Council Provided Information - 3/5/2024COUNCIL STAFF
REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Jennifer Bruno, Deputy Director
DATE: March 5, 2024
RE:Landscaping and Buffers Chapter Text
Amendment
PROJECT TIMELINE:
Briefing 1: Dec 5, 2023
Set Date: Dec 12, 2023
Public Hearing: Jan 9, 2024
Potential Action: TBD
New Information – March 5 Discussion
As of the printing of this staff report, the Administration has not identified a preferable way to handle
enforcement for constituents who may have installed artificial turf based on perceived inconsistent
information about whether it is currently legal or may become legal at some point in the future. Some
options discussed during the Feb 20 Council Work session meeting:
•Grandfather constituents who have installed artificial turf by X date. Community And
Neighborhoods Staff noted that this has caused significant work/confusion in the past as there is
not always a way to guarantee by which date someone had installed the turf. In some cases
competing information from neighbors was provided.
•Establish a time window where constituents could certify with the City that they had installed
artificial turf, and receive confirmation from the City. CAN staff noted that when the City used this
approach for the unit legalization process several years ago, this still created administrative
difficulties with constituents who insisted they did not know about the window. CAN staff indicated
that they would not recommend using this approach again.
•Establish an income-qualified loan/grant program to help individuals come into compliance. Note:
this would require the Council to authorize additional budget, and staff would have to work with
the Administration to determine whether/where it makes sense to administer a program like this.
•Give a period of 12/18/24 months for people to come into compliance with the new requirements.
As of last week, CAN staff indicated this may be the preferable option.
The following information was provided for the February 20 discussion. It’s provided again for
reference.
New Information - February 20 Discussion
Page | 2
The Council held a discussion on February 6 and took straw polls regarding several potential edits and/or
clarifications to the ordinance. Planning staff has included those edits/clarifications in the attached memo
and revised ordinance:
•Clarifying that landscaping requirements for properties with multiple park strips will be calculated
cumulatively rather than separately. Planning has suggested the following language:
“Park strip standards shall be applied cumulatively along the adjacent street frontage. Lots with
park strips on 2 or more street frontages shall be calculated separately for each street frontage.”
•Keep “promote water conservation” in the purpose statement:
“The purpose of this chapter is to promote water conservation, preserve and expand Salt Lake City’s
urban tree canopy, improve air quality, and reduce urban heat islands and stormwater runoff.”
•Vehicle overhang in parking lot perimeter landscaping. Planning staff has provided the following
response:
A question was raised whether the proposed chapter and existing zoning code allows for vehicle
overhang into a required parking lot perimeter landscaping area. The Division of Transportation
parking standards allow for an approximately 2’ vehicle overhang allowance, dependent on the
angle of the park stall. The proposed Landscaping & Buffers chapter will allow for this vehicle
overhang to extend into the required parking lot perimeter landscaping.
Unresolved Issue – enforcement on artificial turf
- Some Council Members have been contacted by constituents who were referred by Public Utilities
to a rebate program run by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District (CWUWCD) which
reimburses residents who remove their grass turf on the basis of how much grass turf is removed.
As a part of this program, a resident would take a class run by CWUWCD. While the program
strongly discourages artificial turf, it doesn’t expressly prohibit it. So some residents who
participated in this program installed artificial turf as a part of removing their grass turf.
o In order to address the issue regarding messaging, one Council Member have suggested
that the ordinance simply grandfather any artificial turf installed by January 1, 2024 (or
some other date).
o Another Council Member has suggested the ordinance could outline a “grace period” to give
those who installed artificial term a period of time to comply with the new ordinance.
o Public Utilities indicated support for the concept of an enforcement date. Community and
Neighborhoods Staff raised concerns about equitably enforcing based on a date.
o The Council may wish to discuss further with the Administratoin.
-The Council may wish to discuss this issue and straw poll a preferred approach to
enforcement on artificial turf.
- Note: Council Staff is inquiring with City staff to get an estimate of how many properties may have
installed artificial turf in their required landscaping area, to get a better idea of the scope of the
issue.
