Tooele planning commission rejects land‑use change for 1 O'Clock Hill but forwards PUD rezoning to council

Tooele City Planning Commission on Wednesday recommended against a proposed land‑use map amendment that would have reclassified about 10 acres at the base of 1 O'Clock Hill from medium‑density residential to high‑density residential, while separately forwarding the developer's PUD zoning package to the city council for final action.

The commission voted 6‑1 to send a negative recommendation to the council on the land‑use change and then voted 7‑0 to forward the zoning map amendment that would establish MR‑8 PUD (multifamily) and R‑17 PUD (single‑family) designations and a proposed set of planned‑unit‑development standards for the larger parcel.

The application, presented by urban planner Jason Bull for Tooele/Tula/Tooele 90 LLC, would affect a roughly 178‑acre property on the south side of SR‑36. Staff said the land‑use map amendment under consideration applies to about 10 acres; the larger zoning request covered roughly 38 acres of the site. Paul Hansen, the city engineer, told commissioners the property is associated with about 200 acre‑feet of water credits held for previous development agreements.

Bull said the developer's current proposal would result in an overall project density of about 1.5 units per acre because most of the property would remain undeveloped or preserved. He proposed dedicating a conservation easement over a large portion of the site and adding public trails and neighborhood parks in exchange for PUD flexibility to permit cottage homes, townhomes and reduced dimensional standards.

"We're offering the conservation easement, the trail and park space as public benefits to offset requested PUD modifications," Bull said. "This is intended to provide additional housing choice while preserving the hillside behind the development."

Numerous nearby residents urged the commission to reject high‑density designation. Several speakers raised water, traffic and wildlife concerns, and many asked the city to wait for broader transportation improvements before allowing denser development.

"We're short of water. Drought conditions are real," said Rebecca Smith, who lives near Settlement Canyon Road. "We need to protect our infrastructure before we keep adding more."

Jennifer Hinton, who said she has lived in the area most of her life and holds a degree in conservation biology, described the area as prime mule deer winter habitat and said development would increase vehicle‑wildlife collisions and public safety risks.

Commission discussion referenced prior approvals: staff and the commission noted an earlier R‑17 subdivision approval and a partial final plat of eight lots at Settlement Canyon Road, but said the present applicant proposes a different development pattern and therefore first needs the land‑use change before the requested MR‑8 rezoning would be allowed.

On the land‑use motion the commission initially considered a positive recommendation; that motion failed, and the commission subsequently approved a motion to forward a negative recommendation to the city council by a 6‑1 roll call (Ayes: Commissioners Hammer, Proctor, Gossett, Hamilton, Anderson, Sloane; Nay: Commissioner Jensen). The zoning map/PUD recommendation later passed 7‑0 (Ayes: Commissioners Hammer, Proctor, Gossett, Hamilton, Jensen, Anderson, Sloane).

The packet and staff presentation note the PUD tool does not by itself change underlying uses or numeric density caps but allows negotiated reductions in design standards (setbacks, lot widths, lot coverage) in exchange for tangible public benefits such as open space and trails. The applicant's PUD materials sought reduced cottage‑lot widths (to about 40 feet), reduced setbacks, lower minimum dwelling sizes, and allowances for materials such as stucco and fiber cement on facades; the materials also proposed subdividing townhomes as individual lots rather than a single lot with attached units.

Staff advised the commission that whether the conservation easement, trails and parks constitute sufficient public benefit to justify PUD departures is a public policy decision for the commission and ultimately the council to weigh.

The commission's negative recommendation on the land‑use amendment means the city council will have the next public hearing and decision. Staff said council notice for the item is not mailed automatically; interested residents were advised to watch the council agenda (staff anticipated the item could appear on the Nov. 5 council agenda depending on scheduling).","sections":{"lede":"Tooele City Planning Commission on Wednesday recommended against a proposed land‑use map amendment that would reclassify about 10 acres at the base of 1 O'Clock Hill from medium‑ to high‑density residential, while separately forwarding a developer's PUD zoning package to the city council.","nut_graf":"Commissioners voted 6‑1 to send a negative recommendation on the land‑use change and 7‑0 to forward MR‑8 and R‑17 PUD zoning standards. The applicant says the project would trade compact housing for a large conservation easement, while residents raised water, traffic and wildlife concerns.","ending":"The city council will hold the next public hearing and final decision; staff advised residents to watch council agendas for the scheduling of that hearing."},