BLUFFDALE — The Bluffdale City Council on Tuesday narrowly voted against what could be seen as a last-ditch attempt to appease two land developers attempting to pull 4,000 acres of undeveloped land from this rural city.

On a contentious 3-2 vote, the council denied a zoning change that would have applied the city's mixed-use (MU) zone to parts of Area 4, a 4,000-acre chunk of land on Bluffdale's southwest corner that makes up about 40 percent of the city's land area.

Councilwoman Laurie Maxfield moved that the change be denied, blaming the newly elected mayor and council members — and a vocal residents' group — for the city's previous inability to come to a deal with the developers. She said the MU zone was not appropriate for Area 4 and approving it would be compromising good planning in reaction to a political controversy.

The land is mostly owned by two developers who have been seeking to develop it for years. The landowners, South Farms and South Hills Development, want to build residential and commercial developments at densities higher than most of the rest of Bluffdale, which is made up largely of one-acre lots.

But in December 2003, when the council denied their application for a zoning change, the developers filed a disconnection lawsuit, seeking to de-annex the land. That land would then either become an unincorporated part of Salt Lake County or could be annexed by nearby Herriman.

The city has since attempted to negotiate with the developers, creating a zoning category called the special development plan, or SDP, which could be applied to Area 4 and would allow the whole area to be master-planned at once. However, residents opposed to the development formed a group called Bluffdale United and began collecting signatures for a referendum to bring the SDP to a public vote.

Then, earlier this fall, the council voted to approve two consent decrees that included a development agreement with the developers. The consent decrees were brought before 3rd District Judge Anthony Quinn in the developers' disconnection lawsuit, with both the city and the developers asking him to accept the agreement and dismiss the suit.

But Quinn refused to accept the agreement, saying he was being asked to step into a political disagreement over land use when the lawsuit was solely about a proposed disconnection.