Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

today. We had some illnesses come up. All right. I'll call the meeting to order. This is the Planning Commission, Tooele County Planning Commission for June 3rd, 2026. We will begin with the Pledge of Allegiance. If you'll please join me.

and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you, Andy.

You're welcome.

Perfect. All right. Let's see. Meeting minutes. Who was here? Everyone was.

Yes.

Were you here last month?

I'm sorry?

You were here last month?

No. Okay.

I don't think so. I know Kevin was. I think Clint sat in your place last month. Let's see. Attendance. Okay. Nope. So we're going to table that until next meeting. Okay. I have too many tabs. We'll start with another meeting item, the action item number four is the staff is requesting we change the July meeting date to July. I thought we did that last month. We didn't do a motion. Okay. So right now, as it stands, our meeting would be July 2nd. Staff would, and I know we discussed it, moving that to July 15th. Is there? Yes, please, Kevin.

I propose we move the July meeting to July 15th. Second.

We have a motion and a second to move our July 2nd meeting to July 15th. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Perfect. Thank you. Now we will turn the time over to staff for... Conditional use permit CUP 2026-057.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Why is it doing that? Why is it doing that?

That's why we have one. Hello, hello.

Hello. Hello. Okay, maybe it's just the bad mic.

Okay, so this is a conditional use permit 2026-057.

The Hogan Brothers, Henry Degelbeck and Diana Degelbeck are requesting a conditional use permit approval for a private road. This is the area in question, so... There is a recorded access easement currently in place, and the CUP would approve the private road for the parcel that is currently landlocked. The road would adhere to our county private road standards, and so that is 60 feet. No. 30 feet. 30 feet, thank you. Yes, yes, 30 feet, 30 foot private road. And so it wouldn't create much impact and it is compliant with the general plan. We didn't receive any oppositions from the public. And planning staff analysis. So our land use ordinance chapter 4-3 bullet point 2 talks about lot standards and the lots need to have frontage upon a dedicated or publicly approved street before any building permit can be issued. The only exception to this rule is that residential lots may front up on a private road, and it has to be approved by Planning Commission, which is what brings us here today. So Planning staff finds that proposed use is compatible. And we've determined that in order to assign an address and process future building permit for the proposed future home of this parcel, road serving the property must be approved through the form of the CUP. So that leads to our planning staff recommendation. We recommend that the Tooele County Planning Commission make a motion to approve the conditional use permit for a private road with the following conditions. All property owners agree to and record a road maintenance agreement that is attached to the recorded access agreement, and the entry number is within three months of the CUP approval. The staff will need to record an affidavit on the same access agreement stating that the private road has been approved through CUP, and that all owners agree to record a road maintenance agreement. This road maintenance agreement has already been drafted, so once in all, upon speaking with the applicant, surrounding properties that are affected are in the know about this remains agreement. A private sign will need to be added to the road as per private drive standards. Any road cuts into Hoken Road will require a permit per the road department. Initially, this CUP had named the road Cedar Lane, but there was some miscommunication between the GIS department and they came back and said that that road name wasn't unique enough. So after speaking with the applicant, we then decided to change it to Wild Seed Lane.

To what? I'm sorry.

A wild seed lane. So that'll be one of the conditions upon, once we get that, they'll have to go and revise that on the site plan. And the final review with the Tooele County Fire Marshal for turnaround specifications. But that won't come until once it's ready to get built out.

Thank you.

Any questions for staff? I know the applicant is here. Would you like to add anything to it, or are you good?

I read through what she just told me.

Will you come up to the mic, Bill? Thanks.

I'm Bill Hogan, representing Hogan Brothers. And Clay and Diana Digglebeck said I could speak for them. So... The... Yeah, we had a two-acre piece that was kind of inaccessible in the back that was split off in the 70s before zoning kind of... Zoning was just starting then. And so it's in MU40, so we have to meet all those requirements. But I just have a grandson that wants to build a home there, so... I didn't realize we had to do all this, but I'm old. I think we followed and did everything that Millie's asked us to do.

Okay, thank you.

We were good with everything.

How many houses are going to be on Wild Seed Lane?

Well, there's mine. I have a north boundary to it, and there's one behind me. this lot.

Okay.

The South Rim lot that's listed on that.

Yeah.

So there'll be three down that lane.

And then on the other side is Clay and Diane Digglebeck, who's most of this is on their property.

So Clay and Diane, they can access off of Hogan Road, right?

That's right. That's where they... And the home that's behind me is... using that access now, there's an easement now. There was a 20 foot easement. So this changes it to 30 and just takes it deeper. Okay, thank you. So there's one, there'll be one, two, three, four.

Okay, thank you.

And I think I'm good. I think everything.

Any other questions for the applicant?

I'm sorry.

Nope, you're good, Val. Mr. Hogan. At this time, I'll open public hearing. If you are here to speak during the public hearing, please come up, state your name, and sign in on the clipboard. Anyone online?

