On the agenda: Bluffdale meeting — Data Center (Feb 4)

BLUFFDALE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, February 4, 2026
Notice is hereby given that the Bluffdale City Planning Commission and Bluffdale City Council will hold a public meeting on
Wednesday, February 4, 2026, at 6:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible at the Bluffdale City Hall, 2222 West 14400
South, Bluffdale, Utah. This meeting will also be broadcast live to the public on the City’s website www.bluffdale.gov. Notice is
further given that access to this meeting by Commission members may be via electronic means via telephone conference call.
The public may comment at the meeting or by emailing comments to [email protected] by 4:00PM
the day of the meeting. Emailed comments will be submitted to the Planning Commission but will not be read at the meeting.
In the event the meeting is disrupted in any way that the City in its sole discretion deems inappropriate, the City reserves the
right to immediately remove the individual(s) from the meeting and, if needed, end virtual access to the meeting. Reasons for
removing an individual or ending virtual access to the meeting include but are not limited to the posting of offensive pictures,
remarks or making offensive statements, disrespectful statements or actions, and any other action deemed inappropriate.
PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS MEETING 6:00 PM

1.
2.
3.
4.

Roll Call.
Invocation/Thought/Reading and Pledge of Allegiance.
Minutes: Approval of the minutes from the December 3, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting and January 21, 2026
Joint Planning Commission and City Council Meeting.
Public Comment: Any person who wishes to comment on items not scheduled on the agenda for a public hearing
may address the Planning Commission and comments will be limited to not more than three (3) minutes.

LEGISLATIVE ITEMS
5. PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDERATION, AND RECOMMENDATION on an Ordinance amending Chapter 9.10.020 related
to the adoption of the Wildland Urban Interface Building Standards. City of Bluffdale, Applicant. Fred Donaldson, staff
presenter.
DISCUSSION ITEMS:

6.
7.
8.

Training on Open and Public Meetings Act and Procedures. Fred Donaldson, staff presenter.
Planning Commission Business (planning session for upcoming items, follow up, etc.).
Adjournment.
Dated: January 28, 2026

Grant Crowell, AICP
Community and Economic Development Director
In compliance with the American Disabilities Act, individuals needing assistance or other services or accommodation for this meeting
should contact Bluffdale City at least 24 hours in advance of this meeting at (801)254-2200. TTY 7-1-1.

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, December 3, 2025
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36

Present:

37

Commission meeting. Commissioner Swanson seconded the motion. Vote on Motion: Erik

38

Swanson-Yes Kori Luker-Yes, Tina Griffis-Yes, Joel Woodruff-Yes, Chair Cragun-Yes. The

39

motion passed unanimously.

Members:

Debbie Cragun, Chair
Tina Griffis
Kory Luker
Erik Swanson
Joel Woodruff
Ulises Flynn

Staff:

Grant Crowell, Community and Economic Development Director
Caitlyn Tubbs, Planning Manager
Courtney Peterson, AV Technician
Ellen Oakman, Associate City Planner
Dan Tracer, Assistant City Engineer
Tiffany Shinsel, Community Development Coordinator

Public:

Steve Austin
Janae Thomas Watson
Jonathan Biesinger
Mason Chavez
Brannon Burton

PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS MEETING
1.

Roll Call.

Chair Debbie Cragun called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
2.

Invocation/Thought/Reading and Pledge of Allegiance.

Brannon Burton offered the invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
3.

Minutes: Approval of the Minutes from the November 5, 2025, Planning Commission
Meeting.

Commissioner Griffis moved to APPROVE the Minutes of the November 5, 2025, Planning

40

1

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, December 3, 2025
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

4.

Public Comment.

13

feedback received at the November City Council and Planning Commission Work Sessions, as well

14

as comments from the Utah Division of Water Rights (“UDWR”).

15
16

Ms. Tubbs reported that Bluffdale is experiencing robust growth. Although less than 9% of City land

17

remains developable, the population is expected to double by 2050. In creating the Integrated Water

18

and Land Use Element, Staff reviewed anticipated development patterns identified in the existing

19

Water Conservation and Land Use Plans, as well as their associated water demands over the coming

20

years. Most new development will occur in existing and planned urban and city cities along Redwood

21

Road, Porter Rockwell Boulevard, and east of the railroad tracks.

22
23

Assistant City Engineer, Dan Tracer, reviewed the Water System portion of the document and

24

indicated that few changes have been made since the last review. The UDWR requested clarification

25

regarding water projections.

26

("JVWCD"), which indicated that they have secured sources to supply Bluffdale will water to full

27

build-out capacity. Any substantial changes to development projections would require renegotiation

28

to ensure that the JVWCD has adequate capacity. Otherwise, the developer would be required to

29

secure water rights and sources. Preliminary plans for the Geneva parcel look similar to The Point

30

with a mixture of high-density residential, commercial, and industrial uses but that project is not

31

anticipated to begin for 20 to 40 years.

32
33

Ms. Tubbs reported that the contract between Bluffdale and the JVWCD is reviewed every three

34

years. The City is allowed to use up to 120% of its contracted volume at the same price, and usage

There was no public comment.
LEGISLATIVE ITEMS
5.

PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDERATION, AND RECOMMENDATION on the Draft
Integrated Water and Land Use Element of the General Plan as Required by SB-110
(2022) and SB-76 (2023), City of Bluffdale, Applicant. Staff Presenters, Caitlyn Tubs
and Dan Tracer.

Planning Manager, Caitlyn Tubbs, reported that the draft document was revised in response to

Staff met with the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District

2

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, December 3, 2025
1

above that percentage is billed at double the contracted rate. The JVWCD did not anticipate running

2

out of water for its current service areas. Mr. Tracer stated that one contributing factor is the new

3

landscape ordinance that affects all new development. It requires drip irrigation, water-efficient

4

plantings, and limits the amount of turf grass. However, the City used approximately 97% of its

5

contracted amount in 2024 but was projected to use 110% in 2025.

6
7

At the request of the UDWR, additional information was added about Bluffdale’s secondary water

8

system, which is completely separate from the drinking water system. Secondary water is only pulled

9

from one of the City’s six canals. All other canals feed private water users and are not under

10

Bluffdale’s jurisdiction. As they are private entities, no information was available regarding volume

11

or usage.

12
13

The element includes growth and water demand patterns. Water use increases 5% or approximately

14

60,000 gallons per year, and Staff anticipated that percentage remain stable over time.

15
16

A table included in the document specifies the current number of connections and water usage by

17

connection type. The City has over 5,000 residential connections that use approximately 73% of its

18

water. However, 87 institutional users like schools, churches, and parks account for 21% of use, and

19

the average institutional user consumes approximately two million gallons per year. Most residential

20

users consume less than 100,000 gallons per year. Mr. Tracer reported that the very high residential

21

water users are typically homeowners’ associations with a large number of homes, but some single-

22

family homes also consume a large amount of water. Ms. Tubbs reported that the Utah Data Center

23

(“UDC”) would be expanding. However, those expanded operations would not exceed the water use

24

outlined in their contract.

25
26

Ms. Tubbs reported that the Planning Commission’s suggestions were incorporated into the City’s

27

conservation goals. The City Council agreed that Bluffdale is not ready to implement an indoor low-

28

water fixture ordinance. They also supported the Commission’s recommendation that any future rate

29

increases to disincentivize high water use be used for water conservation projects. Mr. Tracer stated

30

that Bluffdale exceeds the State goal of 176 gallons per capita per day, with an average use of 168

31

gallons. Based on that number, the City Council determined that the City’s current strategy is
3

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, December 3, 2025
1

effective and no new conservation measures are necessary. Bluffdale will continue to require all new

2

developments to conform to the waterwise landscaping standards and encourage high water users to

3

take advantage of the JVWCD’s rebate program. Additionally, the City has the ability to enact

4

drought water rates that increase rates for Tier 3 and Tier 4 users during periods of drought.

