The Docket · Government Meeting · DKT-2026-001003

On the agenda: Bluffdale meeting — data center (May 20)

Past ⚠ Agenda Watch Bluffdale, Utah · Wednesday, May 20, 2026 — 4 months ago

About this record

The published agenda for this May 20 meeting contains: "data center". The meeting has passed; the record and its outcome live here permanently.

WhenWednesday, May 20, 2026
Check the agenda document for the meeting time.

WhereBluffdale, Utah

Money$600,000 was at stake

On the record“Data Center”“Data center”“data center”

The agenda, word for word

Government public record — the full text of the published document, archived August 18, 2026. Gold highlighting of key terms is ours, not the original’s. Read the original document ↗

111 pages · scroll to read

Page 1 of 111

BLUFFDALE PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, May 20, 2026
Notice is hereby given that the Bluffdale City Planning Commission will hold a public meeting
on Wednesday, May 20, 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. Roll Call.
2. Invocation/Thought/Reading and Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Minutes: Approval of the minutes from the April 15, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting.
4. 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 a proposed Text
Amendment to Chapter 3.40 of the Bluffdale City Code to update the City’s regulations on
seasonal fireworks sales and to Section 11.180.020 of the Bluffdale City Code to allow
outdoor fireworks sales as an allowed temporary use. Joee Witter, Applicant. Caitlyn
Tubbs, Staff Presenter. (Application 2026-16)
6. PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDERATION, AND RECOMMENDATION on a request to amend the
General Plan Map for approximately 1.90 acres at 13942 South 2700 West from Very Low
Density Residential to Commercial. Pine West Investment Group, LLC, Applicant. Caitlyn
Tubbs, Staff Presenter. (Application 2026-04)

Page 2 of 111

7. PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDERATION, AND RECOMMENDATION on a request to amend the
Zoning Map for approximately 1.90 acres at 13942 South 2700 West from R-1-43
Residential to General Commercial. Pine West Investment Group, LLC, Applicant. Caitlyn
Tubbs, Staff Presenter. (Application 2026-04)
8. PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDERATION AND RECOMMENDATION on a request for a
Development Agreement to develop four (4) microflex buildings on approximately 3.914
acres at 13918 South 2700 West, 13942 South 2700 West, and 13937 South 2950 West, also
reducing glazing and brick percentages and allowing construction sales and service, data
centers, loan centers, general and limited manufacturing, printing services, storage
facilities for machinery and equipment, temporary job trailers and offices, and wholesale
and warehousing as permitted uses within the project. Pine West Investment Group, LLC,
Applicant. Caitlyn Tubbs, Staff Presenter. (Application 2026-04)
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
9. Planning Commission Business (planning session for upcoming items, follow up, etc.).
10. Adjournment.

Dated: May 15, 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.

Page 3 of 111

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, April 15, 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

Present:

Commission Meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Griffis. Vote on motion:

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

35
36
37
38
39

Members:

Debbie Cragun, Chair
Ulises Flynn (arrived at 6:13 p.m.)
Tina Griffis
Kory Luker
Erik Swanson (arrived at 6:05 p.m.)

Staff:

Grant Crowell, Community and Economic Development Director
Caitlyn Tubbs, Planning Manager
Ellen Oakman, Associate City Planner
Pauline Matagi, Community Development Coordinator
Courtney Peterson, Legal Assistant
Fred Donaldson, City Attorney

Other:

Steve Austin, City Council Member
Mackey Smith, City Council Member

PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS MEETING
1.

Roll Call.

Chair Debbie Cragun called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m.
2.

Invocation/Thought/Reading and Pledge of Allegiance.

Connie Pavlakis offered the invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
3.

Minutes: Approval of the Minutes from the March 18, 2026, Planning Commission
Meeting.

Commissioner Luker moved to APPROVE the Minutes of the March 18, 2026 Planning

Public Comment.

There was no public comment.

Page 4 of 111

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, April 15, 2026
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS

before the Planning Commission in 2025 as a General Plan and Zoning Map Amendment, as well as

a Development Agreement proposal for 99 townhomes.

applications were for Phase 1 of the townhome development. The approximately 11-acre subject

property is southeast of Bringhurst Station.

20
21

The Subdivision Plat was reviewed, and Ms. Tubbs reported that Phase 1 would be served by a public

street that crosses the Utah Lake Distributing Canal and terminates at City-owned property. The

proposal met all existing parking requirements, and Phase 1 included all required guest parking stalls

for the 50 units included in the phase.

25
26

The applicant would continue installing amenities outlined in the Development Agreement.

Lake County has determined that it does not want planters, benches, or landscaping along the Jordan

River Trail, so the applicant will relocate those amenities elsewhere within the development. Fencing

will include passage points between the development and trail so residents can access the trail

corridor. Amenities will be concentrated on the northern portion of the property, including pergolas,

chess tables, and benches in the northwestern corner. A swing set, additional benches, and the

amenities previously planned for the trail area will be located in the existing grove of trees.

Architectural renderings were reviewed, and Ms. Tubbs reported that all materials meet City design

standards.

CONSIDERATION AND VOTE on a Proposed Site Plan for The Grove at Bringhurst
Station including 50 townhome units, public and private streets, and amenities.
(Application 2025-17). Applicant, Edge Homes, represented by Mike Winters. Staff
Presenter, Caitlyn Tubbs.

CONSIDERATION AND VOTE on a Proposed Subdivision Plat for The Grove at
Bringhurst Station including 50 townhome units, public and private streets, and
amenities. (Application 2025-18). Applicant, Edge Homes, represented by Mike
Winters. Staff Presenter, Caitlyn Tubbs.

Items 5 and 6 were heard together.
Planning Manager, Caitlyn Tubbs, presented the Staff Report and indicated that the project came

35
2

The Site Plan and Subdivision Plat

Salt

Page 5 of 111

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, April 15, 2026
1

Brandon Watson spoke on behalf of Edge Homes and stated that they had worked hard with Staff and

outside agencies to prepare the application and were excited to move forward. In response to a

question raised by Chair Cragun, he reported that they originally considered adding a park in the

grove of trees, but the decision was made to leave the grove as-is, and those amenities had been moved

to the northwest portion of the property.

6
7

Commissioner Luker moved to APPROVE the Site Plan for Phase 1 of The Grove Subdivision,

based on the Findings presented in the Staff Report dated April 15, 2026. The motion was

seconded by Commissioner Griffis. Vote on motion: Ulises Flynn-Yes, Erik Swanson-Yes, Tina

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

11
12

Commissioner Luker moved to APPROVE the Preliminary Plat for Phase 1 of The Grove

Subdivision, based on the Findings presented in the Staff Report dated April 15, 2026. The

motion was seconded by Commissioner Griffis. Vote on motion: Ulises Flynn-Yes, Erik

Swanson-Yes, Tina Griffis-Yes, Kori Luker-Yes, Chair Cragun-Yes.

unanimously.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

The motion passed

LEGISLATIVE ITEMS
7.

PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDERATION, AND RECOMMENDATION on a Proposed
Text Amendment to Chapter 11.220.030 to add a definition for “Gas Station Electronic
Display Sign” and to Chapter 11.220.070.A to allow electronic display signs for gas
stations with a minimum display interval of three (3) seconds. (Application 2026-10).
Applicant, Yesco. Staff Presenter, Ellen Oakman.

Associate City Planner, Ellen Oakman, presented the Staff Report and reported that the Text

Amendment was requested by Yesco on behalf of Maverik, Inc. to allow electronic display signs

specifically for gas station monument signs. The proposed new definition and sign category generally

mirrored existing language for static electronic numeric display signs, with the primary difference

being the allowance of a three-second display interval rather than the 12-hour interval allowed for

static signs. The proposed definition was as follows:

Page 6 of 111

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, April 15, 2026
1
2
3
4
5
6

Bluffdale City Code §11.220.030: Definitions
GAS STATION ELECTRONIC DISPLAY SIGNS:
An electronic message center sign that:
•

Is incorporated into a monument sign and does not occupy more than 50% of the entire sign
face;

•

Changes display no more frequently than once every three seconds;

•

Does not scroll, flash, blink, emit sound, or include animated copy or graphics.

10
11

The proposed gas station electronic display signs would be limited to gas station monument signs and

have a minimum three-second display interval. Electronic display signs use the NIT brightness

standards to measure how bright the display appears. By contrast, electronic message centers have a

minimum eight-second display interval and are measured using foot-candle brightness standards.

15
16

In response to a question raised by Commissioner Flynn, Ms. Oakman confirmed that static signs

require a 12-hour display interval. Electronic message centers are largely prohibited in the City, but

allow an eight-second interval.

standards, and they indicated that they had no concerns with the three-second interval for this sign

category.

21
22

Commissioner Swanson asked for examples of static electronic signs. Ms. Oakman reported that

banks or other businesses utilize that type of sign. In response to a follow-up question, Community

and Economic Development Director, Grant Crowell, stated that digital clocks are not static, but there

may be one legal nonconforming clock sign in the City. Bluffdale had worked over the years to

clarify its policy on electronic message centers and their full animation. Gas station signs were first

manual, then static electronic, and the proposal was in response to the next step in their evolution. It

was important to avoid content regulation.

29
30

Skyler Walser spoke on behalf of the applicant and indicated that three seconds is longer than it may

seem. Maverik had implemented a companywide change with lower pricing for Nitro rewards

program members, and they want to display the different pricing. He then presented a video of the

She spoke with the Engineering Department regarding safety

Page 7 of 111

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, April 15, 2026
1

three-second display interval. In response to a question from Commissioner Flynn, Mr. Walser

confirmed that the three-second interval is standard for all Maverik locations. They had not received

any complaints or requests to change the interval at night, and the signs follow all regulations for

dimming, etc., after dark.

5
6

Chair Cragun opened the public hearing and reviewed the commenting rules. There were no

comments. The public hearing was closed.

8
9

Commissioner Griffis moved to forward a POSITIVE recommendation to the City Council for

the Proposed Text Amendments, based on the Findings presented in the Staff Report dated

April 15, 2026. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Luker. Vote on motion: Ulises

Flynn-Yes, Erik Swanson-Yes, Tina Griffis-Yes, Kori Luker-Yes, Chair Cragun-Yes. The

motion passed unanimously.

14
15

Ms. Oakman reported that a date had not been set for the City Council to consider the item. Chair

Cragun encouraged anyone interested in the item to check the City website for more information.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37

PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDERATION, AND RECOMMENDATION on a Proposed
Text Amendment to Multiple Sections of City Code as follows:
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

Consolidate Chapters 11.80.010 (R-1-43 Residential Zone) and 11.80.020 (R-1-10
Residential Zone) into a new Chapter 11.80.010 (“Single-Family Residential
Zones”), outlining lot and building requirements for all existing single-family
zones and creating the R2 (“half-acre”) and R3 (“third-acre”) zones;
Relocating and Chapter 11.80.040 (R-1-87 Residential Zone) into Chapter 11.70
(Agricultural Zone) and renaming that zone to A-2;
Amend Chapter 11.350.030 of the Bluffdale City Code to incorporate new R2 and
R3 Zones and their respective uses and large animal rights;
Modifying the lot standards (width, frontage, setbacks, and coverage) in the R-110 (Renamed as R4) Zone;
Amending Chapter 11.290 of the Bluffdale City Code to note Development
Agreements may be required as part of a Zone Map Amendment request under
certain circumstances;
Amend assorted sections of the Bluffdale City Code to update code titles and
related references; and
Updating the legend and zone labels on the Official Zoning Map to reflect those
same changes.
5

Page 8 of 111

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, April 15, 2026
1
2
3

Chair Cragun stated that many previous comments about the item showed a misunderstanding of the

actual proposal. The Agenda item was one component of a much broader discussion, and the only

matter under consideration was text changes to City Ordinances. No rezoning or General Plan

changes were proposed.

7
8

Ms. Tubbs reported that the City was considering consolidating its existing single-family residential

zones into one Chapter and potentially creating two new zones to allow for 0.50-acre and 0.33-acre

development. Discussions on the changes had taken place over the past year. The first Planning

Commission public hearing was held in April 2025, where the item was tabled. The matter was

revisited at a joint City Council-Planning Commission meeting in January 2026 and subsequent

Planning Commission and City Council meetings. Staff then incorporated changes discussed at those

meetings into the current draft.

15
16
17
18

(Application 2025-07). Applicant, City of Bluffdale. Staff Presenter, Caitlyn Tubbs.

Changes included:
•

The word “contiguous” was removed from the Zoning Table. The minimum area required for

rezoning must be satisfied by one parcel that is at least two acres in size. Multiple property

owners cannot work together to rezone smaller parcels.

•

The proposed R3 Zone will only be considered on parcels five acres in size or larger and
within 60 feet of the municipal boundary.

•

A Development Agreement is required for any development in the R3 Zone.

•

Parcels between two and five acres in size are limited to a density of 1.5 dwelling units per

acre.

26
27

Mr. Crowell reported that the City Council was only in favor of allowing the R3 Zone along the

periphery of the City. Staff chose 60 feet as that is the approximate width of a street.

29
30

Ms. Tubbs reviewed the proposed Zoning Table and footnotes as shown on page 4 of the Staff Report

and below.

32
6

Page 9 of 111

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, April 15, 2026
R18

R29

R310

R411

43,560 square
feet (1 acre)
125 feet

20,000 square
feet
80 feet

13,000 square
feet
80 feet

10,000 square
feet
75 feet

Minimum Lot
Frontage 13

125 feet

80 feet

75 feet

Minimum Front Setback

30 feet

25 feet

20 feet

Minimum Side Setback

20 feet

10 feet

10 feet 14

Minimum Rear
Setback
Minimum Accessory Side
Setback 15

30 feet

20 feet

Minimum Lot Size
Minimum Lot Width 12

10 feet
10 feet
5 feet
5 feet
Accessory buildings that house animals shall have a minimum side
setback of 50 feet. Accessory buildings that house chickens shall
have a minimum side setback of 20 feet in accordance with section
11.160.280 of this title.
10 feet

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

10 feet

5 feet

Unless as otherwise approved with an applicable Cluster Residential Overlay in accordance with Section 11.110.060 of
this title.
9

For parcels between two and five acres in size, density shall not exceed 1.5 primary dwelling units per acre.

This Zone intended to be limited to perimeter edges of the City and shall be located within sixty feet (60’) from the
closest property line to the City Boundary. Requests to apply this Zone to a property will also require a Development
Agreement in accordance with Chapter 11.290 of this title.
11

Unless as otherwise approved with an applicable Infill Overlay in accordance with Section 11.110.030 of this title.

If the Lot or parcel is located on an approved curve radius or cul-de-sac; the width requirement may be reduced to thirty
feet (30’); provided, that the width requirement is satisfied at the front setback line.
13

If the Lot or parcel is located on an approved curve radius or cul-de-sac, the frontage requirement may be reduced to
thirty feet (30’); provided, that the frontage requirement is satisfied at the front setback line.
14

Each corner lot or parcel in the R4 Zone shall have a minimum setback of twenty feet (20’) along the public street on
the side of the lot not being used as the front setback.
15

Unless as otherwise approved by Section 11.160.260 Small Accessory Buildings of this title.

16
17

In response to a question raised by Chair Cragun, Ms. Tubbs confirmed that the changes would

significantly limit where 0.50- and 0.33-acre zones could be applied in the City.

19
7

Page 10 of 111

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, April 15, 2026
1

Ms. Tubbs reviewed maps created in response to a request from the Planning Commission. Areas of

the City with lots smaller than one acre include The Falls at Bouldenridge and some parcels along

2200 West, 150th South, and 14400 South that were created through road expansion or are older lots

that predate the City’s one-acre zoning requirements. Other maps include parcels between two and

five acres, five to 10 acres, and over 10 acres.

6
7

At Commissioner Woodruff’s request, mockups of sample subdivisions were also created. Ms. Tubbs

reviewed renderings of the following:

9
10

•

A potential 0.33-acre development on a five-acre parcel with a standard 52-foot right-of-way,
small pocket park, and detention basin that would allow for eight single-family lots.

•

A three-acre parcel with a 52-foot right-of-way and two 0.75-acre single-family lots.

•

A two-acre parcel with a shared driveway and four single-family lots.

14
15

Ms. Tubbs reported that the Planning Commission had the option to forward a recommendation to

the City Council or table the item for further discussion.

17
18

Commissioner Flynn remarked that the Planning Commission had previously discussed whether the

General Plan or Zoning Table should be addressed first, and other cities have addressed both at the

same time. He asked if both items should be addressed in conjunction. Mr. Crowell stated that the

Commission could suggest specific areas of the General Plan Map where the new zoning should

apply.

23
24

Chair Cragun stated that at the last Planning Commission meeting, it was indicated that an applicant

would need to request both a General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment to be eligible

for the new zoning. She asked if that would still be necessary. Mr. Crowell stated that the matter

was not addressed in the Text Amendment that was before the Commission, but the expectation was

that both applications would be required to maintain consistency. The City Council could also make

a text change to the General Plan to indicate areas of the City where the zoning would be appropriate.

However, each property has unique attributes, and zoning that may work on one parcel will not work

on another. Chair Cragun restated the issue and clarified that the Agenda item was specific to the
8

Page 11 of 111

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, April 15, 2026
1

Text Amendment to change City Ordinance. Potential changes to the General Plan were not under

consideration, and any such changes would require additional public hearings.

3
4

In response to a question raised by Commissioner Swanson, Mr. Crowell reported that the General

Plan Map includes a Very Low Density Residential (“VLDR”) designation for a density of up to one

unit per acre, which is prevalent on the west side of the City. The Low Density Residential (“LDR”)

designation allows up to four units per acre, which includes the existing R-1-10 Zones. The text of

the General Plan provides the City’s recommended intent for each designation, and City Ordinance

indicates that zoning should conform with the General Plan. If the new Zoning Table were approved,

the issue would need to be addressed at some point. Unless the VLDR designation was redefined,

the new R2 and R3 Zones should only be applied in LDR areas.

