Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Look at the screen behind us. That's okay, right? All right. We'll go ahead and get this Tooele City Planning Commission meeting to order this Wednesday, June 10th, 2026 at the hour 7 p.m. here at City Council Chambers. First item on our agenda tonight is our Pledge of Allegiance, if you'll all please rise. Okay, just an announcement for the public here. There is a significant increase in fraudulent phishing requests using information from the public notices that are issued concerning the applications being heard during the Planning Commission meetings. Tooele City collects fees only at the time of application submittal. Tooele City will never ask for funds to be sent over wire transfer. Legitimate Twilla City emails always end with TwillaCity.gov. If you receive a request requiring you to pay additional fees for an application in an email that does not end in TwillaCity.gov after your application has been submitted, this is fraud. If you receive such a request, please contact Twilla City Community Development Director or the department. Number two on our agenda tonight is our roll call. Commissioner Hammer?

Here.

Commissioner Sloan? Here. Commissioner Proctor? Here. Commissioner Cordova? Here. Commissioner Jensen? Here. Commissioner Anderson? Here. I am Chairman Hamilton. I am also here. Will please recognize Commissioner Linford, and please excuse Commissioner Faircloth. I recognize Council Members Gossett, Council Member Hanson. We've got staff members Ms. Young, Mr. Agard, Ms. Anglin, Mr. Hanson, and Mr. Johnson joining us tonight. Number three on our agenda tonight is a public hearing and recommendation on a Tuolumne City-initiated application proposing the partial vacation of nine-foot strip of public right-of-way along the northern portion of James Way, extending approximately 1982 linear feet between the Industrial Loop intersection and the Lodestone Way intersection, which would reduce the existing right-of-way width of James Way from 85 feet to 76 feet. Ms. Englund.

Yes, so the reason why this is going, or we're requesting the vacation for the Jamesway right-of-way is because the city has agreed to the right-of-way narrowing due to the installation of traffic signals at the intersections of Lode Stoneway and Utah Avenue and Industrial Loop Road. in Utah Avenue. All of the reduced right-of-way will be added to the Peterson Industrial Property to the north. There was public notice sent out as per Utah Code 1028.8.13. We did receive signatures back for support on this from the Peterson Industrial Properties LLC and from Depot Self Storage LLC. The state code in order to do vacations of public right-of-ways, either partial or in full, our state code requires you to find good cause exists for the proposed vacation and that neither the public interest nor any person will be materially injured by the proposed vacation. So, staff findings were the request is consistent with the procedures established by Utah Code 102813. The portion of right-of-way vacated has no historic, current, or anticipated future use. as transportation rights of way and serve no public purpose with the exception of easements for existing future underground Tuala City public utilities and existing private franchise utilities. The utility companies with access to the easements have not expressed any objections to the right-of-way vacation. And the right-of-way vacation will reserve to Willis City Corporation utility easements for existing and future Willis City public utilities in the vacated right-of-way. This is a copy of the proposed ordinance. We do address in the proposed ordinance the state code requirements of finding good cause and that there will be no harm done to the public interest on the right-of-way. So that is all I have today.

Okay, we'll bring this back to the Commission for questions, comments, concerns. Yes, Mr. Hanson. Absolutely. The more information is always the better.

No, just for clarification, and I take responsibility for this. The existing right-of-way is 84 foot, and it would be reduced 9 feet to 75. I apologize that. I'll take the blame for that. 84 to 75 is not the other way around. Bring it back to you in two weeks. As Miss England indicated, this is based on the transportation master plan that was done more than 20 years ago before we had the signals and the traffic and the network we have now. So we just don't think we will ever need the full right-of-way on that road segment. So thank you. Perfect. All right. Commission? Question. Yes, Commissioner Johnson.

How did this come about? I read in there that it said to help develop the property behind it, but... I mean, is that something the city decided to do, or did somebody ask for this?

Both. The developer, Peterson Industrial Depot, is planning to do a flex space building down on the corner of James Way and Industrial Loop Road on the northeast corner. And in their development plans, they asked the city, do we really need a full 84-foot right-of-way still there, or could we utilize back the nine feet that was taken and help? enhance the development potential. So we looked at it not from the perspective of how can we enrich you, but is it really an asset that we need or does it provide more road that we have to snowplow, more road to maintain that's unnecessary. So it was started by Petersons and supported by staff.

And then, so when you say take it, was it taken from them at some point? It was, it was platted.

Was that before they had it? Yes. Yeah, it was platted early. It was back in the late 90s, early 2000s. I'm sorry, I don't recall the exact year. But when the city received that property into the corporate limits, we requested the developer to dedicate the principal roads. The city doesn't own most of the roads out there, but James Way is one of them that the city has ownership of. And they were the ones that dedicated the 84-foot property.

Good questions. The reason I'm asking, I know a half acre, almost a half acre. It just seems weird just to give that away to somebody.

It's standard when we do a right-of-way vacation to give it back to the adjacent property. We've done that several times in this city over the last several years where we've had alleys vacated that the city has given up. Some roads have been turned from public to private and we've vacated back. But under state law, it goes to either the person that granted it in the first place, if they still own it. If they no longer own it, then it goes to the adjacent property at no cost. Well, that clears up a lot of things.

I think the hat baker is a little bit misleading in the way that it's constructed, too.

I understand. There's not a ton of value. But if they need it... do the development the way they want, that's a lot of value to it. That's true. So depending on how you look at it. I'm not saying we should stick it, or the city should stick it to anybody, but I was just curious.

Yeah, but if residents want to take all of the city roads over for private membership and they maintain them, I think the council would be willing to entertain vacating more roads. I understand. We believe that this is, we believe it's good for the city, and we believe it also does support the adjacent development.

Okay.

Thank you.

Commissioner Linford.

