Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, we'll go ahead and get this to the city planning commission meeting to order this Wednesday, August 12th at the hour 7 p.m. here in city council chambers. First item on our agenda tonight is our pledge of allegiance. If you'll all please rise, remove your hats.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one

Just a quick note real quick before we get started 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 Tooele City Planning Commission meetings. Tooele City collects fees only at the time of application submittal. Tuila City will never ask for funds to be sent over wire transfer. Legitimate Tuila City emails always end with tuilacity.gov. If you receive a request requiring you pay additional fees for an application in an email that does not end in tuilacity.gov after your application has been submitted, this is fraud. If you receive such a request, please contact Tuila City Community Development Department immediately. Number two on our agenda tonight is our roll call. Commissioner Hammer?

Here.

Commissioner Sloan? Here. Commissioner Proctor? Here. Commissioner Linford? Here. Commissioner Jensen? Here. Commissioner Anderson? Here. Please recognize Commissioner Faircloth. I am Chairman Hamilton. I am also here. Please recognize Council Member Hanson, staff members, Ms. Young, Mr. Hanson, Mr. Agard, Ms. Anglin, and Mr. Johnson over there.

And also, Councilman Gossett asked to be excused. He got sick at the last minute.

No, that's no fun. Thank you. We appreciate that. We'll call him excused. We don't want him getting us sick. Number three on our agenda tonight is a public hearing to consider a conditional use permit request by Matthew Claussen to authorize a detached accessory structure that exceeds the 8% maximum lock coverage restriction in the R17 zoning district located at approximately 346 East, 200 South. Give Ms. England just a moment here and then she'll present to us.

Hi, commissioners. Thank you for being here tonight. as a request for a conditional use permit to allow a detached accessory structure to exceed the 8% lot coverage and limitation for detached accessory structures. The property is located at 346 East, 200 South in the R17 residential zone. The CUP is needed specifically because the detached accessory structure will occupy 17.2% of the lot, all accessory structures combined. The overall property coverage will remain below the 35% maximum allowed in the R17 zone. The project is proposing to remove a shed that is non-complying because of its location, and the proposal replaces it with a structure that will comply with the applicable setbacks and separation requirements. Staff reviewed the proposed location and found that the new shed will meet the applicable setbacks and separation requirements and all utility easement requirements. Staff also reviewed aerial imagery and found that the detached garage and accessory structures of varying sizes, various sizes are common in the older neighborhood. The garage and proposed shed will total 1,276 square feet, or approximately the 17.2% of the lot. While this exceeds the 8% accessory structure limitation, the total lot coverage, again, will still remain below the 35% maximum allowed. Staff does not anticipate significant adverse impacts to surrounding properties. The proposed shed meets the applicable setbacks and separation requirements and actually replaces an existing shed that is currently non-complying due to its location. The primary potential concern identified by staff is ensuring that future construction does not exceed the scope of what the Commission approves. Levitine detached accessory structure coverage to the 17.2% addresses that concern. Staff therefore recommends approval subject to that condition and that of the they get all the building permits and and inspections that are required so Any questions bring this back to the Commission for questions comments concerns?

Pretty straightforward This one does require a public hearing So I'll go ahead and open the public hearing now if you'd like to speak to this particular item Please approach the podium state your name for the record and then write your name for the record Seeing no one approach, I'll go ahead and close the public hearing, bring this back to the commission for further action. Mr.

Chair, I'd like to make a motion. Commissioner Linford, go ahead. I move we approve the conditional use permit request by Matthew Claussen for the purpose of permitting a detached accessory structure to exceed the 8% total lock coverage restrictions, application number 2026054, based on the findings and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report dated August 5th, 2026.

I have a motion to approve from Commissioner Linford. Do I have a second?

I'll second.

A second from Commissioner Anderson. Any discussion before we take this to a vote? Commissioner Hammer, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Sloan? Aye. Commissioner Proctor? Aye. Commissioner Linford? Aye. Commissioner Jensen? Aye. Commissioner Anderson?

Aye.

I am Chairman Hamilton. I also vote aye. That one passes seven to zero.

Mr. Chairman, can I ask a quick question? Yes, Commissioner Sloan. Kind of tangential to that. That 8% limit has been in effect for as long as I can remember. With the 35% total coverage limit, is that still, especially where we're trying to get people to cut down on landscaping and things like that, is it time to maybe revisit the 8%, keep the 35% where it is, but see if we can do something with the 8%, maybe give some people some more latitude to do things besides plant grass?

If that's something that the commission would like us to look at, we can definitely look into that and see what other cities and the like do as far as what their accessory building limitations are.

I admit I have a conflict. I've got a whole back end of a too big lot that I would love to do something with, but it'll probably put me over 8%. It won't touch 35%, but in the meantime, I've got a landscape.

Yeah.

Yeah, something we can look into for sure. All right, brings us to number four on our agenda tonight is a public hearing and recommendation. This is on a proposed text amendment request by Perry Homes.

Are the 60-acre property highlighted in red? I think it consists of three individual parcels of record.

But for the way the ordinance is written, that would consist of one parcel? Because that's the way I understood it when we talked about it. Does that make sense what I'm saying?

Right.

These indicate the areas that they want to include in their CSD application.

Just removing the includes not more than three parcels and. And then.

Tractive land.

Oh yeah, change the word parcel to geographical tract or whatever's appropriate there.

Perfect. We've got a positive recommendation from Commissioner Sloan to remove the includes not more than three parcels and each parcel and just including geographical track or whatever word works perfectly for Mr. Johnson down there.

That's what Mr. Johnson's job is.

We make him stay out there.

No, I'll second that.

Is that everything for that motion, Commissioner Sloan? I certainly hope so. Okay. I second. Second from Commissioner Proctor. Any discussion before we take this to a vote? Commissioner Hammer, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Sloan? Aye. Commissioner Proctor? Aye. Commissioner Linford? Aye. Commissioner Jensen? Aye. Commissioner Anderson?

Aye.

