[1:29] I just said that on the

[1:31] >> We will have to

[1:32] look at the screen behind us.

[1:34] That's okay, right?

[1:35] All right.

[1:37] We'll go ahead and get this Tualatin

[1:38] City Planning Commission meeting into

[1:39] order this Wednesday, June 10th, 2026 at

[1:43] the hour of 7:00 p.m. here at City

[1:44] Council Chambers.

[1:48] Uh first item on our agenda tonight is

[1:50] our Pledge of Allegiance. If you'll all

[1:52] please rise.

[1:55] » [clears throat]

[1:56] >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the

[1:58] United States of America and to the

[2:01] republic for which it stands, one nation

[2:04] under God, indivisible, with liberty and

[2:07] justice for all.

[2:16] » Okay, just an announcement for the

[2:17] public here. There is a significant

[2:19] increase in fraudulent fishing requests

[2:21] using information from the public

[2:23] notices that are issued concerning the

[2:25] applications being heard during the

[2:27] planning commission meetings.

[2:29] Tooele City collects fees only at the

[2:30] time of application submittal. Tooele

[2:33] City will never ask for funds to be sent

[2:35] over wire transfer. Legitimate

[2:37] [clears throat] Tooele City emails

[2:38] always end with tooelecity.gov.

[2:40] If you receive a request requiring you

[2:42] to pay additional fees for an

[2:43] application in an email that does not

[2:45] end in tooelecity.gov

[2:47] after your application has been

[2:49] submitted, this is fraud. If you receive

[2:51] such a request, please contact Tooele

[2:53] City Community Development Director or

[2:55] the department immediately.

[2:58] Number two on our agenda tonight is our

[3:00] roll call. Commissioner Hammer?

[3:02] >> Here.

[3:02] >> Commissioner Sloan?

[3:03] >> Here.

[3:03] >> Commissioner Probst?

[3:04] >> Here.

[3:04] >> Commissioner Cordova?

[3:05] >> Here.

[3:05] >> Commissioner Jensen?

[3:06] >> Here.

[3:07] >> Commissioner Anderson?

[3:07] >> Here.

[3:08] >> I am Chairman Hamilton. I am also here.

[3:10] We'll please recognize Commissioner

[3:12] Linford and please excuse Commissioner

[3:14] Fairclough. I recognize Council members

[3:16] Gossett, Council member Hansen. And

[3:19] we've got staff members Mr. Young or Ms.

[3:21] Young, Mr. Agard, Ms. Anglin, Mr.

[3:24] Hansen, and Mr. Johnson joining us

[3:25] tonight.

[3:27] Uh number three on our agenda tonight is

[3:28] a public hearing and recommendation on a

[3:31] Tooele City initiated application

[3:33] proposing the partial vacation of 9-ft

[3:36] strip of public right-of-way along the

[3:38] northern portion of James Way extending

[3:41] approximately 1982 linear feet between

[3:43] the Industrial Loop intersection and the

[3:45] Loadstone Way intersection, which would

[3:48] reduce the existing right-of-way width

[3:49] of James Way from 85 ft to 76 ft. Miss

[3:54] England.

[3:55] >> Um [clears throat] yes, so

[3:59] the reason why this is uh

[4:02] going or we're requesting the vacation

[4:05] for the James Way

[4:07] um right away um is because

[4:10] uh

[4:11] it the um the city has agreed to the

[4:14] right-of-way narrowing due to the

[4:17] installation of traffic signals at the

[4:20] intersections of Loadstone Way and Utah

[4:22] Avenue and Industrial Loop Road and Utah

[4:25] Avenue. Um

[4:27] all of the reduced right-of-way will be

[4:29] added to the Peterson Industrial

[4:31] property to the north. Um there was

[4:35] public notice sent out as per Utah Code

[4:38] 10-28-3-8

[4:40] 13. Um we did receive uh um signatures

[4:45] back for support on this from the

[4:48] Peterson Industrial Properties LLC and

[4:51] from Depot Self Storage LLC.

[4:55] Um

[4:56] the state code in order to do um

[4:59] vacations of public right-of-ways,

[5:01] either um partial or in full, um have to

[5:06] our state code requires you to find good

[5:09] cause exists for the proposed vacation

[5:12] and that uh neither the public interest

[5:14] nor any person will be materially

[5:16] injured by the proposed vacation. So, um

[5:21] staff findings were the request is

[5:23] consistent with the procedures

[5:25] established by Utah Code 10-28-13.

