HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/11/2025 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
WORK SESSION
February 11, 2025 Tuesday 3:00 PM
Council meetings are held in a hybrid meeting format. Hybrid meetings allow people to join online or in
person at the City & County Building. Learn more at www.slc.gov/council/agendas.
Council Work Room
451 South State Street, Room 326
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
SLCCouncil.com
3:00 PM Work Session
Or immediately following the 2:00 PM
Community Reinvestment Agency Meeting
No Formal Meeting
Please note: A general public comment period will not be held this day. This is the Council's monthly scheduled
briefing meeting.
Welcome and public meeting rules
In accordance with State Statute and City Ordinance, the meeting may be held electronically. After 5:00 p.m., please enter the
City & County Building through the main east entrance.
The Work Session is a discussion among Council Members and select presenters. The public is welcome to listen. Items
scheduled on the Work Session or Formal Meeting may be moved and / or discussed during a different portion of the Meeting
based on circumstance or availability of speakers.
The Website addresses listed on the agenda may not be available after the Council votes on the item. Not all agenda items will
have a webpage for additional information read associated agenda paperwork.
Generated: 12:56:27
Note: Dates not identified in the project timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. Item start
times and durations are approximate and are subject to change.
Work Session Items
1.Informational: Winter Shelter Plans Update ~ 3:00 p.m.
15 min.
The Council will receive an update from the Administration on the State homeless winter
shelter plans.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Recurring Briefing
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
2.Informational: R-1 Single-Family Residential Districts Proposed
Zoning Text Amendment ~ 3:15 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive a briefing from the Planning Division about a proposal
to consolidate and simplify the R-1 Single-Family Residential districts, including updates
to the residential flag lot standards and the addition of new housing options.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, February 11, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
3.Informational: Upcoming Liberty Park Cultural Landscape
Report and Vision Plan Update ~ 3:45 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive a briefing on the Liberty Park planning process, which is
currently getting underway. This is an opportunity to learn about the goals, activities,
timeline, and potential funding for this project at an early stage in the process.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, February 11, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
4.Informational: Proposed Golf Fee Increases ~ 4:15 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive a briefing on an Administration proposal to increase certain fees
charged by the Golf Division, which runs Salt Lake City’s six public golf courses. These
changes are expected to provide nearly $553,000 in new revenue to the Golf Fund if
implemented by the beginning of the coming golf season. The Division continues to face a
critical backlog of deferred capital maintenance, and it prefers to fund these projects
through user fees rather than larger general fund subsidies.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, February 11, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
5.2025-29 Housing and Urban Development Consolidated Plan
Follow-up ~ 4:45 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about creating the City’s next five-year
Consolidated Plan for 2025-29 as required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD). The Consolidated Plan details the City’s goals and objectives that
determine funding eligibility and prioritize how to spend four federal grants: Community
Development Block Grants (CDBG), Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG), Home
Investment Partnerships, and Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA).
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, October 1, 2024 and Tuesday, February 11, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, February 18, 2025
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 4, 2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, April 15, 2025
6.Informational: State Legislative Briefing Follow-up ~ 5:05 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about issues affecting the City that may arise
during the 2025 Utah State Legislative Session.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, January 7, 2025; Tuesday, February 4, 2025; and Tuesday, February
11, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
Standing Items
7.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair -
-
Report of Chair and Vice Chair.
8.Report and Announcements from the Executive Director -
-
Report of the Executive Director, including a review of Council information items and
announcements. The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to
City Council business, including but not limited to scheduling items.
9.Tentative Closed Session -
-
The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session. A closed meeting described
under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including, but not limited to:
a. discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health
of an individual;
b. strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining;
c. strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation;
d. strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property,
including any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the
transaction would:
(i) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under
consideration; or
(ii) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best
possible terms;
e. strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a water
right or water shares, if:
(i) public discussion of the transaction would:
(A) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under
consideration; or
(B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best
possible terms;
(ii) the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be
offered for sale; and
(iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body
approves the sale;
f. discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and
g. investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct.
A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to
Utah Code § 78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements
of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act.
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
On or before 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 6, 2025, the undersigned, duly appointed City
Recorder, does hereby certify that the above notice and agenda was (1) posted on the Utah Public
Notice Website created under Utah Code Section 63F-1-701, and (2) a copy of the foregoing provided
to The Salt Lake Tribune and/or the Deseret News and to a local media correspondent and any
others who have indicated interest.
KEITH REYNOLDS
SALT LAKE CITY RECORDER
Final action may be taken in relation to any topic listed on the agenda, including but
not limited to adoption, rejection, amendment, addition of conditions and variations
of options discussed.
The City & County Building is an accessible facility. People with disabilities may make requests for
reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary
aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request,
please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slc.gov, 801-535-7600, or relay service
711.
Homeless Resource Center
Utilization "At Capacity"
https://endutahhomelessness.org/daily-bed-availability/
Encampment Impact Mitigation/ Rapid
Intervention
•EIM- Victory Rd (pending code blue)
•RIT- JRT 2100 S, N. Temple,Backman
School, 1300 S Trax
Resource Fair:
Friday Feb 14th @ Geraldine E King HRC
(HRC client needs)
Code Blue Volunteers Needed!:
https://www.signupgenius.com/go/409084CAFA62FA5F94-
54599395-code#/
Homelessness
Update
Feb 11, 2025
Shelters: 801-990-9999
Additional System Information:
Salt Lake Valley Coalition to
End Homelessness (SLVCEH)
endutahhomelessness.org/
salt-lake-valley
Utah Office of Homeless
Services (OHS)
jobs.utah.gov/homelessness/
index.html
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Brian Fullmer
Policy Analyst
DATE:February 11, 2025
RE: Proposed Zoning Text Amendment to Consolidate and Simplify the R-1 Single-Family
Residential Districts, Including Updates to Residential Flag Lot Standards and the
Addition of New Housing Options
ISSUE AT A GLANCE
The Council will receive a follow-up briefing on the potential approaches to simplifying and improving City
code as it relates to R-1 single-family residential districts. Planning staff briefed the Council in August
2024, and the Council requested Planning provide recommendations for revising single-family residential
zoning districts.
Planning staff recommends revising and merging single-family residential districts with the following three
main elements:
•R-1 zoning district amendments
•Reduce flag lot restrictions
•Expanding housing options
Planning has recommendations within each of these elements which are included in the additional
information section below. Background is also included in the additional information section to provide
context for the Council when reviewing potential straw polls.
Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed text amendments, provide direction to Planning staff,
determine if the Council supports moving forward with any aspects of the proposal.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: February 11, 2025
Set Date: TBD
Public Hearing: TBD
Potential Action: TBD
Page | 2
POLICY QUESTIONS:
1. A Council Member was contacted by a constituent with a proposal to allow new construction on
legal non-conforming lots within the R-1 districts. The Council may wish to ask the Administration
whether their proposal would address this.
2. If the proposal does not address these lots, the Council may wish to ask the Administration for
recommendations.
3. The Council may wish to discuss impacts on the affordable housing overlay and tradeoffs of the
potential code changes related to the overlay.
4. The Council may wish to discuss differences between the Administration’s recommended
Expanding Housing Options and the private R-1 zoning amendment.
POTENTIAL STRAW POLLS
The Council may wish to respond to each of the following straw polls to give staff guidance on which of
these policies the Council supports Planning staff includes in the potential code amendments.
•Consolidate the R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, and R-1/5,000 single-family zoning text sections into one
section.
•Eliminate the front yard averaging option and establish a minimum front yard setback of 20 feet or
equal to one of the abutting front yard setbacks on the block face.
