On the agenda: Bluffdale meeting — Data Center (Jul 1)

BLUFFDALE PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, July 1, 2026
Notice is hereby given that the Bluffdale City Planning Commission will hold a public meeting
on Wednesday, July 1, 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. Approval of minutes from May 20, 2026 and June 3, 2026 Planning Commission meetings.
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. CONSIDERATION, AND RECOMMENDATION on a proposed Text Amendment enacting
Section 11.160.320 Placement and Usage of Accessory Storage Containers to allow for
placement and use of storage containers (e.g. shipping containers, Conex containers,
enclosed truck trailers, freight containers, etc.) within the City of Bluffdale and limiting the
number and locations of such within residential and non-residential zones. (Continued
from June 3, 2026 meeting) City of Bluffdale, Applicant. Caitlyn Tubbs, Staff Contact.
(Application 2025-23)

DISCUSSION ITEMS:
6. Summary of 2026 Legislative Session. Fred Donaldson, City Attorney, presenting.
7. Discussion of proposed Planning Commission bylaws.
8. Planning Commission Business (planning session for upcoming items, follow up, etc.).
9. Adjournment.

Dated: June 24, 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.

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, April 20, 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

Present:

32

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

33

Ulises Flynn-Yes, Kori Luker-Yes, Joel Woodruff-Yes, Chair Cragun-Yes. The motion passed

34

unanimously.

35
36
37
38
39

Members:

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

Staff:

Grant Crowell, Community and Economic Development Director
Caitlyn Tubbs, Planning Manager
Ellen Oakman, Associate City Planner
Kjersti Jarman, Development Coordinator

Other:

Joee Witter
Troy Sanders
Tracie Kay

PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS MEETING
1.

Roll Call.

Chair Debbie Cragun called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
2.

Invocation/Thought/Reading and Pledge of Allegiance.

Commissioner Woodruff offered the invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
3.

Minutes: Approval of the Minutes from the April 15, 2026, Planning Commission
Meeting.

Commissioner Luker moved to APPROVE the Minutes of the April 15, 2026, Planning

4.

Public Comment.

There was no public comment.

1

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, April 20, 2026
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

LEGISLATIVE ITEMS

10

had not been updated since that time. The applicant, Joee Witter, intended to sell fireworks for the

11

upcoming holidays. To do so, they proposed the following changes to mirror the Utah Fireworks Act

12

(Utah Admin Code R710-20):

13
14
15
16

5.

PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDERATION, AND VOTE 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. (Application 2025-16). Joee Witter,
Applicant. Staff Presenter, Caitlyn Tubbs.

Planning Manager, Caitlyn Tubbs, reported that the existing Fireworks Code was written in 1988 and

Chapter 3.40.020 – Outlet License Requirements
•

Allowed in commercial and industrial zones.

17

•

Direct reference to Utah Fireworks Act.

18

•

Allow fireworks to be stored overnight in a steel shipping container in addition to the lockable

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

building required by the current code.
•

Delete individual salesperson license provisions.

Section 11.180.020 – Permitted Temporary Uses
•

Add outdoor sales of fireworks with a Temporary Use Permit (“TUP”).

Ms. Tubbs reviewed the administrative TUP process. The applicant would submit an application

27

including a description of the proposed use, a site layout demonstrating compliance with distance

28

requirements from other fireworks sales outlets and flame sources, and a copy of their insurance

29

policy. If the TUP is approved by the Zoning Administrator, they can apply for a business license.

30
31

Stands must be removed by July 30 for stands operating between June 20 and July 25, January 7 for

32

stands operating between December 20 and January 2, or five days after the Chinese New Year.

33

2

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, April 20, 2026
1

Ms. Tubbs reported that time was of the essence on this item, as the applicant needed adequate time

2

to move through the TUP and business license processes.

3

Commission consider making a recommendation of approval for City Council consideration.

4
5

In response to a question raised by Commissioner Flynn, Ms. Tubbs reported that both the Fire Chief

6

and Fire Marshall had reviewed and approved the proposed Text Amendment. They would also

7

review any TUP applications to ensure that the business will comply with adopted fire codes.

8
9

Chair Cragun asked if it was common practice to store fireworks in shipping containers. Ms. Tubbs

10

reported that shipping containers are often utilized by seasonal fireworks stands.

11
12

The applicant, Joee Witter with Phantom Fireworks, stated that his office drafted the proposed

13

changes quickly, and he subsequently sent an email to Staff outlining recommended minor language

14

changes to remove redundancies. The amendment would bring Bluffdale City Code in line with

15

neighboring cities. They operate approximately 100 temporary locations in Utah, and Bluffdale’s

16

code was very outdated. Mr. Witter reported that they partner with rental companies to set up and

17

remove the tents, and they typically require more time for removal. He had also proposed extending

18

that deadline and changing start dates to align with State Code.

19
20

In response to a question from Chair Cragun, Ms. Tubbs stated that she could include any revisions

21

in the City Council packet and inform them that the revisions were proposed by the applicant at the

22

Planning Commission meeting.

23
24

Commissioner Flynn asked if there were any restrictions on where fireworks stands could be operated.

25

Ms. Tubbs reported that the proposal would allow them in any commercial or industrial zone with the

26

property owner’s permission. Commissioner Flynn asked about potential impacts on families.

27

Community and Economic Development Director, Grant Crowell, reported the use would not apply

28

in residential areas.

29
30
31
32

Staff requested that the Planning

Mr. Whitter reviewed his recommended redlines. Changes to the above presentation included:
Chapter 3.40.020 – Outlet License Requirements
3

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, April 20, 2026
1
2

•

3
4

Removal of the word “outlet” as identified, including updating the chapter title to Outdoor
Sales of Fireworks Requirements.

•

5

Removal of references to in-person applications and updating the language to read application
form or as designated by City officials.

6

•

Removal of redundancies as indicated.

7

•

Updating regulations for Other Merchandise to indicate state legal consumer fireworks and

8
9
10
11
12

novelty-related items.
Chapter 3.40.060 Revocation of License
•

Mr. Whitter recommended deletion of these requirements as revocation was discussed

13

elsewhere in code and the specified dates did not align with State Code. Ms. Tubbs indicated

14

that the TUP could also include a finding indicating the date the stand must be removed by.

15
16

Mr. Crowell noted that the applicant’s redlines included the removal of appeal information, but land

17

use decisions need an appeal authority. However, he understood that it was a practical matter and the

18

temporary stand would typically be removed before an appeal could be heard. He did not have any

19

concerns with the redlines. The process was atypical due to the time-sensitive nature of the

20

application.

21
22

Commissioner Woodruff asked if the City was comfortable allowing 14 days for removal rather than

23

the originally proposed five. Mr. Whitter stated that 14 days was the soonest a city required removal,

24

but most cities allow additional time. In addition to staging issues, fireworks are a hazardous material

25

and must be removed by a certified driver. Mr. Crowell indicated that he was comfortable with setting

26

a policy for removal within 14 days.

27
28

Commissioner Swanson asked if the most recent redlines relied on State Code for holiday numeration.

29

Mr. Whitter confirmed that his recommendation would rely on State holidays and require removal

30

within 14 days after the holiday. Otherwise, sales dates would need to be updated to match State

31

Code. Commissioner Swanson stated that otherwise issues could arise with holidays like Diwali.

4

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, April 20, 2026
1
2

Chair Cragun stated that she supported any changes to City Code that will not require additional

3

modifications. Commissioner Woodruff remarked that the proposal would remove a lot of provisions,

4

but the amendment specified that the law is guided and superseded by State code.

5
6
7
8

Chair Cragun opened the public hearing. There were no comments. The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Flynn moved to forward a POSITIVE recommendation to the City Council for

9

the proposed amendment of Bluffdale City Code Chapter 3.40 and Section 11.180.020 regarding

10

the seasonal sale of fireworks, based on the findings presented in the Staff Report dated May

11

20, 2026, and with the following additional findings:

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

The motion was seconded by Commissioner Luker. Vote on motion: Kori Luker-Yes, Ulises

20

Flynn-Yes, Erik Swanson-Yes, Kory Luker-Yes, Joel Woodruff-Yes, Chair Cragun-Yes. The

21

motion passed unanimously.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32

1.

The word “outlet” should be removed from the text.

2.

Staff is directed to clean up the text to refer to State Code where possible.

3.

Stands must be removed within 14 days after the holiday.

The item would be considered by the City Council at its May 27, 2026, meeting.
6.

PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDERATION, AND VOTE 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. (Application 2026-04). Applicant, Pine West
Investment Group, LLC. Staff Presenter, Caitlyn Tubbs.

