Clark Ranch conservation easement
Conservation easement on Clark Ranch (about 334 acres in the minutes) with a carve-out of up to 15 acres, of which 10 would be developed for housing. Council adopted it December 18, 2025.
- Where it stands
- Approved
- Type
- Development agreement
- Location
- Clark Ranch
Every hearing and vote
November 6, 2025 · City Council
Clark Ranch conservation easement
Continued · 5-0
Utah Open Lands and city staff presented the easement; discussion centered on a 15-acre versus 10-acre carve-out for housing, a 10.9-acre legal description and aerial transit language. About 20 speakers mostly opposed housing or any carve-out above 10 acres. The mayor said a majority favored a 10-acre carve-out. After a closed session for advice of counsel on the Alexander Company negotiation agreement, the council continued the item to a date uncertain before year-end.
December 18, 2025 · City Council
Clark Ranch conservation easement
Approved with conditions · 5-0
Staff proposed adopting the easement now with a 15-acre carve-out, then holding a joint meeting with the Planning Commission to select the 10 acres for development, with the remaining five acres returned to the easement. Council Member Rubell proposed giving the extra five acres the same open-space protection, which Council Member Toly added be done in 2026. Council Member Ciraco questioned who had directed a return to 15 acres and asked staff to explore moving the site south for a buffer from Park City Heights. The city attorney said the vote did not approve development. The council adopted the easement as updated November 6, with added protections for the extra five acres in 2026. No votes against are recorded.
February 3, 2026 · City Council
Clark Ranch discussion with the Planning Commission
Discussed
The Alexander Company presented two 10-acre site options, "Triangle" and "Buffer," and building heights of 28 and 35 feet. Buffer offered lower unit cost, more efficient roads and less disturbance; Triangle kept open space contiguous but cost more and had higher flood risk. A smaller Buffer layout drew the most support. No vote.