It's just pretty
[24:23] natural.
[24:24] Um this is also helpful and beneficial
[24:28] because if we take out too much of the
[24:31] vegetation, we're going to only increase
[24:33] urban heat island issues and things like
[24:36] that.
[24:38] And um
[24:40] we want to try and and not you know,
[24:43] like continue those type of things. Um
[24:48] Another thing we can do is a create ways
[24:51] to um
[24:53] well, have a buffer off a main street to try and
[24:59] like protect the um development from
[25:02] noise and
[25:03] >> [clears throat]
[25:04] >> uh smells and you know, just kind of
[25:06] scary things from fast moving cars right
[25:09] next to you. So
[25:12] um that's another thing to do and these
[25:14] are these That's what these are are
[25:16] buffers off of high traffic
[25:20] roadways. Um
[25:23] But things that you can do to create
[25:25] interest would be like you know, having
[25:28] different types of
[25:30] um finishing materials or ground
[25:32] materials to make some kind of design.
[25:36] Um if we are we're going to go
[25:39] less um vegetation than you know, try
[25:42] and and make it
[25:44] more interesting. So
[25:47] that's all I have.
[25:50] Okay.
[25:53] I think we should have some questions
[25:55] first and then we'll
[25:56] maybe let's If you have any questions
[25:58] [clears throat] for Andrew or Anna,
[26:00] let's ask those now and then we can have
[26:01] the developer
[26:03] explain if they need to.
[26:06] So the I have a question about the an
[26:08] 80-ft building and it's in one area.
[26:13] Is that one building? Is it Could it be
[26:16] Is it large enough for multiple
[26:17] buildings? Cuz that would be
[26:18] significantly higher than any building
[26:20] we have currently in Tooele City. Yeah,
[26:22] we have a we have a silo out of the
[26:24] depot that's 100 ft tall. Okay. That
[26:27] gives you a pretty good
[26:28] indication of how tall they would be.
[26:30] And the CSD does not limit the number of
[26:32] buildings. It just limits them to a
[26:34] certain area. Okay.
[26:37] And the area was farther west than
[26:39] >> Yeah, it was farther west.
[26:40] >> It's not on the SR-36 like the front of
[26:42] >> [clears throat]
[26:43] >> I I should have had a better map
[26:45] prepared that. You see where it says
[26:46] subject properties? Yeah. It'd be around
[26:48] kind of south of where the key is in
[26:50] that little corner.
[26:52] >> [clears throat]
[26:53] >> Okay.
[26:55] I was curious I know that they talked
[26:56] about a hospital being 80-ft high. Was
[26:58] there other kind of businesses that was
[27:00] thinking that would be tall like that?
[27:01] Hotels or
[27:03] other things or I guess that's a
[27:04] question for the developer.
[27:07] Yeah, but the the building height is not
[27:08] limited to a specific type of use. So a
[27:11] hotel Yeah. could come in with in that
[27:13] area and be eight stories tall.
[27:17] Do they already have somebody in mind
[27:18] for that? Is that why we're talking 80
[27:20] ft?
[27:21] I don't know. Good question for the
[27:22] applicant. All right.
[27:25] And just along that same
[27:27] topic, do we do we have an allowance in
[27:29] our code for 80-story building even
[27:32] though that silo was 100? I know that we
[27:34] raised the height when we uh when the
[27:36] LDS Church built the temple.
[27:39] It exceeded our standards. Yeah, and we
[27:41] when we did the when we did the
[27:43] ordinance member for the temple spire
[27:44] was specific to residential zoning
[27:46] districts.
[27:47] >> [clears throat]
[27:47] >> Uh in commercial zones, the tallest we
[27:49] have currently
[27:52] um would be in the Tooele City Business
[27:54] Park. We allow buildings adjacent to the
[27:56] railroad to go up to 70 ft. Mhm.
[27:59] Um in regular commercial zones, I
[28:01] believe it's four stories is the maximum
[28:03] height.