[5:29] The portion of right-of-way vacated has

[5:32] no historic, current, or anticipated

[5:34] future use as transportation

[5:37] right-of-way and and serve no public

[5:40] purpose with the exception of easements

[5:42] for existing and future underground

[5:44] Tooele City public utilities and

[5:46] existing private franchise utilities.

[5:49] The utility companies with access to the

[5:52] easements have not expressed any

[5:54] objections to the right-of-way vacation,

[5:57] and the right-of-way vacation will

[5:58] reserve to will reserve to Tualatin

[6:02] cooperation

[6:03] corporation utility easements for

[6:06] existing

[6:07] and future Tualatin public utilities in

[6:10] the vacated right-of-way.

[6:12] Um

[6:13] This is a copy of the proposed

[6:16] ordinance. We do address in the proposed

[6:19] ordinance the state code requirements of

[6:21] finding good cause

[6:23] and that um there will be no harm done

[6:26] to

[6:27] um the public interest on the

[6:29] right-of-way. Um

[6:32] So

[6:33] that is all I have today.

[6:36] >> Okay, we'll bring this back to the

[6:37] commission for questions, comments,

[6:39] concerns.

[6:44] Yes.

[6:45] Mr. Hansen.

[6:47] Absolutely. The more information is

[6:49] always the better.

[6:50] >> No, just for clarification, and I'll

[6:52] take responsibility for this. The

[6:54] existing right-of-way is 84 ft,

[6:58] and it would be reduced 9 ft to 75.

[7:01] I I I apologize that I'll take the blame

[7:04] for that. 80 84 to 75, not the other way

[7:08] around.

[7:09] >> Tabled until it's clarified.

[7:10] >> to you in 2 weeks. Yeah.

[7:12] >> [laughter]

[7:13] >> And then as Miss Anglin indicated,

[7:15] this is based on the transportation

[7:17] master plan that was done more than 20

[7:19] years ago before we had the signals and

[7:21] the traffic and the network we have now.

[7:24] So we just don't think we will ever need

[7:27] the full right-of-way on that road

[7:28] segment.

[7:30] So thank you.

[7:31] >> Okay, perfect.

[7:33] All right, commission?

[7:34] >> Question.

[7:35] >> Yes, Commissioner

[7:36] >> How did this come about? I I read in

[7:38] there that it said, you know, to help

[7:39] develop the property behind it, but

[7:42] I mean, is that something the city

[7:43] decided to do or did somebody ask for

[7:45] this or

[7:46] >> Both.

[7:48] Um the developer um Peterson Industrial

[7:50] Depot is planning to do a flex space

[7:54] building down on the corner of James Way

[7:57] and Industrial Loop Road on the

[7:59] northeast corner.

[8:01] And in their development plans, they

[8:02] asked the city, "Do we really need a

[8:04] full 84-ft right-of-way still there or

[8:07] could we utilize back the 9 ft that was

[8:10] taken and help enhance the development

[8:13] potential?" So, we looked at it not from

[8:16] the perspective of how can we enrich

[8:17] you, but is it really an asset that we

[8:20] need or does it provide more road? Do we

[8:22] have to snow plow more road to maintain

[8:24] that's unnecessary? So,

[8:27] it was started by Peterson's and

[8:30] supported by staff.

[8:32] >> And then the

[8:33] um

[8:34] So, when you say take it, was it taken

[8:37] from them at some point?

[8:39] >> It was platted.

[8:41] Back back

[8:42] >> they had it

[8:42] >> Yes. Yeah, it was platted early It was

[8:45] back in the late '90s, early 2000s. I'm

[8:47] sorry, I don't recall the exact year.

[8:50] Um but when when the city received that

[8:53] property into the corporate limits, we

[8:55] requested the developer to dedicate the

[8:57] principal roads. The city doesn't own

[8:59] most of the roads out there,

[9:02] but James Way is one of them that the

[9:03] city has ownership of.

[9:06] And and they were the ones that

[9:07] dedicated the 84-ft.

[9:10] >> Okay.

