On the agenda: Bluffdale meeting — Data Center (Mar 25)

BLUFFDALE CITY

CITY COUNCIL
MEETING AGENDA
City Council Chambers
Wednesday, March 25, 2026, at 6:00 p.m.

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

Notice is hereby given that the Bluffdale City Council will hold a meeting on Wednesday, March 25, 2026, at Bluffdale City
Hall, 2222 West 14400 South, Bluffdale, Utah. The meeting will begin at 6:00 PM or as soon thereafter as possible. This
meeting will also be broadcast live to the public at: www.bluffdale.gov. The public may comment at the meeting or by
emailing comments to [email protected] by 4:00 PM the day of the meeting. Emailed comments will
be submitted to the City Council but will not be read at the meeting. Notice is further given that access to this meeting by
the City Council may be by electronic means.
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.

BLUFFDALE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING 6:00 P.M.
1.

Call to Order: (Roll Call, Invocation, Pledge of Allegiance*).

2.

Minute and Agenda Approval:

3.

4.

2.1

March 11, 2026, City Council Meeting Minutes.

2.2

Approval of this meeting’s agenda.

Presentation Items:
3.1

Recognition of Exemplary Students from Hidden Valley Middle School. (Presenter, Mayor Hall)

3.2

Recognition of Isabel Flynn, Keeley Henderson and Madison Simpson, Graduating Four- Year Youth
Council Members and Youth Council Advisors, Kristal Flynn and Melissa Henderson. (Presenter, Mayor
Hall)

3.3

Presentation of 2026 Legislative Update. (Staff Presenter, Fred Donaldson)

Public Comment: (This is a time and place for any person who wishes to comment on items not scheduled on the
agenda for public hearing. Any person or group wishing to comment on any item not otherwise scheduled for public
hearing on the agenda may address the City Council at this point by stepping to the microphone and giving his or her
name for the record or by emailing [email protected]. Comments should be limited to not more
than three (3) minutes unless additional time is authorized by the Chair. Groups wishing to comment will be asked to
appoint a spokesperson. Items brought forward to the attention of the City Council will be turned over to staff to
provide a response outside of the City Council meeting.)

5.

Consent Agenda: (These items are considered by the City Council to be routine and will be enacted by a single
motion. If discussion is desired on any particular consent item, that item may be removed from the consent agenda
and considered separately. No public comment will be permitted.)

5.1
5.2

Resolution 2026-15- A Resolution adopting amendments to the Bluffdale City Policies and
Procedures Manual related to Holidays.
Resolution 2026-16- A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Bluffdale, Utah, authorizing
surplus of City-owned property.

City Council Meeting – March 25, 2026

Page 1 of 2

6.

Action or Discussion Items; Items Continued from Previous Meeting: (These items are considered by the
City Council individually. No public comment will be permitted.)

6.1
7.

Discussion- Short Term Rental Research. (Staff Presenter, Ellen Oakman)

Public Hearing Items: (Public comments must abide by the requirements listed above).
7.1

Resolution 2026-14- A Resolution authorizing the lease of the vacated Public Works yard at 14175 S.
and 14185 S. Redwood Road. (Presenter, Fred Donaldson)

7.2

Ordinance 2026-02- An ordinance amending the Bringhurst Station Commercial Sub-Districts
diagram within section 11.110.100.050(E) of the City code to allow non-retail businesses in certain
areas. (Presenter, Caitlyn Tubbs)

8.

Staff Reports, Additional Council Discussion, and Calendaring Items:

9.

Closed Meetings - if any: (This meeting will be closed to the public for one of the stated purposes found in Utah Code
§ 52-4-205(1), which is usually for one of the following purposes: discussion of the character, professional competence,
or physical or mental health of an individual; discuss collective bargaining; discuss pending or reasonably imminent
litigation; discuss the purchase, exchange, sale, or lease of real property, including water rights or water shares).

10.

Adjournment.
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING

I hereby certify that the foregoing notice and agenda is posted at the Bluffdale City Hall, on the City’s website
(www.bluffdale.gov) and posted on the Utah State Public Notice website (www.pmn.utah.gov).
Published and posted on March 20, 2026.

Tami Timothy
City Recorder
In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, individuals needing assistance or other services or accommodation
for this meeting should contact Bluffdale City Hall at least 24 hours in advance of this meeting at 801-254-2200. TTY 7-1-1.
*Contact the City Recorder if you desire to give the Invocation or lead the Pledge of Allegiance.

City Council Meeting – March 25, 2026

Page 2 of 2

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, March 11, 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
39
40

Present:

41

just the response.

42
43

Council Member Austin moved to APPROVE the City Council Meeting Minutes and meeting

City Council:

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

Staff:

Bruce Kartchner, City Manager
Fred Donaldson, City Attorney
Tami Timothy, City Recorder
Stephanie Thayer, Administrative Services Director
Grant Crowell, Community and Economic Development Director
Caitlin Tubbs, Planning Manager
Ellen Oakman, Associate Planner
Amanda Luker, Communications Specialist
Bart Barton, Emergency Manager
Carl Hamer, Police Sergeant
Courtney Peterson, Legal Assistant
Shane Paddock, Public Works Director
Trenton Ellis, Water Operator

BLUFFDALE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING
1.

Call to Order.

Mayor Hall called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM.
All members of the City Council were present.
Diana Lund offered the invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
2.

Minutes and Agenda Approval.
2.1

February 25, 2026, City Council Meeting Minutes.

2.2

Approval of this Meeting’s Agenda.

Council Member Austin requested that future minutes include the question being asked rather than

1

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, March 11, 2026
1

Agenda, as presented. Council Member Smith seconded the motion. The motion passed with

2

the unanimous consent of the Council.

3
4
5
6
7
8

3.

Mayor and Council Reports.

Mayor Hall reported on the following:
•

9

She will be hand-delivering a commemorative American250 Bluffdale coin to any babies born
in the City in 2026. To receive a coin, parents should fill out the form on the City website.

10

•

She recorded a podcast with the Youth Council.

11

•

She is a member of the new Joint Advisory Committee for transit and transportation for the

12
13

State of Utah. Their first meeting was held on March 10.
•

14
15

for City projects.
•

16
17
18
19
20
21

•

32

Caucus meetings are scheduled for Tuesday, March 17.

Council Member Wilding reported on the following:
•

He attended the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (“DARE”) graduation at North Star
Academy. He thanked Police Sergeant, Carl Hamer, for his work with the program.

Council Member Aston reported on the following:
•

27
28
29
30
31

The Jordan Foundation recognized two Bluffdale teachers from Hidden Valley Middle School
and Mountain Point Elementary School earlier that day.

22
23
24
25
26

She met with Representative Burgess Owens in Washington, D.C. to discuss potential funding

She attended the final ("LPC") Legislative Policy Committee meeting of the session. Some
bills they were opposed to passed, but some failed.

Council Member Austin reported on the following:
•

He attended The SpongeBob Musical, and it exceeded his expectations. He is continually
amazed at the talent in the City. Performances will continue throughout the week.