I bet my grandson's online.

Listening? He probably has a vested interest. Is there anyone online? Put their hand up. This time I close public hearing. Any discussion, questions, comments?

I read through it. It looks good to me.

It does. The only question I had, I asked. It was the notary that was from Michigan, apparently. You don't have to be in the state. It's a valid. It's already gone through review, so we're good that way. That was my only question. At this time, I'll entertain a motion.

I make a motion that we approve the conditional use permit for private road application number 2026-057 based on the findings subject to the conditions listed by the planning staff. Second. Second.

I have a motion from Commissioner Stetz, second from Commissioner Warner. We will do a roll call on this. Commissioner Christensen?

Yes.

Commissioner Scott, I vote yes. Commissioner Warner?

I vote yes.

Commissioner Stetz?

Yes.

Conditional use permit passes. Thank you. Good luck. At this time, we'll have Millie come up, and we will hear TLCU02026-014. Thank you, Commissioner Scott.

So this is a... To the county land use ordinance text amendment, application number 2026-014. It's a text amendment to chapter 24, which is our signed regulations. Charles Akerloh with Zenith Partners and Shane Sell, apologies, with Golden Leaf Management are requesting a text amendment to allow the Tooele County land use ordinance ordinance to specifically change table 24-9-4 to be able to allow freestanding signs in industrial zones as a permitted use, as well as changing directional sign requirements. So as part of the inland port area, We've been coordinating efforts to attract Love's Travel Stops and County Stores to this location specifically. During the review process and the signage package, Shane and planning staff identified that the current code does not permit freestanding signs within industrial zoning districts in order to accommodate the proposed love sign package as well as similar future developments, the code would need to be amended to allow on-premise freestanding signs in industrial zoning districts. So in your staff report packet, we basically took the code that was already on there for commercial and reworded it to make it a higher industrial standard. We recognize the need for this because instead of allowing for VARIANCES, BECAUSE IT'S REALLY DIFFICULT TO AWARD A VARIANCE GIVEN A STATE STATUE, WE WOULD RATHER WORK WITH FUTURE DEVELOPMENT TO HAVE THEM COME INTO COMPLIANCE AND SO THUS FOR UPDATING THE CODE. While planning staff and engineering have worked collaboratively to evaluate the applicant's request and formulate a proposed text amendment that aligns with Tooele County standards and the long range planning objectives and best interests for the county, the applicant at this point continues to express concerns that some of the recommended amendment does not fully satisfy their desired signage outcomes. And so in my slide, we have kind of the last minute concerns with the directional sign. Currently, our code states that it cannot exceed four square feet in an aggregate area. And so we try to figure out between the applicant back and forth The best new industrial standard for signs specifically loves has landed on a three by six sign aggregate area and we initially made a change to allow this Allow it to fit under an 18 square foot aggregate sign area. However, we I We overlooked a part of the code that allows for up to 24 square feet in aggregate area and six feet in height. So the way that loves is proposing these signs. So this is the part that got overlooked. It's under the signs allowed without a permit. Basically any one sign on private property shall not exceed 24 square feet in aggregate area and if freestanding, shall not exceed six feet in height unless provided for in the section. Such sign will not be erected in a manner as to constitute a roof sign. So the way that Loves is proposing their sign interpretation leads us to understand that this is a freestanding sign. And it would allow us... under this definition, we would allow the three by six. The only thing that is still in, we can't land an agreement on is the height of the sign. And so where our current code says six feet, here they're still requesting seven feet. So an extra seven foot difference. The next concern is, more towards the high rise signs. So the applicant's concern is that the freestanding signs must be located within a 30 foot setback from the property line. They're actually, County staff recommends that, states that the existing standard already allows flexibility for them to be basically at property line and then back within that 30 foot range. But they're requesting, currently they have their sign at about 36 feet, so it's six feet more than what we would allow. So there's some kind of consideration with, uh, with that in where the engineer wouldn't like to go. Uh, the applicant is requesting it to change to 30 feet, sorry, 15 feet. But the engineer would like to stay at the county engineer would like to stay at 30.

What, what's their reasoning for the difference of six feet? the applicants? I'm not sure.

