[3:54] Mhm.

[4:30] » Okay, we'll go ahead get this Tooele

[4:31] City Planning Commission meeting to

[4:33] order this Wednesday, August 12th at the

[4:36] hour of 7:00 p.m. here in City Council

[4:38] Chambers.

[4:39] Uh first item on our agenda tonight is

[4:41] our pledge of allegiance. If you'll all

[4:42] please rise, remove your hats.

[4:47] » I pledge allegiance to the flag of the

[4:49] United States of America, and to the

[4:52] republic for which it stands, one nation

[4:55] under God, indivisible, with liberty and

[4:58] justice for all.

[5:03] » [clears throat]

[5:06] » Just a quick note real quick before we

[5:08] get started here. There is a significant

[5:09] increase in fraudulent fishing requests

[5:12] using information from the public

[5:13] notices that are issued concerning the

[5:15] applications being heard during the

[5:17] Tooele City Planning Commission

[5:18] meetings.

[5:19] Tooele City collects fees only at the

[5:21] time of application submittal. Tooele

[5:23] City will never ask for funds to be sent

[5:25] over wire transfer. Legitimate Tooele

[5:27] City emails always end with

[5:29] tooelecity.gov.

[5:31] If you receive a request requiring you

[5:32] pay additional fees for an application

[5:34] in an email that does not end in

[5:36] tooelecity.gov

[5:38] after your application has been

[5:39] submitted, this is fraud. If you receive

[5:41] such a request, please contact Tooele

[5:43] City Community Development Department

[5:45] immediately.

[5:47] Number two on our agenda tonight is our

[5:48] roll call. Commissioner Hammer.

[5:50] >> Here.

[5:50] >> Commissioner Sloan.

[5:51] >> Here.

[5:51] >> Commissioner Proctor.

[5:52] >> Here.

[5:52] >> Commissioner Linford.

[5:53] >> Here.

[5:53] >> Commissioner Jensen.

[5:54] >> Here.

[5:55] >> Commissioner Anderson.

[5:56] >> Here.

[5:56] >> Please recognize Commissioner

[5:57] Fairclough. I am Chairman Hamilton. I am

[5:59] also here. Uh please recognize Council

[6:02] member Hansen, staff members uh Ms.

[6:04] Young, Mr. Hansen, Mr. Egger, Ms.

[6:06] Anglin, and Mr. Johnson over there.

[6:09] >> And also um Councilman Clawson has to be

[6:12] excused he got sick at the last minute.

[6:14] >> No, that's no fun.

[6:15] >> Thank you, I appreciate that.

[6:16] >> We'll call him excused. We don't want

[6:19] him getting us sick.

[6:20] >> For sure.

[6:21] >> [laughter]

[6:22] >> Number three on our agenda tonight is a

[6:24] public hearing to consider a conditional

[6:26] use permit request by Matthew Clawson to

[6:28] authorize a detached accessory structure

[6:31] that exceeds the 8% maximum lot coverage

[6:33] restriction in the R17 zoning district

[6:36] located at approximately 346 East 200

[6:39] South.

[6:45] » Give Ms. Anglin just a moment here and

[6:47] then she'll present to us.

[7:03] » Hi Commissioners. Thank you for being

[7:05] here tonight.

[7:06] Um this

[7:08] is a request for a conditional use

[7:10] permit to allow a detached accessory

[7:12] structure

[7:13] to exceed the 8% lot coverage and

[7:16] limitation for detached accessory

[7:18] structures. Um

[7:21] The property is located at 346 East 200

[7:24] South in the R17 residential zone.

[7:29] >> [clears throat]

[7:29] >> The CUP is needed specifically because

[7:33] the detached accessory structure will

[7:35] occupy 17.2%

[7:38] of the lot all all accessory structures

[7:42] combined. The overall property coverage

[7:45] will remain below the 35% maximum

[7:49] allowed in the R17 zone.

[7:54] The project is proposing to remove a

[7:56] shed that is non-complying because of

[7:58] its location. And the proposal replaces

[8:01] it with a structure that will comply

[8:03] with the applicable setbacks and

[8:06] separation requirements. Staff reviewed

[8:09] the proposal's location and found that

[8:11] the new shed will meet the applicable

[8:13] setbacks

[8:15] um

[8:16] and

[8:17] separation requirements and all utility

[8:19] easement requirements.

[8:21] Staff also reviewed aerial imagery and

[8:24] found that the detached garage and

[8:26] accessory structures of varying sizes

[8:29] various size sizes are common in the

[8:33] older neighborhood.

[8:36] The garage and proposed shed will total

[8:39] 1,276 square feet or approximately the

[8:42] 17.2%

[8:44] of the lot.

[8:45] >> [snorts]

[8:45] >> Well, this exceeds the 8% accessory

[8:48] structure limitation. The total lot

[8:50] coverage again will not

[8:53] will still remain below the 80 35%

[8:55] maximum allowed.

[8:59] Um staff does not anticipate a

[9:01] significant adverse impacts to

[9:03] surrounding properties. The proposed

[9:06] shed meets the applicable setbacks and

[9:09] separation requirements and actually

[9:11] replaces an existing shed that is

[9:14] currently non-complying due to its

[9:16] location.

[9:17] The primary potential concern identified

[9:20] by staff is ensuring that future

[9:23] construction does not exceed the scope

[9:26] of what the

[9:27] commission approves.

[9:28] 11 [snorts] teen detached accessory

[9:31] structure coverage to the 17.2%

[9:35] addresses that concern. Staff therefore

[9:38] recommends approval subject to the

[9:41] to that condition and that all of the

[9:44] they get all the building permits and inspections that are required.

[9:49] So,

[9:51] any questions?

[9:52] >> Bring this back to the commission for

[9:53] questions, comments, concerns.

[9:58] » [clears throat]

[9:59] >> Pretty straightforward.

[10:01] This one does require a public hearing.

[10:04] So, I'll go ahead and open the public

[10:05] hearing now. If you'd like to speak to

[10:07] this particular item, please approach

[10:08] the podium. State your name for the

[10:10] record and then write your name for the

[10:12] record.

[10:16] Seeing no one approach, I'll go ahead

[10:17] and close the public hearing and bring

[10:19] this back to the commission for further

[10:20] action.

[10:26] » Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion.

[10:28] >> Commissioner Linford, go ahead.

[10:29] >> I move we approve the conditional use

[10:31] permit request by Matthew Clawson for

[10:33] the purpose of permitting a detached

[10:35] accessory structure to exceed the 8%

[10:37] total lot coverage restrictions.

[10:39] Application number 2026054

[10:43] based on the findings and subject to the

[10:45] conditions listed in the staff report

[10:46] dated August 5th, 2026.

[10:49] >> I have a motion to approve from

[10:51] [clears throat] Commissioner Linford. Do

[10:51] I have a second?

[10:52] >> I'll second.

[10:53] >> A second from Commissioner Anderson. Any

[10:55] discussion before we take this to a

[10:56] vote?

[10:59] Commissioner Hammer, how do you vote?

[11:01] >> Aye.

[11:01] >> Commissioner Sloan.

[11:02] >> Aye.

[11:02] >> Commissioner Proctor.

[11:03] >> Aye.

[11:03] >> Commissioner Linford.

[11:04] >> Aye.

[11:04] >> Commissioner Jensen.

[11:05] >> Aye.

[11:06] >> Commissioner Anderson.

[11:06] >> Aye.

[11:07] >> I am Chairman Hamilton. I also vote aye.

[11:09] That one passes seven to zero.

[11:11] >> Mr. Chairman, can I ask a quick question

[11:13] on

[11:13] >> Yes, Commissioner Sloan.

[11:14] >> Kind of tangential to that. Um

[11:17] that 8% limit has been in effect for as

[11:19] long as I can remember. With the 35%

[11:22] total coverage limit, is that still,

[11:24] especially where we're trying to get

[11:25] people to cut down on landscaping,

[11:27] things like that, is it time to maybe

[11:29] revisit the 8%? Keep the 35 where it is,

[11:32] see if we can do something with the 8%.

[11:35] Maybe give some people some more

[11:36] latitude to do things besides plant

[11:38] grass.

[11:45] » If that's something that the commission

[11:47] would like us to look at, we can

[11:49] definitely look into that and see what

[11:51] other cities in the light say

[11:53] do as far as what their accessory

[11:56] building limitations are.

[11:58] >> I admit I have a conflict that I've got

[12:01] a whole back end of a

[12:02] two big lot that I would love to do

[12:04] something with,

[12:05] but it'll probably put me over 8%. Won't

[12:07] touch 35, but in the meantime I've got a

[12:09] landscaping, so.

[12:10] >> Yeah.

[12:12] >> Thank you.

[12:13] >> Yeah, something we can look into for

[12:15] sure.

[12:17] All right, brings us to number four on

[12:19] our agenda tonight is a public hearing

[12:21] and recommendation. This is on a

[12:22] proposed text amendment request by Perry

[12:24] Homes and LH Perry Investments to Tooele

[12:28] City Code title 7 chapter 16A-3,

[12:32] residential special districts

[12:33] eligibility and size regarding the

[12:36] contiguity

[12:37] requirement qualification of proposed

[12:40] commercial special districts and initial

[12:42] compliance with the city's land use map

[12:45] of general plan. Mr. Eager, that was a

[12:47] mouthful.

[12:47] >> That was a mouthful, but you did well.

[12:48] [laughter]

[12:50] If you're if the commission thinks that

[12:52] they've seen this before, it's because

[12:53] you have.

[12:54] This came to one of your meetings in

[12:56] June and at that time you recommended

[12:59] in favor of the amendment with some some

[13:02] additional recommendations for language

[13:04] in the code.

[13:06] This was going to go before the city

[13:07] council and the applicant decided at the

[13:10] time they wanted to add some more

[13:12] language and include it in their their

[13:14] text amendment application, so

[13:17] it automatically was remanded back to

[13:18] the planning commission, so you had a

[13:19] chance to look at the the new changes

[13:21] proposed by the applicant.

[13:24] Just to remind you, I apologize this is

[13:26] probably small for you to read, but just

[13:28] for a reminder of what's going on here.

[13:31] The ordinance has specific criteria in

[13:35] order to qualify for commercial special

[13:37] district.

[13:38] Uh the three main criteria are number

[13:40] one, that you have a commercial land use

[13:43] designation on the property.

[13:46] Number two, that all the property is

[13:48] contiguous. And number three, that you

[13:50] have at least 50 acres or more.

[13:52] Those are the three basic qualifications

[13:55] for a CSD or commercial special

[13:56] district.

[13:58] Now, the applicant came to you before

[14:00] previously, and we presented an

[14:02] ordinance

[14:03] where they could if the if the

[14:05] properties were of a certain size, they

[14:07] didn't have to be contiguous. The

[14:09] planning commission recommended in

[14:10] favor.

[14:11] Um they did add some additional

[14:13] language.

[14:14] And those uh that language is

[14:15] highlighted in green.

[14:17] The blue is the applicant's language.

[14:21] Since that time, they've decided they

[14:22] wanted to

[14:24] uh change the land use requirement.

[14:27] And what they are proposing, and again,

[14:29] I want to emphasize that this is the

[14:30] applicant's proposal. This is not

[14:32] staff's proposal.

[14:33] Uh

[14:34] staff has helped them to tinker the language a little bit, but

[14:38] this this is at a request that's coming

[14:40] from the applicant themselves.

[14:42] Uh the land use designation of subject

[14:44] properties involved in an application

[14:46] shall be reviewed as part of the process

[14:48] to consider and adopt a CSD.

[14:51] If the CSD is adopted by the city

[14:53] council after recommendation by the

[14:54] planning commission, the land use map

[14:56] shall automatically be amended to a

[14:57] regional commercial land use

[14:59] designation.

[15:00] Basically, what the applicant is wanting

[15:02] to do here is combine the land use map

[15:04] amendment application into the same

[15:06] application as a CSD.

[15:09] Uh however, we would like to make sure

[15:11] that the land use map is considered as

[15:13] part of a CSD application.

[15:16] Uh so, that's what's being requested.

[15:17] It's a proposed amendment.

[15:19] Uh the applicant is here if you have any

[15:21] questions for him.

[15:22] I could also try and address some

[15:24] questions if you have any for me.

[15:27] >> Perfect. It brings us back to the

[15:28] commission for questions for staff.

[15:37] » Does the There may be I should wait for

[15:39] that. That may be you know the answer.

[15:41] Does the applicant have a problem with

[15:42] the the green additions?

[15:44] Does that cause any heartburn?

[15:46] >> Don't know. I'm

[15:47] >> Okay.

[15:47] >> He can probably address that for you.

[15:49] >> I will bring him up next if that if that

[15:51] will work for the commission.

[15:54] Commissioner Anderson, did you have

[15:55] something you wanted to ask?

[16:00] » There's something there. I just don't

[16:01] know what it is.

[16:02] >> You just haven't found the words yet.

[16:04] >> [laughter]

[16:06] » Any other questions for Mr. Egger and

[16:08] we'll call the applicant up and

[16:12] Okay, perfect. If we invite the

[16:14] applicant up to

[16:16] address this.

[16:18] Like to get a catch your vision here.

[16:20] We'd love to hear it.

[16:22] >> Yeah, good evening. Um Jake Finlayson

[16:24] with Perry Commercial.

[16:27] Um so I guess to answer your question

[16:30] about the concern about the green. The

[16:33] only

[16:34] thing after looking into this further is

[16:38] the not more than three parcels

[16:41] language.

[16:43] Each individual parcel being larger than

[16:45] the 30 acres is totally fine.

[16:48] I believe that the combined area of the

[16:52] whole CSD is

[16:54] north of 400 acres.

[16:57] And so there's about I think eight or

[17:00] nine parcels

[17:02] um that that consists of.

[17:03] And And a reason for coming back

[17:06] to the commission is we we wanted to

[17:09] include an additional area within that

[17:12] commercial district and that's

[17:14] current That's the There's a big parcel

[17:16] to the west of the Overlake Golf Course.

[17:20] And so we're trying to encompass that as

[17:23] um

[17:24] just a plan for new uh the new

[17:26] transportation corridor um that could

[17:30] be, you know, 10

[17:31] or longer years from now, but we want to

[17:33] make sure we're

[17:35] kind of doing all the work now to plan

[17:37] for that. So,

[17:39] that's the only concern that I would

[17:41] have from the proposed green language.