2

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, March 11, 2026
1

•

He also attended the Healthy Bluffdale Coalition meeting, where they reported that the last

2

“Screenagers” showing was very well-attended. The final showing for elementary-aged

3

children was scheduled for March 18. He encouraged his Council colleagues to attend the

4

Key Leader Orientation on March 27.

5
6
7
8

Council Member Lord reported on the following:

9

•

His family attended The SpongeBob Musical and had a great time.

•

He learned a lot at the monthly emergency preparedness meeting led by Emergency Manager,

10
11
12
13
14

Bart Barton.
Council Member Smith reported on the following:
•

15

He also attended the Legislative Policy Committee meeting, and he thanked City Staff for
their hard work during the legislative session.

16

•

17

He attended the Jordan River Commission Meeting. They had no major projects planned that
would impact Bluffdale.

18

•

He visited Mo’ Bettas and really enjoyed it.

19

•

He spoke with Congressman Mike Kennedy, who may become Bluffdale’s congressman due

20

to redistricting, and would be coordinating with Mayor Hall regarding an in-person meeting

21

with the Council and Staff.

22
23
24
25

4.

Presentation Items.
4.1

Presentation of South Valley Chamber 2025 Report (Presenter, Jay Francis)

26
27

South Valley Chamber of Commerce President, Jay Francis, introduced members of the Chamber’s

28

leadership team and presented the 2025 annual report. In 2025, the Chamber participated in nine

29

ribbon cuttings in Bluffdale.

30
31
32
33

2025 Committees:
•

Ambassador Committee: 25 members
3

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, March 11, 2026
1

•

Government Affairs and Public Policy Committee: 25 members

2

•

Small Business Committee: 38 members

3

•

Tourism Committee: 35 members

4

•

Women in Business Committee: 24 members, including Development Coordinator, Kjersti

5
6

Jarman
•

7
8
9
10
11

Junior Women in Business Committee: 24 members, each of whom will receive a $1,000
scholarship at graduation

2025 educational programs:
•

Leadership South Valley: 27 graduates

12

•

Business Accelerator: 14 graduates

13

•

Everyday Entrepreneur: 14 participants

14

•

Business Book Camp: 127 attendees at four events

15
16
17
18

Advocacy efforts included:
•

Roundtables

19

•

Executive forums

20

•

Over 20 bills tracked

21

•

“In the Know” sessions on the Big Beautiful Bill and the Wasatch Front Regional Council

22
23
24
25
26
27

("WFRC")’s transportation plan
•

Legislative review with Senator Lincoln Fillmore and Representative Steve Eliason

The following events were held in 2025:
•

Connect After Hours: Seven events with 606 attendees

28

•

Let’s Do Lunch: Five events with 728 attendees

29

•

Meet the Member: Five events with 396 attendees

30

•

Women in Business: 10 events with 1,275 attendees

31

•

Special events

4

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, March 11, 2026
1

o Three golf tournaments with 430 participants

2

o Titan Awards: Four honorees and over 640 attendees

3

o Small Business of the Year Award

4

o Shark Tank: 10 student businesses were pitched, and $9,500 in prizes was awarded

5
6

In 2026, The South Valley Chamber of Commerce will focus on service and community impact,

7

business growth and economic development, member retention, and public policy leadership. Small

8

Business Impact Awards will be awarded to one business from each member city at an awards

9

luncheon on May 5, 2026.

10
11

Mr. Francis stated that the Chamber’s 2026 theme is “Better Together”. Their relationship with

12

Bluffdale and other cities is a partnership, not a membership. The Chamber is an extension of the

13

City’s economic development and can help strengthen communication and trust between the City and

14

businesses in the community. Together, they can advance shared priorities and strengthen the

15

community’s brand.

16
17

Mayor Hall thanked Mr. Francis and his team for the presentation. The City has seen significant

18

business growth and values its partnership with the South Valley Chamber of Commerce.

19
20
21

4.2

4.2 Recognition of Trenton Ellis, Water Operator of the Year (Presenter, Shane
Paddock)

22
23

Public Works Director, Shane Paddock, presented Water Operator, Trenton Ellis, with the Rural

24

Water Association of Utah Water Operator of the Year Award. Mr. Ellis was nominated by Ridley

25

Griggs of Hansen, Allen and Luce, Inc., an engineering firm that regularly meets with the City.

26
27

In his nomination, Mr. Griggs said, “Over the past year, Mr. Ellis significantly improved Bluffdale

28

City’s backflow prevention program. Due to his efforts, annual testing compliance has increased and

29

several cross-connections have been detected and eliminated. Bluffdale City provides pressurized

30

irrigation water service to customers through a City-owned system, but it also has a large number of

31

private pressurized irrigation systems managed by individuals or homeowners associations. The
5

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, March 11, 2026
1

presence of many private systems with varying configurations and standards makes recordkeeping,

2

inspections, and coordination exceptionally difficult. Mr. Ellis led the charge to improve and simplify

3

recordkeeping by transitioning to a database-driven program.

4

communication between the City and customers and compliance with annual testing. Mr. Ellis has

5

successfully used the City’s new smart meter reading technology to identify and eliminate cross-

6

connections by regularly monitoring for reverse flow and high flows through system metering. He

7

has been able to detect cross-connections as soon as they start flowing and take quick action to

8

eliminate them. Mr. Ellis’s creativity, diligence, and use of technology to address a serious and all-

9

too-common problem in the water world is a perfect example of the great work water operators do to

10

protect public health and safety while providing us with an essential, life-sustaining service. Although

11

Mr. Ellis is still early on in his career, he exhibits a great degree of professionalism and skill. He is

12

an emerging leader in the water field, and those of us lucky to know him are excited to see what the

13

future holds.”

14
15

Mr. Paddock stated that in addition to being responsible for cross-connection detection, Mr. Ellis is

16

in charge of all State and Federal water quality sampling. He also works with City Attorney, Fred

17

Donaldson to ensure that City Code remains up to date and performs all business inspections.

18

Mr. Ellis cares about public safety and health and is an emerging leader for the City.

19
20

Mr. Ellis thanked the Water Department team. A few years ago, the department only had three

21

employees. Today there are nine employees, which allowed him to pursue the position and improve

22

the system. He could not have done it without the Public Works and Engineering teams.

23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

This approach has improved

Photographs were taken with the City Council.
5.

Public Comment.

Mayor Hall opened the Public Comment period.
Johnny Loumis, Jr. stated that he has lived in Bluffdale for a long time. He thought that streetlights

31

had previously been approved on Loumis Parkway. He had donated property necessary for easements

32

to connect the lights. He asked the City to follow through with that project to help with traffic
6

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, March 11, 2026
1

congestion and speeding. Bluffdale Cemetery is full, and he asked that the City Council consider

2

adding the adjacent property to the cemetery. Many residents would like to be buried in the City, so

3

the project could pay for itself. He apologized for not being present at City meetings over the past

4

three years as he had experienced health challenges.

5
6
7
8

There were no further comments. The Public Comment period was closed.
Mayor Hall thanked Mr. Loumis for his service over 30 years to the City on the Planning Commission.