Chair Cragun reported that Items 6, 7 and 8 would be heard in conjunction.
Ms. Tubbs presented the Staff Report. The subject site is comprised of three parcels near the

33

intersection of 2950 West and 13900 South. Wardle Fields Regional Park and North Star Academy

34

are south of the subject property. The property owner had proposed the development of four flex-

35

space buildings totaling approximately 50,000 square feet of built space. In order to do so, General

36

Plan and Zoning Map amendments were required for one parcel that currently carried a General Plan

5

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, April 20, 2026
1

designation of Very Low Density Residential and was zoned R-1-43. Two parcels were already

2

designated Commercial and zoned General Commercial (“GC1”).

3
4

The Development Agreement process allows applicants to negotiate with the City and propose some

5

deviations from underlying zoning standards. The applicant had proposed the following deviations:

6
7

•

Lot Coverage: 85% (5% higher than the GC-1 Zone maximum of 80%)

8

•

Landscaping: 15% (55 lower than the GC-1 Zone minimum of 20%)

9
10

In response to a question raised by Chair Cragun, Ms. Tubbs reported that the deviations were similar

11

to those approved for the Bluffdale Exchange micro-flex development to the north of the subject

12

property. That development also had setback deviations, but the current application would meet all

13

GC-1 Zone setback requirements. All items not modified by the Development Agreement must

14

comply with existing standards.

15
16

Through Development Agreements, applicants may propose land uses that are not permitted in the

17

underlying zone. The applicant proposed the following permitted uses:

18
19

•

20

Construction Sales and Service (provided no outdoor storage of equipment or materials will
be permitted within the project)

21

•

Data Center

22

•

Loan Center (limited by the City to one per 20,000 residents)

23

•

Manufacturing, General

24

•

Manufacturing, Limited

25

•

Printing Services

26

•

Storage Facilities for Machinery and Equipment (provided no outdoor storage of

27
28

machinery or equipment is permitted)
•

Wholesale and Warehousing (including any e-retailers)

6

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, April 20, 2026
1

•

Temporary Job Trailers and Offices (provided these are only allowed during the

2

construction period for the project and are removed after occupancy is completed for the final

3

building in the project)

4
5

Ms. Tubbs reviewed proposed materials. With the exception of a proposed glazing reduction, all

6

materials standards would be met. Similar to the Bluffdale Exchange project, the applicant proposed

7

a mixture of concrete masonry unit (“CMU”), brick, and metal siding. A total of 15% glazing is

8

required for the first nine feet of façade, with 10% required for the remainder. The applicant proposed

9

10% glazing on the full façade. All street-facing facades would have a minimum of 40% glazing for

10

the first nine feet.

11
12

Chair Cragun asked how the glazing reduction request compared to the Bluffdale Exchange

13

development. Ms. Tubbs reported that the current application requested a less intense deviation.

14

Unlike the other development, glazing would be included at the tops of garage doors and man doors

15

in all drive aisles. The Development Agreement specified that no glazing was required for the façade

16

facing the rear of North Star Academy, but the provided elevations included comparable glazing to

17

the 13900 South façade.

18
19

In response to a question raised by Commissioner Woodruff, Ms. Tubbs reported that notices were

20

sent to property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject property. One comment was received in favor

21

of the application and forwarded to the Planning Commission, but the school did not comment.

22

Commissioner Woodruff stated that the development would increase traffic near the school, which

23

was already very heavy. There was a large commercial development to the east of the school and a

24

park to the south. He was surprised that neither the school nor nearby residences had commented, as

25

it was an odd area to allow another commercial development.

26
27

Mr. Crowell reported that a lot of time was spent discussing the block a few years previously, and

28

Impact Fees were invested in creating the new road to encourage development. The intention was for

29

the area to be one of Bluffdale’s very limited commercial nodes. There was a lot of demand for this

30

type of product.

31
7

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, April 20, 2026
1

Chair Cragun asked if a traffic study would be required with the Site Plan application. Ms. Tubbs

2

reported that a traffic study is a standard requirement and must be submitted for engineering review.

3

Mr. Crowell stated that there would be required street improvements on the west side of the project.

4

13900 South, 13800 South, and 2950 West are collector roads that still have capacity. Heavier traffic

5

during peak school periods is an issue throughout the community.

6
7

Commissioner Woodruff asked about the request to have no glazing facing the school. Ms. Tubbs

8

reported that the elevations provided in the packed showed glazing, but the Development Agreement

9

specified that no glazing was required on that frontage. In response to a follow-up question from

10

Chair Cragun, she reported that the rear of a building is typically required to have at least 10% glazing

11

in most zones and 15% in the GC-1 Zone. Mr. Crowell added that some guidance was provided in

12

the Staff Report regarding visual impacts.

13
14

Commissioner Woodruff noted that the east façade had sufficient glazing in the elevations and asked

15

if the number of glazing deviations requested by applicants was due to cost or other issues. Mr.

16

Crowell stated that cost is a factor, as is building type. When the code was drafted, they did not

17

anticipate the increased interest in flex-space buildings. The City wanted to be careful in not allowing

18

the development to look like an industrial park while understanding that it was not a high-demand

19

retail area. Commissioner Woodruff stated that he approved of the look shown in the elevations, but

20

if the Development Agreement was approved, the developer could install considerably less glass. Mr.

21

Crowell recommended that any potential conflicts be clarified.

22
23

Commissioner Flynn stated that the proposal was almost identical to the recently approved

24

development to the north, and it made sense to rezone the property commercial. He asked if the City

25

Council was in favor of more warehousing in the area. Mr. Crowell reported that the Council

26

welcomes new economic development opportunities and had acknowledged that the area would not

27

be fully retail, although they hoped the developments would include some retail. Chair Cragun stated

28

that it was highly unlikely the parcel would ever sell for residential use. Mr. Crowell reported that

29

the owner resisted selling for many years, which is why it was the only parcel still zoned residential.

8

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, April 20, 2026
1

Commissioner Swanson stated that the Planning Commission asked about that issue when the

2

surrounding properties were rezoned commercial, but the City decided to wait for an application.

3
4

Commissioner Woodruff asked about allowing Construction Sales and Service as a permitted use. A

5

similar development in Sandy has a hidden utility area that is frequently used for equipment storage

6

despite restrictions, and there is a development on 14600 South that always has construction

7

equipment outdoors. He asked why the City would want a construction company in a high-density

8

commercial space. Ms. Tubbs stated that, to her understanding, the applicant wanted to appeal to as

9

many prospective tenants as possible.

10
11

Mr. Crowell remarked that there was a high demand for space from people in construction trades.

12

The Construction Sales and Service category is wide, and their intent was to find a place in the middle

13

where trades are allowed with restrictions on the outside appearance. If businesses do not comply

14

with restrictions, it would be a Code Enforcement matter.

15
16

Commissioner Flynn agreed with Commissioner Woodruff that the use may not be appropriate, as

17

the development would not have loading docks. He was also concerned about allowing the Data

18

Center as a permitted use as they need substantial power and communications infrastructure. Chair

19

Cragun shared those concerns but noted that the site was not large enough for large machinery or

20

huge data centers. The development could only accommodate a small data center.

21
22

Troy Sanders of Think Architecture spoke on behalf of the applicant. The building would be flex

23

retail, which includes office space and limited warehousing. Their intent was to appeal to as broad a

24

market as possible. The units typically have a public area or storefront in front with sales or office

25

space and storage in the rear. The internal use determines what the outside of the building is like, and

26

they wanted to allow for flexible uses along the drive aisles. The glazing reduction on the internal

27

facades would provide that flexibility. The Development Agreement specified that street-facing

28

facades would meet the full glazing requirement, with less glazing at the rear or loading side.

29
30

Regarding uses, Mr. Sanders indicated that data centers meant something very different now than

31

they did when the use was first discussed. It was not their intention to allow large data centers. The
9

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, April 20, 2026
1

shape and configuration of the buildings would be self-limiting, so potential tenants would include

2

small internet service providers or online retailers. Regarding storage, they would like to allow small

3

business users to have a place to park their truck or store equipment at the rear of their unit.

4
5

The applicant was open to maintaining consistent glazing on the school-facing facades. They

6

expected public-facing uses to be on the perimeter streets where there is good visibility. Other uses

7

would likely take the rear units with less visibility, and they did not believe those units needed as

8

much glazing. However, it was a concern that the applicant was willing to meet standard glazing

9

requirements.

10
11

Commissioner Luker asked who would police outdoor storage restrictions. Mr. Sanders stated that

12

the property owner would work with users to ensure that there was no external storage of materials,

13

and space was also limited.

14
15

Commissioner Flynn asked how amenable the applicant would be to maintaining existing lot coverage

16

requirements.

17

development to the north. In response to his question, Ms. Tubbs confirmed that lot coverage includes

18

the parking lot. Mr. Sanders noted that, because the parking lot is included, 15% landscaping would

19

naturally mean 85% lot coverage. The development had been moved to the south to create a five-

20

foot landscape barrier adjacent to the school and allow for a larger landscape barrier at the street.

21
22

Commissioner Luker stated that he appreciated concerns about glazing along the school frontage,

23

both from the applicant and parents, but only two to three units appeared to be visible from the school.