I'm Chairman Hamilton. I also vote aye. That one passes seven to zero. Great discussion. Thank you guys on that one. Cleaning up our books as we speak. Number five on our agenda tonight is a public hearing and recommendation on a proposed partial street vacation of 20-foot strip of public right-of-way along the southern portion of Utah Avenue, extending approximately 738 linear feet between the railroad crossing to the west and 1100 west intersection to the east, which would reduce the existing right-of-way width of Utah Avenue from approximately 109 feet to approximately 89 feet. Ms. England.

Yes, the the request is to vacate the 20-foot strip of excess right-of-way along the south side of Utah Avenue The city supports the reduction because the railroad crossing to the west will not be expanded Meaning this additional right-of-way is not anticipated to be needed for future roadway improvement It is also just going to join the property that is to the south there as well The primary issue raised during the noticing was Einbridge's existing gas line. They had some questions about what their utility easement looks like there. However, the proposed ordinance specifically reserves a perpetual public utility easement over the vacated area, protecting existing and future utilities. Staff has not identified any impact to transportation, emergency access, or other public functions with this right-of-way vacation. Based on the statutory criteria, staff finds that there is a good cause for the vacation and that neither the public interest nor any person will be materially injured. Staff recommends that City Council and Planning Commission approve the ordinance. So and if you have any other questions, I'm here and so is Paul if you have some questions specifically about Utah Avenue Okay, perfect.

Let's bring us back to the Commission for questions for staff Not seeing any might be good thing

We've got to ask Paul a question at some point. He stayed here.

He stayed here just for this. I know. I guarantee it. Anybody have a difficult question for Mr. Hanson? All right. Well, no discussion on this item. I'll entertain a motion. Oh, yes, you are right. Absolutely. Thank you, Ms. Young. I appreciate that. This item does require a public hearing, so I'll go ahead and open the public hearing now. If you'd like to speak to this particular item, please approach the podium, state your name for the record, and then write your name for the record. Seeing no one approach, I'll go ahead and close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission for further action.

I'll make a motion.

Commissioner Jansen, go ahead.

I move that we forward a positive recommendee Recommendation to the City Council for approval of ordinance number 2026-22 vacating a 20-foot portion of the Utah Avenue public right-of-way extending approximately 738 lineal feet between 1100 West and the railroad tracks. Application number 2026-0252 based on the findings contained in the staff report dated August 5th, 2026.

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

I'll second.

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

Aye.

Commissioner Sloan? Aye. Commissioner Proctor? Aye. Commissioner Linford? Aye. Commissioner Jensen? Aye. Commissioner Anderson?

Aye.

I'm Chairman Hamilton. I also vote aye. That is a positive recommendation, seven to zero, heading up to the City Council. moves us onto number six on our agenda which is another public hearing and recommendation on the proposed amendments to twilla city code title seven uniform zoning code of twilla city by adapting by adopting chapter eleven c design standards commercial establishing architectural standards for commercial development in twilla city's commercial industrial and mixed used zoning districts mister agar thank you commissioners i've been working on this ordinance