9

Staff was working to determine a budget timeline for the project. There were currently no plans to

10

expand the cemetery.

11
12
13
14
15

6.

Consent Agenda.
6.1

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

7.

24
25
26
27
28

9.

None.

Action or Discussion Items; Continued from Previous Meeting.
7.1

8.

None.

Public Hearing Items.
8.1

None.

Staff Reports, Additional Council Discussion, and Calendaring Items.

City Manager, Bruce Kartchner, reported on the following:
•

The American250 Quilting Bee will be held on Saturday, March 14 at 9:00 a.m.

29

•

“Screenagers” has been a great program.

30

•

Soccer and pickleball league registrations are in process, and he encouraged residents to get

31
32
33

involved with those programs.
•

Return registration for the community garden begins on March 18. General registration for
new members begins on March 25.

7

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, March 11, 2026
1

•

The roundabout at the west end of 14600 South in Independence will be closed for several

2

months for installation of a natural gas line. The intersection will also be reconfigured as part

3

of the project, and the roundabout will be replaced with a semaphore.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

10.

Closed Meeting – If Any.

There was no Closed Meeting.
BLUFFDALE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
1.

Call to Order.

Mayor Hall called the meeting to order at 6:43 PM.
2.

Discussion/Presentation Items.
2.1

Discussion of Potential New Residential Zoning Categories (Staff Presenters,
Grant Crowell and Caitlyn Tubbs).

Planning Manager, Caitlyn Tubbs, provided background information on the project, which was

21

originally proposed by the City Council in 2025. After discussion in several Work Sessions, Staff

22

was directed to create a draft ordinance. On April 16, 2025, the Planning Commission held its first

23

public hearing on the item. A joint City Council/Planning Commission Work Session was held on

24

January 21, 2026, followed by a second public Planning Commission hearing on February 18, where

25

comments were received both in favor of and in opposition to the proposal. At that time, the Planning

26

Commission tabled the item pending additional information on properties where the new zones might

27

be considered in the future.

28
29

Ms. Tubbs reviewed the proposed Zoning Table. Staff proposed that all single-family zones be

30

consolidated into one chapter, and new R2 and R3 zones be created to allow 0.33- and 0.50-acre lots

31

in the City. The City Council recently indicated that the minimum property size to consider those

32

zones would be two contiguous acres, and that information was included in the table.

33
34

Proposed changes to the underlying development standards for the R-1-10 (proposed R4) Zones were

35

based on actual massing of recent Infill Overlay projects in the zone and would require a minimum
8

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, March 11, 2026
1

lot width of 75 feet. Ms. Tubbs indicated that the City had received no rezoning requests for the R-

2

1-10 designation that did not also include an Infill Overlay request since 2001.

3
4

At the last Planning Commission meeting, questions were raised regarding potential changes to the

5

General Plan. Many of the areas where the proposed R2 and R3 Zones could be applied were currently

6

designated Very Low Density Residential, which allows less than one dwelling unit per acre. Staff

7

requested the City Council’s input on whether property owners should be required to amend the

8

General Plan Map in conjunction with the Zoning Map or if the text of the General Plan should be

9

updated to allow up to two dwelling units per acre under that designation.

10
11

Mayor Hall asked for the Planning Department’s recommendation on the matter. Community and

12

Economic Development Director, Grant Crowell stated that it would depend on where the Council

13

intended to apply the new zones. For example, western Bluffdale is designated Very Low Density

14

Residential. If that entire area was deemed eligible for the new R2 and R3 Zones, it would be logical

15

to change the text to reflect that intent. If the City Council only intended to allow thew new zones in

16

specific portions of western Bluffdale, it would be more practical to require those applicants to also

17

request a General Plan Map Amendment.

18
19
20
21

Council Member Austin asked what problem the City hoped to solve with the new zones.
Council Member Lord stated that he studied the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes and came

22

away with more questions than answers. Some areas of Bluffdale would benefit from the new zones.

23

However, residents of other areas would not be pleased if that zoning were applied nearby. By

24

proposing one solution, they could create a problem in another area.

25
26

Council Member Aston agreed with Council Member Lord that the proposed zones are not appropriate

27

for some areas of Bluffdale. However, they were discussing adding R2 and R3 zones to the Zoning

28

Table, not applying them to specific areas of the City. She was not in favor of allowing the zoning to

29

be applied to contiguous properties with different owners, as she believes only individual landowners

30

should be eligible. Additionally, she found the two-acre minimum to be too low.

31
9

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, March 11, 2026
1

Council Member Smith stated that Bluffdale is a small city and costs are increasing. The question is

2

how to grow the tax base through some development without compromising the integrity of existing

3

neighborhoods. He agreed with Council Member Aston regarding the minimum size. At the Planning

4

Commission meeting, someone posed the question of whether two people with one-acre lots could

5

apply for R2 or R3 zoning. If so, that would provide a loophole to apply the zoning in existing

6

neighborhoods. He asked Staff to define “contiguous” as used in the proposed text. Ms. Tubbs stated

7

that in this context, it means the two parcels must be abutting or touching one another.

8
9

Council Member Smith stated that it was also a question of property rights, and the idea was originally

10

bought forward due to residents expressing the desire to subdivide their properties. The City Council

11

also needed to consider the proper role of government in limiting what people can and cannot do with

12

their property.

13
14

Council Member Wilding stated that several private property owners have approached him about

15

developing their larger properties at higher density than one acre. He had also been approached by

16

many owners of one-acre lots that are interested in subdividing, but the Council was not considering

17

that option. New projects in the City are developed in exactly the same way: a mini mansion with a

18

large garage and fully landscaped yard. He questioned why that was the only development that was

19

allowed in Bluffdale. People used to argue that one-acre lots would maintain the rural feel and allow

20

for large animal rights, and for many years that was true. However, he had worked on approximately

21

45 new lots over the past three years, and a review showed that only one of those properties had large

22

animals. His “why” is that a lot of people want the new zoning.

23
24

Council Member Wilding asked Staff to review property and sales tax revenue generation from

25

different types of development, and he also conducted his own studies. West of Redwood Road, he

26

identified approximately 280 acres of undeveloped land. A one-acre-lot development would have

27

approximately 0.7 units per acre, and a 0.50-acre-lot development would have 1.37 units per acre. If

28

the remaining land was developed with one-acre lots, it would create 196 parcels generating

29

approximately $340,000 in sales and property tax revenue. If it were developed with 0.50-acre lots,

30

it would create 384 parcels with approximately $590,000 in tax revenue. The 0.50-acre development
10

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, March 11, 2026
1

would also require approximately 40% less infrastructure per lot, which would help keep property

2

taxes low. Requiring one-acre lots is an expensive way to run a city, and he questioned why the

3

Council would want to continue a requirement that costs more money. He then reviewed his list of

4

reasons the R2 and R3 Zones would be good for Bluffdale.

5
6
7
8
9
10

1.

Allowing higher density development would lower taxes.

2.

The west side of the City is currently subsidized by the higher density east side.

3.

Private property owners want the right to develop their property, and they should be

11

given reasonable consideration by allowing slightly higher density without changing

12

the nature of the City’s neighborhoods.

