2012.05.16 - Salt Lake City - Options For ADU Ordinance

FRANK S.
GRAY
SCANNED rit ! {Z(jiY
u
SCANN RALP , .E t: 0 _
DIRECTOR
MARY DE LA MARE- SCHAEFER
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT C'ATE: i ;(;U{/ Lt " L '
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR r\ 4 0 \.?'(
DEPUTY DIRECTOR
ROSERT FARRINGTON, .JR.
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMIT
AUG 26 2011
DEPUTY DI R ECTOR
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Date Received: 08' I CZlR { 2Lil I
Salt Lake City Mayor
Date Sent to City Council: og I u I '7.0\ \
I
Salt Lake City Council DATE: August 15,2011
Jill Remington-Love,
Frank Gray, Community & onomic
Development Depat1ment Direc __________
Petition PLNPCM2010-00612 by Mayor Ralph Becker for a zoning text amendment to
allow accessory dwelling units within the following single-fatnily and multi-family
residential districts: FR-1/43,560, FR-2/21 ,780, FR-3112,000, R-1112,000, R-ll7,OOO,
R-1I5,000, SR-1 , SR-1A, SR-3, R-2, RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45, and RMF-75. This
request is pa11 of the Sustainability City Code Initiative and would affect areas City-
wide.
STAFF CONTACTS: Michael Maloy AICP, Principal Planner
(801) 535-7118 or michael.maloy@s1cgov.com
RECOMMENDATION: That the City . Council hold a briefing atld schedule a public
hearing.
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
BUDGET IMPACT: None
DISCUSSION:
Issue Origin: Mayor Ralph Becker, in cooperation with the City Council, has initiated a series of
administrative policies atld legislative petitions, which is generally known as the Sustainability
City Code Initiative, to encourage sustainable land use within Salt Lake City. One of the
legislative petitions requested, is PLNPCM201 0-00612 - Accessory Dwelling Units.
Petition PLNPCM201 0-00612 proposes to permit accessory dwelling units in single-family and
multi-family residential districts. An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is a residential unit that is
established on the same lot as a single-family dwelling unit, and may be located within a single-
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404
P.O. 80X 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114- 5486
Petition PLNPCM20 1 0-0061 2 - FAX : 801 - 535- 6005
Page 1 WWW.SLCGDV .CDM/ CED
@ RECYCLED PAPER
https://dotnet.slcgov.com/Mayor/MayorCouncilTransmittals/Documents/qn01_.PDF
last accessed May 29, 2012
family dwelling, attached to a single-family dwelling (such as in an addition), or in a detached
structure (such as in a garage or separate accessory structure). The accessory dwelling unit must
be a complete housekeeping unit with a separate kitchen, sleeping area, closet space, bathroom
facilities, and a shared or separate entrance.
The proposed ordinance requires owner occupancy of the principal or accessory dwelling, one
additional parking stall, and compliance with current building codes. To ensure the accessory
dwelling is subordinate to the principal dwelling, the draft ordinance establishes a maximum
building square footage, a scalable building height limit, and requires that building setbacks and
lot coverage comply with the underlying zone.
Analysis: Accessory dwelling units are currently not allowed within any residential district in
Salt Lake City. However, accessory dwelling units (ADUs) have become an important
component of the housing stock in many communities, both large and small, in the United States.
By providing housing on existing lots in developed neighborhoods, ADUs are a form ofland use
that makes good use of land and public infrastructure investment. Accessory Dwelling Units,
when located near employment and retail centers, help increase the use of circulation alternatives
such as walking, cycling, mass transit, leading to a reduction in green house gas emissions and
energy (fuel) use. Additionally, the changing face of the American public and its housing needs
supports the inclusion of ADUs as a housing alternative. More people are aging, are "empty
nesters" and desire to downsize. In addition, the work force continues to be challenged to find
affordable housing and ADUs can help address that demand.
With respect to observable trends in sustainability, demographics, land use development, and
economic conditions, the stated purposes for Petition PLNPCM2010-00612 Accessory Dwelling
Units are:
1. Create new housing units while respecting the look and scale of single-dwelling
development;
2. Increase the housing stock of existing neighborhoods in a marmer that is less intense than
alternatives;
3. Allow more efficient use of existing housing stock, public infrastructure, and the
embodied energy contained within existing structures;
4. Provide a mix of housing options that responds to changing family needs and smaller
households;
5. Offer a means for residents, particularly seniors, single parents, and families with grown
children, to remain in their homes and neighborhoods and obtain extra income, security,
companionship and services;
6. Promote a broader range of affordable housing;
7. Provide opportunity for workforce housing in developed and new neighborhoods, close to
places of work, thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions and reducing fossil fuel
consumption through less car commuting;
8. Support transit -oriented development and reduce auto usage by increasing density near
transit stops; and
9. Support the economic viability of historic properties and the city's historic preservation
----- --- ------g<Jals-by-all<Jwing-aeecssor-y-residential-uses-in-histori c-structures:-. ----
Petition PLNPCM201 0-00612 - Accessory Dwelling Units
Page 2
One ofthe key concerns expressed by residents has been enforcement of the proposed ordinance.