So in the packet, it was talking about how the expected traffic just wasn't there when they originally put this together. With them redeveloping that area, are we expecting an increase of traffic that would kind of put us back to square one, or would it still be within reason of vacating that area? That's a good question.

Yeah, if you have an answer, we'd love to hear it.

The answer is yes. Again, when that property was developed, nobody knew fully what was going to develop adjacent to it. Today we have, over that 1,700-foot stretch, we have... I don't remember the current name, but it was the... Conestoga Woods building there on the corner, it's now a new user, and I apologize, I can't remember the name. Do you remember what it is, Andrew?

Plastic Corporation.

No, it's the wood. Anyway, they were a cabinet shop that used to be there. The rest of that is all Carvana. And Carvana has no access to that road. That's significant. On the north side of the road, Petersons are concentrating their access, so it really limits the amount of trucks in and out of there. The width of a right-of-way is based upon do I have enough turning radius to turn onto. It depends upon the volume of traffic, and as we've looked at it and talked with the city's transportation consultant, we just don't think it justifies the need to maintain that additional. Now, we're holding on to the nine feet to the south. We're not vacating that portion yet, so we could today, if we wanted to, build a 49-foot pavement section within what would remain, and that's more than sufficient.

Thank you.

Again, good questions. Thank you. Yes, excellent questions. I love it. Any other ones for staff?

Okay, this item does require a public hearing, so I'll go ahead and open the public hearing. If you'd like to speak to this item, please approach the podium, state your name for the record, write your name for the record. Seeing no one approach, I'll go ahead and close the public hearing and bring this back to the commission for any other further questions, comments, concerns. I'll entertain a motion on a recommendation.

I'll make a motion.

Okay, Commissioner Proctor.

I move that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for approval ordinance number 2026-17, vacating the nine-foot portion of James Public Rideway, extending approximately 1,982 linear feet between Industrial Loop and Lodestone Way, application number 2026038, based on findings contained in the staff report dated June 3, 2026.

I have a positive recommendation from Commissioner Proctor. Do I have a second?

I'll second.

And a second from Commissioner Hammer. Any other further discussion or questions before we take this to a vote? Commissioner Hammer, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Sloan? Aye. Commissioner Proctor? Aye. Commissioner Cordova?

Aye.

Commissioner Jensen? Aye. Commissioner Anderson?

Aye.

I am Chairman Hamilton. I also vote aye. That passes seven to zero. Moving up to the City Council for their final actions. I was kind of hoping when it said partial vacation of nine, I was counting on nine days of vacation. I guess that's not going to happen. It's all good. All right. Brings us on to number four tonight is their city council reports. Councilman Gossett.

That was quick.

You guys are good. Cruz.

So what happened? Who watched city council meeting last time? All right. Did Ed look good on it?

It looks good now. He's half the man he used to be. I love it.

Anyhow, the stuff that I think you find interesting, one of them was we talked for quite a while about fences, right? Going back to that, we found out Brett Lovell, the developer, came and spoke to the council and discussed one of the issues that, or I guess it was the issue that he had, was having those rock or stone columns going up. would cause the fence to have a big gap in it between the two fences. And so we went ahead and agreed to lose the columns but keep the fence so that they could get them closer together. And we wrapped that up with him. In the future, it still comes back, right, Andrew? In the future, it comes back case by case. And so although we approved it for this one, Anybody else still has to go through that process. So that got wrapped up. The other good news is Paul has decided to stick around with you guys for four more years. He was on the fence for it. He didn't know if he was going to do it, but he said, you know, yeah, I'll hang out for another four years. So it went really good, but I think that's about everything that was interesting that you'd find interesting, other than the industrial landscape that we talked about got approved, too. So that was it.

Perfect. Any questions for council?

With the fence, sorry. No, go ahead. With the fencing, there was a stipulation that we recommended with that, and I'm trying to... When you guys approved that, did you approve it based on the recommendation that the commission sent to you or based upon the initial application? Because I know that we had, it was in regards to notice, notice to residents.

Yeah, and I believe, Andrew, do you remember? I don't think that we had, did we leave that in where he still had to reach out? Yeah, you were here. Sorry, I'm...

So we decided that or at least City Council decided that it wasn't necessary to send out the noticing because they will still have the fence in place. It's just going to be the pillars that are not going to be required and it's still going to be a case-by-case basis on whether or not they required to have the pillars or not, so It's not really going to affect anybody else's property as far as their fences go or anything like that They'll still have the fence in place It's just that the columns would not be there so that there is instead of a you know two or three foot gap There's only like a you know two inch gap or five inch cap or whatever however that takes so yeah Yeah, somewhere like that.

And I think that reason, the one that you guys had mentioned was they would have to approach the homeowner if they were going to attach into their fence, and there won't be any attaching into it. It'll just run parallel. Right up. Just close. It'll butt right against it. So they don't have a reason that they'd have to get an answer from the homeowner, right?

Okay. We just had some miscommunication between the applicant and staff, so...

Yes, thank you.

No problem. All right, moves us on to number five on our agenda tonight. This is a review and decision of our May 27th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting minutes. Any corrections or additions to those minutes? I'll entertain a motion. Move we approve the minutes. Motion to approve from Commissioner Jensen. Do I have a second? And a second from Commissioner Sloan. Any discussion before we take it? Commissioner Hammer, how do you vote? Aye. Commissioner Sloan? Aye. Commissioner Proctor? Aye. Commissioner Cordova?

Aye.

Commissioner Jensen? Aye. Commissioner Anderson? Aye. I am Chairman Hamilton. I vote aye. Those pass 7-0. That moves us on to number 6 on our agenda. I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

Move to adjourn.

We are adjourned. Thank you, Commissioner Hammer. Thank you. Didn't get it.

Oh, slow.