The following was provided for the February 6 Discussion, and is provided again for
reference:
The Council held a discussion on December 5 and 12, 2023, and identified several areas to discuss further
and potentially adjust. Planning Staff has provided a memo and revised ordinance (see attached)
responding to the various areas identified. The Council may wish to discuss and straw poll any of these
items:
➢Parking Lot Landscaping – there are five elements relating to Parking Lot landscaping that the
Administration has evaluated based on the Council’s discussion, and has come back with
recommendations:
Page | 3
-Applicability – The Council discussed whether the requirements should apply to parking lots as
small as 10 stalls (initial proposal). Upon review and analysis included in their memo, the
Administration is recommending the requirements apply to parking lots of 15
stalls or more (which is the current code).
-Perimeter Landscaping – The Council’s discussion included a concern that the proposal’s
requirement of 10’ of perimeter landscaping could be too much. Current perimeter landscaping
is 7’. After discussion with the City’s Urban Forester, the Administration is
recommending 8’ of required perimeter landscaping, to achieve the policy goals of
tree health and urban heat island effect. See analysis in the Administration’s memo.
Look at the nose of the car and seeing if external spots could have a 2 foot overhang
-Clarification of Double-Loading Row and Row End Landscaping – The
Administration has recommended the following language to clarify this language, as
there was some confusion in the previous discussion, page 88, line 2642 of the ordinance:
“2. Location: Interior landscape areas shall be provided in the following locations:
a. At each end of a parking row containing 6 stalls or more, where not abutting
required perimeter landscaping.
b. Parallel to parking lot stalls, at a rate of 1 interior landscape area for every 6
parking spaces, or landscape areas may be provided along the interior length of
double-loaded parking rows.”
-Accessibility – The Council’s discussion included concerns about the proposed changes and
pedestrian experience/walkability. The Administration believes that the overall increase in
walking distance would be minimal, and notes that a walkway is required in lots with 25 or
more stalls. As such, the Administration is not recommending changes.
-Reduce required Minimum Interior Landscaping – the Council requested a change in the
minimum required size of the interior landscaping to be similar in size to a parking stall. The
original proposal required interior landscaping be at least 10’ wide. The Urban forester
recommended that a landscaping area be between 8’ and 9’. The Administration has
provided proposed language changes, page 88, line 2651 of the ordinance:
“Size: Interior landscape areas shall have a minimum width equal to the width of
average parking stall within the parking lot, as measured from the inside of the curbing,
and shall have a minimum length equal to the length of the abutting parking spaces.
Where interior landscape areas do not abut parking spaces, a minimum length of 10’ is
required.”
➢Natural Turf – See page 4 of the Administration’s memo which covers additional information
regarding the reasoning for allowing natural turf. Staff note: Staff is aware of some suggestions
from Public Utilities about the definition of turf in the code, and is inquiring with the
Administration if these adjustments are included in the proposal. The Administration is not
recommending changes.
➢Public Information prohibiting artificial turf – The memo (page 5) indicates that public
outreach is ongoing and staff will be updating a project webpage on this topic.
➢Reduction in Tree Canopy that qualifies as vegetation coverage – Based on the Council
conversation, the Administration is recommending that qualifying tree canopy coverage be limited
to newly planted tree canopy at the time of planting (or existing canopy). The Administration
has provided proposed language changes, page 84, line 2603 of the ordinance
Page | 4
“The total area of an existing tree canopy, or a tree canopy at the time of planting, may be
included in the vegetation coverage calculations of the required landscaping location the
tree is within.”
➢Rock Mulch Limits – Based on the Council conversation, the Administration has modified this
language to clarify that a maximum of 20% of rock mulch be allowed in the required landscaping
area. The Administration has provided proposed language changes, page 92, line 2759
of the ordinance
“ f. Rock used as a mulch material is limited to 20% of an area where landscaping is
required by this chapter.”
➢Park Strip Vegetation Height Allowance – This item was raised by the Planning Director to
allow for some native plant species and addressing the sight distance triangle. The
Administration has provided proposed language changes – pg 81, line 2433:
A. All landscaping shall:
1. Maintain a clearance from grade level to 7 feet above the sidewalk, or
10 feet above a street;
2. Not create a hedge or visual barrier between the sidewalk and street;
3. Not create obstructions within the sight distance triangle, as defined and
illustrated in Chapter 21A.62 of this title;
The following information was provided for the Council’s previous work session. It is
provided again for reference.