[17:44] It's just that three parcel restriction.

[17:48] Um but happy to answer any other

[17:50] questions about

[17:52] kind of what we're planning or any other

[17:55] concerns about the text amendment.

[18:02] » Any other commissioners have questions

[18:04] for the applicant?

[18:09] You're good?

[18:10] Satisfied?

[18:11] >> [laughter]

[18:11] >> Got your answer?

[18:12] >> Yeah, I'm thoroughly good.

[18:14] That's where I go.

[18:15] >> Yeah, Commissioner Linford, go ahead.

[18:17] >> So, I'm a fairly new commissioner, so I

[18:19] just ask a lot of questions. I apologize

[18:21] in advance.

[18:22] Um

[18:24] if this went through with the not

[18:26] including more than three parcels, what what does that translate to your

[18:30] guys' position? How does that affect you

[18:31] guys? I'm just trying to weigh

[18:34] that language if that's the only concern

[18:35] right now.

[18:36] >> Yeah, on your side.

[18:37] >> It would just mean we'd have to do

[18:39] multiple

[18:40] um CSD applications.

[18:44] » So, it's more just tedious at that

[18:46] point.

[18:46] >> It's just more tedious. It would just be

[18:47] nice to wrap it in one, you know, consistent CSD

[18:52] standard. So.

[18:55] >> I have a question uh uh

[18:58] might be for staff, but the parcels, is

[19:00] that like individual parcels or is that

[19:02] continuous parcels? Cuz I thought it was

[19:05] in three parcels that we talked about.

[19:07] It was like three continuous.

[19:10] If Does that make sense what I'm saying?

[19:13] Cuz we had Originally we had these

[19:14] three, right?

[19:15] >> Mhm.

[19:17] >> And then looks like they're adding this

[19:18] fourth one.

[19:20] So it is so but not necessarily a parcel

[19:23] like uh you know, a piece of property

[19:25] has a parcel number.

[19:27] And then the next property has a parcel

[19:28] number, but they they both could be

[19:30] within this continuous.

[19:32] >> If memory serves, the 60-acre parcel or

[19:36] the 60-acre property highlighted in red,

[19:39] I think it consists of three individual

[19:41] parcels of record.

[19:42] >> But where but for the way the the

[19:45] ordinance is written, that would consist

[19:47] of one parcel. Cuz that's how I

[19:49] understood it when we talked about it.

[19:51] Does that make sense what I'm saying?

[19:55] » That's what I thought we

[19:58] >> Yeah, so not necessarily a parcel like a property parcel number, but one

[20:02] continuous

[20:03] >> So it would count as one

[20:04] >> area.

[20:05] >> That maybe's you know, that would

[20:07] >> I think the intent was one specific area

[20:10] versus one another versus another.

[20:12] Parcel can be a little misleading

[20:14] because there could be more than one

[20:15] parcel

[20:16] in one of those red areas.

[20:18] >> Yes, yes, that's what

[20:20] So that that's the way I I understood

[20:21] it, and I I think for the the three

[20:23] parcels, I think it's just something we

[20:25] landed on cuz we asked, in my opinion

[20:27] anyways, that they wanted three

[20:29] different ones, and I didn't

[20:31] know if there was a benefit or a

[20:32] negative to go on upper down.

[20:35] You know, I I didn't see anybody being

[20:37] able to abuse it in any way or

[20:40] you know, any kind of negative thing for

[20:42] making them more

[20:44] areas.

[20:46] >> I I was more concerned about the minimum

[20:48] size.

[20:48] >> Yeah.

[20:49] I I don't want a 7,000 ft parcel

[20:52] of

[20:53] commercial area necessarily to be part

[20:55] of this. So I think we we fixed that.

[20:58] Uh I'm I'm less concerned about how many

[21:00] there are within the area. If it If it

[21:02] fits, it fits.

[21:07] » And just for the planning commission's

[21:08] information, I I included this slide

[21:11] just for your information to remind you

[21:12] of what you did at your previous

[21:14] meeting.

[21:15] When this was going to go to the

[21:16] council, I actually had two exhibits. I

[21:19] had the exhibit that was proposed by the

[21:20] applicant.

[21:22] And then I had an exhibit that included

[21:23] the planning commission's

[21:24] recommendations.

[21:26] So, even though I've shown the slide,

[21:28] this is not what the applicant is

[21:29] formally requesting. This is just what

[21:31] the planning commission did last time.

[21:33] So,

[21:34] just for your information, that's how I

[21:35] was proceeding with this application.

[21:38] >> It's probably a good thing to read that,

[21:39] too, now that the parcels confuses us

[21:41] just a few a month later, then it could

[21:43] confuse us six months down the road, 10

[21:45] years down the road.

[21:46] >> So, just to be clear, if we're going off

[21:48] of continuous parcels being considered

[21:50] one, then realistically we're one parcel

[21:53] away from satisfying

[21:56] the needs that he's concerned about. Cuz

[21:58] I saw four areas in red. Even if they

[22:01] consist of nine total parcel numbers,

[22:03] there are four areas of red.

[22:05] >> Yeah, so this this slide indicates the

[22:07] areas I just put up here for the

[22:09] commission's reference.

[22:11] These indicate the areas that they want

[22:12] to include in their CSD application. So,

[22:15] there are four geographical areas.

[22:19] Now, there are multiple parcels in a

[22:20] couple of these areas. I think the

[22:22] 50-acre parcel is one parcel. 36 acres

[22:25] is one parcel.

[22:27] The one on the

[22:29] left, the long one, there might be two

[22:30] or three parcels in that one. The

[22:32] 60-acre parcel has two or three, as

[22:34] well.

[22:38] » I think I think the thought process was

[22:41] that

[22:43] if you have 125 acres and you limit it

[22:46] to three

[22:48] parcels, and the smallest being 30, then

[22:51] you're not going to have four

[22:54] parcels at 30.

[23:00] Whereas, the prior minimum was 50

[23:03] parcel,

[23:04] correct?

[23:09] » Is there a better word than parcel that

[23:11] we can put in there?

[23:12] >> Well, there's and I think Kelly and I

[23:14] are on the same page cuz parcel is a

[23:15] term of art in our business. It's a tax

[23:18] ID number.

[23:19] And in the development business, it's

[23:21] probably not exactly the same.

[23:23] So, maybe that's where we're

[23:26] >> So, could we

[23:28] put a definition in here of for for

[23:30] [clears throat] land use of area is the

[23:33] continuous parcel parcels combined and

[23:36] only have four areas or three areas of

[23:39] continuous land use? Could we could we

[23:41] just define that better so that there's

[23:43] clarity? Cuz

[23:46] I kind of agree with the chair. If a

[23:48] month later we're kind of still trying

[23:50] to define this, then that to me mean

[23:54] probably shouldn't go before the

[23:55] council's will just yet.

[23:59] » I don't know if it would

[24:01] Sorry.

[24:02] >> No, go ahead, Mr. Johnson, please.

[24:05] >> I don't know if we would just call it

[24:09] um three or four [snorts]

[24:11] continuous areas of land or continuous tracts of land and so that

[24:16] we're not we just don't use parcel at

[24:19] all since it does have that

[24:21] term of art connected to it.

[24:22] >> Yeah, I was I was thinking the same

[24:24] thing as as Matt. You do three or four

[24:26] geographical areas.

[24:28] Um that way we just get away from the

[24:30] parcel definition. Thanks, Matt.

[24:32] >> Yeah, I like that a little bit better.

[24:37] » Mr. Chair, yes. If Andrew, if we just

[24:40] eliminated the the phrase enclosed not

[24:42] more than three parcels and each parcel

[24:44] being larger than 30 acres.

[24:46] is covered if we change

[24:50] if we

[24:51] change our minimum up here to from 50 to

[24:53] 30.

[24:55] And got rid of that phrase all together,

[24:57] would that not solve all these problems?

[25:01] » Yes.

[25:02] >> I think that would help.

[25:06] » So, it would be sized the minimum size

[25:07] for any application for a commercial

[25:09] special district shall be 30 acres.

[25:12] Or at least 30 acres that we're saying.

[25:14] >> Well, cuz we're already dealing with the

[25:15] 125 and the applicants changed two lines

[25:17] below that. So, we we probably need to

[25:20] stick that 30-acre minimum in there

[25:22] somewhere. And maybe it's simply losing

[25:24] the phrase includes not more than three

[25:25] parcels.

[25:27] >> That may be the easiest way to do it is

[25:29] just eliminate that three parcel

[25:30] requirement.

[25:31] >> Yeah.

[25:33] Does that get you where you need to go?

[25:36] » Yeah, I

[25:37] >> I don't sense anybody's got a problem

[25:39] with the philosophy. I think we're we're

[25:40] wordsmithing it to see if we can help them and still

[25:43] protect what we're trying to

[25:44] >> Yeah, yeah, and I think by

[25:46] changing the 50 acre to 30 and then

[25:49] honestly probably just removing the

[25:50] green is the easiest from my perspective. Obviously, you guys have

[25:56] your own perspectives on this, but um

[26:00] my thought is, you know, since this is

[26:01] just what is allowed for an application

[26:06] the power to approve that application,

[26:09] you know, still ultimately lies

[26:12] with, you know, commission and council.

[26:14] So,

[26:15] I don't know how

[26:17] serious

[26:20] kind of this nitpick, you know, kind of

[26:21] like the back and forth is. Um if

[26:26] at the end of the day, you know,

[26:26] commission and council still has the

[26:28] ability to approve or deny.

[26:30] Um

[26:32] So, but

[26:34] yeah, I think certainly just removing

[26:36] that 50 to 30 and then probably removing

[26:38] that first green section.

[26:39] >> even sure we need to move the 50 if we

[26:41] just leave in the line each parcel being larger than

[26:44] 30 acres.

[26:45] >> Mhm.

[26:46] >> I agree.

[26:47] >> Yeah.

[26:48] >> Just remove includes

[26:50] not more than three parcels.

[26:52] >> get rid of the three parcel max.

[26:54] >> Would you entertain changing that second

[26:57] parcel word to tract of land kind of

[26:59] like what

[27:00] >> I think that's

[27:01] >> Okay.

[27:01] >> in our benefit as well. Yep.

[27:03] >> Then I'm totally okay with that.

[27:04] >> If we had geographic tract

[27:06] [clears throat]

[27:08] So we don't get confused again.

[27:10] >> Well, we'll figure out a way to get

[27:11] confused again.

[27:12] >> [laughter]

[27:13] >> We do it every meeting.

[27:15] >> So the discussion right now is just to

[27:17] remove includes not more than three

[27:18] parcels and each parcel and just

[27:20] including or adding in their tract of

[27:22] land being larger than 30 acres. Is that

[27:25] correct? Is that what I'm hearing?

[27:28] » Yep.

[27:28] >> And then I think if we leave it to the

[27:29] staff to word smith that grammatically

[27:32] properly, I think you know where we're trying to go.

[27:35] >> I got you.

[27:37] » Yep.

[27:38] >> All right.

[27:39] >> One more question if that's all right.

[27:43] » Well, [clears throat]

[27:44] and I'm trying to recall, is there a

[27:46] reason we put a cap on this? Were we

[27:48] concerned that it could be taken too far

[27:50] with too many parcels in one or

[27:53] >> I think it was to keep the 60,000 acres

[27:56] out. Yeah, the smaller acres.

[27:57] >> I think we talked about it. I think we

[27:58] also came to the conclusion there aren't

[28:00] that many parcels available.

[28:02] >> Yes.

[28:03] >> tracts available within the city.

[28:05] >> And most of them are

[28:06] >> This is going to apply to this. This is

[28:08] most of most of them are in there.

[28:10] >> thing.

[28:11] >> So realistically

[28:14] removing that language and that cap,

[28:15] there there shouldn't be any negative

[28:17] repercussions moving forward in the

[28:19] future against

[28:20] >> the master plan or anything of that

[28:21] nature.

[28:22] >> This is probably the only CSD of the

[28:24] size we're going to get in the city.

[28:26] >> Okay.

[28:27] Just want to confirm before

[28:29] just playing safe.

[28:31] >> No, no worries.

[28:32] >> the major thing thinking back the the

[28:34] biggest thing we tried to achieve was

[28:35] that 30 acre number.

[28:37] Um because it wasn't going to work

[28:39] without that. So

[28:44] » All right.

[28:45] >> Any other discussion for staff and the

[28:47] applicant?

[28:48] >> a question for the applicant.

[28:50] >> Mr. Fillingsen?

[28:51] >> What What [clears throat] is the impetus

[28:53] for

[28:54] um

[28:54] doing the

[28:56] land use map at the same

[28:59] >> So, um

[29:01] I think part of our thought process was

[29:04] making that consistent with the language

[29:06] within the residential special district

[29:09] where they are um done at the same time.

[29:13] And so, I It was making it consistent,

[29:16] but also just one less

[29:20] >> [clears throat]

[29:20] >> application, one less, you know, waiting

[29:22] game process and

[29:24] >> I'm all for that.

[29:25] >> So, yeah.

[29:29] » Perfect. Any other questions for the

[29:30] applicant tonight?

[29:34] All right. Excellent discussion. I like

[29:36] it. All right. This item also does

[29:38] require a public hearing. I will go

[29:40] ahead and open that public hearing now.

[29:42] If you'd like to speak to this

[29:43] particular item, please approach the

[29:44] podium.

[29:45] State your name for the record.

[29:51] Seeing no one approach, I'll go ahead

[29:52] and close the public hearing and bring

[29:53] this back to the commission for any

[29:55] other further discussion or further

[29:57] action.

[30:05] » Mr. Chairman, maybe for just one last question for staff. Are

[30:09] you ready for a finished motion here or

[30:12] do you want to

[30:13] play with it first?

[30:18] » I'm good to go.

[30:20] >> [laughter]

[30:24] » Um Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion, I

[30:27] think.

[30:29] >> Thank [laughter] you, Commissioner

[30:30] Sloan. Thank you.

[30:31] >> Um I move that uh

[30:33] >> What are we approving or making a

[30:35] recommendation?

[30:35] >> recommendation

[30:37] uh that we that we send this to the city

[30:39] council with a positive recommendation

[30:42] uh with the section in green, the staff

[30:45] section.