5
6

Chair Cragun stated that she replaced her grass with rocks three years ago and found it frustrating that

7

the rebates require 50% vegetation at maturity, which incentivizes continued water use. Mr. Tracer

8

stated that from a water conservation standpoint, it is best to use as little water as possible. However,

9

park strips look better with some vegetation. The JVWCD tried to find a balance between reducing

10

water usage and maintaining the feel of the community. Localscapes.com has sample landscaping

11

designs that use considerably less water than turf grass.

12
13

Ms. Tubbs reported that in its review, the UDWR also supported the City’s position that its best tool

14

is education and suggested reaching out to the top 40 residential water users to provide materials on

15

water conservation. Staff consultations with the UDWR included an informational meeting in

16

February 2025 and ongoing discussions regarding stormwater and low-impact development

17

standards. It was determined that Bluffdale already met both regional and JVWCD usage goals, and

18

the City’s current practices do not impede the flow of water to the Great Salt Lake.

19
20

In response to a question raised by Commissioner Flynn, Ms. Tubbs reported that both the City’s

21

current Water Conservation Plan and the draft Integrated Water and Land Use Element encourage

22

continued metering of secondary water as funding is available. Mr. Tracer stated that American

23

Rescue Plan Act (“ARPA”) funds were still available for secondary metering, and another project

24

was planned for Spring 2026. Some homeowners associations have denied the City’s offer to install

25

meters, and the City was still working to identify additional unmetered connections but approximately

26

90% of all secondary water connections were now metered.

27
28

In response to a question from Commissioner Woodruff, Mr. Tracer clarified that the City does not

29

track non-city-owned canals or their connections. Commissioner Woodruff stated that thousands of

30

homes get water from those private sources and are not included in the usage statistics. Mr. Tracer

31

stated that the State’s metering requirement is for pressurized connections, but the legislature intends
4

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, December 3, 2025
1

to address non-pressurized or gravity connections once they determine how those connections can be

2

accurately metered. The canals companies often do not know where their water is going, but they

3

will have to account for their water usage in the future. Commissioner Woodruff stated that the

4

proposed plan serves the City’s current needs, but he expects usage to increase drastically once the

5

canals are better managed. Mr. Tracer stated that although he expects the canal companies to set or

6

enforce limits, he does not anticipate those users switching to the City’s culinary water system.

7
8
9
10

Chair Cragun opened the public hearing. There were no comments. The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Flynn moved to forward a POSITIVE recommendation to the City Council for

11

the Proposed Integrated Water and Land Use Element of the General Plan. Commissioner

12

Swanson seconded the motion. Vote on Motion: Ulises Fynn-Yes, Erik Swanson-Yes, Kori

13

Luker-Yes, Tina Griffis-Yes, Chair Cragun-Yes. The motion passed unanimously.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

The item would be on the December 10, 2025, City Council meeting agenda.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS
6.

PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDERATION, AND VOTE on the Bridgesource Pre-Cast
Concrete Plant Site Plan, located at approximately 16115 South Pony Express Road in
the SG-1 Sand and Gravel Zone. Applicant, Colby Anderson – CIR Engineering. Staff
Presenter, Ellen Oakman.

Chair Cragun reported that the public notice had an error for this item as administrative items do not

25

require a public hearing. No members of the public were present to speak to the item.

26
27

Associate City Planner, Ellen Oakman, presented the Staff Report and reported that the Site Plan was

28

for an 88,980 square foot pre-cast concrete plant on 7.4 acres of the 130-acre parcel. Site Plans greater

29

than 15,000 square feet in size require Planning Commission approval. The pre-cast concrete plant

30

will produce critical infrastructure for the Salt Lake Valley and beyond. The property is in the sand

31

and Gravel (“SG-1”) Zone east of the Jordan River, south of Porter Rockwell Boulevard and the

32

historical gravel pit area, and west of Pony Express Road.

33

5

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, December 3, 2025
1

The Site Plan, elevations, and renderings were reviewed. The project will include 48 parking stalls.

2

The site requires 24 total stalls, including 15 for the business office space and nine for the industrial

3

manufacturing use.

4
5
6
7
8

The following deviations were requested as outlined in Bluffdale City Code § 11.50.060.E:
•

2% glazing rather than the required 15%.

•

Pre-cast concrete as the sole primary material rather than brick, stone, or concrete masonry

9

unit (“CMU”).

10

•

Lack of façade articulation.

11

•

Lack of roofline variation.

12

•

3% landscaping rather than the required 15%.

13

•

Lack of roof-mounted screening.

14
15
16
17

Reasons for the requested deviations include:
•

The facility is not visible from street frontage.

18

•

The SG-1 Zone is unlike other commercial zones.

19

•

Improved operational efficiency.

20

•

Supports provisions of critical infrastructure by lowering building costs.

21

•

Mining operations, heavy equipment, and concrete storage limit feasible landscape areas.

22

•

Roof-mounted screening is unnecessary due to the location.

23

•

The proposed materials provide better thermal performance and sound insulation.

24
25

Chair Cragun stated that the City had spent a lot of time creating design standards and had tried to be

26

consistent in ensuring that applicants adhere to them. She asked if the standards should be updated

27

to exempt the SG-1 Zone. She agreed that it is unique, and many of the reasons the standards were

28

crafted are not applicable.

29
30

Commissioner Flynn remarked that he was comfortable with the deviations, especially the

31

landscaping deviation as that would help conserve water. He agreed with Chair Cragun that the

6

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, December 3, 2025
1

standards would need to be changed if there were more sand and gravel areas left in Bluffdale but

2

noted that this property was the only SG-1 Zone in the City.

3
4

Commissioner Swanson asked how the application compared to one received a few years previously

5

from Suncore Construction and Materials, Inc. Community and Economic Development Director,

6

Grant Crowell reported that modifications were required because that type of structure does not fit

7

well with the standards. Staff had discussed how development within the gravel pit could fit with the

8

design guidelines, which were catalyzed by projects in the General Commercial (“GC-1”) -Zone. The

9

UDC was the largest Site Plan approved by the Commission, and it was granted a deviation to use

10

metal panels. Chair Cragun noted that the UDC had many street-facing elements.

11
12

Mr. Crowell stated that a text amendment was a potential way to address the deviations if the Planning

13

Commission could not approve them based on current ordinance. There are still active gravel pits in

14

the City from Porter Rockwell Boulevard south to Lehi, and a small area between Holladay Oil and

15

Bluffdale Heights is also zoned SG-1.

16
17

Commissioner Woodruff expressed concern that a future developer could use the project as

18

justification and recommended that the decision to grant deviations be based on the subject property’s

19

location in the SG-1 Zone. The pre-cast concrete plant has a functional need to reduce the amount of

20

glazing, but another developer could wish to do so based on cost savings alone. Chair Cragun stated

21

that she suggested modifying the ordinance due to similar concerns. Mr. Crowell pointed out that

22

some properties in the SG-1 Zone are very close to residential neighborhoods.

23
24

Chair Cragun stated that Commissioner Woodruff raised a good point regarding setting a precedent.

25

If the deviations were approved based on the subject property being located in the SG-1 Zone, it could

26

set a precedent for the street-facing properties in the zone. Commissioner Woodruff stated that the

27

argument could also be made for a property in a different zone that is not street-facing or has other

28

similarities. Mr. Crowell stated that it is important to include findings in any decision to grant

29

deviations, and those findings can be very specific.

30

7

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, December 3, 2025
1

Jonathan Beisinger spoke on behalf of the Applicant and indicated that he also managed the design

2

and construction of the Suncore block plant. That project required a zone change to GC-1 because it

3

has a retail component, but the pre-cast plant will not be open to the public. The plant will create pre-

4

cast concrete structures such as vaults, manhole risers, and reinforced concrete pipes that are delivered

5

to the customer. Although a deviation from landscaping requirements had been requested, they intend

6

to hydroseed the parcel and allow that vegetation to grow natural without irrigation. Mr. Beisinger

7

introduced plant manager, Brannon Burton; architect Mason Chavez; and Janae Thomas Watson of

8

Big D Construction.