24

In response to his question, Mr. Sanders reported that the deviation outlined in the Development

25

Agreement included all units on that side of the development. However, they were comfortable

26

maintaining the zone standard glazing if that was a concern.

27
28

Commissioner Woodruff asked if a wall would be required along that frontage. Ms. Tubbs reported

29

that no buffer is required between institutional uses. Commissioner Woodruff stated that a wall would

30

change his opinion on the matter, and child safety was a concern. In response to a question, Mr.

31

Crowell reported that the area to the east of the play field has trees and a non-brick wall. Chair Cragun

Mr. Sanders stated that the lot coverage request was based on the approved

10

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, April 20, 2026
1

remarked that the Planning Commission needed to ensure that they were not being inconsistent

2

without valid, defensible reasons for doing so.

3
4

Chair Swanson asked if there were any concerns about the development becoming an auxiliary pick-

5

up location for students. There was a discussion at “Love Where You Live” about parents abusing

6

surrounding properties for pick-ups and drop-offs, and a wall would prevent the property from being

7

used in that manner. Mr. Sanders reported that there is a fence along the rear of the school, and the

8

applicant proposed a chain-link fence along 2950 West to discourage parents from parking in the

9

development. No entrance from 2950 West was proposed.

10
11

Commissioner Luker asked if the proposed material was consistent with City standards. Other

12

proposals for chain-link fencing were discussed. Ms. Tubbs reported that chain link is allowed in the

13

Sand and Gravel zone, and in other zones if negotiated through a Development Agreement. Mr.

14

Sanders stated that their preference was for black or brown vinyl-coated chain link to provide some

15

visibility for the businesses at the end of the building, but they were open to other materials like

16

tubular steel or wrought iron if required. It was noted that the school fencing was chain link. In

17

response to a question from Chair Cragun, Mr. Sanders stated that he could not speak for the applicant

18

but did believe they would be willing to install different fencing.

19
20

An aerial map of the subject property was displayed, and Mr. Sanders indicated entrances to the

21

development. He reported that there is a grade change along 2950 West that requires a retaining wall,

22

and a four-foot fence would prevent people from jumping down from the wall into the site. Chair

23

Cragun stated that she would prefer a non-chain-link fence.

24
25
26
27

Chair Cragun opened the public hearing.
Tracie Kay gave her address as 2731 West 13900 South and stated that she owns the property east of

28

the subject property. They share an easement with Brubaker, and there had been a longstanding battle

29

with the owner of the lot to keep the easement open. She was concerned that people might use her

30

driveway to access the rear lot. She identified the areas of concern on the aerial map and asked that

31

the easement be closed to vehicle access.

11

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, April 20, 2026
1
2

Mr. Sanders stated that the property owner was aware of the easement, and he was willing to release

3

it once approval was granted and access to the property was guaranteed. The Site Plan reflected that

4

intent, as no access from the southeast corner was planned.

5
6

In response to a question raised by Commissioner Flynn, Ms. Tubbs reported that easements typically

7

outline specific rights and may run with the land or be owner-specific. Easement language dictates

8

how it can be conveyed, who it can be conveyed to, who can release it, etc. Mr. Sanders added that

9

the specific cross-access easement predated 13900 South, and the new road solved the issue it was

10

created to address. As long as the applicant could develop the property, he was willing to release it.

11
12

Mr. Crowell indicated that the other commercial property owner believed the easement was an

13

impediment, but the owners of the residential property had the right to access it. He advised against

14

requiring the release of a private access easement without consulting City Attorney, Fred Donaldson.

15

He had spoken with the property manager, Dan Stewart, who indicated they would release the

16

easement once all necessary approvals were obtained.

17
18

Ms. Kay stated that they had prior negotiations with the interested parties, and at the time all but one

19

property owner were in favor of releasing the easement.

20
21

Chair Cragun stated that the item could be tabled pending advice from Mr. Donaldson. The motion

22

could also recommend that the City Council address the matter.

23
24

Commissioner Woodruff stated that if he were the builder, he would want to retain the easement for

25

as long as possible. There is a paved road to the south of the easement, and another point of entry

26

would not be a bad thing. As a homeowner, he would not want an easement. However, releasing an

27

easement is difficult and expensive, and in this case would involve three property owners.

28
29

Chair Cragun stated that the question was whether the City should intervene due to the Development

30

Agreement or if it was a private matter. Commissioner Woodruff stated that he did not believe it was

31

a City matter. Mr. Crowell agreed and noted that if one party was compelled to release the easement,

32

all other parties must also be compelled to do so. The City actually requires cross-access agreements
12

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, April 20, 2026
1

for many commercial developments. For example, McDonald’s was recently required to install a

2

driveway at their property line to provide future access to a currently undeveloped property.

3
4

Ms. Kay stated that if the development was as presented, it would assuage her concerns, and the

5

easement could remain because her property could not be accessed through it.

6
7

Mr. Crowell reported that it was within the Planning Commission’s purview to require that the

8

development be constructed to the presented Site Plan. Commissioner Woodruff noted that doing so

9

would also solve the glazing issue. Chair Cragun asked if the matter should be tabled pending further

10

research by Staff. Commissioner Luker stated that it was a well-known easement, and the public

11

comment did not bring up anything that was not already known by the City. Commissioner Swanson

12

remarked that strengthening the language around the current Site Plan would resolve the issue.

13

Specific wording was discussed.

14
15

Mr. Crowell reported that major changes require a Development Agreement to be amended, and the

16

current agreement did not address access locations. He recommended the motion state that any new

17

or additional access would not be a minor change.

18
19
20
21

There were no further comments. The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Flynn recommended removal of Data Center and Construction Sales and Service from

22

the list of permitted uses. Commissioner Luker noted that Construction Sales and Service is allowed

23

in the development across the street. Chair Cragun stated that she was not concerned as the use would

24

be limited by the size of the project. Commissioner Woodruff agreed with Chair Cragun that there

25

was little chance of a large data center on the property. He stated that Commissioner Flynn about

26

Construction Sales and Service, as he has seen how they operate in flex-space developments. Center

27

Point Business Park has equipment from three construction companies all over the development.

28

However, he did not know that the Planning Commission could control that issue.

29
30

Commissioner Flynn removed his objection to Construction Sales and Service but reiterate his

31

concerns about allowing data centers. Commissioner Swanson indicated that the size of a data center

32

would be limited by the current Site Plan. Commissioner Flynn remarked that, in theory, someone
13

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, April 20, 2026
1

could buy multiple units. Commissioner Swanson noted that the data center near Commissioner

2

Flynn’s home was much larger than would be possible on the subject property. Commissioner Luker

3

stated that the property did not have the water or power infrastructure to support a large data center.

4
5

Glazing was discussed. Commissioner Luker stated that he would prefer that all glazing meet zone

6

requirements. In response to a question from Commissioner Woodruff, Mr. Crowell stated that, to

7

his recollection, the City had not approved zero glazing on a façade.

8
9

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

10

the proposal to amend the General Plan from Very Low Density Residential to Commercial,

11

based on the findings presented in the Staff Report dated May 20, 2026. Commissioner Luker

12

seconded the motion. Vote on motion: Ulises Flynn-Yes, Erik Swanson-Yes, Kori Luker-Yes,

13

Joel Woodruff-Yes, Chair Cragun-Yes. The motion passed unanimously.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

7.

PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDERATION, AND VOTE 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. (Application 2026-04). Applicant, Pine West
Investment Group, LLC. Staff Presenter, Caitlyn Tubbs.

This item was presented in conjunction with Item 6.
Commissioner Flynn moved to forward a POSITIVE recommendation to the City Council for

23

the proposal to amend the Zoning Map from R-1-43 Residential to General Commercial (GC-

24

1), based on the findings presented in the Staff Report dated May 20, 2026. The motion was

25

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

26

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

27

14

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, April 20, 2026
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

8.

11

on Item 6.

12
13

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

14

the proposed Development Agreement for the Bluffdale at 2950 Development, including

15

deviations from lot coverage and landscaping percentages, architectural and site design

16

standards, and permitted land uses, based on the findings presented in the Staff Report dated

17

May 20, 2026, and including the following additional findings:

18
19

PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDERATION, AND VOTE 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. (Application 2026-04). Applicant,
Pine West Investment Group, LLC. Staff Presenter, Caitlyn Tubbs.

The above item was presented in conjunction with Item 6. Voting on the item occurred prior to voting

1.

20
21
22

Standard glazing is required for the southern building façades facing North Star
Academy.

2.

23

Any modifications to access points indicated in the Site Plan would not be a minor
change.

24
25

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

26

Swanson-Yes, Kori Luker-Yes, Joel Woodruff-Yes, Chair Cragun-Yes. The motion passed

27

unanimously.

28
29

Ms. Tubbs reported that a City Council meeting date had not yet been determined, but a second public

30

notice would be sent in advance of the meeting.

31
32
33

Commissioner Luker asked that the City Council review the proposed fence on 2950 West.

