[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.