[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.

Tooele City Council Work Meeting April 1, 2026

Transcript