15

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, April 20, 2026
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

DISCUSSION ITEMS
9.

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

Mr. Crowell reported on the following:
•

The Felt Right ribbon cutting would be held on May 21 at 4:00 p.m.

•

Great Clips Bout Time Pub & Grub had modified its layout. Upstairs was restricted to ages

9

21 and older, and downstairs was now a full-service restaurant and grill. Chair Cragun stated

10

that the owner was interested in participating in the parade and donating swag to the Badlands

11

Run/Walk Race.

12

•

Staff was still working on items that had been continued to a date uncertain. They were in

13

negotiations on a Development Agreement for the Sage Estates zoning project. The applicant

14

was also working to clarify some property line issues with the County. The Text Amendment

15

for shipping containers would be on a June agenda. The public hearing was left open, so the

16

item would be re-noticed.

17

•

18
19

The City Council had directed Staff to review Home Occupation Code and develop a
definition for Short-Term Rental.

•

The Planning Commission forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council for the

20

proposed R2 and R3 Zones and other zoning changes. The item would be on a City Council

21

agenda after the budget process was completed.

22

•

A Moderate-Income Housing Report was not required for 2026 but would be required in 2027.

23

•

Staff was working on timing for the General Plan update and Station Area Plan.

24

•

The Transportation Plan update would occur in the summer, but no major changes were

25
26

anticipated.
•

27
28

The trestle project was ongoing, but the boxes may not be completed until late 2026 or early
2027.

•

The pedestrian overpass project that will connect Perry Farms to the Jordan River Parkway

29

Trail near Hidden Valley Middle School has officially started. The location of the trail was

30

discussed.

31
16

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, April 20, 2026
1

Ms. Tubbs reported that Mr. Donaldson would provide a legislative update at a June meeting. Staff

2

was working on code updates related to that recent legislation.

3
4

Commissioner Swanson asked about the status of the Site Plan for the data center at 14600 South and

5

Porter Rockwell Boulevard. Mr. Crowell stated that the project was stalled due to power generation

6

constraints.

7
8

Commissioner Swanson asked if the Planning Commission would be interested in reviewing the

9

deviations they had approved over the past few years to determine if code amendments were needed

10

to bring standards in line with those approvals, specifically in regard to micro-flex development.

11

Chair Cragun stated that a review would be helpful in identifying trends. Mr. Crowell reported that

12

Staff would compile a report on deviations, but noted that the two recent micro-flex developments

13

had Development Agreements with negotiated legislative changes, not minor deviations granted at

14

Site Plan approval. Chair Cragun asked that those changes be included in the report.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

10.

Adjournment.

The Planning Commission Meeting adjourned at 8:12 p.m.

__________________________________
Pauline Matagi, Community Development Coordinator
Approved: _________________________

17

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, June 3, 2026
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Present:

19

Commission were present, with the exception of Ulises Flynn, who was excused.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41

Members:

Debbie Cragun, Chair
Tina Griffis
Kory Luker
Erik Swanson

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

PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS MEETING
1.

Roll Call.

Chair Debbie Cragun called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. All members of the Planning

2.

Invocation/Thought/Reading and Pledge of Allegiance.

Commissioner Woodruff offered the invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
3.

Public Comment.

There was no public comment.
LEGISLATIVE ITEMS
4.

PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDERATION, AND RECOMMENDATION on a proposed
Text Amendment enacting Section 11.160.320 Placement and Usage of Accessory
Storage Containers to allow for placement and use of storage containers (e.g., shipping
containers, Conex containers, enclosed truck trailers, freight containers, etc.) within the
City of Bluffdale and limiting the number and locations of such within residential and
non- residential zones. (Continued from February 18, 2026, Planning Commission
Meeting) City of Bluffdale, Applicant. Caitlyn Tubbs, Staff Contact. (Application 202523).

<Audio begins abruptly>

1

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

Planning Manager, Caitlyn Tubbs, reported that the item was initially heard by the Planning

2

Commission at its February 17, 2026, meeting.

3
4
5
6

General requirements:
•

Accessory use only (in residential and non-residential areas).

7

•

Vertical stacking prohibited.

8

•

No roofs or lean-tos unless fully integrated into an accessory building.

9

•

Not used as dwellings.

10

•

It must be kept in good repair.

11
12

o The proposal was revised to remove a requirement to secure the container.
•

13

o The proposal was revised to remove a requirement that the container be placed on

14
15

Stored on gravel or other compacted surface.
concrete or asphalt.

•

Not placed in required parking spaces.

16
17

Staff conducted a survey of the community in March and determined that there were three storage

18

containers south of Bringhurst Station, 11 north of Porter Rockwell Boulevard, 18 near Camp

19

Williams, and seven through the Jordan Narrows, with fewer north of Redwood Road and in

20

Springview Farms. The vast majority of residential properties did not have a container onsite,

21

especially west of Redwood Road. Approximately 6% of properties had a container, which was a

22

smaller percentage than anticipated. If the ordinance were to pass, conditions that exist on that 6%

23

of properties would be permitted on the remaining 94%.

24
25

Chair Cragun asked if the same rules would apply to both residential and industrial areas. Ms. Tubbs

26

clarified that the proposal treated the areas differently. In industrial areas where open storage is

27

permitted, one container would be allowed per 8,000 square feet of lot area, provided that it complies

28

with all applicable standards.

29
30

Not including shared driveways or private rights-of-way, residential lots that are less than 20,000

31

square feet in size may have one container up to 40 feet in length. Lots between 20,000 square feet
2

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

and one acre in size would be allowed one container per 5,000 square feet of lot area. One acre or

2

larger lots may have one container per 5,000 square feet, not to exceed six total storage containers.

3
4

Chair Cragun asked if any storage containers were placed in commercial areas after the design

5

standards were updated, as she did not recall addressing containers in that update and they may

6

conflict with the standards. Ms. Tubbs reported that the current code did not address storage

7

containers, and the design standards do not apply to temporary structures.

8
9

Ms. Tubbs reported that the Planning Commission recently forwarded a positive recommendation for

10

the proposed 0.50- and 0.33-acre zones to the City Council for consideration, and that item was on

11

hold pending an open house on the topic. If the proposed regulations were adopted, they would also

12

apply to the new zones.

13
14

Chair Cragun asked if a business with more parking spaces than needed could place a shipping

15

container or shed in their parking lot and remain in compliance. Ms. Tubbs confirmed that that was

16

a potential outcome, but a benefit of having an ordinance was the ability to regulate storage containers.

17

The community had expressed concerns about the City setting design standards for shipping

18

containers in residential zones. Chair Cragun indicated that her concern was about flex-space parking

19

lots, not residential zones.

20
21

Community and Economic Development Director, Grant Crowell, stated that the Planning

22

Commission had spent some time trying to set expectations for outdoor storage in flex-space

23

developments, and the proposal included a requirement that storage containers be designated on the

24

Site Plan and not occupy required parking stalls. Chair Cragun noted that the guidelines would

25

provide a way to enforce maximums and confirm that adequate parking is still available.

26
27

Ms. Tubbs stated that over 90% of residential properties with storage containers had between one and

28

two containers, although one property had nine containers.

29

Commissioner Swanson, she reported that Staff did not know if they were being used for a business

30

or other purpose. The count included truck trailers.

31
3

In response to a question from

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

Commissioner Swanson asked if existing containers would be grandfathered. Mr. Crowell stated that

2

the legal standard for non-conforming uses is that they were permitted before the Code was changed,

3

but the question was whether storage containers were permitted. Options included setting a grace

4

period to come into compliance or addressing each property on a case-by-case basis. Grandfathering

5

would require that the property owner prove when the container was placed on their property. Staff

6

believed that only a few properties had more than six containers.

7
8

Chair Cragun asked how the issue would be addressed given that there was previously no ordinance

9

at all. Mr. Crowell reported that he did not have enough facts to give a firm answer. The property

10

owner with nine storage containers could be asked how long it will take him to come into compliance

11

and then be given a reasonable amount of time to do so. In response to a follow-up question, he

12

confirmed that it would be a Staff decision. Determinations about compliance with City Code are

13

administrative.

14
15

In response to a question raised by Commissioner Swanson, Ms. Tubbs reported that the survey was

16

conducted by driving through the City, and there may have been some containers outside of view.

17
18

Commissioner Swanson asked if a definition of “compacted surfaces” should be created. Ms. Tubbs

19

stated that Staff could do so at the Planning Commission’s direction. The feedback received at the

20

previous meeting was that the community desired more flexibility, so they opted for a more

21

generalized term.

22
23

Commissioner Swanson asked how the current City Code would handle the temporary use of a storage

24

container while loading or unloading a shipping pod, for example. Mr. Crowell stated that there were

25

no current regulations. The proposed regulations prohibited storage containers in front yards, but an

26

exception could be carved out to allow them for a specific duration. Chair Cragun stated that a home

27

in her neighborhood is undergoing renovations and has had two pods in its driveway for several

28

weeks, but neighbors knew the reason. Mr. Crowell stated that in that case, the container could be

29

tied to the building permit. Riverton allows containers in front of the home for up to seven days.