[30:51] Just removing the includes not more than

[30:54] three parcels and

[30:59] » And then forward parcels of land tract.

[31:02] >> tract of land

[31:02] >> Oh, yeah. Change the word parcel to

[31:05] geographical tract

[31:07] or whatever is appropriate there.

[31:10] >> Perfect. Got a positive recommendation

[31:12] from Commissioner Sloan to remove the

[31:14] includes not more than three parcels and

[31:16] each parcel and just including

[31:19] geographical tract or whatever word

[31:20] works perfectly for Mr. Johnson down

[31:23] there.

[31:23] >> That's all Mr. Johnson. Sorry.

[31:25] >> [laughter]

[31:25] >> Are we making a staff

[31:27] >> No, I'll second that.

[31:29] >> Is that everything for that motion,

[31:30] Commissioner Sloan?

[31:31] >> I certainly hope so.

[31:32] >> Okay.

[31:33] >> I second. [laughter]

[31:34] >> Second from Commissioner Proctor. Any

[31:35] discussion before we take this to a

[31:37] vote?

[31:39] Commissioner Hemmer how do you vote?

[31:40] >> I.

[31:41] >> Commissioner Sloan?

[31:41] >> I.

[31:42] >> Commissioner Proctor?

[31:42] >> I.

[31:43] >> Commissioner Linford?

[31:43] >> I.

[31:44] >> Commissioner Jensen?

[31:45] >> I.

[31:45] >> Commissioner Anderson?

[31:46] >> I.

[31:46] >> I'm Chairman Hamilton. I also vote I.

[31:48] That one passes seven to zero. Great

[31:51] discussion. Thank you guys on that one.

[31:53] Cleaning up our books as we speak.

[31:56] Number five on our agenda tonight is a

[31:57] public hearing and recommendation on a

[31:59] proposed partial street vacation of 20

[32:02] foot strip of public right-of-way along

[32:04] the southern portion of Utah Avenue

[32:06] extending approximately 738 linear feet

[32:09] between the railroad crossing to the

[32:11] west and 1100 West intersection to the

[32:14] east which would reduce the existing

[32:16] right-of-way width from of Utah Avenue

[32:19] from approximately 109 feet to

[32:20] approximately 89 feet.

[32:23] Ms. England.

[32:26] » Um yes, the the request is to vacate the

[32:28] 20 foot strip of excess right-of-way

[32:31] along the south side of Utah Avenue. The

[32:34] city supports the reduction because the

[32:36] railroad crossing to the west will not

[32:38] be expanded meaning this additional

[32:41] right away is not anticipated to

[32:43] be needed for future roadway

[32:46] improvements. Um

[32:48] it is also just going to join the

[32:52] property that is to the south there as

[32:55] well.

[32:56] Um

[32:58] the primary issue raised during the

[33:00] noticing was Einhell existing gas line.

[33:03] They had some questions about what their

[33:06] utility easement looks like there.

[33:09] However, [clears throat] the proposed

[33:10] ordinance specifically reserves a

[33:12] perpetual public utility easement over

[33:15] the vacated area protecting existing and

[33:19] future utilities. Staff has not

[33:21] identified any impact to transportation,

[33:24] emergency access, or other public

[33:26] functions with this right away vacation.

[33:29] >> [snorts]

[33:32] » Based on the statutory

[33:34] criteria, staff finds that there is a

[33:37] good cause for the vacation and that

[33:40] neither the public interest nor any

[33:42] person will be materially injured.

[33:45] Staff recommends

[33:48] that city council and planning

[33:50] commission approve the ordinance.

[33:54] So, and if you have any other questions,

[33:57] I'm here and so is Paul if you have some

[33:59] questions specifically about Utah

[34:01] Avenue.

[34:03] Okay?

[34:04] >> Perfect. Let's bring it back to the

[34:05] commission for questions for staff.

[34:14] Not seeing any. It might be a good

[34:15] thing, huh? [laughter]

[34:17] >> We got to ask Paul a question at some

[34:18] point. He stayed here.

[34:19] >> Yeah.

[34:19] >> [clears throat]

[34:20] >> He stayed here just for this. We

[34:22] guarantee it.

[34:24] >> [laughter]

[34:28] » Anybody have a difficult

[34:29] question for Mr. Hansen.

[34:32] All right, well.

[34:35] No discussion on this item.

[34:37] >> [laughter]

[34:37] >> I'll entertain a motion.

[34:40] Oh, yes, you are right, absolutely.

[34:42] Thank you, Ms. Young, I appreciate that.

[34:43] This item does require a public hearing,

[34:45] so I'll go ahead and open the public

[34:46] hearing now.

[34:48] If you'd like to speak to this

[34:48] particular item, please approach the

[34:50] podium, state your name for the record,

[34:52] and then write your name for the record.

[34:57] Seeing no one approach, I'll go ahead

[34:58] and close the public hearing and bring

[35:00] it back to the commission for further

[35:01] action.

[35:03] >> Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion.

[35:05] >> Commissioner Jensen, go ahead.

[35:06] >> I move that we forward a positive

[35:08] recommendee

[35:10] uh recommendation to the City Council

[35:12] for approval of Ordinance number 2026-22

[35:15] vacating a 20-ft portion of the Utah

[35:18] Avenue public right-of-way extending

[35:19] approximately 738 linear ft between 1100

[35:23] West and the railroad tracks,

[35:25] application number 2026-0252

[35:29] uh based on the findings contained in

[35:32] the staff report dated August 5th, 2026.

[35:35] >> I have a positive recommendation from

[35:36] Commissioner Jensen. Do I have a second?

[35:38] >> I'll second.

[35:39] >> And a second from Commissioner Linford.

[35:42] Any discussion before we take this to a

[35:43] vote?

[35:47] Commissioner Hammer, how do you vote?

[35:48] >> I.

[35:48] >> Commissioner Sloan.

[35:49] >> I.

[35:49] >> Commissioner Proctor.

[35:50] >> I.

[35:50] >> Commissioner Linford.

[35:51] >> I.

[35:52] >> Commissioner Jensen.

[35:52] >> I.

[35:53] >> Commissioner Anderson.

[35:54] >> I.

[35:54] am Chairman Hamilton, I also vote I.

[35:56] That is a positive recommendation 7-0

[35:58] heading up to the City Council.

[36:01] Moves us on to number six on our agenda,

[36:04] which is another public hearing and

[36:05] recommendation on a proposed amendments

[36:07] to Tooele City code title seven, uniform

[36:10] zoning code of Tooele City by adapting

[36:12] by adopting chapter 11C design standards

[36:15] commercial, establishing architectural

[36:17] standards for commercial development in

[36:19] Tooele City's commercial, industrial,

[36:21] and mixed-use zoning districts. Mr.

[36:24] Eggar.

[36:24] >> Thank you, Commissioners. Been working

[36:26] on this ordinance

[36:28] a little bit here, a little bit there

[36:29] over the past couple of years, and

[36:32] now that my city planner's coming

[36:33] online, I've had more time to to to dive

[36:36] into some of these nagging projects that

[36:37] I've been wanting to get to you.

[36:40] Um and one of those has been the

[36:41] architectural design standards for

[36:42] commercial zoning.

[36:44] That actually is an incorrect heading

[36:46] there. It's not for commercial zoning

[36:48] districts, it's for commercial

[36:49] development, and I'll explain why.

[36:53] Currently, Tooele City does not have any

[36:55] architectural design standards for

[36:57] development in commercial zoning

[36:58] districts

[37:00] at all.

[37:02] There's just nothing there.

[37:04] So, any commercial development can build

[37:05] any type of building they want to

[37:08] without regard

[37:10] to

[37:12] building appearance from public rights

[37:13] of way,

[37:14] building appearance from residential

[37:16] neighborhoods,

[37:17] building appearance at entrance points

[37:19] into the city,

[37:22] location and appearance of dumpster and

[37:23] trash enclosures, location and screening

[37:26] of rooftop and wall-mounted mechanical

[37:28] equipment,

[37:30] and the appearance of commercial-related

[37:32] accessory structures.

[37:35] So, what we've done, and the mayor has encouraged me to move this through

[37:39] the process,

[37:41] is we've written a new ordinance

[37:44] to try and set or create some

[37:46] architectural standards. Now, I do want

[37:47] to state

[37:49] that the intent of this ordinance is not

[37:51] to make development more more onerous

[37:53] for developers.

[37:55] It is to basically lock in that which

[37:59] we're already getting from developers.

[38:01] So, when when putting this ordinance

[38:03] together, I spent a lot of time doing a

[38:05] visual inventory of both newer

[38:08] structures in the city as well as

[38:11] structures that have been here for a

[38:12] while,

[38:14] and have incorporated what they put on

[38:15] their buildings into what this ordinance

[38:17] requires.

[38:19] We're getting large enough as a city

[38:20] that it might be a good idea to preserve

[38:22] what we've got. And uh

[38:25] enough people are coming into the city

[38:26] now that uh

[38:28] we're starting to receive feedback from

[38:30] the public and they want to keep the

[38:31] city looking well. So,

[38:34] that's the purpose behind this. It isn't

[38:35] to make de- development more difficult.

[38:37] It's just to maintain what we're

[38:39] getting. And I think by for the most

[38:41] part, what we're seeing in Tooele

[38:43] is being well done. I think the

[38:45] architecture for the new buildings looks good.

[38:48] And what you're seeing constructed out

[38:50] there would be permissible easily under

[38:53] this code. So, I just want to make sure

[38:55] the planning commission is aware of

[38:56] that. It's not my intention to design a

[38:59] building.

[39:00] It's not my intention to be an architect

[39:02] or to play an architect on TV. Okay?

[39:05] I'm not an architect. A landscape

[39:07] architect, but I'm not a building

[39:09] architect and I don't want to be one.

[39:10] Too much math.

[39:13] So, let's just dive into what the code

[39:14] says and what we're doing and then uh

[39:17] get some feedback from you, see what you

[39:18] think.

[39:20] So, as I mentioned, we're proposing a

[39:21] new code. We're proposing title 7

[39:24] chapter 11 C.

[39:26] Uh we have title 7 chapter 11 B, which

[39:28] is multi-family design standards and we

[39:30] have

[39:31] or excuse me, chapter 11 A is

[39:32] multi-family and then 11 B is

[39:34] single-family standards. So, we we just

[39:36] added this right behind for commercial

[39:38] standards.

[39:40] Uh the first ti- the first paragraph

[39:42] here is applicability. And basically, it

[39:44] states that the standards of this

[39:45] ordinance shall apply to all exterior

[39:48] facades

[39:49] open to a public view from the public

[39:52] right-of-way, public space, adjacent

[39:54] residential dwelling, or future

[39:55] residential area.

[39:57] I refer to this as four-sided

[39:58] architecture. So, if a building is being

[40:01] proposed in an area where there's a lot

[40:03] of visibility, they need to give equal

[40:05] treatment to the visible sides as they

[40:07] would to the front of the building.

[40:09] Uh a good example of this is the

[40:12] um

[40:13] the Allen's Flooring building when

[40:14] you're coming over the viaduct. You'll

[40:16] note that the front of that building is

[40:17] very nice. It was well designed.

[40:20] But the most visible facade, the north

[40:22] side, is just a corrugated metal wall.

[40:25] And [snorts] then under this ordinance,

[40:26] they would have had to

[40:28] put the same treatment on the side of

[40:30] the building, the visible side, as they

[40:31] would on the front.

[40:33] Um

[40:34] going back to this not applying just to

[40:37] commercial zones, the applicability

[40:41] uh paragraph refers to the GC, NC, RC,

[40:45] RD zones. Those are the commercial

[40:47] zones, but the RD is the research and

[40:49] development.

[40:50] But it also requires development in the

[40:52] industrial service and light industrial

[40:55] to comply with the with the requirements

[40:57] the standards of this chapter. And the

[40:58] reason being is those two industrial

[41:00] zones allow a lot of

[41:02] retail,

[41:04] professional office, and those types of

[41:06] commercial activities.

[41:08] And much we have two of those zones

[41:10] immediately adjacent to SR 36 in a very

[41:13] high visible location. So, I wanted to

[41:15] make sure these standards applied to

[41:17] those two zones as well.

[41:19] And then as well as the mixed-use

[41:20] general and the mixed-use Broadway

[41:22] zones. Those two zones

[41:24] allow

[41:26] pretty much every commercial activity

[41:27] you're going to get in the general

[41:28] commercial zone.

[41:30] And we're seeing a lot of commercial

[41:32] development in the general in the

[41:33] mixed-use zoning districts. And so, I

[41:35] wanted to make sure that these standards

[41:36] applied to those as well.

[41:39] And then section number two there, it

[41:41] defines what is a renovation. Just so

[41:43] when someone comes in, we can have a

[41:45] pretty clear standard as to what is

[41:47] a renovation and what isn't.

[41:50] Um the second paragraph section two is

[41:52] bulk. Uh this is just referring to

[41:55] breaking up an architectural wall with

[41:58] some elements.

[42:00] So, you don't have a solid wall of block

[42:02] or a solid wall of stucco.

[42:05] And it just kind of explains some of the

[42:06] things that they could use to do that,

[42:09] as well as number five, other

[42:10] architectural features that satisfy this

[42:12] requirement.

[42:14] So, we're trying to avoid a solid wall

[42:16] of one material.

[42:18] Break it up.

[42:19] Okay?

[42:22] And this is kind of an intention of what

[42:23] we would like to see in regards to

[42:26] um how you can shift wall facades. You

[42:28] can use columns, you can use arches, you

[42:30] can do you can use cantilevered spaces

[42:33] and so forth to provide a little architectural variety to a wall

[42:37] facade.

[42:40] Section three is the roof line.

[42:41] Basically, this ordinance this this

[42:43] section would just try to break up a

[42:45] long roof line.

[42:47] Good example of this is the retail

[42:48] building

[42:49] that you see where the Milly Subs and

[42:52] the Bald Guys Pizza is. Very long

[42:55] building, very long roof line, there's

[42:57] no variation in the height there.

[42:59] Uh we just want to make sure that they

[43:01] those are those are broken up.

[43:04] And here's some examples of what we're

[43:06] trying to accomplish with this

[43:07] ordinance. You'll notice that most of

[43:08] the buildings in Tooele City don't have

[43:10] a problem with that. Those those roof

[43:11] lines are broken up with

[43:13] decorative parapets and so forth.