9
10

In response to a question raised by Commissioner Flynn, Mr. Beisinger reported that an independent

11

traffic study was conducted as part of the application process. Recommendations made in the study

12

had been included in the Site Plan, and some lanes at the intersection of Pony Express Road and 900

13

West would be widened to accommodate the new traffic. In response to a follow-up question from

14

Chair Cragun, Mr. Beisinger reported that the study required that improvements be made to

15

accommodate the maximum anticipated traffic to the facility at its mature state, which would be five

16

to seven years in the future.

17
18

Commissioner Flynn asked about operating hours. Mr. Beisinger reported that the offices will be

19

open during normal business hours, but manufacturing hours would likely be extended. Regarding

20

dust impacts, Clyde Companies has an environmental department that manages those aspects of all

21

its properties to ensure compliance with all state and local requirements. The dirt road into the

22

property is maintained and watered by the neighboring Olympus Precast plant.

23
24

In response to a question from Commissioner Luker, Mr. Beisinger stated that inasmuch as the facility

25

will be part of an operational sand and gravel pit, a reclamation plan is required. The areas of

26

hydroseeding will no longer be mined, but the slopes to the north and east of the Site Plan will

27

continue to be mined by Geneva Rock. One mining operations are completed, the area will be

28

reclaimed with a more gradual slope. Aggregates will be sourced from the Geneva Rock pit, which

29

has a 30-year plan for continued operation.

30
8

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, December 3, 2025
1

Mr. Tracer reported that the traffic impact study estimates a total of 216 daily trips to the facility.

2

Accelleration and deceleration lanes will be added to Pony Express Road to accommodate ingress

3

and egress to the facility. In response to a question raised by Commissioner Swanson, Mr. Tracer

4

stated that the Utah Department of Transportation ("UDOT") had indicated that they might convert

5

the road to one-way traffic on either side of the interstate, but the project was not planned or funded.

6
7

Chair Cragun stated that she was in favor of approving the variations but undecided on whether to do

8

so via detailed findings or modifying the ordinance. Commissioner Swanson stated that he believes

9

there will be more temporary conversions of mining land to these types of businesses and that

10

eventuality should be addressed, but he was comfortable moving forward with approval of the current

11

Site Plan as conditioned. Commissioner Flynn agreed.

12
13

Mr. Crowell pointed out that addressing deviations individually allows the Planning Commission to

14

look at the request in the context of the specific project. He understood the Commission’s concerns

15

about setting a precedent, but each project has specific aspects and conditions that can be clearly

16

identified in the findings.

17
18

Commissioner Griffis stated that the Applicant provided very detailed information on each deviation

19

and why it was requested. She agreed with Chair Cragun that there were pros and cons to each way

20

of addressing the request.

21
22

Project architect, Mason Chavez reported that they reviewed the design standards at the beginning of

23

the project, and only six total deviations were requested for the number of windows required on a

24

non-residential site, alternative primary building materials, façade articulation, height and roofline,

25

screening of roof-mounted equipment, and landscaping. Chair Cragun stated that the Planning

26

Commission was not accustomed to granting so many deviations, and some of the variations were

27

significant. For example, 2% glazing is significantly different from the 15% required. Mr. Chavez

28

stated that the Applicant was trying their best to meet the design standards, but it was a unique zone

29

with specific conditions.

30

9

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, December 3, 2025
1

Chair Cragun was in agreement with Commissioner Swanson that a motion should be made on the

2

item with very specific findings. She also requested that Staff review the design standards to

3

determine if updates should be made to the SG-1 Zone.

4

deviations were within the City’s deviation criteria, but specific findings were encouraged.

5
6

Specific findings for approval were discussed. Commissioner Flynn stated that the design standards

7

were updated to prevent eyesores, but this project was in the SG-1 Zone and could not be expected to

8

be pleasing to the eye. Commissioner Swanson remarked that Clyde Companies will redevelop the

9

land after the sand and gravel phase is completed.

10
11

Commissioner Swanson moved to APPROVE the Bridgesource Pre-Cast Concrete Plant Site

12

Plan, Application 2025-21, subject to the conditions and based on the findings presented in the

13

Staff Report dated November 25, 2025, and due to the following additional findings:

14
15
16
17

The deviations are found to be acceptable due to:
1.

The nature of the SG-1 Zone and the products that will be produced by the
business.

18
19
20

Mr. Crowell noted that the requested

2.

The distance from the facility to other residential and commercial developments,
the street, and normal sight lines.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35

Commissioner Flynn seconded the motion. Vote on Motion: Ulises Fynn-Yes, Erik Swanson-

36

Yes, Kori Luker-Yes, Tina Griffis-Yes, Chair Cragun-Yes. The motion passed unanimously.

3.

The use of heavy equipment.

4.

The need for insulation for sound protection and fire resistance.

5.

Cost prohibitions.

6.

The site’s 30-year lifespan.

7.

Roof height needed for internal operations.

8.

The subject property’s unique landscaping needs.

10

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, December 3, 2025
1
2

Mr. Crowell reported that Staff would prepare to discuss potential design standard modifications at a

3

future meeting.

4
5
6
7
8
9

DISCUSSION ITEMS
7.

Planning Commission Business (Planning Session for Upcoming Items, Follow Up, Etc.)

Ms. Tubbs reported that the City Council had approved the 2026 Planning Commission Meeting

10

schedule. The Bluffdale holiday party would be held on December 12, 2025, at 12:00 p.m. at FatCats.

11
12

Ms. Oakman asked the Planning Commission to check her email regarding training as some

13

Commissioners were short on hours. They should also notify her of any specific topics they would

14

like to cover in 2026.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

8.

Adjournment.

The Planning Commission Meeting adjourned at 7:12 p.m.

__________________________________
Tiffini Shinzel, Community Development Coordinator
Approved: _________________________

11

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY COUNCIL AND
PLANNING COMMISSION COMBINED
WORK SESSION MINUTES
Wednesday, January 21, 2026
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Present:
City Council Members:

Mayor Natalie Hall
Steve Austin
Wendy Aston
Mackey Smith
Alan Lord
Greg Wilding

Planning Commission Members:

Debbie Cragun, Chair
Ulises Flynn
Tina Griffis
Kory Luker
Erik Swanson
Joel Woodruff

Staff:

Bruce Kartchner, City Manager
Fred Donaldson, City Attorney
Tami Timothy, City Recorder
Grant Crowell, Community and Economic Dev. Director
Caitlyn Tubbs, Planning Manager
Amanda Luker, Communications Specialist
Ellen Oakman, Associate City Planner
Shane Paddock, Public Works Director
Pauline Matagi, Community Development Coordinator

BLUFFDALE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION
1.

Roll Call.

Mayor Natalie Hall called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m.
2.

Discussion/Presentation Items.
2.1 Discussion of Potential New Residential Zoning Categories (Staff Presenter,
Grant Crowell and Caitlyn Tubbs)

Community and Economic Development Director, Grant Crowell, reported that the Planning

39

Department frequently receives questions about residential zoning for lots smaller than one acre. The

40

General Plan contemplates 0.33 and 0.50-acre lots, and small lots were also discussed in previous

1

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY COUNCIL AND
PLANNING COMMISSION COMBINED
WORK SESSION MINUTES
Wednesday, January 21, 2026
1

work sessions. As it is still a topic of interest, Planning Manager, Caitlyn Tubbs had prepared a Staff

2

Report with information on the potential zones.