30

4

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

Commissioner Swanson stated that language should be added to allow temporary use in both

2

residential and commercial zones. Commissioner Luker indicated that “temporary” would need to

3

be defined, as well as a time period between temporary uses. Commissioner Swanson agreed.

4
5

Commissioner Swanson asked why the proposed limit was on the number of containers rather than

6

total linear feet. Ms. Tubbs reported that other cities regulate the number of containers, but the

7

ordinance could be modified to specify linear feet if that made more sense for Bluffdale. Mr. Crowell

8

indicated that the number of containers is easier to observe and potentially more permissive.

9
10

Commissioner Swanson stated that an equivalent number of feet should be allowed on smaller

11

properties so they could have two 20-foot containers, for example.

12

question, Ms. Tubbs reported that container sizes were not noted in the survey. Chair Cragun

13

remarked that four 10-foot containers could have a different visual impact from one 40-foot container.

14

Commissioner Swanson stated that if all the containers had the same width and height, he was in

15

favor of regulating linear feet to provide more flexibility.

16

Cragun stated that it may be more economical for the homeowner because they may only be able to

17

afford a 10-foot container at first.

18
19

Commissioner Luker as if there was a definition for “in good repair.” Ms. Tubbs stated that the

20

standard for good repair is that the container does not have rust holes, is not infested with vermin, etc.

21

Enforcement would be complaint-based.

22
23

Commissioner Woodruff asked what problems the ordinance would solve. Ms. Tubbs reported that

24

the City Council held a strategic work session wherein they directed Staff to draft an ordinance

25

regulating storage containers. The purpose is to provide as much flexibility as possible for residents

26

and business owners while also maintaining the aesthetics of the community. Chair Cragun stated

27

that some people were also building roofs over their storage containers.

28
29

Commissioner Woodruff stated that the maximum square footage for a non-permitted structure is 200

30

square feet, and a 20-foot or smaller container would be under that maximum. The ordinance will

31

prohibit them in front yards in residential zones and regulate their placement in parking lots in
5

In response to his follow-up

Commissioner Griffis agreed. Chair

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

commercial zones. The City was attempting to address a lot of problems while not overstepping

2

bounds, but the individual problems could be solved separately without creating a large new code

3

section. He understood the safety issue. If someone puts a roof on top of a shipping container, it

4

becomes a structure and must be permitted. That could be solved with simple language. There is a

5

company in Center Point Business Park whose entire building was constructed of shipping containers,

6

and it had to meet extensive requirements. There was a great public outcry over the potential

7

regulation of shipping containers, and he questioned whether the ordinance would solve the problem

8

at hand.

9
10

Mr. Crowell stated that because the City had no storage container regulations, Staff could not provide

11

an answer when someone asks how many containers they can have. If no ordinance were passed,

12

there would be no limit on the number of containers allowed. If a property became a problem, code

13

enforcement would have to be approached in a different way. Staff hears from residents who want

14

less regulation and those who want more.

15
16

Chair Cragun stated that the primary reason to adopt the ordinance was that storage containers were

17

currently unregulated, which some may interpret as permission to do anything they want to do and

18

others may interpret as a prohibition. Staff had done a good job of adapting the ordinance in response

19

to public comment and creating something reasonable. The ordinance needed to be modified to

20

address temporary containers, but otherwise, she was in favor of approval. She did not believe it was

21

too long.

22
23

Commissioner Swanson noted that use of the structure was addressed in the draft code. If used as a

24

permanent structure, it must be reinforced and permitted. Commissioner Woodruff stated that the

25

general requirements indicated that anything more than simply placing the container on your property

26

is considered a structure and must be handled as such. He asked if that was clearly stated in the actual

27

code. He understood concerns about safety, aesthetics, or running a business on a residential property.

28
29
30

Ms. Tubbs reviewed the specific language of the proposed ordinance. Per Section 11.160.320(B):

6

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

2.

Vertical stacking of cargo containers and stacking of any other materials on top of or

2

attached to storage containers is prohibited. Roofs, lean-tos, and other structures shall

3

not be affixed to or placed on storage containers, unless the container is fully integrated

4

into an accessory building and complies with all adopted Building Codes.

5

3.

Cargo containers shall not be used as dwelling or living quarters, nor for camping

6

purposes, for any amount of time in any zone, except as permitted in Chapter 340 of

7

this Title (accessory dwelling units).

8
9

In response to a question raised by Commissioner Woodruff, Ms. Tubbs reported that the first

10

sentence of Item 2 could be amended to state, “Vertical stacking of cargo containers and stacking of

11

any other materials on top of or attached to storage containers is prohibited unless it is fully compliant

12

with all adopted Building Codes.” If permitted, a shipping container could be an accessory building.

13

Commissioner Woodruff stated that he still had concerns about using blanket statements for

14

commercial, industrial, and residential zones. Commercial properties typically have smaller acreage

15

than residential, but he was unsure if that was an issue.

16
17

The map of containers in commercial areas was displayed. In response to a question raised by Chair

18

Cragun, Ms. Tubbs reported that the map on the left was a mixture of heavy commercial and light

19

industrial uses. Chair Cragun asked how many businesses would be out of compliance under the

20

ordinance. Ms. Tubbs reported that the recommended limit of one container per 8,000 square feet of

21

lot area reflected the highest number of shipping containers observed on a surveyed property, which

22

was 25. Staff observations indicated that all commercial properties would be compliant. In response

23

to a follow-up question, she clarified that the six-container maximum would only apply to residential

24

zones. There was no maximum for non-residential zones. Businesses would be allowed to place

25

containers in parking stalls if more than the required number of stalls were available and their location

26

was indicated on a Site Plan.

27
28

Mr. Crowell stated that the City had robust screening requirements for dumpsters, and the Planning

29

Commission could consider requiring similar screening for shipping containers.

30

7

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

Commissioner Swanson asked about the recent decision to allow fireworks storage in shipping

2

containers. Mr. Crowell reported that temporary storage in a steel container is allowed, but the

3

duration is limited to approximately five to six weeks around holiday periods.

4
5

Commissioner Luker asked if someone could use a storage container as a sign. Mr. Crowell reported

6

that a container used as a sign would be regulated according to the current sign code, not the storage

7

container ordinance.

8
9
10
11

Chair Cragun opened the public hearing. There were no comments. The public hearing was closed.
Chair Cragun stated that she had no issues with the proposed language, with the exception of adding

12

language regarding temporary containers for moving, remodeling, loading, and unloading.

13

Commissioner Swanson suggested allowing temporary containers for five to six weeks with a

14

calendar-year maximum as recommended by Commissioner Luker. Commissioner Griffis agreed

15

that seven days was not a lot of time for a remodel. Potential time periods and different scenarios

16

were discussed, as well as whether different restrictions should be placed on commercial and

17

residential properties.

18
19

Mr. Crowell stated that the solution may be to add a separate category for temporary uses, make the

20

other recommended changes, and bring the item back to the Planning Commission for additional

21

discussion. In response to a question, he reported that the changes could be specified in a motion but

22

would need to be very clearly stated. His recommendation was that Staff amend the draft ordinance

23

prior to moving forward.

24
25

Commissioner Swanson stated that the City should regulate linear footage rather than the number of

26

units. Chair Cragun and Commissioner Griffis agreed. Mr. Crowell remarked that the ordinance

27

could be modified to allow 40,000 linear feet of storage containers per 5,000 square feet of area in

28

residential zones or 8,000 square feet in commercial zones. Commissioner Woodruff stated that one

29

40-foot container would look better than four 10-foot containers, but some flexibility is necessary, so

30

he would support the change. He noted that 10-foot containers are not as cost-effective, so he does

31

not believe many people will choose that option.

8

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

Chair Cragun stated that the item should be tabled to provide Staff time to amend the draft ordinance

3

as discussed.

4
5

In response to a question from Commissioner Woodruff, it was confirmed that the ordinance would

6

apply to the trailer portion of tractor-trailers, as they would be included in the definition of “cargo

7

container.” Mr. Crowell reported that, per the City’s residential trucking ordinance, only one tractor-

8

trailer is allowed on a residential property. Commissioner Woodruff clarified that his concern was

9

about commercial properties. Chair Cragun asked if tractor-trailers were counted in the survey.

10

Ms. Tubbs reported that only detached trailers were counted, as trailers are considered part of a

11

vehicle when attached to a truck. In response to a follow-up question from Commissioner Woodruff,

12

Mr. Crowell stated that Staff could review the interface between the trucking code and the proposed

13

storage container ordinance. Commissioner Woodruff asked that Staff also clarify language around

14

when a shipping container becomes a structure.

15
16

Chair Cragun moved to TABLE the item until Staff prepares language for review at a future

17

meeting as discussed to:

18
19

1.

