Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

By the magic clock on the wall, it's 7 o'clock p.m. I call this 12th City Planning Commission meeting to order here in the 12th City Council Chambers, 12th City Hall at 90 North Main, 12th Utah. First item on our agenda is our Pledge of Allegiance. If you will please stand and repeat after me. flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Next item on our agenda is our roll call. Commissioner Hammer? Here. Commissioner Sloan? Here. Commissioner Faircloth?

Here.

Commissioner Jensen? Here. Commissioner Anderson? Here. Did you hear anything from Commissioner Cordova? Okay. So please have Commissioner Cordova and Commissioner Linford as absent. I'd like to recognize Councilman Hanson, Councilman Gossett, City Attorney Johnson, our minute taker, Ms. Young, and Mr. Agard, and Ms. Anglin, our city planner. Item number three is a public hearing for a conditional use permit for Quest by Wildcat T10. LLC representing take five oil to authorize the use of automobile service and repair an accessory drive-through facility for the property located approximately 2400 North and SR 36 on approximately point four or five acres in the GC general commercial zoning district, Miss England

Thank you, Commissioners, for being here. This application is a request for a conditional use permit for approximately a half-acre lot located within the peak at Compass Point Commercial Development. The applicant is requesting approval to allow an automobile service and repair use, specifically a Take 5 oil change facility, along with an accessory drive-through. The property is zoned general commercial and designated regional commercial on the general plans land use map. The surrounding area is developing with commercial uses including Smith's Marketplace, restaurants, a bank, and additional commercial pad sites. Staff finds that the proposed use is consistent with both the general plan designation and the intent of the general commercial zoning district. The proposed building is located towards the eastern portion of the site closer to SR 36 and will utilize the internal private street network for access of the site. No direct access onto SR 36 is proposed and cross access easements have been or will be recorded with the adjacent properties. The site includes three service bays and 10 on-site parking stalls. Based on the plan submitted, the drive-through queuing lane appears to remain entirely on private property and should not impact surrounding public streets. However, the submitted plans do not fully illustrate the internal circulation pattern associated with the drive-through operation. So staff recommends that additional information regarding the... A vehicle flow and queuing be provided during the final site plan review. Staff identified several reasonably anticipated detrimental effects associated with this request, including construction impacts, utility improvements, fire and life safety considerations, circulation concerns, and potential visual impacts associated with the drive-through facility. Staff believes these impacts can be adequately mitigated through the city's standard engineering building fire and site plan review processes. Accordingly, staff recommends approval of application number 2026049 subject to one condition that additional landscaping screening or other site design improvements may be required as necessary to mitigate visual impacts associated with the drive-through operation and improve the overall appearance of the site. With that, staff's presentation is concluded, and I would be happy to answer any questions from the Commission. Also, our applicant is joining us remotely on Teams, so we'll be able to hear him if you have any questions, okay?

I'll bring this back to the Commission for any questions for staff.

Ms. Anglin, I assume, just based on the use of the facility, that storage, oil storage, fresh oil, used oil storage, is that part of your review going forward, or is that something we need to mitigate at this level?

So it's going to be something that we'll determine during our site plan review process and also building permits. Thank you.

Mr. Cherry, do you have a question for Senator? Just on the drive-through facility part, what makes this a drive-through? That was a little bit confusing. When I first read, I was thinking, is there like two businesses in there? Yeah.

So it's actually just like a Vavilene or a Jeffy Lou where people just go through the drive-through and they don't really ever get out of the car. So they just go into the drive-through into the Bay Area. Get their oil changes and then leave on the opposite side.

So So visually what's the difference between this Jiffy lube at 1280

I'm guessing that's going to be a newer building.

So why are we requiring more landscaping for this one instead of Jiffy Lube?

Just in case we do require it, if there is something that comes up that we can do something to mitigate any kind of visual effects or issues. Because I know in the past we have had some considerations and concerns about visual impacts for drive-through facilities, so.

That answer your questions?

That answered my question. Did I like the answer?

All right, this does require a public hearing. So we'll now open a public hearing. Anybody who wants to speak on this, please come forward, state your name for the record, write your name for the record on the sheet that's on the podium. The public's welcome to come up. Seeing nobody approached the podium, I'll close the public hearing and bring this back to the commission for further consideration, questions, or motions, or any questions for the applicant.

Mr.

Chair, I'll make a motion.

more about wordsmithing. It's about your landscaping recommendation. I'm struggling with it, too, a little bit, like Commissioner Anderson is. Would it cause you or the applicant heartburn if we played that? Because that's a very open-ended sentence, and there's nothing really there that I don't ever want an applicant to be able to come back to us and say we weren't consistent in how we do these things. And his example of Jiffy Lube is a really good one to me. Is it possible or going to be OK if we tighten that sentence up a little bit? Or even put in some verbiage like at staff's discretion or something along those lines.