13
14
15
16

4.

The State is pleading with cities to create more housing.

5.

Smaller lots allow for better water conservation per lot. One-acre lots require a

17
18
19

tremendous amount of water.
6.

20
21
22
23
24

about lot size. Society is changing, and farm animals are no longer a priority.
7.

Weeds and junk can pile up on large properties.

8.

The State continues to try to force higher density zoning on cities, and Bluffdale is one

25
26
27

Rural developments are no longer being built. New homeowners do not care as much

of the reasons it is doing so.
9.

An argument that has been used against higher density zoning is that the City’s

28

infrastructure cannot handle it, but what was being proposed was still very low-density

29

development. All new projects must supply will-serve letters from utility companies,

30

and the City Engineering Department analyzes the project’s impact on City systems.

31

It is unlikely that any development would be big enough to require large-scale changes,

32

and most of the vacant parcels are near collector roads that can handle a higher level

33

of traffic.

34
11

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, March 11, 2026
1

Council Member Wilding stated that in his opinion, the Council should be laser-focused on land

2

development moving forward because if future residents inherit a City of large parcels with a lot of

3

infrastructure and a lowered ability to generate revenue, they will also inherit very high taxes. It is a

4

miracle and a testament to City Staff that taxes are as low as they are, and the City Council needed to

5

make good, careful decisions to ensure that it remains true.

6

minimum to be retained and he believes those residents should be asked why they want higher taxes,

7

why they are comfortable with larger lots being subsidized by Independence, why they feel that

8

Bluffdale is immune from participating in Utah’s housing crisis, how they will deal with the water

9

conservation issues that one-acre lots are exacerbating, and why they feel the only type of developed

10

allowed in western Bluffdale should be mini-mansions.

11
12

Council Member Wilding stated that residents are concerned about allowing 0.33-acre lots because

13

they fear people will build six homes on a two-acre lot. He believes it should be made clear that the

14

R3 Zone is intended only for limited areas such as the perimeter of the City and on parcels where

15

access and geography present challenges to larger lot developments. A Development Agreement

16

should be required. Projects should be limited to two acres or larger and not be part of a conglomerate

17

of single-family-home parcels that were combined to meet that minimum.

18
19

For the R2 Zone, he proposed a minimum project size of two acres, which also cannot be a

20

conglomerate of single-family home parcels. He does not believe a Development Agreement should

21

be required for this zone. It would average 1.37 units per acre, which is very low density. However,

22

he supported setting a limit of no more than 1.5 units per acre for projects under five acres in size.

23

He would modify the text of the General Plan for 0.50-acre lots but believes projects with 0.33-acre

24

lots need a Development Agreement with Planning Commission and City Council involvement.

25
26

Council Member Smith stated the he has spoken with citizens about the issue. He does not believe

27

the State will immediately take control of local zoning, but he does believe succession planning is

28

important, and allowing slightly higher density now could prevent much higher density in 10 or 20

29

years. The proposed R2 and R3 Zones would still maintain lower density in the City, and there was

30

no current proposal to rezone specific properties. Council Member Wilding agreed.
12

Some residents want the one-acre

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, March 11, 2026
1
2

Council Member Wilding stated that he is aware of multiple parcels being held due to density

3

restrictions that would be developed if the proposed adjustments were made. Council Member Austin

4

asked if those parcels could be identified for discussion, as he believes any changes to the General

5

Plan should be made prior to considering the new Zoning Table. Council Member Wilding stated

6

that he did not have the private property owners’ permission to disclose that information. Council

7

Member Smith remarked that many people may express interest if the proposal was approved.

8

Council Member Austin clarified that his intent was to discuss the larger picture of where R2 and R3

9

zoning should apply.

10
11

An aerial map was displayed. Council Member Wilding stated that he believes all of the 10- to 80-

12

acre perimeter parcels would be appropriate for R2 and R3 Zones. Mr. Kartchner asked for

13

clarification on the specific area, whether Council Member Wilding was referring to the City’s

14

perimeter or the perimeter of the Very Low-Density Residential area, as the zoning may also be

15

appropriate for transitional areas. Council Member Wilding stated that his initial thought was about

16

the City’s boundaries, but the Council had previously considered allowing higher density on

17

properties on the east side of Redwood Road that carry the Very Low-Density Residential designation.

18
19

Council Member Austin asked why a Special Development (“SD”) Zone could not be utilized to

20

accomplish the same goal on five-acre or larger parcels. Mr. Crowell reported that the current

21

threshold to apply for an SD Zone is 20 acres, and one option was to modify that threshold. That was

22

a different approach that would require an individual decision on every application rather than making

23

the tool available in the zoning ordinance.

24
25

Council Member Austin stated that to his understanding, the City Council would retain more control

26

over each individual parcel in the SD Zone because Development Agreements could be required, but

27

it would have less control over the R2 and R3 Zones because they are more of a general tool. Mr.

28

Crowell clarified that the legislative decision and option to require a Development Agreement are the

29

same for any zoning action. The SD Zone is a tool that the City has used. It has specific criteria and

30

a more robust application process, but a standard rezoning request could still warrant a Development

13

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, March 11, 2026
1

Agreement or be denied based on a variety of factors. Mr. Donaldson agreed that zoning is a

2

legislative decision. If the City Council’s decision is reasonably debatable, it will be upheld.

3
4

Council Member Austin asked if there would be a greater probability of approval for the R2 or R3

5

Zone due to precedence. Mr. Donaldson stated that every rezone is unique and it is a legislative

6

decision, so there is no precedent.

7
8

Council Member Lord asked Mr. Crowell to confirm if the City Council could change the 20-acre

9

minimum for the SD Zone. Mr. Crowell stated that the criterion was added to the zone because the

10

intent was to ensure some open space in developments and was based on his review of similar

11

ordinances in neighboring cities. Any standard can be amended via a Text Amendment. However,

12

reducing the minimum size would not address the other legislative issues. For example, the developer

13

may want to have 0.33-acre lots but the General Plan requires one-acre lots. The last part of

14

Bringhurst Station that was developed required three legislative actions because it was an

15

agriculturally zoned parcel in the Very Low-Density General Plan area and adjacent to an SD. It was

16

a very long process.

17
18

Mr. Crowell stated that it is helpful to understand the goals the City hopes to achieve through

19

negotiation. For example, architectural controls cannot be required in a standard zone, but they can

20

be negotiated through a Development Agreement or Special District. If a property owner has a simple

21

five-acre parcel with no parks or trails, a standard tool would be a better option because it would

22

provide certainty for the owner and streamline the process.

23
24

Council Member Aston pointed to a location in eastern Bluffdale and indicated that it is well-suited

25

for 0.33-acre parcels. The grade change from Redwood Road to the Jordan River is significant, and

26

it is not appropriate for one-acre lots. She has received multiple inquiries about the area. The Council

27

had discussed western of Bluffdale, but the proposed zones were applicable to other areas of the City.