12
13

Commissioner Flynn asked if the footnotes included in text would be better served in the General

Plan. Mr. Crowell reported that their purpose was to serve as criteria to determine if an application

was valid, and the concept of applicability was better suited to the General Plan.

16
17

Ms. Tubbs reviewed the text descriptions of General Plan categories. VLDR equates to less than one

dwelling unit per acre, or the current R-1-43/proposed R1 Zone. LDR allows one to four dwelling

units per acre, or the current R-1-10/proposed R4 Zone and infill overlays.

20
21

Commissioner Flynn remarked that the new residential zones will actually help the City. Smaller lot

developments currently required a Special District, and the new zoning would clearly define the

requirements. Mr. Crowell confirmed that Special Districts are very complex. The footnotes provide

the criteria for application, but do not guarantee that the application will be favorably received. An

applicant could currently apply for R-1-10 zoning anywhere in the City, but the likelihood of approval

may be very low. The City did not yet know whether there would be a discernible pattern to create a

General Plan amendment, and he appreciated the uncertainty that created.

28
29

Chair Cragun asked Staff to identify specific areas on the General Plan Map. Ms. Tubbs pointed to

VLDR areas of the City (shown in pale yellow) and LDR areas (shown in darker yellow). If an

applicant wishes to propose a zone that is not in alignment with the existing General Plan designation,
9

Page 12 of 111

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, April 15, 2026
1

they must also apply for a General Plan Map Amendment.

Bringhurst Station. Portions of the property were originally zoned Agricultural and had a General

Plan designation of Very Low Density Residential, so the project required Zoning and General Plan

Map Amendments in addition to a Development Agreement.

5
6

In response to a question from Chair Cragun, Ms. Tubbs confirmed that the public hearing was left

open at the last meeting, and a second public hearing notice was posted for the current meeting as

well.

9
10

Chair Cragun opened the public hearing and reported that emailed comments were forwarded to the

Planning Commission for review and would be incorporated into the record.

12
13

Connie Robbins gave her address as 14455 South 2585 West and asked for clarification on what the

specific action the Planning Commission would be taking. Chair Cragun clarified that no property in

Bluffdale was being rezoned. The item was a Text Amendment to change the City Ordinance.

Ms. Robbins stated that she and her husband live on a private road west of Redwood Road. There

are five homes on the lane, two with one-acre lots and three with two-acre lots. If the additional zones

were approved, at least four additional homes could be added, which means as many as 12 vehicles

would regularly use the private lane. Council Member Wilding, who has been pushing the new

zoning, was working with two of those landowners. She does not believe the zoning aligns with the

City’s stated goal to maintain “the long-term neighborhood character,” and it would change the feel,

safety, and livability of the area. The City Council had stated that applications would be looked at on

a case-by-case basis, but she believed applicants would look at what had been approved and expect

the same treatment. She was concerned that if 0.50- and 0.33-acre zoning were added and found to

be not good enough, elected and appointed officials would approve 0.25-acre lot sizes. It was recently

acknowledged by the City Council that most residents do not support the zone change, yet the issue

kept coming up, and citizens had to continually fight against it. She believes the stated two-acre

minimum is inadequate and should be five acres.

29
30

Albert Allen Larsen gave his address as 14103 South Deer Orchard Cove and stated that he was

disappointed the item had resurfaced. He spoke with a majority of City residents during the election,
10

Mr. Crowell gave the example of

Page 13 of 111

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, April 15, 2026
1

and they were overwhelmingly against the new zones. Citizens do not want to wake up one morning

and find a house planted in the last 0.50 acre of a one-acre lot. They feel like they are being pushed

out of the City. He believes the City should show how many residents are for and against the

Ordinance changes, not just make a decision for them. During the election, Council Member Wendy

Aston and Council Member Mackey Smith stated that they would not support the proposal, and he

wanted to everyone to remember what was said.

7
8

Brett Lovell gave his address as 13697 South 3825 West. He lives in Riverton but owns multiple

properties throughout the City. He recently met with representatives from the Jordan Valley Water

Conservancy District, who expressed concern about larger lots, as studies have found that they use

more water. The most efficient water use occurs in 0.50- and 0.33-acre settings as they do not have

as much irrigatable space. He encouraged the City to consider those studies.

13
14

Paxton Guymon stated that he owns two properties in the City, one of which is 14433 South 2200

South. He fully supported the proposal as it is important to have options for lot sizes. The improved

portion of his two-acre parcel is 1.2 acres. The road frontage is an unkempt 0.8 acres that they cannot

do anything with except landscape it. They would like to be able to subdivide into a separate 0.75-

acre lot. Two lots on two acres and would not increase the overall density but would provide

flexibility. Not every piece of land can be neatly subdivided into one-acre parcels. He liked the

proposal to provide zoning options with a density cap of no more than 1.5 lots per acre. That is not a

sweeping reform but rather a very small step toward allowing flexibility for smaller lots. He loves

Bluffdale, but many of the one-acre lots have a significant portion that is unkempt. The environment

is changing. People are moving to the City not because they want animal rights but because they

want to build nice homes on large lots, and an 0.50-acre lot is still very large. He asked that the

Planning Commission consider forwarding a positive recommendation to the City Council.

26
27

Connie Pavlakis gave her address as 14469 South Frost Court and stated that, having served on the

Planning Commission for almost nine years, she understands the importance of clear, well-defined

standards and meaningful public input on decisions like this. She did not believe the proposal was

ready for approval as the 0.50-acre and 0.33-acre lots are reduced by approximately 1,800 and 1,500

Page 14 of 111

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, April 15, 2026
1

square feet, allowing roughly 2.18 and 3.35 lots per acre. Even with a cap of 1.5 units per acre, the

same land would be developed in a more compact pattern than residents expect. Subdivision design

also includes roads, sidewalks, and open space, which further tightens overall spacing. Reduced

setbacks bring homes closer together, increasing the perceived density. The 60-foot boundary rule

was not clearly defined, as the term “boundary” was undefined, and there was no standard for how

much of the parcel must fall within the area, so a small portion of a large plat could qualify the entire

property. Detached accessory dwelling units (“ADU”) are already permitted, which means more

households per lot than typically assumed in the zones. There are over 60 parcels larger than two

acres on the west side of Redwood Road in or adjacent to already developed areas. Under the

proposal, those parcels could be subdivided, and just three of the larger parcels could yield hundreds

of new homes, each of which could have a detached ADU. This would fundamentally change the

character of established neighborhoods and create long-term impacts on traffic, infrastructure, and

livability that are not easily reversed. There are no protections for existing one-acre neighborhoods.

While increased revenue was mentioned, there was no analysis of long-term costs for infrastructure

and services. It was also suggested that it may reduce water use, but more household per acre typically

increase indoor culinary demand. It was being justified by a possible future state mandate, but if that

occurs the City can respond with precision rather than making broad changes now based on

speculation. It was acknowledge in prior discussions that there were significant resident concerns.

Given the scale of the change, she believed that additional public engagement was critical. The item

was previously tabled by the Planning Commission for more public input, and she asked that it be

tabled again and Staff directed to hold open houses and provide direct postcard notices to properties

in VLDR areas. Based on the lack of clear standards, incomplete impact analysis, and the need for

further public engagement, she did not believe the proposal was ready for approval as written. She

asked that the item be tabled or denied.

25
26

Tyler Howland gave his address as 14788 Castle Valley Drive and stated that he is an affordable

housing developer who primarily develops missing-middle housing for teachers, nurses, and others

who cannot afford homes. Utah is facing a housing crisis. According to the Kem C. Gardener

Institute, in 2026 alone, Utah is short 35,000 housing units. He did not suggest that Bluffdale fill the

entire gap. However, what was proposed would help. Utah’s average home price was currently the
12

Page 15 of 111

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, April 15, 2026
1

ninth highest in the country. The Text Amendment addressed many issues, from housing affordability

to water conservation and private property rights. He agreed that a lot of communication and dialogue

were needed, but he commended the City for its efforts and hoped that the Planning Commission

would recommend approval so they could move toward more affordable housing for residents, their

children, and grandchildren.

6
7

Yolanda Briganti gave her address as 3174 West 14865 South and stated that she moved to Bluffdale

because she found a great property where she could have horses on a one-acre lot and where the

neighbors could do the same. She loves living in the City for those reasons. It is hard to find a place

like Bluffdale, and she would like it to stay the way it is.

11
12

Andy Mollerup gave his address as 2429 West 14550 South and stated that he would like to keep

things as they are. His wife is a teacher, and not all teachers need small lots. They moved to Bluffdale

from West Jordan, which resembled Bluffdale when he was growing up. He imagined they had a

similar meeting where there seemed to be adequate protections from small lots and high-density

housing, but it was now a hodgepodge of different lot sizes. If they had wanted that, they would have

stayed in West Jordan. He asked that the City make the new zones as restrictive as possible. He

understood that there were certain unique parcels where 0.8 acres cannot be developed, but he

believed they could be addressed on a case-by-case basis without changing zoning. He hoped that

Bluffdale would remain Bluffdale rather than becoming nondescript urban sprawl.

21
22

Michelle Ross gave her address as 2295 West Statehood Drive and stated that she has lived in the area

all her life. When developers see a one-acre lot, they want to build as many homes on it as they can.

Riverton was a horse town, but that changed, and she got pushed out because there was nowhere to

keep her horses. She found a home in Bluffdale because she likes the area, but now they were doing

the same thing. People say that we need places for our children, which is true, but that will not happen

because homes are getting larger. There are no 1,100-square-foot starter homes. People will build

large, high-end homes that cost $600,000 or more. She likes ADUs and will be building one in her

backyard for her daughter to live in because she cannot afford to purchase a large home in the area.

When she moved to Bluffdale, she was able to ride her horses down the street, but she no longer dares

Page 16 of 111

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, April 15, 2026
1

to do so because people drive too crazy and fast. She does not believe more people will solve

problems. She asked where the water will come from. Apartments are being built everywhere, which

bring in more people, traffic, and congestion. She asked that the City keeps its one-acre zoning.

4
5

Garrett Schmidt gave his address as 13791 South 3870 West and stated that his family owns property

in Bluffdale and would love to see it developed. His father has been in real estate for 40 years. They

believe the new zoning would be a great addition to the City. He would love to be able to afford a

home near his father and believes the new zones would be great for the City.

9
10

Michael Mueller gave his address as 14590 South 2457 West and stated that he and his wife moved

to Bluffdale 25 years ago. His father sold 27 acres of land to someone who later asked for his family’s

help in selling it, but they were unable to find a developer willing to build on one-acre lots because

there was no money in it. He believes that type of change is generated by greed and most zoning

changes are very disruptive to residents. In this case, people bought a piece of property where they

did not have to see their neighbors if they did not want to. The City had the opportunity to retain its

one-acre and larger lots, which makes it a unique place. If they began subdividing them due to greed

or the perceived need to have a cheaper to live, they would ruin the community, and quality people

would start moving out. They moved to Bluffdale to have a home they had dreamed of, and he

believed the zoning change was wrong. It would disrupt lives and create division, traffic, and crime.

20
21

Ken Johnson gave his address as 14676 South 1630 West and stated that he did not see the requirement

that parcels be within 60 feet of City boundaries in the proposed text. The footnote pertaining to the

R3 Zone states that the zone is intended to be limited to perimeter edges of the City, which he believed

was weakly worded and not an actual requirement. If the Planning Commission was considering

recommending approval, he asked that they amend the Ordinance appropriately. However, he

requested that they table the item to correct the text and address issues raised by other citizens.

27
28

Billy Frashure gave his address as 14177 South Loumis Parkway and stated that he built a home in

West Jordan that he thought was his forever home, but he lived there for 18 years and was boxed in.

He is a people person who loves neighbors, but his wife prefers to keep her distance. Their home in

Bluffdale is on a large parcel with few neighbors. The owner of the farm next door died and it was
14

Page 17 of 111

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, April 15, 2026
1

sold, and the new owner wants to build houses in his backyard. He understands that everyone needs

a home. However, it should not be like Daybreak or downtown Salt Lake City. The lots should at

least be large enough for everyone to enjoy their own space.

4
5

Laura Allen gave her address as 14659 South 2700 West and stated that she was born and raised in

Bluffdale. She has seen many changes, but residents’ determination to keep their lot size has never

changed. For many years, residents were penalized for retaining their lot size. There was a very big

discussion about allowing the houses at Bouldenridge, but their shared greenspace equates to one

home per acre. She lives on a busy street, and her youngest child is three years old. She cannot go

outside alone. Allowing ADUs and 0.33-acre lots will create five times more traffic on roads like

hers. She is trying to raise her family in Bluffdale. When she was looking to buy a home, her realtor

tried to talk her out of Bluffdale, but she was determined to buy in the City because it is like no other

community in Salt Lake County. She was against the Ordinance changes.

14
15

Brad Llewellyn gave his address as 3547 West 13800 South and stated that he lives on one acre and

has horses. His understanding was that allowing 0.50- and 0.33-acre lots would protect the City

against denser housing. Some residents live near larger lots, but the proposal would not change their

current zone. It would provide an opportunity for rezoning, but otherwise, people could still apply

for 10,000-square-foot or smaller lots or multifamily housing. He agrees that the community should

stay as-is with large lots but believes the new zones would protect it from higher density.

21
22

Clint Lantz gave his address as 1464 Salmon Caddis Drive and agreed with Ms. Pavlakis that the

actual lot sizes would be smaller than 0.50 and 0.33 acres.

However, he believed it was important to address the issue of specificity and clearly state the actual

lot sizes because otherwise developers will take advantage.

26
27

Scerinda Johnson gave her address as 14676 South 1630 West. Council Member Aston had said that

she wants to make the tool available in the table and it will then be up to the City Council to determine

where to use it, but she did not want the Council to be able to use the tool anywhere in the City. She

agreed that there were areas where the new zones might not have a negative impact but believes it

should be used carefully and the General Plan should be addressed first. The tool can then go in the
15

He also agreed that things change.

Page 18 of 111

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, April 15, 2026
1

toolbox for those specific areas rather than leaving it open for the current City Council to decide. She

reviewed the City Council meetings where the item was discussed. A recurring theme was an

argument between two extremes, that many residents are in favor of or opposed to the proposal. City

Manager, Bruce Kartchner mentioned the possibility of conducting a survey, and she believed that

should be a priority. Residents who own one-acre lots or larger should be asked a simple question

about whether they are in favor of rezoning to be able to subdivide lots so the City could understand

what they really want rather than what they think it wants.

8
9

Ms. Johnson read a letter from her neighbor, Jolene Norton of 14995 South 1800 West, who said, “I

believe in zoning because I don’t want my neighbor to be able to build a store right next door where

we would have all kinds of traffic coming in and out. I worked with the police in gang prevention

maybe 30 years ago out here in Bluffdale. When you have businesses, they attract more people, and

maybe not good people. Maybe the kind of people who would be in gangs, and that puts the whole

neighborhood in danger.” She asked that the City consider more flexible zoning on larger lots in her

area. The letter was given to Staff to be included in the record.

16
17

Court Dymock gave his address as 14572 South Ten Sleep Circle and stated that he has lived in

Bluffdale for 30 years. He moved to a 1.5-acre lot in Herriman, then developers annexed and rezoned

the adjoining property with 8,000-square-foot lots. They moved back to Bluffdale because of its one-

acre minimums, and now they were doing the same thing. Low-income and high-density housing

exists in other cities, and they do not need to change Bluffdale so that everyone can live there. The

City is unique, and residents love it for a reason. He does not believe that everybody has a right to

live in Bluffdale. There are small lots in other parts of the valley, and people can live in Herriman or

West Valley. It is not right to change what a lot of people moved to Bluffdale for because they have

rights as well. He does not believe it is all about the developers. He asked who was behind the

ordinance. Mr. Crowell stated that Staff received the assignment from the City Council.

27
28

City Attorney, Fred Donaldson, reported that the public comment period was not a question-and-

answer session. He encouraged Mr. Dymock to direct his question to the City Council, but clarified

Page 19 of 111

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, April 15, 2026
1

that at least three Council Members had requested the Text Amendment, or it would not have moved

forward. He then invited Mr. Dymock to speak with him after the hearing.

3
4

Matthew Roller gave his address as 14109 South 2055 West and stated that when he moved to

Bluffdale 18 years ago, people led sheep and horses down the streets. There was one police officer,

and that was adequate because the City was not high-density. As density had increased, they had to

spend more on police because crime increased. His son was exposed to a drug dealer in The Bluffs.

He would like to keep the one-acre lots and retain the current density.

9
10

Nancy Bell gave her address as 443 East 13800 South in Draper. She lived in Bluffdale for over 42

years. Her mother owned a 1.5-acre property and tried to go through the process to subdivide it so

she could sell a portion and afford to stay in the City after her father unexpectedly passed away. The

Board of Adjustment approved her request, but the City Council then sued both the Board of

Adjustment and her mother. She was unable to use the property she had lived on for over 44 years

and lost her home to a short sale. Ms. Bell agrees that 0.33-acre lots should not be allowed on two

acres, but there should be flexibility. Her mother’s property could have been subdivided into two

0.75-acre parcels and had minimal impact. That was not allowed, yet the City had approved Edge

Homes building 150 units.

19
20

Steven Thatcher gave his address as 14952 South 2405 West and stated that he and his wife were in

the process of selling their eight-acre property and would like to eventually have 0.50-acre lots. He

understood the concerns, but he did not believe there would be an increase in crime or significant

changes to quality of life in going from one acre to 0.50 acres. Upper middle-class families will

purchase the homes and increase the tax base, which will allow the City to properly fund the police

and fire departments.