However, staff is confident that Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 74 of 2009 entitled
Landlord/Tenant Initiative Program, which was adopted by the City Council on December 8,
2009, will reduce violations, improve compliance, and provide additional resources for code
enforcement. Numerous other concerns have been raised by the public, the most prominent of
which are discussed in the June 22, 20 II Planning Commission Staff Report beginning on page
3.
With respect to Department Comments, all responding Departments recommended approval
subject to consideration of several issues, such as zoning enforcement, code clarification, parking
impacts, and public utility restrictions. Under the direction of the Planning Commission, the
proposed ADU ordinance has been modified to address these concerns where appropriate.
Master Plan Considerations: Within the Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan, which was
prepared by the Housing and Neighborhood Division of the Community and Economic
Development Department and adopted by the Salt Lalce City Council in April of 2000, the
following policy statements and implementation strategies are applicable:
City Council Policy Statement. The City Council supports a citywide variety of housing
units, including affordable housing and supports accommodating different types and
intensities of residential development. (p. 8)
City Council Policy Statement. The City Council supports mixed use and mixed income
concepts and projects that achieve vibrant, safe, integrated, walkable neighborhoods
through a diverse mix of uses and incomes in areas with established services ... (p. 19)
Affordable and Transitional Housing Implementation Strategy 1. Review "Best
Practices" from other cities and establish new programs or expand existing programs that
meet housing needs and maximize housing opportunities for all residents within Salt
Lake City. (p. 24)
City Council Policy Statement. On a citywide basis, the City Council endorses
accessory housing units in single-family zones, subject to restrictions designed to limit
impacts and protect neighborhood character. (p. 32)
Action Step for Implementation Strategy 5. Define accessory housing units. Determine
residential zones that could support such changes. Prepare necessary criteria and
amendments for future ordinances on accessory units. (p. 33)
In another policy document entitled Creating Tomorrow Together: Final Report of the Salt Lake
City Futures Commission, which was commissioned in February 1996 by former Mayor Ted
Wilson and delivered to the City Council in March 1998 the following assertions, goals, and
recommendations are applicable:
Assertion M: There is a mix of housing types, densities, and costs so that people of
various economic groups can co-exist. Services for those less fortunate are seen as a
positive attribute and are nurtured within our community.
o Recommendation 1: Amend zoning laws to encourage mixed use in appropriate
___ -- - - - - - - - - - - a r e a s ~ - - -
Petition PLNPCM20 1 0-00612 - Accessory Dwelling Units
Page 3
Proposed Action: Adopt amendments to city zoning ordinances that allow
mixed-use development in designated areas ofthe city. Identify areas to be
included in ordinances, define types of mixed uses allowed (p. 13).
Goal B: The ideal neighborhood will be diverse. Neighborhoods will encourage
persons of different incomes, ages, cultures, races, religions, genders, lifestyles, and
familial statuses to be active community stakeholders. Families of various size and
composition can be well served through a variety of programs and services. Service
organizations will also be available to special-needs populations (p. 41).
Goal D: The ideal neighborhood will be well maintained. Landlords, tenants, and
homeowners will share responsibility for keeping properties in good condition. Home
ownership will be encouraged where possible. Neighborhoods should contain a variety of
housing types, but more units should be owner occupied than renter occupied. This leads
to longer term residents and stabilizes property values. Owners of rental units will be
responsible and will maintain their properties. Mechanisms need to be in place to address
problems caused by owners/renters who fail to maintain their properties. Landlords must
screen tenants to ensure that they will be responsible renters. Landlords must also make
repairs to their housing units to keep them as viable assets in the neighborhood. Housing
should be designed for the changing needs of our current and future population (p. 43).
Based on a review of the Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan, and Creating Tomorrow
Together: Final Report of the Salt Lake City Futures Commission, which documents are
applicable citywide, staff finds the proposal is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives,
and policies of (he adopted general plan of Salt Lalce City.