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Administration’s proposed ordinance rewrites and re-organizes the Landscaping and Buffers Chapter,
consistent with previous Council discussions relating to various sustainability goals for Salt Lake City, and
consistent with the strategies outlined in the City’s Urban Forest Action Plan. The Administration’s
transmittal notes that the ordinance is intended to “better support the City’s adopted policies related to
reducing water use, enhancement of the urban forest, reduction in the urban heat island, improve air
quality…”. It also notes that re-organizing this section of the code to improve clarity and readability for
both the public and administration. The proposed changes also include feedback from several City
departments, as well as changes recommended from the Planning Commission. On April 26, 2023 the
Planning Commission voted 10 to 1 to recommend a positive recommendation to the Council with two
modifications (see Key Elements #2 and Policy Question #1 on page 3).
Goal of the Briefing: Review proposed changes to Landscaping and Buffers chapter, provide
feedback and schedule public hearing to receive public comment.
KEY ELEMENTS
1.Proposed Changes – The Administration’s transmittal notes the following proposed
changes/additions, organized by policy goal:
a. Improve water conservation by:
i. Requiring a landscaping or irrigation professional letter of compliance with irrigation
and landscaping standards.
ii. Requiring a WaterSense automatic irrigation controller.
iii. Prohibiting water waste.
iv. Creating standards for irrigation systems to be designed and maintained to maximize
water efficiency.
Page | 5
b. Supporting the Urban Forest/trees by:
i. Allowing tree canopy to count toward vegetation coverage standards and requiring
the largest tree appropriate to the landscape location in most zoning districts.
ii. Ensuring tree health by requiring Urban Forestry review of alterations to street trees
and root zone protection.
iii. Improving tree survival rates by requiring a permanent irrigation system for street
trees when a landscape plan is required (new construction, or a commercial property
where the landscaping is being updated by 50% or more, or a commercial addition
that increases the floor area by 50% or more).
iv. Requiring trees in the Northwest Quadrant.
c. Reduce the urban heat island by:
i. Creating parking lot landscaping standards directed at reducing the urban heat island
effect.
ii. Establishing rock mulch limitations.
iii. Allowing tree canopy to count toward landscape coverage and requiring street trees
where new construction is proposed.
d. Reduce stormwater runoff by:
i. Allowing stormwater curb cuts.
ii. Requireing bioretention for parking lots with 50 or more stalls in the Parking Chapter
(21A.44)
e. Simplify and clarify through:
i. Requiring separate plans for planting, grading, and irrigation.
ii. Addressing artificial turf, by removing it as permitted, based on the Planning
Commission recommendation (See Planning Commission changes below and
policy question #1 on Page 3).
iii. Consolidating buffer sizes.
iv. Updating the Freeway Landscape buffer better comply with goals and intent of
chapter.
v. Creating tables and graphics where possible.
vi. Removing duplicate or wordy standards that were difficult to implement.
vii. Quantifying, where possible, minimum landscaping standards.
2.Planning Commission Changes – The Planning Commission voted 10-1 to forward a positive
recommendation to the Council with the following changes:
c. Prohibiting artificial turf. The Administration’s transmittal notes that the proposed
draft before the Council includes “a statement that artificial turf is prohibited anywhere
landscaping is regulated by the chapter. Where landscaping is not regulated in this chapter,
artificial turf would be allowed (such as the rear yard), as it is today in unregulated
landscaping areas. The commission’s recommendation was based on a
discussion centered around artificial turfs impact on stormwater runoff and
possible harmful chemicals contained in the manufacturing process.” See
Policy Question #1 on Page 3.
d.Define “Landscape or Irrigation specialist”. During the Planning Commission
hearing, some commented that the general language originally proposed about a
“landscape or irrigation professional” was too broad. The current draft now requires review
and signature by a landscape architect (licensed with the State of Utah), or a US-EPA
WaterSense Labeled Certified Professional.
