Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Provided Information - 12/2/2025CITY 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:December 2, 2025 RE: Reviewing Household Occupancy Definitions ISSUE AT A GLANCE The Council initiated a legislative action in April 2025 asking the Administration to review and recommend potential changes to City code as it relates to the number of unrelated people permitted to live in one home. This would potentially increase or eliminate the maximum number of unrelated people living together in a dwelling unit. Planning staff will update the Council on progress with this intent, provide options for consideration, and ask for Council direction on how to proceed. Planning will take this direction and begin the text amendment process. Goal of the briefing: Provide direction to the Administration for moving forward with the proposal. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. The Council may wish to ask the Administration if changing the number of unrelated people allowed to live together could impact federal funds for affordable housing. 2. Are deed restrictions required for state or federal affordable housing funds? POTENTIAL STRAW POLLS Planning staff is looking to the Council for direction on how to proceed. They provided three options for the Council to consider. 1. Does the Council support removing the occupancy limit and not differentiating between related and unrelated people? (Option 3 below.) Item Schedule: Page | 2 2. Does the Council support maintaining the current family definition and increase the number of unrelated people living together to five? (Option 1 below.) 3. Does the Council support increasing the number of unrelated people living together and allow a combination of family types? (Option 2 below.) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The current definition of “family” in City code is separated into three parts: Related people living together as a household, Not more than three unrelated people living together as a household, and Two unrelated people and their children living together as a household. Under the current code, which has been in place since at least 1995, people who are related are not allowed to live in the same housing unit as unrelated people. The rules differ depending on the relationship of a dwelling’s residents. Planning staff provided a scenario of a married couple wanting to rent a bedroom or level of their house to another couple to whom they are not related. Another example is a family of four related people wanting to rent an unused bedroom to an unrelated individual. Neither of these would be allowed under existing City code. Since the first City code adopted in 1927, there have been several definitions of “family.” These range from any number of people living together as a household and doing their cooking on the premises, to any number of related people, to the current code that does not allow more than three unrelated people living together in a household. In the transmittal Planning staff stated “The purpose of zoning regulations defining family is primarily to regulate population density and to separate incompatible land uses. There is no data that demonstrates that these purposes are achievable by defining a family.” Enforcement When the City receives a complaint about the number of unrelated people living within a dwelling, enforcement can be difficult. The burden of proof that occupants of a dwelling are not related is on the complainant or City enforcement. When asked for evidence of a relationship amongst residents, the property may or may not provide proof. If no proof is provided, the complaint case is closed. Some cities have changed their definition of family and are now enforcing on other neighborhood impacts such as excess garbage and storage, noise, illegal parking, and yard maintenance rather than relationships of the property’s occupants. These impacts are easier to verify and enforce, and do not differentiate between owners and renters. Parking concerns such as vehicles parked illegally and limited on- or off-street parking are frequently cited in complaints about the number of people living in a home. Planning noted these are not exclusive to households with unrelated people. Families may have several vehicles and use the garage for storage, resulting in some being parked on the street. Enforcement efforts are focused on illegal parking in general and not differentiating between households of related and unrelated people. Potential Options Planning staff provided the following three options for the Council to consider. Option 1 Page | 4 Maintain the current family definition but increase the number of unrelated people living together to five. While this is the easiest option, it does not address issues with the current code. These include differentiating between enforcement of related and unrelated residents of a home and limiting enforcement on the number of unrelated people living together to cases where documentation showing residents’ relationships is provided. Option 2 Option 3 Other Considerations family for occupancy on a monthly basis and which is a self-contained unit with kitchen and bathroom facilities. The term “dwelling” excludes living space within hotels, bed and breakfast establishments, shared housing developments boarding houses and lodging houses. (Emphasis added.) Family Definitions from Other Cities City Number of Unrelated Related + Unrelated Other Bountiful Up to 4 Page | 4 Draper Any number of people living as a single housekeeping unit Logan Up to 2 Plus children Ogden Up to 3 Two people plus children Provo Up to 3 Up to 3 plus children Sandy Up to 4 Two plus children St. George Up to 4 Two plus children Related + 1 unrelated South Salt Lake Up to 4 Requires each unrelated to have off-street parking It is interesting to note that State code prohibits cities with a university from limiting occupancy of unrelated people to less than three, and cities without a university to less than four. The reason for cities with a university having a lower limit than cities without is unknown. Cities outside Utah City Number of Unrelated Related + Unrelated Other Boise Any number of people living as a single housekeeping unit. Denver Up to Five Plus children Increases for elderly people, those with a disability Phoenix Group of unrelated people living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit Portland Up to five Any number of related people plus up to five. Reno Anu number of people in a single household Sacramento Two or more people who have established ties and familiarity with one another (regardless of whether related or not by blood, marriage or adoption) that live together as a single household. Limits other types of residential land uses (fraternities, sororities, specialty housing). Seattle Up to eight unrelated people. Page | 5 Spokane Up to six unrelated people. Related households may also have up to six unrelated people. Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning City Council Work Session November 18, 2025 ZONING DEFINITION OF FAMILY Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning “I move the council adopt a legislative action asking the administration to review and recommend potential changes to the definition of family in City code that would increase or eliminate the maximum number of unrelated people living together in a dwelling unit. It is a priority of this council to utilize available tools to facilitate affordable housing for (or reduce barriers to) those who want to live in Salt Lake City.” CITY COUNCIL LEGISLATIVE INTENT Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning Essentially the same as today’s definition Any number of people living as a single household unit DEFINITION OF FAMILY OVER TIME 1927 1949 1955 1978 Any number of people living as a single household unit Collective body of people living together with some domestic bond Salt Lake City //Planning Division •Any number of related people; •Two unrelated people and their children; or •Up to three unrelated people CURRENT CODE Salt Lake City //Planning Division Hard to prove if people are related. Prohibits certain living arrangement, like shared housing and co-living. Prevents more people from sharing housing costs (if unrelated). WHY CHANGE? Salt Lake City //Planning Division UTAH CITIES City Number of Unrelated Related + unrelated Other Ogden Up to 3 Two people plus children Provo Up to 3 Up to 3 plus children Sandy Up to 4 Two plus children St. George Up to 4 Two plus children related +1 unrelated South Salt Lake Up to 4 Requires each unrelated to have off street parking Bountiful Up to 4 Logan Up to 2 Plus children Draper Any number of people living as a single housekeeping unit. Salt Lake City //Planning Division WESTERN CITIES City Number of Unrelated Related + unrelated Other Boise Any number of people living as a single housekeeping unit. Reno Any number of people in a single household Denver Up to 5 Plus children Increases for elderly people, those with disability Phoenix group of unrelated people living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit Portland Up to 5 Any # of related people plus up to 5 unrelated Sacramento two or more people who have established ties and familiarity with one another (regardless of whether related or not by blood, marriage or adoption) that live together as a single household Limits other types of residential land uses (fraternities, sororities, specialty housing) Seattle up to eight unrelated people Spokane Up to 6 unrelated people Related households may also have up to 6 unrelated people Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning 1.Increase the number of unrelated people to more than three 2.Increase the number of unrelated people and allow a mix of related and unrelated people. 3.Any number of people living together as a single household unit THREE OPTIONS Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Addressed enforcement issue related to related vs unrelated  Reduces housing costs for owner occupied housing  Reduces housing cost for renters  Treats related and unrelated households the same  Provides owners more options  Option 1: increase unrelated people from 3 to 5 Option 2: same as one, but also allows a mix of related and unrelated people Option 3: Any number of people living as a single household unit Household Occupancy Definition Straw Polls 1. Does the Council support removing the occupancy limit and not differentiating between related and unrelated people? (Option 3 below.) or 2. Does the Council support maintaining the current family definition and increasing the number of unrelated people living together to five? (Option i below.) or 3. Does the Council support increasing the number of unrelated people living together and allow a combination of family types? (Option 2 below.) Option 1 Maintain the current family definition but increase the number of unrelated people living together to five. While this is the easiest option, it does not address issues with the current code. These include differentiating between enforcement of related and unrelated residents of a home and limiting enforcement on the number of unrelated people living together to cases where documentation showing residents' relationships is provided. Option 2 Increase the number of unrelated people in a household to five and allow a combination of family types. This is like option 1 but would allow related and as many as five unrelated people to live in a dwelling unit. The issue of determining whether residents are related is again not addressed with this option. Option ,3 This option removes the occupant limit and does not differentiate between related and unrelated people living together. Enforcement would be directed to issues that can be documented rather than attempting to determine the residents' relationships. There is potential for overcrowding with this option if multiple people use each bedroom. RMF-35 and RMF-45 Straw Polls 1. Does the Council support retaining the 110-foot lot width maximum and remove the loo- foot front facade length maximum? (Existing lots wider than 110 feet would be allowed to construct longer buildings.) 2. Does the Council support modifying the maximum number of dwelling units per building to 50: a. In both the RMF-35 and RMF-45 zones, or b. In only the RMF-45 zone? 3. Does the Council support removing the too -foot front fagade length maximum if utilizing affordable housing incentives?