[28:04] Okay. And this is
[28:06] Am I understanding eight stories? So
[28:08] that's twice our height. And um
[28:11] have has the fire department been
[28:13] notified of this and do we have the
[28:15] capability for fire suppression for a
[28:17] building of that I have forwarded these
[28:19] drafts on to the fire marshal, Nick
[28:21] Wall, and he has reviewed
[28:23] [clears throat] them and did not issue
[28:24] any comments.
[28:25] So I assume that they have the
[28:27] capabilities to handle those situations.
[28:29] Okay.
[28:31] Great.
[28:32] Um I also kind of wondered and I
[28:35] understand um how the CSD works that
[28:38] it's to promote a tailored development
[28:40] and I I like that. Um but do they still
[28:43] have to notify the city of of their
[28:45] intent and and what they're going to do
[28:48] or is this just giving them cart blanche
[28:50] to be able to go do the things that they
[28:52] would like? So they would have to go
[28:54] through the standard approval process
[28:55] for site plans that any other commercial
[28:57] business in the city does. In fact, the
[28:59] CSD does does
[29:02] spell out the review process for those
[29:04] things. And conditionally use permits
[29:06] would have to go to planning commission
[29:08] as usual. Mhm. So the the approval
[29:10] processes would be pretty much the same
[29:12] as current commercial zoning districts.
[29:14] There wouldn't be any changes there.
[29:16] Okay.
[29:18] Item eight is the architectural and
[29:20] vertical design standards and the it
[29:22] really says there is no required
[29:24] architectural design standards.
[29:28] Part of me that worries me a little bit
[29:29] cuz that means they could it can look
[29:31] however they want it to look, right?
[29:33] There's zero standard of finishes and
[29:37] do we lose some control over that by
[29:40] it's all in the applicant's hand at that
[29:42] point of what it looks like and
[29:45] is that common with a CSD like this to
[29:49] I wouldn't say it's common. The The
[29:51] applicant is pioneering this. We haven't
[29:53] done one of these in Tooele City before.
[29:55] Um we would like to see a staff This is
[29:58] this as Anna mentioned this is a great
[30:00] opportunity to really make something
[30:02] that
[30:03] pops for Tooele City for those that are
[30:05] coming into the city. And so
[30:07] at least the buildings that are adjacent
[30:08] to SR-36 it'd be nice to have some
[30:10] architectural standards or some
[30:13] buffering mechanisms codified in the
[30:15] CSD. Right. Uh those properties that are
[30:17] a little farther back they would be
[30:19] similar to other commercial properties
[30:21] in that we don't currently have
[30:23] architectural standards in the books for
[30:25] commercial properties.
[30:26] Now I in speaking with the applicant
[30:28] they they intend to
[30:31] make this a pleasing development and
[30:32] they they do good work.
[30:34] And they they will have CCNRs and so
[30:37] forth that will help govern the
[30:38] appearance of their structures. However,
[30:41] we don't control CCNRs. Right. And they
[30:44] could change those without city approval
[30:46] and so forth. So the question is is the
[30:48] council comfortable with that or would
[30:50] you like to see architectural standards
[30:52] in the CSD?
[30:53] If we added something what would be an
[30:55] example of a a design that a standard
[30:59] you would recommend?
[31:01] It could be It could be anything. It
[31:03] could have various architectural
[31:05] elements such as parapet walls and um
[31:09] coins or columns or
[31:11] percentages of certain types of masonry
[31:13] full windows. It could be
[31:16] a wide variety of things that you can
[31:18] have in there. The best thing to do
[31:20] would be if the council is interested in
[31:22] seeing that is have the applicant
[31:24] propose that as part of the CSD.
[31:27] We bring it back and see if that's
[31:28] something you're comfortable with.
[31:30] Okay.
[31:32] What I would think it'd be nice to see
[31:33] what they're going to propose.
[31:36] You know I'm I'm I'm sure they want to
[31:37] do something that's going to look nice.
[31:38] That don't make sense. Otherwise
[31:40] nobody's going to go be there but
[31:41] >> Yeah. But it'd be nice to see what
[31:43] they're doing what it's going to look
[31:44] like and
[31:45] So that'd be nice if there was a way to
[31:47] have that come back to us.