Define temporary uses in front yards.

20

2.

Refine language regarding commercial sites.

21

3.

Add Site Plan requirements.

22

4.

Change the maximum from number of units to linear feet.

23

5.

Review language regarding vehicles versus containers to identify any conflicts or

24
25

gaps
6.

Any other necessary clarifications.

26
27

The motion was seconded by Commissioner Luker. Vote on motion: Joel Woodruff-Yes, Erik

28

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

29

unanimously.

30

9

The motion passed

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, June 3, 2026
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

5.

PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDERATION, AND RECOMMENDATION on a proposed
Text Amendment to Chapter 11.20 of the Bluffdale City Code to adopt definitions of
“fulfillment center” and “medical transportation establishment” and amending Section
11.350.020 of the Bluffdale City Code to permit these new uses within certain nonresidential zones. City of Bluffdale, Applicant. Caitlyn Tubbs, Staff Contact.
(Application 2026-18).

9

Land Use Tables to determine if any uses should be added. On March 18, 2026, a Work Session was

10

held to discuss adding fulfillment centers and medical transportation establishments, as those are the

11

most frequent inquiries received by the City.

Ms. Tubbs reported that in late 2025, the Planning Commission requested review of non-residential

The following definitions were proposed:

12
13

Fulfillment Center: A facility up to 10,000 square feet in floor area without any retail

14

storefront that is not open to the public, where tangible goods are stored, packaged, and

15

shipped directly to customers.

16
17

Medical Transportation Establishment: A service that transports patients on an emergency or

18

non-emergency basis to an off-site medical service provider or hospital. This use may include

19

a dispatch office and sleeping facilities for up to four on-call providers.

20
21

Ms. Tubbs reported that the above definition was a direct result of an inquiry from a private

22

ambulance provider who called regarding several locations in the Wardle Business Park area and

23

indicated that they may have two teams of two at the location.

24
25

Fulfillment Centers would be prohibited in the Bringhurst Station Area A but permitted in Area B.

26

Medical Transportation Establishments would be permitted in both areas. Fulfillment Centers would

27

be permitted in all non-residential zones except Neighborhood Commercial and Civic Institutional.

28

Medical Transportation Establishments would be permitted in Professional Office, Heavy

29

Commercial, Regional Commercial, Heavy Industrial, and Light Industrial, and prohibited in General

30

Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial, Sand and Gravel, and Civic Institutional, which typically

31

abut residential zones. Staff wanted to buffer those areas from the anticipated noise impacts of sirens.

32
33
34

Chair Cragun opened the public hearing. There were no comments. The public hearing was closed.

10

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

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

2

the proposed amendment of Sections 11.20.020 and 11.350.020 based on the findings presented

3

in the Staff Report dated June 3, 2026. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Swanson.

4

Vote on motion: Joel Woodruff-Yes, Erik Swanson-Yes, Tina Griffis-Yes, Kori Luker-Yes,

5

Chair Cragun-Yes. The motion passed unanimously.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Ms. Tubbs reported that a City Council meeting date had not been scheduled for the item.
6.

PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDERATION, AND RECOMMENDATION on a proposed
Text Amendment to update the City Code as follows: - Chapter 3.100 — to create a new
chapter establishing definitions, permitted locations, inspections, local contact
requirements, fees, registration provisions, and compliance standards for short-term
rentals. – Chapter 11.20.020 — to add a general definition for “Short-Term Rental”
within the zoning Code definitions section. - Chapters 11.350.020 and 11.350.030 — to
amend the Residential and Non-residential Zones use tables to allow short-term rentals
within residential zoning districts and prohibit them within commercial and industrial
zoning districts. - Chapter 11.110.070.090 — to amend the Mixed-Use Land Use
Requirements table to allow short- term rentals, in accordance with BCC 3.100, as a
permitted use. - Chapter 11.110.100.040 — to amend the SD-X Bringhurst Station
Project Zone standards to allow short-term rentals, in accordance with BCC 3.100, as a
permitted use. - Chapter 11.110.090.040 — to amend the Development Standards and
Design Guidelines to allow short-term rentals, in accordance with BCC 3.100, as a
permitted use. City of Bluffdale, Applicant. Ellen Oakman, Staff Presenter (Application
2026-02).

Associate City Planner, Ellen Oakman, reported that the City did not currently have a short-term

27

rental (“STR”) ordinance, but Staff received a lot of calls about them. The City Council had also

28

received inquiries, which prompted a Work Session discussion on March 25, 2026. At that time, Staff

29

was directed to prepare an ordinance defining STRs and permitted locations, establishing basic

30

requirements, and using business licensing to identify and track STRs.

31
32

Chair Cragun asked if State legislation prohibiting cities from searching for illegal STRs was still in

33

effect. Mr. Crowell reported that rental listings cannot be used as the sole source of the information.

34

However, the listing itself was one piece of evidence, and reviews from renters were another.

35
36
37

Ms. Oakman reported that the City was considering the ordinance for the following reasons:

11

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

•

No existing STR regulations.

2

•

Limited ability to identify and track STRs.

3

•

No defined operational or safety standards.

4

•

Limited enforcement tools for complaints and compliance.

5
6
7
8

The proposed ordinance would:
•

Define STRs and permitted locations.

9

•

Establish basic requirements.

10

•

Use business licenses to identify and track STRs.

11
12

Ms. Oakman reviewed existing Accessory Dwelling Unit (“ADU”) standards versus proposed STR

13

regulations.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Current ADU standard
•

ADUs (internal and detached) are regulated through City Code.

•

ADUs may not be rented for periods less than 30 consecutive days.

Proposed STR standards
•

Permitted for stays less than 30 days.

23

•

Not permitted within an ADU.

24

•

Owner occupancy not required.

25
26

In response to a question from Commissioner Woodruff, Ms. Oakman confirmed that only the

27

primary home could be used as an STR, not a detached ADU on the property.

28
29
30
31

Potential negative impacts of STRs include:
•

Visitor activity and turnover in residential areas.

32

•

Parking and traffic impacts.

33

•

Noise and nuisance complaints.

12

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

•

Property management and local contact responsiveness.

2

•

Enforcement and compliance.

3
4
5
6
7

The Proposed Text Amendment would:
•

Create a new definition for STRs in Title 3 and Title 11.

•

Create a new Chapter 3.100 establishing STR regulations, including:

8

o Inspections and safety requirements (initial and annual inspections)

9

o Local contact requirements

10

o Business licensing requirements (administered through business license)

11

o Compliance standards

12

o Permitted Locations

13

•

Amend Title 11 Land Use Tables to identify where STRs are permitted.

14

•

Add STRs as a permitted use within residential zoning districts and designated special

15

districts, including mixed-use areas, the Bringhurst Station Project Zone, and the

16

Independence Village Project Zone.

17

•

Clarify that STRs are not permitted within ADUs.

18
19

Chair Cragun asked why ADUs were excluded. Mr. Crowell reported that they were excluded to be

20

consistent with the ADU ordinance, which requires a rental period of 30 days or more. Ms. Oakman

21

reported that it would also help mitigate potential concerns and prevent the property owner from

22

having two STRs on one property.

23
24

In response to a concern raised by Commissioner Woodruff, Ms. Oakman provided the proposed

25

definition and noted that Staff intentionally did not address using a portion of a home as a STR.

26
27

Short-Term Rental: A complete dwelling unit (home), not including an accessory dwelling

28

unit or a portion of a dwelling unit, located within a residential zone district, that is rented or

29

offered for occupancy for periods of less than thirty (30) consecutive days in exchange for

30

compensation.

31
13

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

Chair Cragun stated that she expected a lot of people to rent out their couches for the 2034 Olympics.

2

Commissioner Swanson asked if a property owner could temporarily rent their home as a STR for the

3

Olympics or while they were on vacation. It was clarified that they would need to apply for the yearly

4

permit.

5
6
7
8

Ms. Oakman reviewed potential benefits and challenges of allowing STRs.
•

Benefits

9

o Business license revenue

10

o Clear rules and expectations for residents

11

o Visitor spending at local businesses

12

o Ability to require safety and operational standards

13

o Easier tracking and regulation of licensed properties

14

o Local contact requirement for faster complaint response

15

•

Challenges

16

o Noise, parking, and traffic concerns

17

o Increased complaints

18

o Cost recovery of additional enforcement and administrative workloads

19

o Ongoing enforcement and compliance tracking

20

o Perception of commercial activity in residential areas

21

o Potential housing availability concerns

22
23

Commissioner Woodruff stated that if he invested in an ADU, he may want the flexibility to rent it

24

as an STR. He was aware of many unsanctioned ADUs and STRs. In response to his question, Ms.

25

Oakman reported that the fee for a standard commercial business license was $110 per year. The first

26

inspection was $110, and the reinspection was $70. The fees were based on the City’s existing

27

Consolidated Fee Schedule. There were no staffing concerns in regard to inspections. Mr. Crowell

28

indicated that STR inspections may be listed separately on the fee schedule.

