[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.