[31:49] Oh we could bring it back to you.
[31:50] >> Yeah with that you know I I'm
[31:52] I have the same concern. We don't want
[31:54] things that are you know that are not I
[31:56] don't know I don't know what how to even
[31:57] just say it. They're not going to put
[31:59] anything there that looks bad. I don't
[32:00] get it I don't
[32:01] think that's even an issue but
[32:03] just to make sure it it
[32:05] it's proper I guess. Yeah.
[32:08] The hard part is with the conceptual
[32:10] design is it doesn't always look like
[32:12] that. I'm not saying this applicant will
[32:15] do that but we've had other applicants
[32:16] who
[32:18] we see something a picture in front of
[32:20] us it'll look like this and it it
[32:21] doesn't always turn out to that
[32:23] standard. So
[32:24] that's always a concern I have.
[32:26] >> And since they have the control of that
[32:29] can they change if they bring us a
[32:30] conceptual plan can they just change it
[32:32] anyway?
[32:34] If it's a conceptual plan yes. Yeah. So
[32:37] then But we don't we don't want to get
[32:38] in a situation where the CSD locks them
[32:41] into specific types of development. So
[32:44] we just want to have a a guideline a set
[32:46] of standards that they can utilize for their
[32:49] development. Um like I said they're the
[32:52] ones that are writing this they're the
[32:53] ones that are proposing this.
[32:55] And so it would be up to them to propose
[32:57] that bring it back to you.
[32:59] Is it going to be built in phases? I'm
[33:02] assuming it would since it's 200 acres.
[33:04] >> I would I would imagine they they
[33:05] probably will phase it. The applicant
[33:07] will address that. Yeah ideas would
[33:09] change right as different developments
[33:10] come. Yeah. And I like that idea of
[33:13] having some different ideas something
[33:14] that's going to look different than we
[33:15] just normally do too. I mean that's not
[33:17] a bad thing. Yeah. Yeah.
[33:20] And just another point I wanted to make
[33:21] this property is not [clears throat]
[33:24] in the North Tooele special service
[33:26] district.
[33:28] Okay.
[33:29] >> So It it talks about the lighting
[33:32] standard it says
[33:33] >> want to match the standards for what's
[33:34] not in the district.
[33:36] Okay.
[33:38] I've got a question if I can ask one
[33:39] more.
[33:41] On that on 12-3 it says city entry
[33:44] monuments signage. That's a sign stating
[33:48] they've come into Tooele City. That's
[33:49] not the monument stating you're going to
[33:51] Compass Point. The The question I have
[33:54] is it says it's going to be 20 ft wide
[33:56] by 1 ft tall.
[33:59] That's 1 ft tall. It says 1 ft? Yeah it
[34:02] says 20 ft by 1 ft tall and I'm going
[34:04] Anybody going to even see that as
[34:05] they're driving? That's supposed to be
[34:07] 15 ft tall. Oh okay.
[34:09] >> [laughter]
[34:09] >> Okay. I feel a lot better about that. I
[34:11] was thinking the weeds are going to
[34:12] cover that.
[34:14] Hopefully there's no weeds there right
[34:16] John?
[34:17] >> [laughter]
[34:17] >> Yeah I know I know that Mayor Mansell is
[34:19] working on a a monument sign for the
[34:20] north side and it Correct me if I'm
[34:22] wrong Mayor but it's going to resemble
[34:23] the sign on our south side.
[34:26] It's not. It's not? It's going to be
[34:28] modern more modern and with the correct
[34:31] Yeah. It'll just say like welcome to
[34:33] Tooele and be a different design. We'll
[34:35] probably
[34:37] modernize the one on the south end too.
[34:39] But we we did put those sign parameters
[34:41] in there so that we can
[34:43] put that sign up and make it meet the
[34:44] code.