[9:12] Good questions.

[9:13] >> Yes, sir.

[9:14] >> And that was before Peter. The reason

[9:15] I'm asking, I just

[9:17] It's like giving I know a half acre,

[9:19] almost a half acre. It It just seems

[9:21] weird just to give that away to

[9:23] somebody.

[9:24] >> Yeah.

[9:24] >> It's standard when we do a right-of-way

[9:26] vacation to give it back to the adjacent

[9:28] property. We've We've done that several

[9:30] times in the city over the last several

[9:33] years where we've had alleys vacated

[9:36] that the city has given up.

[9:37] >> Yeah.

[9:38] >> Um some roads have been turned from

[9:39] public to private and we vacated back,

[9:42] but under state law it goes to either

[9:44] the person that granted it in the first

[9:47] place if they still own it. If they no

[9:49] longer own it, then it goes to the

[9:51] adjacent property at at no cost.

[9:53] >> Well, that that clears up a lot of

[9:54] things.

[9:55] >> Yeah.

[9:55] >> I think I'm the the half acre is a

[9:57] little bit misleading in the way that

[9:59] it's constructed, too.

[10:00] >> I understand that.

[10:01] >> of value.

[10:02] >> But it

[10:03] >> [laughter]

[10:03] >> But if they need it uh

[10:06] >> do the development the way they want,

[10:07] that's a lot of value to it.

[10:09] >> That's true.

[10:09] >> It adds It adds

[10:10] >> at it. I'm not saying we should stick it

[10:12] or the city should stick it to anybody

[10:14] or you know, but I was just just

[10:16] curious.

[10:17] >> Yeah, but if if if residents want to

[10:18] take all of the city roads over for

[10:20] private membership and they maintain

[10:22] them, I think

[10:23] >> You can also be willing to entertain

[10:24] >> [laughter]

[10:25] >> vacating your roads, but

[10:26] >> understand that.

[10:26] >> No, we we believe that this is We

[10:28] believe it's good for the city

[10:30] and we believe it also does support the

[10:32] adjacent development.

[10:34] >> Okay.

[10:36] Thank you.

[10:38] >> Commissioner Lanford.

[10:40] >> So in the packet it was talking about

[10:42] how the expected traffic just wasn't

[10:44] there when they originally put this

[10:46] together.

[10:47] Um

[10:48] with them redeveloping that area, are we

[10:51] expecting an increase of traffic that

[10:53] would

[10:53] kind of put us back to square one or

[10:56] would it still be within reason of

[10:58] vacating that area?

[11:00] >> That's a good question.

[11:02] >> Yeah, if you if you have an answer, I

[11:04] would love to hear

[11:06] >> [clears throat and cough]

[11:06] >> The answer is yes.

[11:08] Um again, when that property was

[11:10] developed, nobody knew fully what was

[11:12] going to develop adjacent to it.

[11:14] Today we have over that 1,700 ft

[11:17] stretch, we have um

[11:21] I don't remember the current name, but

[11:22] it was the um

[11:25] Conestoga Woods building there on the

[11:26] corner. It's now a new user and I

[11:28] apologize I can't remember the name. Do what it is, Andrew?

[11:31] >> Plastic Corporation.

[11:32] >> it's the wood the anyway, there was a

[11:34] cabinet shop that used to be there.

[11:35] >> It was

[11:36] >> The rest of that is all Carvana.

[11:38] >> liquidator

[11:39] >> And Carvana has no access to that road.

[11:42] That's significant.

[11:44] On the north side of the road,

[11:46] Peterson's are concentrating their

[11:48] access, so it really limits the amount

[11:50] of trucks in and out of there. The The

[11:52] width of a right-of-way is based upon do

[11:54] I have enough turning radius to turn on

[11:56] to

[11:57] Uh it depends upon the volume of

[11:59] traffic. And as we've looked at it and

[12:00] talked with the city's transportation

[12:02] consultant

[12:04] we just don't think it justifies the

[12:05] need to maintain that additional

[12:08] Now, we're holding on to the 9 ft to the

[12:11] south.

[12:12] We're not vacating that portion yet. So,

[12:14] we we could today, if we wanted to build

[12:18] a 49-ft pavement section

[12:20] within what would remain, and that's

[12:23] more than sufficient.