Well, we've talked about, so the area that their preliminary site plan indicates, there are wetlands to the southern portion of the property. So there was discussions on that being a variance at that point because it's land that is, you know, This is a high-rise sign, so it's proposed to be 70 feet tall, so the area around that might not be the most adequate. So that in itself, during discussion, we've considered that it could be a variance given the land conditions. But in terms of changing the code, that's why there's no change. Okay. Okay. Also along with this, we've added a new part of the code to state that the sign can be located anywhere between the property line and 30 feet from the property line provided that the sign does not create a line of sight obstruction. However, we have a portion in the code that refers to a clear view zone. So basically this means that no sign can be located within 40 feet of, sorry, within this 40 foot triangle. And so there's kind of, where the applicant wants to be able to move their signs, you can kind of see it here, to be within that, clear view zone, there's kind of a little bit of pushback between that. But the county is, with this new kind of section of the code, the county is open to, as long as they still meet this 40 foot, they can locate it within a few feet of the property line, so long as the sign doesn't kind of encroach onto the right of way. The next concern was the height for the sign. So currently, Currently the code only allows for up to 35 feet for a freestanding sign, so we came back with the industrial standard where recommending a height not greater than 80 feet maximum, 70 feet above the nearest traffic lane of Interstate I-80 because we recognize that there's quite a difference in grade from where the property is to where I-80 sits. And so we're also changing the verbiage a little bit to basically say that high allowance can be allowed by the zoning administrator only if there's enough reasonable evidence to say that they need that extra height and so that's why we came back with here in in this for love specifically they're requesting a 70 foot high sire 70 foot high high-rise sign and they did a feasibility test and so because they came back and told us, hey, we did a study and this is actually what, there's some barriers that we're coming across with the billboards specifically when you're headed eastbound. That is reason enough to have the zoning administrators say, we will give you that sign allowance. The next concern is, the amount of signage area. So currently the signage area only gives you a maximum of 200 square feet. And so in order to better accommodate the industrial standard, we switched or we updated the code to, we're trying to update the code to say, to allow a maximum of signage area of a thousand square feet, sorry. With this, however, we've identified that the Loves site area has about 1400 square feet of lineal frontage and their sign package is requesting about a little over 1100 feet in total square foot area. And so we might need to look at Previous versions of this, we had 2,000, so we might need to look at going back to the 2,000 in order for them to meet the 1,100 and a few square feet that they're requiring for their sign. I believe this is the last concern. is that the current code only limits a freestanding sign to one per business or a plan center commercial complex, whichever is fewer. However, with this, with industrial standpoint, we recognize that we need to kind of hire signs in order for there to be more visibility. So, we are changing it to two, or we're proposing to add the last portion or as approved by the zoning administrator. And this kind of still keeps the proposed number of signs limited. They just would need to provide a really, really good reason as to why they need more than two. So in this case, because they're a travel stop, they need more visibility than maybe another industrial use would. And so we come to the planning staff analysis. Staff reviewed and identified a need to allow on-premise freestanding signs through the code to come into compliance rather than repeated variance requests. Most supporting examples reference projects in other states that were approved through variance processes. Staff went ahead and verified those projects and that they did receive variances. And most of them were due to absence of applicable code provisions. so because of this we wanted to say we don't argue Utah code is more limited so very getting a variance is really really difficult so and that's why we're updating the code to allow it And one of those conditions is it can't be self-imposed circumstances. Planning staff and the applicant remain in slight disagreement on certain requested amendment provisions. So our recommendation for the Planning Commission is to review the information contained in the staff report prior to making any additional adjustments to the proposed ordinance amendments. and making a recommendation to Tooele County Council. I do want to note that the applicant is here today and has prepared a presentation to come along with this item. Okay. Thank you. I was looking for Mr. . Okay.

We'll invite the applicant to come up. I will have some questions, Millie, for you at the end. We have to be nice to him. This is his first presentation.

Okay.