•Eliminate the building height averaging option.
•Establish a maximum building height of 30 feet for pitched roof structures and 24 feet for a flat
roof, both measured to the highest point of the roof.
•Eliminate the maximum wall height for structures.
•Change flag lots from conditional to permitted use and reduce the minimum size required to create
a flag lot.
•Create a “small lot dwelling” land use with specific regulations for lot size, setbacks, and building
size that are feasible for creating small, detached homes, and include the ability to subdivide
existing ADUs, whether attached or detached.
•Allow new dwelling types (such as duplex, triplex, fourplex, and townhome) with up to four
dwellings in the R-1, R-2, and SR zoning districts and develop specific regulations for the different
types of housing.
•Including a density bonus of one unit similar to the RMF-30 district if an existing single or two-
family structure is retained.
•Including an additional unit bonus for projects that meet the size limitations of the proposed
Expanding Housing Options and provides deed-restricted affordable housing.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
1. R-1 Zoning Amendments
Consolidating the R-1 Residential Zones into One Zone
(The policy discussion for this is found on page 5 of the transmittal.)
Planning’s recommendation: Consolidate the three single-family zoning text sections into one section.
Front Setback Averaging
(The policy discussion for this is found on page 5 of the transmittal.)
Planning’s recommendation: Eliminate the front yard averaging option and establish a minimum front
yard setback of 20 feet or equal to one of the abutting front yard setbacks on the block face.
Building Height Averaging
(The policy discussion for this is found on page 5 of the transmittal.)
Planning’s recommendation: Eliminate the building height averaging option.
Page | 3
Increase Building Height and Eliminate Maximum Wall Height
(The policy discussion for this is found on pages 5-6 of the transmittal.)
Planning’s recommendation: Establish a maximum building height of 30 feet for pitched roof structures
and 24 feet for a flat roof, both measured to the highest point of the roof. Eliminate the maximum wall
height.
The following table summarizing proposed changes to the R-1 zoning districts is included on page 6 of the
Administration’s transmittal. This table is used as an example and is subject to change through the process.
It is replicated here for convenience.
R-1/12,000 R-1/7,000 R-1/5,000
Building Height –
Pitched Roof 30 feet
Building Height –
Flat Roof 24 feet
Front Yard 20 feet or equal to one abutting front yard
Corner side yard 20 feet 10 feet
Inter side – corner
lot 6 feet
Interior side yard 1 6 feet
Interior side yard 2 10 feet
Rear yard 25 feet 20 feet
Building Coverage 35%40%
Maximum lot size 18,000 square
feet 10,500 square feet 7,500 square feet
2. Reducing Flag Lot Restrictions
(The policy discussion for this is found on page 6 of the transmittal.)
Planning’s recommendation: Change flag lots from conditional to permitted use and reduce the minimum
size required to create a flag lot.
3. Expanding Housing Options
Regulating Lot & Building Size
(The policy discussion for this is found on page 7 of the transmittal.)
Planning’s recommendation: Create a “small lot dwelling” land use with specific regulations for lot size,
setbacks, and building size that are feasible for creating small, detached homes. This may also include the
ability to subdivide existing ADUs, whether attached or detached.
Legalizing Additional Building Forms
(The policy discussion for this is found on page 7-8 of the transmittal.)
Planning’s recommendation: Allow new dwelling types with up to four dwellings in the R-1, R-2, and SR
zoning districts and develop specific regulations for the different types of housing.
Page | 4
The following table is on page 8 of the Administration’s transmittal. It includes draft (subject to change)
standards and regulations under the Expanding Housing Options, and the allowed zoning districts.
Expanding Housing Options
Zones All R-1 Districts, R-2, SR-1/1A, SR-2, SR-3
New Building Forms Permitted Two-family dwellings, multi-family
residential, row house, sideways row house
Lot size 2,000 square feet
Lot width – single family Not regulated
Lot width – single family attached
& twin home
Not regulated
Lot width – two-family Not regulated
Front yard 10 feet or equal to abutting
Corner side yard 5 feet
Interior side yard 4-10 feet (depending on unit type)
Rear yard 10 feet or equal to abutting
Building height – pitched District maximum
Building height – flat District maximum
Coverage 60%
Maximum units 4 units for multi-family, row house,
cottage developments
2 units for two-family or urban house
1 unit for single-family housing
Footprint 800 square feet
Gross square footage 1,600 square feet
(Maximum height: 17 feet)
1,200 square feet
(Maximum height: district maximum)
Page | 5
Private R-1 Amendment Application
SLC Neighbors 4 Neighbors submitted a petition, “Starter Homes SLC,” in December 2024 to amend the R-
1 zoning text. While there are similarities between this and the Administration’s proposals, Planning noted
several differences which are included in the following table on page 10 of the Administration’s transmittal
and replicated below to facilitate Council discussion.
Starter Homes SLC
(Private)
Expanding Housing Options
(Administration)
Zones R-1/5,000, R-1/7,000,
SR-1A, & SR-3
R-1/5,000, R-1/7,000,
R-1/12,000, R-2, SR-1/1A, SR-2,
SR-3
New Building Forms
Permitted
Two-family dwellings, single-
family attached dwellings
Two-family dwellings, multi-
family residential, row house,
sideways row house
Minimum lot size 1,400 square feet per unit
2,000 square feet per unit (all
unit types) via small lot
development
Lot width –
Single-family 20 feet Not regulated
Lot width –
Single-family
attached & twin home
Interior: 20 feet
Corner: 30 feet Not regulated
Lot width –
Two-family
Interior: 30 feet
Corner: 40 feet Not regulated
Front yard 10 feet 10 feet or equal to abutting
Corner side yard No change 5 feet
Interior side yard 3 feet in all instances 4-10 feet (depends on unit type)
Rear yard 10 feet 10 feet or equal to abutting
Building height –
Pitched 32 feet District maximum
Building height – Flat 30 feet District maximum
Maximum building
coverage 70%60%
Maximum units 5 units in R-1/7,000
4 units in R-1/5,000
4 units for multi-family, row
house, cottage developments
2 units for two-family or urban
house
1 unit for single-family dwelling
Maximum primary
building footprint Not regulated 800 square feet
Maximum gross
square footage Not regulated 1,600 square feet (Maximum
height: 17 feet
Page | 6
1,200 square feet (Maximum
height: district maximum)
2025 Utah State Legislative Session
To ensure there are no conflicts with potential land use changes being considered by the Utah State
Legislature, any changes to City code resulting from the Administration’s proposal will not be finalized
until after the 2025 legislative session.
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
Salt Lake City Council – February 11, 2025
R-1 REFORM
Salt Lake City //Planning Division
•September 2023: Council requested staff to
study options for R-1 Districts.
•April 2024: Planning Division produced
“Potential Approaches to Simplifying and
Improving R-1 Districts.”
•August 2024: Council directed staff to provide
a recommendation regarding R-1 zoning.
•Today: Recommendation includes three big
ideas:
1.R-1 Amendments
2.Reducing Flag Lot Restrictions
3.Expanding Housing Options
INTRODUCTION
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
R-1 AMENDMENTS
CONSOLIDATING & AMENDING R-1 ZONES
•Avoids rezoning all R-1 properties.
•Consolidate the three single-family zoning
text sections into one section.
•Removes averaging of building heights and
front yards.
•Make other changes to R-1 standards.
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
FRONT YARD AMENDMENTS
FRONT SETBACK AVERAGING
•Currently front yards must be equal to the average
on the block face.