little bit here a little bit there over the past couple of years and Now that my city planners coming online I've had more time to to dive into some of these nagging projects that I've been wanting to get to you And one of those has been the architectural design standards for commercial zoning That actually is an incorrect heading there. It's not for commercial zoning districts. It's for commercial development and I'll explain why I Currently, Tula City does not have any architectural design standards for development in commercial zoning districts at all. There's just nothing there. So any commercial development can build any type of building they want to without regard to building appearance from public rights of way, building appearance from residential neighborhoods, building appearance at entrance points into the city, Location and appearance of dumpster and trash enclosures location and screening of rooftop and wall mounted mechanical equipment and the appearance of commercial related accessory structures So what we've done and the mayor's has encouraged me to move this through the process is we've written a new ordinance to try and set or create some architectural standards now I do want to state that the intent of this ordinance is not to make development more onerous for developers. It is to basically lock in that which we're already getting from developers. So when putting this ordinance together, I spent a lot of time doing a visual inventory of both newer structures in the city as well as structures that have been here for a while and have incorporated what they put on their buildings into what this ordinance requires. We're getting large enough as a city that it might be a good idea to preserve what we've got. And enough people are coming into the city now that we're starting to receive feedback from the public, and they want to keep the city looking well. So that's the purpose behind this. It isn't to make development more difficult. It's just to maintain what we're getting. And I think, for the most part, what we're seeing in Tooele is being well done. I think the architecture for the new buildings looks good. And what you're seeing constructed out there would be permissible easily under this code. So I just want to make sure the Planning Commission is aware of that. It's not my intention to design a building. It's not my intention to be an architect or to play an architect on TV. I'm not an architect, a landscape architect, but I'm not a building architect, and I don't want to be one. Too much math. So let's just dive into what the code says and what we're doing, and then get some feedback from you and see what you think. So as I mentioned, we're proposing a new code. We're proposing Title VII, Chapter 11C. We have Title VII, Chapter 11B, which is multifamily design standards. And we have, or excuse me, Chapter 11A is multifamily, and then 11B is single family standards. So we just added this right behind for commercial standards. The first time the first paragraph here is applicability and basically it states that the standards of this ordinance shall apply to all exterior facades Open to a public view from the public right-of-way public space adjacent residential dwelling or future residential area I refer to this as four-sided architecture So if a building is being proposed in an area where there's a lot of visibility they need to give equal treatment to the visible sides as they would to the front of the building and A good example of this is the Allen's Flooring building when you're coming over the viaduct. You'll note that the front of that building is very nice. It was well designed. But the most visible facade, the north side, is just a corrugated metal wall. Under this ordinance, they would have had to put the same treatment on the side of the building, the visible side, as they would on the front. Going back to just not applying just to commercial zones, the applicability paragraph refers to the GCNC, RC, RD zones. Those are the commercial zones, but the RD is the research and development. But it also requires development in the industrial service and light industrial to comply with the requirements, the standards of this chapter. And the reason being is those two industrial zones allow a lot of retail Professional office and those types of commercial activities and much we have two of those zones immediately Jason to SR 36 in a very high visible location So I wanted to make sure these standards applied to those two zones as well And then as well as the mixed-use general and the mixed-use Broadway zones those two zones allow pretty much every commercial activity you're going to get in the general commercial zone and And we're seeing a lot of commercial development in the mixed-use zoning districts. And so I wanted to make sure that these standards apply to those as well. And then section number two there, it defines what is a renovation. Just so when someone comes in, we can have a pretty clear standard as to what is a renovation and what isn't. The second paragraph section 2 is bulk. This is just referring to Breaking up an architectural wall with some elements So you don't have a solid wall of block or a solid wall of stucco and it just kind of explains some of the things that they could use to do that as Well as number five other architectural features that satisfy this requirement So we're trying to avoid a solid wall of one material Break it up And this is kind of an intention of what we would like to see in regards to how you can shift wall facades. You can use columns, you can use arches, you can use cantilevered spaces and so forth to provide a little architectural variety to a wall facade. Section 3 is the roofline. Basically this ordinance, this section would just try to break up a long roofline. A good example of this is the retail building that you see where the Millie Subs and the Bald Guys Pizza is. Very long building, very long roofline. There's no variation in the height there. We just want to make sure that those are broken up. And here are some examples of what we're trying to accomplish with this ordinance. You'll notice that most of the buildings in Tooele City don't have a problem with that. Those roof lines are broken up with decorative parapets and so forth. Exterior building materials, we want to provide plenty of flexibility. So in this case, in the ordinance, it requires more than two, but no more than five. We don't want the buildings to get too busy. But it also talks about the colors and the maximum amount of one material you could have on the building facade. And again, this is what we're intending, what we believe the code would yield for us, very similar to what we're already getting here in the city in regards to architectural design. And it provides plenty of flexibility for an architect to do as they desire with the building, but maintains a minimum standard. Section five is prohibited materials. There's a list of materials that are not permitted as anything other than Minor minor decorative elements some of those things are vinyl aluminum siding wood Pattern stucco as a masonry substitute precast cement panel walls and so forth. I We do not have anything in our code currently that requires any screening of mechanical equipment. So a lot of times you'll see a very nice building with a very large air cooling system on top of it or a very large facility next to the building or even hanging on the wall. And what we would like to see is something that requires some screening of these mechanical equipment. It can be a lattice fence, a parapet wall, or maybe even an architectural fence on top of the building. Just something to give a little more screening appearance to these mechanical equipments and maintain the visual appeal of the building itself. Section 7 dumpsters and trash enclosures. We do not have any language in our code concerning dumpsters and trash enclosures for commercial properties and Paul and I and I'm sure Anna as she gets into these reviews. We are constantly dealing with where they're putting these trash enclosures the ordinance basically requires them to be located as far as possible from the public right-of-way and to be constructed or painted of materials that look like the building and It also requires a solid metal or vinyl enclosure gate. We don't want a chain link fence. Dumpster enclosures aren't necessarily the greatest things to look at, so we'd like to have those screened as much as possible. And this is what the intent of the ordinance would be, something of that nature. And then Section 8, Accessory Drive-Thru Facilities. This is a section I just recently added based upon what I heard from the Planning Commission last time. Might as well have some language in there regarding the screening of drive-thru facilities, where the drive-thru is located between the building and the public right-of-way. And what my intent is, is this is the MoBetas. And I was always quite pleased with how they did their landscaping. They've got a mix of berms, boulders, and plantings in there. And it offers some screening to that drive-through. And I think that's the intent of what we're trying to get to with this code. Commercial accessory structures. We do have a lot of businesses that utilize commercial accessory structures and this ordinance would require these structures to either be constructed of material similar or complementary to the main structure or painted a color that is similar to the main structure so that it's not something that stands out like a sore thumb. It also talks about shipping containers that they be stored behind the main building in locations that cannot be viewed from public rights-of-way. or residential districts and shall be painted a color that is similar or complementary to the main commercial structure it is associated with. So it doesn't prohibit them, it gives us a little more teeth in regards to where they can put them, and hopefully they'll paint them to complement the building so they don't stand out. As always, there will be disagreements between staff and a developer. In that case, I wanted to have a mechanism for an appeal. There could also be a situation where a new exterior material is brought to our attention that is not addressed in the code. So basically, they could submit an application to me, and then we would bring it to the Planning Commission and let you guys be the judge as to whether or not it meets community standards. And thank you to the city attorney for providing this language for me. It's very helpful. And then the final section, number 11, failure to act. It just states that if they do not comply with the requirements of the section, they shall not receive site plan design review. We want to make sure the ordinance does have some teeth in regards to enforceability. So that's what we're proposing. I had a lot of fun working on it. I'm having fun talking about it with you. If you have any questions, if you have any feedback, let me know.

Alright, let's bring this back to the commission. I do have one quick one while we're here, and this has to do with our downtown district. Going to renovate a building here, I don't want to put modern stuff on an old building, so that last little application to appeal is actually helpful in that sense, but I'm not sure that that would apply to a downtown overlay, would it?

The ordinance actually does not mention the downtown overlay, so I believe it would as it's currently structured. However, given what I see in the downtown overlay, I don't think there'd be any compliance issues with the code requires.

Even if we were to fix a facade or anything like that?

I don't think you'd have any problem. Perfect. Now, if you wanted, if there's something you are concerned, we could add, you could recommend that we add an exemption for the downtown overlay. It could be very simple as that. I'm happy to do that for you. I do know that Councilman Gossett mentioned the same thing in our work session with the council. So I wanted to bring it to you guys first before I tinkered with that, but I don't think you're gonna have any problems. There's enough flexibility in the code there that we can work with you.

And that's kind of what I assume. There's the intentions to make it look nice, and of course I agree with that wholeheartedly, but I'm not going to take a historic building and put modern stuff on the front of it. We want to get it back to historical looking, of course, so perfect.

And typically historical buildings have a lot more arches and coins and things of that nature in the buildings that I don't think you'd have a problem.

If you're doing it the right way, absolutely, yes. It should break up a lot of it, but yeah, perfect.

But if that's a concern, let's add that to the code. I don't have a problem with that.

I heard more.

Questions over here coming up? Commissioner Proctor? Oh, just some comments. Thank you for adding the drive-thru accessory and also the shipping containers. Don't need a rusted container sitting out next to a nice building.

Yeah, we have a couple in the city that are eyesores. That was one of the things I really wanted to tackle with this.