[12:26] » Thank you.

[12:27] >> Again, good questions. Thank you.

[12:28] >> Yes, excellent questions. I love it.

[12:31] >> Any other ones for staff?

[12:37] Okay, this item does require a public

[12:38] hearing, so I will go ahead and open the

[12:40] public hearing.

[12:41] If you'd like to speak to this item,

[12:43] please approach the podium, state your

[12:44] name for the record, write your name for

[12:46] the record.

[12:52] Seeing no one approach, I'll go ahead

[12:53] and close the public hearing and bring

[12:55] this back to the commission for any

[12:56] other further questions, comments,

[12:57] concerns.

[13:01] I'll entertain a motion on a

[13:02] recommendation.

[13:06] » Chair, I'll make a motion.

[13:08] >> Okay, Commissioner Proctor.

[13:09] >> I move that the Planning Commission

[13:10] forward a recommend a positive

[13:12] recommendation to the City Council for

[13:14] approval ordinance number 2026-17

[13:18] vacating the 9-ft portion of James

[13:20] public right-of-way extending

[13:22] approximately 1,982 linear ft between

[13:25] Industrial Loop and loadstone way

[13:27] application number 2026038

[13:31] based on findings contained in the staff

[13:33] report dated June 3rd, 2026. I have a a

[13:37] positive recommendation from

[13:38] Commissioner Proctor. Do I have a

[13:39] second?

[13:41] >> I'll second.

[13:41] >> And a second from Commissioner Hammer.

[13:43] Any other further discussion or

[13:44] questions before we take this to a vote?

[13:50] Commissioner Hammer, how do you vote?

[13:51] >> Aye.

[13:51] >> Commissioner Sloan.

[13:52] >> Aye.

[13:52] >> Commissioner Proctor.

[13:53] >> Aye.

[13:53] >> Commissioner Cordova.

[13:54] >> Aye.

[13:55] >> Commissioner Jensen.

[13:56] >> Aye.

[13:56] >> Commissioner Anderson.

[13:57] >> Aye.

[13:58] >> I'm Chairman Hamilton. I also vote aye.

[14:00] That passes 7 to 0 moving up to the city

[14:02] council for their final actions.

[14:05] I was kind of hoping when it said

[14:06] partial vacation of nine I was counting

[14:08] on nine days of vacation.

[14:10] >> [laughter]

[14:11] >> I guess that's not going to happen. It's

[14:12] all good. All right, brings us on to

[14:14] number four tonight is our city council

[14:16] reports.

[14:18] Councilman Gossage.

[14:20] >> That was quick. You guys are good.

[14:22] Cruise.

[14:23] So,

[14:24] what happened? Who watched uh city

[14:26] council meeting last time?

[14:28] All right. Did Ed look good on it?

[14:30] >> He looks good now. He's half the man he

[14:32] used to be. I love it. [laughter]

[14:34] Doing good, huh?

[14:35] >> The the stuff that I think you'd find

[14:36] interesting. Uh one of them was we

[14:38] talked for quite a while about fences,

[14:40] right?

[14:41] >> Mhm.

[14:42] >> Going back to that. We found out uh

[14:45] Ratliff Lavalle

[14:46] uh the developer came and and spoke to

[14:48] the council and and discussed one of the

[14:51] issues that or I guess it was the issue

[14:53] that he had was [clears throat] having

[14:55] those rock or stone columns going up

[14:58] would cause the fence to have a big gap

[15:01] in it between the two fences. And so, we

[15:04] went ahead and agreed to lose the

[15:07] columns but keep the fence so that they

[15:10] could get them closer together. And uh

[15:13] we wrapped that up with him. In the

[15:15] future it still comes back, right

[15:17] Andrew? Future it comes back case by

[15:19] case. And so,

[15:21] although we approved it for this one,

[15:23] anybody else still has to go through

[15:24] that process. So,

[15:26] that got wrapped up. The other good news

[15:27] is Paul has decided to stick around with

[15:31] you guys for 4 more years.

[15:34] He was he was on the fence for it and he

[15:36] didn't know if he was going to do it,

[15:38] but he said, "You know, yeah, I'll hang

[15:40] out for another 4 years." So,

[15:42] it went really good, but I think that's

[15:43] about everything that was interesting

[15:46] that you'd find interesting. Um

[15:48] other than the industrial landscape that we talked

[15:52] about got approved, too. So, that was

[15:54] it.