•This requirement can be difficult to explain to
residents and costly to implement.
•Recommendation: Establish a front yard of 20’ and
remove the averaging option.
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
BUILDING HEIGHT AMENDMENTS
MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT
•Existing Standards:
•Pitched Roof: 28’ or the average height on the
block face
•Flat Roof: 20’
•Exterior Wall Height: 20’
•Recommendation:
•Eliminate building height averaging.
•30’maximum height for pitched roof.
•24’ maximum height for flat roof.
•Eliminate maximum wall height requirement.
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
REDUCING FLAG LOT RESTRICTIONS
AMENDING FLAG LOT STANDARDS
•Simplify the approval process by changing
from conditional to permitted use.
•Reduce the minimum lot size requirements.
•Allow less restrictive access requirements.
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
EXPANDING HOUSING OPTIONS
SMALL LOT DWELLINGS
•Create new “small lot dwelling” land use category.
•Allow new housing types, but only with limited building size.
•Would not replace the R-1/R-2/SR1-3 zoning standards for a typical single-family home. Intended to
provide a new option for property owners interested in building smaller homes.
Standard R-1
Subdivision
Affordable Housing
Incentives
Building Preservation
Incentives
Small Lot
Dwelling
1 unit per lot
Minimum lot sizes and widths
apply.
Up to 4 units
1 or 2 units must be Affordable.
Multiple units per lot
Must preserve a 50+ year old
building. Minimum lot sizes apply.
Up to 4 units
Units must be less than the
maximum footprint and floor
area allowed.
Existing Existing Existing Proposed
DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS IN R-1 DISTRICTS New
option
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
EXPANDING HOUSING OPTIONS
LEGALIZE ADDITIONAL BUILDING FORMS
•Under the “small lot dwelling” option, staff recommends allowing duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes,
and townhomes.
•Unit counts are proposed to be capped at 4 units.
Single Duplex Triplex Fourplex Townhomes
Salt Lake City //Planning Division
PROPOSED STANDARDS
•Reduces minimum lot size.
•Regulates maximum footprint and gross
square footage (applies on a per unit basis).
•Does not require frontage on a public street.
•Reduces setback requirements.
•Increases the maximum lot coverage
percentage.
EXPANDING HOUSING OPTIONS
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
EXAMPLES FROM DURHAM, NC
SMALL HOME SALES
•In 2023, Durham reported that the
median sales prices of a 1,200 sq. ft.
“small home” was $348,000.
•Zillow listings show new
construction “small homes” ranging
from $200,000 - $500,000.
Salt Lake City //Planning Division
EXPANDING HOUSING OPTIONS…
•Covers more districts.
•Allows additional housing types.
•Regulates footprints and gross square
footage amounts.
2024 PRIVATE R-1 APPLICATION
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
INPUT NEEDED FROM COUNCIL
BUILDING FORMS & DENSITY
•Which building forms are appropriate to allow in R-1 neighborhoods (duplex, triplex, fourplex, or
townhomes)?
•How many units are appropriate per residential lot?
DENSITY BONUSES
•Should a density bonus be provided for developments that retain an existing structure?
•Would an additional unit bonus be appropriate for projects that meet the size limitations for “small
lot dwellings” and also provide deed-restricted affordable housing?
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
Andy Hulka
andy.hulka@slc.gov
Ben Buckley
benjamin.buckley@slc.gov
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING + SMALL LOT DWELLING
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING + SMALL LOT DUPLEX
SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL
To:
Salt Lake City Council Chair
Submission Date:
01/22/2025
Date Sent to Council:
01/28/2025
From:
Department *
Community and Neighborhood
Employee Name:
Hulka, Andy
E-mail
Andy.Hulka@slc.gov
Department Director Signature Chief Administrator Officer's Signature
Director Signed Date
01/27/2025
Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date
01/28/2025
Subject:
Informational Briefing - Proposed zoning text amendment to consolidate and simplify the R-1 Single-Family Residential districts
Additional Staff Contact: Presenters/Staff Table
Document Type
Information Item
Budget Impact?
Yes
No
Recommendation:
No specific action is required; however, the Council may want to discuss initiating a legislative intent if the desire is to move forward with the
modifications identified.
Background/Discussion
See first attachment for Background/Discussion
Will there need to be a public hearing for this item? *
Yes
No
Public Process
This page has intentionally been left blank
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Received:
Date Sent to City Council:
TO:Salt Lake City Council DATE: January 22, 2025
Chris Wharton, Chair
FROM: Nick Norris, Planning Director
CC:Jill Love, Chief Administrative Officer; Tammy Hunsaker, Department of Community and
Neighborhoods Director; Michaela Oktay, Deputy Planning Director
SUBJECT: Briefing on a proposed zoning text amendment to consolidate and simplify the R-1
Single-Family Residential districts, including updates to the residential flag lot
standards and the addition of new housing options.
STAFF CONTACT: Andy Hulka, 801-535-6608, andy.hulka@slc.gov
ACTION REQUESTED: No specific action is required; however, the Council may want to discuss
initiating a legislative intent if the desire is to move forward with the
modifications identified.
DOCUMENT TYPE: Communication to the City Council
BACKGROUND:
On September 5, 2023, the Salt Lake City Council adopted a legislative intent requesting that the
Planning Division study options for a zoning text amendment that would make changes to all R-1
single-family residential zoning districts. On August 27, 2024, the Council received a briefing about
Potential Approaches to Simplifying and Improving R-1 Districts. After reviewing and discussing the
study, the Council directed the Planning Division to provide a recommendation regarding R-1 zoning
reform. This memo presents the Planning Division’s recommendation for revising and merging single-
family residential districts.
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 WWW.SLC.GOV
PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 TEL 801-535-7757 FAX 801-535-6174
Communication to the City Council
Department of Community and Neighborhoods
Office of the Director
2
ACTION REQUESTED:
No specific action is required; however, the Council may want to discuss initiating a legislative intent if
the desire is to move forward with the modifications identified.
KEY TAKEAWAYS OF PROPOSAL:
The recommendation for revising and merging single-family residential districts includes three main
components:
1. R-1 Amendments
2. Reducing Flag Lot Restrictions
3. Expanding Housing Options
The Planning Division is requesting feedback on the following portions of the amendment, listed in
detail on pages 9 and 10 of this memo:
•Building Forms & Unit Densities
•Incentives for Preservation of a Principal Building
•Affordable Housing Incentives
3
1. R-1 Amendments
Consolidating Into One Section
With more than 60 zoning and overlay districts, the Salt Lake City zoning ordinance is notoriously
complex and difficult to navigate. This project would build on the City’s recent efforts to simplify the
zoning code by consolidating the existing R-1 districts (R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, and R-1/5,000) from
three sections into a single section. The regulations between the three zones are fairly similar in terms
of some setbacks, building height, and wall height. Putting the zones into one chapter would remove
duplication, reducing the length of the code. The standards and regulations of the three districts are
largely proposed to remain the same, except as identified below. However, the layout of the regulations
and standards will be added to a table that is easier to read and understand.
Recommendation: Consolidate the three single-family zoning text sections into one section.
Front Setback Averaging
Currently front yards must be “equal to the average of the front yards of existing buildings within the
block face.” Averaging can be a useful method to help achieve a more uniform appearance along a block
face, but the standards can be difficult to explain to residents and costly to implement. For example, to
determine the average front yard setback for a block, a resident would need to gain permission from
each neighbor to access their property and measure from the house to the property line. However, the
exact location of the front property lines is not easily identifiable except through an official property
survey and requiring a survey of each property on the block face is not feasible. Utilizing aerial
photographs poses its own set of challenges such as distortion, front building walls not being
identifiable (due to eaves, vegetation, etc.), amongst other issues.