[43:17] Exterior building materials, we want to

[43:19] provide plenty of flexibility. So, in

[43:21] this case, where in the ordinance it it

[43:23] requires more than two, but no more than

[43:25] five.

[43:27] Uh the buildings we don't want the

[43:28] building to get too busy.

[43:30] But um it also talks about the colors

[43:32] and uh the maximum amount of one

[43:35] material you could have on the building

[43:36] facade.

[43:39] And again, this is what we're intending,

[43:41] what we believe the code would would

[43:43] yield for us.

[43:45] Uh very similar to what we're already

[43:46] getting here in the city in regards to

[43:48] architectural design. And it provides

[43:50] plenty of flexibility for an architect

[43:52] to

[43:53] uh do as they desire with the building,

[43:54] but maintains a minimum standard.

[43:57] Uh section five is prohibited materials.

[44:00] There's a list of materials that are not

[44:02] permitted as

[44:03] uh anything other than

[44:06] um

[44:08] minor

[44:09] >> [clears throat]

[44:09] >> minor decorative elements. Some of those

[44:11] things are vinyl aluminum siding, wood,

[44:14] uh, pattern stucco as a masonry

[44:15] substitute, precast cement panel walls,

[44:18] and so forth.

[44:21] Uh, we do not have anything in our code

[44:23] currently that requires any screening of

[44:25] mechanical equipment. So, a lot of times

[44:27] you'll see a very nice building with a

[44:28] very large

[44:30] air cooling system on top of it or very

[44:33] large facility next to the building

[44:36] or even hanging on the wall.

[44:38] And what we would like to see is

[44:39] something that requires some some

[44:41] screening of these of these, uh,

[44:44] mechanical equipment. It can be

[44:46] a lattice fence, a parapet wall, or

[44:48] maybe even an architectural fence on top

[44:50] of the building.

[44:52] Uh, just something to give a little more

[44:55] screening appearance to these these

[44:57] mechanical equipments and maintain the

[44:58] visual appeal of the building itself.

[45:02] Uh, section seven dumpsters and trash

[45:04] enclosures. We do not have any language

[45:06] in our code concerning dumpsters and

[45:08] trash enclosures for commercial

[45:10] properties.

[45:11] And Paul and I, and I'm sure Anna as she

[45:14] gets into these reviews, we are

[45:15] constantly dealing with where they're

[45:16] putting these trash enclosures.

[45:19] Uh, the ordinance basically requires

[45:20] them to be located as far as possible

[45:22] from the public right of way

[45:24] and to be constructed or painted of

[45:27] materials that

[45:28] look like the building.

[45:30] >> [snorts]

[45:30] >> Uh, it also requires a solid metal or

[45:32] vinyl enclosure gate. We don't want a

[45:34] chain link fence.

[45:36] Uh,

[45:37] dumpster enclosures aren't necessarily

[45:39] the biggest things to look at. So, we'd

[45:40] like to have those screened as much as

[45:42] possible.

[45:43] And this is what the intent of the

[45:44] ordinance would be. Um,

[45:47] something of that nature.

[45:52] And then, uh,

[45:54] section eight, accessory drive-thru

[45:56] facilities. This is a a section I just

[45:58] recently added based It's what I heard

[46:00] from the planning commission last time.

[46:03] Uh we might as well have some language

[46:04] in there regarding

[46:06] the screening of

[46:08] drive-thru facilities where the

[46:09] drive-thru is located between the

[46:11] building and the public right-of-way.

[46:14] And what the what are my intent is is

[46:16] this is the This is the Mobertas.

[46:19] And I was always quite pleased with how

[46:20] they did their their landscaping.

[46:22] They've got a mix of burn burns,

[46:24] boulders, and plantings in there.

[46:26] And they it offers some screening to that that

[46:31] drive-thru. And I think that's the

[46:33] intent of what we're trying to get to

[46:34] with this code.

[46:37] Uh commercial accessory structures, we

[46:39] do have a lot of businesses that utilize

[46:41] commercial accessory structures. And and

[46:44] this ordinance would require these these

[46:46] structures to

[46:48] either be constructed of material

[46:50] similar or complementary to the main

[46:51] structure

[46:53] or painted a color that is similar to

[46:55] the main structure so that it's not

[46:56] something that stands out like a sore

[46:58] thumb.

[46:59] It also talks about shipping containers

[47:01] that they be stored behind the main

[47:02] building in locations that cannot be

[47:04] viewed from public rights-of-way

[47:06] or residential districts and shall be

[47:07] painted a color that is similar or

[47:09] complementary to the main commercial

[47:10] structure it is associated with. So, it

[47:13] doesn't prohibit them. It try It gives

[47:14] us a little more teeth in regards to

[47:16] where they can put them.

[47:18] And hopefully they'll paint them to

[47:20] complement the building so they don't

[47:21] stand out.

[47:23] >> [snorts]

[47:24] >> As always, there will be disagreements

[47:26] between staff and the

[47:29] and a developer.

[47:31] Um

[47:32] in that case, I wanted to have a a a

[47:34] mechanism for an appeal. There could

[47:36] also be a situation where a new exterior

[47:39] material is brought to our attention

[47:41] that does not that is not addressed in

[47:42] the code.

[47:44] Uh

[47:44] >> [snorts]

[47:44] >> so, basically, they could they could

[47:46] submit an application to me

[47:49] and then we would bring it to the

[47:50] planning commission and let you guys

[47:53] be the judge as to whether or not this

[47:55] it meets community standards.

[47:57] Um

[47:59] And thank you to to the city attorney

[48:00] for providing this language for me. It's

[48:02] very helpful.

[48:03] And then the final section number 11,

[48:05] failure to act, it just states that if

[48:07] they do not comply with the requirements

[48:09] of the section, they shall not receive

[48:10] site plan design review.

[48:13] Uh we want to make sure the ordinance

[48:14] does have some teeth in regards to

[48:16] enforceability. So, that's what we're

[48:18] proposing. I had a lot of fun working on

[48:20] it. I'm having fun talking about it with

[48:21] you. If you have any questions,

[48:23] if you have any feedback,

[48:25] let me know.

[48:27] >> That's right. Just bringing this back to

[48:29] the commission. I do have one quick one

[48:31] while we're here, and this has to do

[48:32] with our downtown district. Uh going to

[48:34] renovate a building here, I don't want

[48:36] to put modern stuff on an old building.

[48:37] So, that last little application to

[48:40] appeal is actually helpful in that

[48:42] sense, but I'm not sure that that would

[48:43] apply to an a downtown overlay, would

[48:45] it?

[48:49] » The ordinance actually does not mention

[48:51] the downtown overlay. So, I believe it

[48:53] would as it's currently structured.

[48:56] However,

[48:57] given what I see in the downtown

[48:59] overlay, I don't think there'd be any

[49:00] compliance issues with the code

[49:02] requires.

[49:02] >> Even if we were to fix a facade or

[49:04] anything like that, I don't even want

[49:06] to.

[49:06] >> I don't think you'd have any problem.

[49:08] >> Perfect.

[49:08] >> Now, if you wanted if if there's

[49:10] something you are concerned, we could we

[49:11] could add you could recommend that we

[49:14] add

[49:15] an exemption for the downtown overlay.

[49:17] It could be very simple as that.

[49:19] Uh we are ha- I'm happy to do that for

[49:21] you.

[49:22] Um I do know that Councilman Gossip

[49:24] mentioned the same thing in in our work

[49:26] session with the council.

[49:28] Uh so, I wanted to bring it to you guys

[49:30] first before I tinkered with that, but

[49:32] I don't think you're going to have any

[49:33] problems. The There There's enough

[49:35] flexibility in the code there that

[49:38] we can work with you.

[49:40] >> And that's kind of what I assumed.

[49:41] There's There's the intentions to make

[49:43] it look nice, and of course I agree with

[49:45] that wholeheartedly, but I'm not going

[49:46] to take a historic building and put

[49:47] modern stuff on the front of it. I can

[49:49] We want to get it back to

[49:50] historical-looking, of course. so.

[49:52] >> Perfect.

[49:53] >> And technically, historical buildings

[49:54] have a lot more arches and coins and

[49:56] things of that nature in the buildings

[49:58] that I don't think you'd have a problem.

[49:59] >> If you're doing it the right way,

[50:00] absolutely, yes. It should break up a

[50:02] lot of them, but

[50:04] >> But if that's a concern, let's let's add

[50:05] that to the code. I'm not I don't have a

[50:07] problem with that.

[50:08] >> Good.

[50:09] I heard more

[50:11] questions over here coming up.

[50:12] Commissioner Proctor.

[50:13] >> Oh, just some comments, and thank you

[50:15] for adding the drive-thru accessory and

[50:18] also the

[50:19] shipping containers don't need a rusted

[50:21] container sitting out next to a nice

[50:24] building.

[50:24] >> Yeah, we we have a couple in the city

[50:26] that are eye sores.

[50:28] Uh that was one of the things I really

[50:29] wanted to tackle with this, so.

[50:32] >> Commissioner Sloan.

[50:33] >> Um just since I seem to be in a

[50:34] word-smithing mode tonight, um

[50:37] I do love having accessory drive-thru

[50:39] stuff in there, and I love the

[50:41] I love what Mo Bettis did with the My

[50:43] concern is that in that section, using

[50:46] the word screen

[50:48] without quantifying it,

[50:50] whereas prior sections, you screen the

[50:52] HVAC and you screen the dumpsters

[50:56] to get them completely out of sight. Um

[50:59] any concern that

[51:01] this is obviously not that, but that's a

[51:03] good-looking drive-in approach, and I

[51:06] think that's what we want to see if I'm

[51:09] reading the room right. Do we need to be

[51:12] any more careful with the verb? Is is

[51:14] that going to I mean, is somebody going

[51:15] to come in and say, "Okay." Especially

[51:17] as I read down what's allowed to do,

[51:19] um

[51:20] the one I was trying

[51:22] >> Perhaps we use something like to help

[51:23] obscure.

[51:25] >> I I I and I understand this is as

[51:27] nitpicky as it is, but uh

[51:29] um

[51:32] For example, you've got decorative

[51:33] masonry or vinyl fencing panels. Okay,

[51:36] those are going to be 6 ft tall. So,

[51:38] it's it's it can be a little bit you

[51:39] know, if I say if we put a 6-ft fence

[51:42] between the store and the right-of-way,

[51:45] that that's going to defeat the purpose

[51:46] of all the work that you've done here.

[51:48] And and it may be for perfectly okay.

[51:51] Uh I'm just asking the question so we

[51:53] don't have to come back and explain to

[51:54] an applicant.

[51:55] >> I had a picture I was going to put in

[51:57] the presentation and I didn't I didn't

[51:59] put it in there and I wish I did.

[52:00] It was a drive-thru use in Riverton that

[52:03] I approved where they used 3-ft concrete

[52:05] masonry fence panels to screen it and

[52:08] they they jogged them around. They had

[52:10] landscaping. It looked really nice.

[52:11] >> Cool.

[52:12] >> Um

[52:13] Maybe we could do something where we put

[52:16] limit the height of the fencing panels

[52:18] to 3 ft.

[52:19] >> Yeah, that's going to

[52:20] >> or something that nature.

[52:21] >> And that's kind of where I'm getting at.

[52:23] I think

[52:24] if we just

[52:26] we can get exactly where you want to go.

[52:28] Uh but not additional.

[52:30] >> The intent wasn't to have 6-ft fencing.

[52:32] >> No, and I and I understood that but but

[52:35] we're using the word screen

[52:36] interchangeably in three different

[52:38] sections. And the reason for screening the other two

[52:42] is very obvious. We don't want people

[52:43] seeing them.

[52:44] >> Yeah.

[52:44] >> Uh that's not the case here and I know

[52:45] that's not the case here. So, uh just

[52:48] if if there's not a better adjective

[52:50] than than leave it. We'll figure it out

[52:52] especially since

[52:54] uh

[52:55] planning commission's going to have

[52:56] approval over a lot of these goofy

[52:57] things anyway, so.

[52:59] >> Well, let me tinker with that.

[53:01] >> Okay.

[53:02] >> I'm sure I can come up with something

[53:03] that's

[53:05] You know cuz we're not going to fully

[53:06] obscure all those cars that are lining

[53:08] up in there. The The purpose is to

[53:10] really to soften it and help hide it. Um

[53:13] not to take completely

[53:15] >> Completely

[53:15] >> Take out screen and put um utilize to

[53:17] help

[53:18] obscure.

[53:21] To to help help help

[53:23] obscure it. Not screen it.

[53:25] >> Yeah. I I think that's that's doable. No

[53:27] problem with that.

[53:30] Any other questions for me?

[53:31] >> Commissioner Anderson has one.

[53:32] >> Well, actually I have a couple of

[53:34] things.

[53:35] >> [laughter]

[53:36] >> First, I want to say thank you because I can tell that you've put a a of work

[53:40] into this and and I appreciate that.

[53:44] I do have questions about how some of

[53:48] these numbers were arrived at.

[53:51] For instance,

[53:53] 25% of the exterior building facade.

[53:56] Um

[53:58] and that in

[53:59] 11C1

[54:01] um

[54:06] and then in 11C4, [snorts] the 75%

[54:11] no more than 75% of any building should consist of one material.

[54:18] Where did those numbers come from? Why?

[54:20] What's the thought process?

[54:22] >> Okay.

[54:23] So, in regards to number four, I'll let

[54:25] city attorney

[54:26] do that the section one. He He's the one

[54:29] that proposed that one, but as far as

[54:31] section four

[54:33] one of the rule of rules of thumbs

[54:36] in planning is plagiarizing.

[54:39] Uh we go to other city codes and we look

[54:41] to see what other cities have done.

[54:43] And honestly, I didn't come up with 75%.

[54:47] I brought that over from Riverton.

[54:49] And it seemed to work well. It seemed

[54:51] like it was a it was a large enough

[54:52] number

[54:54] that

[54:56] didn't overwhelm the exterior with one

[54:58] material.

[54:59] And uh

[55:01] that's where that number came from.

[55:04] >> So, my concern, you know, is that we're

[55:07] putting a lot of restrictions on

[55:09] businesses that have a a specific look.