[34:47] Did you say the park strip trees that
[34:49] it's talking about that's taken directly
[34:51] from our code or did they change
[34:54] like how many trees they have to have
[34:56] and
[34:56] >> Most of the landscaping language the
[34:57] applicant explained was was pulled from
[34:59] our code and he can explain why he did
[35:01] that better than I probably can.
[35:04] But yeah there's a reason why.
[35:08] Okay.
[35:09] Any other questions for Andrew? I I do
[35:12] just have a little bit just just
[35:14] clarity.
[35:15] I I know that the the CSD is a governing
[35:18] document. Who governs it? Is it only the
[35:20] Perry's? No we would. The Tooele City
[35:23] staff.
[35:24] >> a zoning district that we will include
[35:26] in title seven. So there will be a
[35:28] specific zoning
[35:31] number attached to it and it will be a
[35:33] zoning code for the city. So city staff
[35:36] will administer that. Okay.
[35:39] Excellent questions. Thank you.
[35:42] Okay. If the applicant
[35:44] has anything to say we'll let him come
[35:46] up.
[35:49] Good evening. Sorry for any confusion
[35:51] with the 1 ft tall sign.
[35:54] Um
[35:56] I So I wrote some a few notes just
[35:57] answering some of the questions that you
[35:59] guys had already
[36:00] um asked and kind of directed towards
[36:03] the applicant. So
[36:05] I'm just going to kind of go through
[36:06] those and then if there's any other
[36:07] questions I can answer I'd be happy to
[36:09] help. So
[36:11] um maybe starting with the intent kind
[36:13] of like Andrew was mentioning with the
[36:16] landscaping standard and architectural
[36:19] standard and and all that is
[36:21] you know we are
[36:23] this project here is probably going to
[36:25] be developed over 10 years.
[36:28] And so from a
[36:31] owner perspective as well as a future
[36:33] tenant perspective
[36:35] there is a certain amount of entitlement
[36:38] risk that could be um
[36:41] you know I guess there um with 10 years
[36:45] worth of you know timing [clears throat]
[36:47] and city code can change um
[36:50] design standards can change.
[36:53] And so the that was kind of the intent
[36:55] with copying and pasting some of the
[36:57] existing code
[36:59] was just to solidify it
[37:02] make sure that you know we're talking to
[37:05] you know three large big box users right
[37:09] now.
[37:10] And some of them it would be likely that
[37:13] they would purchase a site and might not
[37:15] develop it for 5 years right? And
[37:18] um although our ideal scenario would be
[37:22] developing now they they could have that flexibility. And so really the
[37:26] intent of this is to just make this
[37:29] as appealing as possible
[37:31] to some of those larger groups as well
[37:34] as some of the smaller groups
[37:36] just to eliminate some entitlement risk.
[37:39] Um our goal with this area is to
[37:43] make this the prime
[37:46] commercial area in all of Tooele. And so
[37:50] um with the design requirements and
[37:52] guidelines we
[37:54] you know we are long-term holders. So
[37:57] with the exception of if we sell pad to
[38:00] a a large user
[38:01] all the remaining pads and development
[38:03] we we buy we build and hold. Um
[38:08] and this is kind of that main gateway
[38:11] into all the homes that we are selling
[38:13] as well. And so our intent is to make
[38:16] this nice and appealing [clears throat]
[38:19] to you know to future home buyers but
[38:22] also to future tenants
[38:24] while at the same time
[38:27] reducing entitlement risk to attract the
[38:30] tenants.
[38:31] Um
[38:33] you know and we're happy to make if you know we're we're happy to propose
[38:37] changes if if it's you know a hot button.
[38:43] One one of the questions I guess and one
[38:46] something that we could implement is you
[38:47] know we developed the Peak Shopping
[38:49] Center um with with with Kroger. And uh
[38:55] it our intent would be at least
[38:57] I mean that standard of development. Um
[39:01] There will be nicer landscaping
[39:03] requirements.