To make the code easier to understand and implement, staff recommends the removal of block face
averaging for front yards. The proposal would instead allow new homes to provide a 20-foot front yard
setback or match one of their next door neighbors’ front yard setbacks, whichever is less.
Recommendation: Eliminate the front yard averaging option and establish a minimum front yard
setback of 20’ or equal to one of the abutting front yard setbacks on the block face.
Building Height Averaging
The current R-1 zoning allows a maximum building height of 28’ for pitched roofs or “the average
height of other principal buildings on the block face.” While this standard would potentially allow new
construction to achieve a taller structure, the process of measuring the height of each building on a
block face makes this standard similarly difficult to implement. Removing the building height
averaging standard would allow the ordinance to continue to be simplified.
Recommendation: Eliminate the building height averaging option.
Increasing Building Height and Eliminating Wall Height
Another standard that staff recommends updating with this amendment is maximum building height.
Salt Lake City’s existing standards allow up to 28 feet for a pitched roof building and 20 feet for a flat
roof building. Neighboring municipalities (North Salt Lake, Millcreek, South Salt Lake, and West Valley
City) each allow higher buildings in their residential zones, with maximums ranging from 30 to 35 feet.
The elimination of the maximum wall height standard will allow a building’s wall height to be up to the
maximum building height of the district. The wall height standard is one of the most confusing
standards found in the City’s residential code and is difficult to explain to residents. Removing this
4
would help further the City’s goal of simplifying the code and making it easier for residents to
understand.
Recommendation: Establish a maximum building height of 30’ for pitched roof structures and 24’ for
a flat roof, both measured to the highest point of the roof. Eliminate the maximum wall height.
The table below is an example of how the zoning standards table could be used to
consolidate the three residential districts into one section. Please note that this table
includes the proposed changes to the R-1 districts such as building heights and
setbacks:
R-1/12,000 R-1/7,000 R-1/5,000
Building height -
Pitched roof 30 feet
Building height -
Flat roof 24 feet
Front yard 20 feet or equal to one abutting front yard
Corner side yard 20 feet 10 feet
Interior side - corner
lot 6 feet
Interior side yard 1 6 feet
Interior side yard 2 10 feet
Rear yard 25 feet 20 feet
Building coverage 35%40%
Maximum lot size 18,000
square feet
10,500
square feet
7,500
square feet
2. Reducing Flag Lot Restrictions:
Named for their flagpole shape, flag lots are lots without street frontage, located behind an existing lot
and connected to the street by an access strip. The current code includes extra standards that can make
it more difficult to use flag lots to develop new housing. This project proposes to amend the flag lot
standards to simplify the process and remove barriers that currently prevent this option from being
used more frequently.
Permitted Use & Reduced Lot Size
Two significant changes are proposed for flag lots in residential districts. First, flag lots would be
changed from a conditional use to a permitted use, which means they would no longer require Planning
Commission approval. Second, the minimum lot size for flag lots would be equal to the minimum lot
size of the underlying zone, rather than the current requirement to be 1.5 times the minimum lot area.
The proposed changes are intended to streamline the flag lot approval process and make it easier to
build homes behind existing homes.
Recommendation: Change flag lots from conditional to permitted use and reduce the minimum size
required to create a flag lot.
5
3. Expanding Housing Options:
This text amendment also proposes creating a new land use category called “small lot dwelling,” which
would allow new housing types subject to specific lot and bulk standards. This option is intended to
allow the development of new housing units that are smaller in size than what might otherwise be built,
making them comparatively more affordable. Under this proposal, a property owner who is interested
in building on their land could choose to build a larger home according to the regular R-1 district
standards or they could choose to build smaller homes based on the small lot dwelling standards.
Regulating Lot & Building Size
While real estate prices are determined by a variety of factors, two that can be directly regulated by
zoning regulations are lot size and building size. Reducing the minimum lot size requirements and
imposing maximum floor area standards is intended to allow new construction that is less expensive
than a single-family home on a typical lot. While homes like this tend to have higher costs per square
foot, the overall cost of the home is less because the total size of the home is smaller.
The concept of “small lot development” has been proven as an effective strategy to improve housing
affordability by Durham, North Carolina’s 2019 Expanding Housing Choices amendment. In a 2023
report, Durham found that the median sales price of a single-family house was $605,000, while the
median sales price of a 1,200 square foot “small house” built through the Expanding Housing Choices
program was $348,000.
Staff proposes to implement Expanding Housing Options not only in the City’s single-family zoning
districts, but also within the R-2 and SR districts. These zoning districts are similar to the R-1 districts
in character and development pattern and options. This would help further expand housing options
throughout similar zoning districts.
Salt Lake City’s Expanding Housing Options will implement maximum building footprint and
maximum gross floor area standards similar to Durham’s Expanding Housing Choices amendment.
The minimum lot size would be reduced to 2,000 square feet and the maximum footprint set at 800
square feet, regardless of unit type. These requirements were drafted based on Durham’s successful
amendment, with standards similar to what is allowed in other Salt Lake City zoning districts. The
proposal would also allow additional space for accessory structures such as garages.
Recommendation: create a “small lot dwelling” land use with specific regulations for lot size,
setbacks, and building size that are feasible for creating small, detached homes. This may also include
the ability to subdivide existing ADUs, whether attached or detached.
Legalizing Additional Building Forms
Changes also include new building forms allowed via the Expanding Housing Options. This would
include duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and townhomes. Unit counts are proposed to be capped at four
units per lot. To obtain four units on a lot, one would need to have a minimum of 8,000 square feet.
The units, if maxed out in size, would cover no more than 3,200 square feet (800 square foot footprint
x 4 units). Design standards and setbacks for the new building types will be aligned with the
requirements of the RMF-30 District. These new building types would become legal in the R-1, R-2,
and SR zoning districts by utilizing the small lot dwelling option. Additional questions about how these
standards should be applied are included below under “Input Needed from Council.”
Recommendation: Allow new dwelling types with up to four dwellings in the R-1, R-2, and SR zoning
districts and develop specific regulations for the different types of housing.
6
It should be noted that the proposal does not eliminate the zoning standards found within the R-1, R-
2 and SR districts. Instead, it offers a path towards more units but at a smaller scale. No unit may be
greater than 800 square feet in footprint while the gross square footage may range from 1,200 square
feet to 1,600 square feet dependent on building height. The intent is to allow more floor area for single-
story buildings with a basement, since those will have less of a visual impact. The table below highlights
the proposed standards and regulations under this option, in addition to the zoning districts that it
would be allowed in:
Expanding Housing Options
Zones All R-1 Districts, R-2,
SR-1/1A, SR-2, SR-3
New Building Forms
Permitted
Two-family dwellings, multi-family
residential, row house, sideways row
house
Lot size 2,000 square feet
Lot width - single
family Not regulated
Lot width - single
family attached & twin
home
Not regulated
Lot width - two-family Not regulated
Front yard 10 feet or equal to abutting
Corner side yard 5 feet
Interior side yard 4-10 feet (depending on unit type)
Rear yard 10 feet or equal to abutting
Building height -
pitched District maximum
Building height - flat District maximum
Coverage 60%
Maximum units
4 units for multi-family, row house,
cottage developments
2 units for two-family or urban house
1 unit for single-family dwelling
Footprint 800 square feet
Gross square footage
1,600 square feet (Maximum height: 17
feet)
1,200 square feet (Maximum height:
district maximum)
7
2024 Private R-1 Amendment Application
On December 16, 2024, a private petition to amend the zoning text was submitted by a SLC Neighbors
4 More Neighbors, called “Starter Homes SLC.” This amendment is similar in many ways to Planning
staff’s proposal, but with several key differences summarized below.