26
27
28
29

There were no further comments. The public hearing was closed.
Chair Cragun asked Staff to address citizen concerns regarding setting a precedent. Mr. Donaldson

reported that there are two types of precedent: legal precedent and political precedent. If a rezoning

application is approved, the approval is based on the contents of the application and unique

Page 20 of 111

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, April 15, 2026
1

characteristics of the property.

That approval would set no legal precedent for subsequent

applications. Someone may perceive it as having precedential value or setting a political precedent,

but that is incorrect because another parcel may have characteristics that make it unsuitable for

rezoning.

5
6

Chair Cragun asked to review the reasoning behind the simplified square footage requirements in the

proposed table. Ms. Tubbs reported that the proposed R2 Zone has a minimum lot size of 20,000

square feet, and R3 has a minimum of 13,000 square feet, which are slightly less than 0.50 acres

(21,780 square feet) and 0.33 acres (14,500 square feet). That decision was made based on standards

for other communities with similar zoning. The rounded numbers better accommodate the loss of

space due to right-of-way dedications and make it easier to develop challenging parcels. The current

0.25-acre R-1-10 Zone was also rounded down from 10,890 to 10,000 square feet. However, if that

was not appropriate for Bluffdale, the specific square footage could be used for all zones.

14
15

Regarding setbacks, as Staff was researching the table, they realized that over the past 10 years, all

applications to rezone to R-1-10 also included an Infill Overlay (“IO”) request with setback

modifications. The proposed setbacks were the average of all requested modifications. Chair Cragun

stated that the setbacks were new to the table and some zones, but were not new to the City.

Ms. Tubbs confirmed that they are substantially similar to what was approved through IO Zones.

Mr. Crowell added that the existing R-1-10 standards require a minimum lot width of 100 feet, which

is almost always narrowed with an IO Zone. The decision was made to establish requirements based

on what is actually being approved and built.

23
24

Mr. Crowell stated that a question had been raised about the word “intended”, which could be changed

to “shall” or a similar stronger word. The idea was that that the zoning could only be applied

properties within a certain distance of the municipal boundary. Mr. Donaldson stated that the

language would be changed to make the qualification mandatory.

28
29

Commissioner Swanson asked about the context of the discussion regarding only allowing the R3

Zone at City boundaries. Mr. Crowell reported that some larger parcels along the perimeter may lend

themselves to a different development type. Mr. Donaldson added that smaller lots would not have a
18

Page 21 of 111

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, April 15, 2026
1

significant impact on existing neighborhoods if they were located on the periphery of the City.

Commissioner Swanson remarked that in the Work Session, time was spent discussing a specific

triangular lot on the west side along the canal, and asked if the requirement was derived from that

discussion. Mr. Crowell confirmed that the parcel would potentially qualify for the R3 Zone.

5
6

Commissioner Swanson asked why a single 0.25-acre lot would be allowed, as that sounded more

like spot zoning than the two new proposed zones. Mr. Crowell reported that the proposed 0.25-acre

R4 Zone was carried over from the existing R-1-10.

9
10

Commissioner Luker appreciated the changes that had been made, especially the minimum acreage

required to apply. Most of the emailed comments were from residents worried about their one-acre

lots, but the new zones cannot be applied to a one-acre lot.

13
14

Commissioner Luker asked if the footnotes could be moved into the table. Mr. Donaldson reported

that the current City Code had more text and no tables. The Zoning Table was entirely new and would

make the standards clearer and easier to understand. He cautioned against duplicating information

because that runs the risk of future changes only being made to one area. He agreed that the footnotes

were somewhat unwieldy but believed it was an appropriate approach that keeps all the information

in one place.

20
21

Chair Cragun stated that previous discussions on the item had been very broad, and she was glad they

had engaged in the process and provided multiple opportunities for public input.

information the Planning Commission and City Council have, the better their decisions will be.

However, most of the public comments and associated discussions were still at the broad level. The

item before the Commission was not a rezoning request. Nothing was being rezoned, and the General

Plan was not being amended. They were only considering a Text Amendment to create two new

zones and clarify the standards so applicants know exactly what is required. Staff listened and

responded to suggestions made in Work Sessions and public comments, and as a result, the areas

where R2 and R3 Zones can be applied were significantly limited.

The more

Page 22 of 111

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, April 15, 2026
1

Comments had been received both against and in favor of the proposal. The west side of Bluffdale

has a unique character, and the people who chose to live there have valid reasons for not wanting it

to change. However, there is no reason why the rest of Bluffdale cannot have 0.33- and 0.50-acre

lots. If the Text Amendment was not approved, the City would be prohibiting the remainder of the

City from utilizing that zoning, and she saw no compelling reason to do so. Many residents had stated

that they supported the new zones anywhere except the west side, but the Text Amendment had to be

approved for that to be possible.

8
9

Chair Cragun stated that she was still concerned that a General Plan Amendment was not considered

first. That was not the order the City Council chose, but she recommended that they move forward

with the amendment so people know where the zones can be applied. She was not in favor of requiring

property owners to apply for both Zoning Map and General Plan Amendments. She asked for the

Commissioners’ opinions on tabling, denying, or approving the item. Commissioner Flynn was in

favor of recommending approval with the additional recommendation that the General Plan should

be updated.

16
17

In response to a question from Chair Cragun, Mr. Crowell reported that the last General Plan update

was completed in 2022. It is typically updated every seven to 10 years, but the housing plan element

must be updated in 2027. Chair Cragun stated that she believes the issue’s significance and level of

citizen concern warrants a General Plan update with open house meetings. Commissioner Griffis

agreed and stated that the City must be responsible and transparent, and the community needs to be

involved. She was in favor of conducting surveys and starting with the General Plan instead of trying

to push the new zoning through.

24
25

Commissioner Swanson remarked that the General Plan does not address the missing smaller lot

zoning or create medium-sized low-density lots. The Zoning Table would do so. He agreed that the

City Council should be encouraged to amend the General Plan text rather than consider applications

piecemeal. However, the tools would have been useful for developments the Planning Commission

had considered over the past several years. Because the middle zones were not available, those

developments have higher density than the surrounding communities. He was in favor of forwarding

Page 23 of 111

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, April 15, 2026
1

a positive recommendation so that the tools are available, and also recommending that the City

Council revisit the General Plan once the tools are in place to address the citywide gap in the Zoning

Code. Areas east of Redwood Road currently only have the option for 0.25-acre or higher density,

and only having those options available would drive higher density.

5
6

Commissioner Luker stated that the City’s General Plan already specifies that Very Low Density is

one acre, which was the R-1-43/proposed R1 Zone, and did not need to be addressed prior to adopting

the Zoning Table. The General Plan may need to be updated, but the first step was to provide the

tools for medium density.

Amendment should be approved first because medium-density zoning cannot be added to the General

Plan if it does not exist.

12
13

Mr. Donaldson clarified that the City Council had the option to address the General Plan first and

chose not to do so. The zoning categories would not be automatically applied to any property. When

someone applies to rezone their property, the City Council will consider the Zoning Map and General

Plan Amendments together and determine whether it is appropriate to amend the General Plan to

allow rezoning. It will require two changes, but it will also make the process very deliberate.

18
19

Commissioner Swanson remarked that during the above process, the City will consider the effect on

traffic, water resources, surrounding neighborhoods, etc. Chair Cragun stated that it was a valid point.

All requests would require a public Planning Commission hearing prior to the City Council process;

the City Council could not arbitrarily begin rezoning parcels. The Text Amendment would add the

guidelines to City Ordinance, but the application process must still be followed. When requests are

considered, they will have specific information about the location and topography of the parcel, as

well as other details to determine whether the specific, unique application warrants approval.

However, she did not like requiring simultaneous General Plan and Zoning Map Amendments, as the

General Plan should provide homebuyers with an idea of what could potentially be built around them

in the future.

29
30

Commissioner Swanson stated that per Footnote 9, a five-acre parcel could only be subdivided into

approximately seven units, and asked if Staff had created a rendering of that scenario. The two-acre

Chair Cragun understood their position and agreed that the Text

Page 24 of 111

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, April 15, 2026
1

scenario that had been reviewed would not be possible with this rule, as it depicted four homes, but

only two would be allowed. Mr. Crowell clarified that the scenarios were configuration ideas only.

Parcels between two and five acres in size would be limited to a maximum average density of 1.5

units per acre. In response to a follow-up question, Mr. Crowell reported that the Cluster Residential

Overlay was still part of City Code but had been modified in such a way that no one would choose to

use it. Commissioner Swanson asked if the standards should be changed from lot sizes to the number

of domiciles per acre. Mr. Crowell indicated that such policy questions are often debated. Staff was

seeing a trend for Development Agreements on smaller parcels to clarify minor details.

9
10

Chair Cragun asked if Planning Commission was comfortable with moving forward or if they would

like to discuss additional changes prior to voting on the item.

12
13

Commissioner Swanson stated that his concerns about the minimum lot size for the R2 Zone had been

mitigated by Footnote 9.

15
16

Commissioner Flynn stated that the word “intended” in Footnote 10 should be changed to mandatory

language. Mr. Donaldson confirmed that the change would be made.

18
19

Commissioner Flynn moved to forward a POSITIVE recommendation to the City Council for

the Proposed Text Amendment (Application 2025-07), amending 11.80.010 and other sections

of the Bluffdale City Code, based on the Findings presented in the Staff Report dated April 15,

2026, and including the following additional Findings:

23
24

This Text Amendment does not rezone a property. Any future application of R2

or R3 to specific parcels requires a separate Zoning Map Amendment with

independent public notice and hearing.

27
28

The minimum area requirements of two acres for R2 and five acres for R3, with

R3 zoning limited to parcels within 60 feet of the municipal boundary, prevent

subdivision of standard one-acre lots under either zone.

Page 25 of 111

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, April 15, 2026
1

The Planning Commission recommends that the language currently expressed as
“intent” be strengthened to mandatory Code language prior to adoption.

3
4

The Commission further recommends that, as a condition of this positive

recommendation, the City Council concurrently initiate a General Plan Text

Amendment identifying which Land Use categories are appropriate for R2 and

R3, and that no Zone Map Amendment applying these designations to any

specific parcel be processed until the General Plan Amendment has been adopted.

9
10

The motion was seconded by Commissioner Luker.

Swanson-Yes, Tina Griffis-No, Kori Luker-Yes, Chair Cragun-Yes. The motion passed by a

vote of 4-to-1.

13
14

Chair Cragun reiterated that the Text Amendment was an Ordinance change, not rezoning, and she

saw no reason to restrict the other three areas of Bluffdale from being able to use the new zoning

tools. Mr. Crowell stated that a public hearing notice would be posted once a City Council Meeting

date was set.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

DISCUSSION ITEMS
9.

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

Mr. Crowell reported on the following:
•

26
27

•
•

There is a lot of interest in the flex space on 13900 South, and a rezoning request for an
adjacent property was expected soon.

•

32
33

He spoke with the Woodbury developer earlier in the week, and they will likely be ready to
begin construction on the next building soon.

30
31

There was not yet a date for the Brooker’s Founding Flavors Ice Cream grand opening, but
that information would be shared with the Planning Commission once available.

28
29

Vote on motion: Ulises Flynn-Yes,

The applicant was still working on the rezoning request for the Sage area that had been
continued. It will include a Development Agreement, so the item will be re-noticed.

•

Staff was compiling research for the container project as requested.
23

Page 26 of 111

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, April 15, 2026
1
2
3
4
5

Ms. Tubbs reported on the following:
•

Planning Commission meetings were scheduled for May 6 and May 20.

•

She attended the American Planning Association’s spring conference the previous week,

where she learned that only a few updates to City Code would be required in response to

legislative changes.

•

The Utah League of Cities and Towns ("ULCT") was working on new training modules on

impermissible bias that would be made available to the Planning Commission once completed.

10
11

Mr. Crowell stated that one change made during the Legislative Session was in regard to items held

by the Planning Commission for a long period of time. In those cases, the City Council can consider

the Commission’s recommendation nonexistent and make a decision without it. The timeframe was

not defined. There are valid reasons to continue an item; for example, if the Planning Commission

needs more information. However, he once experienced an issue in Morgan County where a Planning

Commissioner tried to hold a General Plan update to be considered by the incoming County Council

rather than the sitting members, and some parliamentary moves were necessary to address the matter.

He did not believe that would be an issue in Bluffdale.

19
20

Mr. Donaldson stated that the State Legislature considered setting a 30-day limit but did not. In his

opinion, one to two continuances would be appropriate, but more could be questionable. In response

to a question from Chair Cragun, he reported that he had provided a legislative update to the City

Council and could also update the Planning Commission.

24
25

Mr. Crowell reported that detached ADUs must now be permitted under most circumstances in most

cities. Bluffdale anticipated that legislation and had already addressed it, but some minor text changes

may be required. Commissioner Swanson asked if the City had any desire to further revisit ADU

Code. Mr. Crowell stated that the RDA contributed money to the Salt Lake County Housing Trust

Fund’s upcoming ADU loan program. The program offers loan forgiveness in exchange for agreeing

to certain moderate-income housing parameters. He had received feedback that the utility meter rule

Page 27 of 111

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, April 15, 2026
1

prohibitive as the City allows separate utility meters in garages but not in ADUs. Staff had not

discussed the matter with the City Council but may do so in association with required text changes.

3
4

Commissioner Swanson stated that he had received feedback that the 50% size limitation on ADUs

was too restrictive. Mr. Crowell indicated that due to the size of homes in Bluffdale, some ADUs are

larger than single-family homes in other areas. He believes some unpermitted ADUs may be being

built. In response to his question, Ms. Tubbs reported that the City issues building permits for

between six and eight ADUs each year.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

10.

Adjournment.

The Planning Commission Meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.

__________________________________
Pauline Matagi, Community Development Coordinator
Approved: _________________________

Page 28 of 111

BLUFFDALE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, April 15, 2026
PUBLIC COMMENT EMAIL ADDENDUM
04-08-2026
Zoning
Planning Commission members,
I noticed on the upcoming text amendment that there is not a minimum size area of ground that
can utilize the new zoning ie: 5 acre minimum?
At the planning meeting when the containers were discussed, practically all of those that spoke
were against this new zoning. Everyone I talk to, and explain what the city is trying to do, are
not for this new zoning. They all said they moved out to Bluffdale for the space.
One more comment. I tried to send this email to each individual commission member and was
told that the commission members don't ever look at their Bluffdale.gov email (of which 3
members do not have .gov emails) and to send my comments to this email address. It will be
"looked at" by 2 other people, not commissioners, and if approved, then sent on to the
commissioners. Interesting way to keep the public input from those making the decisions. If this
is incorrect, please let me know.
Thank you,
Connie Robbins

Page 29 of 111

04-08-2026
Residential Text Amendment
Dear Planning Commission Members,
I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed residential text amendments that would allow
increased density through the creation of R2 and R3 zones.
Many of us purchased our homes with a clear understanding of how the surrounding land was
zoned and what that meant for the future character of our community. Zoning is not just a
technical classification — it directly influences financial decisions, long-term planning, and
expectations about neighborhood stability. When residents invest in property based on
established zoning, there is a reasonable expectation that those standards will not be continually
reduced over time.
Our neighborhood already experienced a prior rezoning that reduced lot sizes below what was
originally anticipated. That change was deeply unpopular, and many residents felt blindsided.
Most homes in this area sit on approximately .3 to .5 acres, and the surrounding larger-lot zoning
was a key component in preserving balance, space, and compatibility. Further reducing adjacent
properties to allow one-third-acre lots would continue a pattern of incremental density increases
that undermine the original vision for this area.
Each new development seems to come with assurances that the impact will be minimal or that it
is necessary to meet broader goals. However, over time, these cumulative changes significantly
alter the character of established neighborhoods. At some point, the City must stand by its longterm planning commitments and protect the expectations of current residents.
This area was never intended to evolve into high-density residential by gradual amendment.
Increasing density yet again will affect traffic, infrastructure strain, stormwater management, and
overall neighborhood cohesion. More importantly, it erodes trust in the planning process.
I respectfully urge the Commission to reject this amendment and preserve compatibility with
existing lot sizes and neighborhood character. Stability and predictability in zoning decisions are
critical to maintaining community confidence and protecting property investments.
Sincerely,
Creed Anderson
Bluffdale Resident

Page 30 of 111

04-10-2026
Public Comment- April 15 Planning Commission Meeting
Dear Planning Commission,
I am writing in support of the proposed residential zoning amendments to be considered on April
15th.
As a Bluffdale property owner, builder, and developmer, I believe these changes offer a balance
approach to growth on the west side. The addition of R2 and R3 zones allows for thoughtful
increases in housing supply while promoting efficient land use, water conservation, and longterm cost sustainability.
These updates respect private property rights and help Bluffdale proactivly address housing
demand while maintaining the community’s character.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Douglas Jessop

Page 31 of 111

04-13-2026
Proposed zoning code change
Dear Committee members,
I do support the zoning change that is proposed, but only as a starting point. I have been a
resident home owner in Bluffdale for 46 years. We got the building permit for our first home
from the county before Bluffdale incorporated. We moved in just after it was incorporated.
Bluffdale was just a little sleepy town back then. I enjoyed the 1 acre lot we had then, and I
enjoyed the 1 acre lot that we have now had for the last 26 years.
However things have changed a great deal over the intervening years. Our children. and
grandchildren can no longer afford to live here. And yes they are professionals with very good
paying jobs.
A major concern that I have is that I am getting older, and soon will not be able to stay in
Bluffdale because I can no longer keep up a 1 acre yard. We do not have animals, so the entire
yard must be cultivated and/or maintained as a lawn. If we cannot eventually subdivide our lot
into at least two 1/2 acre lots, we will be forced to move out of Bluffdale all because we cannot
have family nearby. I love Bluffdale. I love our neighbors. I love the history of our city, but if
changes are not made, we will be forced to live elsewhere. That will indeed be a sad day.
Thank you for taking the time to hear my concerns.
Vernon Dunn