Page | 6
5.Elements not changing - The Administration’s transmittal notes that several current standards
in the zoning code will remain:
a. Regulated landscaping locations (Park Strips, Yard areas, Buffers, Parking Lots).
b. 33% vegetation standard.
c. 20% hard surfacing limitations.
d. Landscaping and irrigation designed depending on watering needs.
e. Drip and spray irrigation on separate valves.
f. Park Strip less than 36” in width are exempt from some landscaping standards.
g. Landscaping buffer tree and shrub quantities. –
h. Mulching depth and permeability standards.
i. And encroachment standards in the park strip or public right of way.
j. Maintaining the City’s resident’s eligibility for “rip your strip” rebate programs through the
CUWCD (Central Utah Water Conservancy District) and Utah Department of Natural
Resources.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1.Planning Commission recommendations relating to turf –
o The draft presented to the Planning Commission on April 26th, permitted artificial turf
in front and corner yard landscaping locations as an impervious surface, which is
limited to a maximum of 20% of the required landscaping. It was prohibited in other
locations. Additionally, artificial turf would have had to meet certain material
standards such as individual grass blade length and quantity as well as infill
material type.
o As noted above, the Planning Commission was concerned with this aspect of the
proposal, particularly the impact of turf on stormwater runoff and harmful chemicals
used in the turf manufacturing process. Therefore, the Planning Commission
recommended to prohibit turf in required landscaping areas. Where
landscaping is not regulated by this chapter, such as the rear yard, turf would be
permitted.
o Recently, some cities, including Boston and several in California have prohibited
artificial turf. They have cited Poly-fluoroalkyl Substances or P-FAS, as well as
bisphenol A (BPA) in the rubber crumb underlayer as a main public health reason to
prohibit artificial turf.
o According to the Environmental Protection Agency, PFAS chemicals are a known
carcinogen which can interfere with hormones, reproduction, immunity and cause
developmental delays in children. The EPA has not officially listed BPA on their
concerned substance list but they are continuing to monitor research.
o Turf manufacturers have been working to improve the production of artificial turf to
reduce/remove chemicals, and each year of development shows improvement on this
front.
o Previous Council discussions asked for the Administration to evaluate
artificial turf as an option for required landscaping areas. Does the
Council wish to discuss this further with the Administration, including
reviewing the language originally proposed to the Planning Commission?
Page | 7
2.Enforcement – The Council may wish to ask the Administration if they have a
recommendation for how to handle enforcement/grandfathering of the changing standards,
particularly as it relates to turf? Currently staff understands that the Administration has
paused enforcement on turf in landscaping areas, while this ordinance is working its way
through the process.
CHRONOLOGY
•September 6, 2022 – Initial feedback from City Council in work session
•February 8, 2023 – Text amendment formally initiated
•February 10, 2023 – Notice emailed to recognized organizations and changes posted to Planning
Division Open House webpage
•March 20, 2023 – Proposed changes presented to Sugar House Community Council
•April 26, 2023 – Planning Commission discussion and positive recommendation forwarded
•May 8, 2023 – Ordinance forwarded to Attorney’s office for review
•June 15, 2023 – Ordinance corrections forwarded to Attorney’s office
•August 29, 2023 – Corrected ordinance returned to Attorney’s office for final review
•September 26, 2023 – Final ordinance received from Attorney’s Office
•September 28, 2023 – Transmittal sent to Council Office
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
PLANNING DIVISION
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
MEMORANDUM
To: City Council Members
From: Nannette Larsen, Senior Planner
Date: January 12th, 2023
Re: Landscaping & Buffers Chapter
During the briefing held on December 12, 2023, the City Council provided guidance and direction for
changes to the 21A.48 Landscaping & Buffers Chapter draft. The following memorandum is a response
to the comments and requested changes:
1. Parking Lot Landscaping
Applicability: The Council discussed concerns with the proposed minimum number of stalls
before parking lot landscaping standards would apply. Specifically, that the proposed
threshold for when parking lot landscaping applies may limit infill development or
redevelopment potential of smaller properties.
In the initial proposal presented to Council, parking lot landscaping would apply to parking
lots with 10 or more parking stalls. Currently, parking lot landscaping is required for parking
lots with 15 or more parking stalls.
Parking lot landscaping requirements include interior and perimeter landscaping. A minimum
of 5% of the square footage of the parking lot is required for interior parking lot landscaping.