Impacted Zoning Districts
One key difference between the proposals is which zoning districts are impacted. The private petition
would not apply to properties in the R-1/12,000 or R-2 zoning districts. This could be seen as an equity
concern if significant zoning changes are adopted for most single-family zones, but not all.
Permitted Building Forms
While both proposals would allow duplex and townhome building forms as a permitted use, Planning
staff’s proposal also includes small multi-family residential (triplex and fourplex) as a permitted use.
Whether these uses are appropriate for existing R-1 neighborhoods is an important policy question that
needs Council input. Questions about density, building forms, and owner occupancy are provided
below for feedback.
Building Heights
Another significant difference between the proposals is the maximum building heights allowed.
Notably, the private petition would increase the maximum height from 20 feet to 30 feet for buildings
with flat roofs, and from 28 feet to 32 feet for buildings with pitched roofs. These height maximums
would potentially allow three-story buildings. Staff is concerned that increasing building heights could
make new construction less affordable and may lead to projects that are not compatible with the
neighborhood.
Other Differences
Standards for setbacks and other lot requirements also differ between the proposals. The private
petition’s lack of regulation on footprint and gross square footage is notable. Data supports the fact that
the smaller the house, the more affordable it will be. For example, even at the minimum lot size, a
project built to the maximum height, setbacks, and coverage permitted under the private petition could
be 2,100 square feet (or more with the addition of a basement). As seen with Durham’s Expanding
Housing Choices, limiting gross square footage can reduce the average sales price by nearly 50%
compared to standard single-family homes. If a house is built to the maximum size allowed by the
private petition, the total size of the house could be more than double the maximum size permitted
under staff’s preferred option, which would be less affordable.
The table provided on the following page is intended to facilitate Council discussion by highlighting the
key differences between the two proposals:
8
Starter Homes SLC Expanding Housing Options
Zones R-1/5,000, R-1/7,000,
SR-1A, & SR-3
All R-1 Districts, R-2,
SR-1/1A, SR-2, SR-3
New Building
Forms Permitted
Two-family dwellings, single-
family attached dwellings
Two-family dwellings, multi-
family residential, row house,
sideways row house
Minimum lot size 1,400 square feet per unit
2,000 square feet per unit (all
unit types) via small lot
development
Lot width - Single-
family 20 feet Not regulated
Lot width - Single-
family attached &
twin home
Interior: 20 feet
Corner: 30 feet Not regulated
Lot width - Two-
family
Interior: 30 feet
Corner: 40 feet Not regulated
Front yard 10 feet 10 feet or equal to abutting
Corner side yard No change 5 feet
Interior side yard 3 feet all instances 4-10 feet (depends on unit type)
Rear yard 10 feet 10 feet or equal to abutting
Building height -
Pitched 32 feet District maximum
Building height -
Flat 30 feet District maximum
Maximum building
coverage 70%60%
Maximum units 5 units in R-1/7,000
4 units in R-1/5,000
4 units for multi-family, row
house, cottage developments
2 units for two-family or urban
house
1 unit for single-family dwelling
Maximum primary
building footprint Not regulated 800 square feet
Maximum gross
square footage Not regulated
1,600 square feet (Maximum
height: 17ft)
1,200 square feet (Maximum
height: district maximum)
9
2025 Utah Legislature
The Utah Legislature is considering several housing related bills that could impact the City’s residential
zoning districts. One bill, HB 90, would require cities to allow a detached single family dwelling on a
lot of at least 4,000 square feet in any residential zone. If that passes as drafted, it essentially will modify
the minimum lot sizes in most of the residential zones for detached single family dwellings. It is possible
that other bills may also impact this proposal. Typically, bills passed by the legislature go into effect in
early May, based on the end date of the legislative session, which will be sooner than either of these
proposals could be adopted. To ensure that City code is consistent with any bills adopted by the Utah
Legislature, the proposal will not be finalized until after the 2025 legislative session.
INPUT NEEDED FROM COUNCIL:
In addition to the above discussion items, staff requests that the Council provide direction on the
following items:
1. Building Forms & Density
As mentioned above, the decision to allow new building forms in R-1 neighborhoods is perhaps the
most significant change proposed by this project. Cities and states across the country are implementing
different strategies to help provide “missing middle housing” in their communities. For example, the
State of Montana is attempting to allow duplexes on any lot in a city with 5,000 residents or more; the
Minneapolis 2040 Plan proposed a rezoning initiative to allow triplexes; and Spokane City approved
an ordinance to allowing up to six units on all residential lots (later amended to four units).
•Staff seeks input from the Council on which building forms are appropriate to allow in R-1
neighborhoods (duplex, triplex, fourplex, or townhome) and how many units are appropriate
per residential lot.
2. Preservation of a Principal Building
Salt Lake City’s Affordable Housing Incentives and RMF-30 district standards both include incentives
that encourage the preservation of existing buildings. Staff recommends including a density bonus
provision similar to the RMF-30 district with this project, allowing one bonus unit for developments
that retain an existing single or two-family structure.
•Staff seeks input from the Council on whether to include a unit density bonus for developments
that retain an existing structure.
3. Affordable Housing Incentives
A concern that staff has had throughout this process has been making sure that the Affordable Housing
Incentives remain a viable option for development in the residential zones. If four units are allowed
under both the Affordable Housing Incentives and the small lot dwelling option, then property owners
may be less likely to use the incentives. The key difference between the Affordable Housing Incentives
and staff’s proposal is the inclusion of maximum footprint and gross square footage regulations in the
small lot dwelling proposal and the requirement for some of the units to remain affordable for a specific
period of time in the Affordable Housing Incentives. This means that a property owner who wishes to
develop new units that are not deed-restricted would have to build smaller units, while those wishing
to build larger units would be required to use the incentives process.
Furthermore, the Affordable Housing Incentives will still be an option in all districts, while the small
lot dwelling option would only be possible in the R-1, R-2, and SR districts. Staff could also create an
10
option for an additional density bonus for projects that provide both deed-restricted and reduced-size
units, if supported by Council. For example, Portland, Oregon, allows up to four dwellings on a
property, with two additional dwellings allowed if the two dwellings meet affordability requirements.
•Staff seeks input from the Council on whether an additional unit bonus is appropriate for
projects that meet the size limitations of the Expanding Housing Options proposal and also
provide deed-restricted affordable housing.
NEXT STEPS:
As previously discussed, the City has received a private petition for a text amendment, Starter Homes
SLC, which is similar in many ways to Planning staff’s proposal. Staff will continue to coordinate with
the applicant as needed to hold the private petition while the City-initiated proposal moves forward.
The proposed text amendment from the Planning Division will include a dedicated public involvement
period. During this time, staff will actively engage with residents and stakeholders to discuss their
concerns, suggestions, and ideas. By fostering open dialogue and encouraging feedback, the proposal
can be refined to better reflect what is in the best interest of the City and its residents. The petition will
follow the zoning text amendment process, which includes public noticing, open houses, community
council meetings, Planning Commission recommendation, and the City Council approval process.
This page has intentionally been left blank
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Allison Rowland
Budget & Policy Analyst
DATE:February 11, 2025
RE: INFORMATIONAL: UPCOMING LIBERTY PARK CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
AND VISION PLAN
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Council will receive a briefing on the Liberty Park planning process, which is currently getting underway.