3
4

Ms. Tubbs stated that the City’s General Plan is its most important document. State Code requires

5

that certain things be addressed within the General Plan, including land use development patterns,

6

housing needs, transportation, and other resources such as water and utilities. The General Plan

7

outlines the City’s anticipated future growth patterns and goals, and it is the primary tool used to

8

create land use ordinances.

9
10
11
12

Bluffdale’s General Plan specifies three housing development goals:
1. Retain the character of our existing neighborhoods.

13

2. Provide a variety of housing choices for current and new residents.

14

3. Ensure that all housing stock addresses the needs and income restrictions of residents of all

15

life stages and economic situations.

16
17

The Land Use Map was reviewed. The General Plan outlines different land use categories for

18

residential development patterns, and these categories are used to determine whether a prospective

19

zone would be appropriate in a specific area of the City. The primary residential land use designations

20

are Very Low Density Residential (less than one dwelling unit per acre) and Residential (one to four

21

dwelling units per acre). Smaller areas of the City are designated Mixed-Use or Multi-Family

22

Residential.

23
24

City Manager, Bruce Kartchner, remarked that other cities allow lots as small as 5,000 square feet

25

and asked if lots of that size would be designated Mult-Family Residential. Ms. Tubbs reported that

26

the only designation that would accommodate 5,000 to 6,000-square-foot lots would be Mixed-Use.

27

The minimum lot size currently allowed in Bluffdale is 0.25 acres in the R-1-10 Zone, which

28

corresponds to the Very Low Density Residential land use designation.

29
30

Mr. Crowell stated that a single-family development with eight units per acre could also fit in the

31

Mult-Family Residential designation. The category was named based on the predominant pattern of
2

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY COUNCIL AND
PLANNING COMMISSION COMBINED
WORK SESSION MINUTES
Wednesday, January 21, 2026
1

townhomes and apartments. Zoning is not required by law to conform to the General Plan, so there

2

is room for interpretation. However, if there is a category misalignment, it may be better addressed

3

with a text amendment.

4
5

Ms. Tubbs reported that when the possibility of creating new residential zones was first discussed,

6

Staff reviewed existing ordinances and created a Zoning Toolbox outlining the various means and

7

methods to achieve certain development patterns. Standard zones range from A-5 Agricultural to R-

8

MF Multifamily and the new R-SL Senior Living Zone. Overlay zones are allowed, but they are

9

limited to certain underlying zones. The City also can create Special Development Zones. Typically,

10

a property owner will propose a master-planned development that includes a transportation element,

11

open space, parks, trails, housing, and frequently some commercial uses in key locations.

12

Development agreements are also allowed and provide a way to tailor a development to a specific

13

area.

14
15

During a City Council Work Session in January 2025, Staff was directed to research other

16

communities with 0.33- and 0.50-acre residential zones and draft ordinance language for review. A

17

public Planning Commission hearing was held in April 2025 to review the draft, and public comments

18

were received both in favor of and opposed to the ordinance. The Planning Commission then tabled

19

the item. At its January 14, 2025, meeting, the City Council suggested that the proposal be brought

20

forward for additional discussion.

21
22

Research indicated that all surrounding communities have 0.33- and 0.50-acre zones and some allow

23

lots as small as 5,000 square feet in size.

24
25

Ms. Tubbs reported that the ordinance amendment would re-codify the City’s existing residential

26

zones and add a table with minimum lot sizes and development standards.

27
28

Commissioner Swanson asked if there was a benefit to changing the nomenclature to R-1, R-2, R-3,

29

etc. Ms. Tubbs reported that many surrounding cities name their zones based on the number of units

30

per acre rather than the minimum lot size. Bluffdale’s zones are titled based on acreage. For example,
3

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY COUNCIL AND
PLANNING COMMISSION COMBINED
WORK SESSION MINUTES
Wednesday, January 21, 2026
1

the R-1-10 Zone has a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. In other cities, it would be the R-4

2

Zone. There is no requirement to rename the current zones. However, for the sake of simplicity and

3

continuity with other communities, Staff recommended updating them. Mr. Crowell added that

4

property owners frequently request slight exemptions to lot size requirements in order to create

5

rectangular lots.

6
7

Commissioner Flynn remarked that the draft table headings could be confusing for some people.

8

Mr. Crowell stated that the idea is to consolidate everything in a table so the standards are all in one

9

place. In response to a question raised by Commissioner Swanson, Mr. Crowell confirmed that RA

10

(Residential Agricultural) is used by most cities. He did not believe changing the titles would be as

11

controversial as the actual lot sizes, but the table could be changed to reflect existing zone titles.

12

Commissioner Swanson clarified that he is in favor with bringing the titles in line with other cities so

13

it is consistent for developers and property owners.

14
15

In response to a question from City Attorney, Fred Donaldson, Mr. Crowell stated that the two-acre

16

lots in the subdivision east of Redwood Road is an anomaly, and that is the only area where that

17

specific zoning was applied.

18

Agricultural. Requests are typically for less restrictive zoning.

19
20

Commissioner Flynn asked if a subsection could be included that details how many animals are

21

allowed in the agricultural zones. Mr. Crowell stated that it was a question of the best way to refer

22

people to specific information. Smaller animals like chickens and goats had been discussed recently,

23

and his research indicates that cities consistently do not provide large animal rights for lots smaller

24

than 0.50 acres. Mr. Kartchner stated that one challenge to including animal rights in the table is that

25

animal code changes are separate from and more frequently than other changes. Referencing the

26

specific section of code would be an easier way to accommodate those changes. Mr. Crowell clarified

27

that the presentation was a simplified summary, not the entire codification. City Planner, Ellen

28

Oakman noted that the original presentation included footnotes.

He has personally only handled one request to rezone to A-5

29

4

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY COUNCIL AND
PLANNING COMMISSION COMBINED
WORK SESSION MINUTES
Wednesday, January 21, 2026
1

Council Member Smith asked how many large animals are allowed on a 0.50-acre lot. Mr. Crowell

2

confirmed that two large animals would be allowed, with a proportional number of goats, chickens,

3

etc. The language may be modified to indicate two large animals per 20,000 square feet to be

4

consistent with the new zone titles. Mr. Kartchner indicated that the A-5 Zone allows unlimited large

5

animals. Mr. Crowell stated that A-5 is not proposed in the new table as there are a few A-5 parcels

6

left in the City. Smaller lot sizes have other considerations, including the number of animals, home

7

occupations, and outdoor storage.

8
9

Council Member Wilding stated that the root of the matter is whether the City will allow property

10

owners to subdivide one-acre lots on the west side of Bluffdale. He works in engineering, and all the

11

cities around Bluffdale have adopted small-lot zones. He had researched the topic over the past two

12

years, and his conclusion was that the proposal is the most appropriate option moving forward. It is

13

good for the City from a variety of standpoints, and he could not find an argument to prevent this

14

change on the west side of Bluffdale. It was his understanding that only projects of at least two acres

15

could be subdivided.

16
17

Council Member Wilding stressed that the decision should be based in fact. Society has changed

18

over his 34-year career. Residents will ask for things they cannot have because many of them want

19

the City to continue to be a rural city with one-acre lots and animal rights. However, Bluffdale is not

20

rural anymore, and people are not keeping large animals anymore. In the last 10 years, he has worked

21

on a total of 55 lots in Bluffdale developments. With the exception of the original landowners who

22

owned the property before it was subdivided, he found large animals on one lot. The City cannot

23

retain a one-acre minimum lot size to protect one out of every 50 people who wants to subdivide,

24

because doing so would be a disservice to Bluffdale.

25
26

In his research, Council Member Wilding found the following arguments for and against allowing

27

smaller lots.

28
29
30
31

Cons:
•

“I want to keep the City the way that it was when I came here. I do not want it to change.”
5

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY COUNCIL AND
PLANNING COMMISSION COMBINED
WORK SESSION MINUTES
Wednesday, January 21, 2026
1

•

2

“You’re going to give fewer animal rights because there will be complaints from the new
subdivisions about the smells, sights, and sounds around them.”