Page 32 of 111

04-13-2026
Ordinance to recategorize residential zones
To the Members of the Planning Commission,
As a property owner in Bluffdale, I am writing to formally express my support for the proposal
to consolidate Chapters 11.80.010 (R-1-43) and 11.80.020 (R-1-10) into a unified "Single-Family
Residential Zones" chapter. Furthermore, I strongly support the creation of the R2 (halfacre) and R3 (third-acre) zones.
Bluffdale has seen significant positive growth over the years, and I believe these updates are the
next logical step in ensuring our city remains a premier place to live. I support these changes for
the following reasons:
• Fiscal Responsibility: By allowing for slightly higher-density options like R2 and R3,
the city can develop more responsibly. This optimizes our existing infrastructure and
broadens the tax base, which is essential for keeping individual property tax rates low.
• Water Conservation: Smaller residential footprints are a proven tool for conservation.
Transitioning to these zones will significantly reduce the demand for both irrigation and
culinary water compared to larger, traditional lots.
• Thoughtful Transition: These new zones represent a "middle ground" in housing. They
provide a careful, tiered transition between high-density areas and rural lots, maintaining
the character of our community while addressing the modern housing crisis.
• Property Rights: This change respects the rights of property owners to have more
flexibility in how they utilize and develop their land.
• State Zoning Mandates: These zoning changes allow Bluffdale City to control
development on the west side rather than the possibility of state mandates with much
higher density.
Providing more housing options for everyone—from young families to seniors looking to
downsize—is vital for the longevity of Bluffdale. I urge the Commission to recommend approval
of these updates to help our city move forward sustainably.
Thank you for your time and for your service to our community.
Sincerely,
Maura Thatcher
Bluffdale Utah 84065

Page 33 of 111

04-13-2026
Support for proposed zoning changes
Dear Planning Commission members:
Thank you for the service you give to our community. My husband and I understand that you
will be meeting soon to discuss changes to the zoning code for Bluffdale—specifically, allowing
residential lot sizes of 20,000 square feet and 13,000 square feet in certain areas that now require
acre lots. My husband, Vernon Dunn, wrote a letter in support of these changes, and I would like
to do the same.
As you know, affordable housing is the number one concern the residents of our state have. In
addition, Governor Cox and the legislature consider this a most pressing problem and have
aggressively passed laws to help. I have read that as a last resort, they might preempt local
zoning policies to encourage more affordable homes. I’m sure no one wants this to happen in
Bluffdale, as we all enjoy the semi-rural feel that our city still has. The solution, of course, is for
the city to pass reasonable zoning laws themselves that allow smaller lot sizes. Those who want
to keep large lots for animals or small farms could certainly do so.
It’s my understanding that proposed changes to city zoning would only apply to new
developments; but I would like to suggest that where feasible, current acre lot home owners be
allowed to split their property for another home to be constructed if they desire. Or perhaps two
neighbors with adjoining property could open up lots for affordable home construction if they
desired. There are many individual lots where this wouldn’t be feasible, but where there is a lot
of frontage, it wouldn’t change the look of the neighborhood at all.
I also believe it would help with water conservation as residents could more easily have waterwise landscaping on smaller lots. And an affordable home or two might even be more attractive
in purely residential areas than many of the very large warehouse-type buildings that are
currently being built to use up the acre lot. If the city’s desire is to maintain a semi-rural feel,
these buildings certainly don’t add to that goal.
Times have certainly changed since my great-grandfather and his brother settled in Bluffdale as
early pioneers, and also since our family originally moved here in 1978. People of all economic
levels lived together and everyone was welcome. With one-acre requirements, only high-income
families can afford to live in these areas now.
In closing, I was interested in an article in the Deseret News in January 2026, and in the
comments of Phil Dean, Gardner Institute chief economist. He indicated that we are in a danger
zone with the lowest home ownership rate in decades. Median home prices here are some of the

Page 34 of 111

most expensive in the country, but average wages are far below that mark. He said, “It is both an
economic imperative and a moral imperative to find a way to build housing that allows the
children and grandchildren of Utah residents to start their own households in the state.” I believe
this should be a goal for us here in Bluffdale.
Sincerely,
Marsha Dunn
Bluffdale, UT

Page 35 of 111

04-13-2026
Bluffdale Lot Size Proposal
Council members,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the inclusion of 1/2-acre and 1/3-acre lots in the
city’s development plans. Introducing these smaller lot sizes into established 1-acre
neighborhoods creates significant concerns regarding density, increased traffic, the lack of clear
protections for current residents and increased costs of services. With Bluffdale bonding the
railroad trestle for $30-million dollars after residents were told the majority was to be covered by
state funds, the city council’s transparency remains, opaque . Because the proposed language
remains vague, I urge you to prioritize a transparent dialogue with the community. Please defer
any decision until the residents of Bluffdale have been fully heard and the long-term character of
our neighborhoods is secured.
Dan Dialogue

Page 36 of 111

04-14-2026
Lot Sizes
I am opposed to allowing 1/2 and 1/3 acre lots throughout Bluffdale. There is too many
unaddressed concerns with can cause problems ie traffic population that already developed
neighborhoods were not designed for not to mention that being a resident of Bluffdale for 28
years, I bought in this area wanting to keep the larger lot without having my neighbors a stone
throw away. We have areas in Bluffdale where the zoning allows for smaller lots with the
traffic,water and other items taken into to consideration. Please don’t change old Bluffdale
without the consideration how it will affect so many and so much only so that someone can make
a quick buck. If they desire to have a more condensed neighborhood then they should move to
one of the other areas and allow us who want more open space to remain open.
Thank you,
Kim Graham

Page 37 of 111

04–14–2026
Bluffdale Lot Size Proposal
I am asking you to oppose adding 1/2 acre and 1/3 acre lots to the city’s development toolbox.
These changes allow smaller lots within existing 1-acre neighborhoods without clear protections,
increase overall density and traffic, and include unclear language.
Please ensure residents are fully heard before moving forward with any decision that impacts
established neighborhoods and the long-term character of Bluffdale.
Sincerely, Steve and Lori Smith

Page 38 of 111

04-14-2026
Bluffdale Planning Commission mtg 15 April
Planning Commission,
I’d like to make a few comments on the plan to lower minimum lot sizes to half acre. My wife
and I own property in Bluffdale.
Thanks
Steven Thatcher

Page 39 of 111

04-14-2026
Support for zoning changes
My name is Kelly Albiston. I spent the first 11 years in Bluffdale in a .3 acre lot in springview
farms (which we loved), before building a new home on a 1 acre lot on the far west side. I
support the thoughtful approach taken to these amendments. It provides guidance for proper
use.
My reasons for supporting this:
1. The state is suffering a housing crisis with no end in sight. None of our children will be
able to afford to stay in the state, unless we start doing our part.
2. Herriman and other neighboring cities will build ultra-high density right up to our city
limits. I live 2 open fields away from the Herriman boarder. I envision one field full of
1/2 acre lots, the next one full of 1/3, proving a thoughtful blend together to high
density. I support this.
3. The cost of 1 acre lots will only cater to ultra-wealthy going forward, very often from
outside the state. Our zoning is driving the future make up of our citizens.
4. We need to spread the tax burden across more homeowners. The cost of keeping our city
beautiful and functional will only go up in the future.
5. For many people, most of their wealth is tied up in their land. I don’t believe our city
government should hold such a heavy hand in their rights.
My only plea is that we don't allow infrastructure and roadway improvements to trail too far
behind our growth. I think people often hide the fear of traffic behind their outward position to
“keep Bluffdale rural”. There is nothing rural about what is being built on these 1 acre lots now,
but planning for traffic has to be part of our plans.
A Bluffdale that continues to put its head in the sand with a “not in my neighborhood” mentality,
while the state crisis goes unaddressed, is not a Bluffdale I am proud to be part of.
Thank you for your consideration.

Page 40 of 111

04-13-2026
Zoning Code Amendments R2 & R3 Comments
Planning Commission,
I have read the information regarding the zoning amendments to add R2 and R3 Zones. I support
the addition of these new smaller lot sizes for areas West of Redwood Road in Bluffdale that fit
these criteria. In addition to the benefit of lower cost to purchase a smaller lot, there is a need
for lot sizes not intended for large animals or large detached garages but have a manageable lot
size that is easier and less expensive to maintain and irrigate. The current proposal still provides
a lower housing density than most areas in the southern part of the valley. It is not intended to
divide up the current 1 acre lots but allow property owners who have larger undeveloped land the
rights to provide these options.
Charles Ingram
Bluffdale, UT

Page 41 of 111

04-13-2026
Bluffdale Lot Size Proposal
I am asking you to oppose adding 1/2 acre and 1/3 acre lots to the city’s development toolbox.
These changes allow smaller lots within existing 1-acre neighborhoods without clear protections,
increase overall density and traffic, and includes unclear language. Please ensure residents are
fully heard before moving forward with any decision that impacts established neighborhoods and
the long term character of Bluffdale.
I purchased a bigger lot because of the space and we’re finding out we have a little piece of
heaven that others want to take from us! Please don’t let this happen. We have big lots for a
reason.
Thanks,
Peggy Mower

Page 42 of 111

04-14-2026
Bluffdale Lot Size Proposal
I am asking you to oppose adding 1/2 acre and 1/3 acre lots to the city’s development toolbox. I
feel this has been deceitful and dishonest in not letting the people in the areas of 1 acre lots
aware of the plan. Is this for the cities political or a financial plan? I think the planning
commission should prioritize Bluffdale real needs of other areas needed such as their roads for
moving traffic, repairs and not so much parking on the streets. The building of high density
apartments causes much clutter and difficulty getting around the city. The builders never include
an appropriate plan for parking.
Is this another deceitful plan like the bridge that was planned and not discussed with the people
living in the areas. I could not even get out onto the road because of diverted traffic on 13800
South.
Please ensure residents are notified appropriately and heard before moving forward with any
decision that impacts established neighborhoods and the long term effects/character of
Bluffdale. Most of my neighbors live on one acre lots for a reason!
Thank you!
Debby Poulsen

Page 43 of 111

04-14-2026
Bluffdale Lot Size Proposal
I am asking you to OPPOSE adding 1/2 acre and 1/3 acre lots to the city’s development
toolbox.
I am asking you to oppose adding 1/2 acre and 1/3 acre lots to the city’s development toolbox.
These changes allow smaller lots within existing 1-acre neighborhoods without clear protections,
increase overall density and traffic, and include unclear language. We moved here because of the
larger lots, because we love the more rural feel. Even in the logo of the city, it includes a horse,
which suggests rural and space. Otherwise, people may feel this is a bait and switch - We are a
rural community…but we are going to cram a bunch of homes right next to you, and you can’t
do anything about it.
I am disappointed that this is where you are all heading. It is not what the majority wants. Again,
we moved here to have land, space, and a more rural feel. I don’t want to live in a Herriman,
Riverton, etc. Let’s keep Bluffdale unique, the way it was intended from its inception.
Thank you for listening to the voice of the people.
~ Karen Hyatt

Page 44 of 111

04-14-2026
Bluffdale Lot Size Proposal
Bluffdale City Council,
We are writing to respectfully request that you oppose the addition of 1/2-acre and 1/3-acre lots
to the city's development toolbox.
We are concerned that these changes could lead to smaller lots within existing 1-acre
neighborhoods without clear protections. Furthermore, they may increase overall density and
traffic, and the current proposal includes language that remains unclear.
Please ensure that residents are fully heard before moving forward with any decision that impacts
established neighborhoods and the long-term character of Bluffdale.
Sincerely,
Richard and Leslie Perea

Page 45 of 111

04-14-2026
Bluffdale Lot Size Proposal
Hi! I haven't lived in Bluffdale for very long compared to most in our city, but I moved here
because of the character that Bluffdale carries, and the overall quietness and lack of
overpopulated neighborhoods. My wife and I decided to buy in Bluffdale and live here full-time
because of how unique it is as a city. We still regularly talk about how amazing it is to be able to
drive around in the city at any time of day without worrying about whether or not our commute
is going to double, if we will get stuck in traffic, etc.. We love the clear roads, and quiet but
lively parks while still being in close proximity to many things/places/businesses we love. We
find ourselves regularly commenting on how amazing it is that there is a quieter city with bigger
lots right in the middle of all of these other cramped, overcrowded, and traffic-jammed cities. We
are minutes from many stores and great things we rely on - yet we feel like we still live in a
small town.
We are worried that adding 1/2 and 1/3 acre lots to the city's toolbox will affect what we (and
those around us) see as the best parts of Bluffdale. We also know that everyone who hears about
this change around us feels and worries the same as we do.
We simply love the way that Bluffdale is. We don't see the lot sizing regulations/laws/ideas that
this city was built upon as a mistake. And therefore we are sincerely asking you to not allow
these lot size changes to pass. Especially without hearing the opinions of the people who belong
to this city and community.
I appreciate your time!
- Carter Hanks

Page 46 of 111

04-14-2026
I strongly oppose lot division adjustments especially for existing homes
I am asking you to oppose adding 1/2 acre and 1/3 acre lots to the city's development toolbox.
I am writing as a resident of Bluffdale to share my concerns regarding the proposed zoning
changes that would allow 1/3- and 1/2-acre lots, particularly as they apply to the subdivision of
existing 1-acre properties.
My largest concerns about the proposed zoning changes relate to allowing subdivision of
existing 1-acre properties.
I understand the need for growth and can support smaller lot sizes in thoughtfully planned new
developments. However, applying these changes to established 1-acre neighborhoods raises
concerns about piecemeal subdivision leading to inconsistent layouts and a loss of the cohesive
character these areas were designed to have.
My concern is less about density itself and more about maintaining well-planned, integrated
communities. I would encourage the City to limit smaller lot zoning to new or master-planned
developments and to establish clear standards if subdivision of existing lots is considered.
I also have huge concerns that this is being led by someone who may have a conflict of interest
and request that Wilding recuse himself of this vote unless he plans to not financially benefit
from any of the growth in Bluffdale.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Jen Allen

Page 47 of 111

04-14-2026
Bluffdale Lot Size Proposal
Hello,
I rarely reach out but the lot size proposal has been brought to my attention and it is a subject that
I feel strongly about.
I am asking you to oppose adding 1/2 acre and 1/3 acre lots to the city’s development
toolbox.
These changes allow smaller lots within existing 1-acre neighborhoods without clear protections,
increase overall density and traffic, and include unclear language.
Please ensure residents are fully heard before moving forward with any decision that impacts
established neighborhoods and the long-term character of Bluffdale.
I appreciate all you do.
Thank you,
Kristi Lovell de Oliveira

Page 48 of 111

04-15-2026
Bluffdale Lot Size Proposal
Good morning,
I am writing to request that you to oppose adding 1/2 acre and 1/3 acre lots to the city’s
development toolbox.
These changes undermine the character of Bluffdale by allow smaller lots within existing 1-acre
neighborhoods without clear protections. They also increase overall density and traffic, and
include unclear language.
Please ensure residents are fully heard before moving forward with any decision that impacts
established neighborhoods and the long-term character of Bluffdale.
Respectfully,
Daniel Allen

Page 49 of 111

04-15-2026
Bluffdale Lot Size Proposal
I am asking you to oppose adding 1/2 acre and 1/3 acre lots to the city’s development
toolbox.
These changes allow smaller lots within existing 1-acre neighborhoods without clear protections,
increase overall density and traffic, and include unclear language.
It’s important to preserve the lot size as an essential part of our community. Representative of
Bluffdale and its citizens have worked tirelessly to preserve and even suffered negative
consequences to maintain a 1 acre lot size on the west side of Bluffdale. We want this lot size to
stay intact. Listen to your citizens. You represent us not the developers or any other 3rd party.
Laura Allen

Page 50 of 111

04-15-2026
Bluffdale lot size proposal
I am asking you to oppose adding 1/2 acre and 1/3 acre lots to the city’s development
toolbox.
I am asking you to oppose adding 1/2 acre and 1/3 acre lots to the city’s development toolbox.
These changes allow smaller lots within existing 1-acre neighborhoods without clear protections,
increase overall density and traffic, and include unclear language.
I want the opportunity to be educated and informed about the proposal. It seems there is some
language in the proposed changes that is unclear and ambiguous.
Sincerely,
Glen Swallow
Bluffdale Resident

Page 51 of 111

04-15-2026
Bluffdale Lot Size Proposal
Dear City Council,
I am asking you to oppose adding 1/2 acre and 1/3 acre lots to the city’s development toolbox in
neighborhoods currently zoned for one acre minimum.
The increase in overall density and traffic, which is already a challenge, is a large concern as
well as the impact on established neighborhoods and the rural beauty of this unique city.
Please ensure residents currently living on 1+ acre lots receive full communication on proposed
development changes.
Thank you,
Karen Nay

Page 52 of 111

04-15-2026
Bluffdale Lot Size Proposal/ please oppose
I am asking you to oppose adding 1/2 acre and 1/3 acre lots to the city’s development toolbox.
These changes allow smaller lots within existing 1-acre neighborhoods without clear protections,
increase overall density and traffic, and include unclear language.
Please ensure residents are fully heard before moving forward with any decision that impacts
established neighborhoods and the long-term character of Bluffdale.
Thank you for your consideration!
Carolyn Hogan

Page 53 of 111

04-15-2026
Oppose smaller lots
I am asking you to oppose adding 1/2 acre and 1/3 acre lots to the city’s development toolbox.
These changes allow smaller lots within existing 1-acre neighborhoods without clear protections,
increase overall density and traffic, and include unclear language.
Please ensure residents are fully heard before moving forward with any decision that impacts
established neighborhoods and the long-term character of Bluffdale.
Laura Ogden

Page 54 of 111

04-15-2026
Bluffdale Lot Size Proposal
I am asking you to oppose adding 1/2 acre and 1/3 acre lots to the city’s development
Please ensure residents are fully heard before moving forward with any decision that impacts
established neighborhoods and the long-term character of Bluffdale.
Kathryn Ballard