28

They were considering whether to add the R2 and R3 Zones to the Zoning Table. If they were added,

29

whether to apply those zones would still be at the Council’s discretion, and each Council Member

30

would still review the specific project, citizen input, and their own feelings in determining whether

31

the proposed zone was appropriate.
14

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, March 11, 2026
1
2

Council Member Austin stated that he believes it would make more sense to first determine where the

3

zoning designations should be allowed and modify the General Plan to that effect prior to creating

4

new zones. Council Member Aston asked why someone cannot have a house on a 0.33-acre lot in

5

Bluffdale. She did not see the issue with adding that option to the Zoning Table. Whether that zoning

6

is appropriate for a specific area is the sitting Council’s decision.

7
8

Council Member Smith stated that they needed to determine whether the option should even be on

9

the table. He was not aware of an active development proposal. He then asked Staff about the reason

10

for rounding the zones down from, for example, 0.50 acres to 20,000 square feet. Mr. Crowell stated

11

that it was done based on feedback to the initial draft of the Zoning Table. In that example, the

12

difference is 1,780 square feet. Road area currently does not count toward lot area. If a two-acre

13

parcel is subdivided and the requirement is 21,780 square feet, in most cases only three lots will be

14

allowed. The proposed minimum square footage provides some leeway for the property owner to

15

have design options. Some other communities require the full 0.50 acre and others only require

16

20,000 square feet. Regardless of the number, some properties will be slightly short or over the

17

requirement, and variances are typically not granted in Bluffdale.

18
19

Council Member Wilding stated that other communities adjust the sizes down to allow for finished

20

density. The objective of the current effort was to encourage more development in a conscientious

21

way and accommodate society’s current patterns and desires, and rounding the square footage down

22

to 20,000 square feet allows for something closer to the allowed density of two lots per acre.

23
24

Council Member Smith asked about potential scope creep and the impact on Staff time. Mr. Kartchner

25

stated that development has slowed over the past few years, and reenergizing development would be

26

beneficial to both the City and its Staff.

27
28

Council Member Smith asked if the proposal would reduce the probability of flag lots. Mr. Crowell

29

stated that in Bluffdale, they are referred to as private shared driveways, not flag lots. If the idea is

30

to prevent a house from being constructed behind another house, the ordinance does provide some

15

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, March 11, 2026
1

flexibility. Other communities’ flag lots sometimes allow the private driveway to be included in the

2

lot size.

3
4

Council Member Smith asked Council Member Wilding for his thoughts on the question. Council

5

Member Wilding stated that most cities currently have a lot of infill development with homes built

6

behind other homes on flag lots or private lanes. In his opinion, if the Council decides that the

7

approximately 280 undeveloped acres in western Bluffdale must be developed with one-acre lots, it

8

will be a disservice to the community. If every 0.50- and 0.33-acre project requires the SD Zone and

9

a Development Agreement, that will in effect prohibit development because many property owners

10

will not want to go through that process. Also, each time the City Council considers an application,

11

the Council chambers will be full of residents opposed to allowing smaller lots. He believed the

12

question was whether the reasons to move forward with R2 and R3 zones outweigh some property

13

owners’ reasons for not wanting that type of development. In his experience, current property owners

14

will always be opposed to new development on neighboring properties. His position is that 0.50-acre

15

lots should be allowed without additional steps and 0.33-acre lots should go through the full zoning

16

and General Plan processes.

17
18

Council Member Lord presented the scenario of a 40-acre undeveloped area. If the owner of one five-

19

acre portion was approved for R2 or R3 zoning, he believes it would be difficult to justify denying

20

rezoning all other undeveloped properties in that area. He has spoken with many residents who moved

21

to Bluffdale specifically for the one-acre lots, and he does not want to give in to developers when

22

there is still a demand for larger parcels. He believes one-acre properties have more value and that if

23

the City allows development on smaller parcels, it will open the floodgates for all one-acre parcels to

24

be subdivided.

25
26

Council Member Aston respectfully rejected that mischaracterization. The City Council has denied

27

a townhome development and then later approved another townhome development on the same

28

parcel. It is well within the Council’s authority to rezone one property and not others. In Council

29

Member Lord’s example, he would likely reject the proposal to rezone five acres because he feels

16

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, March 11, 2026
1

passionate about the entire 40 acres. Having R2 and R3 Zones in the Zoning Table will not open the

2

floodgates because it is the Council’s discretion to use it or not.

3
4

Council Member Wilding stated that both he and Council Member Lord moved to Bluffdale for their

5

one-acre lots, and there is still a demand for large lots. However, the City Council has the right to

6

rezone or not rezone. He applied to rezone a property in another City to match the zoning of all

7

adjacent parcels, and the City Council denied the application. There was nothing he could do about

8

it because that decision is within the City Council’s purview.

9
10

Council Member Lord asked if the City would run the risk of lawsuits. Mr. Donaldson stated that the

11

decision would be upheld if it is reasonably debatable and complies with the Land Use Management

12

and Development Act. Valid reasons for denial include that the proposal does not make sense at the

13

time but could make sense in the future, the demand is not there, it is not the right property for the

14

proposal, public clamor, etc.

15
16

Council Member Smith asked if was fair to assume that the City Council was not hearing ideas for

17

smaller lot developments because the zoning was not available, and that by approving the new Zoning

18

Table those ideas would be brought forward.

19
20

Council Member Austin stated that Council Member Smith had a good point. However, there was

21

also pushback from the other side. He believes there is merit to residents showing up to oppose

22

smaller parcels, and the City Council needs to pay attention to their concerns. He agreed that not

23

having the zoning available limits the number of people who will come forward with development

24

ideas but believes it protects those who oppose it. If the City Council identified areas where the

25

proposed zones could be applied, citizens may be less concerned. He is repeatedly told that residents

26

moved to Bluffdale due to its zoning, and they trusted that it would not change in their lifetime. The

27

City Council needs to protect what its residents value.

28
29

Council Member Aston remarked that citizens elected Council Member Austin to vote on their behalf.

30

Whether the zoning was changed or modified, all zoning decisions would still be made by the sitting

31

City Council, which changes every two and four years. The Council could currently approve 0.3317

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, March 11, 2026
1

acre zoning; it simply was not included in the Zoning Table. She believes they should make it clear

2

and transparent rather than requiring a convoluted process.

3
4

Council Member Austin reiterated his position that they should first determine where the zoning could

5

be applied. Council Member Aston indicated that the General Plan is updated frequently and that can

6

be included in the next amendment, but she did not understand why that should affect adding the new

7

zones to the Zoning Table.

8
9

Council Member Smith agreed that the process should be transparent but found the argument of

10

adding a tool to the tool belt to be less compelling. Currently there are ways to get around one-acre

11

zoning through a Development Agreement, and a more transparent method would be to recognize that

12

0.50- and 0.33-acre lots can exist in the City. The Council can then have the discussion on where the

13

zones can be applied. He believes the proper order is to amend the Zoning Table and then discuss the

14

General Plan. However, modifications were needed. For example, he agreed with Council Member

15

Aston that properties must be individually owned.

16
17

Council Member Lord spoke about existing developments. Sage Estates has some 0.33-acre lots. Mr.

