Bluffdale to vote Nov. 18 on zoning a 1920 storefront commercial, gravel lot and all

BLUFFDALE — The City Council holds a public hearing Nov. 18 at 6 p.m. at City Hall, 2222 W 14400 S, on a request to rezone about 0.24 acres at 14402 South 1690 West from R4 Residential to NC Neighborhood Commercial, together with a development agreement to operate a retail boutique in an existing historic structure 1. Comments may be emailed to councilmeetingcomment@bluffdale.gov with "Zone Change to NC" in the subject line, or mailed to the planning department care of Associate Planner Ellen Oakman 1.

The application is 2026-20, and the applicants are Art and Robin Thraen 2. The property is the Robin's Roost boutique, and the parcel is about 0.24 acres 13.

The staff report prepared for the Planning Commission describes the building as dating to approximately 1920 and operating originally as a market, with commercial uses on the site over the years and the boutique there for about five years 2. A development agreement in the same packet goes further, reciting that the structure was "the first grocery store in Bluffdale" and that the property has been recognized as an eligible historic site on a 1990 Reconnaissance Level Survey and "retains its historic integrity" 2. The staff report states the 1990 survey notes the structure "meets the highest level of significance" 2.

The current General Plan designates the parcel commercial, which the staff report states supports the requested zone change 2. The report's summary of the request is that the rezone and agreement would let the existing business continue operating while addressing the property's existing development conditions 2.

That second part is where most of the detail sits. The applicants have asked for a development agreement to modify standards that the existing building and site cannot meet, and the staff report lists the deviations 2. The existing gravel parking area would stay in place of the all-weather surface the code typically requires, with a new ADA van parking space and concrete pad proposed in the council's October presentation of the item 23. Existing storm drainage would remain as is, and no additional landscaping would be required beyond what is on the site at final approval, so the developer would not have to meet the NC zone's landscaping requirements 2. The existing fire access would be recognized as adequate with no turnaround required, and the city would rely on existing hydrants, which the report states were identified as sufficient 2. Building improvements may not be required if the use has not changed, subject to the building code, and the site would keep reduced setbacks 2. Two cargo containers would stay where the code would permit one 2.

The setback gap is concrete: the existing building sits about 3 feet from the front property line and 6 feet from the interior side line, while R4 requires a 20-foot front and a 10-foot interior side setback and NC requires a 20-foot front and a side setback that ranges from 0 to 20 feet depending on the adjacent zoning 23.

The city's development agreement, to be adopted by Ordinance 2026-31, makes the same points in binding form 2. It states that the property will comply with the NC zone as modified by the agreement, that the agreement controls where it conflicts with city code, and that the rights vest only if the council rezones the property 2. It also requires an active business license under Title 3 at all times there is an active business use, and states that future additions, new construction or changes of use may be subject to additional building, fire and accessibility review 2.

Staff set out three conditions it says any recommendation of approval should carry: that the agreement identify the specific deviations from NC standards, including parking, drainage, landscaping, setbacks and accessory structures; that it identify which existing conditions may remain and what will apply to future work; and that building, fire, accessibility and other life-safety requirements be addressed by the reviewing officials 2. The report does not state a recommendation of denial 2.

The staff report states that public input received as of Oct. 30, 2 p.m. was attached to it as an exhibit 2. The Planning Commission heard the rezone and the agreement at its Nov. 4 meeting, where both were listed for public hearing, consideration and recommendation 4.

The Ledger reported on Oct. 31 that the commission would take the item up, and that the building began as a general store with the boutique trading there for about five years 5. What the Nov. 18 meeting adds is the council vote: the rezone and the development agreement are legislative decisions for the council, and the agenda lists both as public hearings rather than consent items 1.

The same 6 p.m. meeting carries separate hearing notices on the water conservation element of the General Plan, the Chapel Row development agreement, a text amendment for energetic materials operations, and a proposed text amendment allowing short-term rental of ADUs 6.