Commissioner Sloan. Just since I seem to be in a wordsmithing mood tonight, I do love having the accessory drive-thru stuff in there, and I love what Movedas did with it. My concern is that in that section, using the word screen without quantifying it, Whereas prior sections, you screen the HVAC and you screen the dumpsters to get them completely out of sight. Any concern that this is obviously not that, well, that's a good-looking driving approach. And I think that's what we want to see, if I'm reading the room right. Do we need to be any more careful with the verbiage? I mean, is somebody going to come in and say, okay, especially as I read down what's allowed to do, Perhaps we use something like to help obscure. And I understand that's as nitpicky as it is, but... For example, you've got decorative masonry or vinyl fencing panels. Okay, those are going to be six feet tall. So it can be a little bit, you know, if we put a six-foot fence between the store and the driveway, that's going to defeat the purpose of all the work that you've done here. And it may be perfectly okay. I'm just asking the question so we don't have to come back and explain to an applicant.

I had a picture I was going to put in the presentation, and I didn't put it in there, and I wish I did. It was a drive-through use in Riverton that I approved where they used three-foot concrete masonry fence panels to screen it. And they jogged them around. They had landscaping. It looked really nice. Maybe we could do something where we put the height of the fencing panels to three feet.

Yeah, and that's going to... Or something of that nature. And that's kind of where I'm getting at. I think we just... We can get exactly where you want to go.

The intent wasn't to have six-foot fencing.

No, and I understood that, but we're using the word screen interchangeably in three different sections. The reason for screening the other two is very obvious. We don't want people seeing them. That's not the case here. I know that's not the case here. If there's not a better adjective, then leave it. We'll figure it out, especially since Planning Commission's going to have approval over a lot of these goofy things anyway.

Well, let me tinker with that. I'm sure I come up with something that's... Because we're not going to fully obscure all those cars that are lining up in there. The purpose is to really just soften it and help hide it, not to completely screen it.

Take out screen and put utilize to help obscure it, not screen it.

Yeah, I think that's doable. No problem with that.

Any other questions for me? Commissioner Anderson has one.

Well, actually, I have a couple of things. First, I want to say thank you because I can tell that you've put a lot of work into this, and I appreciate that. I do have questions about how some of these numbers were arrived at. For instance, 25% of the exterior realty facade, and then in 11C1, and then in 11C4, the 75%. No more than 75% of any building shall consist of one material. Where did those numbers come from? Why? What's the thought process?

Okay. In regards to number four, I'll let the city attorney do the section one. He's the one that proposed that one. But as far as section four, one of the rules of thumbs in planning is plagiarizing. We go to other city codes, and we look to see what other cities have done. And honestly, I didn't come up with 75%. I brought that over from Riverton. And it seemed to work well. It seemed like it was a large enough number that didn't overwhelm the exterior with one material. And that's where that number came from.

So my concern is that we're putting a lot of restrictions on businesses that have a specific look. For instance, should we ever get an Ikea out here? They couldn't come in here and build their building the way their buildings look in this code. And would you consider the bright yellow Ikea neon? which would be prohibited under this code. Could Costco come out here in city limits and build their buildings? Don't start that rumor.

I'm not going to start a rumor. Too late.

I mean, it's a question. It's gone. It's out there. And I think that that's, they have a very specific look. We're not Highland. We're not Park City.

It says right there that it may be approved as a minor. There's a corporate branding element. It says it can be approved. And that's for, like IKEA, that's their corporate branding.

Was there a question there, Kelly? I'm sorry.

Yeah, their question.

Can I add on to that number four? Because I had a question about that, too. Oh, absolutely. Please. I don't want to cut you off, though. No. So on the 75%, and I might be reading it wrong, but I mean, Twilla City Hall is a pretty building to me. But the front, the side, it's more than 75% brick. This building, there's not. And Tate Mortgage, there's a slew of them all up and down Main Street, especially in the old part. The project that we did up on Main Street, me and my wife, that brick house, there's not more than 75%, there's more than 75% of other product on it, but it's on the back corner. That front facade's all brick, the side's all brick. And to me, it looks really good. But I mean, and the same with Tyson, I would hate to have to put something else on there. You know, it's a hundred year old brick. We went through a lot of work to restore it. And then also with that same on the 75%, it says any, what kind of what triggers it, applicability. a physical modification to an existing structure that alters more than 25% of any exterior building facade. So would that include painting or some of the stuff downtown? If they took off some of the old vinyl, weird things that they put on over the years to get it back to brick? I mean, the way I'm reading it, you wouldn't be able to do that, and that seems kind of counterintuitive. Absolutely.

So painting wouldn't be considered a renovation? It's just a maintenance. We would defer to building code in regards to what the building code is going to require for a renovation. And typically painting and exterior maintenance does not require building permits. So we would defer to that in that case.

All right. And then this is like structural alteration as well. So if we decided to put a door in, Downtown or somebody did a downtown building. That's a structural right, you know So does that mean they have to add 25% of something else if it's a whole brick building or well?

Change the roof line if it's longer than 50 feet I mean, it's just altering a door wouldn't take more than 25% of the facade exterior so it would it would be a significant enough renovation that he'd be coming in for building permits and

Well, I mean, I've put some doors in buildings and you have to have it engineered and the city has to look at it because you have to, you know, put in beam or the header for the load and, you know, lentils for brick and that does require a permit. I'm not trying to get nitpicky because I think you're more than fair and you guys do a great job. I don't know when you're planning on retiring. We might get somebody in here that just reads it for what it is. That's the kind of thing that worries me is down the road.

It's not perfect. There's going to be exceptions and outliers to everything and every code that we propose. The question you have to ask is if you don't like the 75% limitation, remove it.

Yeah, but I see we don't want an all-white stucco front. So I appreciate the last part of it, too, where people can come and ask for, like, hey, this is what's going on. Let's be realistic.

Yeah, and that's one of the reasons I put that in there is because there are going to be outliers to the standard requirements and things that just don't have the same application. And so that's why that's in there.

Will Commissioner Henderson finish his thought? Sorry.