3

•

“There will be more traffic.”

4

•

“I want more space between homes.”

5
6
7
8

Pros:
•

Staff analysis determined that the east side of Bluffdale is subsidizing the west side through

9

property and sales taxes. Smaller lots will generate approximately four times more taxes than

10

the current zones.

11

•

Owners of new homes do not keep large animals.

12

•

Smaller lots will result in better water conservancy as they use less irrigation water.

13

•

One-acre lot developments have much higher per-lot infrastructure costs, as well as higher

14

maintenance and replacement costs.

15
16

Council Member Wilding reported that he spent time on Google Earth to determine what people are

17

doing with their one-acre lots. The vast majority of additional land is unused and full of weeds, junk,

18

or construction materials. New construction on these lots consists of beautiful, expensive homes with

19

fully landscaped yards that consume a lot of water, and protecting one-acre zoning will ensure that

20

more of those homes are built in the City. He asked if Bluffdale needs to have a $2.5 million home

21

on every lot.

22
23

In many areas of Utah and Salt Lake Counties, low-density residential is defined as 0.25- and 0.33-

24

acre lots. Council Member Wilding worked on a subdivision in Dimple Dell that has these lot sizes,

25

and the homes are selling for $2 million. Contrary to some residents’ assertion, small lots will not

26

attract “riff-raff”.

27
28

When Council Member Wilding decided to run for the City Council, residents’ greatest interest was

29

in correcting Bluffdale’s public safety problem. The City has done a very good job of addressing that

30

problem and properly funding public safety. The question he hears most frequently now is, “When
6

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY COUNCIL AND
PLANNING COMMISSION COMBINED
WORK SESSION MINUTES
Wednesday, January 21, 2026
1

are you going to let us split our one-acre lots?” Only approximately 130 acres worth of large parcels

2

remain in western Bluffdale, and all of those property owners has contacted him to request 0.33- or

3

0.50-acre zoning. The State is pushing for more moderate-income housing, although the proposed

4

lot sizes may not qualify. They have also discussed stepping in and rezoning for their own purposes.

5

If Bluffdale provides the option, landowners will take the opportunity and develop the parcels.

6

Council Member Wilding does not own or have under contract any land on the west side of Bluffdale

7

so he would not personally benefit from the change. He believes it would be the best option for the

8

City moving forward.

9
10

Planning Commission Chair Cragun asked if Bluffdale was meeting State mandates on moderate-

11

income housing. Commissioner Swanson stated that the transit station will change how the City must

12

comply. Mr. Crowell reported that Bluffdale is currently in compliance. When the station opens in

13

2030, the City will be required to add at least two additional housing elements. One of the City’s

14

menu items is to rezone for higher density or mixed use.

15
16

In response to a question raised by Commissioner Swanson, Mr. Crowell reported that Station Area

17

Plans cover a 0.50-mile radius. Bluffdale will be required to adopt a Station Area Plan when the

18

station opens in 2030, in addition to adopting two additional housing elements. Higher density is

19

required to qualify for tax-increment financing. The Station Area Plan will not affect areas west of

20

Redwood Road.

21
22

Council Member Aston stated that she attended a meeting earlier that day where Governor Cox

23

admitted that he wants to remove all zoning authority from cities. He wants the free market to

24

determine what will be put where. She does not believe that will be achieved during the current

25

session, but they tend to plant an idea and then revisit it over and over until they get what they want.

26
27

Council Member Aston directed the discussion to the area of 1690 West and 14600 South. She was

28

approached by residents who stated that the City is going to widen the road and take part of their

29

property, and the properties around them are less than one acre. They asked to be able to subdivide

30

their remaining property. She believes that is a valid point, and she asked the Planning Commission
7

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY COUNCIL AND
PLANNING COMMISSION COMBINED
WORK SESSION MINUTES
Wednesday, January 21, 2026
1

and City Council to consider that request. She asked if smaller lots should be allowed everywhere in

2

the City. Commissioner Swanson stated that Bluffdale has a hole in its zoning code in comparison to

3

other cities. If that were changed and smaller lots were allowed in the City, it should be open to those

4

residents as well. Council Member Wilding stated that if the two new zones were allowed in areas

5

designated Very Low Density Residential, they should be applied anywhere in the City.

6
7

Commissioner Flynn stated that there are two separate issues. A property owner could request 0.25-

8

acre zoning today, and it could be approved at the City Council’s discretion with the R-1-10 Zone or

9

a Special District. He believes the proposal is just a clerical matter to clean up Code and apply

10

consistent labels. The second issue is market trends, where people want smaller lots and do not want

11

to keep large animals. The biggest issue with subdivision is infrastructure. He believes the biggest

12

constraint is that the City was not master planned for smaller lots, and a plan is needed to do that after

13

the fact. He believes the issues should be considered separately.

14
15

In response to a question raised by Council Member Aston, Ms. Tubbs clarified that with the

16

exception of Special Development Zones, which require a minimum of 10 to 20 acres, no minimum

17

lot size is required to apply for a zone change.

18
19

Mr. Crowell agreed with Commissioner Flynn that even if the City adopts R1, R2, and R3 zones,

20

rezoning is a legislative decision and is not guaranteed. In many cases, the facts support rezoning.

21

In other cases, there are specific findings to deny the application. Once rezoning is approved, a

22

subdivision cannot be denied if it meets the requirements. The General Plan suggests that there is a

23

bright line between Very Low and Low Density Residential, which would be interpreted to mean that

24

an R3 Zone is not compatible with Very Low Density Residential and would require a companion

25

Land Use Map Amendment. The broader approach would be to combine the land use designations

26

to allow between zero and four lots per acre.

27
28

Chair Cragun stated that when it was discussed at the Planning Commission public meeting, residents

29

were concerned that their neighbor would subdivide and “ruin their backyard.” That neighbor may

30

never subdivide, but residents want to prevent the zone anywhere in the City to prevent that
8

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY COUNCIL AND
PLANNING COMMISSION COMBINED
WORK SESSION MINUTES
Wednesday, January 21, 2026
1

hypothetical situation. The Planning Commission discussed determining areas of the City where

2

smaller lots would be allowed in order to provide clarity and alleviate some concerns.

3
4

Council Member Aston agreed with Chair Cragun’s point and indicated that they needed to determine

5

if there is an appetite for allowing two-acre or larger lots to subdivide into a minimum of 0.33-acre

6

lots. People who live next to Spring View Farms have asked if they will be able to subdivide into

7

similarly sized lots, but she cannot answer because the Council has never had that discussion.

8
9

Mr. Kartchner asked if a property owner has the right to request rezoning to R-1-10 if their two-acre

10

lot is configured in a way to allow development of four 0.25-acre parcels. Mr. Crowell stated that

11

they have the right to apply. However, the General Plan does not support that type of development

12

on the west side of Bluffdale, so the application would likely be denied. Adding the smaller lot zones

13

without amending the General Plan would have the same result. The City Council has stood behind

14

the General Plan for decades.

15
16

Mr. Donaldson stated that the General Plan should be amended because otherwise it would be

17

inconsistent. Mr. Crowell agreed and indicated that a simple way to address the issue would be to

18

combine the two categories. However, that would be seen as very broad, so another option would be

19

to require a Land Use Map amendment application with rezoning requests. Things like Special

20

Districts require negotiation, which takes longer and provides less certainty to the property owner.

21
22

Council Member Lord referred to a specific 23-acre parcel in the City and stated that a developer who

23

wanted to build a project on the property could request a Special District or Development Agreement

24

similar to what was done in Boulden Ridge now. Mr. Crowell stated that because the property is so

25

large, negotiations could begin immediately. If R2 and R3 zoning was implemented, they could apply

26

for that zoning instead. The City Council could then approve the application or deny it on the basis

27

that it requires a Development Agreement.