I mean, I'm absolutely open to any kind of changes you guys feel would be necessary for a condition or even if you want the condition to remain. However, whatever you feel appropriate, you guys are the decision-making body, so.

I think if we went back to why would we want the landscaping there, right? What are we trying to mitigate? The only thing I can remember from the past is like the headlights turning, crossing the lanes of traffic. And we don't know the elevations that was in the packet. It doesn't really show elevations. So kind of narrow it down because in my mind, that would be the only thing that we would be mitigating. It would be turning into, into oncoming, the headlights would go into oncoming lanes. So, if it's needed, like for that specific instance, would that tighten it up enough?

I mean, that would be as consistent as we have been.

If I could just offer a little bit of insight. The reason why we as staff tend to encourage landscaping for screening purposes is we've had some situations where drive-through aisles aren't very pleasing to behold. A good example of that would be the McDonald's and how that one is currently arranged. And we just want to make things more aesthetically pleasing, especially for those who are passing by the facility, passing by the site. That's really the impetus on a site like this is we're just trying to uphold some aesthetic standards to

Make it look nice. I don't think anybody here has an issue with that, especially if it's kind of in our gateway.

As far as mitigating serious impacts, Anna and I both agree that there's probably not any serious impacts resulting from this facility other than just keeping it looking nice from the public right-of-way.

But that goes back to different standards for one business versus another.

And Jiffy Lube has been established there for a long time. And so zoning does change. The ordinance does change over the years. And standards will be different.

The zoning has changed here.

I have a question maybe for Mr. Johnson. It seems like in some of our past trainings, it's the only thing we can mitigate is a detrimental condition. Is aesthetics part of that?

I think aesthetics can be. I mean, it has to be the least restrictive way to mitigate it. But aesthetics can be considered. I would point to it is kind of an odd situation where we've got Jiffy Lube we're looking at, but that's been around for 20 plus years. Do we now keep every standard as the Jiffy Lube standard?

It's a fair question, but... I think this for me is more of like a learning, trying to figure it out as we go, not necessarily tied to the specific, for me anyway, it's just...

I'm going to just show something. I just think part, it's an oil change place, so part of what you're going to try and screen and hide is stuff that has to do with storing their waste oil somewhere behind a screened area, that kind of thing that would look bad too in that area. So I would think that you'd want to have something for that too. I mean, this covers it the way they have it, but it does leave it wide open to lots of discretion, but maybe that's okay.

That makes sense, too, because if they have oil tanks on the outside, maybe landscaping's not enough. Maybe they need a fence around it or something, you know. Right, yeah.

If that ends up being come up during your cycle, I know you do well enough.

And I would think that would come up then, but do you guys need to have that as part of your approval? I'm not sure.

Paint those tanks day glow orange and yellow.

This is Mitch, the applicant. First of all, thanks for y'all's time. We do have our used oil tanks are contained inside the building, and then our bulk oil tanks, everything's contained inside the area of the building.

Any other questions?

Motions? Just my comment, I think the landscaping should only be there to restrict the headlights versus making .

I think we can tie that to a tangible goal. What I look at, I find oil change, anything automotive, beautiful. You probably don't. I think to tie it a little bit tighter,

And then one comment just for the headlights. So these vehicles will be exiting from the, they're going to be coming in the west side of the building. They'll exit the east side and then they're going to turn right going southbound. So that would be going parallel with traffic.

Another point for consider for the Planning Commission, if you believe it's unnecessary,

Remove it from the conditions.

You have the authority as the commission to do that.

And that would be my recommendation.

Kelly, I don't necessarily disagree, but I am sensitive to the aesthetic look of what comes into town, whether it's this place or Jack in the Box or whatever.

And it is a brand new development. I mean, it's kind of the gateway jewel of the city at this point in time. And so that's something we want to be considerate of as well.

I just don't think there should be two different standards. Maybe we need to come up with a standard.

But that's not our gig. No. Right. Mr. Chair, I move we approve the conditional use permit request by Mitch Vandegutte. Forgive me for butchering that. Representing Wildcat T10 LLC to authorize an automobile service and repair an accessory drive-through facility for Take 5 oil, lot 14 at the peak at Compass Point Commercial Subdivision, application number 202-6049, based on findings subject to the conditions listed in the staff report dated July 16, 2026. To include the additional landscaping screening or site design improvements may be required to mitigate visual impacts as determined by staff. Emphasis on visual impacts.

Okay, we have a motion for approval from Commissioner Sloan. Do we have a second?

I'll second.

From Commissioner Hammer. I didn't hear where it come from. That one, okay, we'll take it to a vote. Commissioner Hamner? Aye. Commissioner Sloan? Aye. Commissioner Faircloth?

Aye.

Commissioner Jensen? Aye. Commissioner Anderson?