18

Crowell indicated that its largest lots are 0.33 acres, but some are as small as 10,000 square feet. It

19

was developed using the Cluster Residential Overlay (“CRO”) Zone, which no longer exists. Council

20

Member Lord asked if any large property owners were interested in building a similar development

21

in the City. Mr. Crowell stated that he has received calls regarding the large farm on 3600 West, but

22

he had not spoken with anyone recently. Council Member Lord stated that he has visited smaller lot

23

developments in the City, and they are all very nice. He does not think anyone would say that Spring

24

View Farms is a bad development, and most residents of Sage Estates love living there.

25
26

Mr. Crowell stated that the Planning Department regularly fields inquiries. Spring View Farms and

27

Parry Farms are very large developments. The gravel pits are the only remaining areas of that size in

28

the City, but there are smaller open parcels adjacent to those developments. Staff has received calls

29

from assemblages of property owners on South Redwood Road for potential projects totaling between

30

15 and 40 acres.

31
18

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, March 11, 2026
1

Mr. Kartchner provided some historical context on the proposed zones. When the CRO Zone was

2

approved with an average density of 1.35 units per acre, interested in that zoning blossomed. The

3

City Council became nervous about the level of interest and made some modifications, which lowered

4

the interest level. The fact that 0.50- or 0.25-acre lots could currently be developed on larger parcels

5

in Very Low-Density areas does not generate interest because it is not overtly stated in City Code.

6

By adding R2 and R3 Zones to the Zoning Table, property owners would know the zoning is available

7

and be more likely to apply for it, which would likely spur development. The City Council would

8

still decide whether to approve or deny each application.

9
10

Mayor Hall thanked everyone for their comments and noted that the Council needed to provide Staff

11

with direction. Council Member Aston stated that she would review her notes and email her thoughts

12

to Staff.

13
14

Mr. Crowell reported that the Planning Commission had many of the same questions as the Council,

15

and it could be discussed in as many meetings as necessary. The Planning Commission public hearing

16

was left open, and the item could be brought back to them as soon as their next meeting.

17
18

Council Member Lord stated that the Planning Commission spoke about having another joint Work

19

Session. Mayor Hall clarified that the City Council discussed the matter and decided on the current

20

meeting.

21
22

Council Member Wilding stated that he had spent a great deal of time on the matter and spoken with

23

a large number of citizens. He understood that others disagreed, but he strongly believes the

24

additional zones will be very good for the City and private property rights. He proposed the following:

25
26

•

27

on parcels where geometry and access present challenges to larger lot developments.

28

o Each project requires a Development Agreement.

29

o Projects must be five acres or larger and cannot be a conglomerate of single-family-

30
31

0.33-acre zoning should be considered in limited circumstances on the perimeter of the City

home parcels that have been combined to meet the minimum.
•

0.50-acre zoning should be allowed on parcels in remaining areas of the City.
19

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, March 11, 2026
1

o Projects must be two acres or larger and cannot be a conglomerate of single-family-

2

home parcels that have been combined to meet the minimum.

3
4

o A Development Agreement is not required.
•

The density limit for small projects between two and five acres is 1.5 units per acre.

5
6

Council Member Austin remarked that the Planning Commission asked for additional information.

7

Mr. Crowell confirmed that they requested maps and other information, including a data analysis and

8

potential subdivision layouts.

9
10

Regarding Council Member Wilding’s proposal, Mr. Crowell stated that some of the items were

11

considerations for the City Council rather than technical standards to be included in the Zoning Table.

12

If the Council directed Staff to include all items, the zones would need to be removed from the table

13

and added as standalone chapters.

14
15

Council Member Wilding stated that most of the negative feedback he had heard was in regard to the

16

0.33-acre zoning, and his recommendations were an attempt to restrict the zone to very limited areas.

17
18

Council Member Austin asked if the Planning Commission had also requested information on the

19

financial impact of infrastructure, police and fire, and other impacts of increased density. Ms. Tubbs

20

stated that it was noted as something that may be useful, but Staff was not directed to obtain that

21

information. Council Member Austin asked for that data, as well as information on potential traffic

22

impacts. Mayor Hall indicated that it may not be reasonable to request that of Staff.

23
24

Mr. Kartchner stated that an engineering firm is typically hired to conduct traffic studies, which would

25

be an expense to the City. The recent Public Safety Fee study indicated that residential need is

26

population based for all densities and the ratios do not change except in very high density like

27

apartments. Developments are responsible for bearing all associated infrastructure costs, and the

28

City’s existing water, stormwater, and roads infrastructure can handle any growth.

29
30

Council Member Lord expressed concern about properties in the proposed zones also having

31

Accessory Dwelling Units (“ADU”), which would increase the potential density. Mr. Kartchner
20

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, March 11, 2026
1

stated that the ratio between lot sizes would not change. An ADU would also increase revenues

2

without adding infrastructure costs.

3
4

Council Member Wilding suggested that the proposal be modified prior to sending it back to the

5

Planning Commission. Mayor Hall asked the Council to email their suggestions to Staff. Mr. Crowell

6

indicated that the modified Zoning Table would be presented to the Commission at an April meeting.

7
8

Council Member Lord stated that most Council Members agreed on a higher minimum acreage

9

requirement than was currently proposed. Council Member Wilding proposed that density be

10

restricted for projects between two and five acres in size, but noted that the minimum could also be

11

increased.

12
13

The next City Council Meeting was scheduled for March 25. There would only be one meeting in

14

April, on April 8, due to the ULCT conference. The Tentative Budget would be presented at that

15

meeting.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36

3.

Discussion.

There was no discussion.
4.

Adjournment.

Council Member Aston moved to ADJOURN.

Council Member Wilding seconded the

motion. The motion passed with the unanimous consent of the Council.
The meeting adjourned at 8:18 PM.

_________________________________
Tami Timothy, UCC
City Recorder
Approved: _________________________
21

THE CITY OF BLUFFDALE
2222 W 14400 South
Bluffdale, Utah 84065
(801) 254-2200
Fax (801) 253-3270
MEMORANDUM
To:

Bluffdale City Council

From: Fredric Donaldson, Bluffdale City Attorney
Date: February 18, 2026
Re:

Resolution Amending Policies and Procedures Manual related to Juneteenth Holiday

In 2026, the Utah legislature has now formally established June 19 as Juneteenth –
National Freedom Day. City Staff is recommending changing our holiday schedule to match
the state holiday schedule. Juneteenth will be celebrated on June 19. If June 19 falls on a
Saturday, the holiday will be observed on the preceding Friday. If it falls on a Sunday, the
holiday will be observed the following Monday.