28
29

Council Member Wilding stated that every application will go before the Planning Commission and

30

City Council. However, if the zone is not available and the land use is not approved in the General
9

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY COUNCIL AND
PLANNING COMMISSION COMBINED
WORK SESSION MINUTES
Wednesday, January 21, 2026
1

Plan, it adds to the challenges a developer must overcome. The first thing Staff will tell them is that

2

it is not an approved use, so a General Plan amendment will be required with the rezoning request. If

3

the City Council is committed to allowing the new zones, it should provide a path for developers to

4

utilize them. The Council will still retain the right to approve or deny rezoning.

5
6

Commissioner Flynn stated that the General Plan is a guideline and suggested that a section be added

7

on considerations for subdivision.

8
9

Commissioner Swanson stated that because it needs to be done in an incremental fashion, he believes

10

it is more useful to add intermediate zones. The R-1-10 Zone would allow four homes per acre, which

11

is a much larger step than two or three homes. Council Member Wilding agreed and remarked that

12

if guidance is provided through the zoning and General Plan, it provides indicators of what the City

13

wants to see done. If nothing is changed, a developer can apply for higher density, but they are less

14

likely to do so because they will think the City still wants one-acre development. The proposed zones

15

have been much more tolerable to the citizens he has spoken with because the homes will look similar

16

to those on one-acre lots.

17
18

In response to a question raised by Commissioner Swanson, Mr. Crowell reported that some small

19

one-acre subdivisions had been developed recently. Vista Meadows was approved in 2021 and was

20

the last significantly sized one-acre-lot development, with a total of approximately 40 acres. Council

21

Member Lord expressed concerns about precedents and potential litigation. Mr. Donaldson stated

22

that the City cannot control who sues it or for what, but it would lose the lawsuit. Each rezoning

23

application is unique. As long as the Council has a valid reason for declining to rezone a specific

24

property, that decision will be upheld. It is very challenging for a developer to win a lawsuit related

25

to a rezoning decision.

26
27

In response to a question raised by Commissioner Swanson, Mr. Donaldson stated that he has seen

28

General Plans used to stop rezoning, but he has not seen one used to force approval of a rezoning

29

request. The City’s history of adhering to its General Plan would also reinforce its case.

30
10

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY COUNCIL AND
PLANNING COMMISSION COMBINED
WORK SESSION MINUTES
Wednesday, January 21, 2026
1

Council Member Aston asked for everyone’s thoughts on adding zones with lot sizes of less than one

2

acre in all areas of Bluffdale.

3
4

Commissioner Griffis stated that the lack of starter homes is the problem, and residents’ children are

5

not going to move into $2 million homes on 0.50-acre lots, high-density apartments, or townhomes.

6

They want starter homes to start their families. She believes the focus should be on South Bluffdale

7

and starter homes. Council Member Aston agreed that apartments are high-density but pointed out

8

that some people in the room believe that 0.33-acre and 0.25-acre lots are high-density.

9

Commissioner Griffis stated that Bluffdale was built on its residents’ values, and that is how the

10

community needs to be built. Mayor Hall agreed that the focus should be on home ownership.

11

Council Member Wilding stated that south Bluffdale would be a great place for starter homes.

12
13

Council Member Smith asked if Commissioner Griffis believes families would not want to live in a

14

2,400-square-foot townhome, for example. Commissioner Griffis stated that she believes they want

15

their own home with its own yard.

16
17

Mr. Kartchner stated that he had researched properties in surrounding cities, and the 5,000- and 6,000-

18

square-foot lots in those cities have $500,000 to $700,000 homes on them. No matter what decision

19

the City makes regarding lot size, the market will determine what is built and how much it will cost.

20
21

Chair Cragun asked if data is available on what young families want. Her cousin is a real estate agent

22

in another county, and she has found that young families do not want large kitchens or yards. Mayor

23

Hall stated that ideally, the City would have a variety of products so residents can age in place.

24
25

Council Member Wilding stated that the nice thing about Special Development Zones and

26

Development Agreements is that some homebuilders are doing their best to create affordable housing,

27

and they are doing it in a variety of ways. If a property is rezoned to higher density, the Development

28

Agreement can require that it meet moderate-income housing requirements.

29
30

Mr. Crowell stated that he has made inquiries of developers for several years to determine what it

31

would take for them to build affordable housing. A 72-unit apartment project cost the Bluffdale
11

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY COUNCIL AND
PLANNING COMMISSION COMBINED
WORK SESSION MINUTES
Wednesday, January 21, 2026
1

Redevelopment Agency $5.5 million. Incentivization is becoming more common. Communities are

2

covering infrastructure costs or creating new tax-increment structures to lower the homebuyer’s final

3

purchase price. Townhomes are more likely to be affordable, and he knows of no affordable single-

4

family developments in the area. If they could find an example and learn the template, they may be

5

able to encourage that type of development.

6
7

Mr. Kartchner remarked that a cottage development in Pocatello, Idaho, may be similar. It has eight

8

small single-family homes on one acre with a parking lot instead of garages. Each home has its own

9

backyard. The original homes in Sugar House were 800 to 1,000 square feet, which is a starter home

10

size.

11
12

Council Member Austin stated that there is a lot of emotion behind this kind of decision. The General

13

Plan’s primary goal is to retain the City’s character. He sees the character of Bluffdale has more open

14

space than density. Residents of the west side are concerned about their neighbors changing that

15

character, and they have no appetite for even the possibility of that happening. He had received more

16

comments on this issue in the past two days than on any other issue during his time on the Council,

17

and those residents are adamantly against smaller lots.

18
19

Council Member Austin addressed Council Member Wilding’s list of pros and cons. He personally

20

does not have a large animal and does not want one, but he does want his one-acre lot. Animal rights

21

may be an issue for some, but he believes most people want to retain the open space. He disagreed

22

that 0.50-acre lots would have the same feel as a full acre. His last home had a 0.50-acre lot, and he

23

found it much more constraining than his current property. He believes that many of the pros on

24

Council Member Wilding’s list came from developers, and he personally puts more weight on what

25

residents of the affected area want.

26
27

Commissioner Flynn asked what the City could do to prevent its density from changing. Council

28

Member Austin stated that there are no guarantees, but if the City paves the way, it will be much

29

easier for developers to build higher-density developments. If it is harder, it is less likely to happen.

30

Commissioner Flynn stated that we live in a capitalistic system and people have property rights. The
12

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY COUNCIL AND
PLANNING COMMISSION COMBINED
WORK SESSION MINUTES
Wednesday, January 21, 2026
1

City Council can say no to development, but it is coming. Council Member Austin stated that things

2

changed in Bluffdale because elected officials made that change, and he did not know if that was what

3

the residents wanted. He believes that allowing smaller lots will go against the City’s character and

4

why people want to live in Bluffdale.

5
6

Chair Cragun remarked that Governor Cox has repeatedly indicated the desire to take zoning authority

7

away from cities, and it is important to find a compromise. The residents who are against smaller lots

8

are guaranteed to dislike very high-density, high-rise apartment buildings, and not doing anything

9

could mean much higher density than 0.33- and 0.50-acre lots. If the City does nothing, it runs the

10

risk of a less desirable result.

11
12

Council Member Austin stated that Governor Cox is not a member of the legislative body, and he will

13

have to convince more than half of that body. Many people are fighting to retain local control.

14

However, it was noted that Governor Cox has a very good track record of convincing the legislature

15

of his position.

16
17

Commissioner Flynn remarked that the council made a choice 20 years ago to enforce one-acre lots,

18

and then the State came in with affordability laws. He agreed with Chair Cragun that a compromise

19

should be reached so the City can get ahead of the issue rather than being forced into worse solutions.