This is the Council’s opportunity to review the goals, activities, timeline, and potential funding options for this
project at an early stage in the process. The Department of Public Lands will oversee the preparation of a
Cultural Landscape Report (CLR) and a Vision Plan, both which will be informed with extensive public and
stakeholder engagement. The documents are scheduled to be completed in Fall 2026.
Goal of the briefing: Receive an update on the Administration’s early planning processes for new capital
investments in Liberty Park.
ADDITIONAL AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. Planning Process. Improvements to Liberty Park were identified as a goal in the 2022 Public Lands
Master Plan, Reimagine Nature, which the Council adopted in 2022. Funding for the planning process
was allocated in the Fiscal Year 2022 CIP budget, at $354,167. The Department has selected a
consultant, Mundus Bishop Design, Inc., to lead the process, producing the plan and several additional
reports. These include:
1.Cultural Landscape Report. This report will analyze and document the historical
significance, features, and current condition of Liberty Park’s landscape, as well as
changes that have been made to it over the years.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: February 11, 2025
Public Hearing: n/a
Potential Action: n/a
Page | 2
2.Public Engagement Process. This process is designed to inform community members
of the project and include their input via neighborhood events, surveys, intercept events,
and advisory committees.
3.Vision Plan. The Vision Plan will draw from community input during the engagement
process and combine it with an existing-conditions analysis to produce a 10-year plan
which aligns with the City’s goals and preserves historically significant aspects of the
park. The plan will outline goals, guiding principles, and implementation strategies,
including meeting accessibility and sustainability standards. It will also identify potential
funding sources and create 10-year planning-level cost estimates for implementation.
Additional items include a Tree Succession Strategy, along with an Operations,
Maintenance and Programming Plan for the care and upkeep of the park.
A.Timeline. The chart below summarizes the key events and planned timeline for this project.
Project Task Engagement Timeframe
Phase 1. Cultural Landscape Report and Informational Community Outreach Campaign
Project Website March 2025 (launch)
Advisory Committees January & March 2025
Online Survey #1 March 2025
Community Neighborhood Event #1 March 2025
Intercept Event(s)Spring or Summer 2025
Phase 2. Vision Plan
Advisory Committee Meetings February, June, & September, 2026
Online Survey #2 February 2026
Community Neighborhood Event #2 February 2026
Intercept Event(s)Spring or Summer 2026
Community Neighborhood Event
#3: Final Open House
September 2026
Community Engagement Summary September 2026
B.Existing Projects and Funding for Liberty Park. In addition to undertaking the planning process, the
Department of Public Lands is working on several capital improvement projects at the park.
1.Greenhouse. (FY25 CIP: $1,000,000.) This project aims to inform the choice between
preservation, restoration, or reconstruction of the greenhouse. It is being carried out in
partnership with the Engineering Division, the Facilities Division, Public Services
Department, and the University of Utah.
2.Rotary Play Park. (2022 GO Bond: $2,000,000.) Final designs were developed and
refined, based on public and stakeholder input in 2023 and 2024. They are now under
Page | 3
review for building and other permits, and the project will be bid out for construction in
2025 and 2026. DPL also is preparing a public information campaign that will explain the
closures and suggest alternative playground locations during construction.
3.Seven Canyons Fountain. (FY20 CIP: $838,000) This foundation was
decommissioned in 2018 and will be adapted into a dry art feature, adding safety
improvements, stormwater infrastructure, and landscaping. The Department is
collaborating with a local landscape architecture firm and the Arts Council to include one
of the artists who created the original in the redesign. The design also will draw from the
2022 public engagement process. A temporary art installation for the “Wake the Great
Salt Lake” campaign, organized by the Arts Council, will take place at this location in fall,
2025. This may affect construction timelines, but improvements are anticipated to begin
earlier in 2025.
4.Liberty Park Tennis Center Court Resurfacing. DPL will resurface the Tennis
Center’s 16 courts in 2025. (See section D below for additional information on the City’s
relationship with several non-City organizations that operate at the park.)
C. Existing Partners at Liberty Park. Several non-City organizations operate at Liberty Park through
multi-year contracts to provide a variety of services to the public. These include the Tracy Aviary, the Liberty
Hills Tennis Center, the Chase Home Museum of Utah Folk Arts, and a concessions operator. Typically,
these organizations are required to pay their own operating and regular maintenance expenses, with any
facilities that belong to the City (like trees, and the tennis courts) managed and improved jointly between
the two parties. The Tennis Center’s contract is currently in the renewal process, ahead of its March 7
expiration date. The lease for the Museum of Utah Folk Arts, which is operated by the State, may be
extended until other suitable locations for offices and the museum are completed.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. Are there specific aspects of Liberty Park that the Council wishes to discuss with the Department at this
point in the planning process, such as uniquely important policy goals or capital projects that the Council
would like to see prioritized?
2. Would the Council like to discuss potential funding strategies for future Liberty Park improvements with the
Administration?
Cultural Landscape Report and Vision Plan Liberty Park
SLC City Council Briefing: February 11, 2025
Agenda
•Liberty Park Team
•CLR / Vision Plan Purpose
•Schedule and Planning Process
Cultural Landscape Report
Documents:
•Historic development
•Condition
•Integrity
Establishes:
•Treatment philosophy
•Guidance for long-term care, stewardship, and upcoming projects
Vision Plan
10-year plan for preservation, use, accessibility, and sustainability with implementation guidance
Documents guide the preservation
and use of Liberty Park
“Liberty Park is Salt Lake City’s most visited park, and over one-third of visitors describe the trees as their paramount reason for visiting.”
2023 Salt Lake City Urban Forest Action Plan
2024 2025 2026
Fall Winter Spring Summer Fall Winter Spring Summer
Discovery: History, Condition Recs 95%75%35%
Vision Draft and Final Alts Preferred Vision
City
Council
HLC
TAC
Community
CAC
HLC
TAC
Community
CAC
TAC
CAC
HLC
Cultural Landscape Report
Vision Plan
TAC
Community
City
Council
TAC
Members
•ADA
•Arts Council
•City Council District 5
•Events
•HEART
•Mayor Liaisons
•Park Maintenance and Operations
•Park Rangers
•Police
•Transportation
•Urban Forestry
Roundtables, Site Walks, Worksessions, and Interviews at key milestones:
•Introduce project, needs, opps, challenges – Fall 2024
•Share CLR Findings and Discuss Treatment – Spring 2025
•Draft Vision Plan Alts – Spring 2025
•Draft Vision Plan – Summer 2025
•Final Vision Plan – Fall 2025
Technical Advisory Committee
Members
•Beehive Sport & Social Club
•Central City CC
•East Liberty Park CC
•Concessionaire at Liberty Park
•Community Members
•Historic Landmarks Commission
•Liberty Well CC
•Preservation Utah
•Salt Lake County
•SHPO
•Tracy Aviary
•Utah Division of Arts & Museums
•Utah Film Center
•Youth City
Roundtables, Site Walks, Worksessions, and Interviews at key milestones:
•CLR intro, project overview, and vision/values – Spring 2025
•Draft Vision Plan Alts – Winter 2026
•Vision Plan – Spring 2026
Community Advisory Committee
Community Engagement
Target Audiences
•Local Residents (including hard-to-reach populations)
•Community Organizations and Councils
•Sports, Youth, and Arts Programs
•Business Owners
•Cultural and Preservation Groups
•Environmental and Outdoor Enthusiasts
•Visitors
Q&A
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Allison Rowland
Budget & Policy Analyst
DATE:February 11, 2025
RE: INFORMATIONAL: PROPOSED GOLF FEE INCREASES
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Council will be briefed on an Administration proposal to increase certain fees charged by the Golf Division,
which runs Salt Lake City’s six public golf courses: Bonneville, Forest Dale, Glendale, Mountain Dell, Nibley
Park, and Rose Park. These changes are expected to provide nearly $553,000 in new revenue to the Golf Fund if
implemented by the beginning of the 2025 golf season. As the Golf Division continues to take on critical deferred
capital maintenance projects, it prefers to fund these through user fees rather than increases in its general fund
subsidies.