No, I'm good. You good? Okay. Commissioner Linford. So one of the thoughts that comes with the 75% of one color is, and this is an overlap between general arts with photography, film, cinema, et cetera, and it overlaps into architectural as well. If you go out and buy yourself a nice camera, or even if you have the little grid system on your phone, The rule of thumb is to get the item that you're wanting, it needs to be zoomed in enough to connect three dots in order for the picture to actually be what you want it to be. Three out of the four is 75%. That's something that I've noticed overlaps a lot. Realistically, the way that this is written, yes, IKEA could come out. Costco could come out. Costco has multiple different panels. They have the red there, and then they have the bottom half, which it would, from what I've seen those businesses do, I don't see any conflict that would deter them away where they would read this and be like, oh, we can't come to Tooele. And I mean, even Best Buy Target, these are all places that historically from an arts perspective still abide by 75%. The only thought that I would have to maybe clarify this further, would be of a visible side. I mean, pretty much every building I've ever seen has at least one bland wall. It's typically the least visible from public. Where you're bringing up the flooring where the one side that's not the front of the building doesn't look so great, okay. I would agree that maybe defining that a little bit better in this area for exterior building materials, identifying what is visible from public and what's really not. If it's backed up against the mountain, probably not a big deal. That would be the only clarification that I would ask to be added is just defining, because to say that 75% all the way around, well, every building has an ugly side in my opinion, so. Gotcha. Makes sense. Not so much a question, but more of just a clarifying or my thoughts on this. The question I did have, though, is a few meetings back when we were doing the auto repair, I think it's Awesome Auto Repair on 400 North in Maine. So that was in a commercial area, but there was residential in the commercial area. So my question is, do we have any commercial buildings that are in residential areas? And the reason I would ask is it's not, residential, commercial buildings and residential isn't itemized in your different categories of areas. And so where that was a situation where we had residential buildings inside a commercial zone, my only question is, are there any commercial buildings that I could not be aware of that are in residential zones that could be pretty much exempt from this because it's not listed?

I'm not gonna say there's not. This is to Willa Why I bring it up there are all kinds of oddities and little strange things into will so I'm not gonna say there's not What I am gonna say is I'm not concerned about those because if there are commercial businesses in residential zones They fall under a different category. They fall under what we call legally non-conforming uses They fall under an entirely entirely different. They mean they are differently regulated than a standard use. So I I don't have much concern about that situation, if there are any.

So even those areas, if they wanted to renovate or do something different, they would go through a completely different process that would be nonconforming still to this, correct?

They would be subject to Tooele City Code 7-3 nonconforming uses, which permits them to maintain it. But a nonconforming use cannot be changed or altered. So it's, yeah, they have a different set of criteria on them. And I'm sure there's some situation where that exists in the city, but I'm not concerned with that. That's one point.

Those are going to be zoned residential anyway, not zoned what we have in this one. That's a good point.

Great, great discussion.

Anything else we can see we need to adjust to?

I have maybe just one more comment. I just have a really hard time. I understand the idea behind it, but I have a hard time telling people what they can and can't do with their building. Somebody's trying to start up a business, and they have a vision of how it could look, should look. And I know our business, I would not be able to do what we did. If this was in...

I disagree with you. I think your building would be fine.

All four sides is just hardy siding.

I think with the historical significance, that's what I'd really like to see addressed.

That was a brand new building, though. And I'm not in the downtown area.

That's the other problem. You're not in the overlay either.

So, I mean, there's a chance I could, but I don't know. I'm having a hard time with it for personal, subjective reasons. So I understand the idea behind it, though.

And I'll jump on that bandwagon, because if I wanted to live in an HOA and be told how my house and my front yard would look, I would have bought there. And this is kind of that same thing, but the city's doing it. Yeah. I get the purpose and the reason because we really should be setting up citizens to be good neighbors. Yeah. Without really penalizing them in the process.

So a little bit ago when we were doing that water usage, we just put a year date on it to say if it was before this grandfathered in, whether it's or if it's after that, it needs to be conforming. You remember that for park strips? Rather than exempting just the overlay, could you just, is there realistically a year date of building structure that could be exempt from this that could be satisfactory to everyone? Because I mean, if that's the only concern is that there are older buildings that aren't in that exempt area, well then, put a date on it and anything pre-2007, anything pre-2010, anything moving forward, because I hear both sides of it. There are buildings that we want to keep the way they are. They've given the city the character and history that they have, and they may not be exactly conforming to the standard, but I also understand the city's perspective where As we continue to grow, because we are growing at a good, healthy rate, we want to still be a place that is nice while holding our heritage. So is there a way to accomplish that from staff's perspective, where from a certain timeframe back is exempt and not just a specific geographical area? Because then if you go back to Make a change to your coffee shop. You're not worried about every little thing in this if you go to Even just because it's outside of the overlay. Yeah, so I'm if it's if it's predated then does it? Really matter per se I don't know, I know you have in here when you're defining this that you are including that it's for major renovations as well or any structural alteration and expansion. I know you've included that but To me, it almost seems like that is where a lot of these hiccups are coming from. Whereas if we just either pull that back or turn around and say, after this date, would staff have a problem with that? Would that completely ruin your proposal, I guess, would be my question. because in my head that might satisfy a lot of the questions that are being asked by the commission right now. But I also want to make sure that it doesn't feel like we're tearing your proposal to bits either. I know how much hard work you've put into this and I appreciate it.

Well, ultimately it comes down to you guys and the city council. What do you want?

What are your...

It's really easy to see the negatives of everything for me. That's hard to come up with the actual solutions, you know.

I mean, maybe we don't have architectural standards. If that's the case, let's forward a negative recommendation to the council.

Well, I think it's a good idea to have them. I just... I'm just kind of on the fence about it because I see both sides, you know. I'm not planning on building any brand new big buildings myself. So, you know, not just that it's going to affect me, but, you know.

Well, and I think what has been done really well is there is a fallback to this.

Yeah.

There is always the, if you're going to have to do this, you're going to end up putting an application in anyways. You might as well put the appeal in with it.

Yeah.

Put it all in one packet, send it up, and have the conversation. Hey. Best Buy's coming out, it's neon yellow. I understand you allow corporate branding, but is that okay? For the record, I do not know that Best Buy's coming out. I'm not starting that rumor. But for the sake of argument, yes, it's a neon color. Put it before staff. From my interpretation, what I've seen both from the public and from this commission is that when it comes to, working with the public staff is reasonable. So I don't see why having that appeal as a scapegoat wouldn't satisfy a lot of these questions as well. That's just my two cents as well, because again, if it goes past, if you wanna do more than 75%, great, put it before staff. Gonna go round robin either way. Yeah, I just...