20

The reality is one of a free-market system, and the Council cannot dictate that Bluffdale will stay the

21

same forever.

22

development agreements.

23
24

Commissioner Swanson stated that a compromise would be to find a way to develop infill land at the

25

lowest density the market will bear, which he believes is less than one acre.

26
27

Council Member Austin stated that there had been valid points. There will always be a risk, and he

28

understands wanting to find ways to mitigate it. However, if cities continually acquiesce, they will

29

lose control. He believes the Council should do what residents of the area want, and that will be

Commissioner Griffis indicated that it can be controlled somewhat through

13

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY COUNCIL AND
PLANNING COMMISSION COMBINED
WORK SESSION MINUTES
Wednesday, January 21, 2026
1

different between the east and west sides of the City. Council Member Austin stated that any decision

2

will affect the entire City because it affects infrastructure, public safety, etc.

3
4

Council Member Wilding stated that he spoke to one developer, but all other feedback he received

5

was from residents who own one-acre or larger parcels. In his career, he has seen a lot of heated

6

public meetings, and any meeting on this topic would be heated as well. The South Jordan City

7

Council considered a project on the southeast corner of 3600 West and 11400 South that had large

8

and small residential lots with some commercial space. The meeting room and hallway were standing

9

room only because residents were angry about the commercial element. The next item on the agenda

10

was a residential subdivision that was built around a commercial zone. No businesses were interested,

11

so that agenda item was to rezone the area back to residential. The same people who complained

12

about adding commercial to one neighborhood also complained about taking commercial away from

13

the other. In both cases, the City Council approved the rezoning, and the end result was two very

14

nice projects.

15
16

Council Member Wilding noted that everyone will never agree. Slightly smaller lots will slightly

17

increase developers’ profits, but land in Bluffdale is so expensive that the difference will be minimal.

18

In his opinion, the other reasons in favor of allowing smaller lots are much more important. The

19

City’s long-term needs must be addressed, and allowing 0.33- and 0.50-acre lots will address the

20

General Plan’s second and third development goals. There is a need for missing middle housing.

21
22

Council Member Smith stated that the model he uses when he consults with cities is “density, taxes,

23

and services.” If you want to maintain stable services without raising taxes, you have to be willing

24

to allow density. Bluffdale went 30 years without raising taxes, and some slightly higher-density

25

development helped achieve that. The City is now in the position that it has to entertain new taxes

26

and fees to maintain service levels.

27

construction of slightly higher-density housing can prevent the State from forcing higher-density

28

development.

He agrees with Chair Cragun’s point that allowing the

29

14

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY COUNCIL AND
PLANNING COMMISSION COMBINED
WORK SESSION MINUTES
Wednesday, January 21, 2026
1

Regarding Council Member Aston’s question about the area in central Bluffdale, if the City takes part

2

of a resident’s property, he does not believe it should dictate what they do with the remaining property.

3

Council Member Smith believes central and southern Bluffdale should be considered for rezoning

4

first. He is open to allowing higher density on larger lots, but the conversation should start with areas

5

east of Redwood Road.

6
7

The City’s building permit numbers are lower than expected, and the only way to continue to grow

8

the tax base is by allowing growth. Bluffdale has the third-lowest taxes in Salt Lake County, behind

9

Sandy and Draper, and those cities have significantly more retail development. If the Council wants

10

to maintain lower taxes, it must find another way to fund the increasingly expensive services. Council

11

Member Smith does not see many ways to cut costs, so the City must identify areas that can support

12

increased density.

13
14

Chair Cragun suggested allowing 0.50-acre lots as a transition to higher density. Input could be

15

solicited from west side residents to determine if it can be structured to maintain the area’s character.

16

Commissioner Flynn recommended creating a citizen committee to brainstorm ideas and provide

17

insight into what residents think. A balanced approach is important because otherwise the City may

18

be forced to do things it does not want to do.

19
20

In response to a question raised by Mr. Crowell, Chair Cragun stated that the group’s goal would be

21

to identify guidelines that would make 0.50-acre lots acceptable to west side residents.

22
23

Council Member Lord referred to the parcel near his home. He knows most of the residents who live

24

on the north side of that parcel. If the property were developed with 0.50-acre lots, he does not believe

25

it would impact their lifestyles in any way. However, he would like to receive their input on the

26

possibility.

27
28

Chair Cragun stated that a citizen committee could help clarify some statements. If a resident says,

29

“We don’t want riff-raff here,” what does that mean? Commissioner Griffis believed that the concern

15

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY COUNCIL AND
PLANNING COMMISSION COMBINED
WORK SESSION MINUTES
Wednesday, January 21, 2026
1

is about the potential hodgepodge of different housing types. A resident who lives in a rambler may

2

be concerned about a three-story home being built beside them.

3
4

Council Member Aston agreed with Council Member Lord. She knows many residents to the east of

5

the property, and she agrees that 0.50- or 0.33-acre lots would not negatively impact their daily lives.

6

She was not in favor of splitting one-acre lots, but the larger lots could take advantage of the proposed

7

zoning.

8
9

Mr. Kartchner lives in the Deer Mountain Estates area, which has one-acre lots. The homes across

10

the street in Riverton are on 0.50-acre lots. There is no negative impact from traffic or other potential

11

issues. In almost every neighborhood on the east side of Bluffdale, someone has built an Accessory

12

Dwelling Unit (“ADU”), which creates a second household on their lot and is no different from

13

allowing 0.50-acre lots. Council Member Austin remarked that if smaller lots are allowed with a

14

detached ADU, that further increases the density.

15
16

Council Member Austin thanked the Planning Commission for the thoughtful way they approach

17

everything that comes before them and the way they treat each other when opinions differ.

18
19

Commissioner Luker stated that the Planning Commission discussion stalled on the idea of what Very

20

Low Density Residential means. Would 0.50- and 0.33-acre lots qualify? He lives on a very small

21

lot, but he does not believe 0.33 acres should qualify as very low density. However, it could include

22

0.50-acre lots. Someone with a two-acre parcel would still have to choose to subdivide, and

23

eventually, when the lot sells, that option will be available to the purchaser. He agrees that the west

24

side should stay very low density, but believes that 0.50 acres should qualify and will provide an

25

opportunity for people who do not want to take care of their large lots.

26
27

East of Redwood Road already has a lot of density, and Commissioner Luker is in favor of allowing

28

0.33-acre and smaller lots in that area to encourage development on the more challenging parcels. He

29

agreed with Council Member Wilding that the east side of Bluffdale pays for the west side. His

16

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY COUNCIL AND
PLANNING COMMISSION COMBINED
WORK SESSION MINUTES
Wednesday, January 21, 2026
1

neighborhood has eight houses on one acre, and each house cost over $500,000. Very few other one-

2

acre areas of Bluffdale generate that much tax revenue.

3
4

Council Member Smith stated that when he ran the question through ChatGPT, the results pointed to

5

infrastructure as a primary concern. He consulted on an ADU project for Saratoga Springs, and they

6

were very concerned about the stormwater system being able to handle the additional residents. In

7

response to his question, Mr. Kartchner confirmed that the incremental change being discussed would

8

not negatively impact the City’s infrastructure.

9

developments require approval from the Jordan Basin Improvement District. If there is insufficient

10

capacity, the project will not move forward.

11
12

Mayor Hall asked for comments on next steps. The discussion had been productive but very broad.

13

She recommended that they should determine a goal and identify a property or area of the City for

14

further discussion. Mr. Crowell stated that the Planning Commission tabled the item in 2025. It could

15

be re-noticed for further discussion, or the process could start over.

16

Council and Planning Commission were interested in creating the new zoning tools.

17
18

Commissioner Flynn stated that he is in favor of the new zoning tools and streamlined table, but

19

suggested that the focus be on 0.50-acre zoning only, as there was a consensus on that lot size.