[55:14] For instance, you know, should we ever

[55:16] get an IKEA out here, [clears throat]

[55:18] they couldn't come in here and build

[55:19] their building

[55:21] the way their buildings look in this

[55:24] code.

[55:26] Um

[55:27] and would you consider the bright yellow

[55:30] IKEA

[55:32] um

[55:33] neon

[55:35] which would be prohibited under this

[55:37] code.

[55:39] Um could Costco come out here

[55:42] in city limits and build their

[55:44] buildings?

[55:45] >> Don't start that rumor.

[55:46] >> I'm not going to start a rumor, but I

[55:49] mean that's a question. Could they?

[55:50] >> there.

[55:51] >> Um and I think that that's

[55:54] They have a very specific look. We're not Highland. We're not Park City.

[55:59] >> It says [laughter] right in there that

[56:01] it may be approved as a minor as a

[56:04] corporate branding element. It says it

[56:06] can be approved.

[56:07] >> Yeah.

[56:08] >> And that's for like IKEA, that's their

[56:10] corporate branding.

[56:20] Did you Was it Was there a question

[56:22] there, Kelly? I'm sorry.

[56:23] >> [laughter]

[56:25] >> Yeah, their question.

[56:27] Um

[56:30] >> Can I add on to your that number four

[56:32] cuz I had a question about that, too.

[56:33] >> Please.

[56:34] >> I don't want to cut you off, though.

[56:35] >> No, go ahead.

[56:36] >> So, on the 75% and I might be reading it

[56:39] wrong, but I mean like

[56:41] Tooele City Hall's a pretty building to

[56:43] me, but the front, the side, there's

[56:45] it's more than 75% brick.

[56:49] This building There's not.

[56:52] And Tate Mortuary There's There's a slew

[56:54] of them all up and down Main Street,

[56:56] especially in the old part. The project

[56:58] that we did up on Main Street, me and my

[57:00] wife,

[57:02] that brick house There's not more than

[57:04] 75% There's more than 75% of other

[57:07] product on it, but it's on the back

[57:08] corner. That front facade's all brick,

[57:10] the side's all brick, and to me it looks

[57:13] really good.

[57:15] But I mean And the same with Tyson, I

[57:17] would hate to have to put something else

[57:20] on there. You know, it's a 100-year-old

[57:22] brick. We went through a lot of work to

[57:24] restore it.

[57:25] >> Mhm.

[57:25] >> And then also with that, same on the 75%

[57:30] um

[57:31] it says

[57:33] any Oh,

[57:35] what kind of what triggers it the

[57:37] applicability

[57:39] physical modification to an an existing

[57:42] structure that alters more than 25% of

[57:45] any exterior building facade. So it

[57:48] would that like include painting or some

[57:51] of the stuff downtown if they took off

[57:53] some of the old vinyl weird things that

[57:55] they put on over the years to get it

[57:57] back to brick.

[57:58] I mean the way I'm reading it you

[58:00] wouldn't be able to do that and that

[58:02] seems kind of counter intuitive. So

[58:05] >> So painting wouldn't be considered a

[58:07] renovation. It's just a it's just a

[58:09] maintenance.

[58:10] >> Okay.

[58:11] >> We would defer to building code in

[58:13] regards to what the building code is

[58:15] going to require for for a renovation.

[58:18] And typically painting and an exterior

[58:22] maintenance does not require building

[58:24] permits. So that's how we we would defer

[58:27] to that in that case.

[58:29] >> All right.

[58:30] But and then this is like structural

[58:32] alteration

[58:34] as well. So if like we decided to put a

[58:37] door in

[58:38] a downtown or somebody did a downtown

[58:40] building that's a structural

[58:43] >> Right.

[58:44] >> You know, so does that mean they have to

[58:46] add 25% of something else if it's a

[58:48] whole brick building or change the

[58:50] roofline if it's longer than 50 ft. I

[58:52] mean it's just

[58:53] >> Altering a door wouldn't take more than

[58:56] 25% of the

[58:57] facade exterior.

[59:00] So it it would it would be a significant

[59:02] enough renovation they'd be coming in

[59:04] for building permits.

[59:06] >> Well, I mean I put some doors in

[59:08] buildings and you have to have an

[59:09] engineer and the city has to look at it

[59:11] cuz you have to you know, put in beam or

[59:13] the header for the load and you know,

[59:16] lintels for brick and that does require

[59:18] a permit. I I'm not trying to nitpick

[59:20] because I

[59:21] think you're more than fair and you guys

[59:23] do a great job, but

[59:25] I don't know when you're planning on

[59:26] retiring we might get somebody in here

[59:28] that just reads it for what it is, you

[59:29] know? And that that's the kind of thing

[59:31] that worries me is down the road.

[59:33] >> Yeah.

[59:33] >> And then

[59:34] >> Well,

[59:35] you know, it's not it's not perfect.

[59:36] There's going to be exceptions and

[59:37] outliers to everything and every code

[59:39] that we propose.

[59:40] >> Yeah.

[59:41] >> The the question you have to ask is if

[59:43] you don't like the 75%

[59:45] limitation,

[59:46] remove it.

[59:48] >> Yeah, but I see we don't want like a all

[59:50] white stucco front.

[59:52] So, I appreciate the the last part of it, too, where

[59:56] people can

[59:58] come and ask for ask like, "Hey, this is

[1:00:00] what's going on. Let's be realistic."

[1:00:02] And

[1:00:02] >> Yeah, and that's that's one of the

[1:00:03] reasons I put it put that in there is

[1:00:05] because there are going to be

[1:00:07] outliers to the standard requirements

[1:00:10] and

[1:00:12] things that just don't have the same

[1:00:13] application. And so, that's that's why

[1:00:15] that's in there.

[1:00:20] » Let Commissioner Anderson finish his

[1:00:21] thought.

[1:00:22] >> I'm sorry.

[1:00:23] >> No, I'm good.

[1:00:24] >> You good?

[1:00:25] Okay, Commissioner Lanford.

[1:00:27] >> So,

[1:00:28] one one of the thoughts that comes with

[1:00:31] the the 75% of one color

[1:00:34] is

[1:00:36] and and this is an overlap between

[1:00:38] general arts with photography, film,

[1:00:40] cinema, etc. And it overlaps into

[1:00:43] architectural, as well.

[1:00:45] If you go out and buy yourself a nice

[1:00:47] camera or even if you have the little

[1:00:49] grid system on your phone,

[1:00:52] the rule of thumb is for to get the item

[1:00:54] that you're wanting, it needs to be

[1:00:56] zoomed in enough to connect three dots

[1:00:58] in order for it to take

[1:01:00] the the app for the picture to actually

[1:01:03] be what you want it to be.

[1:01:05] Um

[1:01:06] three out of the four is 75%. That's

[1:01:08] something that I've noticed it overlaps

[1:01:09] a lot.

[1:01:11] Um

[1:01:11] realistically, the way that this is

[1:01:13] written,

[1:01:15] yes, IKEA could come out.

[1:01:19] Costco could come out. Costco has

[1:01:20] multiple different panels. They have the red there and then they have the

[1:01:24] bottom half which it would from

[1:01:27] [clears throat] what I've seen those

[1:01:29] businesses do, I don't see any conflict

[1:01:32] of that that would deter them away.

[1:01:35] Where they would be read this and be

[1:01:36] like, oh, we can't come to Tooele.

[1:01:39] And I mean even Best Buy Target, these are all places that

[1:01:45] historically from from an arts

[1:01:47] perspective

[1:01:48] still abide by 75%.

[1:01:52] The only thought that I would have

[1:01:55] to to maybe clarify this further

[1:01:59] would be of a visible side. I mean

[1:02:02] pretty much every building I've ever

[1:02:04] seen has at least one bland wall. It's

[1:02:06] typically the least visible from public.

[1:02:10] Where where you're bringing up, you

[1:02:13] know, the flooring where

[1:02:15] the one side that's not the front of the

[1:02:16] building doesn't look so great. Okay. I would agree that maybe defining that a

[1:02:22] little bit better in this area for

[1:02:24] exterior building materials identifying

[1:02:27] the what is visible from public and

[1:02:28] what's really not. If it's backed up

[1:02:30] against the mountain, probably not a big

[1:02:32] deal.

[1:02:33] That would be the only clarification

[1:02:35] that I would ask to be added

[1:02:40] is just defining cuz to say that

[1:02:43] 75% all the way around, well, every

[1:02:45] building has an ugly side in my opinion.

[1:02:47] So.

[1:02:52] » Got you.

[1:02:53] Makes sense.

[1:02:54] >> Not not so much a question, but more of just a

[1:02:57] clarifying or my thoughts on this.

[1:03:00] The the question I did have though is is

[1:03:02] a

[1:03:03] few meetings back

[1:03:05] when we were doing the

[1:03:08] auto repair the I think it's Awesome

[1:03:10] Auto Repair on 400 North

[1:03:12] and Main.

[1:03:15] So that was in a commercial area,

[1:03:18] but there was residential in the

[1:03:19] commercial area.

[1:03:21] So my question is do we have any

[1:03:24] um

[1:03:25] commercial buildings that are in

[1:03:26] residential areas?

[1:03:28] And the reason I would ask is it's it's

[1:03:30] not

[1:03:32] residential commercial buildings in

[1:03:34] residential isn't itemized in in your

[1:03:36] different categories of areas. And so

[1:03:39] where that was a situation where we had

[1:03:41] residential buildings inside a

[1:03:42] commercial zone, my only question is are

[1:03:44] there any commercial buildings that I

[1:03:46] could not be aware of that are in

[1:03:48] residential zones that could be pretty

[1:03:51] much exempt from this because it's not

[1:03:53] listed.

[1:03:54] >> I'm not going to say there's not.

[1:03:57] >> [laughter]

[1:03:57] >> There This is Tooele.

[1:03:59] >> That's why I bring it up.

[1:04:00] >> There are all kinds of oddities and

[1:04:02] little strange things in Tooele. So I'm

[1:04:04] not going to say there's not.

[1:04:06] What I am going to say is I'm not

[1:04:07] concerned about those cuz if there are

[1:04:09] commercial businesses in residential

[1:04:11] zones,

[1:04:12] they fall under a different category.

[1:04:13] They fall under what we call legally

[1:04:15] non-conforming uses.

[1:04:17] They fall under an entirely entirely

[1:04:19] different They mean they are differently

[1:04:20] regulated than a standard use. So

[1:04:24] I don't have much concern about that

[1:04:26] situation if there are any.

[1:04:28] >> So even those areas if they wanted to

[1:04:30] renovate or do something different, they

[1:04:32] would go through a completely different

[1:04:33] process that would be non-conforming

[1:04:35] still to this, correct?

[1:04:37] >> They would be subject to Tooele City

[1:04:38] Code 7-3 non-conforming uses, which

[1:04:41] permits them to maintain it,

[1:04:43] but a non-conforming use cannot be

[1:04:45] changed or altered.

[1:04:48] So it's it's Yeah, they they have a

[1:04:50] different set of criteria on them. And

[1:04:52] I'm sure there's some situation where

[1:04:54] that exists in the city, but

[1:04:56] I I'm not concerned with that.

[1:04:59] >> Typically

[1:05:00] those are going to be zoned residential

[1:05:02] anyway, not zoned what we have in this

[1:05:03] one. So

[1:05:05] >> That That's a good point.

[1:05:08] >> [clears throat]

[1:05:09] >> Great great discussion.

[1:05:12] Anything else we can see we need to

[1:05:14] adjust or

[1:05:16] >> I have maybe just one more comment. I I

[1:05:18] just have a really hard time I

[1:05:20] understand the idea behind it, but I

[1:05:22] have a hard time telling people what

[1:05:23] they can and can't do with their

[1:05:24] building, you know? Somebody's trying to

[1:05:26] start up a business and

[1:05:28] they have a vision of how it could look,

[1:05:30] should look. And I know our business, I

[1:05:32] would not be able to do what we did if

[1:05:35] this was in

[1:05:36] >> I I disagree with you. I think you could

[1:05:39] have been I think you'll be able

[1:05:40] >> all four sides is just heart exciting

[1:05:43] cuz that's what how we want to do it.

[1:05:45] >> significance, that's what I'd really

[1:05:46] like to see.

[1:05:47] >> brand new building, though.

[1:05:49] And I'm not in the downtown area.

[1:05:51] >> Mhm, that's the other problem. You're

[1:05:52] not in the overlay, either.

[1:05:54] >> So

[1:05:55] I mean, there's a chance I could, but

[1:05:58] I don't know. I just I'm [clears throat]

[1:05:59] having a hard time with it for

[1:06:01] personal, subjective reasons.

[1:06:04] So, I understand the idea behind it,

[1:06:06] though.

[1:06:09] » And I'll jump on that bandwagon because

[1:06:13] you know, if I wanted to live in an HOA

[1:06:16] and be told how to how my house and my

[1:06:18] front yard would look

[1:06:20] I would have bought there.

[1:06:22] And this is kind of that same thing

[1:06:25] but the city's doing it.

[1:06:27] >> Yeah.

[1:06:27] >> So

[1:06:30] I I get the purpose and the reason

[1:06:32] because we really should be setting up

[1:06:34] citizens to be good neighbors.

[1:06:37] >> Yeah.

[1:06:38] >> Um without really penalizing them

[1:06:42] in the process.

[1:06:46] » [sighs]

[1:06:47] >> Commissioner Lynch for

[1:06:50] >> So, a little bit ago when we were doing

[1:06:51] that water usage

[1:06:53] we just put a year date on it to say if

[1:06:56] it was before this grandfathered in

[1:06:58] whether it's

[1:07:00] or if it's after that, it needs to be

[1:07:02] conforming.

[1:07:03] You remember that for uh, park strips.

[1:07:08] Rather than

[1:07:10] exempting just the the the overlay,

[1:07:12] could could you just

[1:07:14] is there realistically a a year date of building structure that could be

[1:07:19] exempt from this that could be

[1:07:20] satisfactory to everyone?

[1:07:22] Cuz I mean, if that's the only concern

[1:07:24] is that there there are older buildings

[1:07:25] that aren't in that exempt area, well,

[1:07:27] then

[1:07:29] put a date on it. Anything

[1:07:33] pre-2007,

[1:07:34] anything pre-2010,

[1:07:37] anything moving forward

[1:07:40] be because I I I hear both sides of it.

