Transmittal - 4/20/2022ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV
P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
________________________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer
Date Received: 4/19/2022
Date sent to Council: 4/20/2022
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: April 20, 2022
Dan Dugan, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods
__________________________
SUBJECT: R-2 Text Amendment: Building Coverage
(PLNPCM2021-01228)
STAFF CONTACT: Meagan Booth, Principal Planner
meagan.booth@slcgov.com or 801-535-7213
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the changes to the Zoning Ordinance to
allow 45% building coverage for single-family homes in the R-2 zoning district as recommended
by the Planning Commission.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Jim Bradley, owner of the property at 927 East 700 South, has
submitted a petition to amend a section of the Zoning Ordinance related to building coverage
limitations in the R-2 Single and Two-Family zoning district. The subject ordinance currently
limits the building coverage for single-family homes to 40% of the lot and the building coverage
for duplexes to 45% of the lot. The Planning Commission considered the request in a public
hearing and recommended the City Council expand the proposal to allow 45% building coverage
for all single-family properties, not just those located on lots less than the required minimum lot
size.
1
Lisa Shaffer
PUBLIC PROCESS:
Community Council Notice: A notice of application was sent to all recognized community
organizations on February 7, 2022, per City Code Chapter 2.60 with a link to the online open house
webpage. The recognized organizations were given 45 days to respond with any concerns or to
request staff to meet with them and discuss the proposed zoning amendment. The 45-day public
engagement period ended on March 23, 2022. No community councils requested that staff attend
a meeting to review the proposal.
Public Open House: An online open house was held from February 7, 2022, to March 23, 2022.
One written comment was submitted to the Planning Division after the publication of the staff
report. The comment has been included in Exhibit 4.
Planning Commission Meeting: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 23,
2022. The public hearing was posted on the Planning Division website, the Utah Public Notice
website, and shared through the Planning Division email listserv. No entities have requested
mailed notice of this proposal and no mailed notice was provided. Written comments were
provided to the Planning Commission and there was no public comment during the public hearing.
The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting are linked in this document. The Commission
voted unanimously to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council with Planning
Staff’s recommended changes.
Planning Commission (PC) Records
a)PC Agenda of March 23, 2022 (Click to Access)
b)PC Minutes of March 23, 2022 (Click to Access)
c)Planning Commission Staff Report of March 23, 2022 (Click to Access Report)
EXHIBITS:
1) Project Chronology
2) Notice of City Council Public Hearing
3)Original Petition
4) Public Comment Received after Planning Commission Staff Report was Published
2
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. _____ of 2022
(Amending the zoning text of Subsection 21A.24.110.F of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to
building coverage in the R-2 Single- and Two-Family Residential District)
An ordinance amending the text of Section 21A.24.110.F of the Salt Lake City Code
pertaining to building coverage in the R-2 Single- and Two-Family Residential District pursuant
to Petition No. PLNPCM2021-01228.
WHEREAS, on November 30, 2021, Jim Bradley (“Applicant”) submitted an application
to amend the text of the Subsection 21A.24.110.F of the Salt Lake City Code to allow 45%
Building Coverage in the R-2 Single- and Two-Family Residential District pursuant to Petition
No. PLNPCM2021-01228; and
WHEREAS the Applicant sought to have the text modified consistent with Salt Lake City
master plans; and
WHEREAS, on March 23, 2022, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public
hearing regarding the Applicant’s petition; and
WHEREAS, at its March 23, 2022 meeting, the planning commission voted in favor of
forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council on said application; and
WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the city council has determined that
adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Text. That Subsection 21A.24.110.F of the Salt
Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: Single- and Two-Family Residential District:
Maximum Building Coverage), shall be and hereby is amended read as follows:
F. Maximum Building Coverage: The building coverage of all principal and accessory
buildings shall not exceed forty-five percent (45%) of the lot for single-family and two-
4
family uses. For lots with buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the coverage of
existing buildings shall be considered legal conforming.
SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its
first publication.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________,
2022.
______________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________.
Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed.
______________________________
MAYOR
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. ________ of 2022.