20
21

Council Member Austin stated that he believes there needs to be more discussion and resident

22

feedback prior to moving forward.

23
24

Council Member Wilding stated that his position was clear. The original intention of the 0.33-acre

25

zone was to use it as a transition to other cities and not apply it broadly throughout Bluffdale’s one-

26

acre areas. He believes some residents will be opposed to 0.33-acre lots, but that the City should

27

move forward with them. However, he would also support only considering 0.50-acre zoning at this

28

time.

29
30

In response to a question from Council Member Smith, Ms. Tubbs reported that the Planning

31

Commission held a public hearing in 2025 to create 0.50-acre and 0.33-acre zones, but did not apply
17

Council Member Wilding indicated that all

Ms. Tubbs asked if the City

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY COUNCIL AND
PLANNING COMMISSION COMBINED
WORK SESSION MINUTES
Wednesday, January 21, 2026
1

them anywhere in the City. The question was whether the City wanted to move forward with that

2

proposal, pause it, or make changes to it.

3
4

Council Member Smith stated that he is open to creating the new zones but would need to give the

5

matter more thought. In response to his questions, Mr. Crowell stated that areas in central and

6

southern Bluffdale could be rezoned to similar density with other tools like R-1-10 zoning, Special

7

Districts, or Development Agreements. Applications for R-1-10 zoning are typically approved once

8

or twice per year. The proposed zones would not meet the State’s moderate-income housing

9

requirements, but it would be mentioned in the yearly report.

10
11

Council Member Lord stated that he lives in the far northwestern part of Bluffdale, and he does not

12

believe residents in the area intend to subdivide their one-acre lots. However, they should be part of

13

the conversation. He personally opposed the 55-plus development on 2700 West, as did most of the

14

residents of the area. However, that development has not changed the area’s character at all. He

15

spoke with residents at the time, and those in favor stated that they would rather have the proposed

16

development than a commercial project in the area. He would like to do more research prior to making

17

a decision.

18
19

Council Member Aston stated that creating the new zones does not mean they must be applied, as

20

whether to use them or not will always be a City Council decision. The R-1-10 zone is available now,

21

but having more tools in the toolbox would not be a bad thing.

22
23

Commissioner Swanson was in favor of both proposed zones. The Planning Commission recently

24

discussed the R-1-10 Overlay in Spring View Farms, and he came out of that discussion thinking that

25

it was unfortunate the City no longer had the original overlay zone that was available when the

26

surrounding area was developed. He would appreciate more information addressing concerns from

27

existing property owners if a nearby parcel is rezoned.

28

18

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY COUNCIL AND
PLANNING COMMISSION COMBINED
WORK SESSION MINUTES
Wednesday, January 21, 2026
1

Council Member Lord stated that he is not in favor of spot zoning. Commissioner Swanson agreed

2

that it needs to be applied in appropriate areas. Mayor Timothy’s citizen committee on development

3

determined that transition zones are important because they protect core areas of the City.

4
5

Commissioner Griffis stated that more choice is a good thing. Residents may be opposed due to

6

anxiety or not understanding the terminology. If they are better educated on the subject and their

7

position does not change, at least it will be an apples-to-apples discussion.

8
9

Chair Cragun stated that as Commissioner Luker indicated, the Planning Commission had an issue

10

with the definitions. Low-density and Very Low Density Residential need to be clearly defined.

11
12

Commissioner Luker stated that he would like to see the proposed zones codified, and the next step

13

would be to define and discuss what is allowed in the zones. The General Plan should also be updated

14

to determine where the new zones belong. If they do not fit in the current designations, a new one

15

should be created and the Land Use Map updated to clearly show the City’s intent.

16
17

Commissioner Flynn was in favor of adding the new zoning tools. The second step should be

18

determining their application, and that process should include feedback from residents.

19
20

Mayor Hall reported that there was a consensus to move forward with the 0.50-acre zone. Council

21

Member Wilding stated that more than half of those present were in favor of the Planning Commission

22

considering both zoning tools.

23
24

A follow-up joint meeting was tentatively scheduled for March 18, 2026, following a February

25

Planning Commission work session on the proposed zoning tools. Mayor Hall asked everyone to

26

forward their lists of specific discussion items to Mr. Crowell and Mr. Kartchner prior to the meeting.

27
28
29
30
31

3.

Discussion.

None.

19

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY COUNCIL AND
PLANNING COMMISSION COMBINED
WORK SESSION MINUTES
Wednesday, January 21, 2026
1
2
3

4.

4

motion. The motion passed with the unanimous consent of the Council.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Adjournment.

Council Member Aston moved to ADJOURN.

The meeting adjourned at 8:21 p.m.

__________________________________
Tami Timothy, City Recorder
Approved: _________________________

20

Council Member Austin seconded the

CITY OF BLUFFDALE, UTAH
ORDINANCE NO. 2025-XX
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 9.10.020
RELATED TO THE ADOPTION OF THE WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE BUILDING
STANDARDS
WHEREAS, the City Council has previously adopted Chapter 9.10.020 which adopts
the State Construction Code as the Building Code for the City; and
WHEREAS, Utah Code § 65A-8-203(4)(f) now requires that a City desiring to
participate in the State wildland cooperative fire protection program adopt and enforce
the wildland urban interface building standards as defined in Utah Code § 65A-8-401(4);
and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that adopting the amendments to Chapter
9.10.020 in Exhibit A are in the best interests of the health, safety, and welfare of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BLUFFDALE,
UTAH AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
Adoption. Ordinance 2025-XX is hereby adopted amending Chapter
9.10.020 of the Bluffdale City Code as shown in Exhibit A.
Section 2.
Amendment of Conflicting Ordinances. If any ordinances,
resolutions, policies, or zoning maps of the City heretofore adopted are inconsistent
herewith they are hereby amended to comply with the provisions hereof. If they cannot be
amended to comply with the provisions hereof, they are hereby repealed.
Section 3.
Severability. If any section, part, or provision of this Ordinance is
held invalid or unenforceable, such provision shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and
independent provision, and such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect any other
portion of this Ordinance and all sections, parts, provisions and words of this Ordinance
shall be severable.
Section 4.
Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately
upon publication or posting as required by law.
PASSED AND APPROVED: January , 2026

CITY OF BLUFFDALE

_________________________________
Mayor Natalie C. Hall
ATTEST:

[seal]

___________________________________
City Recorder
Voting by the City Council:
Councilmember Aston
Councilmember Austin
Councilmember Crockett
Councilmember Lord
Councilmember Wilding
Mayor Hall (tie only)

Yes

No

Absent

____
____
____
____
____
____

____
____
____
____
____
____

____
____
____
____
____
____

EXHIBIT A
9.10.020 Building Codes Adopted
A. Adoption: The City of Bluffdale adopts the State Construction Code as adopted in Utah
Code Annotated title 15A, "State Construction and Fire Codes Act" and the building
standards in the 2006 edition of the Utah Wildland Urban Interface Code, issued by the
International Code Council, with the alternatives or amendments approved by the Utah
Division of Forestry, Fire, and State Lands and subsequent amendments thereof, as the
Building Code of the City of Bluffdale.
B. Copy Of Codes: A copy of each of the adopted codes shall be filed in the City Recorder's
Office for use and examination by the public during regular business hours.
C. Violations:
1. Violation Of Codes: It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to
perform, authorize or acquiesce in any work, use or maintenance of any building
or structure or portion thereof in violation of any of the provisions of the Building
Codes or this chapter.
2. Failure To Comply With Order: It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or
corporation to fail to comply with a lawful order of the building official or building
inspector.
3. Penalty: Any person violating the provisions contained herein shall be guilty of a
Class B misdemeanor and, upon conviction, subject to penalty as provided in title
1, chapter 4 of this Code, and shall be guilty of a separate offense for each and
every calendar day or portion thereof during which any violation occurs or
continues.