29

14

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

Commissioner Woodruff asked about the anticipated volume. Mr. Crowell stated that Staff did not

2

expect a large number of applications.

3

approximately 250 STRs listed on Airbnb.

4
5
6
7

Commissioner Woodruff indicated that there were

Chair Cragun opened the public hearing. There were no comments. The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Woodruff asked about the fire extinguisher and licensing requirements. Ms. Oakman

8

reported that she spoke with the Business License Official and researched other cities. It made sense

9

to manage STRs through a commercial business license as it is a commercial business use. The

10

number of fire extinguishers or other safety features required is based on the size of the home, floors,

11

and other factors as outlined in International Fire Code.

12
13

Commissioner Swanson moved to forward a POSITIVE recommendation to the City Council

14

for the proposed Text Amendments based on the findings presented in the Staff Report dated

15

May 29, 2026. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Griffis. Vote on motion: Joel

16

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

17

motion passed unanimously.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

It was reported that a City Council meeting date had not been scheduled for the item.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
7.

Summary of 2026 Legislative Session. Fred Donaldson, City Attorney, presenting.
**CANCELLED**

8.

Planning Commission Business (planning session for upcoming items, follow up, etc.

Mr. Crowell reported on the following:
•

The City Council approved the temporary fireworks stand ordinance.

31

•

The June 17, 2026, Planning Commission meeting was cancelled.

32

•

Great Clips held its ribbon cutting and was now open.

33

•

The City Council would adopt the FY2026-2027 Budget at its June 10, 2026, meeting.

34
15

DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
BLUFFDALE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, June 3, 2026
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

9.

Adjournment.

The Planning Commission Meeting adjourned at 7:38 p.m.

__________________________________
Pauline Matagi, Community Development Coordinator
Approved: _________________________

16

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

STAFF REPORT
July 1, 2026
To:
City of Bluffdale Planning Commission
Prepared By: Caitlyn Tubbs, Planning Manager
Re:

A Text Amendment Enacting Section 11.160.320 to Regulate the Placement and Use of
Accessory Cargo Containers in the City of Bluffdale.
Application No.: 2025-23
Applicant(s):
City of Bluffdale
Request:
To review the proposed amendments to Bluffdale City Code enacting
Section 11.160.320, hold a public hearing, and consider forwarding a
recommendation to the City Council.

SUMMARY
Following a Work Session, the City Council directed Staff to prepare an ordinance to regulate the
number and placement of cargo containers as accessory storage devices. On February 18, 2026, the
Planning Commission held a public hearing1 on proposed text changes regulating cargo containers
within the City of Bluffdale. Following public comment and requests from the Commission, the item
was tabled, and Staff was directed to return after modifying the proposed ordinance.
The Planning Commission revisited the item on June 3, 2026, held and closed a public hearing, and
directed Staff to make allowances for temporary storage in instances of moving or remodeling
residences and to revise the allotment of containers from an overall count to a cumulative linear
footage. Staff has revised the proposed ordinance redlines accordingly.
ANALYSIS
Bluffdale City Code (BCC) Section 11.20.020 defines “Open Storage” as:
“The storage of materials and goods not within an enclosed structure
for more than seventy-two (72) hours. This includes the storage of
inoperable vehicles for automobile-related primary uses.”

1 February 18, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting (Agenda; Packet, pg. 71; Minutes, pg. 13)
Application 2025-23 – Cargo Containers Text Amendment
July 1, 2026, Planning Commission Meeting
Page 1

Open Storage is not a permitted primary use in the City of Bluffdale and is permitted only as an
accessory use in the Heavy Commercial (HC) and Light Industrial (I-1) Zones. Many businesses and
residential property owners are turning to cargo containers as potential storage options. Currently,
the BCC is silent on the use of cargo containers and the City has initiated these Text Amendments to
provide a pathway for residents and businesses to utilize these containers while also maintaining an
attractive community.
Staff conducted research of surrounding municipalities’ codes and ordinances and found many
communities prohibit the use of cargo containers, particularly in residential zones, unless they are
incorporated into an accessory structure (such as a shed or detached home office) and have an
approved building permit. Recognizing Bluffdale’s predominantly large-lot development pattern,
the City desires to provide flexibility for its residents and intends to allow usage of these containers
in residential and some non-residential zones with specific criteria.
This Text Amendment proposes a new definition for “Cargo Container” to be added to BCC
11.20.020:
“Cargo Container: A standardized, reusable vessel fabricated to transport freight or
goods on a truck, railroad, or ship, in accordance with international standards for
overseas shipping, including cargo containers, shipping containers, or other portable
storage units that are placed on private property and used for storage of items,
including, but not limited to: clothing, equipment, goods, household or office fixtures
or furnishings, materials and merchandise.”
Staff proposes the following general requirements for the use and placement of cargo containers:
1. Storage containers may only be placed as an accessory use, meaning any lot or parcel
containing a storage container must have an existing primary use before the container is
placed and throughout the duration of its placement. If the primary use is abandoned or
removed the storage container shall also be removed.
2. Vertical stacking of storage containers and stacking of any other materials on top of or
attached to storage containers is prohibited. Roofs, lean-tos, and other structures shall
not be affixed to or placed on storage containers, unless the cargo container is fully
integrated into an accessory building and complies with all adopted Building Codes.
3. Storage containers shall not be used as dwelling or living quarters, nor for camping
purposes, for any amount of time in any zone, except as permitted in Chapter 11.340 of
this Title.
Following public comment received at the February 18, 2026 Planning Commission meeting, Staff
revised paragraph 4 of the proposed text to remove the requirement to secure cargo containers
against unauthorized entry and to allow containers to be stored on gravel or another compacted
surface as shown below:
Application 2025-23 – Cargo Containers Text Amendment
July 1, 2026, Planning Commission Meeting
Page 2

4. Property owners and users of storage containers shall ensure the containers are kept in
good repair, secured against unauthorized entry, and are stored on a concrete or asphalt
gravel or other compacted surface. For the purposes of this section, a storage container
is not considered in a good state of repair when it is incapable of being moved intact,
holes in the container exist due to damage or rust, or it has been infested with vermin or
other pests.
5. Storage containers shall not be placed within required off-street parking spaces or public
rights of way. Containers may only be placed in interior side yards or rear yards within
residential zones.
The overall number of cargo containers permitted in the applicable non-residential zones (Heavy
Commercial and Light Industrial) were proposed to be limited to one per 8,000 square feet of lot
area. The Planning Commission directed staff to revise the allotment tabulation from an overall
count to a cumulative linear footage of container. Staff has revised the non-residential allotment to
read “Up to forty linear feet (40’) (as measured by the cumulative length of the sum of the longest
sides) of cargo container(s) may be placed for reach 8,000 square feet of lot size. Placement of cargo
containers shall be indicated on the approved site plan in accordance with Chapter 11.150 of this
Title.”
Residential zones will be similarly restricted as follows:
Lot Size *not including any abutting private
right of way
Less than 20,000 Square Feet
20,000 Square Feet up to One (1) Acre

One Acre or Larger

Number of Storage Containers Allowed
One (1) (up to 40-foot) container Up to forty
total linear feet (40’) of cargo container(s)
One (1) (up to 40-foot) container per 5,000
square feet of lot area. Up to forty total linear
feet (40’) of cargo container(s) per 5,000
square feet of lot area, not exceeding 240
linear feet total.
One (1) (up to 40-foot) container per 5,000
square feet of lot area, no more than eight (8)
storage containers total. Up to forty total linear
feet (40’) of cargo container(s) per 5,000
square feet of total lot area, not exceeding 360
linear feet total.