[1:07:42] There are there are buildings that we

[1:07:43] want to keep the way they are. They they

[1:07:46] may they've given the city the character

[1:07:48] and history that they have, and they're

[1:07:50] they may not be exactly conforming to

[1:07:52] the standard, but I also understand the

[1:07:54] city's perspective where

[1:07:56] we we as we continue to grow because we

[1:07:58] are growing

[1:07:59] at a good healthy rate, we we want to

[1:08:02] still be a place that is nice while

[1:08:04] holding our heritage. So, is there a way

[1:08:07] to to accomplish that from staff's

[1:08:10] perspective where from a certain time

[1:08:13] frame back is exempt and not just

[1:08:18] a specific geographical area?

[1:08:23] » Just be dated as of

[1:08:25] this date of the ordinance goes into

[1:08:27] effect.

[1:08:28] Anything

[1:08:29] >> Yeah, effective date.

[1:08:30] >> Anything after that.

[1:08:33] >> Because then if you go back to

[1:08:36] make a change to your coffee shop,

[1:08:37] you're not worried about every little

[1:08:39] thing in this. If you go to even just

[1:08:42] because it's outside of the overlay.

[1:08:44] >> Yeah.

[1:08:44] >> So, I'm if it's if it's pre-dated, then

[1:08:46] does it

[1:08:48] really matter

[1:08:50] per se?

[1:08:52] I I don't know. That's I I know you have

[1:08:54] in in here when you're defining this

[1:08:56] that you are including

[1:08:59] um

[1:09:02] uh

[1:09:04] not that that it's for major renovations

[1:09:06] as well or or any structural alteration

[1:09:10] and expansion. I I know you've included

[1:09:12] that, but

[1:09:14] to me it almost seems like that is

[1:09:18] where a lot of these hiccups are coming

[1:09:20] from. Whereas if we just

[1:09:23] either pull that back or turn around and

[1:09:26] say

[1:09:28] after this date.

[1:09:32] That's it would would staff have a

[1:09:34] problem with that? Would that completely

[1:09:36] ruin your proposal, I guess, would be my

[1:09:38] question.

[1:09:41] Cuz in my head that might satisfy a lot

[1:09:43] of the questions better being asked by

[1:09:44] the commission right now.

[1:09:46] But I also want to make sure that

[1:09:49] it doesn't feel like we're tearing your

[1:09:50] proposal to bits, either.

[1:09:53] I know how much hard work you put into

[1:09:55] this and I appreciate it.

[1:09:56] >> Well, ultimately it comes down to you

[1:09:57] guys and the city council. What do you

[1:09:58] want?

[1:10:05] » [snorts]

[1:10:07] » What what are you guys

[1:10:08] >> It's easy to see the negatives of

[1:10:09] everything for me. It's hard to come up

[1:10:11] with the actual solutions, you know? And

[1:10:13] you're all like that. [laughter] I mean

[1:10:15] >> Maybe we don't have architectural

[1:10:16] standards. If that's the case,

[1:10:19] let's forward a negative recommendation

[1:10:20] to the council.

[1:10:22] >> Well, I think it's a good idea to have

[1:10:24] them. I just

[1:10:26] You know.

[1:10:27] I'm just kind of on the fence about it I

[1:10:28] cuz I see both sides.

[1:10:30] >> It's, you know, I've not planned on

[1:10:32] building any brand new big buildings

[1:10:33] myself.

[1:10:34] >> [laughter]

[1:10:35] >> So, you know, and that not just this is

[1:10:37] going to affect me, but

[1:10:39] you know, I

[1:10:40] >> Well, and I think what has been done

[1:10:42] really well is there is a fall back to

[1:10:44] this.

[1:10:44] >> Yeah.

[1:10:46] >> There is always the if you're going to

[1:10:48] have to do this, you're going to end up

[1:10:49] putting an application in anyways, you

[1:10:51] might as well put the appeal in with it.

[1:10:52] >> Yeah.

[1:10:53] >> Put it all in one packet, send it up,

[1:10:54] and have the conversation. Hey,

[1:10:58] Best Buy's coming out, it's neon yellow.

[1:11:01] I understand you allow corporate

[1:11:02] branding, but is that is that okay? For

[1:11:04] the record, I do not know that Best

[1:11:05] Buy's coming out. I'm not starting that

[1:11:07] rumor. But, for the sake of argument,

[1:11:11] yes, it's a neon color.

[1:11:13] Put it before Put it before staff.

[1:11:15] >> Yeah.

[1:11:16] >> Uh from from my interpretation, what

[1:11:18] I've seen both from the public and from

[1:11:20] this commission, is that when it comes

[1:11:22] to

[1:11:24] working with the public, staff is

[1:11:27] reasonable.

[1:11:28] >> Yes.

[1:11:28] >> So, I don't I don't see why having that

[1:11:32] appeal as a scapegoat

[1:11:35] wouldn't satisfy a lot of these

[1:11:36] questions, as well.

[1:11:38] >> Yeah.

[1:11:39] >> That's just my two cents, as well,

[1:11:40] because again, if it goes past If you

[1:11:42] want to do more than 75%, great. Put it

[1:11:44] before staff.

[1:11:48] Going to go round robin, either way.

[1:11:50] >> Yeah, I just

[1:11:54] So, my notes I've put down here is is

[1:11:55] maybe it is a good option to maybe table

[1:11:58] this for Andrew to take it back and and

[1:12:00] redefine some things for us. We've got

[1:12:02] the exception for maybe a downtown

[1:12:04] overlay.

[1:12:05] Uh the drive-thru screen or obscure or

[1:12:07] that wordage that verbage uh maybe

[1:12:10] changed a little bit. Is 75% too much? I

[1:12:12] don't know. That's

[1:12:14] as you said, it's from Riverton. So, is

[1:12:17] that too much for us? Is that too

[1:12:18] little? I don't know that, either. Uh

[1:12:20] division Define the visual sides of the

[1:12:23] building.

[1:12:24] Uh and then as of date when this goat

[1:12:26] gets approved. So, I He's got a couple

[1:12:28] things that we want to see addressed

[1:12:29] before we approve it. So, is there

[1:12:31] anything else we can think of?

[1:12:33] >> Well, with with um

[1:12:36] with the percentages, do we need to come

[1:12:37] up with something different? Or cuz I

[1:12:40] don't think we've given him much to talk

[1:12:42] about.

[1:12:42] >> he would love a recommendation.

[1:12:44] >> 75, but we're okay with 76 or 72.

[1:12:46] >> Yeah. And and I'm I I thought I agree with Andrew.

[1:12:52] I trust that he said several times that

[1:12:55] neon colors it says in here you can have

[1:12:58] a little bit. Um, he talked about um

[1:13:02] Well, I think uh Commissioner

[1:13:04] uh Proc-

[1:13:05] Proctor, right?

[1:13:08] Getting a blank.

[1:13:08] >> Whatever.

[1:13:09] >> Um, said um that

[1:13:12] um, it already says in there that if

[1:13:14] it's your branding that you can I mean,

[1:13:17] we referenced that already. So, I think

[1:13:18] we've talked about a lot of those

[1:13:20] things. I'm not I don't think we've decided anything on the 75%. I

[1:13:25] mean, and for him to just go back and

[1:13:28] W- what?

[1:13:29] >> Throw a number number is allowed for

[1:13:31] this project.

[1:13:31] >> Throw a different number back and bring

[1:13:32] it back and then we don't like that

[1:13:34] number either. Like, I don't think we've

[1:13:35] given him much to work with.

[1:13:37] >> On that particular item, I agree.

[1:13:39] >> Perhaps you just eliminate this

[1:13:40] eliminate the 75%

[1:13:42] and maintain the numbers.

[1:13:45] Like the two different material types.

[1:13:47] >> or the three or five, you know.

[1:13:50] >> It's like elimination and all that

[1:13:51] stuff.

[1:13:52] >> Yeah.

[1:13:53] So, uh in there it says the roof doesn't

[1:13:55] count as uh color or a product, right?

[1:13:58] But, I'm just thinking again

[1:13:59] subjectively my project I got one

[1:14:02] south-facing wall that's all brick, you

[1:14:04] know. That's all it is is brick and

[1:14:06] windows and doors. And so, there's no

[1:14:09] other product until you get to the

[1:14:11] soffit and fascia. Would that count?

[1:14:13] >> You're broken up by windows and doors at

[1:14:14] that point, aren't you?

[1:14:15] >> No, windows don't count. It says right

[1:14:17] in here.

[1:14:20] » [cough]

[1:14:21] >> So, [clears throat]

[1:14:21] I I like a building

[1:14:23] >> Are there lintels under the wall under

[1:14:24] the windows?

[1:14:25] >> Yes, there are. So, that would count.

[1:14:27] >> two materials. Okay. All right.

[1:14:30] >> And not that I think you would be that

[1:14:32] nitpicky about it. And maybe I shouldn't

[1:14:34] say this in a public hearing, but your

[1:14:36] predecessor like I think he would go

[1:14:39] through We didn't get along.

[1:14:42] And I think he would go through things

[1:14:44] with not just building, but I do a lot

[1:14:46] of other things with the city and I

[1:14:49] it felt to me like he would purposely

[1:14:51] pick things out just like and almost

[1:14:54] kind of twist it. And I don't think he

[1:14:56] would do that, Andrew, but I don't know

[1:14:58] who the next person's going to be and

[1:14:59] that worries me because uh caused a lot

[1:15:01] of strife in my life for several years.

[1:15:05] So, it worries me.

[1:15:09] And I said, I don't worry about you.

[1:15:10] It's

[1:15:11] the unattended things later on down the

[1:15:13] line.

[1:15:13] >> Does this need a public

[1:15:15] >> This one does need a public hearing,

[1:15:17] yes.

[1:15:18] >> Should we uh

[1:15:20] open the public hearing while we gather

[1:15:21] our thoughts and then bring it back for

[1:15:23] Andrew again and let him sit down and

[1:15:24] ponder some thoughts as well? I'm sure

[1:15:27] this public hearing public hearing.

[1:15:30] >> [laughter]

[1:15:31] >> All right. We'll go ahead and open the

[1:15:32] public hearing on this particular item

[1:15:34] at this time at the uniform zoning code

[1:15:36] of Tooele City.

[1:15:38] Uh if you'd like to speak to this item,

[1:15:39] please approach the podium. State your

[1:15:41] name for the record. Write your name for

[1:15:43] the record.

[1:15:53] » My name is Dave Staple. I didn't come

[1:15:54] here, but I stayed and listened to this.

[1:15:57] Uh

[1:15:59] builder developer

[1:16:01] Um we're actually doing the Tooele Flex

[1:16:03] Plex.

[1:16:05] Uh

[1:16:06] sometimes I noticed it's in the L1.

[1:16:10] Sometimes in those industrial areas

[1:16:15] to be able to have your building

[1:16:18] work financially

[1:16:21] it's metal.

[1:16:23] And in those zones, there's already so

[1:16:27] much of that that it's

[1:16:30] you know, it'd be kind of weird to throw

[1:16:32] something where we had all of a sudden

[1:16:34] have this architectural

[1:16:36] standard in the middle of uh

[1:16:41] metal buildings. But, I also understand

[1:16:44] they're on a metal building in the

[1:16:46] middle of an area where there's there is

[1:16:50] where it probably should have some

[1:16:51] facade and be pretty.

[1:16:54] So,

[1:16:55] I guess [clears throat] my thought on it

[1:16:56] would be

[1:16:59] taking more of a look at

[1:17:02] what zones uh,

[1:17:05] those

[1:17:06] uh,

[1:17:08] standards lay in.

[1:17:10] Cuz it's not If you're down in the

[1:17:12] depot,

[1:17:13] and you force somebody to throw

[1:17:15] columns and arches and all kinds of

[1:17:18] stuff on that, it's going to look out of

[1:17:19] place and and also just be

[1:17:22] not

[1:17:24] doesn't fit in with what's already

[1:17:25] there. So, thanks for your time.

[1:17:27] >> No, thank you, Mr. Staple. I appreciate

[1:17:29] that.

[1:17:31] >> Need a signature.

[1:17:33] >> Do we have one up there?

[1:17:44] » Okay, seeing no one else approach, I'll

[1:17:46] go ahead and close this public hearing

[1:17:48] and bring it back to the commission

[1:17:50] for further discussion or action. As we

[1:17:53] said, we've stated a few things.

[1:17:55] Uh, my suggestion would more or less be

[1:17:58] giving Andrew some direction to go. If

[1:18:01] not, then either denying or approving

[1:18:03] this moving forward. So,

[1:18:05] >> [clears throat]

[1:18:06] >> we gather our thoughts and figure out

[1:18:08] what we want to do.

[1:18:10] >> I will make a motion.

[1:18:11] >> Yes, go ahead, Commissioner Langford.

[1:18:14] >> I must say I really enjoy the catch all

[1:18:16] at the end there. Um, I move

[1:18:19] we push a for uh, push forward a

[1:18:21] positive recommendation to city council

[1:18:23] to adopt the proposed

[1:18:25] Tooele City Code Title 7 Chapter 11C

[1:18:28] Design Standards for Commercial

[1:18:29] Ordinance as included in Exhibit A of

[1:18:31] this report based on the following

[1:18:33] findings. Uh,

[1:18:35] changing the verbage of screen as a

[1:18:37] recommendation and then defining the

[1:18:39] sides as a recommendation.

[1:18:41] Um ultimately, I think those are the

[1:18:44] only two things really in huge question.

[1:18:46] I think anything else falls under that

[1:18:49] um appeal process.

[1:18:53] » Okay, I've got a positive recommendation

[1:18:55] with from Commissioner Linford including

[1:18:57] the verbage change of screen and to

[1:19:00] define the the sides of the building.

[1:19:03] Uh do I have a second?

[1:19:08] » I'll second.

[1:19:09] >> And a second from Commissioner Hammer.

[1:19:12] Any discussion before we take this to a

[1:19:14] vote?

[1:19:14] >> Actually, yes. I want to go back to

[1:19:17] um his comment regarding metal buildings

[1:19:20] making it pencil and making it work. Um

[1:19:24] is this actually going to affect that

[1:19:27] zone?