[39:05] Um
[39:07] try to think. So an example of that is
[39:09] within the latest iteration and I don't
[39:11] know if that was on what you guys
[39:12] received but all along SR-36
[39:16] uh the park strips there um we are
[39:19] planning on increasing the amount of
[39:21] trees required and just general
[39:23] landscaping as well as general
[39:24] landscaping around the main entry
[39:27] monument sign on 3100 North which will
[39:31] be right along the the kind of that
[39:33] north
[39:35] intersection of Main Street and uh 3100
[39:39] North.
[39:41] Um let's see what else. Um, building
[39:44] height.
[39:45] The eight stories.
[39:46] I knew that was going to be a
[39:48] uh
[39:49] >> [laughter]
[39:50] >> a cause for concern. So, we're happy to
[39:53] restrict
[39:55] um, that height to specific uses if that
[39:58] would make it more palatable.
[40:00] The intent here is to be able to attract
[40:02] um, an educational facility or medical
[40:04] facility.
[40:06] Um, and not
[40:08] limit them um, or discourage them from
[40:11] coming here compared to, you know, Erda
[40:13] or Stansbury.
[40:15] Um
[40:16] So, that's that's the the idea for the eight-story area. And we're happy to
[40:22] I don't know if that addresses that
[40:23] concern, but that's something that we
[40:25] could
[40:26] >> Do you anticipate that's one building
[40:28] though or multiple eight-story
[40:29] buildings? I don't know how big the area
[40:31] actually is where that You know, I would
[40:33] say maybe two.
[40:35] Um
[40:36] There's there's not demand in this
[40:38] market for more than, you know, one of
[40:40] each of those kinds of facilities.
[40:42] But also the setbacks would really
[40:45] largely dictate if that was possible. Um
[40:49] I would imagine maybe two max.
[40:51] Okay.
[40:52] What what do you mean by an educational
[40:54] facility? What is an example of that?
[40:56] Like a university. Okay. Something like
[40:58] that. Mhm.
[41:01] Yeah. Eight stories tall.
[41:04] I would think you'd have shared space
[41:06] too, right? Like a couple floors or one
[41:08] business.
[41:10] And yeah, they might they might do that
[41:12] and that might be a flaw within the
[41:14] proposing of that the uses tied to the
[41:16] eight stories, but there is a scenario
[41:18] where
[41:20] this is not
[41:21] you know, what we're
[41:23] I guess this isn't who we're necessarily
[41:25] talking to, but if a university that
[41:28] also has a
[41:29] um, finance department or an insurance
[41:32] company you know, like they might
[41:36] dictate the stacking of the building and
[41:40] so, it's possible.
[41:45] Um, with
[41:49] Let's see, there is one other thing.
[41:54] Actually, there's not.
[41:56] So, any questions that I can help
[42:00] answer?
[42:00] >> the idea that the landscape design will
[42:02] be
[42:04] improved better because it it is
[42:06] welcoming everyone into Tooele City. And
[42:08] so, I go to other cities and
[42:10] it seems like some of their commercial
[42:12] developments have significantly better
[42:15] landscape design than we've required in
[42:17] some of our businesses. So,
[42:20] the way it's written now though, I don't
[42:22] know if that it just it talks about
[42:24] trees every so often and then
[42:27] uh water-wise shrubs, but it doesn't
[42:30] necessarily require so many the trees it
[42:33] does so many per feet, but shrubs and
[42:35] things like that I think it's
[42:38] really just you saying what it looks
[42:39] like. So, is
[42:41] my question I guess is do we need to
[42:42] have some kind of verbiage in there that
[42:45] says that it has to meet this
[42:47] requirement. I don't know how you would
[42:48] do that though, that's Yeah, I think
[42:50] that there's a way we can look at other
[42:53] city code and just kind of see Okay.
[42:55] >> the the landscaping requirements and mirror that language. Okay.
[43:05] I also think if we do that, we probably
[43:08] should specify the types of trees
[43:10] that will be used. I don't know I'm I'm
[43:12] not certain that the types
[43:13] I don't think we
[43:15] um
[43:17] demand what types of trees in our
[43:19] current ordinance. I didn't look it up,
[43:20] but I know there's some that we would
[43:23] prefer not to be there um, due to the
[43:26] fact of the way they grow and the way
[43:29] they shed. And you're and you're out by
[43:31] an interstate.