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date:__________________________________
By: ___________________________________
Paul Nielson, Senior City Attorney
April 14, 2022
5
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 1
No. _____ of 2022 2
3
(Amending the zoning text of Subsection 21A.24.110.F of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to 4
building coverage in the R-2 Single- and Two-Family Residential District) 5
6
An ordinance amending the text of Section 21A.24.110.F of the Salt Lake City Code 7
pertaining to building coverage in the R-2 Single- and Two-Family Residential District pursuant 8
to Petition No. PLNPCM2021-01228. 9
WHEREAS, on November 30, 2021, Jim Bradley (“Applicant”) submitted an application 10
to amend the text of the Subsection 21A.24.110.F of the Salt Lake City Code to allow 45% 11
Building Coverage in the R-2 Single- and Two-Family Residential District pursuant to Petition 12
No. PLNPCM2021-01228; and 13
WHEREAS the Applicant sought to have the text modified consistent with Salt Lake City 14
master plans; and 15
WHEREAS, on March 23, 2022, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public 16
hearing regarding the Applicant’s petition; and 17
WHEREAS, at its March 23, 2022 meeting, the planning commission voted in favor of 18
forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council on said application; and 19
WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the city council has determined that 20
adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. 21
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 22
SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Text. That Subsection 21A.24.110.F of the Salt 23
Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: Single- and Two-Family Residential District: 24
Maximum Building Coverage), shall be and hereby is amended read as follows: 25
F. Maximum Building Coverage: The surface building coverage of all principal and accessory 26
buildings shall not exceed forty-five percent (45%) of the lot for single-family and two-27
6
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
family dwellings uses. and forty percent (40%) for single-family dwellings. For lots with 28
buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the coverage of existing buildings shall be 29
considered legal conforming. 30
31
SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its 32
first publication. 33
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 34
2022. 35
______________________________ 36
CHAIRPERSON 37
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: 38
39
______________________________ 40
CITY RECORDER 41
42
Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. 43
44
45
Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. 46
47
______________________________ 48
MAYOR 49
______________________________ 50
CITY RECORDER 51
(SEAL) 52
53
Bill No. ________ of 2022. 54
55 56
57
7
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
1)PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
2)NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
3)ORIGINAL APPLICATION PETITION
4)PUBLIC COMMENT
3
1) PROJECTCHRONOLOGY
8
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV
P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
Petition: PLNPCM2021-01228
November 30, 2021 Application Accepted
December 29, 2021 Petition assigned to Meagan Booth, Principal Planner
January 6, 2022 Petition was reviewed internally, and staff provided comments to the applicant.
February 7, 2022 Notice mailed to all Community Councils
February 7, 2022 Application posted for the online open house.
March 10, 2022 Planning Commission agenda posted to the website and emailed to the listserv.
March 17, 2022 Staff report posted to Planning’s website
March 23, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting and Public Hearing: A positive recommendation
was forwarded to City Council with Staff’s recommended changes.
9
2) NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
10
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2021-01228. Jim Bradley, the
property owner at approximately 927 East 700 South, has submitted a petition to amend a
section of the Zoning Ordinance related to building coverage limitations in the R2 Single and
Two-Family Residential District. The subject regulation is found in Section 21A.24.110F. The
Zoning Ordinance currently limits the building coverage for single-family homes to 40% of
the lot and the building coverage for duplexes to 45% of the lot. The proposed amendment
would increase the allowable building coverage to 45% for single-family homes in the R-2
district city-wide. (Staff Contact: Meagan Booth at 801-535-7213)
As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive
comments regarding the petition. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the city
Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider
adopting the ordinance the same night of the public hearing. The hearing will be held:
DATE: TBD
TIME: 7:00 PM
PLACE: *Electronic and In-Person Options
City and County Building
Room 326
451 South State Street,
Salt Lake City, Utah
** This meeting will be held via electronic means, while also providing for an in-person
opportunity to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located
at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, including
WebEx connection information, please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings.
Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or
sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any
source are shared with the Council and added to the public record.