So my notes I've got down here is maybe it is a good option to maybe table this for Andrew to take it back and redefine some things for us. We've got the exception for maybe a downtown overlay. The drive-through screen or obscure or that wordage, that verbiage maybe changed a little bit. Is 75% too much? I don't know. As you said, it's from Riverton. So is that too much for us? Is that too little? I don't know that either. Division define the visual sides of the building and then as of date when this gets approved So I've got a couple things that we want to see addressed before we approve it So is there anything else we can think of?

with With the percentages, do we need to come up with something different? Because I don't think we've given him much to talk about.

I think he would love a recommendation.

We don't like 75, but we're okay with 76 or 72.

And I thought, I agree with Andrew. I trust that he said several times that neon colors, it says in here, you can have a little bit. He talked about, well, I think Commissioner Parker Proctor, right? Getting a blank. Whatever. Said that... It already says in there that if it's your branding that you can, I mean, we referenced that already. So I think we've talked about a lot of those things. I'm not, I don't think we've decided anything on the 75%. I mean, and for him to just go back and what? Throw a different number back and bring it back and then we don't like that number either. Like, I don't think we've given him much to work with.

On that particular item, I agree.

Perhaps you just eliminate the 75% and maintain the numbers.

Like the two different material types.

Like the two or the three or five, you know. Elimination and all that stuff. Yeah.

So in there it says the roof doesn't count as a color or a product, right? I'm just thinking again subjectively. My project, I got one south-facing wall that's all brick. You know, that's all it is, is brick and windows and doors. And so there's no other product until you get to the soffit and fascia. Would that count?

You're broken up by windows and doors at that point, aren't you?

No, windows don't count. It says right in here. So I like a proper building.

Are there lintels under the wall, under the windows? Yes, there are. So that would count? So there's two materials.

Okay. All right. And not that I think you would be that nitpicky about it. And maybe I shouldn't say this in a public hearing, but your predecessor, I think he would go through, we didn't get along. And I think he would go through things with not just building, but I do a lot of other things with the city. And it felt to me like he would purposely pick things out, just like almost kind of twist it. And I don't think you would do that, Andrew, but I don't know who the next person is going to be, and that worries me because it caused a lot of strife in my life for several years.

So it worries me.

Like I said, I don't worry about you. It's the unattended things later on down the line.

Does this need a public?

This one does need a public hearing, yes.

Should we open the public hearing while we gather our thoughts and then bring it back for Andrew again and let him sit down and ponder some thoughts as well?

I'm sure this public hearing.

All right. We'll go ahead and open the public hearing on this particular item at this time at the Uniform Zoning Code of Tooele City. 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.

My name's Dave Staple, I didn't come here, but I stayed and listened to this. Builder, developer, we're actually doing the Tooele FlexPlex. Sometimes, I noticed it's in the L1, sometimes in those industrial areas, to be able to have your building work financially, it's metal. And in those zones, there's already so much of that that it's, you know, it'd be kind of weird to throw something where we all of a sudden have this architectural standard in the middle of metal buildings. But I also understand throwing a metal building in the middle of an area where it probably should have some facade and be pretty. So I guess my thought on it would be taking more of a look at what zones those standards lay in. Because it's not, if you're down in the depot and you force somebody to throw columns and arches and all kinds of stuff on that, it's going to look out of place. And also just be not, It doesn't fit in with what's already there. So thanks for your time.

No, thank you, Mr. Staple. I appreciate that.

You need a signature.

Do we have one up there? Okay, seeing no one else approach, I'll go ahead and close this public hearing and bring it back to the commission. for further discussion or action. As we said, we've stated a few things. My suggestion would more or less be giving Andrew some direction to go. If not, then either denying or approving this and moving forward. So we gather our thoughts and figure out what we want to do.

I will make a motion.

Yes, go ahead, Commissioner Linford.

I must say I really enjoy the catch-all at the end there. I move... we push forward a positive recommendation to City Council to adapt the proposed Tooele City Code Title VII Chapter 11C design standards for commercial ordinance as included in exhibit A of this report based on the following findings. Changing the verbiage of screen as a recommendation and then defining the sides as a recommendation. Ultimately, I think those are the only two things really in huge question. I think anything else falls under that. appeal process.

Okay, I've got a positive recommendation from Commissioner Linford, including the verbiage change of screen and to define the sides of the building. Do I have a second?

I'll second.

And a second from Commissioner Hammer. Any discussion before we take this to a vote?

Actually, yes, I want to go back to his comment regarding metal buildings, making it pencil and making it work. Is this actually going to affect that zone?

Maybe there's an opportunity since we're talking about... I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. Let's use Peterson as an example. Maybe there's an opportunity there to tie this to public right-of-way vision so that anybody driving up 112 is seeing kind of what we're talking about here. They can still do a lot of the things we don't want to, but once they're off of the public right-of-way, which in most cases, that's all private... in that zone for the most part. They're a little freer to do some of the things that might make that project pencil better. I don't have a problem with the motion other than, back to Commissioner Anderson's original point, I really like the This is America, and we get to build what we want to build within certain obvious standards. What we've obviously proved tonight, there are no obvious standards. But I like where some of these things went regarding the public right of way and how it looks. And that's really what got this started. was how it looks in the gateway when we come over that viaduct. And I agree with Andrew. That building is a very nice building. It looks absolutely hideous right there because of the way it was done. And that could have been corrected, I think, economics is relative when it's somebody else's money. I think something could have been done, but the gentleman's comment regarding how some of these businesses need to pencil needs to be taken into account too. Maybe the answer to that is eliminating it in industrial zones, for example. I haven't thought that through, but that's the thing that jumps out at me, is get rid of it in industrial zones. Maybe leave it in light industrial because we've got a whole bunch of gateway property out there that that probably fits under that. But if at the end of the day we're wanting our gateways, and they're mentioned specifically in the ordinance, to look good, then we do need to do something there. And I think balancing between private property rights and the look, the businesses have spent generally a lot of money trying to figure out what's the best way to look. And we'll use the examples that have been given tonight, whether it's a Costco or Ikea or whatever. They've got millions and millions and millions of dollars tied up in brand identity. I don't want them to have to appeal. I want them to come to town. Because they're going to be in a prominent place. They're going to be in the Gateway, which the Gateway keeps moving north. And so that may solve its own problem down the road. But I think maybe if I were, and I'm not necessarily talking against the motion, although maybe I am. I think that part of it and the intent of what got us here needs to be looked at a little bit more. And it's not about 75% or any of that other stuff. I think we need to give him some guidance on some of the things that concern us. Because I don't like having an applicant have to come in here and, by the way, I'm submitting this application. Here's another $2,000 check for the appeal because I know you're not going to let me do it. I want to find a way to say yes to most of these people, not no. And I think we're close. The work that's been done is awesome. I don't think we can make it perfect, but I think we can make it perfecter.

