Tooele council tables zoning and land-use changes for 900 South Main after resident safety, traffic concerns

Tooele City Council on Nov. 5 2025 unanimously tabled two related items — ordinance 2025‑29 (a land-use map amendment for ~10 acres to high-density residential) and ordinance 2025‑30 (a zoning map amendment to establish MR‑8 PUD and R‑17 PUD across ~38 acres at about 900 S. Main St.) after an extended public hearing in which neighbors raised concerns about traffic, large‑truck exposure on SR‑36, slope stability, school‑crossing safety and water access.

Andrew Agard, the community development director, told the council the applications include both a land-use map amendment and a zoning map amendment tied to a planned unit development overlay that would change dimensional standards. Agard summarized the applicant’s requested PUD conditions: for the R‑17 PUD, lot sizes reduced from 7,000 to 3,500 square feet, minimum lot width at front setback from 60 to 40 feet, rear yard setbacks from 20 to 15 feet, side yards from 6 to 5 feet and a proposed reduction in minimum dwelling size from 1,125 to 1,000 square feet; for the MR‑8 PUD, requested reductions included minimum lot width from 35 to 20 feet, interior rear yard setbacks from 20 to 12 feet and increased lot coverage to 62 percent, plus relaxed brick/stone facade requirements.

The zoning changes were controversial in testimony from nearby residents. Rebecca Smith said the adjacent hillside is eroding and that "the mountain is not stable," and she questioned how children would cross SR‑36 to reach schools on the opposite side. Longtime resident Jen Hinton said residents routinely face double‑trailer truck traffic on the corridor and that proposed homes would sit much closer to the highway than existing houses, telling the council, "I’m very, very concerned about the traffic." Kalani Macherino told the council the area already experiences bottlenecks at nearby intersections and warned additional units and trail parking would increase conflict points. Scott Nagelbeck cautioned against the small proposed lot sizes and asked the council to be "cognizant" of utility and power‑line issues across the site.

Members noted the planning commission held a public hearing Oct. 8 and recommended against the HDR land‑use designation and against the MR‑8 PUD, while supporting an R‑17 PUD. Council discussion at the Nov. 5 business meeting echoed concerns raised in the work session that the proposed density represents too large an increase for the location along SR‑36. The applicant requested time to revise plans in response to feedback.

Councilwoman Goches moved to table ordinance 2025‑29 (land‑use amendment); Councilwoman Manzion seconded. The motion carried 5–0 (Councilman McCall, Councilman Hansen, Councilwoman Goches, Councilwoman Manzion and Councilman Brady voting aye). Councilwoman Manzion later moved to table ordinance 2025‑30 (zoning map amendment) for up to three months at the applicant’s request; Councilman Hansen seconded and the motion carried 5–0.

What was decided: both public‑hearing items were tabled at the applicant’s request to allow revision. What remains open: the applicant may return within the three‑month maximum set by the council for ordinance 2025‑30; no substantive approvals were made.

The applications and public record show the primary community issues the council expects addressed before reconsideration: traffic mitigation and intersection design on SR‑36 (a state‑maintained facility), stormwater and slope/stability analysis for the hillside, water availability during drought conditions, utility easements and power‑line impacts, pedestrian infrastructure or school‑crossing accommodations, and neighborhood compatibility regarding setbacks and lot size.

The council recorded no changes to the PUD conditions at this meeting; the applicant was asked to take resident and commission feedback into account and return with revised materials.