My name is Shane Sell. I'm working with both the developer

I'm working with both the developers of the Interstate Business Park and with Loves with helping with proposing this text amendment for the signage for the Loves Travel Center. For the sake of time, I prepared a short PowerPoint presentation with just some visual illustrations of the text amendment and what we're actually proposing. First one. So there are three main signs for Love's Travel Center that are currently not in conformance with the code as written. The three signs I'll be referring to in this presentation are as follows. Sign number one is the high-rise sign, as you can see on the PowerPoint, or I'm also going to refer to it as the freeway sign. Sign number two is the smaller and shorter street sign. Sign number three is the three directional signs that direct traffic to the right area of the truck stop. For reference to the actual site of the Interstate Business Park and specifically to the proposed site of Love's Travel Center, it is located right off of exit 88 on Interstate 80. You can kind of see in this visual right here, RIGHT HERE IS WHERE THE SITE WILL BE LOCATED FOR LOVES. AS A QUICK LAYOUT OF WHERE WE ARE PROPOSING THE SIGNS ON LOVES' SITE, YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE HIGH RISE IS LOCATED RIGHT HERE ON THE PURPLE TEXT FOR THE HIGH RISE. AND THE STREET SIGN IS LOCATED HERE IN GREEN. AND THE THREE DIRECTIONAL SIGNS AT EACH ONE OF THE ENTRANCES. When LUFS proposed the sign package with dimensions and locations of the signs, four main issues came to our attention. I'd like to go over these four issues briefly and then I'll go over each one individually in more detail with examples that we have to provide. The first issue is that only one freestanding sign is allowed per site. We are proposing two freestanding signs, one for the high-rise sign and one for the street sign. The second issue is the maximum allowed height for the high-rise freeway sign is limited to only 40 feet per code. We are requesting the sign to be allowed to have a maximum height of 70 feet. The third issue is the directional signs are only allowed to be a maximum of two feet by two feet in size. We are requesting to have them be larger so they can be seen by incoming semi trucks. The fourth issue is the area of the sign face for the high rise sign is only allowed to be a maximum of 200 square feet per code. We will need more signage face area allowed in order for the high rise to be seen adequately from the freeway. The first issue, current code only allows for one freestanding sign per site. We are requesting that the code text be amended to allow the zoning administrator to permit more than one freestanding sign per business. This would allow loves to put both a freeway sign and a street sign on their site. Having these two signs is commonly done on many other travel centers and gas stations throughout the nation and in Utah. Love's has over 1,000 locations across the U.S. that contain both a high-rise and a street sign on location. There is one taller sign that is directed toward the traffic on the freeway that signals to them when to get off the freeway. The second sign is the street sign. It is targeted toward traffic along Burmester Road and Sunstone, signaling to traffic where Love's location is once off the freeway. As you can see in this slide, this is an example of Brigham City, Utah Loves Travel Center. They have the same signage that is being proposed for the Interstate Business Park site. It was approved, and they have both a high-rise sign, as you can see down here below, and a street sign that is smaller for the street traffic. In this second example, This is from the Flying J in Lake Point. And just as the first example, they have a high-rise sign that is directed towards the freeway traffic and a street sign as well. And similarly, the Chevron, also at Lake Point, has a high-rise sign and then a street sign as well, directed towards two different types of traffic. This is followed very similarly in almost every gas station and travel center throughout the U.S., having those two different types of signs directed towards two different audiences. For issue number two, the second issue is current code only allows freestanding signs to have a maximum height of 40 feet. For the high-rise sign in particular, this would limit the sign so that it wouldn't be visible from the freeway. defeating its intended purpose, we are asking that the code be amended to allow this sign to have a maximum height of 70 feet. If the sign is not clearly visible to freeway traffic, this could potentially cause a safety concern. Semi trucks and cars on the freeway need to be able to see the love sign with enough time to merge into the correct lane and safely merge off the freeway. LUVS has performed a balloon test to determine what would be the minimum height the sign would need in order to be able to be seen from the freeway. So you can see from this slide, this is where the balloon test was performed right here on their site. So this red arrow is identifying They've superimposed what their sign would look like at 70 feet when they did their study of this. And these next few slides, they're going to slowly move, and you'll see in the left-hand corner what distance they are. The first one's going to be westbound on I-80, and then the second one's going to be eastbound on I-80. So they'll just go on their own. You can kind of see this is what it would look like from I-80. At 0.8 miles, that's what it would look like, 0.7 miles, and so on. So the I-80 freeway is much higher than Love's truck stop location, creating the need for the sign to be taller than 40 feet in order for it to be seen from the freeway. So as you can see right here, this is the last one. That's right at the exit coming westbound on I-80. That's what the sign would look like.

At 70 feet.