[1:19:31] » Well, that that brings up

[1:19:32] >> And maybe there's an opportunity since

[1:19:34] we're talking about it. I'm sorry, Mr.

[1:19:36] Chairman.

[1:19:36] >> ahead, brother.

[1:19:37] >> Uh let's use Peterson as an example and

[1:19:40] maybe there's an opportunity there to

[1:19:43] uh tie this to public right-of-way

[1:19:45] vision.

[1:19:47] Um so that anybody driving up 112 is

[1:19:49] seeing

[1:19:51] kind of what we're talking about here.

[1:19:52] They can still do a lot of the things we

[1:19:54] don't want to. But once they're off of

[1:19:56] the public right-of-way, which in most

[1:19:58] cases that's all private um

[1:20:01] in that zone for the most part, they're

[1:20:04] a little further to do some of the

[1:20:05] things

[1:20:06] um

[1:20:08] that might make that project pencil

[1:20:09] better.

[1:20:10] But cuz that's I don't have a problem

[1:20:12] with the motion other than

[1:20:15] I

[1:20:16] back to Kelly's original Commissioner

[1:20:18] Anderson's original point, I really like

[1:20:20] the

[1:20:21] this is American, we get to build what

[1:20:23] we want to build within certain

[1:20:26] uh

[1:20:27] obvious standards. Well, we've obviously

[1:20:28] proved tonight that there are no obvious

[1:20:30] standards. But I But I like where

[1:20:33] some of these things went regarding the

[1:20:35] public right-of-way and and how it

[1:20:37] looks. And, that's really what got this

[1:20:38] started. Uh was how it looks in the

[1:20:41] gateway when we come over that viaduct.

[1:20:43] And, and uh I agree with Andrew, that

[1:20:45] building is a very nice building. It

[1:20:47] looks absolutely hideous right there.

[1:20:49] Uh because of the way it was done. And,

[1:20:52] uh that could have been corrected, I

[1:20:53] think.

[1:20:55] Economics is relative when it's somebody

[1:20:57] else's money. But, uh but, I think

[1:20:59] something could have been done. But, the gentleman's comment regarding

[1:21:02] how some of these businesses need to

[1:21:03] pencil um needs to be taken into

[1:21:06] account, too. And, so maybe maybe the

[1:21:08] answer to that is is eliminating it in

[1:21:11] industrial zones, for example. And, I I

[1:21:13] haven't thought that through, but that's

[1:21:14] the thing that jumps out at me.

[1:21:16] Um is get rid of it in the industrial

[1:21:18] zones. Maybe you leave it in light

[1:21:20] industrial cuz we got a whole bunch of

[1:21:21] gateway property out there that that

[1:21:23] probably fits under that. But, if at the

[1:21:26] end of the day we're wanting our

[1:21:27] gateways, and they're mentioned

[1:21:28] specifically in the ordinance, to look

[1:21:30] good, then we do need to do something

[1:21:31] there. I think balancing between uh

[1:21:34] private property rights and the look of

[1:21:36] the businesses have spent

[1:21:38] uh generally a lot of money trying to

[1:21:40] figure out what's the best way to look.

[1:21:41] And, we'll use the examples that have

[1:21:42] been given tonight, whether it's a a

[1:21:44] Costco or

[1:21:46] IKEA or whatever.

[1:21:47] Uh they've got millions and millions and

[1:21:49] millions of dollars tied up in brand

[1:21:51] identity. I don't want them to have to

[1:21:53] appeal.

[1:21:54] Uh I want them to come to town.

[1:21:57] Um because they're going to be in a

[1:21:59] prominent place. They're going to be in

[1:22:01] the gateway, which the gateway keeps

[1:22:03] moving north.

[1:22:04] Um and so that may solve its own problem

[1:22:06] down the road. But, but, I think uh

[1:22:09] maybe if I were And, I'm I'm not

[1:22:12] necessarily talking against the motion,

[1:22:13] although maybe I am.

[1:22:15] Um

[1:22:16] I think that part of it and the intent

[1:22:18] of what got us here needs to be looked

[1:22:20] at a little bit more. And, it's not about 75% or any of that other

[1:22:25] stuff. I think we need to

[1:22:27] give him some guidance

[1:22:28] on on some of the things that concerned

[1:22:30] us cuz

[1:22:31] I don't like having an applicant have to

[1:22:34] come in here

[1:22:35] and and by the way, I'm submitting this

[1:22:37] application. Here's another $2,000 check

[1:22:39] for the appeal cuz I know you're not

[1:22:40] going to let me do it.

[1:22:42] Uh I want to find a way to say yes to

[1:22:44] most of these people not no.

[1:22:46] And and I think we're close.

[1:22:48] Yeah, the work that's been done's

[1:22:49] awesome. Uh I don't think we can make it

[1:22:52] perfect, but I think we can make it

[1:22:53] perfecter.

[1:22:55] >> Well, and and what we're really doing

[1:22:57] here is proposing putting makeup on the

[1:22:59] city.

[1:23:00] >> Mhm.

[1:23:00] >> And

[1:23:01] every woman knows that makeup daytime

[1:23:04] makeup is different than nighttime

[1:23:05] makeup, right?

[1:23:07] >> I didn't know that.

[1:23:07] >> So, does it

[1:23:08] >> [laughter]

[1:23:08] >> does it go does it go well in the

[1:23:11] industrial zone?

[1:23:14] >> What do you wear in the industrial zone?

[1:23:15] >> My thought before we oh, is that this is

[1:23:19] all brand new

[1:23:20] and just like

[1:23:22] Andrew brings back to his ordinances

[1:23:25] that need to be tweaked as they find out

[1:23:28] this one is going to have to be tweaked

[1:23:30] down the road as we find out what works

[1:23:32] and what does

[1:23:34] work realistically.

[1:23:36] So.

[1:23:39] >> But historically once you put something in

[1:23:44] code, when is the next time that code is

[1:23:47] looked at? And when is it actually

[1:23:49] brought back to tweak it?

[1:23:53] Um

[1:23:54] Oh, we've done this we've done it this

[1:23:56] way for 10 years, 15 years. It doesn't

[1:23:59] need to be fixed.

[1:24:00] >> pretty codes go back to 2006, I think.

[1:24:02] >> Yeah, exactly. And I think it

[1:24:06] back to that makeup, it might be time to

[1:24:08] change that.

[1:24:12] » Commissioner Leffert?

[1:24:13] >> Um question for staff.

[1:24:17] With branding as mentioned

[1:24:21] where they have spent millions on in

[1:24:23] millions on branding.

[1:24:24] IKEA being a big blue building with

[1:24:26] bright yellow letters.

[1:24:28] Would that be a

[1:24:29] something that would actually need to be

[1:24:31] appealed when it falls under the

[1:24:32] branding category as a

[1:24:35] um or or would that branding verbage

[1:24:38] that you put in there

[1:24:40] be enough of a gateway for that?

[1:24:44] Just to

[1:24:46] and I hate to beat a dead horse, but I

[1:24:48] really just want to clarify cuz I think

[1:24:50] that that would be a

[1:24:51] I I

[1:24:52] the way I read that area with um

[1:24:56] 11 C4

[1:24:59] I would imagine that because it is their

[1:25:02] brand

[1:25:04] big blue building, bright yellow. That

[1:25:06] is their brand.

[1:25:08] That would fall under that and it would

[1:25:10] be something that wouldn't actually need

[1:25:11] to be a an appeal because it is their

[1:25:13] brand.

[1:25:15] Am Am I reading that the way that you

[1:25:16] intended it in in to be written or

[1:25:21] am I seeing something that's not quite

[1:25:23] there?

[1:25:23] >> Big yellow building, probably have to be

[1:25:26] appealed.

[1:25:27] >> The IKEA being big and blue and then it

[1:25:29] has the yellow IKEA on it. I mean

[1:25:32] realistically they have I believe the

[1:25:35] one in Draper is mostly blue, has a

[1:25:36] little bit of tan and then big yellow

[1:25:38] IKEA on it. Is that something because

[1:25:41] that would actually be

[1:25:43] that would need to be appealable because

[1:25:44] I don't even believe that that would

[1:25:46] exceed the 75% because they have the tan

[1:25:49] that goes about 7 ft up before the blue.

[1:25:52] So

[1:25:53] >> I'm not familiar with what their

[1:25:54] buildings look like, so I can't really

[1:25:56] address that with FC either.

[1:25:59] >> Fair.

[1:26:04] » Do we want to add a condition in there

[1:26:05] about the rights of way

[1:26:08] or not the rights of way, the public

[1:26:09] rights of way, what we're viewing

[1:26:13] or do we want to continue with this

[1:26:14] motion?

[1:26:20] » This is if I'm going to understand this

[1:26:22] is a recommendation on the correct.

[1:26:23] >> Mhm.

[1:26:24] >> Yes.

[1:26:24] >> Um

[1:26:25] you've got a motion on the table that we

[1:26:27] can vote on.

[1:26:28] >> Yep.

[1:26:29] >> We've got a city councilman in the room.

[1:26:31] Um

[1:26:32] and we've got time.

[1:26:34] Uh

[1:26:37] » Let it fly.

[1:26:38] >> Yeah.

[1:26:39] >> [laughter]

[1:26:39] >> Any other discussion before we

[1:26:41] >> They can

[1:26:43] city council can take it and then send

[1:26:45] it back and meet all these changes.

[1:26:47] >> And I can see

[1:26:49] the same kind of a discussion coming up

[1:26:51] there.

[1:26:52] When it when it comes on, but at least

[1:26:53] we'll have well your input of what

[1:26:55] you've talked about.

[1:26:56] >> It'll be a lot more fun cuz I'm going to

[1:26:57] be sitting over there and saying

[1:26:58] >> Yeah.

[1:26:59] >> [laughter]

[1:27:01] » But anyway, either way, either way I I

[1:27:04] can see that there needs to be

[1:27:06] more decisions about it, you know, and

[1:27:08] change and I can see some changes that I

[1:27:09] agree with. You know, one one thing that

[1:27:11] I was thinking about as Weston was

[1:27:12] talking about the older buildings when you change them

[1:27:15] and there's going to be a structural

[1:27:17] change and then you got to

[1:27:18] adhere that older building to the new

[1:27:21] code because you're changing it enough

[1:27:23] that you need a building permit.

[1:27:24] >> [snorts and clears throat]

[1:27:24] >> I think there'll be some language there

[1:27:26] cuz we have grandfathered stuff in the

[1:27:27] city.

[1:27:29] That could be the language that has to

[1:27:30] be there to cover that. Otherwise, it

[1:27:32] gets way complicated for the owner of

[1:27:34] the building.

[1:27:35] So I I can see some something there.

[1:27:38] That's what I was thinking about when

[1:27:39] you was talking about it anyway.

[1:27:41] Cuz you know, my old buildings that I've

[1:27:43] had

[1:27:44] you know, if I had to redo them and do

[1:27:46] it you'd put you out of business to to

[1:27:48] change it.

[1:27:49] Cuz you couldn't afford it to do what

[1:27:51] this change requires in your building if

[1:27:53] you had to get a building permit and

[1:27:55] then upgrade the building to meet the

[1:27:57] new standard.

[1:27:58] So

[1:28:00] there's that's that's just one of the

[1:28:01] things I can see that's a problem.

[1:28:03] I googled what blue and yellow was

[1:28:05] though to see what IKEA looked like cuz

[1:28:07] I couldn't remember either, but it's

[1:28:09] bright blue.

[1:28:10] >> Yeah.

[1:28:11] >> [laughter]

[1:28:12] >> So there is that too. If we we do want

[1:28:14] big businesses like that to come but

[1:28:16] this would not allow that without the

[1:28:18] appeal. So there's a lot to talk about still I

[1:28:22] think whether you guys table it or

[1:28:24] whether we have a big discussion too and

[1:28:26] probably end up tabling it. I can just

[1:28:28] see that happening for now and with lots

[1:28:30] of suggestions.

[1:28:33] >> But you know what? I almost would rather

[1:28:34] see them table it than us.

[1:28:36] Cuz they'll get an opportunity to hear

[1:28:39] what we have to say.

[1:28:41] They can accept it, disregard it, that's

[1:28:43] their job, they're elected.

[1:28:45] So I don't necessarily have any

[1:28:47] heartburn with them tabling as much as I do with

[1:28:52] us tabling. We're they're asking us for

[1:28:54] a recommendation.

[1:28:55] And

[1:28:57] they've been known to not listen to us

[1:28:59] before.

[1:29:00] >> [laughter]

[1:29:01] >> And when and when Andrew brought this to

[1:29:03] us to do this, we said yeah, let's do

[1:29:04] it. Let's figure it out because we do

[1:29:06] want

[1:29:07] But we was more talking about not the

[1:29:09] whole city.

[1:29:10] More talking about the look of the city

[1:29:13] as people came into town.

[1:29:14] >> Mhm.

[1:29:14] >> So there is that part of it too that the

[1:29:16] gateway part of it, the main course

[1:29:18] Western Huron South Main so you're the

[1:29:20] gateway to the south side but I mean

[1:29:22] still yet that kind of thing was

[1:29:25] where we talked about the steel

[1:29:26] buildings of Peterson I mean

[1:29:28] out back in the back part of Peterson

[1:29:29] they're all

[1:29:31] old government buildings or steel

[1:29:32] buildings or something they shouldn't

[1:29:33] still be allowed to be there.

[1:29:35] In that same way in my opinion anyway.

[1:29:38] So yeah, anyway, it's two two cents from

[1:29:41] me. Okay.

[1:29:43] >> Okay, well are we ready to take this to

[1:29:44] a roll call vote then?

[1:29:45] >> Well, one second.

[1:29:47] Commissioner Rutherford entertained the

[1:29:49] idea of adding um

[1:29:52] public right-of-way into

[1:29:54] the two things that he added, screening

[1:29:56] and defining sites.

[1:29:59] >> Would you be okay with changing your motion to

[1:30:02] >> to add that?

[1:30:03] >> Yes, I would. I'm just writing it down

[1:30:05] so that I remember the next time this

[1:30:07] gets brought [laughter] back to us. But

[1:30:09] I I have I have no problem adding the public right away. I think the

[1:30:13] intent of carrying a motion of of

[1:30:16] positive to the to the city council is

[1:30:20] it's going to go before them regardless.