Additionally, the Planning Commission opined homeowners should have the ability to utilize pods
or containers on a temporary basis while remodeling or moving in/out of a residence. Staff has
added the following to allow temporary placement of a cargo container within the front yard:

Application 2025-23 – Cargo Containers Text Amendment
July 1, 2026, Planning Commission Meeting
Page 3

One (1) cargo container (up to twenty feet (20’) in length) may be placed within the front yard on a
temporary basis (no more than 120 calendar days in one calendar year) for the purposes of personal
storage while moving in, moving out, or remodeling a residence.
Enforcement
During the discussion at the June 3rd Planning Commission meeting, the Commissioners noted the
potential for cargo containers to be used for signage outside of what is permitted by Chapter
11.220. Staff noted that if this becomes the case, the City’s Administrative Code Enforcement
proceedings would be initiated.
Further, with the revisions to the cargo container allotment, it is important to note if the City
suspects a property owner has exceeded the allowed amount of cargo containers, it now must
prove the total linear footage of containers. This would require the City to obtain the property
owner’s permission to enter the site to measure the container(s), which may be difficult to obtain in
some instances. Due to this issue, Staff believes that a regulation based on the number of allowed
containers would be a more practically enforceable standard.
MODEL MOTIONS:
Model for a Positive Recommendation (Staff Recommendation) – “I move to forward a positive
recommendation to the City Council for the proposed enactment of Section 11.160.320 regulating
the use of cargo containers, based on the findings presented in the Staff Report dated June 3, 2026
(and including the following additional findings):”
1.
List all findings for approval…
Motion for a Negative Recommendation – “I move we forward a negative recommendation to the
City Council for the proposed enactment of Section 11.160.320 regulating the use of cargo
containers, based upon the following findings:”
1.
List all findings for negative recommendation…
Motion to Continue the Item to a Date Certain/Uncertain – “I move we continue the item to a date
certain/uncertain and direct Staff to provide additional information regarding the following:
1.
List any additional information, analysis, or findings the Planning Commission wishes
Staff to provide in advance of the date certain/uncertain…
EXHIBITS
A: Draft redlines

Application 2025-23 – Cargo Containers Text Amendment
July 1, 2026, Planning Commission Meeting
Page 4

11.20.020 Definitions
…
Cargo Container: a standardized, reusable vessel fabricated to transport freight or goods
on a truck, railroad, or ship, in accordance with international standards for overseas
shipping, including cargo containers, shipping containers, or other portable storage units
that are placed on private property and used for storage of items, including, but not limited
to, clothing, equipment, goods, household or office fixtures or furnishings, materials and
merchandise.
…
11.160.320 Placement and Usage of Accessory Cargo Containers
(A) Purpose: The purpose of this section is to regulate the use of accessory cargo
containers in the City, which regulations are adopted to protect the public health, safety,
and welfare of the community and to promote public aesthetics within the City. Nothing in
this code is intended to prevent the temporary use (less than 30 days) of a cargo container
for moving or temporary construction purposes.
(B) General Requirements
1. Cargo containers may only be placed as an accessory use, meaning any lot or
parcel containing a storage container must have an existing primary use before the
container is placed and throughout the duration of its placement. If the primary use is
abandoned or removed the storage container shall also be removed.
2. Vertical stacking of cargo containers and stacking of any other materials on top of
or attached to storage containers is prohibited. Roofs, lean-tos, and other structures shall
not be affixed to or placed on storage containers, unless the container is fully integrated into
an accessory building and complies with all adopted Building Codes.
3. Cargo containers shall not be used as dwelling or living quarters, nor for camping
purposes, for any amount of time in any zone, except as permitted in Chapter 340 of this
Title.
4. Property owners and users of cargo containers shall ensure the containers are
kept in good repair and are stored on a gravel or other compacted surface. For the purposes
of this section, a storage container is not considered in a good state of repair when it is
incapable of being moved intact, holes in the container exist due to damage or rust, or it
has been infested with vermin or other pests.

5. Cargo containers shall not be placed within required off-street parking spaces or
public rights of way.
(C) Non-Residential Zones
1. Cargo containers may only be placed in non-residential zones where Open
Storage is a permitted accessory use. One container (up to 40-feet) Up to forty linear feet
(40’) (as measured by the cumulative length of the sum of the longest sides) of cargo
container(s) may be placed for each 8,000 square feet of lot size. Placement of cargo
containers shall be indicated on the approved site plan in accordance with Chapter 11.150
of this Title.
(D) Residential Zones
1. Cargo containers shall not be placed in any required front yard or corner side
yard. Cargo containers may only be placed within easements or utility corridors with the
prior written consent of the easement holder(s) or corridor owner(s).
a. One (1) cargo container (up to twenty feet (20’) in length) may be placed within the
front yard on a temporary basis (no more than 120 calendar days in one calendar year) for
the purposes of personal storage while moving in, moving out, or remodeling a residence.
2. Number of storage containers allowed:
Lot Size *not including any abutting private
right of way
Less than 20,000 Square Feet
20,000 Square Feet up to One (1) Acre

One Acre or Larger

Number of Storage Containers Allowed
One (1) (up to 40-foot) container Up to forty
total linear feet (40’) of cargo container(s)
One (1) (up to 40-foot) container per 5,000
square feet of lot area. Up to forty total linear
feet (40’) of cargo container(s) per 5,000
square feet of lot area, not exceeding 240
linear feet total.
One (1) (up to 40-foot) container per 5,000
square feet of lot area, no more than eight
(8) storage containers total. Up to forty total
linear feet (40’) of cargo container(s) per
5,000 square feet of total lot area, not
exceeding 360 linear feet total.

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

Memo
TO: Bluffdale City Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Department Staff
DATE: July 1, 2026
RE: Planning Commission Bylaws
Members of the Planning Commission,
During the 2026 Legislative Session, the Utah State Legislature enacted Senate Bill 284 which
(among other things) establishes new training requirements for municipal planning
commissions and requires cities to adopt ordinances outlining processes by which Planning
Commission Members are appointed and removed, general rules of procedure, and describe
causes for removal. Chapter 2.10 of the Bluffdale City Code already includes most of this
information, however, some edits are needed to comply with SB 284 by adding causes for
removal, requirements for when Members must recuse themselves from deliberations and
voting on items, and training needs.
Staff has researched the bylaws published by the Planning Commissions of Draper City,
Kaysville City, Murray City, Providence City, Provo City, and Santaquin City, and has compiled
a short bylaw document outlining the details not currently covered under Chapter 2.10 for
Bluffdale’s Planning Commission. The Planning Commission should review this draft and
decide what, if anything, they want to include in Chapter 2.10 in addition to the edits required
by SB 284.
Exhibit:
Draft Planning Commission Bylaws

PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS AND RULES OF
PROCEDURE
ARTICLE I – PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY
Section 1. Purpose
These Bylaws and Rules of Procedure are adopted to provide guidance for the organization,
authority, duties, and procedures of the Planning Commission and to ensure that meetings
and decisions are conducted in accordance with applicable law, city ordinances, and
principles of fairness, transparency, and due process.

Section 2. Governing Authority
The Planning Commission shall be governed by:
1. Applicable state statutes governing public bodies and municipal land use
regulation, specifically Chapter 2.10 of the Bluffdale City Code.
2. All other applicable municipal ordinances and development regulations.
3. The City’s General Plan.
4. These Bylaws and Rules of Procedure.

Section 3. Familiarity with Applicable Laws
Commission members shall maintain reasonable familiarity with applicable statutes,
ordinances, policies, and these bylaws throughout their term of service.

ARTICLE II – ETHICS AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Section 1. General Conduct
Commission members shall conduct themselves with professionalism, courtesy,
impartiality, and respect.

Section 2. Conflicts of Interest
Members shall disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest before participating in
discussion or voting on a matter. A member with a conflict shall not participate in
deliberation or voting on the affected item.

Section 3. Ex Parte Communications
Members shall avoid private discussions with applicants, opponents, or interested parties
regarding pending applications outside of a public meeting. Members shall instead direct

applicants, opponents, or interested parties to discuss pending applications within the
applicable public meeting at which the item is scheduled for deliberation. Nothing in this
Section shall prevent members from asking city staff for information related to the pending
application and discussing applicable ordinance requirements.

Section 4. Representation by Members
No Commission member shall represent applicants, petitioners, property owners, or
opponents of applications before the Planning Commission.

ARTICLE III – AGENDA AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
Section 1. Agenda Preparation
City staff shall prepare and publish agendas in compliance with applicable law.

Section 2. Order of Business
The typical order of business shall be:
1. Call to Order
2. Conflict of Interest Disclosures
3. Approval of Minutes
4. Public Hearings and Business Items
5. Other Business
6. Adjournment

Section 3. Public Hearing Procedures
The Chair shall:
1. Announce the agenda item.
2. Receive staff presentation.
3. Receive applicant presentation.
4. Open the public hearing.
5. Receive public comment.
6. Close the public hearing.
7. Conduct Commission discussion.
8. Receive motions and votes.
Reasonable time limits may be established for public comment in accordance with
applicable laws.

ARTICLE IV – DECISIONS
Section 1. Findings
Commission actions shall be supported by findings or reasons sufficient to support the
decision.

Section 2. Finality
Commission decisions shall become final upon completion of the vote unless otherwise
provided by law.

Section 3. Continuances
The Commission may continue any matter to a future meeting by motion. The Commission
shall not unreasonably continue a matter for an undue period of time and shall make
findings on the record for the continuance. Findings for continuance may include, but are
not limited to, additional information is needed, the applicant has requested the item be
continued, or the applicant needs additional time to incorporate comments from the
public or Commission.

ARTICLE V – RECORDS
Section 1. Minutes
Minutes shall be prepared and maintained for all meetings in accordance with applicable
law.

Section 2. Public Records
Commission records, minutes, and decisions shall be maintained as public records unless
otherwise protected by law.

ARTICLE VI – AMENDMENTS
These Bylaws may be amended by a majority vote of the Planning Commission.

Effective Date: __________________
Adopted by the Planning Commission on: __________________
Chair: __________________________
Attest: __________________________