At 70 feet, yes. This is coming eastbound from here. This would be one mile away. And then it will slowly go into that one. There's a little more challenges with the billboards coming from eastbound. So as you can kind of see in these slides from the westbound and also on the eastbound, the high rise sign is placed at 70 feet and it will only give it enough height, just enough height for it to be seen. Nothing more than that. That was the lowest that it was determined. Anything lower than that and it would pose a safety concern of people wouldn't see it and not being able to merge with enough time in order to exit from there. That would be right at the exit for eastbound. Issue number three pertains to the directional signage that is located at all three entrances to Love's Travel Center. The current code only allows directional signage to be a maximum of two feet by two feet. We are requesting that it be increased to a size of three feet by six feet to properly direct the traffic to the right location. There is a challenge for semi-truck drivers to see directional signage that is small and low to the ground. With directional signage that is only two feet by two feet to direct traffic to the appropriate area, Loves feels that this will pose a significant safety risk of semi-trucks entering the wrong entrance. As you can see in this comparison, directional signage that has a minimum size of three feet by six feet would be significantly more visible as compared to signage that is only two feet by two feet, especially to semi-truck drivers. Lowe's Travel Center is divided into two sections. You can see in this drawing the two separated areas. Red marks where the semi-trucks enter and can easily turn around. The green area designates where the normal-sized cars and trucks should enter. If a semi-truck were to accidentally enter into the green automobile area, this would pose a significant safety risk to the pedestrians in the area. Love's has over 1,000 locations in the U.S., and this is at the top of their safety concerns with every travel center they build. If a semi-truck enters the wrong entrance, they would run the risk of not being able to back out of the area easily and create a safety hazard for the cars and pedestrians in the green area, designated for normal size vehicles. For this, it is vital that the directional signs be placed as close to the street as possible and be large enough that semi-truck drivers can easily identify their specified entrance and not be confused with the auto area entrance. Having the directional signs larger and visible enough from a distance will help semi-truck drivers to make a decision early enough that the driver can respond to the appropriate turn in and not be searching for which entrance to enter. Love's Travel Stop will be open 24 hours a day and truck drivers will frequently be entering in at 1 or 2 a.m. in the morning. It's vital that they know clearly to enter in at the red semi-truck entrance and do not pose a safety hazard for the normal auto area. These are some examples of LUVs in the Utah State. This is from the Springville location. The size of this directional sign is 4 feet by 8 feet. So that would be more than what we are requesting. This next example would be Cedar City in Utah, with the directional signage also being 4 feet by 8 feet. And then a third example of the Brigham City, Utah LUVs travel site, 4 feet by 8 feet. WE ARE ONLY REQUESTING THREE FEET BY SIX FEET AS A MINIMUM FOR THIS SAFETY CONCERN. THE LAST ISSUE IN ISSUE NUMBER FOUR IS THAT CURRENT CODE ONLY ALLOWS FREE STANDING SIGNS TO HAVE A MAXIMUM SIGN FACE AREA OF 200 SQUARE FEET. IN ORDER FOR THE SIGN TO BE SEEN FROM THE FREEWAY, WE WOULD NEED A SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER SIGN THAN CURRENTLY ALLOWS. Currently the sign face area proposed from Lowe's for their high rise sign is 1,126 square feet for the entire cabinet sign. With current code limiting the sign only to 200 square feet, the sign would be so small that no one would be able to read it from the freeway. These types of high rise signs have been done and approved in many other places throughout the nation and in Utah. This is an example of the actual high rise sign that they are proposing with a sign face area of 1,126 square feet. It will have multiple businesses on there. That's why it's a little bit more than normal. This is a sign in Brigham City that has a sign face area of 1,353 square feet. This is the actual sign that is in Brigham City, so it's very similar to the sign that we are proposing as well. Here's another example. Just across the nation, these are pretty standard signs that they are using. This one is from Winnemucca, Nevada. It has a sign face area of 1,153 square feet. And then this is my last example from Eloy, Arizona, with a sign face area of 1,380 square feet. Just showing that there's hundreds of more examples that I could. I just tried to pick the top three that were close here and just kind of see this is a standard that loves us across the nation for all these signs. They're not asking for anything out of the ordinary or anything special, just what was standard for all the locations that they are installing. So at this time, that concludes my presentation, and just open to any questions that you do have.

Any questions from the Commission? Thank you for your time. I do have a question. Let's do... Are we doing public hearings?

Yes.

Let's do public hearing first, and then I will ask.

Questions to the staff?

We'll do that after public hearing. Is that okay, Kevin? All right. If you... I'm going to open the public hearing on... TCLU02026014. If you are here to speak on that, please come forward, state your name, sign the clipboard, and we'll set a time limit of two minutes for public comments.

Already signed in, so that'll save a couple seconds here. My name is Kim Van Dyke. I reside at 6641 East Via Cortina in Huntsville, Utah. Two minutes, I can't cover anything, so I'd like to kind of really reserve time to answer questions from you all. And I appreciate you being here and listening to our presentation of a site that we really look forward to getting approved. But in two minutes, it might be a little tough for me to go through questions that kind of came up on the slide. But if I could ask that if you have questions that I can come back up and answer those.

Unfortunately, public hearing does not allow that.

OK. What I would say is I hope that you understand where we're coming from with what he showed you. I've been with Luz for 28 years, and we have 685 truck stops nationwide. biggest and best truck stop company in the nation, and we would be for your community with sales tax revenue, property tax, employment, the whole works. Great company that I wouldn't have stayed with them for 28 years unless I could tell you that that's how good they are. So I appreciate your time and wish I could say more, but if that's the rules, that's the rules. Thank you.

Thank you for your time. Anyone online with their hand up?

Bless you.

Seeing no more public comments, I close the public hearing. Okay. Millie, Kevin has a question.

It seems like... This is, you were talking about the current coating. With the development now with the inland port, it seems this is probably one of the first, you know, truck stop coming in there. That's kind of a big deal. So it seemed to me it would behoove us to change the coating for those type of businesses. Is that what you guys are coming up with as well?

We so it is the kind of the first big development that's coming in and so the code wasn't quite prepared so that's why we recommended rather than doing maybe a development agreement or looking to see if they've been qualified for variances we recognized the need to update the code for industrial standards on freestanding signs. And so this first application kind of triggered it and where we want to kind of be responsible for this development and future developments as well, because we recognize that this area is going to There's a lot of permits coming in for this area specifically, and so we want to be prepared with any signing that they're going to want to do if it's freestanding for industrial, because currently it's not permitted in MG, so it's only permitted in commercial districts.

