Providence council rejects Timberbrook rezone after residents press zoning and traffic concerns

The Providence City Council denied a rezoning request for the Timberbrook parcel near 314 West 100 South after residents and some council members said the requested R‑1‑6 zoning would not mesh with the city’s general plan and adjacent lot sizes.

The 3–2 vote came after about an hour of presentations and public comment. Developer Dallin Tolman told the council the R‑1‑6 zoning was necessary to produce “affordable but quality homes” and that, because of the parcel’s width, the lower frontage requirements of R‑1‑6 would allow “very efficient lots” while still producing lots that are “most of our lot sizes are still over 10,000 feet.” He said his firm expects most houses to be single‑level, slab‑on‑grade homes priced below market alternatives.

Neighbors disagreed. Providence resident Nate Worthen said the city’s general plan shows R‑1‑12 as the recommended zone and argued the change to R‑1‑6 would not provide a “gradual” transition from multifamily and then to larger single‑family lots. Reese Peterson and other neighbors raised traffic and safety concerns near the proposed street connection, and multiple speakers said the narrower frontage would be out of character with adjacent lots.

Why this matters: rezonings permanently change the range of housing types and lot dimensions allowed for a site. Council members who opposed the rezoning said they weighed the planning commission recommendation but also considered the general plan and adjacent zoning when applying their criteria.

Council debate focused on three factors members said they use to evaluate a rezone: the planning commission’s recommendation, the general plan, and adjacent zoning. Council members who voted against the request said two of those three criteria pointed away from approval. Supporters said the city and region need more housing options at price points accessible to first‑time buyers and older residents seeking step‑free homes.

Technical questions raised during the hearing included irrigation availability, accessory dwelling unit (ADU) fit on narrower lots, and whether the developer’s concept truly required R‑1‑6 to be economically feasible. Tolman said preliminary layouts suggested 18–20 lots would be achievable; an audience member’s back‑of‑envelope estimate produced similar numbers and noted boundary/ROW and survey uncertainty would affect final counts.

Several residents asked whether a narrower frontage could be approved while keeping larger minimum lot areas. City staff said altering frontage minimums for a single parcel would require a code amendment rather than a one‑off exception; such a code change would apply more broadly and take time.

The council motion to rezone the parcel from Agriculture to R‑1‑6 failed on a 3–2 vote. The council did not adopt an alternative zoning as part of the motion; staff said the developer may reapply under a different zoning or pursue a formal code amendment if desired.

Quotes

“R‑1‑6 allows us to have very efficient lots, have smaller frontage, but most of our lot sizes are still over 10,000 feet,” developer Dallin Tolman told the council.

“This density isn’t…it doesn’t transition well,” resident Nate Worthen said, referencing the general plan and adjacent lot sizes.

Ending

The developer indicated willingness to consider alternatives but said losing one lot in the concept would make the project marginally feasible. Council members and staff noted that a new application or a formal code amendment process would be the appropriate next steps if the developer seeks a different frontage standard or zone.