Page 55 of 111

04-15-2026
Bluffdale Lot size proposal
I am asking you to oppose adding 1/2 acre and 1/3 acre lots to the city’s development
toolbox.
I am asking you to oppose adding 1/2 acre and 1/3 acre lots to the city’s development toolbox.
These changes allow smaller lots within existing 1-acre neighborhoods without clear protections,
increase overall density and traffic, and include unclear language.
I want the opportunity to be educated and informed about the proposal. It seems there is some
language in the proposed changes that is unclear and ambiguous.
Sincerely,
Glen Swallow
Bluffdale Resident

Page 56 of 111

04-15-2026
Bluffdale lot size proposal
I am asking you to oppose adding 1/2 acre and 1/3 acre lots to the city’s development toolbox.
These changes allow smaller lots within existing 1-acre neighborhoods without clear protections,
increase overall density and traffic, and include unclear language.
Please ensure residents are fully heard before moving forward with any decision that impacts
established neighborhoods and the long-term character of Bluffdale.
Derek Ballard

Page 57 of 111

04-15-2026
Bluffdale Lot Size Proposal
I am asking you to oppose adding 1/2 acre and 1/3 acre lots to the city’s development
toolbox.
I am asking you to oppose adding 1/2 acre and 1/3 acre lots to the city’s development toolbox.
These changes allow smaller lots within existing 1-acre neighborhoods without clear protections,
increase overall density and traffic, and include unclear language.
Please ensure residents are fully heard before moving forward with any decision that
impacts established neighborhoods and the long-term character of Bluffdale.
Keri Christiansen

Page 58 of 111

04-15-2026
Residential Zones Ordinance Amendments- Agenda Item#8
Dear Planning Commission,
I am writing in support of expanding residential zoning options for all property owners within
the City.
For full disclosure, I am currently the Parks Manager for the City and previously worked as a
Senior Planner for 14 years. Throughout my career, my focus has been on improving the quality
of life for all residents. I strongly support sound planning principles for residential development
and appropriate zoning regulations. I am proud of the many beautiful developments in Bluffdale,
across a variety of lot sizes. Above all, Bluffdale has been my home for 29 years, and I care
deeply about its future.
I support the creation of new residential zones that provide property owners with greater
flexibility in design and use, allowing them to maximize the value of their investment. Allowing
smaller lot sizes is a valuable planning strategy that can help residents remain in the community
as they age by reducing the burden of property maintenance. Many residents have made
substantial long-term investments in their properties and should have the opportunity to rely on
those assets to meet their future needs.
Property tax revenue is critical to sustaining City services now and in the future. Expanding
opportunities for development through smaller lot sizes can help strengthen this revenue base.
Additionally, smaller lots can reduce the consumption of valuable resources, including culinary
and secondary water.
While the current General Plan and Zoning Map designations does not allow property owners
within the R-1-43 zone to subdivide one-acre lots, I believe the City should establish a zoning
tool that provides all property owners with equal opportunity to subdivide, provided they can
demonstrate compliance with established development standards. As a resident of the R-1-43
zoning district, I would like the same opportunity to subdivide my property and maximize its
long-term value.
I respectfully encourage the Planning Commission to consider creating a zoning tool that
benefits all property owners, either now or in the near future, and to avoid restrictions such as
five-acre parcel requirements, density limits between two and five acres, or municipal boundary
limitations that primarily benefit only a small number of property owners. Ensuring fairness and
broad applicability in our zoning framework will help foster public trust and support balanced
growth across the community.

Page 59 of 111

Thank you for your time, thoughtful consideration, and continued work on these important
zoning decisions.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Robison
Resident

Page 60 of 111

04-15-2026
Bluffdale Lot Size Proposal
I am asking you to oppose adding 1/2- acre, 1/3 - acre and smaller lots to the city's development
toolbox. These changes allow smaller lots within existing 1-acre neighborhoods without clear
protections from inappropriate ADUs and FLAG houses, increase overall density and traffic,
restrict access for emergency vehicles require substantial utility changes (increases), restrict the
presence of domestic animals and include unclear language.
Please ensure residents are fully heard before moving forward with any decision that impacts
established neighborhoods and the long-term character of Bluffdale. We lived in an area that was
like what the city is now trying to create. We moved to Bluffdale to get away from these issues
and problems. Many residents do not support city council and planning committee actions.
Thanks,
Gene Wright
Bluffdale, UT 84065

Page 61 of 111

04-15-2026
Maintain 1 ACRE lots
To Planning Commissioners and Council Members, I am opposed to adding 1/3, ½ acre zones
(R2 and R3) to the planning toolbox.
I moved to Bluffdale 17 years ago because of the 1 acre lots, this is a rare Gem so let’s not ruin
what we have.
There are so many loopholes with the way this is written, it should not go forward.
The two main desires of the majority of the people that live in Bluffdale, No more higher Density
and No more added Traffic.
The last thing I need is 6 houses on one side of my house and 6 more houses on the other
side. (3 houses + 3 ADU)
Couple of other points, it’s not the city’s job to make developers money. (it’s to listen to the
people that own and live in Bluffdale)
Anyone voting on this matter that can or possible gain money
because of this change, should not be voting on it. (please recuse yourself from the vote)
Please deny the addition of these two new zones.
Thank you for your time and service to the City of Bluffdale.
Scott Pavlakis

Page 62 of 111

04-15-2026
Bluffdale Lot Size Proposal
I am asking you to oppose adding 1/2 and 1/3 acre lots to the zoning options in Bluffdale. When
we built in 2012, we specifically chose Bluffdale because of the 1 acre and larger lot size zoning.
We wanted to avoid what we came from West Jordan that has a patchwork of lot sizes. Please
keep Bluffdale as it is. We are adamantly opposed to the patchwork lot size zoning we left in
West Jordan
Andy and Carrie Mollerup

Page 63 of 111

04-15-2026
Bluffdale Lot Size Proposal
Our Bluffdale Elected Officials, Planning Commission, and City Staff,
I am asking you to oppose adding 1/2 acre and 1/3 acre lots to the city’s development toolbox.
These changes allow smaller lots within existing 1-acre neighborhoods without clear protections,
increase overall density and traffic, and include unclear language.
Please ensure residents are fully heard before moving forward with any decision that impacts
established neighborhoods and the long-term character of Bluffdale.
I realize that this is a copy of a prepared mailing, but I assure you that it states a concern of
mine. And what follows are in my words.
Density, traffic, existing sewer, water, power capacity, and quality of life are a few of the things
that come to mind when making these decisions.
Anyone who loves Bluffdale as it currently exists could not possibly support this zoning
change. Most of you who are elected officials stated how much you loved Bluffdale during your
campaigns. And I'm pretty sure that those of you who are City Staff and members of the Planning
Commission would agree. You chose Bluffdale as your home because it was such a wonderful
place to raise your family. And "was" is exactly the correct verb to use if this zoning change is
approved. Bluffdale will no longer be the city to which you were able to escape. We will be
just like all the other cities in the valley. Why would we want to move to a wonderful place to
live, and then change it into what we just moved away from?
And lastly, I'm afraid that some of the same people who are pushing for this change the hardest
are those who would profit the most financially from the rezoning. I would hope that we would
not make changes that would affect our lives in such a negative way, solely to line our personal
pockets. There is just too much at stake.
I love Bluffdale and plead with you to save it as it is.
Sincerely,
Walt Hall

Page 64 of 111

2222 West 14400 South  Bluffdale, Utah 84065  (801) 254-2200
Community Development Department
Planning Division
STAFF REPORT
May 20, 2026
To:
City of Bluffdale Planning Commission
Prepared By: Caitlyn Tubbs, Planning Manager
Re:

Proposed Text Amendment Regarding Seasonal Firework Sales
Application No.: 2026-16
Applicant(s):
Joee Witter
Request:
To review the proposed amendments to Bluffdale City Code Chapter 3.40 to
update the City’s regulations on seasonal fireworks sales and to Section
11.180.020 to allow outdoor fireworks sales as an allowed temporary use.

SUMMARY
The Applicant proposes amendments to Bluffdale City Code (BCC) Chapter 3.40 “Retail Fireworks
Outlets” to reflect current state-level licensing requirements and contemporary storage methods
and to allow the seasonal sale of fireworks as a permitted temporary use in commercial and
industrial zones.
ANALYSIS
The proposed amendments would update Bluffdale’s fireworks regulations by recognizing outdoor
fireworks sales as a permitted temporary use and by revising Chapter 3.40 to better align local
requirements with current Utah law and State fire and life-safety standards. The proposal would
also remove the separate salesperson license provisions, simplify the insurance requirement,
update terminology from “license assessor” to “Business License Official,” and revise storage
language to allow approved steel shipping containers for commercial storage.
Through this updated code, fireworks retailers would first need to proceed through the Temporary
Use Permit (TUP) process outlined in BCC Sections 11.180.030 and 11.180.040, including providing a
description of the proposed use and a description of the site layout. Following the TUP approval,
the retailer would be able to obtain a business license to sell their fireworks.
Application 2026-16 – Seasonal Fireworks Sales Text Amendment
May 20, 2026, Planning Commission Meeting
Page 1

Page 65 of 111

SB 232 Consideration - Impact to the Family
As required by Senate Bill 232 (2026), Bluffdale must consider the impact any potential ordinance
changes could have on families prior to taking action.
NOTICE AND PUBLIC INPUT
A notice of this public hearing was provided as required by Section 11.30.060 of the BCC. The City
did not receive any public input regarding this item prior to publishing this report.
MODEL MOTION FOR A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION
Model for a Positive Recommendation – “I move to forward a positive recommendation to the City
Council for the proposed amendment of Bluffdale City Code Chapter 3.40 and Section 11.180.020
regarding the seasonal sale of fireworks, based on the findings presented in the Staff Report dated
May 20, 2026 (and including the following additional findings):”
1.
List all findings for approval…
EXHIBITS
A: Draft redlines

Application 2026-16 – Seasonal Fireworks Sales Text Amendment
May 20, 2026, Planning Commission Meeting
Page 2

Page 66 of 111

Bluffdale Fireworks Code Changes
11.180.020 Permitted Temporary Uses
Permitted temporary uses include:
Carnivals and circuses.
Outdoor sales of fireworks.
Christmas tree sales lots.
Flower stands.
Music festivals.
Occupancy of a temporary or existing dwelling during the remodeling of an existing or
construction of new detached single-family home (allowed only in the A-5, R-1-87, R-1-43, and
R-1-10 Zones and Cluster Residential and Infill Overlays).
Political rallies.
Promotional displays.
Rummage sales.
Seasonal fruit and vegetable stands.
Snow shacks/shave ice stands.
Tents for religious services.
3.40.020 Outlet License Requirements
The license assessor shall issue a license permitting operation of a retail fireworks outlet to any
person who fulfills all of the following requirements:
1) Location: Fireworks Outlets shall only be permitted in areas zoned for commercial or
industrial uses.
2) Application: The applicant shall complete and sign the appropriate form on file at the city
offices.
3) Sales outlet
a) Temporary stands, trailers and tents shall comply with the rules set forth in The Utah
Fireworks Act (Utah Admin Code R710-2)
b) Temporary stands, trailers or tents for the sale of division 1.4g common state
approved explosives shall be located at least 50 feet from other stands, trailers, tents,
LPG, flammable liquid or gas storage and dispensing units, and least 25 feet from an
approved fireworks storage container.
c) Overnight Storage

Page 67 of 111

If the stand or trailer is used for the overnight storage of division 1.4g common
state approved explosives, it shall be equipped with suitable locking devices to
prevent unauthorized entry.
ii) Tents shall not be used for overnight storage of division 1.4g common state
approved explosives unless on site security is provided.
d) No person shall be allowed to sleep in any temporary stand, trailer or tent in which
division 1.4g common state approved explosives are stored or sold.
4) Distances: The retail fireworks outlet shall be located at the following minimum distances
from the buildings or items named:
a) At last one hundred feet (100’) from any school building, healthcare institution, church
or other building used primarily for worship or ritual, gasoline filling station, or any
building or site where flammable liquid is stored or present.
b) Fifty feet (50’) from any other building.
c) One hundred feet (100’) from any other retail fireworks outlet stand.
d) Twenty feet (20’) from any boundary dividing tracts of land owned in fee by different
persons, unless the adjacent owner gives written permission to locate the stand
nearer to the boundary and an executed original of such permission is furnished to the
city.
5) Clearing Combustible Material: The site of the retail fireworks outlet shall be clear of dry
grass, weeds, trash or other combustible matter for twenty five feet (25’) in any direction
from the stand.
6) Smoking: On all sides of the stand, a sign shall be posted with letters four inches (4") high
reading "Smoking Prohibited Within 50 Feet".
7) Firefighting Equipment: The retail fireworks outlet shall have, within easy reach inside the
stand, fire extinguishers with a combined rating of at least 2A:10-B:C.
8) Clearing Combustible Material: The site of the retail fireworks outlet shall be clear of dry
grass, weeds, trash or other combustible matter for twenty-five feet (25') in any direction
from the stand.
9) Display: The fireworks held for sale must be displayed, if at all, only behind a counter or at
a place which is not accessible to customers.
10) Packaging: Fireworks shall be stored, handled, displayed and sold only in closed
packages.
11) Land Use: The retail fireworks outlet must conform to the applicable provisions of the
land use ordinances, including, but not limited to, the setback and sign requirements.
12) Heating and Light: The stand shall not be illuminated by open flame or exposed heating
elements. Heating and lighting appliances shall be approved by underwriters’
laboratories or similar authority, and shall be maintained in good condition.
13) Overnight Occupation Of Stand: No person shall sleep overnight in the stand.
14) Other Merchandise: The retail fireworks outlet shall sell no merchandise other than
fireworks.
i)

Page 68 of 111

15) Insurance: The owner or operator of the retail fireworks outlet shall furnish to the
Business License Official a certificate showing amounts of insurance coverage, and
showing the city as an additional insured.
The owner or operator of the retail fireworks outlet shall furnish to the license assessor a
certificate showing insurance coverage in the following types and amounts, and showing
the city as an additional insured:
Type
Amount
Personal liability and public liability
$300,000.00, plus an additional
coverage
$200,000.00 per employee on duty at any
time
Property damage liability coverage
$200,000.00
Products liability coverage
$1,000,000.00
16) Inspection: The license assessor Business License Official shall inspect the retail fireworks
outlet prior to issuance of a license, but after such outlet has been made ready for
operation, and shall examine such outlet for conformity with this chapter.
17) Fee: The owner or operator of the retail fireworks outlet shall pay to the city a fee as
specified in the city fee schedule, which shall not be refundable for any reason. This fee
must be received by the city before the retail fireworks outlet is inspected by the city for
compliance with this chapter.
18) Storage: No more than two hundred (200) pounds’ gross weight of fireworks shall be
stored or held for sale at any time in the stand. No fireworks shall be kept overnight in the
stand. Inventory which cannot be kept in the stand must be kept in a one-hour fire rated
roofed room located at a place where a stand could be located under this section, or in a
steel shipping container approved for commercial storage.
3.40.030 Salesperson’s License
The license assessor shall issue a license permitting the licensee to sell fireworks at retail to
any person who fulfills all of the following requirements:
1. Employment: The person applying for the license ("applicant") furnishes to the license
assessor a written statement signed by the holder of a valid outlet license, which
statement recites that the applicant is employed by the signer for the purpose of selling
fireworks.
2. Age: The applicant is eighteen (18) years of age or older, as apparent from the
applicant's driver's license or birth certificate. (Ord. 7-12-88-3, 7-12-1988)
3. Examination: In a short, written examination, the applicant demonstrates that he or she
knows and understands the requirements of section 3-4-2 of this chapter.
4. Examination Form: The retail fireworks outlet examination form is on file in the city
office. (Ord. 7-12-88-3, 7-12-1988; amd. 2013 Code)
3.40.040 Transfer Of License Prohibited

Page 69 of 111

A license which has been issued to one person shall not be valid in the hands of another person.
(Ord. 7-12-88-3, 7-12-1988)
3.40.050 Other Licenses And Provisions
1. Other Licenses: Persons holding licenses issued pursuant to this chapter shall not be
required to obtain any other license under this title.
2. Incorporation: The provisions contained in other chapters of this title shall apply to this
chapter, except where consistent with the provisions of this chapter or where
inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of fireworks retailing. (Ord. 7-12-88-3, 7-121988)
3.40.060 Revocation Of License
1. Effect: A license which has been revoked is not valid for any purpose.
2. Outlet License: A license issued pursuant to section 3-4-2 3.40.020 of this chapter may
be revoked for any of the following reasons:
1. Failure of the licensee to maintain the retail fireworks outlet in conformity with
the requirements for issuance of a license.
2. Misrepresentation by the person signing the application.
3. Failure by the licensee to conform to the statements made in the application.
4. The sale by an unlicensed person of a firework which, immediately prior to sale,
was included in the inventory of the retail fireworks outlet.
5. The failure to remove the stand as follows:
1. For a retail fireworks outlet operating between June 20 and July 25, no
later than July 30.
2. For a retail fireworks outlet operated between December 20 and January
2, no later than January 7.
3. For a retail fireworks outlet operated during the Chinese New Year
season, no later than five (5) days after the date of the Chinese New Year.
3. Salesperson’s License: A license issued pursuant to section 3-4-3 of this chapter may be
revoked for any of the following reasons:
1. The revocation of the license of the retail fireworks outlet employing the
salesperson licensee.
2. Misrepresentation in applying for the license.
3. Failure to comply with the requirements of section 3-4-2 of this chapter;
provided, that the licensee was directly involved or took part in the violation.
4. Notice And Appeal Procedure: The license official shall periodically inspect all retail
fireworks outlets. If thereby grounds are discovered for revocation of a license issued
pursuant to this chapter, the license assessor shall immediately give written notice of
license revocation to the holders of the license revoked, and shall note such revocation
in the records of the city. A person whose license has been revoked may appeal the

Page 70 of 111

revocation to the city manager, who shall promptly schedule a hearing before the city
council upon receipt of such notice, and the city council may vote to affirm or reverse
the revocation of the license.
3.40.070 Penalty
1. Owner Of Outlet: The owner of a retail fireworks outlet shall be guilty of a class B
misdemeanor and, upon conviction, subject to penalty as provided in section 1-4-1 of
this code, if any person sells a firework from the inventory of such outlet when such
outlet does not hold a valid license permitting operation of a retail fireworks outlet.
2. Salespersons: Any person selling a firework at retail without a valid license permitting
him or her to sell fireworks shall be guilty of a separate class B misdemeanor and, upon
conviction, subject to penalty as provided in section 1-4-1 of this code. (Ord. 7-12-88-3,
7-12-1988; amd. 2013 Code)
3. Separate Offenses: For purposes of subsections A and B of this section, each act of
selling at a particular time and to a particular customer shall constitute a separate
offense. (Ord. 7-12-88-3, 7-12-1988)

Page 71 of 111

2222 West 14400 South  Bluffdale, Utah 84065  (801) 254-2200
Community Development Department
Planning Division

STAFF REPORT
May 20, 2026
To:
City of Bluffdale Planning Commission
Prepared By: Caitlyn Tubbs, Planning Manager
Re:

Bluffdale at 2950 Flex Development
Application No.: 2026-04
Applicant(s):
Pine West Investments, LLC
Request:
To consider the following requests, hold a public hearing, and forward a
recommendation to the City Council:
- Request to amend the General Plan Land Use Map for approximately
1.90 acres at 13942 South 2700 West from Very Low Density Residential
to Commercial;
- Request to amend the Zoning Map for approximately 1.90 acres at
13942 South 2700 West from R-1-43 Residential to General Commercial
(GC-1); and
- Request to approve a Development Agreement to facilitate the
construction of four flex buildings (totaling up to 50,000 square feet) on
approximately 3.914 acres of land.