That makes sense to me. So by doing this now, we can be on the front end of this, so we don't have to do this for every...

And it's situations like that that drive bar change and can code. So just to clarify for my sake, this only pertains to the signage along I-80, not necessarily Vermister exit, but anywhere along I-80, right? I know 36, we have different signage requirements. This does not change those, correct?

No, this is specifically for parcels within 2,000 feet off of an exit of Interstate 80. Okay, thank you. Go ahead, Kevin.

Another question. Is there, and perhaps these people here can address this, or at least, it would seem to me there'd be a common standard for stuff like this. For instance, a truck stop, you know, we've got two of them down in Lake Point. that are, you know, they've got pretty big sites. So I would, if we're going to do change this, I would say if Loves is doing four by eight in these other places, it seems like that's probably pretty standard. And maybe rather than they have four by eight there but then we're going to do three by six, it would make, it would seem to me we might want to look at an industry standard and make it the same for everybody.

This is something that the county engineer and Rochelle and I like discussed and also the building official as well. So when we were going in and trying to make a standard for it, we landed on the 18 square foot aggregate area. But because we have that, THE NEW UNDERSTANDING FOR ALLOWING UP TO 24, THEY COULD GO UP TO THAT SIZE. 24 SQUARE FEET IN AGGREGATE AREA. We barely looked at this code last week, because we came under the understanding that what they're presenting for their directional signs are freestanding. So because of that, it triggers that little part in the code that says that we will allow up to 24 feet in aggregate area for this directional signs, but only limited to six feet high. So they could go bigger than what we have previously talked back and forth with the three by six. They could go bigger up to the 24 square feet.

I like this. I think there's a need. I am a warranty manager at a semi dealership and have been for 23 years. I see the need for the bigger signs like Kevin mentioned. I like the directional ones, separating the cars from the semis. Unfortunately, semi drivers don't always pay attention. However, I think this is needed. It's something that we need to get ahead of for sure. I appreciate LUVS bringing this to our attention in their presentation. We've talked about LUVS, but it could be any number of truck stops or businesses that are gonna soon fill that alley. Any other questions?

Yeah, I got a question. Okay. I was looking at this on that high-rise sign You're talking 70 feet. But then I just saw a notation rolling down here that many of the other ones are set at an 80-foot height. And then I read further down, but I couldn't find it again wherever I read it because I've reviewed all this before, was it talked about in a lot of areas of the country they're putting those signs up to 90 feet. And there has to be a reason for that. And some person that doesn't like to reinvent the wheel, OK. And I look at this and I say, well, LUBS has built these stations all over. They probably know exactly what they're doing and what they need. And there may be a discovery on this as they're proceeding that they're going to come back and say, you know what, this high rise sign that we got at 70 feet just isn't going to work. And then we've got to revisit that. And so why don't we put in these provisions, since you're making these changes, to allow right now to go taller on these signs alleviate that problem and the other thing I saw was watching those photos up there and like there's that sign entry sign coming in there I don't know about the rest of you I'm getting kind of old and I'm looking at a sign in the daytime what does that sign look like at night it's better it's more visible because it's lighted And that's what I'm asking, is that big enough? You know, like a truck driver pulling in, he's tired, number one, he's coming in.

Then he shouldn't be on the road, huh? Yeah, right.

No, I'm just looking at the safety issue of it, you know. I've pulled in to truck stops before with a 37-foot fifth wheel, and got in the wrong place. And, you know, and it was because I couldn't see the signs that were there.

I don't, well, I can tell you, I don't believe there's an industry standard. Love showed us their standards. I think this meets those. I would be opposed to higher, we have an airport in that general location, too, that we have to take into consideration, I think. So, um, And in the presentation, he did mention they did a balloon test, and that's where they could see it from a mile away. I cannot listen to your comments. So that's what I got from the presentation. If you've got something else. I can wait.

Now talk. I'm thinking. I can clarify some of Commissioner Stead's comments. So originally when they submitted the plan, they wanted that 90-foot tall high-rise sign. But when they did the balloon test, the billboards were blocking it at 90 feet. So that's why they came back and are saying we're requesting 70 feet instead. So before we had the draft was not greater than 90 feet maximum height. not greater than 90 feet, maximum 80 feet above the nearest traffic lane of Interstate I-80. But because they came back and said, if there's another development in that area, they're going to be in the same wheelhouse as us with the billboards blocking them. So that's why they requested the 70 feet. And so we downsized the new proposal from having an 80 foot, maximum 70 feet above the nearest traffic lane with Interstate I-82.

I do think they're at a disadvantage because of the grade at there, and the freeway sits so much higher. But as to Commissioner Christian's comments, the other two truck stops do come off of 36, so that would not pertain to this.

But they're within the 2,000 feet.

But they were there. in the 70s before we ever came up with this.