Goal of the briefing: Review and consider the proposal to raise certain golf fees on the City’s public courses.
ADDITIONAL AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A.Background. In 2014 and 2015, the Council undertook a thorough review of the Salt Lake City’s golf
system, with the intention of stabilizing the Golf Fund’s increasingly precarious financial situation. Among a
number of other important changes, the Council adopted the Golf Course Fee Ordinance (City Code
15.16.031) , in 2017, with the goal of facilitating the Golf Division’s ability to adjust prices charged to
customers to reflect demand. This change also allowed the Golf Division to implement any price changes at
the beginning of the golf season, rather than midway through it.
Since then, while many fees remain unchanged each year, the Golf Division has been able to analyze actual
play patterns at each of the six courses and use this information to manage demand at each, since this tends
to vary greatly according to the day of the week, time of day, and weather. Any changes are communicated to
players immediately on the Division’s website (slcgolf.com) and the electronic fee board in each golf shop.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: February 11, 2025
Public Hearing: n/a
Potential Action: n/a
Page | 2
The changes also are reflected in the Golf Enterprise Fund’s annual budget proposal and ultimately are
adopted by the Council as part of the Consolidated Fee Schedule.
➢Policy Question: Changes to the Consolidated Fee Schedule typically require the Council
to hold a specific public hearing on the issue, and a vote on the proposed changes.
Would the Council like to discuss with the Administration the advantages and
disadvantages of the current process used to change golf fees?
B.The Golf Fee List. Proposed changes to the Division’s fee schedule are complex in part because, as noted
above, fees charged differ among the six courses as a reflection of shifting demand, which itself varies
according to the day of the week, time of day, and weather. The proposed fee changes appears on pages 4
and 5 of the transmittal. Additional information on aspects of these fees appears below.
1.Regular Play. The charge for regular (“Public”) play at each course depends on whether
a player qualifies for reduced prices as a Senior (>60 years old), a Young Adult (18-25
years old), or a Junior (6-17 years old). Frequent players may opt to participate in either
the City Club/Senior City Club, which provides a punch card at a set price, or the Season
Pass program, which offers unlimited play for a set price (prices for the Season Pass are
proposed to increase for 2025). There are also Twilight and Sundowner Rates available at
Mountain Dell and Bonneville, for which cart rental charges are waived. The total fee
charged is also reduced for these times at Bonneville.
2.Equipment Rental Fees. Rental equipment is available for players at all courses. Golf
club rentals, which are offered at different price points, would rise slightly at all courses,
as would golf cart rental, which is charged on a per-rider basis. Pull carts are also
available and their prices would not change. The private cart trail fee would also increase
slightly at all courses. Prices for buckets of balls used at course driving ranges would
increase, as well.
3.Tournament Fees. Fees charged for tournaments are not proposed to change in 2025.
The Golf Division notes that per-player charges are at the discretion of the head
professional.
➢Policy Question: Would the Council like to discuss with the Administration how
the head pro evaluates per-player charges for tournaments?
4.High School and College Team Play. The Golf Division clarified several questions
related to the fee list’s section on prices for high school and university students (see pages
4 and 5 of the transmittal). First, despite listing these team rates separately there is no
discount for any team to play on City courses, so the fee charged is the same as it would
be for any individual junior or young adult player. However, a large bucket of balls for
practicing on ranges is made available to teams at a reduced rate ($8 according to the
proposed 2025 fees, rather than $12).
High school teams generally pay at the time of service, and university teams—the
University of Utah and Westminster—are billed through a detailed invoice at the end of
their season. Both public and private high school teams use City courses for practice and
competitive play (East, West, Highland, Skyline, Olympus, Judge Memorial, Rowland
Hall).
Page | 3
All City course are used for team practices and matches, which are typically scheduled on
Monday or Tuesday afternoons and last about 2.5 hours for a 9-hole match. A team
representative coordinates with staff at each course to schedule times and dates for
competitive matches. For smaller matches or other team use of courses, individual tee
times are booked and placed within the regular course play tee times. For larger matches
or regional events, the course blocks off the space needed and those times are not
available for regular public play.
Driving ranges and free practice areas are not closed off to the public during team
practice. Practice times are coordinated with course staff in advance as needed. Team
members use these areas alongside other players, based on space available.
➢Policy Question: Would the Council like to discuss with the Administration any
aspects of team play at golf courses?
C.Employee Discounts. The Golf Division offers significant standardized rate reductions for its employees,
as well as for certain “industry” workers (on the latter, see section C2, below).
1. Different reduced rates are offered for “eligible” versus “non-eligible” employees, and café workers,
who are charge the same as “non-eligible” employees (see page 5 of the transmittal).
➢Policy Question: Would the Council like to request additional information on
employee discounts? For example,
o Are these rates offered for reserved times through the central reservation
system, or only when opportunities for play arise unexpectedly on a given
day?
o Are there any policies specific to discounted play for employees, like
interrupting discounted play if needed, or ceding course space to players
who are not employees?
o How frequent is play which qualifies for Employee Discounts, and how
much revenue is foregone from these discounts yearly?
2.Industry Discounts. The Golf Division reports the following information related to its
2023 Complimentary Golf Policy, which is designed to align with common industry
practice for golf course operators:
Members of Golf-Related Professional Organizations – Any visiting
members or staff of the American Society of Golf Course Architects; the Golf
Course Superintendents Association of America; the Intermountain Golf Course
Superintendents Association; the Utah Golf Association (staff); the Ladies
Professional Golf Association; and the Professional Golf Association possessing
current, valid membership cards, plus other golf industry officials approved in
advance by the Golf Director or designee.
➢Policy Question: Would the Council like to request additional information on the
frequency of Industry Discounts and the amount of foregone revenue generated
yearly?