[15:54] >> Perfect. [clears throat]

[15:55] Any questions for council?

[15:57] >> With the fence Sorry.

[15:59] >> No, go ahead.

[16:00] >> With with the fencing,

[16:02] um

[16:03] there was a stipulation that we

[16:05] recommended with that and I'm trying to

[16:08] Was was When you guys approved that, did

[16:10] it Did you approve it based on the

[16:12] recommendation that the commission sent

[16:15] to you or based upon the initial

[16:18] um application? Cuz I know that we had

[16:20] um it was in regards to uh notice.

[16:23] to residents.

[16:25] >> Andrew, do you remember? I don't think

[16:27] that we had Did Did we leave that in

[16:29] where he still had to reach out? Yeah,

[16:32] you were here. Sorry, I'm

[16:35] >> So, yeah, um

[16:36] So, we decided that um

[16:40] or at least the council decided that it

[16:42] wasn't necessary to send out the notice

[16:44] scene because they will still have the

[16:47] fence in place. It's just going to be

[16:49] the pillars that are not going to be um

[16:52] required [clears throat]

[16:53] and it's still going to be a

[16:55] case-by-case basis on whether or not

[16:58] they are required to have the pillars or

[17:00] not. So, um

[17:03] it's not really going to affect anybody

[17:05] else's property as far as their fences

[17:07] go or anything like that. They'll still

[17:09] have the fence in place. It's just that

[17:12] the columns would not be there so that

[17:15] there is instead of a, you know, two or

[17:17] three foot gap, there's only like a, you

[17:20] know, two inch gap or five inch gap or

[17:23] whatever however that takes. So,

[17:26] yeah.

[17:26] >> Or less.

[17:28] >> Yeah, somewhere like that.

[17:30] >> Yeah, and I think that reason, the one

[17:31] that you guys had mentioned was

[17:34] they would have to approach the

[17:35] homeowner if they were going to attach

[17:36] into their fence, and there won't be any

[17:38] attaching into it. It'll just run

[17:39] parallel.

[17:40] >> Right up

[17:41] >> Just close.

[17:41] >> It'll butt right against it.

[17:42] >> So they don't they don't have a reason

[17:44] that they'd have to get an answer from

[17:45] the homeowner, right?

[17:46] >> Okay.

[17:47] >> We've just had some miscommunication

[17:49] between the applicant and and staff, so.

[17:54] » Perfect.

[17:55] That answers your question, Commissioner

[17:56] Limpert.

[17:57] >> Yes, thank you.

[17:58] >> No problem.

[18:00] Right on.

[18:03] All right, moves us on to number five on

[18:05] our agenda tonight. This is a review and

[18:06] decision of our May 27th, 2026 Planning

[18:09] Commission meeting minutes. Any

[18:11] corrections or additions to those

[18:13] minutes?

[18:16] I'll entertain a motion.

[18:20] » Move to re-approve the minutes.

[18:21] >> Motion to approve from Commissioner

[18:23] Jensen. Do I have a second?

[18:25] >> Second.

[18:26] >> And a second from Commissioner Sloan.

[18:28] Any discussion before we take it?

[18:31] Commissioner Hammer, how do you vote?

[18:33] >> Aye.

[18:33] >> Commissioner Sloan?

[18:34] >> Aye.

[18:34] >> Commissioner Proctor?

[18:35] >> Aye.

[18:35] >> Commissioner Cordova?

[18:36] >> Aye.

[18:36] >> Commissioner Jensen? Commissioner

[18:37] Anderson?

[18:38] >> Aye.

[18:38] >> I am Chairman Hamilton, I vote aye.

[18:40] Those pass seven to zero. Uh moves us on

[18:43] to number six on our agenda. I'll

[18:44] entertain a motion to adjourn.

[18:46] >> Move to adjourn.

[18:47] >> We are adjourned. Thank you,

[18:48] Commissioner Hammer.

[18:50] >> Thank you.

[18:51] >> Didn't get it.

[18:52] >> Oh, I was slow.

Tooele City Planning Commission Meeting June 10, 2026

Transcript