Tooele City Council voted 3-2 on Aug. 20 to deny Ordinance 2025-26, an application to change the city's land-use map designation for roughly 4.9 acres at approximately 105 East 1000 North from mixed use to light industrial.

The change was requested by the property owner's representative, who said the project shifted from a proposed mixed-use townhome development to a small-scale contractor staging and storage yard because the applicant could not secure commercial water rights.

The vote followed presentations from Andrew Agard, Tooele City's community development director, and Amy Johnson, speaking for Tooele Desert Rose, the applicant. Agard described the property's location north of 1000 North, east of State Route 36, near Tooele City Fire Station No. 3, and said the parcel is currently designated mixed use and zoned RR1. "A land-use map amendment does not change zoning; it only enables discussion or an application for rezoning," Agard said.

Johnson told the council the developer explored retail and mixed-use options and consulted local brokers, but could not secure water for the previously proposed townhome project. "We are proposing individual contractor yards," Johnson said. She described the product as fenced, leased yards with lighting, security cameras and lease restrictions, intended for small contractors to store equipment and staging materials rather than a retail or office use.

Council members raised concerns about the range of uses permitted under a light-industrial designation and the absence of a more tailored zoning category for this parcel. "We jump from here to here, and this encompasses everything," one council member said during debate, urging a narrower zoning option to avoid opening the site to uses councilors did not intend. Agard said he is working to refine the industrial-service zone to address similar concerns.

The planning commission considered the application at its Aug. 13, 2025 meeting and voted unanimously to recommend the light-industrial land-use designation; the planning commission's recommendation was cited during council discussion.

After discussion the council moved to deny the ordinance; the motion carried by a 3-2 vote. The denial preserves the current land-use designation and leaves future rezoning or development proposals subject to additional review.

The applicant was told she may return if the developer pursues a different zoning path or if the council adopts changes to the industrial-service zone.

Clarifying details about any subsequent zone-map amendment, site plan approvals, or water-rights applications were not provided at the meeting.