And what we're really doing here is proposing putting makeup on the city. And every woman knows that makeup, daytime makeup is different than nighttime makeup, right? I didn't know that. So does it go well in the industrial zone?

What are you wearing? My thought before we go is that this is all brand new and just like Andrew brings back to us ordinances that need to be tweaked as they find out this one is going to have to be tweaked down the road as we find out what works and what doesn't work realistically.

Historically. Historically, once you put something in code, when is the next time that code is looked at? And when is it actually brought back to tweak it? Oh, we've done it this way for 10 years, 15 years. It doesn't need to be fixed.

The residential pretty codes go back to 2006, I think.

Yeah, exactly. And I think, back to that makeup, it might be time to change that.

Question for staff. With branding, as mentioned, where they have spent millions and millions on branding, IKEA being a big blue building with bright yellow letters, would that be something that would actually need to be appealed when it falls under the branding category as the, or would that branding verbiage that you put in there be enough of a gateway for that? Just to, and I hate to beat a dead horse, but I really just want to clarify, because the way I read that area with 11C4, I would imagine that because it is their brand, big blue building, bright yellow, that is their brand. That would fall under that and it would be something that wouldn't actually need to be an appeal because it is their brand. Am I reading that the way that you intended it to be written or am I seeing something that's not quite there? the Ikea being big and blue, and then it has the yellow Ikea on it. I mean, realistically they have, I believe the one in Draper is mostly blue, has a little bit of tan and then big yellow Ikea on it. Is that something because that would actually be, that would need to be appealable? Because I don't even believe that that would exceed the 75% because they have the tan that goes about seven feet up before the blue. So.

I'm not familiar with what the buildings look like, so I can't really address

Do we want to add a condition in there about the rights of way? Or not the rights of way, the public rights of way, what we're viewing? Or do we want to continue with this motion?

This is, if I understand, this is a recommendation only, correct? Yes. You've got a motion on the table that we can vote on.

Yep.

We've got a city councilman in the room. And we've got time. Let her fly? Yeah.

Any other discussion before we... City Council can take it and then send it back and say we need all these changes.

And I can see the same kind of a discussion coming up there when it comes on, but at least we'll have your input of what you've talked about.

It'll be a lot more fun because I'm going to be sitting over there.

But anyway, either way, I can see that there needs to be more decisions about it, and I can see some changes that I agree with. One thing that I was thinking about is Weston was talking about the older buildings when you change them and there's gonna be a structural change and then you gotta adhere that older building to the new code because you're changing it enough that you need a building permit. I think there'll be some language there, because we have grandfathered stuff in the city. That could be the language that has to be there to cover that, otherwise it gets way complicated for the owner of the building. So I can see something there. That's what I was thinking about when he was talking about it anyway. Because, you know, my old buildings that I've had, you know, if I had to redo them and do it, you'd put you out of business to change it. Because you couldn't afford to do what this change requires in your building if you had to get a building and upgrade the building to meet the new standard. So that's just one of the things I can see that's a problem. I googled what blue and yellow was, though, to see what an Ikea looked like, because I couldn't remember either. But it's bright blue. Yeah. So there is that too. We do want big businesses like that to come, but this would not allow that without the appeal. So there's a lot to talk about still, I think. Whether you guys table it or whether we have a big discussion too and probably end up tabling it, I can just see that happening for now and with lots of suggestions.

But you know what? I almost would rather see them table it than us, because they'll get an opportunity to hear what we have to say. They can accept it, disregard it. That's their job. They're elected. So I don't necessarily have any heartburn with them tabling as much as I do with us tabling. They're asking us for a recommendation. And they've been known to not listen to us before.

And when Andrew brought this to us to do this, we said, yeah, let's do it. Let's figure it out because we do want. But we was more talking about not the whole city, more talking about the look of the city as people came into town. So there's that part of it too. The gateway part of it. Of course, you're on South Main Street. You're the gateway to the south side. But still, that kind of thing where we talked about the steel buildings at Peterson. Out back in the back part of Peterson, they're all... Old-government buildings are still building or somebody said still be allowed to be there In that same way in my opinion anyway, so yeah, anyway two cents from me, okay?

Okay, well we ready to take this to roll call vote then Commissioner Linford entertain the idea of adding Public right-of-way into the two things that he added screening and defining sides I

Would you be okay with changing your motion to add that?

Yes, I would. I'm just writing it down so that I remember the next time this gets brought back to us. I have no problem adding the public right away. I think the intent of carrying a motion of positive to the city council is it's going to go before them regardless if they table it. I mean, they'll probably end up taking it back to us the second time at some point down the road. and then we can revisit what their thoughts on the matter are as well. And not to add more cooks to a kitchen, but just to get maybe a different perspective than those who have been talking about it the last 50 minutes now.

All right. I have a positive recommendation from Commissioner Linford with the corrections to find a different verbiage for the word screen, define the sides of a building, And this will only apply to the public right of ways, the gateways, as we have discussed tonight. Commissioner Hammer, are you still good with that second? Yes. Okay. We're going to take this to a vote. I think we beat this dead horse enough. Commissioner Hammer, how do you vote? Aye. Commissioner Sloan? No. Commissioner Proctor? Nay. Commissioner Linford? Aye. Commissioner Jensen? No. Commissioner Anderson?

Nay.