[1:30:22] If they table it,

[1:30:24] I mean, they'll probably end up taking

[1:30:25] it back to us a second time at some

[1:30:27] point down the road and then we can

[1:30:28] revisit what their thoughts on the

[1:30:30] matter are as well and not to add more

[1:30:34] cooks to a kitchen, but just to get

[1:30:36] maybe a different perspective than those

[1:30:38] who've been talking about it the last 50

[1:30:41] minutes now.

[1:30:43] >> All right, I have a positive

[1:30:44] recommendation from Commissioner Linford

[1:30:47] with the corrections to find a different

[1:30:49] verbage for the word screen,

[1:30:51] define the sides of a building, and this

[1:30:54] will only apply to the public

[1:30:56] right-of-ways, the gateways as we have

[1:30:58] discussed tonight. Commissioner Hammer,

[1:31:01] are you still good with that second?

[1:31:03] >> Yes.

[1:31:04] >> Okay. We're going to take this to a

[1:31:05] vote. I think we beat this dead horse

[1:31:07] enough.

[1:31:08] Commissioner Hammer, how do you vote?

[1:31:10] >> I.

[1:31:10] >> Commissioner Sloan.

[1:31:11] >> No.

[1:31:12] >> Commissioner Proctor.

[1:31:12] >> Nay.

[1:31:14] >> Commissioner Linford.

[1:31:15] >> I.

[1:31:16] >> Commissioner Jensen.

[1:31:17] >> No.

[1:31:17] >> Commissioner Anderson.

[1:31:18] >> Nay.

[1:31:20] >> I am Chairman Hamilton. I will also vote

[1:31:22] no.

[1:31:23] That puts us at seven to five, so that

[1:31:27] motion does not pass.

[1:31:28] >> We have 12 people on this commission?

[1:31:29] >> Yeah. Seven to

[1:31:31] >> [laughter]

[1:31:32] >> Seven to 14. It's getting late, guys.

[1:31:36] I'm glad someone can do math around

[1:31:37] here. Paul, would you get up here and do

[1:31:38] my math for me?

[1:31:39] >> [laughter]

[1:31:39] >> Two two to five.

[1:31:41] >> Two to five. Seven total. Thank you. Two

[1:31:44] yes, five no's.

[1:31:46] So, that motion does not pass.

[1:31:48] >> Mr. Chairman, could I make a motion that

[1:31:49] we table this until

[1:31:52] Anders has got a feel for what we're

[1:31:53] trying to do here.

[1:31:55] >> Absolutely.

[1:31:55] >> want to send a I don't want to send a

[1:31:57] message to the council that we're not

[1:31:58] behind the we're close. We're really

[1:32:00] close.

[1:32:01] And let's give him an opportunity to resurrect the dead horse and then

[1:32:05] we'll kill it again.

[1:32:06] >> I now second that.

[1:32:08] >> Do you want it does the next meeting or

[1:32:10] when he's ready for it?

[1:32:11] >> He's ready.

[1:32:11] >> Andrew,

[1:32:13] we either have to go date certain or

[1:32:14] event certain. Do you want us to just

[1:32:16] tie that to you being comfortable?

[1:32:19] >> Do it event certain.

[1:32:20] >> Okay. Next is

[1:32:21] Okay, I've got a

[1:32:23] motion to table this particular item

[1:32:25] from Commissioner Sloan

[1:32:27] until

[1:32:28] >> until Andrew's getting ready.

[1:32:30] >> Andrew's getting ready and a second from

[1:32:31] Commissioner Proctor. Any discussion on

[1:32:33] that before we take it to a vote?

[1:32:36] Commissioner Hammer?

[1:32:37] >> I.

[1:32:38] >> Commissioner Sloan?

[1:32:38] >> I.

[1:32:39] >> Commissioner Proctor?

[1:32:40] >> I.

[1:32:40] >> Commissioner Linford?

[1:32:41] >> I.

[1:32:41] >> Commissioner Jensen?

[1:32:42] >> I.

[1:32:42] >> Commissioner Anderson?

[1:32:43] >> I.

[1:32:44] >> Now, if I'm doing my math right, that's

[1:32:46] seven yes.

[1:32:47] >> That's 13 to six, we're good.

[1:32:49] >> 13 to six, we're good to go.

[1:32:51] >> Did you count yourself?

[1:32:52] >> Yes. We'll table this one until Andrew's

[1:32:55] addressed the issues we've discussed

[1:32:56] tonight and I'm sure he might uncover

[1:32:58] some more.

[1:33:00] Moves us on to number seven on our

[1:33:01] agenda tonight. This is a decision on a

[1:33:03] site plan review approval request by

[1:33:05] Larry Jacobson representing Sand Rock

[1:33:07] Development for Millennial Park Phase

[1:33:09] Two Town Home Subdivision. A proposed

[1:33:11] 24-unit town home development on

[1:33:13] approximately 1.5 acres located at

[1:33:16] northeast corner of 400 North and 300

[1:33:18] West in the MR-16 multi-family

[1:33:21] residential zoning district.

[1:33:27] Miss Anglin, when you're ready.

[1:33:30] >> Yes, I just wanted to let everyone know

[1:33:32] that we are having technical issues. You

[1:33:35] guys can't see my presentation, so my

[1:33:38] apologies, okay?

[1:33:40] Um

[1:33:42] This is a request to reapprove the plan

[1:33:44] a Millennial Park Phase Two site plan.

[1:33:47] The Planning Commission originally

[1:33:49] approved the project in December 2023,

[1:33:52] but that approval has expired. The

[1:33:55] applicant is requesting reapproval to

[1:33:58] allow development of the currently

[1:33:59] vacant property.

[1:34:04] The project provides 24 individual

[1:34:07] townhome lots, common landscape

[1:34:10] uh space,

[1:34:12] uh a children's play area, and the

[1:34:15] required parking. One of the primary

[1:34:17] site layout considerations was the close

[1:34:20] proximity of the northern private drive

[1:34:22] to Kenwood Drive. The applicant has

[1:34:26] agreed to restrict the connection to

[1:34:29] one-way ingress and emergency access

[1:34:32] only.

[1:34:35] So, staff recommends approval. The

[1:34:38] proposed development meets or exceeds

[1:34:40] the city's multi-family design

[1:34:42] standards.

[1:34:44] Um there were a couple of um

[1:34:48] items that still needed to be

[1:34:50] addressed through engineering and public

[1:34:53] works, and that is going to also be a condition of approval

[1:34:59] for this project to set those um

[1:35:02] comments are met and and um

[1:35:08] that would be

[1:35:10] uh the uh

[1:35:12] that would be one thing, and then

[1:35:14] everyone else

[1:35:18] were uh recommend approval. Staff

[1:35:21] recommendation is approval

[1:35:23] subject to the departmental

[1:35:26] um

[1:35:27] additional comments.

[1:35:29] Any questions?

[1:35:30] >> This brings back to the commission for

[1:35:32] questions or comments. Yeah, we did see

[1:35:33] this before. We've approved it before.

[1:35:36] I'm sure that was a long time ago,

[1:35:37] though. We've done a lot of things since

[1:35:38] then, so

[1:35:39] >> Seems like we just saw this just

[1:35:41] recently, like 2 months ago.

[1:35:44] >> Any questions for staff, comments,

[1:35:45] concerns?

[1:35:49] All right, Chair.

[1:35:50] >> Yes, Commissioner Linford.

[1:35:52] >> Um for this particular item,

[1:35:56] I would ask for a conflict of interest

[1:35:58] as ex parte exclusion for myself from

[1:36:00] the dais.

[1:36:03] » Okay, you're going to abstain then?

[1:36:05] >> Yeah, I'm going to abstain from this

[1:36:07] one.

[1:36:10] » Okay.

[1:36:12] Take it to a vote.

[1:36:14] >> Need a motion to approve.

[1:36:15] >> Yes, need a motion.

[1:36:16] >> I'll give you a motion.

[1:36:17] >> All right, Commissioner Proctor.

[1:36:19] >> Here you go.

[1:36:21] I move we approve the site plan design

[1:36:23] review request by Larry Jacobson

[1:36:25] representing Sandrock Development for

[1:36:27] Millennial Park Phase 2 application

[1:36:29] number 2025-101

[1:36:32] based on the findings as subject to the

[1:36:34] conditions listed in the staff report

[1:36:35] dated June 17th, 2026.

[1:36:38] >> Got a motion to approve from

[1:36:39] Commissioner Proctor. Do I have a

[1:36:40] second?

[1:36:41] >> I'll second.

[1:36:42] >> A second from Commissioner Anderson. Any

[1:36:44] discussion before we take it to a vote?

[1:36:48] Commissioner Hammer, how do you vote?

[1:36:49] >> I.

[1:36:49] >> Commissioner

[1:36:50] >> I.

[1:36:50] >> Commissioner Proctor.

[1:36:51] >> I.

[1:36:51] >> Commissioner Jensen.

[1:36:52] >> I.

[1:36:53] >> Commissioner Anderson.

[1:36:54] >> I.

[1:36:54] am Chairman Hamilton. I also vote I.

[1:36:57] Commissioner Linford has abstained. Uh

[1:36:59] that still passes 6-0.

[1:37:01] >> Actually, you need to put for the

[1:37:02] minutes that he

[1:37:04] declared a conflict.

[1:37:05] >> He declared his conflict, yeah. We got

[1:37:06] that. Miss Young's taking care of us.

[1:37:08] She's This is not her first rodeo, I

[1:37:10] understand.

[1:37:10] >> She's been [laughter] with us for a

[1:37:11] while now.

[1:37:12] >> She's got us taken care of down there.

[1:37:14] Right on. That one passes. Uh it is

[1:37:16] approved.

[1:37:17] Uh moves us on to number eight on our on

[1:37:20] our agenda tonight is our city council

[1:37:22] reports. Councilman Hanson.

[1:37:24] >> So, I've missed too many meetings, but

[1:37:25] there is a couple things I just wanted

[1:37:27] to bring up. One is the data center discussion that's going

[1:37:30] around the county and the state and

[1:37:32] everything that's got I got us everybody

[1:37:34] wound up. At the last city council meeting, we

[1:37:39] voted to

[1:37:41] not allow them for now until we get down

[1:37:43] in the future and see what really

[1:37:45] happens, you know, so there was some

[1:37:46] good discussion at the work meeting on

[1:37:49] last Wednesday's meeting. So, anyway,

[1:37:52] where that is, city's not planning on

[1:37:54] building any data centers downtown

[1:37:55] anytime soon. So.

[1:37:57] >> Am I hoping not doing downtown?

[1:37:59] >> Yeah.

[1:37:59] >> I will fight you.

[1:38:00] >> to be 65% [laughter]

[1:38:02] stucco, 25% metal.

[1:38:04] >> Perfect.

[1:38:04] >> 10%

[1:38:06] >> And then the other thing I was thinking

[1:38:07] about from the the city council meeting

[1:38:09] we

[1:38:10] uh

[1:38:12] we talked about the property from the

[1:38:13] Masonic Temple to the dead pool south

[1:38:15] side of the road pretty much forever and

[1:38:17] that's finally come to fruition to where

[1:38:19] that water

[1:38:21] I think it's pretty much sold to

[1:38:22] developers by now, but since that

[1:38:24] Wednesday night meeting when we approved

[1:38:26] that change in the property donation to

[1:38:28] the city and so forth. So,

[1:38:30] that happened and that's

[1:38:32] that development's not going to happen

[1:38:34] up there anymore. So.

[1:38:36] >> The city has a nice park.

[1:38:38] >> What's that?

[1:38:39] >> The city has a nice park.

[1:38:40] >> The city has a place to build, we can

[1:38:41] build something like a park or something

[1:38:43] which would be good someday. So, see how

[1:38:45] that goes.

[1:38:46] >> Yeah, anyway.

[1:38:47] >> There is some property there. So, you

[1:38:48] guys have any questions for me?

[1:38:51] >> Any questions for council from the

[1:38:53] commission?

[1:38:54] >> All right, I like it.

[1:38:56] >> Yep.

[1:38:56] >> Excellent.

[1:38:58] >> All right, this moves us on to number

[1:39:00] nine on our agenda tonight. This is a

[1:39:02] review and decision on our July 22nd,

[1:39:04] 2026 Planning Commission meeting

[1:39:06] minutes. Are there any additions or

[1:39:07] corrections to those minutes?

[1:39:12] I'll entertain a motion.

[1:39:14] >> Chair, I move that we approve the

[1:39:15] minutes from the July 22nd meeting.

[1:39:17] >> Got a motion to approve from

[1:39:18] Commissioner Anderson. Do I have a

[1:39:19] second?

[1:39:20] >> I'll second.

[1:39:21] >> Second from Commissioner Proctor.

[1:39:25] Commissioner Hammer, how do you vote?

[1:39:26] >> I.

[1:39:26] >> Commissioner Sloan.

[1:39:27] >> I.

[1:39:27] >> Commissioner Linford.

[1:39:28] >> I.

[1:39:28] >> Commissioner Jensen.

[1:39:29] >> I.

[1:39:30] >> Commissioner Anderson.

[1:39:31] >> I.

[1:39:31] am Chairman Hamilton, they all look

[1:39:33] like they're in order and good to go. I

[1:39:34] will also vote I, but I was not there.

[1:39:36] >> I'll vote I, too.

[1:39:39] >> You skipped over me.

[1:39:40] >> [laughter]

[1:39:42] >> You You over me. I'll go right too.

[1:39:44] >> No, I thought I said Frank.

[1:39:45] >> Frank recused himself and Tyson just

[1:39:47] recused you.

[1:39:48] >> Yeah.

[1:39:49] >> [laughter]

[1:39:50] >> He chaired that one so he doesn't get a

[1:39:51] vote.

[1:39:52] All right, you good?

[1:39:54] >> You're good.

[1:39:54] >> Yeah, getting a little wacky.

[1:39:56] >> They're past. Yes, it's getting crazy.

[1:39:58] Number nine on our agenda tonight, I

[1:40:00] will entertain a motion to adjourn.

[1:40:03] >> I'll make a motion.

[1:40:04] >> Thank you Commissioner Linford. We are

[1:40:06] adjourned. Thank you.

Tooele City Planning Commission Meeting - August 12, 2026

Transcript