Interior landscaping areas must be provided on parking row ends, and every 6 parking spaces
or between double-loading parking rows. Perimeter parking lot landscaping is required where
a parking lot is located within a required yard area or within 20’ of a property line. The
recommended width of the perimeter parking lot landscaping is 8’.
Analysis: For the Council’s consideration, analysis of the percentage of parking lot landscaping
that would be required for a parking lot with 10 stalls (initial proposal), 15 stalls (current code
requirement) and 25 stalls, is provided below.
The following calculations are based on the assumption that the average parking lot size is
approximately 350 square feet per parking stall.
Parking Lot Parking Lot
Square
Footage
Minimum
Interior
Landscaping 5%
Perimeter
Landscaping 8’
Total Landscaping
as a % of a Parking
Lot
10 Stalls 3,500 175 Sq Ft 944 Sq Ft 31%
15 Stalls 5,250 262 Sq Ft 1,144 Sq Ft 26%
Page 2
(Current
requirement &
recommendation)
25 Stalls 8,750 437 Sq Ft 1,488 Sq Ft 22%
It is recommended that the threshold for when parking lot landscaping applies is maintained
at 15 stalls, the current ordinance requirement. A parking lot with 15 stalls would require
approximately 26% landscaping with a typical design. This total landscaping area of 28% is
similar to vegetation coverage standards, of 1/3rd, in required yard areas.
Recommendation: maintain the parking lot landscaping threshold at 15 stalls
Status: direction needed.
Perimeter Landscaping: The majority of parking lot landscaping falls within the perimeter
landscaping, encompassing all of the required parking lot landscaping except generally the 5%
interior landscaping area. The perimeter parking lot landscaping acts as both a tool that
reduces the urban heat island as well as a form of a land use buffer from adjoining properties.
Currently the parking lot perimeter landscaping width is required at 7’, this was increased to a
minimum of 10’ in the initial proposal presented to council. The purpose of the initial proposal
of 10’ was to promote tree health and longevity, it was also increased to match landscape buffer
widths required elsewhere in the chapter.
While there is some concern about the amount of required perimeter parking lot landscaping,
it is still recommended that there is an increase in perimeter landscaping width to improve tree
health in these areas. After follow-up conversations with the Urban Forester, 8’ in width is
sufficient to support tree health and reduce tree mortality rates. It is recommended that the
perimeter parking lot landscaping be a minimum of 8’ to assuage concerns regarding infill and
redevelopment properties while still sufficiently addressing and mitigating the effects of a
parking lot located within 20’ of a property line and reducing the urban heat island effect.
Parking
Lot
Parking
Lot Square
Footage
Perimeter
Landscaping
8’
Perimeter
Landscaping 10’
Perimeter
Landscaping
(8’) as a % of
Parking Lot
Perimeter
Landscaping
(10’) as a % of
Parking Lot
10
Stalls 3,500 944 Sq Ft 1,180 Sq Ft 33%38%
15
Stalls 5,250 1,152 Sq Ft 1,440 Sq Ft 21%32%
25
Stalls 8,750 1,488 Sq Ft 1,860 Sq Ft 17%26%
The proposed landscaping chapter’s perimeter and interior parking lot landscaping averages
based on parking lot size are indicated in the above table. It is shown in this table that as
parking lot square footages increases, the percentage of landscaping decreases. This is due to
Page 3
most of the landscaping being located along the perimeter of the parking lot. While the overall
landscaping to hard surface ratio decreases as the size of the parking lot increases, it is expected
that the provision requiring a biodetention in parking lots with 50 or more stalls landscaping
ratios will be similar to smaller square footage parking lots. This is because these biodetention
areas will generally need to be larger, than the interior and perimeter parking lot landscaping
minimums, to adequately detain stormwater in these larger parking lots.
Recommendation: require perimeter parking lot landscaping to be 8’ wide
Status: direction needed
Clarification of Double-Loading Row and Row End Landscaping: The language in the most
recent draft chapter was updated to clarify where interior parking lot landscaping is required.
The type of interior landscaping locations provided are required to ensure dispersion of interior
landscaping areas. The minimum 5% interior landscaping is stated to ensure sufficient interior
parking lot landscaping is provided to meet the purpose and goals of the chapter.