THE CITY OF BLUFFDALE, UTAH
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-15
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE BLUFFDALE CITY POLICIES AND
PROCEDURES MANUAL RELATED TO HOLIDAYS
WHEREAS, the City of Bluffdale (“City”) has adopted a Policies and Procedures Manual
for employees of the City (“manual”); and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt amendments to the manual as provided
in Exhibit A hereto (“amendments”); and
WHEREAS, the amendments are in the best interests of the city and its residents.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BLUFFDALE CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Adoption of Amendments. The amendments to the Bluffdale City Policies
and Procedures manual identified in Exhibit A are hereby adopted.
Section 2. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon
passage.
PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED: March 25, 2026.
______________________________
Mayor Natalie Hall
ATTEST:

[seal]

___________________________________
City Recorder
Voting by the Council:

Councilmember Aston
Councilmember Austin
Councilmember Lord
Councilmember Smith
Councilmember Wilding
Mayor Hall (tie only)

YES

NO

ABSTAIN

_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____

ABSENT
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____

EXHIBIT A

1.60.020 Holiday Schedule
The following days are defined as legal holidays upon which all offices of the City shall be closed,
except those offices required by law or necessity to remain open. In the event the holiday falls on a
Sunday, the following Monday shall be the holiday, and in the event the holiday falls on a Saturday,
the preceding Friday shall be the holiday.
New Year’s Day - January 1st;
Martin Luther King, Jr. Day – third Monday in January;
Day - third Monday in February;
Memorial Day - last Monday in May;
Juneteenth - National Freedom Day - June 19th ;
Independence Day - July 4th;
Pioneer Day - July 24th;
Labor Day - first Monday in September;
Columbus Day - second Monday in October;
Veteran’s Day - November 11th;
Thanksgiving - fourth Thursday in November; and the day after Thanksgiving; and
Christmas Day - December 25th.

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-16
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BLUFFDALE, UTAH, AUTHORIZING
THE SURPLUS OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY.
WHEREAS, the below-described property is no longer necessary, useful, or suitable for
municipal purposes; and
WHEREAS, Bluffdale City Council finds it prudent to dispose of said property in accordance
with the method provided thereby.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BLUFFDALE,
UTAH:
SECTION 1. Surplus of Property. The City Council hereby authorizes the surplus of the
following items:
Description of Property

Method of Surplus

Unit 1145 2020 Dodge Ram 1500 SSV
from Police Dept

JJ Kane/TNT Auction

SECTION 2. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon
passage.
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BLUFFDALE, UTAH, ON THIS 25th DAY OF
MARCH, 2026 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
YES

NO

ABSTAIN

Councilmember Aston
Councilmember Austin
Councilmember Lord
Councilmember Smith
Councilmember Wilding
Mayor Hall (tie only)

Mayor:
Natalie C. Hall

Attest:
City Recorder

ABSENT

Short-Term Rental Research
City Council Meeting
March 25, 2026

Existing Code Context: ADUs
Current Standard
• Bluffdale regulates Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) through City Code
• ADUs (internal and detached) must be rented for 30 days or more
An I-ADU or D-ADU shall not be rented or leased for a period of less than thirty (30) consecutive days
(BCC 11.340.040.F)
Relevance to Short-Term Rentals
• Rentals under 30 days are not permitted in ADUs
• Short-term rentals are not otherwise addressed in City Code

Key Takeaway
• Bluffdale has an existing 30-day minimum rental standard (ADUs only)
• STRs are not addressed more broadly citywide

City

STRs Allowed

How Regulated

Revenue / Fee Source

Inspection

St. George

Yes

STR permit + business license

License fee + TRT

Initial / Complaint-Based

Hurricane

Yes

Business license; city cap

License fee + TRT

Yes

Provo

Yes (limited)

Business license; zoning restrictions

License fee

No

Washington

Yes

Business license + fire inspection

License fee + TRT

Yes

Cottonwood Heights

Yes

CUP + business license

License fee

Yes

Lehi

Yes

Business license; primary residence

License fee

No

Riverton

Yes

CUP + business license

License fee

Initial / Complaint-Based

South Jordan

Yes

Business license; zoning restrictions

License fee

No

South Salt Lake

Yes

STR permit + business license

License fee + TRT

Yes

Herriman

Yes

Business license (limited provisions)

License fee

No

Lindon

Yes

Business license + standards

License fee

Initial / Complaint-Based

City

STR Allowed

How Regulated

Revenue / Fee Source

Inspection

Saratoga
Springs

No

Zoning prohibition (residential)

None

No

Draper

No

Not established as permitted use

None

No

Salt Lake City

No (residential)

Restricted to commercial zones

Limited (commercial only)

N/A

Orem

No

Prohibited in city code

None

No

American Fork

No

Not permitted in city code

None

No

Layton

No (residential)

Treated as lodging/commercial use

None

No

Not clearly permitted

None

No

Eagle Mountain No / Unclear

CITY SUMMARY
Category

Cities

Allowed + Regulated

St. George, Hurricane, Provo, Washington, Cottonwood
Heights, Lehi, Riverton, South Jordan, South Salt Lake,
Herriman, Lindon

Not Allowed

Saratoga Springs, Draper, Salt Lake City (residential),
Orem, American Fork, Layton, Eagle Mountain

Not Addressed

Bluffdale

Potential Impacts of Allowing STRs
Potential Benefits
• Business license revenue
• Transient room tax revenue
• Visitor spending at local businesses
• Easier regulation of licensed properties
• Property owner flexibility
Potential Challenges
• Noise, parking, and traffic concerns
• Increased complaint response
• Additional enforcement workload
• Perception of commercial activity in residential
areas
• Potential housing availability concerns

Possible Initial Approach
Steps
• Add definition of Short-Term Rental
• Clarify STRs are not a permitted residential use
Advantages
• Clarity for residents and staff
• Minimal code amendment required
• No licensing program needed
• Can be revisited later if conditions change

STR Ordinance - Straight Forward Examples
Provo
• Single code chapter (6.33)
• Allowed in specific zones
• Business license required
• Minimal additional requirements
Takeaway:
Simple zoning + licensing model with limited administrative steps
Cottonwood Heights Single code section (19.89)
• Allowed in limited zones/housing types
• Requires CUP, business license, and inspection
Takeaway:
Clear structure, but more involved approval and enforcement process

Key Takeaways
• Most Utah cities allow STRs with regulations
• Bluffdale does not address STRs in code
• A minimal step: define STRs and clarify the City’s position

THE CITY OF BLUFFDALE
2222 W 14400 South
Bluffdale, Utah 84065
(801) 254-2200
Fax (801) 253-3270
MEMORANDUM
To:

Bluffdale City Council

From: Fredric Donaldson, Bluffdale City Attorney
Date: February 18, 2026
Re:

Resolution allowing lease of vacated public works building property to Google Fiber

Contractors for Google Fiber have approached the City about leasing the yard of the
vacated public works property for storage and staging of vehicles and equipment used for
the installation of its fiber network in the City.
Utah Code requires that a public hearing before the City Council be held before a
City disposes of a “significant parcel of real property”. Utah Code 10-8-2(4). “Disposition.”
“Any sale, exchange, lease, encumbrance or other conveyance of property, excluding the
conveyance of a non-perpetual easement, lease, or license for a public purpose.” Id.
Since Google Fiber’s contractor has had difficulty finding an appropriate location for
its purposes and the City Staff believes that this property can be used temporarily for the
mutual benefit of the City, its residents, and Google Fiber and its contractor. The resolution
will authorize the City Manager and staff to negotiate for appropriate rent and other
consideration for the use of the property.