SUMMARY
The Applicant owns approximately 3.914 acres of land on three parcels at 13918 South 2700 West,
13942 South 2700 West, and 13937 South 2950 West. The Applicant seeks to construct four (4) flex
buildings along with required parking and landscaping on the site. One parcel, 13942 South 2700
West, requires an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map to facilitate the
development. This proposal would replace the existing 2022 Development Agreement for
professional office buildings on the same site1.
ANALYSIS
General Plan and Zoning Map
1 (Entry No. 13909891) Recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder’s Office
Application 2026-04 – General Plan Map Amendment, Zone Map Amendment, Development Agreement
May 20, 2026, Planning Commission Meeting
Page 1

Page 72 of 111

Two of the Applicant’s three parcels are already master-planned for commercial development in the
City’s General Plan and are currently in the General Commercial (GC-1) Zone. One parcel, 13942
South 2700 West (outlined in yellow in the images below), remains a Very Low-Density Residential
island surrounded by commercial and institutional uses in the General Plan and is currently zoned
R-1-43 Residential. The Applicant has requested an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Map
from Very Low Density Residential to Commercial and an amendment to the Zoning Map from R-143 Residential to General Commercial (GC-1) to reflect the existing designations of their other
abutting properties and to facilitate the development of the flex project on this site.

The Applicant’s properties are situated nearby a commercial node and along 2700 West, a collector
street designed to handle higher traffic volumes. This is an area in which the City has anticipated
higher-intensity uses, such as future commercial development.
Development Agreement
Per Chapter 11.290 of the Bluffdale City Code (BCC) and Utah Code § 10-20-508, the City Council is
authorized to enter into a Development Agreement on behalf of the City of Bluffdale. Development
Agreements can include specific design standards and may also authorize land uses not typically
permitted within the underlying zone as long as the requisite public hearing is held.
The Applicant has proposed some deviations from the General Commercial (GC-1) Zone, namely,
the maximum allowed lot coverage and minimum landscaping percentage and has also proposed
allowing some land uses that are not currently permitted in the GC-1 Zone within this development.
BCC Section 11.90.020.100 limits all buildings, structures, and parking lots to no more than eighty
percent (80%) of the total area of the parcel or site. The Applicant requests the City consider
allowing a maximum building and parking lot coverage of eighty-five percent (85%), an overall
increase of five percent (5%). Respectively, the Applicant requests the City allow a minimum
landscaping percentage of fifteen percent (15%) where the GC-1 Zone typically requires twenty
percent (20%), an overall reduction of five percent (5%).
This request is consistent with the lot coverage and landscaping standards of the Light Industrial (I1) Zone, which is concentrated on the eastern side of the city near Interstate 15. This request is also
consistent with the Development Agreement approved by the City for the Bluffdale Exchange
Application 2026-04 – General Plan Map Amendment, Zone Map Amendment, Development Agreement
May 20, 2026, Planning Commission Meeting
Page 2

Page 73 of 111

project directly across the street from the subject properties to the north. The Applicant has
provided a concept plan of the development demonstrating how the landscaping will be spread
throughout the entire site to break up the appearance of the impervious surfaces (see below).

Land Uses
The Applicant has proposed to voluntarily restrict laundry services from the project.
The Applicant has requested the City allow the following uses within the project through the
Development Agreement:
- Construction Sales and Service, provided no outdoor storage of equipment or
materials will be permitted within the project
- Data Center
- Loan Center
- Manufacturing, General
- Manufacturing, Limited
- Printing Services
- Storage Facilities for Machinery and Equipment, provided no outdoor storage of
machinery or equipment is permitted
- Wholesale and Warehousing, including any e-retailers
- Temporary Job Trailers and Offices, provided these are only allowed during the
construction period for the project and are removed after occupancy is completed for
the final building in the project.
Application 2026-04 – General Plan Map Amendment, Zone Map Amendment, Development Agreement
May 20, 2026, Planning Commission Meeting
Page 3

Page 74 of 111

Architecture and Site Design
Site Plans and Design Requirements
11.150.050(A)
Landscaping

11.150.060(C)
Non-residential
buildings and
sites

Windows

Corner Lots

Signage

Garbage and Recycling

Building Materials

Required Standard
Landscaping and
irrigation plans
required; minimum
count of shrubs and
trees per square foot of
landscaped area.
40% of first floor streetfacing facades shall be
glass. Above the first
nine feet and on non
street-facing facades,
windows shall make up
at least 10% of the
façade.
Corner lots are deemed
to have two front yards;
buildings shall orient to
each street, give
detailed architectural
treatment to each
façade.
Signage to comply with
Chapter 11.220.
Dumpsters no closer
than 10 feet to
perimeter property
lines; enclosures (if
provided) shall be 4sided masonry at least 6
feet in height.
Primary Materials:
Brick, stone, stucco
ceramic tile, CMU,
architectural metal
panels, composites.
Secondary Materials:
Stucco, EFIS,
corrugated sheet metal,

Proposal
Will provide landscaping
plan at Site Plan
Application and will
comply with existing
standard, up to 15% of
total lot.
Will meet standard on all
outward-facing facades.
Reduced glazing on end
caps of buildings and
internal loading areas,
as depicted in Exhibit F.
No deviations
requested; will meet
standard.

No deviations
requested; will meet
standard.
No deviations
requested; will meet
standard.

Applicant proposes
concrete masonry unit
(CMU) blocks as the
primary visible material
on all facades in the
development.
CMU will not exceed 50%
of the total façade area

Application 2026-04 – General Plan Map Amendment, Zone Map Amendment, Development Agreement
May 20, 2026, Planning Commission Meeting
Page 4

Page 75 of 111

exposed concrete, vinyl, on each façade;
shake shingles, or wood additional materials
siding.
include metal panel
siding.
Accent Materials:
Awnings, wood timbers,
and similar.
No single material can
exceed 50% of any
façade, except brick
may be 100% of
facades.
75% of each façade
must be a primary
material.

Façade Articulation

Height and Roofline

Massing

Horizontal and vertical
façade variations
required every 40 feet.
Undisturbed rooflines
50 feet or greater shall
provide roofline
variations.
Vertical and horizontal
articulation and multiplaned roof and awning

No deviations
requested; will meet
standard.
No deviations
requested; will meet
standard.
No deviations
requested; will meet
standard.

Application 2026-04 – General Plan Map Amendment, Zone Map Amendment, Development Agreement
May 20, 2026, Planning Commission Meeting
Page 5

Page 76 of 111

Pedestrian
Considerations

Bicycle Parking

Roof Mounted Heating
and Air Conditioning

Building Entrances

Ground Mounted Utility
Boxes, Meters, and
Mechanical Equipment
Outside Storage

11.150.060(F)
Outdoor
Lighting

designs should be used
to break up the massing
of the overall building.
Benches, pedestrian
scaled lighting, bike
racks, and other
amenities shall be
placed appropriately
through the site.
Bicycle parking shall be
provided at a ratio of 1
space for every 20
automobile parking
spaces; there shall be
no fewer than 2 and no
more than 30 bicycle
parking spaces.
Shall be concealed on
all sides by integral
building design
elements which are
equal to or greater in
height than the
mechanical equipment.
All building entrances
shall be clearly
articulated.
Shall be screened from
off site view by
landscaping or
architectural elements.
Where allowed by
underlying zone; must
be screened from view
with an 8-foot tall
enclosure.
Commercial outdoor
lighting must be turned
off after business hours,
except for essential
security lighting.

No deviations
requested; will meet
standard.

No deviations
requested; will meet
standard.
No deviations
requested; will meet
standard.
No outside storage will
be permitted; no
screening necessary.

No deviations
requested; will meet
standard.

Parking lot lighting
limited to 20 feet in
Application 2026-04 – General Plan Map Amendment, Zone Map Amendment, Development Agreement
May 20, 2026, Planning Commission Meeting
Page 6

Page 77 of 111

height and must be
shielded and directed
downward.
Security lighting limited
to 20 feet in height.

NOTICE AND PUBLIC INPUT
A notice of this public hearing was provided as required by BCC Section 11.30.060. The City did not
receive any public input regarding this item prior to publishing this report.
MODEL MOTION FOR THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN MAP AMENDMENT:
Model for a Positive Recommendation – “I move to forward a positive recommendation to the City
Council for the proposal to amend the General Plan from Very Low Density Residential to
Commercial, based on the findings presented in the Staff Report dated May 20, 2026 (and including
the following additional findings)…”
1.
List all findings for positive recommendation…
MODEL MOTION FOR THE PROPOSED ZONING MAP AMENDMENT:
Model for a Positive Recommendation – “I move to forward a positive recommendation to the City
Council for the proposal to amend the Zoning Map from R-1-43 Residential to General Commercial
(GC-1), based on the findings presented in the Staff Report dated May 20, 2026 (and including the
following additional findings)…:”
2.
List all findings for approval…
MODEL MOTION FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT:
Model for a Positive Recommendation – “I move to forward a positive recommendation to the City
Council for the proposed Development Agreement for the Bluffdale at 2950 Development, including
deviations from lot coverage and landscaping percentages, architectural and site design standards,
and permitted land uses, based on the findings presented in the Staff Report dated May 20, 2026
(and including the following additional findings)…:”
3.
List all findings for approval…
EXHIBITS
A: Draft Development Agreement
B: Plans and Renderings

Application 2026-04 – General Plan Map Amendment, Zone Map Amendment, Development Agreement
May 20, 2026, Planning Commission Meeting
Page 7

Page 78 of 111

WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
Bluffdale City
Attn: City Recorder
2222 West 14400 South
Bluffdale, Utah 84065
Affects Salt Lake County Parcel Nos. 33-04-326-065, 33-04-326-061 and 33-04-326-063

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
This Development Agreement ("Agreement") is made and entered into by and between the City
of Bluffdale, a Utah municipal corporation ("City") and Pine West Investment Group, LLC, a
Utah Limited Liability Company ("Developer").

RECITALS
WHEREAS, Developer has rights to certain real property identified as Salt Lake County
Assessor Parcel Numbers 33-04-326-065, 33-04-326-061 and 33-04-326-063, which is
comprised of approximately 3.914 acres of vacant land and is described in attached Exhibit A
(the "Property");
WHEREAS, the Property was previously included in that certain Development Agreement
between the City and D&H Stewart Family Holdings, LLC, recorded with the Salt Lake County
Recorder's Office on March 11, 2022, as Entry No. 13909891 (the "2022 Development
Agreement");
WHEREAS, with regard to this property, the Parties desire this new Agreement to terminate and
replace the 2022 Development Agreement and the Parties desire to enter into this new Agreement
to reflect a revised development plan for the property;
WHEREAS, the Property is subject to the planning and land use ordinances of the City and is
approximately located at 2900 West 13900 South, Bluffdale, Utah 84065;
WHEREAS, the Property is currently zoned GC-1 (General Commercial) and a portion that is
R-1-43 (Residential) and will be rezoned to GC-1 (General Commercial) to match the adjacent
parcels;
WHEREAS, Developer desires to develop and use the Property as a flex office / retail space
project (with office, retail, and warehouse uses as defined uses in this agreement) in accordance
with the concept plan shown in Exhibit B (the "Concept Plan" or "Project");

Development Agreement
Page 1 of 16

Page 79 of 111

WHEREAS, the Project will help satisfy an unmet need in the City for people who desire to
conduct such business uses within a designated, newly constructed commercial project rather
than trying to conduct such business uses from their home properties;
WHEREAS, in furtherance of Developer's desire to develop and use the Property, Developer
desires to enter into this Agreement to confirm the Concept Plan of the Project as well as the
number and types of structures that may be constructed on the Property;
WHEREAS, the Bluffdale City Council ("City Council"), acting pursuant to its authority under
Utah Code§ 10-9a-102(2) et seq., as amended, and the Bluffdale City Code (the "City Code"),
and in furtherance of its land use policies, goals, objectives, ordinances, resolutions, and
regulations, has elected to exercise its legislative discretion to enter into this Agreement for the
purpose of regulating the development the Property pursuant to the terms contained herein; and
WHEREAS, this Agreement shall only be valid upon approval of such by the City Council and
pursuant to Ordinance No. 2026-XX, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit D.
NOW THEREFORE, based on the foregoing recitals and in consideration of the mutual
covenants and promises contained and set forth herein, and for good and valuable consideration,
the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

TERMS
1. Recitals; Definitions. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein by this
reference. Any capitalized term used but not otherwise defined in this Agreement shall
have the meaning ascribed to such term in the City Code.
2. Enforceability. City and Developer acknowledge that the terms of this Agreement shall
be enforceable, and the rights of Developer relative to the Property shall vest, only if the
City Council approves this Agreement.
3. Effective Date. This Agreement is effective on the date the last party executes this
Agreement as indicated by the date stated under that party's signature line (the "Effective
Date").
4. Conflicting Terms. The Property shall be used and developed in accordance with the
requirements and benefits of this Agreement and the land use ordinances of the GC-1
(General Commercial) zone as of the Effective Date. If there is a discrepancy between the
requirements of City Code, including the GC-1 (General Commercial) Zone, and this
Agreement, the provisions of this Agreement shall control.
5. Developer Rights and Obligations; Project Development Standards.

Development Agreement
Page 2 of 16

Page 80 of 111

A. Concept Plan. Developer shall develop and use the Property in accordance with
the Concept Plan depicted in Exhibit B. This plan is conceptual and may be
subject to minor revisions by either party to this agreement once the full site plan
and subdivision plat submittal package is submitted to the city for review and in
accordance with applicable provisions of City Code and adopted standards in
effect as of the date of recording of this Agreement.
B. Structures. Developer shall have the right to construct up to four (4) separate
buildings containing flex office / retail space units consistent with the Concept
Plan and a combined total of up to thirty (30) flex space units. Each flex space
unit, after it receives a certificate of occupancy and is platted, may be sold to
third-party purchasers/owners.
C. Lot Coverage Building footprints shall not exceed forty-five percent (45%) of the
total project area. Combined coverage (including buildings, parking lots,
driveways, sidewalks, and other hardscape surfaces) shall not exceed eighty-five
percent (85%) of the total project area.
D. Building Size. There shall be up to four (4) separate building structures as
depicted in Exhibit B hereto. Each building structure will contain multiple flex
space units. The minimum size for any single building is 6,000 square feet in
footprint. The maximum size for any single building is 20,000 square feet in
footprint. The total footprint of all buildings in the project shall not exceed 50,000
square feet.
E. Parking. There shall be at least three (3) off-street parking spaces for each flex
space unit in the Project. Parking spaces within the Project shall not be conveyed
by deed, subdivided, or sold separately from the flex space units. Instead, parking
spaces shall be assigned to specific flex space units and regulated in accordance
with the recorded covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) of the Project.
Overnight exterior parking shall be prohibited, but parking inside a unit with the
garage door fully closed overnight is allowed. Parking facilities will be managed
by an owners' association, and the owners' association shall also enforce the
parking regulations. No outside storage is permitted anywhere within the Project.
F. Street and Landscaping. Developer shall develop and improve the Project in
accordance with the approved Concept Plan for the Project. A minimum of fifteen
percent (15%) of the overall project area shall be planted landscape or xeriscape
treatment and a minimum of (20%) of the overall project area shall be landscape
and/or pedestrian walks. At the east end of Building A, a pedestrian plaza area
with benches will be installed. (See Exhibit H.) As the entire project will be built
in one phase, the plaza and amenities will be installed prior to occupancy of the
first building. See Exhibit H.