Status: changes made to the legislative version, pg. 88, line 2642.
“2. Location: Interior landscape areas shall be provided in the
following locations:
a. At each end of a parking row containing 6 stalls or more, where
not abutting required perimeter landscaping.
b. Parallel to parking lot stalls, at a rate of 1 interior landscape area
for every 6 parking spaces, or landscape areas may be provided along
the interior length of double-loaded parking rows.”
Accessibility: During the briefing there was a concern raised regarding the accessibility of
parking lot and how the proposed parking lot landscaping standards would affect how
pedestrians experience the increase in walking distance.
In addition to the 5% interior landscaping, it would also require 5’ perimeter landscaping and
a 3’ walkway where a parking lot abuts the principal building. The interior parking lot
landscaping area would affect the distance between parking stalls and access to the building.
However, a 5% of interior landscaping area and a 5’ perimeter landscaping area between the
parking lot and the building, the increase in walking distance would be overall minimal.
In addition to the proposed changes to the Landscaping & Buffer chapter, are proposed
modifications to the Off-Street Parking chapter (21A.44). Pedestrian walkways are proposed to
be required where there are 25 or more stalls. One walkway, which is separate from drive aisles,
is required for every 20 stalls provided. While the proposed parking lot landscaping will
increase the distance from the surface parking lot to the building, the experience of the
pedestrian will improve as there will be a separation between the pedestrian and vehicles, and
there will be a reduction in the urban heat island.
Recommendation: no modification to proposed chapter
Status: direction needed
Reduce Required Minimum Interior Landscaping Size: The Council requested a change in the
minimum required size of the interior parking lot landscaping areas to be similar to a standard
parking stall. This modification would ease in the implementation of the ordinance and
Page 4
encourage compliance. The original proposal required that interior parking lot landscaping
areas be at least 10’ wide and equal to the length of the adjoining stalls.
The Council recommended that the interior landscaping minimum width be reduced to the
average parking stall width. The average stall width is dependent on the angle of the parking
stall. Generally, standard parking stall widths are between 8’ and 9’. The current interior
landscaping minimum width is 5’, it is recommended that this width is increased as this isn’t
sufficient space for tree health or a tree full canopy. The Urban Forester confirmed an interior
parking lot landscaping area between 8’ and 9’ would be sufficient to promote the health and
longevity of the tree. The draft Landscaping & Buffers chapter has been modified and now
requires a minimum interior landscaping width equal average parking stall in the parking lot.
Status: changes made to the legislative version, pg. 88, line 2651.
“Size: Interior landscape areas shall have a minimum width equal to the width of
average parking stall within the parking lot, as measured from the inside of the
curbing, and shall have a minimum length equal to the length of the abutting
parking spaces. Where interior landscape areas do not abut parking spaces, a
minimum length of 10’ is required.”
2. Why Allow Turf in Required Landscaping Areas:
The proposed Landscaping & Buffers chapter addresses high water consuming grass species
which are commonly seen in single-family residential areas. These cool season grasses (like
Kentucky Blue) are defined as turf in the proposed chapter. Turf is defined as: “Grasses
planted as a ground cover that may be mowed and maintained to be used as a lawn area of
landscaping. Does not include decorative grasses, grasses that are adaptive or native to the
local environment or grasses that do not generally require supplemental water, or inorganic
substitutes commonly referred to as artificial turf.” This definition of turf does not include all
ground cover grass seed. The grass species which qualify as turf, those species which are non-
adaptive and non-native to northern Utah climates, generally cool season grasses, are those
grass species proposed to be limited in all zoning districts. Turf limitations are to reduce water
consumption, qualify for waterwise rebates, and assist in changing landscape expectations in
the City.
It is typical to see 100% turf coverage in residential districts as the preferred landscape
material. While limiting turf in residential districts will still allow turf grasses that require more
watering in the summer months to maintain a green lawn in 1/3 of the landscaping locations,
it will cut high water consuming cool season grasses by over half, with a 2/3 reduction. It’s
important to remember that while many single- and two- family residential districts have
landscaped rear yard areas, available for recreational activities, other residential districts do
not always have this rear yard landscaping areas. An example of this is the RMF districts. In
the RMF districts there are rear yard setbacks required but the rear yard is generally occupied
by needed parking or storage areas to accommodate the increase in density. By allowing some
turf in required yard areas it allows for multi-family residential districts to still provide a
recreational or lounging space for residents in required landscaping areas, a landscaping use
that is typical in residential neighborhoods.