[43:33] We actually do have a tree selection
[43:35] list
[43:36] >> Right. that specifies the types of trees
[43:38] based upon the size of the park strip.
[43:40] And so, they would have to comply with that tree selection list. Good. I
[43:45] >> [snorts]
[43:45] >> I thought we did.
[43:48] I've got one question. On the setback
[43:50] from Highway 36
[43:53] how big is their easement before your
[43:54] property starts? From the asphalt, you
[43:57] know, approximately. I think it's a
[43:59] 10-ft is the required easement. Paul could
[44:02] probably answer that more than me on
[44:04] SR-36. You mean you mean from the edge
[44:07] of asphalt where the Udot property line
[44:09] is? Well, to where their property
[44:10] begins, how far is it? I mean, is that
[44:13] 20 ft or is it 10 ft? It's probably
[44:16] what, 25 ft, 30 ft maybe. Okay. From the
[44:18] asphalt to where the fence So, that's
[44:20] really where the trees will begin and
[44:21] then we'll just have that
[44:23] regular shoulder of the road. Okay.
[44:29] It talks a little bit about
[44:31] Let me see if I can find it. Maybe
[44:33] common space.
[44:35] Uh landscaping for individual lots.
[44:38] Um, the percentage requirement may be
[44:40] reduced where project public amenities
[44:42] are provided. So,
[44:44] is there a plan to have some amenities
[44:46] or sitting areas? Is that I think it
[44:48] like a Farmington Station. There
[44:51] there's stores, but then they're still
[44:52] like public areas that you can go and
[44:55] just hang out and walk around and
[44:58] Yeah, I I would say I don't know if
[44:59] there's necessarily specific plans right
[45:02] now to include that, but we did want to
[45:03] allow provisions to be able to include
[45:06] And then that would substitute the 10%
[45:09] landscape area.
[45:10] >> Based on actual, you know, square
[45:12] footage of that amenity footprint just
[45:15] would be in lieu of the landscaping.
[45:18] Okay.
[45:21] Any other questions?
[45:23] Um, I I did have a question about
[45:25] fencing. No fencing standard except for
[45:27] the vehicle storage. So, I'm just
[45:29] wondering
[45:30] there's just just going to be open area
[45:32] or just no no particular fencing
[45:35] standard. There will be fences, but it's
[45:38] a
[45:39] Yeah, I So,
[45:41] the other um, sentence in that section
[45:45] does allow or require provisions if
[45:49] the commercial use is next to
[45:51] residential use. Okay. So, we would
[45:54] include
[45:55] there is a standard of 6-ft tall masonry
[45:59] vinyl or um,
[46:00] concrete fence requirement if those uses
[46:04] about um
[46:06] but beyond that uh the vehicle storage
[46:09] there we're not currently proposing any
[46:12] fencing standard.
[46:14] And
[46:15] would it be the commercial
[46:17] responsibility to provide the the fence
[46:20] or the buffer between the residential?
[46:21] Whose responsibility is that?
[46:23] >> Yeah, that would be that would The
[46:25] commercial property.
[46:26] >> I think technically the way it works is
[46:28] just whoever comes first
[46:31] in the development. Okay. Um
[46:34] but all that blue is
[46:37] owned
[46:38] by us as well. And so,
[46:40] you'd be looking at if there is anything
[46:42] on the north
[46:44] side, you know, we which I believe we're
[46:47] currently
[46:48] planning on we already have um,
[46:50] screening requirements on that north
[46:52] side. Okay.
[46:53] >> For at least for the multi-family that
[46:54] we're working on. So, I think that would
[46:57] just go be consistent across the top
[46:59] property line.
[47:02] Is some of that blue area where the
[47:04] apartments are being built or is that
[47:06] farther north?
[47:09] It's not. Okay.
[47:11] Um
[47:14] In fact, I don't know if
[47:17] that outline is completely correct on
[47:19] that that aerial that you had. This is
[47:22] more accurate.