I am Chairman Hamilton. I will also vote. No. That puts us at seven to five. So that motion does not pass. We have 12 people on this commission? Yeah. Seven to 14. It's getting late, guys. I'm glad someone can do math around here. Paul, will you get up here and do my math for me?

Two to five.

Two to five. Seven total. Thank you. Two yes, five no's. So that motion does not pass.

Mr. Chairman, could I make a motion that we table this until Andrew's got a feel for what we're trying to do here? Absolutely. I don't want to send a message to the council that we're not behind. We're close. We're really close. And let's give him an opportunity to... to resurrect the dead horse and then we'll kill it again. And I'll second that.

Do you want it as the next meeting or when he's ready for it? When he's ready.

We either have to go date certain or event certain. Do you want us to just tie that to you being comfortable? Okay, next.

Okay, I have the motion to table this particular item from Commissioner Sloan until Andrew's good and ready. Andrew's good and ready and a second from Commissioner Proctor. Any discussion on that before we take a do vote? Commissioner Hammer.

Aye.

Commissioner Sloan. Aye. Commissioner Proctor. Aye. Commissioner Linford. Aye. Commissioner Jensen. Aye. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Now I'm doing my math right. That's seven. Yes. 13 to six. 13 to six. We're good to go. All right. Yes. We'll table this one until Andrew's address the issues we've discussed tonight. And I'm sure he might uncover some more. Moves us on to number seven on our agenda tonight. This is a decision on a site plan review approval request by Larry Jacobson representing Sand Rock Development for Millennial Park Phase 2 Town Home Subdivision. A proposed 24-unit town home development on approximately 1.5 acres located at northeast corner of 400 north and 300 west in the MR16 Multifamily Residential Zoning District. Miss England, when you're ready.

yes i just wanted to let everyone know that we are having technical issues um you guys can't see my presentation so my apologies okay um this is a request to re-approve the millennial park phase two site plan the planning commission originally approved the project in december 2023 but that approval has expired. The applicant is requesting re-approval to allow development of the currently vacant property. The project provides 24 individual townhome lots, common landscape, space, a children's play area, and the required parking. One of the primary site layout considerations was the close proximity of the northern private drive to Kenwood Drive. The applicant has agreed to restrict the connection to one-way ingress and emergency access only. So staff recommends approval. The proposed development meets or exceeds the city's multifamily design standards. There were a couple of items that still needed to be addressed through engineering and public works, and that is going to also be a condition of approval. for this project is that those comments are met and that would be one thing and then everyone else or recommends approval. Staff recommendation is approval subject to the departmental additional comments. Any questions?

This brings us back to the commission for questions or comments. Yeah, we did see this before. We've approved it before. I'm sure that was a long time ago, though. We've done a lot of things since then, so.

Seems like we just saw this very recently, like two months ago.

Any questions for staff, comments, concerns? All right.

Yes, Commissioner Linford. For this particular item, I would ask for a conflict of interest as ex parte exclusion for myself from the dais. Okay. You're going to abstain then? Yeah, I'm going to abstain from this one.

Okay. Take it to a vote. Need a motion. Yes, need a motion. I'll give you a motion. Commissioner Proctor.

Here you go. I move we approve the site plan design review request by Larry Jacobson representing Sand Rock Development for Millennial Park Phase 2 application number 2025-101 based on the findings subject to the conditions listed in the staff report dated June 17th, 2026.

Can a motion to approve from Commissioner Proctor? Do I have a second?

I'll second.

A second from Commissioner Anderson. Any discussion before we take it to a vote? Commissioner Hammer, how do you vote? Aye. Commissioner Sloan? Aye. Commissioner Proctor? Aye. Commissioner Jensen? Aye. Commissioner Anderson?

Aye.

I am Chairman Hamilton. I also vote aye. Commissioner Linford has abstained. That still passes six to one.

Actually, you need to put for the minutes that he declared a conflict.

Declared a conflict, yeah. We got that. Ms. Young's taking care of us. This is not her first rodeo. I understand. She's been with us for a while now. She's got us taken care of down there. Right on. That one passes. It is approved. Moves us on to number eight on our agenda tonight is our city council reports. Councilman Hanson.

So I've missed too many meetings, but there is a couple things I just wanted to bring up. One is the data center discussion that's going around the county and the state and everything that's everybody wound up. At the last city council meeting, we voted to not allow them for now until we get down in the future and see what really happened. So there was some good discussion at the work meeting on last Wednesday's meeting. So anyway, you're aware of that. The city's not planning on building any data centers downtown anytime soon.

I hope you're not doing downtown. I will fight you. They're going to be 65% stucco, 25% metal. Perfect.

10%.

And then the other thing I was thinking about from the city council meeting, we we've talked about the property from the Masonic Temple to the depot south side of the road pretty much forever and that's finally come to fruition to where that water I think is pretty much sold to developers by now but since that Wednesday night meeting we approved that change and the property donation to the city and so forth so that happened and that's that development's not going to happen up there anymore so.

And city has a nice park.

What's that?

City has a nice park.

City has a place to build. We can build something like a park or something, which would be good someday. So see how that goes. Yeah, anyway, there is some property there. So you guys have any questions for me? Any questions for council from the commission? All right. I like it. Yep. Excellent.

All right. This moves us on to number nine on our agenda tonight. This is a review and decision on our July 22nd, 2026 planning commission meeting minutes. Are there any additions or corrections to those minutes? I'll entertain a motion.

Chair, I move that we approve the minutes from the July 22nd meeting.

Got a motion to approve from Commissioner Anderson. Do I have a second? I'll second. Second from Commissioner Proctor. Commissioner Hammer, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Sloan?

Aye.

Commissioner Linford? Aye. Commissioner Jensen? Aye. Commissioner Anderson?

Aye.

I'm Chairman Hamilton. They all look like they're in order and good to go. I will also vote aye, but I was not there. I vote aye too.

You skipped over me. I'd go right, too.

No, I thought I said proper. Frank recused himself, and Tyson just recused you. He chaired that one, so he doesn't get a vote. All right, you good? They're good? Yeah, I'm getting a little wacky. They're passed. Yes, it's getting crazy. Number nine on our agenda tonight. I will entertain a motion to adjourn. I'll make a motion. Thank you, Commissioner Linford.

We are adjourned. Thank you.