Turf is proposed to be prohibited in manufacturing districts as it’s rare for uses in
manufacturing districts to utilize turf areas. All other zoning districts not included in the
residential or manufacturing districts allow turf but only in active recreational areas. These
Page 5
prohibitions and limitations also facilitate a reduction in water consumption while still
allowing outdoor activity use, if these areas are dedicated to activities where turf is a typical
playing surface. Turf limitations in these areas are needed to retain waterwise rebate eligibility
for City residents.
Turf in park strips throughout Salt Lake City is proposed to be prohibited.
Recommendation: changes are not recommended
Status: direction needed
3.Public Information About Prohibiting Artificial Turf:
The concern was raised by Council regarding the public’s response to prohibiting artificial turf
in required landscaping locations. Public outreach is ongoing and staff will be updating the
Landscaping & Buffers project webpage with information that is accessible to the public with
accessible information on why it is recommended that artificial turf is prohibited as a
landscaping material.
Status: outreach is ongoing
4. Reduction in Tree Canopy that Qualifies as Vegetation Coverage:
During the December briefing the Council was informed that the rewrite of the chapter
includes the provision where a tree’s canopy at maturity could count towards 100% of the
vegetation coverage in required landscaping locations. At maturity, a small tree generally has
a 300 square foot canopy, this would allow for a tree canopy to count toward 100% of the
vegetation, resulting in the tree being the only living landscape material in these locations –
the council expressed concern with this.
It's recommended that the qualifying tree canopy coverage is limited to the newly planted tree
canopy at the time of planting or existing tree canopy. That way, it is the size of the canopy, not
the age or degree of maturity that would be counted.
This would potentially still
allow for existing mature trees
to account for all the required
vegetation, however, staff
believes this still accomplishes
the goals of the landscaping
chapter and is in line with the
goals of the urban forest action
plan related to prioritizing
trees. New trees would be
calculated by their existing
canopy, not their canopy at
maturity, so it’s likely that in
the case of new trees, more
than just a tree would be
required to meet the
vegetation requirements.
Allowing existing tree canopies Image 1: park strip trees with no vegetation ground cover
Page 6
to qualify as vegetation coverage minimums would still incentivize trees in required
landscaping locations, while still requiring sufficient organic material that benefits the
appearance of neighborhoods, maintains soil health, and ensures sufficient evapotranspiration
thereby assisting in the reduction of the urban heat island.
Recommendation: limit qualifying tree canopy coverage to exiting canopies or canopies at
the time of planting
Status: changes made to legislative version, pg. 84, line 2603.
“The total area of an existing tree canopy, or a tree canopy at the time of
planting, may be included in the vegetation coverage calculations of the required
landscaping location the tree is within.”
5. Rock Mulch Limits a Percentage of a Landscaping Area:
During the Council’s discussion the method of measuring and limiting rock mulch was raised
as a possible issue where mulch beds are limited in size. It was recommended by Council that
rock mulch is limited as a percentage of the landscaping area rather than a percentage of the
mulch used.
The purpose of limiting rock mulch is to better address the effect rock mulch has on the urban
heat island effect and soil quality. These goals can still be met when rock mulch is regulated as
a maximum percentage of landscaping area.
The original proposed draft recommended that no more than 50% of the mulch used on the
site may be rock mulch. This has been modified at the request of Council, to a maximum of
20% of rock mulch in the landscape area. The maximum rock mulch ratio was determined as
rock mulch heat index and heat retention is similar to that of hard surfacing. However, rock
mulch doesn’t have the same stormwater runoff rate that hard surfaces have.
This proposed maximum 20% rock mulch is also consistent with what was previously required
– a maximum 50% of the mulch in the landscaping area. Landscaping areas must have no less
than 33% of vegetation and has a maximum of 20% hard surfacing. The remaining landscaping
area, 47%, could be mulched. Half of this allowed mulched areas would equate to
approximately 20% of the required landscaping area.