[47:24] So, the MR-20 is where the multi-family
[47:26] is.
[47:27] >> Okay.
[47:28] Just right at that very first
[47:30] roundabout. It's kind of the only way to
[47:31] get in. So, a part of your CSD would
[47:34] be adjacent to the MR-20, right?
[47:37] Correct. Okay.
[47:43] Any other questions or comments?
[47:45] We My my last one.
[47:48] The um,
[47:49] big building. And I and I'm know that
[47:52] one of the reasons to go
[47:54] up as opposed to out is conserve more
[47:57] land to be developed.
[47:59] But is that going to be a decent amount
[48:01] of
[48:02] distance away from regular homes when
[48:04] you get to building homes on the other
[48:06] side?
[48:07] To where they're not basically looking
[48:09] in someone's back directly. Yeah, so to
[48:13] answer all go two approaches to answer
[48:16] that question. So, the blue area
[48:18] immediately
[48:19] to the left of that dog leg kind of
[48:22] right where we're proposing that eight
[48:23] stories
[48:24] is [clears throat] a town home for rent
[48:26] project that we will be um, building and
[48:29] owning. Okay. And so,
[48:32] our intent is to not limit the demand of
[48:36] renters you know, by having a a a large
[48:40] building next to. Right. And and so, I
[48:43] think our intent was to put that setback
[48:48] to make sure
[48:50] >> to safeguard that interest.
[48:53] Um
[48:55] but in reality, you know, it might be
[48:57] even
[49:00] it could be bigger than that. The
[49:02] setback could be larger than that. Okay.
[49:04] And again, I I just wanted to ask that
[49:06] question cuz
[49:08] when you look at other cities,
[49:09] especially like Salt Lake um you got the
[49:13] 8, 10, 12-story buildings right next to
[49:17] apartments. So, I was mainly referring
[49:19] to single-family homes. Yeah. More so
[49:21] than the apartments and townhouses.
[49:24] Yeah, so we'll have some single-family
[49:25] homes in that blue right next to the
[49:27] MR-20.
[49:29] Mhm. And so, there there will be some
[49:32] proximity of homes close Close. Okay.
[49:36] Close to the the proposed 80 store or 90
[49:39] story.
[49:41] >> [laughter]
[49:51] » Okay.
[49:52] All right, good discussion.
[49:55] Any other questions, comments?
[49:58] Okay, hopefully that gives you
[50:00] our questions and ideas for it, so.
[50:03] Okay, we have our marching orders.
[50:09] We're going to move on to our next
[50:10] discussion item, a discussion on
[50:12] resolution 2026-17,
[50:16] a resolution of the Tooele City Council
[50:17] approving an agreement change order
[50:19] number three with Hydro Resources Rocky
[50:21] Mountain Inc. for drilling of the 2025
[50:24] Tooele City Wells project, presented by
[50:26] Nathan Farr, the Public Works Director.
[50:29] Good evening, Council.
[50:30] Glad you all have your questions out of
[50:32] your system.
[50:35] So, uh we
[50:37] have been uh
[50:39] working with uh Hydro Resources in our
[50:42] Rogers Road well.
[50:43] Um they asked us to process a change
[50:46] order uh to secure the wellhead um
[50:50] and so they ordered uh an a casing that
[50:54] will
[50:56] uh protect the first 300 ft of the the
[50:58] well so that in the event that um they
[51:01] can't support itself, it would not fall
[51:03] in and then it cause us to have to cap
[51:04] that and then drill again somewhere else
[51:06] at significant cost.
[51:08] And so that change order covers that. Um
[51:10] it also has
[51:12] uh the change change orders two, one,
[51:13] and two have eaten up our contingency
[51:15] and so we're requesting to rebuild our
[51:17] contingency in the event that we face additional
[51:20] costs that were unforeseen. Um there is
[51:24] a
[51:25] caveat to that though.