Page | 4
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment C1. Golf Rounds Played (9-Hole Equivalents)
Attachment C2. Calendar Year Starts 2012 to 2024
Page | 5
-
25,000
50,000
75,000
100,000
125,000
150,000
FY
2
0
0
1
20
0
2
20
0
3
20
0
4
20
0
5
20
0
6
20
0
7
20
0
8
20
0
9
20
1
0
20
1
1
20
1
2
20
1
3
20
1
4
20
1
5
20
1
6
20
1
7
20
1
8
20
1
9
20
2
0
20
2
1
20
2
2
20
2
3
FY
2
0
2
4
Bonneville Forest Dale
Glendale Mountain Dell
Nibley Park Rose Park
Attachment C1. Golf Rounds Played (9-Hole Equivalents)
Page | 6
-
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Bonneville
Forest Dale
Glendale
Mountain Dell
Attachment C2. Calendar Year Starts 2012 to 2024
Calendar Year Starts 2018-2024
Calendar Year 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Total Starts 267,887 251,690 304,916 327,476 312,607 329,916 371,599
Playable Days 264 226 247 251 208 231 249
Avg. Utilization 58%64%86%90%105%100%109%
Total Revenue $7,114,123 $6,775,868 $8,232,219 $9,944,835 $10,039,691 $11,229,373 $12,332,070
Revenue/Start $26.56 $26.92 $27.00 $30.37 $32.12 $34.04 $33.19
Glendale Golf Course 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
COMP OTHER 545 450 564 468 461 579 289 311
DISCOUNTS 3,367 2,658 3,116 2,534 4,723 4,317 4,297 4,172
EMPLOYEE COMP GOLF 1,158 1,225 1,277 865 1,487 1,282 1,458 1,726
GOLF PASSES 4,805 5,357 4,808 3,587 4,916 5,497 4,961 5,044
LOYALTY PROGRAMS 10,409 9,350 6,839 6,068 7,123 6,017 4,292 5,510
POS TRADE (EZ LINKS)472 893 1,268 127 0 0 0 0
RACK RATE 27,550 30,899 30,475 42,256 44,109 42,274 42,025 50,666
UGA TOURNAMENTS 0 58 0 0 0 0 172 0
Glendale Golf Course Total 48,306 50,890 48,347 55,905 62,819 59,966 57,494 67,429
Tee Time Intervals 8 8 8 10 9 9 9 9
Playable Days 253 264 226 247 251 208 231 249
Yearly Playable Starts 65,514 69,612 60,151 52,700 57,313 44,147 49,661 51,041
Utilization %74% 73% 80% 106% 110% 136% 116% 132%
Total Course Revenue $1,152,075 $1,206,583 $1,143,997 $1,369,078 $1,738,047 $1,712,242 $1,913,737 $2,131,090
Revenue Per Start $23.85 $23.71 $23.66 $24.49 $27.67 $28.55 $33.29 $31.60
Rack Rate 9-Hole WE Fee $16.00 $16.00 $16.00 $17.00 $17.00 $18.00 $18.00 $19.00
2024 Green Fee Increases
Fee Types Bonneville Forest Dale Glendale Mountain Dell Nibley Park Rose Park
9 Holes 18 Holes 9 Holes 9 Holes 18 Holes 9 Holes 18 Holes 9 Holes 9 Holes 18 Holes
Public $22 $44 $18 $19 $38 $25 $44 $17 $17 $34
Senior $19 $38 $16 $16 $32 $22 $38 $15 $15 $30
Young Adult $17 $34 $15 $15 $30 $20 $34 $13 $13 $26
Junior $11 $22 $10 $10 $20 $15 $22 $9 $9 $18
City Club $18 $36 $14 $15 $30 $21 $36 $13 $13 $26
Senior City Club $15 $30 $12 $12 $24 $18 $30 $11 $11 $22
Cart - Per Rider $10 $20 $9 $10 $20 $10 $20 $9 $9 $18
Price Increase
Price Decrease
Annual Membership Program - Year from date of purchase
City Club $100
Season Pass Program - March 15 through November 15
City Pass $1,700
Senior City Pass $1,300
Junior City Pass $400
THANK YOU
Matt Kammeyer, Golf Division Director
Community and Neighborhoods Department
Housing Stability Division
DRAFT
2025 - 2029
Consolidated Plan
Goals & Strategies
February 11, 2025
Draft Goals & Strategies
Housing
Priorities
Homeless
Services Transportation
Business and
Workforce
Development
Consolidated Plan 2025 -2029
Environmental
Remediation
Community
Services
1.HOUSING
Goal –Protect tenants and increase housing stability, preserve existing affordable housing, and produce more
affordable housing.
Strategies:
1.Enhance tenant resources and services to prevent displacement.
2.Expand HUD’s Tenant-Based Rental Assistance programs to help seniors age in place.
3.Invest in home rehabilitation, emergency repair, and seismic retrofit programs to improve existing housing stock.
4.Acquire and rehabilitate naturally occurring affordable housing
5.Establish and support community land trusts to ensure long-term affordability.
6.Provide incentives for the development of mixed-income, family-oriented, and accessible housing, with a focus
on not concentrating deeply affordable housing in Westside neighborhoods.
7.Mixed-income housing developments.
8.Promote affordable homeownership and wealth-building opportunities for low-income families.
Consolidated Plan 2025 -2029
2. HOMELESS SERVICES
Goal –Expand and enhance services and resources that prevent homelessness, increase access to and availability of
support services and case management for people experiencing and at risk of homelessness, and prioritize resources
and services for individuals experiencing unsheltered homelessness.
Strategies:
1.Increase rent assistance programs to stabilize housing.
2.Develop a Relocation Assistance Fund for tenants facing displacement.
3.Implement and enforce a Displaced Tenant Preference Policy.
4.Fund legal aid programs for eviction prevention and criminal record expungement.
5.Invest in wraparound services beyond shelters, including medical and dental care.
6.Create a centralized database to facilitate collaboration among service providers and expedite housing placements.
7.Expand mobile homeless resources, such as health services and outreach programs.
8.Support the development of non-congregate housing options, managed camping areas, and accessible storage
facilities.
Consolidated Plan 2025 -2029
3. TRANSPORTATION
Goal –Make transit and active transportation competitive and attractive modes of travel, support investments that will
move toward a goal of zero traffic deaths and heal the east/west transportation divide.
Strategies:
1.Expand transit accessibility through programs like HivePass.
2.Fund sidewalk improvement programs and expand ADA-compliant curb cuts across neighborhoods.
3.Implement safety measures around schools, parks, and employment centers to enhance pedestrian and cyclist
safety.
4.Improve roadway safety and transit connectivity by increasing bus stop shelters, route frequency, and destination
options.
Consolidated Plan 2025 -2029
4. COMMUNITY SERVICES
Goal –Improve access and opportunity to relevant and dignified food choices, increase access to high-quality and
affordable childcare and out-of-school care, and improve access to technology literacy.
Strategies:
1.Support programs that offer affordable and relevant food choices to underserved populations.
2.Provide resources to help parents access affordable and reliable childcare, including childcare programs focused on
early childhood development. Increase affordability and service capacity for children of all ages and stages of
development.
3.Provide resources to help parents access affordable and reliable childcare.
4.Develop and expand technology centers to enhance digital literacy.
5.Implement broadband initiatives and increase free WiFi availability in public spaces.
Consolidated Plan 2025 -2029
5. BUSINESS AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
Goal –Job training and support services, small business support, and small local business façade improvements.
Strategies:
1.Prioritize job training programs, especially in trades, with apprenticeships and internships.
2.Offer wraparound services such as childcare, English language learner (ELL) education, and career counseling to
support job seekers.
3.Focus on training programs for youth and individuals experiencing homelessness, with incentives for businesses to
hire trained individuals.
4.Expand small business support through grant programs, low-interest gap loans, and simplified application
processes, particularly targeting underserved communities.
5.Subsidize lease programs for neighborhood-level small businesses and nonprofits.
6.Broaden the scope of the façade improvement program to assist more businesses in beautification efforts and ADA
compliance.
Consolidated Plan 2025 -2029
6. ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION
Goal –Conduct environmental contamination testing and remediation.
Strategies:
1.Improve remediation efforts on westside properties that were once manufacturing, industrial use, and dumping
sites.
2.Allow funding to fill the gaps left by other funding sources.
Consolidated Plan 2025 -2029
NEXT STEPS
•Public Comment Period (February 13 –March 25)
•Mayor’s Funding Recommendations & Con Plan Public Hearing (March 4)
•First Funding Briefing (March 18)
•Second Funding Briefing (March 25)
•Third Funding Briefing, If Needed (April 1 or 8)
•Council Final Recommendations (April 15)
•HUD Submission Deadline (May 15)
Consolidated Plan 2025 -2029