Status: changes made to legislative version, pg. 92, line 2759
“ f. Rock used as a mulch material is limited to 20% of an area where
landscaping is required by this chapter.”
6. Increase Park Strip Vegetation Height Allowance:
The Planning Director brought up an issue that was raised over the summer about allowed
vegetation height in the park strip. There was concern that some native plant species would be
excluded from the park strip due to vegetation height restrictions. Allowed vegetation height
in the park strip was previously proposed to remain at a maximum of 22”. The newly updated
language to address this issue states that there cannot be a visual barrier between the sidewalk
and the street – to ensure continued visibility between these spaces. The modifications also
address view obstructions within the sight distance triangle.
Page 7
Status: changes made to legislative version, pg. 81, line 2433
A. All landscaping shall:
1. Maintain a clearance from grade level to 7 feet above the
sidewalk, or 10 feet above a street;
2. Not create a hedge or visual barrier between the sidewalk and
street;
3. Not create obstructions within the sight distance triangle, as
defined and illustrated in Chapter 21A.62 of this title;
The full revised draft of the Landscaping & Buffers Chapter is attached for reference.
Text Amendment // City Council Briefing
LANDSCAPING & BUFFERSCHAPTER 48 FOLLOW-UP
PLNPCM2023-00098
POTENTIAL DRAFT MODIFICATIONS
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING.
Applicability
Threshold
Perimeter
Landscaping
Parking
Lot
Parking Lot
Square
Footage
Minimum
Interior
Landscaping
5%
Perimeter
Landscaping
8’
Total
Landscaping
as a % of a
Parking Lot
10 Stalls 3,500 175 Sq Ft 944 Sq Ft 31%
15 Stalls 5,250 262 Sq Ft 1,144 Sq Ft 26%
25 Stalls 8,750 437 Sq Ft 1,488 Sq Ft 22%
•Clarification of Double Loading
Parking Row and Row End
Landscaping.
•Reduce Required Minimum
Interior Landscaping Size.
•Parking Lot Accessibility.
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING.
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
WHY ALLOW TURF IN REQUIRED LANDSCAPING AREAS?
Will Still Reduce Water Consuming Turf By 2/3.
Allows For Multi-family Recreational Or
Lounging Space.
Prohibited In Districts Where Turf Is Not
Utilized.
Continued Rebate Eligibility.
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
PRIORITIZING TREES WHILE ENSURING SUFFICIENT VEGETATION
Existing Tree
Canopy May Count
Toward Required
Vegetation
Coverage.
PARK STRIP VEGETATION HEIGHT.
ROCK MULCH LIMITATIONS.
Limited To 20% Of A
Required Landscaping Area.
Cannot Create A Hedge Or
Visual Barrier.
“TURF:Grasses planted as a ground cover that may
be mowed and maintained to be used as a lawn area
of landscaping.Does not include grasses that are
listed in the Salt Lake City Plant List &Hydrozone
Schedule.Inorganic substitutes,commonly referred
to as artificial turf,are prohibited in required
landscaping areas.”
UPDATE TURF DEFINITION.
*ADDITIONAL MODIFICATION*
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
Applicability Threshold:
Direction Needed
Recommendation: Maintain existing 15 stall threshold.
Perimeter Landscaping:
Direction Needed
Recommendation: Require minimum 8’ wide.
Clarification of Interior Parking Lot Landscaping:
Changes Made
Recommendation: Clarified.
Parking Lot Accessibility:
Direction Needed
Recommendation: No modifications.
Reduce Minimum Interior Landscape Size:
Changes Made
Recommendation: Minimum width of average stall.
Why Allow Turf in Required Landscaping Areas:
Direction Needed
Recommendation: No modification.
Existing Tree Canopy as Vegetation Coverage:
Changes Made
Recommendation: Limit qualifying tree canopy coverage to
existing canopies or canopies at the time of planting.
Rock Mulch Limited Per Landscaping Area:
Changes Made
Recommendation: Limit rock mulch to 20% of a required
landscaping area.
Increase Park Strip Vegetation Height Allowance:
Changes Made
Recommendation: Cannot create a hedge or visual barrier.
Salt Lake City // Planning Division