[51:27] Um in our latest change order
[51:30] they [clears throat]
[51:30] recommended removing two line items that
[51:33] we feel like
[51:35] um
[51:36] >> [sighs]
[51:36] >> well, I forgot to account for, but I
[51:39] feel like we may want to include them
[51:41] too uh in our
[51:43] uh
[51:44] in our contingency fund. And so it'll it
[51:46] would increase the amount of that
[51:48] contingency fund to 200 and uh $23,500.
[51:53] Um but it's a line item I don't know I
[51:56] if you have the Hydro
[51:58] um
[51:59] uh
[52:01] invoice in front of you.
[52:03] Um it's down at C15 and 16. It's mob and
[52:06] demob of of dual swab and well
[52:09] development with dual swab move to
[52:11] optional. So, those two uh items are
[52:15] intended to allow us to pull well, do a
[52:18] better job of pulling out any
[52:21] of the mud [clears throat]
[52:23] quote unquote mud that they use to keep
[52:25] the wellhead open as they're drilling.
[52:27] And so
[52:28] if we need to use that money, we would
[52:30] definitely want it to be in there
[52:32] without having to come back and ask you
[52:34] for more money later. Um but it is up to
[52:37] you whether or not you want to include
[52:38] that in that in this request for funds um and build
[52:43] up the contingency now, or we can wait
[52:45] and see if we do need it and come back
[52:47] and do another resolution for
[52:49] an additional contingency later. So, uh
[52:52] that's
[52:53] um kind of what we're up against right
[52:55] now. We do need to have the 25247509
[52:58] for the cost of the of change order
[53:00] three, but we are asking for the
[53:02] additional funds to rebuild our
[53:03] contingency fund at this time, so.
[53:06] Any questions?
[53:09] I do have a question. You're going to
[53:10] increase the depth of the well from
[53:12] 1,210 ft to 1,320 ft, so that's Yes.
[53:16] change. Yeah, so we we uh we did with
[53:19] the uh addition of that uh casing, we wanted to make sure we
[53:24] could go even further down and and
[53:26] access, if if possible, water that
[53:28] would, you know, you know, help us
[53:31] recoup some of that cost. And so if it's
[53:32] there, we'll use it. If not, we'll have
[53:34] just have to cap it where it where we
[53:36] get the water and and and use it from
[53:37] there. But we're hoping we get water all
[53:39] the way down. Great. Okay.
[53:43] Any other questions or comments? Just
[53:45] comment. The other day some mayor maybe
[53:47] somebody told me you had hit rock and
[53:48] you
[53:49] was harder to drill through in that
[53:50] section.
[53:51] >> We did hit um some pretty hard um I
[53:54] think we hit some pretty hard rock and
[53:56] some calcite that um that was causing
[53:59] some problems for the wellhead. It kind
[54:00] of ground it off. So, um but they have
[54:02] since then pushed through. We are at
[54:04] currently
[54:05] um as of tonight uh we're at today's
[54:09] latest well report, we went from 561 to
[54:11] 600 today. So, we're down to 600 ft
[54:13] currently. So, things are moving um much
[54:16] faster than they were the past few days,
[54:18] so we're making some good progress.
[54:20] Great. Good. Thank you.
[54:24] Okay, thank you. This will be on our
[54:25] business meeting tonight for
[54:28] >> Okay.
[54:29] Thanks, Nathan.
[54:32] All right, item six are closed meetings.
[54:34] We do have a closed meeting tonight to
[54:36] discuss property acquisition. I'll
[54:38] entertain a motion to move to a closed
[54:40] meeting.
[54:42] Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion to move to
[54:44] a closed meeting. I'll second. We have a
[54:46] motion from Councilwoman Goches and a
[54:48] second from Councilman Hansen. We'll
[54:50] take it to a vote. Councilman McCall?
[54:52] Aye. Councilman Hansen?
[54:53] >> Aye. Councilwoman Goches?
[54:54] >> Aye.
[54:55] Councilman Gossett? Aye. I'm Councilman
[54:57] Brady and I vote aye. It passes 5-0, so
[55:00] we will
[55:02] recess here at 6:25 p.m. and reconvene
[55:05] in the large conference room for a
[55:06] closed meeting.