Development Agreement
Page 3 of 16

Page 81 of 111

A landscaped setback with a maximum width of five feet (5’) from the south
property line to the face of curb adjacent to parking spaces shall be required along
the south boundary abutting North Star Academy. In addition, a 12’ landscape
buffer shall be required along the north property line along 13900 South, to
accommodate a larger landscape buffer for pedestrians. This additional landscape
buffer may be used as additional planting area or an enlarged pedestrian trail
along 13900 South.
G. Owners Association. An owners' association will be established for the project. It
will be responsible for management of private parking areas, shared amenities,
maintenance of the buildings, snow removal, and enforcement of project
regulations and restrictions.
H. Building Setbacks. All building setbacks will be measured from the property lines
and shall be a minimum of 20’. The other two (2) sides of the Project shall have
no minimum setback requirement, provided all construction complies with the
adopted Building Codes.
I. Public Street Parking. Parallel parking is not allowed on 2950 West or 13900
South.
J. Windows; Glazing. The standard window and glazing requirements shall not
apply to the buildings in this Project except for the sides of the buildings that are
visible from public streets on the perimeter of the Project, pursuant to
Exhibit E – glazing requirements exhibit. For areas identified as reduced glazing
in Exhibit E, the requirement shall be a minimum of 25% of the standard. The
southern facade (facing the back of North Star Academy) will not be required to
include any windows/glazing. For facades not separately identified in Exhibit E,
no glazing is required except that windows will be provided on two (2) of the
upper row panels of the garage doors and above the personnel door as depicted in
conceptual renderings (Exhibit F).
K. Building Materials. No single material can cover more than 50% of the exterior
facades of the buildings in the Project. No more than ten percent (10%) of the
public street-facing perimeter building facades shall be EIFS/stucco. Colored
CMU shall count as an exterior material if CMU is used for the buildings. When
CMU is used as the primary exterior material, no additional brick is required on
the exterior surface of the facades.
L. Signage. The concept monument signage included in Exhibit G shall be
considered approved with no additional land use fee or application. Developer and
future unit tenants shall obtain all required building permits before signage
construction or installation. A conformance review of proposed signage with the
Exhibit G included in this document may be performed at time of building
Development Agreement
Page 4 of 16

Page 82 of 111

permit. The concept site plan in Exhibit B details the two locations for these
signs. In addition to the two (2) monument signs, wall signage will be allowed
provided the total square footage of the sign does not exceed 1.5 sq ft per lineal
feet of building frontage for each unit or group of units.
M. Hours of Operation. External activities which may result in excessive noise
(including deliveries, cleanup, and other activities) shall be conducted only within
the hours of 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM, local time. Excessive noise shall be defined as
any noise exceeding the permissible commercial use district decibels as outlined
in Section 11.320.050(A) of the City Code as measured at the property line.
N. Infrastructure Improvements. This Agreement does not in any way convey to
Developer any capacity in any City system or infrastructure or the ability to
develop the Property without the need for Developer to install and dedicate to
City all required improvements necessary to service the Property, including,
without limitation, the dedication of canal shares as required by Bluffdale City
Code. The additional ROW will be conveyed to the City after approval of the site
plan and before construction or sitework begins. Developer shall be responsible
for paying all property taxes, including rollback taxes, prior to dedication or
conveyance and prior to acceptance by City of any property or improvements and
all impact fees calculated. Development of the Property shall comply in all
respects with all City regulations and standards in effect as of the time of the
development or construction activity, except as expressly modified in this
Agreement. Developer acknowledges the construction of street and utility
infrastructure is development-driven and the City is not responsible for the cost of
right-of-way acquisition or roadway construction improvements required for
Developer's Project.
O. Shared Access. Applicant shall construct a shared access, centered on the eastern
property line, to be shared with property to the east.
P. Compliance with City Code Zone. Any feature or standard of the Project that is
not expressly addressed in this Agreement ( e.g., trash receptacles/dumpsters,
bicycle parking, landscape planting plan, etc.) shall comply with the requirements
of the City Code in effect as of the date of recording of this Agreement Except as
expressly set forth above or in other provisions of this Agreement, the Property
and all improvements constructed as part of this Project will comply with the GC1 (General Commercial) Zone in effect as of the Effective Date of this Agreement.
For clarification, a copy of said GC-1 Zone is attached hereto as Exhibit C. The
above-stated provisions in this Section 5 supersede any conflicting or contrary
provisions in the City's GC-1 (General Commercial) zoning standards.
6. Permitted and Restricted Uses. The Project shall adhere to the permitted uses as
allowed in Bluffdale City Code for the General Commercial (GC-1) Zoning District,
subject to the modifications and limitations outlined below:
Development Agreement
Page 5 of 16

Page 83 of 111

A. Excluded Uses. The following use, though otherwise permitted in the GC-1 zone,
shall be prohibited within the Project: laundry services.
B. Construction Sales and Service. Construction sales and service uses, as defined
by Bluffdale City Code Section 11.20.020, shall be allowed as a permitted use in
the Project except that no outdoor storage of equipment or materials shall be
permitted within the Project.
C. Data Center. Data centers shall be an allowed use.
D. Loan Center. Loan Center shall be an allowed use.
E. Manufacturing, General. General manufacturing uses are allowed in the Project
except that no outdoor storage of equipment or materials shall be permitted within
the Project.
F. Manufacturing, Limited. Limited manufacturing uses are allowed in the Project
except that no outdoor storage of equipment or materials shall be permitted within
the Project.
G. Printing Services. Printing services are allowed in the Project.

H. Storage Facilities for Machinery and Equipment. Storage of machinery and
equipment shall be allowed provided that all storage is contained within the
unit(s) and no external storage is allowed.

I. Temporary Job Trailers and Offices. Temporary trailers shall be allowed
during the construction period for the project and are removed after occupancy is
completed for the last constructed building.
J. Wholesale and Warehousing. Wholesale and warehousing uses shall be allowed
in the Project, as defined by City Code, and including any e-retail uses.
7. Minor Changes. Minor changes to the development plan are allowed so long as they are
consistent with the approved Concept Plan and comply with applicable city regulations.
Minor Changes shall be addressed during the site plan review and may be approved by
the City Manager with input from Planning Staff. For purposes of this provision, the term
"Minor Changes" means changes to the plans that do not constitute additional exceptions
or variances from City Code standards and may include geometry or road right-of-way
changes as necessary to meet adopted City standards in accordance with the terms of this
Development Agreement
Page 6 of 16

Page 84 of 111

Agreement. All proposed changes that are not qualified "Minor Changes" shall be
considered a Major Change and will require an amendment to this Agreement.
8. City Obligations. City shall review development applications with respect to the
Property in a timely manner, consistent with City's routine development review practices
and in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations.
9. Vested Rights and Reserved Legislative Powers.
A. Vested Rights. Consistent with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, City
agrees Developer has the vested right to develop and construct the Property
during the term of this Agreement in accordance with: (i) the GC-1 (General
Commercial) zoning designation; (ii) the City Code in effect as of the Effective
Date; (iii) the Concept Plan in Exhibit B hereto, and (iv) the terms of this
Agreement with the exception of the building sizes and the number of parking
spaces which are dependent on the final engineering surveys and plans including,
but not limited to, the final right-of-way design.
B. Reserved Legislative Powers. Developer acknowledges that City is restricted in
its authority to limit its police power by contract and that the limitations,
reservations and exceptions set forth herein are intended to reserve to City all its
police power that cannot be so limited. Notwithstanding the retained power of
City to enact such legislation under the police powers, such legislation shall only
be applied to modify the vested rights of Developer under this Agreement and
with respect to use under the zoning designations as referenced in this Agreement
based upon the policies, facts and circumstances meeting the compelling,
countervailing public interest exception to the vested rights doctrine in the State
of Utah. Any proposed change affecting the vested rights of the Property shall be
of general application to all development activity in City and Salt Lake County;
and, unless in good faith City declares an emergency, Developer shall be entitled
to prior written notice and an opportunity to be heard with respect to the proposed
change and its applicability to the Property under the compelling, countervailing
public interest exception to the vested rights doctrine.
10. Term. This Agreement shall run with the land and shall continue in full force and effect
until all obligations hereunder have been fully performed and all rights hereunder fully
exercised; provided, however, that unless the parties mutually agree to extend the term,
this Agreement shall not extend further than a period of ten ( 10) years from its date of
recordation in the official records of the Salt Lake County Recorder's Office. Following
the post-recordation period of 10 years, the provisions of the underlying zone shall
govern new development on the property.
11. Replace Prior Development Agreement. The Property that is the subject of this
Agreement was previously included in that certain Development Agreement between the
City and Pine West Investment Group, LLC, recorded with the Salt Lake County
Development Agreement
Page 7 of 16

Page 85 of 111

Recorder's Office on March 11, 2022, as Entry No. 13909891 (the "2022 Development
Agreement"). The 2022 Development Agreement shall have no further force or effect
against the Property. This Agreement supersedes and replaces the 2022 Development
Agreement with respect to the Property.
12. General Provisions.
A. Notices. All Notices, filings, consents, approvals, and other communication
provided for herein or given in connection herewith shall be validly given, filed,
made, delivered or served if in writing and delivered personally or sent by
registered or certified U.S. Postal Service mail, return receipt requested, postage
prepaid to the following addresses or to such other addresses as either Party may
from time to time designate in writing and deliver in like manner. Any such
change of address shall be given at least ten days before the date on which the
change is to become effective:
If to City:

Bluffdale City
Attn: City Recorder
2222 West 14400 South
Bluffdale, Utah 84065

If to Developer:

Pine West Investment Group, LLC
Attn: Dan Stewart
78 West 13775 South, Suite 1
Draper, UT 84020

B. Mailing Effective. Notices given by mail shall be deemed delivered seventy-two
hours following deposit with the U.S. Postal Service in the manner set forth
above.
C. Headings. The descriptive headings of the paragraphs of this Agreement are
inserted for convenience only and shall not control or affect the meaning or
construction of any provision of this Agreement.
D. Title and Authority. Developer expressly warrants and represents to City that
Developer (i) owns all right, title, and interest in and to the Property or has the
exclusive right to acquire such interest, and (ii) that prior to the execution of this
Agreement no right, title, or interest in the Property has been sold, assigned, or
otherwise transferred to any entity or individual other than the Developer.
Developer further warrants and represents that no portion of the Property subject
to any lawsuit or pending legal claim of any kind. The parties to this Agreement
represent that they have full power and authority to enter into this Agreement, and
that all necessary actions have been taken to give full force and effect to this
Agreement. Developer represents and warrants it is fully formed and validly
existing under the laws of the State of Utah, and that it is duly qualified to do
Development Agreement
Page 8 of 16

Page 86 of 111

business in the State of Utah and is in good standing under applicable state laws.
Developer and City warrant to each other that the individuals executing this
Agreement on behalf of their respective party are authorized and empowered to
bind the party on whose behalf each individual is signing. Developer represents to
City that by entering into this Agreement Developer has bound all persons and
entities having a legal or equitable interest to the terms of this Agreement as of the
Effective Date.
E. Enforcement. The parties to this Agreement recognize that the City has the right
to enforce its rules, policies, regulations, ordinances, and the terms of this
Agreement by seeking an injunction to compel compliance. In the event
Developer violates the rules, policies, regulations, or ordinances of the City or
violates the terms of this Agreement, the City may, without declaring a default or
electing to seek an injunction, and after thirty (30) Development Agreement days
written notice to correct the violation ( or such longer period as may be
established in the discretion of the City or a court of competent jurisdiction if
Developer has used its reasonable best efforts to cure such violation within such
thirty (30) days and is continuing to use its reasonable best efforts to cure such
violation), take such actions as shall be deemed appropriate under law until such
conditions have been rectified by Developer. City shall be free from any liability
arising out of the exercise of its rights under this paragraph.
F. Developer's Remedies Upon Default. Developer acknowledges and agrees that
Developer's sole and exclusive remedy under this Agreement shall be specific
performance of the development rights granted in this Agreement and City's
obligations under this Agreement. IN NO EVENT SHALL CITY BE LIABLE TO
DEVELOPER, ITS SUCCESSORS, OR ASSIGNS, FOR ANY INDIRECT,
SPECIAL, PUNITIVE, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES,
INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, LOST PROFITS, COSTS OF DELAY,
OR LIABILITIES TO THIRD PARTIES.
G. City's Remedies Upon Default. In addition to the remedies set forth herein,
including, but not limited to, enforcement, upon default of any terms or conditions
of this Agreement, City may require specific performance of Developer's
obligations and City may withhold issuance of any building permits or further
approvals for the Project until Developer has fully complied with the terms and
conditions of this Agreement; provided, however, that the City shall not exercise
any such remedy until after satisfying the notice and cure provisions in subsection
1 O(E) above.
H. No Waiver. Any party's failure to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall
not constitute a waiver of the right to enforce such provision. The provisions may
be waived only in writing by the party intended to be benefited by the provisions,
and a waiver by a party of a breach hereunder by the other party shall not be
construed as a waiver of any succeeding breach of the same or other provisions.
Development Agreement
Page 9 of 16

Page 87 of 111

I. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, together with the Exhibits attached hereto,
documents referenced herein and all regulatory approvals given by City for the
Property contain the entire agreement of the Parties with respect to the subject
matter hereof and supersede any prior promises, representations, warranties,
inducements or understandings between the parties which are not contained in
such agreements, regulatory approvals and related conditions.
J. Recording. This Agreement shall be recorded at the Developer's expense to put
prospective purchases or other interested parties on notice as to the terms and
provisions hereof.
K. Amendment. This Agreement may be amended in whole or in part with respect to
all or any portion of the Property only by the mutual written consent of the parties
or by their successors-in-interest or assigns. Any such amendment of this
Agreement shall be recorded in the official records of the Salt Lake County
Recorder's Office.
L. Hold Harmless and Indemnification. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend, and
hold harmless City and its elected officials, officers, agents, employees,
consultants, and representatives from and against liability for claims, damages,
just compensation restitution, inverse condemnation, or any judicial or equitable
relief which may arise from or are related to any activity connected with the
Developer's activity on the Property including approval of the Developer's
activity, the direct or indirect operations of the Developer or its contractors,
subcontractors, agents, employees, or other persons acting on its behalf which
relates to the Developer's activities on the Property, or which arises out of claims
for personal injury, including health, and claims for property damage. This
includes any claims or suits related to the existence of hazardous, toxic, and/or
contaminating materials on the Property and geologic hazards.
i. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to mean that Developer shall
defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City or its elected and appointed
representatives, officers, agents, employees, and representatives harmless
from any claims of personal injury, death, or property damage or other
liabilities arising from
(a) the willful misconduct or negligent acts or omissions of the City, or
its boards, officers, agents, employees; and /or
(b) the negligent maintenance or repair by the City of improvements
that have been offered for dedication and accepted by the City for
maintenance.
ii. City shall give written notice of any claim, demand, action, or proceeding
which is the subject of Developer's hold harmless agreement as soon as
practicable, but not later than thirty (30) days after the assertion or
Development Agreement
Page 10 of 16

Page 88 of 111

commencement of the claim, demand, action, or proceeding. If any such
notice is given, Developer shall be entitled to participate in the defense of
such claim. Each party agrees to cooperate with the other in the defense of
any claim and to minimize duplicative costs and expenses.
M. Severability. Each and every provision of this Agreement shall be separate,
several, and distinct from each other provision hereof, and the invalidity,
unenforceability, or illegality of any such provision shall not affect the
enforceability of any other provision hereof. If any of the provisions of this
Agreement are declared void or unenforceable, such provision shall be severed
from this Agreement. This Agreement shall otherwise remain in full force and
effect provided the fundamental purpose of this Agreement and Developer's
ability to complete the development of the Property as set forth in the Concept
Plan is not defeated by such severance.
N. Governing Law and Venue. The laws of the State of Utah shall govern the
interpretation and enforcement of this Agreement. The parties shall agree that the
venue for any action commenced in connection with this Agreement shall be
proper only in a court of competent jurisdiction located in Salt Lake County,
Utah. The parties hereby expressly waive any right to object to such choice of law
or venue.
O. Construction of Agreement. This Agreement shall be construed so as to effectuate
its public purpose of ensuring the Property is developed as set forth herein to
protect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the City.
P. Institution of Legal Action. In addition to any other rights or remedies, either
party may institute legal action to cure, correct, or remedy any default or breach
hereof, to specifically enforce any covenants or agreements set forth in this
Agreement or to enjoin any threatened or attempted violation of this Agreement;
or to obtain any remedies consistent with the purpose of this Agreement.
Q. Attorney's Fees and Costs. If either party brings legal action either because of a
breach of this Agreement or to enforce a provision of this Agreement, the
prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and court costs.
R. Binding Effect. The benefits and burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon
and shall inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective heirs, legal
representatives, successors in interest and assigns. This Agreement shall be
incorporated by reference in any instrument purporting to convey an interest in
the Property.

Development Agreement
Page 11 of 16

Page 89 of 111

S. No Third Party Rights. The obligations of Developer and City set forth in this
Agreement shall not create any rights in or obligations to any other persons or
parties except to the extent otherwise provided herein.
T. Assignment. Developer shall not assign this Agreement to any third party without
the prior written approval of the City, which approval shall not be unreasonably
withheld; provided, however, that Developer shall have the right to transfer and
assign this Agreement to any entity that is owned in whole or in part by Developer
without the City's consent. In such event, Developer shall inform the City of the
assignment and provide the assignee's contact information to the City.
U. No Agency Created. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall create any
partnership, joint venture, or agency relationship between the parties. To evidence
the parties' agreement to this Agreement, each party has executed it on the date
stated under that party's name.

[SIGNATURES FOLLOW]

Development Agreement
Page 12 of 16

Page 90 of 111

BLUFFDALE CITY
Signature:

Approved as to Form:

By:
City Attorney
Its:

City Manager

State of Utah

)
:ss
County of Salt Lake )
On this _____ day of __________________, 2026, personally appeared before me
___________________________, whose identity is personally known to me (or proven on the
basis of satisfactory evidence) and who by me duly sworn/affirmed, did say that he/she is the
_____________________ of the City of Bluffdale and that the person who executed the
foregoing instrument acknowledged to me that the entity executed the same.