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-14
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BLUFFDALE, UTAH, AUTHORIZING
THE DISPOSITION BY LEASE OF SIGNIFICANT PARCELS OF REAL PROPERTY, SPECIFICALLY
THE VACATED PUBLIC WORKS YARD AT 14175 S. AND 14185 S. REDWOOD ROAD
WHEREAS, the City of Bluffdale is a municipal corporation and political subdivision of
the State of Utah (the “City”) and the City owns two parcels of real property at 14175 S.
Redwood Road and 14185 S. Redwood Road (“subject property”) as depicted in Exhibit A
hereto; and
WHEREAS, the subject property contains a building that was previously used by the
Bluffdale Public Works Department for office space, and the exterior yard of the subject
property was used for storing and deployment of personnel, equipment, supplies, and
vehicles; and
WHEREAS, the Bluffdale Public Works Department has vacated the building and
moved to a new building and the yard of the building is no longer being used as extensively;
and
WHEREAS, the vacated building is now being used by the Bluffdale Arts Advisory
Board; and
WHEREAS, the City has entered into a previous agreement with Google Fiber allowing
them to deploy fiber transmission lines in the City’s rights of way; and
WHEREAS, Google Fiber’s contractors desire a site for the storage and deployment of
vehicles and materials related to the installation of fiber lines in the City; and
WHEREAS, the City and Google Fiber’s contractors have determined that it would be
mutually beneficial to enter into a temporary lease of the City’s property for the storage and
deployment of vehicles and materials related to the installation of fiber lines in the City; and
WHEREAS, this surplus disposition resolution will allow the City to retain the subject
property while receiving revenue for the use of the property; and
WHEREAS, as required by Bluffdale City Code 7.50, the Bluffdale City Council (the “City
Council”) has noticed and held a public hearing as required by law and has determined that it
is in the best interests of the public health, safety, and welfare of City to approve this surplus
property disposition declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BLUFFDALE,
UTAH:

SECTION 1. Surplus Declaration. The City Council hereby declares a surplus for
leasing the significant parcels of real property shown in Exhibit A identified in the Salt Lake
County Recorder’s records as Parcel No. 33034510140000 and Parcel No. 33034510380000
and hereby authorizes the City Manager to lease the subject property pursuant to the
requirements in Bluffdale City Code 7.50.
SECTION 2. Required Findings. In support of this surplus declaration, the following
finding is made: 1. A non-exclusive lease of the subject property at or below fair market value
will benefit the City by providing revenue for the City while maintaining City ownership and
allowing Google Fiber a location to stage its fiber installation activities, and 2. No appraisal is
required because the value of the temporary lease does not justify the cost.
SECTION 3. Severability. If any section, clause or portion of this Resolution is
declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder shall not be affected
thereby and shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective immediately
upon passage.
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BLUFFDALE, UTAH, ON THIS 25th DAY OF
MARCH, 2026, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
YES
Councilmember Aston
Councilmember Austin
Councilmember Lord
Councilmember Smith
Councilmember Wilding
Mayor Hall (Tie Only)

NO

ABSTAIN

_____ _____ _____

ABSENT

_____

BLUFFDALE CITY

ATTEST:
__________________________________
Tami Timothy, City Recorder

_________________________________________
Mayor Natalie Hall

Exhibit A

REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
To:
From:
Date:
Business Date:
Subject:

Applicant(s):
Staff Presentation:

Mayor and City Council
Caitlyn Tubbs, Planning Manager
March 20, 2026
March 25, 2026
Ordinance 2026-02– Proposed Text Amendment to the Bringhurst Station
Commercial Sub-Districts Diagram (BCC Section 11.110.100.050(E)) to allow nonretail-based businesses in certain areas.
Bringhurst Industrial Park, LLC, represented by Joshua F. Hunt, Esq.
Caitlyn Tubbs

RECOMMENDATION: To approve Ordinance 2026-02 as recommended by the Planning Commission on March 4,
2026.
BACKGROUND:
The Applicant owns a 2.18-acre parcel in the Bringhurst Station development at 16332 South Bringhurst
Boulevard where they have constructed a flex commercial building. BCC Section 11.110.100.050(E) distinguishes
areas for retail-based commercial areas versus non-retail-based commercial areas within the Bringhurst Station
development. The Applicant’s property is currently located in a retail-based area and they desire to amend the
Commercial Sub-Districts diagram to allow non-retail-based businesses on their property.
The City Council approved the Bringhurst Station Special Development Zone and Project Plan on August 22,
20181. The original project plan concentrated the non-residential commercial uses along Redwood Road to
minimize impacts to future residents and maximize visibility of the commercial users along the Redwood Road
corridor. The commercial area of Bringhurst Station has been constructed and property owners have indicated
there has been difficulty in finding retail-based businesses to occupy “Area A.” Many owners have reported to
the City that non-retail-based businesses have expressed interest in bringing their operations into this area,
however, the existing sub-district zoning prohibits them.
If approved, the following additional business types would be permitted on this parcel: Automotive Service,
Construction Sales and Service, Data Center, General Manufacturing, Printing Shops, and Wholesale and
Warehousing. Also, if approved, preschools and daycare centers would no longer be permitted at this location.
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing regarding this proposal on March 4, 20262. No public
input was received; however, the Commission opined that the grading and built scale of the site is not
conducive to retail uses and that approving the requested Text Amendment would maximize the viability of the
commercial spaces in Bringhurst Station.
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: Zoning text amendments are a legislative decision of the City Council, after
receiving a recommendation from the Planning Commission. Broad discretion is given to the City’s Land Use
1 August 22, 2018, City Council Meeting (Packet, pg. 88; Minutes, pg. 11)
2 March 4, 2026, Planning Commission Meeting (Packet, pg. 100; [minutes pending] Recording, start time 11:48)

Authorities when making land use decisions. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 4, 2026,
and forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION:
Ordinance 2026-02
Proposed redlines

CITY OF BLUFFDALE, UTAH
ORDINANCE NO. 2026-02
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE BRINGHURST STATION COMMERCIAL SUB-DISTRICTS
DIAGRAM WITHIN SECTION 11.110.100.050(E) OF THE BLUFFDALE CITY CODE TO
ALLOW NON-RETAIL BASED BUSINESSES IN CERTAIN AREAS.
WHEREAS, Bluffdale Industrial Park, LLC (“Applicant”) owns a parcel of land within the
commercial area of the Bringhurst Station Development;
WHEREAS, the Applicant has filed a Text Amendment Application with the City to request
an amendment to the Bringhurst Station Commercial Sub-Districts Diagram to permit nonretail-based businesses within their property;
WHEREAS, a notice of public hearing for the proposed amendments was provided
pursuant to the Bluffdale City Code and Utah State Code;
WHEREAS, on March 4, 2026, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and
unanimously forwarded a positive recommendation of the proposed Text Amendment to
the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BLUFFDALE,
UTAH AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
Adoption. Ordinance 2026-02 is hereby adopted, amending Section
11.110.100.050(E) 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: March 25, 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
1.110.100.050 Commercial Development Standards and Design
Guidelines