Aye.

I am Commissioner Proctor, and I also vote aye. That passes six to nothing. Next item on our agenda is our city council reports.

I want you up front. No, I'm just kidding. I have two minutes to our adjourn time.

Gosh, we had a PAC meeting the other night. Andrew had us busy. We had, gosh, how many things on the agenda? It's two pages. At least 20.

We did it in six minutes, but I mean.

We beat your record. Yeah, I wish we didn't really do that. One of the things that I think got talked about in here was there's 4.1 acres at 1280 North and 200 East that we approved to change from medium density residential to light industrial. We did talk about that in here, didn't we? So that did get approved. Aside from that, there was a lot of approvals for things. But I think that was the one that stood out that you guys would recognize and know about. We did have some I thought was exciting. I think you guys would have all liked it. Andrew did get up and present in the work group meeting about it. what would you call it, visual appearance?

Architectural standards. Architectural standards.

And so that's going to be a fun one as that kind of starts to go through. I'm sure it will come here as well, right? So that's something you've got to look forward to talking about. You were a little stressed out there for a minute. No, I still am. But I think this will be something interesting for all of us to watch. What do we want to see in the city? What do we want it to look like when you come here? When Andrew started to talk about it, I had pictures in my head of Midway and things like that. It would be cool if everybody pulled into Twilla and said, wow, I'm in Twilla. So that drive-through might be the ticket, I don't know. So, but that's all I've got tonight, but it's fun stuff coming up. Thanks, Chair.

Thanks.

Thank you, Councilman. Our next agenda is review and decision on our minutes from the July 8th, 2026 Planning Commission. Any changes or anything?

They were also moved to approve.

I have a motion from Commissioner Sloan to approve the minutes from July 8th. I'll second. And a second from Commissioner Chenson. Take it to a vote. Commissioner Hamner. Aye. Commissioner Jensen? Aye. Commissioner Anderson? Aye. I'm Commissioner Proctor. I also vote aye. That passes six to nothing. Our last item is to adjourn.

Could I, before we do that, just ask staff, because Kelly and I are on the same boat here, and I think we're both goofy left-brained people that think that the things ought to be a little narrowly focused, knowing you guys don't have anything else to do. As you're already tearing into the design standards for commercial, would it be too much to ask that we add a section on what we just discussed? Or is there too much interpretation over there? And I think that's what's bugging me, and I think it's what's bugging Kelly. We don't have a problem with the project. I don't want to speak for Kelly. But I also have a problem with inconsistency. And would it make your life easier or our life easier to be able to drill down on that a little bit more?

Design standards for drive-through uses in our architectural standards? Is that what you're referring to?

Not necessarily for the structure. You're already doing that. But for what we're talking about tonight as far as landscaping and stuff like that.

Absolutely. In fact, after I presented it to the council, I remember thinking to myself, this would be a good opportunity to throw some standards for our drive-throughs. I have no problem with that. I think it's a pretty simple code. I think so too. Everything that I've been trying to do with these architectural standards is maintain simplicity and flexibility, but also just to codify the minimum standard that we want to have for Tooele City. And I actually remember thinking this is a good opportunity to codify some drive-through screening standards if we want to go that way. So I have no problem with that.

Does that work for you? I just don't want tons of requirements that causes a business to take a second look and say, oh, maybe I don't want to build into it.

Well, and I asked during the presentation for the design standards, I asked another member of staff if this was going to cause grief for them, and he didn't think so. Not this specific, but the design standards themselves. In most cases, other than... We'll use McDonald's as an example. Somebody's built a brand for 60 years and knows what works for them. I don't want to screw with them. I grew up in Park City, and I remember what happened when 7-Eleven came to town. Right. I can't believe it's even open yet. That was 1980. So I don't want to make them overly restrictive, but again, being sensitive... But there should be some minimum standards.

If you could put enough trees around them, I could lose weight. I drive down the road, I see the drive-thru and I get hungry. Not at the oil change places. We know you don't change your oil.

Thanks, Andrew. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Can I make a comment on that? Is that OK? Yes, sir, Chair. So I agree with what you guys are saying. And I know that we don't have standards for the drive-through facilities. But I think we have to remember what we're doing is a conditional use permit and a standard on something that's where they're all a little bit different. They might not all need trees and bushes. And that could be also restrictive. It's really hard to legislate your way into prosperity, in my opinion. So I like the flexibility. Not that we shouldn't have standards and stuff, but I just hate to make people do something that there's absolutely no need to. A minimum standard.

And that's the fun stuff we get to talk about when I bring it to you for your guys to make your recommendations. It'll be fun, just like Councilman Gossett said. This will be a fun one.

Make every place look like the jack-in-the-box and life will be good. Except for Mr. Gossett.

Move to adjourn, Mr. Chairman. So be it.

We're adjourned.