Notary Public

Development Agreement
Page 13 of 16

Page 91 of 111

DEVELOPER
Signature:
By: Dan Stewart
Its: Manager
State of Utah

)
:ss
County of Salt Lake )
On this ____ day of _______________________, 2026, personally appeared before me Dan
Stewart, known or identified to me to be the Pine West Investment Group, LLC, a Utah limited
liability company, and the person who executed the foregoing instrument acknowledged to me
that said entity executed the same.
Notary Public
PROPERTY OWNERS:
The undersigned owner of the Property on which the Project will be developed approves this
Development Agreement and consents to the same being recorded against the Property:
Pine West Investment Group, LLC
Signature:
By: Dan Stewart, Manager
Its:
State of Utah

)
:ss
County of Salt Lake )
On this ____ day of _______________________, 2026, personally appeared before me Dan
Stewart, who acknowledged before me that he/she/they signed this instrument as the Manager of
Pine West Investment Group, LLC, owner of Salt Lake County Tax Parcels 33-04-326-065 and
33-04-326-063.
Notary Public

Development Agreement
Page 14 of 16

Page 92 of 111

DEVELOPER
Signature:
By: Dan Stewart
Its: Manager
State of Utah

PROPERTY OWNERS:
The undersigned owner of the Property on which the Project will be developed approves this
Development Agreement and consents to the same being recorded against the Property:
Danny Stewart & Heidi Stewart, Joint Trustees
Signature:

Signature:

By: Danny Stewart

By:

Heidi Stewart

Its: Joint Trustee

Its:

Joint Trustee

State of Utah

)
:ss
County of Salt Lake )
On this ____ day of _______________________, 2026, personally appeared before me Dan
Stewart, who acknowledged before me that he/she/they signed this instrument as the Manager of
Danny & Heidi Stewart, Joint Trustees, owner of Salt Lake County Tax Parcel 33-04-326-061.
Notary Public

Development Agreement
Page 15 of 16

Page 93 of 111

Exhibit A: Legal Description
Exhibit B: Concept Site Plan
Exhibit C: GC-1 Zone
Exhibit D: Ordinance
Exhibit E: Glazing Requirements
Exhibit F: Architectural Elevations, Renderings and Materials
Exhibit G: Sign
Exhibit H: Plaza Detail

Development Agreement
Page 16 of 16

Page 94 of 111

Legal Description
BEGINNING AT A POINT WHICH IS SOUTH ALONG THE
SECTION LINE A DISTANCE OF 773.27 FEET AND WEST
660.00 FEET FROM THE CENTER OF SECTION 4,
TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 1 WEST, SALT LAKE BASE
AND MERIDIAN, SAID POINT BEING ON THE
SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF 13800 SOUTH
STREET, AND RUNNING THENCE SOUTH 215.00 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 89°51'02" WEST 596.78 FEET TO THE
EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF 2950 WEST STREET;
THENCE NORTH 00°01'49" EAST ALONG SAID EASTERLY
RIGHT OF WAY LINE A DISTANCE OF 281.11 FEET TO
THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID 13800 SOUTH STREET,
AND POINT OF A 17.00 FOOT RADIUS TANGENT CURVE
TO THE RIGHT; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE THE FOLLOWING FIVE (5)
COURSES, 1) ALONG SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF 26.73
FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90°05'47"
(CHORD BEARS NORTH 45°04'43" EAST 24.06 FEET), 2)
SOUTH 89°52'24" EAST 350.16 FEET TO THE POINT OF
A 271.50 FOOT RADIUS TANGENT CURVE TO THE
RIGHT, 3) ALONG SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF 117.56
FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 24°48'37"
(CHORD BEARS SOUTH 77°28'05" EAST 116.65 FEET)
TO THE POINT OF A 306.50 FOOT RADIUS COMPOUND
CURVE TO THE RIGHT, 4) ALONG SAID CURVE A
DISTANCE OF 42.17 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE
OF 07°52'58" (CHORD BEARS SOUTH 61°07'18" EAST
42.14 FEET) TO THE POINT OF A 363.50 FOOT RADIUS
REVERSE CURVE, 5) ALONG SAID CURVE A DISTANCE
OF 87.67 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
13°49'08" (CHORD BEARS SOUTH 64°05'22" EAST
87.46 FEET) TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINS 170,478 SQUARE FEET OR 3.914 ACRES,
MORE OR LESS.

January 26, 2026

Exhibit A

Bluffdale at 2950, Development Agreement, Bluffdale, Utah

Page 95 of 111

Tri-City Flexible Retail
Property Summary

Project
Sign

3.914 Ac

Building Sq Feet

45,143 Sq Ft

Total Parking

132 Sp

Total Open Space

13900 South

Retaining Wall

Total Property Acres

0.793 Ac (20.26%)

Building Sq Ft

42,542 Sq Ft

Total Site Coverage

134,094.30 SF

Max Site Coverage %

78.65%

Retaining Wall

Add'l Asphalt

Parking Summary

Project
Sign

2950 West

Plaza

Total Units

Required Parking (3 sp/unit)

Total Parking Provided

132

Total Excess Parking

Street Trees: Upright Japanese Zelkova
at 35' o.c., Both Streets

Retaining Wall

Add'l Asphalt

Bike Racks

March 31, 2026

Exhibit B

Concept Plan, Bluffdale at 2950, Bluffdale, Utah

Page 96 of 111

GC-1 Zone
As adopted at time of Development Agreement Approval

Exhibit C

Bluffdale at 2950, Bluffdale, Utah

Page 97 of 111

Ordinance
Adopted by Bluffdale City Council
Date TBD

Exhibit D

Bluffdale at 2950, Bluffdale, Utah

Page 98 of 111

GLAZING

CMU

METAL SIDING

METAL PANEL

TYP. SIGNAGE AREA

28'-8"

FIRST 9' OF BUILDING
GLAZING:
EXTERIOR WALL:

879 SQ. FT.
832 SQ. FT.

51%
49%

15'-4"

SPLIT FACE CMU

GLAZING 40% MIN.

9'-0"

ELEVATION MATERIAL CALCULATIONS
WALL TYPE
CMU - PRIMARY
CMU - SECONDARY
METAL PANEL - PRIMARY
METAL SIDING - SECONDARY
GLAZING

SQ. FT.
1098
530
1105
600
1840

%
21%
10%
21%
12%
36%

LEVEL 1 - T.O. PLY
100'-0"

NORTH ELEVATION
13900 S. STREET FACING

ELEVATION MATERIAL CALCULATIONS
WALL TYPE
CMU - PRIMARY
CMU - SECONDARY
METAL PANEL - PRIMARY
METAL SIDING - SECONDARY
GLAZING
NON-GLAZING OPENINGS

4'-8"

35'-4"

8'-8"

35'-4"

8'-8"

35'-4"

SQ. FT.
1832
288
172
654
529
1008

%
41%
6%
4%
15%
12%
22%

LEVEL 1 - T.O. PLY
100'-0"

50'-0"

SOUTH ELEVATION

WALL TYPE
CMU - PRIMARY
CMU - SECONDARY
METAL PANEL - PRIMARY
METAL SIDING - SECONDARY
GLAZING
NON - GLAZING OPENINGS

GLAZING 40% MIN.

9'-0"

ELEVATION MATERIAL CALCULATIONS
SQ. FT.
522
144
330
230
442
24

ELEVATION MATERIAL CALCULATIONS

%
31%
9%
20%
13%
26%
1%

WALL TYPE
CMU - PRIMARY
CMU - SECONDARY
METAL PANEL - PRIMARY
METAL SIDING - SECONDARY
GLAZING

LEVEL 1 - T.O. PLY
100'-0"
FIRST 9' OF BUILDING
GLAZING:
EXTERIOR WALL:

216 SQ. FT.
312 SQ. FT.

41%
59%

%
22%
6%
30%
10%
32%

LEVEL 1 - T.O. PLY
100'-0"

WEST ELEVATION

EAST ELEVATION

BLUFFDALE AT 2950 RETAIL
BLUFFDALE, UTAH
The designs shown and described herein including all technical drawings, graphic representation &
models thereof, are the copyrighted work of Think Architecture, Inc. and & cannot be copied,
duplicated, or commercially exploited in whole or in part without the sole and express written
permission from THINK Architecture, Inc.

SQ. FT.
265
80
360
118
392

BUILDING A ELEVATIONS

EXHIBIT F
24 MARCH, 2026

Page 99 of 111

GLAZING

CMU

METAL SIDING

METAL PANEL

TYP. SIGNAGE AREA

ELEVATION MATERIAL CALCULATIONS
WALL TYPE
SQ. FT.
CMU - PRIMARY
1594
CMU - SECONDARY
662
METAL PANEL - PRIMARY
1,138
METAL SIDING - SECONDARY 748
GLAZING
2036

32'-8"

15'-4"

%
26%
11%
18%
12%
33%

LEVEL 1 - T.O. PLY
100'-0"

32'-8"

SPLIT FACE CMU

SOUTH ELEVATION

ELEVATION MATERIAL CALCULATIONS
WALL TYPE
SQ. FT.
CMU - PRIMARY
2184
CMU - SECONDARY
242
METAL PANEL - PRIMARY
232
METAL SIDING - SECONDARY 762
GLAZING
580
NON-GLAZING OPENINGS
1488

35'-4"

12'-8"

%
40%
4%
4%
14%
11%
27%

LEVEL 1 - T.O. PLY
100'-0"

35'-4"

NORTH ELEVATION

ELEVATION MATERIAL CALCULATIONS
WALL TYPE
SQ. FT.
CMU - PRIMARY
568
CMU - SECONDARY
166
METAL PANEL - PRIMARY
394
METAL SIDING - SECONDARY 252
GLAZING
442
NON-GLAZING OPENINGS
24

ELEVATION MATERIAL CALCULATIONS

%
31%
9%
21%
14%
24%
1%

WALL TYPE
SQ. FT.
CMU - PRIMARY
575
CMU - SECONDARY
160
METAL PANEL - PRIMARY
234
METAL SIDING - SECONDARY 237
GLAZING
645

LEVEL 1 - T.O. PLY
100'-0"

WEST ELEVATION

EAST ELEVATION

%
31%
9%
13%
12%
35%

BUILDING B ELEVATIONS

EXHIBIT F
24 MARCH, 2026

Page 100 of 111

METAL SIDING

GLAZING

CMU

METAL PANEL

SIGNAGE AREA

32'-8"

15'-4"

GLAZING 40% MIN.

9'-0"

ELEVATION MATERIAL CALCULATIONS

32'-8"

FIRST 9' OF BUILDING
GLAZING:
EXTERIOR WALL:

SPLIT FACE CMU
774 SQ. FT.
826 SQ. FT.

WALL TYPE
CMU - PRIMARY
CMU - SECONDARY
METAL PANEL - PRIMARY
METAL SIDING - SECONDARY
GLAZING

SQ. FT.
1247
512
918
585
1628

%
26%
10%
19%
12%
33%

LEVEL 1 - T.O. PLY
100'-0"

SOUTH ELEVATION (BLDG. D)
NORTH ELEVATION (BLDG. C)
13900 S. STREET FACING

48%
52%

ELEVATION MATERIAL CALCULATIONS
WALL TYPE
CMU - PRIMARY
CMU - SECONDARY
METAL PANEL - PRIMARY
METAL SIDING - SECONDARY
GLAZING
NON-GLAZING OPENINGS

35'-4"

12'-8"

SQ. FT.
1700
192
232
545
500
1152

%
39%
4%
5%
13%
12%
27%

LEVEL 1 - T.O. PLY
100'-0"

35'-4"

NORTH ELEVATION (BLDG. D)
SOUTH ELEVATION (BLDG. C)

%
31%
9%
13%
12%
35%

LEVEL 1 - T.O. PLY
100'-0"
FIRST 9' OF BUILDING
GLAZING:
EXTERIOR WALL:

298 SQ. FT.
323 SQ. FT.

48%
52%

WEST ELEVATION (BLDG. C)
EAST ELEVATION (BLDG. D)

FIRST 9' OF BUILDING
GLAZING:
EXTERIOR WALL:

224 SQ. FT.
340 SQ. FT.

40%
60%

GLAZING 40% MIN.

SQ. FT.
575
160
234
237
645

ELEVATION MATERIAL CALCULATIONS

9'-0"

WALL TYPE
CMU - PRIMARY
CMU - SECONDARY
METAL PANEL - PRIMARY
METAL SIDING - SECONDARY
GLAZING

GLAZING 40% MIN.

9'-0"

ELEVATION MATERIAL CALCULATIONS

WALL TYPE
CMU - PRIMARY
CMU - SECONDARY
METAL PANEL - PRIMARY
METAL SIDING - SECONDARY
GLAZING
NON-GLAZING OPENINGS

SQ. FT.
552
166
394
252
460
24

%
30%
9%
21%
14%
25%
1%

LEVEL 1 - T.O. PLY
100'-0"

WEST ELEVATION (BLDG. D)
EAST ELEVATION (BLDG. C)

BUILDING C & D ELEVATIONS

EXHIBIT F
24 MARCH, 2026

Page 101 of 111

HORIZONTAL METAL SIDING
SIDING FINISH - TBD
-

STOREFRONT
FRAME MATERIAL - ALUMINUM
-

METAL PANEL
METAL PANEL FINISH: GRAY
FINISH, SIZING - TBD

CMU
COLOR: LIGHT GRAY
OR SIMILAR APPROVED

SPIT FACE CMU
COLOR: GRAY
OR SIMILAR APPROVED

MATERIALS

EXHIBIT F
24 MARCH, 2026

Page 102 of 111

BUILDING A
RENDERING

EXHIBIT F
24 MARCH, 2026

Page 103 of 111

BUILDING B
RENDERING

EXHIBIT F
24 MARCH, 2026

Page 104 of 111

BUILDING C & D
RENDERING

EXHIBIT F
24 MARCH, 2026

Page 105 of 111

TYP. REAR
RENDERING

EXHIBIT F
24 MARCH, 2026

Page 106 of 111

PLAZA RENDERING

EXHIBIT F
24 MARCH, 2026

Page 107 of 111

ENTRY RENDERING

EXHIBIT F
24 MARCH, 2026

Page 108 of 111

BUILDING D

BUILDING C

BUILDING B

BUILDING A

1390

UT H
0 SO

ISOMETRIC
RENDERING

EXHIBIT F
24 MARCH, 2026

Page 109 of 111

Monument Sign
Max 6' Height
24 sq ft sign
Precast Concrete Panel

Sign panel text content to be determined
Sign to be uplighted

Block to
Match Building

Exhibit G

Signage, Bluffdale at 2950, Bluffdale, Utah

Page 110 of 111

Bench
Pavers

Bench

Dumor 6' Bench

Building A

BIKE RACK

Product specifications:
6' bench information:

Bike rack information:

Pavers information:

manufacturer: dumor
product: bench 94
color: powder coated black
website: www.Dumor.Com
phone: 800-598-4018

manufacturer: madrax
product: u bike rack
color: powder coated black
website: www.Madrax.Com
phone: 800-448-7931

manufacturer: belgard
product: dublin cobble paver
color: to be selected by owner
website: www.Belgard.Com
phone: 877-235-4273

quantity: 2

quantity: 3

quantity: 314.37 SF

Madrax Bike Rack

Belgard Doublin Cobble Pavers

March 20, 2026

Exhibit H: plaza detail
Bluffdale at 2950, Bluffdale, Utah

Page 111 of 111

2950 West

13900 South

Snow Storage

February 12, 2026

Snow Removal

Bluffdale at 2950, Development Agreement, Bluffdale, Utah

Read the agenda documentPrimary source ↗

The government’s own published record — read it yourself, then decide what to do about it.

Data centers in BluffdaleLocal report →

The facilities, the coverage, and the local record for this community.

Outcome

Not yet recorded. The record stays open — outcomes are added as minutes and vote results are published.

Provenance

Where this record came from. Every source is listed, permanently.

Agenda Watch · Aug 18, 2026

Permanent ID DKT-2026-001003 — this record is never deleted.

Record history

Every change to this record, logged as it happened.

Aug 18, 2026 Filed on the Docket
Aug 18, 2026 Full document archived — public record
Aug 18, 2026 Record updated
Aug 18, 2026 Record updated
Aug 18, 2026 Record updated
Aug 18, 2026 Record updated
Aug 18, 2026 Record updated
Aug 18, 2026 Record updated
Aug 18, 2026 Record updated
Aug 18, 2026 Record updated
Aug 18, 2026 Record updated
Aug 18, 2026 Record updated
Aug 18, 2026 Record updated
Aug 18, 2026 Record updated
Aug 18, 2026 Record updated
Aug 18, 2026 Record updated
Aug 18, 2026 Record updated
Aug 18, 2026 Record updated
Aug 18, 2026 Record updated
Aug 18, 2026 Record updated
Aug 19, 2026 Record updated
Aug 19, 2026 Record updated
Aug 19, 2026 Record updated
Aug 19, 2026 Record updated
Aug 19, 2026 Record updated
Aug 19, 2026 Record updated
Aug 19, 2026 Record updated
Aug 19, 2026 Record updated
Aug 19, 2026 Record updated
Aug 19, 2026 Record updated
Aug 19, 2026 Record updated
Aug 19, 2026 Record updated
Aug 19, 2026 Record updated
Aug 19, 2026 Record updated
Aug 19, 2026 Record updated
Aug 19, 2026 Record updated
Aug 19, 2026 Record updated
Aug 19, 2026 Record updated
Aug 19, 2026 Record updated
Aug 19, 2026 Record updated

← The full Docket · every meeting, vote, and action on the permanent record · also in the National Record Index.

On the agenda: Bluffdale meeting — data center (May 20)

The agenda, word for word

Provenance

Record history

More on the Docket in Utah