Tooele council hears 1 O'Clock Hill PUD plan that would add townhouses and cottage homes near 900 S. Main

Tooele City Council spent much of its Nov. 5 work meeting reviewing a developer proposal to reassign about 10 acres of a 38‑acre parcel near 900 South Main Street to a high‑density residential land‑use designation and to rezone the site to MR‑8 PUD (townhouses) and R‑1‑7 PUD (small‑lot single‑family), a plan that city staff said could yield about 261 units while the applicant has estimated about 257 units.

Community Development Director Andrew Agard told the council the land‑use map amendment is limited to roughly 10 acres that would change from medium‑density residential to high‑density residential so an MR zone could be applied; the full rezoning application would cover about 38 acres that the city considers developable. Agard said the applicant is proposing a trail through the site and has offered a perpetual conservation easement over portions of the owner’s larger holdings in exchange for PUD flexibility. "If I lose any of you, please raise your hand or throw something at me because it's a complicated application," Agard said during his presentation.

Why it matters: The PUD request would allow reductions in several development standards and permit townhouses and small, cottage‑style homes that the applicant says are intended as for‑sale, entry‑level homeownership products. Council members said the development’s scale, traffic impacts on State Route 36 and Settlement Canyon Road, parking pressure along a state road, wildlife habitat and the location’s walkability to services are central concerns they expect addressed before any zoning vote.

What the application would change: Agard outlined the specific PUD deviations the applicant seeks for the R‑1‑7 portion: minimum lot size reduced to 3,500 square feet from 7,000; front lot width and front setback reduced from 60 feet to 40 feet; rear yard reduced to 15 feet from 20; side yards reduced from 6 feet to 5 feet; lot coverage lowered slightly from 35% to 31%; and minimum dwelling size from 1,125 to 1,000 square feet. For the MR‑8 portion the applicant requests a reduction in lot width from 35 feet to 20 feet, a rear yard reduction to 12 feet (staff noted the ordinance measures 12 feet), side yards to 5 feet from 6 and higher lot coverage (applicant materials show 62%). The applicant also requested changes to façade material rules to allow stucco, fiber‑cement siding and wood in addition to brick and stone.

Applicant presentation and conservation easement: Urban planner Jason Bull, representing the applicant and the property owner, said the revised concept moves development away from the steep hillside, adds amenity areas (the plan shows two pickleball courts, tot lots and pavilions), includes guest parking and an easement for future southern access, and would be sold as for‑sale housing rather than rental apartments. Bull told the council the conservation easement being proposed would run along the ridgeline and that the applicant’s materials depict roughly 70–74 acres in the easement area; Agard earlier described the candidate easement as roughly the remainder of the applicant’s holdings, which he estimated at about 140 acres when excluding the 38‑acre developable area. The two figures differ; each was attributed in the meeting to the person who said it.

Unit count and density disagreement: Staff calculated a potential unit count of about 261 units if the PUD and amendments were approved; Bull said the applicant is proposing about 257 units on the developable acreage (the applicant clarified the developable portion is 38 acres). Several councilmembers disputed the applicant’s characterization of the project as "low density," saying the density appears high once the actual buildable acreage is used and noting nearby homes on larger lots that would sit adjacent to the proposed higher‑density area. One councilmember said the current R‑1‑7 zoning would permit about 134 single‑family units and that number represented a ceiling they would be willing to support.

Council concerns and next steps: Council members repeatedly raised traffic and parking concerns, including the potential need for a signal at the main access and the risk of overflow parking along a state highway; they also said wildlife habitat, long‑term HOA maintenance of amenities and the visibility of clustered units next to existing half‑acre homes require more information. The applicant asked the council for time to respond to concerns and suggested postponing a decision until after public comment; councilmembers agreed to allow the applicant to return with revisions and public comment ahead of a formal vote, and staff said the item will appear on the business meeting agenda later that evening.

No formal rezoning vote was taken in the work meeting; council members asked staff and the applicant to refine plans, clarify the conservation‑easement area and provide traffic, parking and unit‑mix options before a decision.