Yeah, the permits for those, they're about 83 feet high. And so majority of the zoning areas that we looked at that did have code on high rise signs, the maximum was 85 feet. So where the 90 foot signs, examples that were provided were by variance. We couldn't really go much off of, we needed more solid, code to be able to change it rather than relying on variance examples.

I do have another question. I mean, this UDOT puts signs on the side of the road, you know, places to eat, hotels, gas stations that are coming up. So those are also there. So we're not relying just on the signage from the truck stop, correct?

I would assume that they would also put the new, how we have that.

I mean, especially with this is where our growth is happening.

Just one more comment for me is I would also think out in that area during the wintertime, you know, with the potential fog and a lot of times the wind and stuff going, as a county, And changing, looking at changing some of the code for stuff like this, that might, as far as the size of something, in my opinion, you'd want, I would say to err on the side of bigger, which would be more clear and visible in inclement weather. And I agree, because I used to drive big equipment. When you're up high, it's hard to see something way down low, especially If it's someplace you're not familiar with, and all of a sudden, boom, it's right there. And you think, what did that say? Do not exit or exit.

I think this is an ideal location. I'm with you. I'm pulling the horse trailers and everything else. But any more? Any comments? What would your suggestion be?

What would mine be? Yeah.

Well, I think the...

My idea would be, obviously, we need to change the coding here, and it sounds like you guys are on top of that. And I think these folks are willing to go make compromises to fit the code, you know, based on your discussion. So I say keep doing it.

So if we table the motion... Will you turn your mic down? No. If we table the motion... Does that, that would just send it back to get the coding changed or?

The code, they have a proposal for the code.

They have a proposal, but it is not adopted.

No, that's what we're doing. We would adopt the proposed changes? If you send it back, you have to have a reason.

Okay.

What changes would you want? What changes aren't there right now?

That's what I'm trying to understand. Reading these model motions that you put in here, I don't.

So if we move to approve this, then that's giving the green light to all the changes that you guys are going to make to current coding.

So everything that we have in red that Millie and Luff has worked through and Shane has That is the changes.

Okay.

Some are not being changed. Some are kind of extensive, you know, the height requirement.

Yeah, I think at this point the only – the two biggest things that I can identify is the height. I could probably – Not probably. Discuss it with the county engineer on that additional seven feet. That way, with the height concern for the trucks, making it so that it's 24 feet with a maximum height of seven feet, we could look at maybe the feasibility on that one and bring it to council. As well as the... the sign area, changing it back to 2000 to allow what their lineal, so their lineal property frontage is, it's about 1400 feet. So they would, they could go up to the 1400 square feet Currently, they're at 1,100 and a few feet, so they could go up to more if they wanted for the visibility.

So that's 24-8-5 on-premise freestanding signs that you're saying to go to 2,000 that we could possibly do?

Yes, the G3. Okay.

Okay. How do you feel about that?

I like it.

Commissioner Warner?

So as it's written right now, they would not be able to go the seven foot height max, right? That would have to be separate?

The seven feet for their directional signs?

Directional signs.

We could add that edit.

We could add that?

Yeah, present it to council. In your motion, you just add the seven feet and then the 2,000.

The 2,000, as I mentioned, was part of a prior draft. That is something that the county engineer has agreed.

Has agreed to.

Has reviewed. Yeah, so we can go back to that one.

So we could make these two changes in a motion to favorably recommend this to the county council. Rather than send it back for two changes. That would be our recommendation. The county council does something different. I don't see the need to table something tonight that we can correct right now for our liking. That doesn't mean that's how it ends.

My concern was that what was in here differed from what We were saying, yeah, we'll let them have, but this only says six feet, not seven. It only says...

I think that's what you're saying.

Yeah, so we put that in there. Okay, then, yeah. Now I understand.

Okay, rather than table.

Yeah.

I mean, if you feel strongly, you can make that recommendation too. Okay.

You ready for a motion?

I will entertain a motion.

I move that we recommend approval to the county council of the text amendment request by Charles Ackerlaw and Shane Sell for the text amendments to Tooele County land use ordinance chapter 24 sign regulations with the addition, as discussed, of moving the height requirements for the signage for the entrances. directional science to seven feet height and square footage of the high-rise sign to 2,000 square feet and On this application number 20 26-0 1 4 based on the findings and subject to the recommendations listed by the planning staff We have a motion can they have a second I second that motion I

We have a motion by Commissioner Christensen and a second by Commissioner Stetz to make a favorable recommendation to the County Council per staff recommendations with the changes being that freestanding could go up to seven feet and the highway signage could be up to 2,000 square feet. We will do a roll call. Commissioner Warner?

Yes.

Commissioner Scott, I vote yes. Commissioner Stetz?

Yes.

And Commissioner Christensen?

Yes.

Thank you. That recommendation will go up to our county council. Thank you. Okay. We will now hear staff on TCLUO2026-072, the amendment to Chapter 2 definitions and the adaptation of Chapter 36 water efficiency standards.