If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call
Meagan Booth at 801-535-7213 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, or via e-mail or meagan.booth@slcgov.com)The application details can be accessed at
https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the “planning” tab and entering the petition number
PLNPCM2021-01228.
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@slcgov.com, (801)535-7600, or relay service 711.
11
3) ORIGINAL APPLICATION PETITION
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
4) PUBLIC COMMENT
20
23 March 2022
Re: PLNPCM2021-01228, Zoning Text Amendment Building Coverage- R-2
Dear Members of the Planning Commission and Staff,
My husband and I own a small, 1890s-era cottage in the Bryant neighborhood on a small R-2 lot but one
that is larger than current minimum standards. Our property would not be affected directly by the
originally proposed text amendment. However, it would be if the staff’s revised amendment for all R-2
properties is given a positive recommendation. Given our deep, narrow lot and side setback issues, if we
ever chose to add to the house it would possibly give us more options.
I do support the narrower text amendment. I support the broader one, with reservations.
Given the deluge of other pressing planning, zoning, and development issues in our neighborhood and
the city at large, this zoning text amendment is relatively minor – though to the applicant and other
property owners in affected districts based on the example case, it is significant.
I do have several concerns that I hope the Commission will discuss and consider addressing in any
motion to approve or modify.
Issue 1- The analysis does not show how many non-conforming structures or non-complying uses there
are in current R-2 zones. There are many existing unit-legalized rentals that appear to be single family
houses on the surface until you count the mailboxes, some businesses, and even a boarding house or
three (an analysis I have had to do on my own since it was not included in the Bueno Avenue
Apartments analysis). Before the PC considers an expanded text amendment, this should be mapped
and evaluated. How many R-2 lots are in the various size categories? Not shown. How many are
currently vacant lots? Boarded buildings? Also not shown.
Issue 2- If this amendment helps current owners rehabilitate existing homes with small additions, that is
a positive outcome. However, if it leads to a bigger wave of teardowns for mini-garage-mahals and other
generally problematic house replacements rather than rehabs, that would be a negative impact.
Hopefully the 5% increase in lot coverage would not provide enough incentive but given the current
market, its hard to say. I note that Salt Lake City has no compatible infill design standards for R-2, not
even in national historic districts.
Issue 3- In the 2021 Session, the Legislature effectively eliminated single-family zoning by making
internal/attached ADUs allowed by right. How does the staff’s recommendation to extend this 45% lot
coverage affect single family structures in R-2, if at all, in the context of this change? Does it make them
more likely to be feasible? Infill/adding units that also preserves existing structures is beneficial in
general from a neighborhood character and sustainability perspective.
Issue 4-The purpose of lot coverage standards should be more than providing some outdoor living
space, it should be for sustainability and green infrastructure purposes. Salt Lake City suffers from an
accelarating heat island effect, an impaired Jordan River watershed and overwhelmed storm sewers,
and poor air quality, among other negative environmental impacts, due to hardened, impervious – and
often dark-colored – building envelope and landscape surfaces.
21
Can this text amendment be accompanied by stronger green infrastructure requirements like runoff
retention and infiltration on site?
I note that the staff’s statement “According to the US Census,the average US house has risen from 1,660
square feet in 1973 to 2,687 square feet today.” should not be cause for support or celebration. US
homes have ballooned in size on average, negatively affecting sustainability, energy consumption, poor
air quality, and fueling the climate emergency. Can this text amendment be accompanied by any
additional conditions of no net energy consumption gain? Other green building practices as a trade-off
for the flexibility and value increase of properties?
I concur with the applicant and staff report that it is far better to allow small, efficient, compatible
additions in our historic and older neighborhoods to keep families and residents here rather than
moving to South Jordan, Draper, Herriman, or the like for much bigger – if not better – houses.
At this point, I would recommend forwarding a positive recommendation the original, more narrow text
amendment or briefly tabling the broader one until staff can do a more detailed analysis of R-2 to better
understand if the claim of “little or no impact” is likely. Simpler is not always better.
Please note that these are my personal comments.
Sincerely,
Jen Colby, D4 Resident
22