Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council unanimously denies rezone for 7036 South High‑Tech Drive

Midvale City Council · July 8, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Midvale City Council voted unanimously July 7 to deny a request to rezone 7036 South High‑Tech Drive from regional commercial to clean industrial, citing conflicts with the city's TOD overlay and concerns about outdoor storage and future land‑use vision.

Midvale City Council on July 7 voted unanimously to deny an ordinance that would have rezoned 7036 South High‑Tech Drive from regional commercial to clean industrial.

Planner Jonathan told the council the site is a roughly 120,000‑square‑foot former‑Costco building proposed to be subdivided into smaller office‑warehouse bays. Brent Vincent, speaking for the property owner, said the owners see demand for ~20,000‑square‑foot industrial users and would divide the building into smaller bays of about 5,000 square feet to accommodate fabrication and light industrial tenants.

Council members raised concerns about outdoor storage and compatibility with the city's recently adopted transit‑oriented development (TOD) overlay. Council member Bridal Brown moved to deny Ordinance 2026‑0‑23, saying the proposal "does not meet the standards or goals of the TODO overlay," and the motion carried unanimously.

Planning staff explained that clean‑industrial zoning would permit outdoor storage under screening and size limits (outdoor storage confined to side or rear yards, no more than 15% of lot area; storage yards prohibited within 250 feet of primary residential zones; screening by concrete or decorative masonry walls at least 6 feet tall), but several council members said they preferred to preserve the TOD vision for future mixed‑use or higher‑density redevelopment.

The owner representative said the company had considered tearing down portions of the large building or reconfiguring it but argued the current market could not absorb a single 120,000‑square‑foot tenant. The council concluded the location and the city's strategic plan weighed against the requested rezone and denied the ordinance. No alternative zoning action was approved at the meeting.

The council recorded the denial on the public record and moved on to the rest of the agenda.