Thank you Commissioner Scott. So Tooele County Development is requesting a favorable recommendation to amend Chapter 2 definitions and adopt Chapter 36 water efficiency standards. So a few weeks ago the Community Development Director received an email from the Stansbury Service Agency There's a lot of Stansbury residents that have looked into ways of conserving water and to see if there are any available kind of funds to replace the grass areas with water-wise landscapes. And there's a program called Slow the Flow, which is, it's a campaign has been founded to raise awareness and empower Utahns to connect them to water-saving resources. So they provide these rebates for Utah residents to apply to, to be able to start these water-wise landscaping. But currently, the county hasn't adopted any of the elements that are required to for residents to be able to qualify for these rebates that are given by this program.

And so

For a little bit of background, the county recently adopted the water use element of the general plan. A little while ago, the county council denied a water conservation ordinance that was presented a few years ago, like last year. And since then, the planning director has been working with the contractor that completed the water element of the new ordinance to kind of bring it back. And planning staff finds that the request is consistent with the Tooele County General Plan. The previous version was a little bit more strict, and that's something that the county council said we don't want a strict ordinance. So the community development director went back and kind of reworded and brought a less strict policy. Some of the changes include kind of between the two documents, turf and lawn. The older version stated that Turf or lawn shall not be installed in park trips, paths, swales, or on slopes greater than 25% or 4 to 1 ratio grade. The new one kind of goes a little bit more in depth. It differentiates between residential and commercial, where residential shall not exceed 50% of the front and side yard landscape area. There is kind of an exception, lots with less than 250 square feet of front yard landscape. and side yard landscape area are exempt from this percentage. And then commercial, a commercial standard was now considered to not exceed 20%. Something else that has kind of changed between the old and the new is in relation to car washes. The old one, the car washing element was not too in-depth. It was very surface level, which was basically what the state had passed in legislature. The new one kind of takes a more detailed approach, and it goes into depth about culinary and even secondary water and how the new proposed car washes are supposed to recycle water. those for their use. The new one also has a new section called addition of exceptions and alternative compliance. So this kind of goes into what could happen if maybe there's some minor details that kind of need to be changed, but that's at the planning staff level for approval. And then the newer version also goes into depth to be able to have approval of exception for some of these policies, but that would be through planning commission if they don't meet all of the requirements. So at this point, Planning staff recommends that the Tooele County Planning Commission makes a motion to make a favorable recommendation to Tooele County Council with this new and revised water efficiency standard.

Thank you. This is good. We started out with Jeff, which was two millis ago. So I'm glad that we are picking this up. We obviously... have a need for it at this time. Any questions for Millie?

Will this bring the county into compliance so that the residents can apply for that Waterwise rebate?

Yeah.

Like as soon as it's adopted tonight?

No, no. We don't adopt it. We recommend to the council favorably or unfavorably. So there's a need. There's been a request for it for years. We just need to do it.

Get it on the books.

Thank you, Millie. I'm going to open public hearing. If you are here to speak on this subject, please come forward, state your name, write it on the clipboard, and we'll listen to your comments. Anyone online? I hope she's enjoying her vacation. I will close the public hearing. MEET AT YOUR PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME. ANY COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, CORRECTIONS?

MY QUESTIONS MAY GO TO COMPLIANCE LIKE THE COUNTY. IN ORDER TO QUALIFY FOR THE SLOW THE FLOW REBATE TO THE WATERWISE REBATES, YOUR AREA HAS TO BE inspected by either a county or local municipal agent has to have current currently be landscaped you can't just go and get you know a thousand bucks for putting rock on top of rock um so is it i mean as part of the ordinance is there going to be like a an inspector or ordinance enforcement

Yeah, so part of the new standard is that they will need to submit a site plan. I know last, the older version, the site plan had to be approved by a licensed landscape architect. County Council recognize that that can be quite pricey and cost a pretty penny to your average resident rather than a commercial plan that could easily have the funds to do so. So there's that differentiation as well.

Okay, so they're bringing it more in line with slow the flow, not making this go to the landscape.

Yeah, that's why they decided to table it so that way it could be less strict and have that more flexibility, especially for the residents who might be on a tight budget.

That's a good question. Yep. Anyone else? Okay. Do we have a motion one way or the other? I move that we make a favorable recommendation to the County Council for the land use ordinance update request by Tooele County. Community Development to Admin Chapter 2 Definitions and Adopt Chapter 36 Water Efficiency Standards Application Number 2026072 based on the findings and subject to the conditions listed by planning staff.

I second that.

Commissioner Scott made the motion. Commissioner Warner seconded the favorable recommendation to the Planning Commission. We will have a roll call. Commissioner Stetz, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Christensen?

Yes.

Commissioner Warner?

Yes.

And Commissioner Scott votes yes. I move we adjourn.

I agree.