PUBLIC PROCESS:
Since December of 2009, the Planning Division has discussed the proposal in 21 public
meetings, including:
Four separate open house meetings (held December 17,2009, July 15,2010, October 21,
2010, and February 17,2011);
Seven different citizen committees or community boards (Accessory Dwelling Units
Focus Group, Community Council Chairs Brealcfast, Wasatch Hollow Community
Council, Utah Housing Coalition, Housing Advisory and Appeals Board, I-lousing Trust
Fund Board, and Accessible Services Advisory Council); and
Six meetings with the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (held on November 10, 20 I 0,
December 9, 2010, February 23, 2011, March 23, 2011, June 8, 2011, and June 22,
2011).
Starting on September 1, 2010, the Planning Division also posted the draft ordinance and other
information on the Internet at Open City Hall for public comment. Through these efforts, the
Planning Division received written comments from 66 individuals, of which 32 supported the
proposal, 30 were opposed, and 4 were neutral or unclear with respect to their position .
Page 4
. __ ._--
As mentioned previously, the proposed ordinance was presented for discussion and
recommendation to the Accessibility Services Advisory Council (ASAC) on February 22, 2011.
ASAC submitted a written request to include incentives and requirements to encourage the
development of accessible ADDs. After considering the request, the Planning Commission voted
to exempt accessible ADDs from annual permit limitations, but did not include any additional
incentives or requirements, which action was inconsistent with the following ASAC
recommendations:
Add the following size exception for "Accessible ADDs." For ADDs that are "visitable,"
meaning that there is a no-step entry, adequate doorways, a usable bathroom, and have
"accessible living quarters," an exception would be granted on the maximum size of the
ADD. For example, an additional 150 fe could be added on top of the 50% or 650 ft
2
maximum size rule, resulting in a maximum size of 50% plus 150 ft2 or 800 ~ ,
whichever is less. (The additional amount of 150 ft2 seems reasonable to ASAC but the
amount is negotiable.)
o Visitability Features:
No-Step Entry: The dwelling unit can be accessed without having to step
up or down.
Adequate Doorways: 32" clear opening, low threshold of v." step or Yz"
ramp.
Dsable Bathroom: 30" x 48" clear space (outside of the door swing space)
within the bathroom.
o Accessible Living Quarters: A bedroom or sleeping area can be accessed without
having to step up or down.
Modify the permit allocation restrictions in the ordinance as follows: require that 20% of
the maximum allowable number of ADD permits per year be "Accessible ADDs" that
meet the Accessible ADD requirements. For example, 20% of the maximum 25 permits
per year would mean that 5 out of 25 permits would be reserved for Accessible ADDs
and not more than 20 ADDs that are not accessible would be permitted that year.
The proposed ordinance was also reviewed by the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board on
February 9 and March 9, 20 II. On March 10, 20 II, the Planning Division received seven written
recommendations that were forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration. Of the
seven recommendations, the following three comments were not included within the proposed
ADD ordinance:
Limit ADDs to certain zoning districts.
Consider allowing ADDs in multi-family zoning districts first.
ADD initiative should address area (i.e. community) master plans.
The proposed ADD ordinance was also reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission on
March 2, 20 II. Because the proposed ordinance does not specifically amend Chapter
2IA.34.020 H Historic Preservation Overlay District, a formal recommendation by I-ILC was not
required. In response, the HLC voted to form a subcommittee to study the issue further and draft
a position statement for City Council consideration. However, at time of publication of the City
----Cm.ll'lCiI"Transmitfallfie me position statement had not yet been completed.
Page 5
The Planning Commission held several meetings to discuss the proposed ADU ordinance,
including a public hearing held on March 23, 2011. Issues raised at the public hearing included
increasing density, rental housing, insufficient on-site parking, insufficient on-street parking,
property values, design compatibility, neighborhood character, insufficient enforcement, and
decreased privacy. Following the hearing, the Planning Commission voted to table the petition
for additional refinement and review. On June 22, 2011, the Planning Commission accepted
additional public comment and passed a motion to recommend approval of the proposed
ordinance. The vote was four in favor; one opposed.
RELEVANT ORDINANCES:
The petition amends the following sections of Salt Lake City Code:
Chapter 21A.40 Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures
Section 21A.24.190 Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Residential Districts
Section 21A.60.020 List of Defined Terms
Section 2IA.62.0S0 Definitions of Terms
Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Maps are authorized under Section 21A.SO ofthe Salt
Lake City Zoning Ordinance, as detailed in Section 2IA.SO.OSO: "A decision to amend the text
of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative
discretion of the City Council and is not controlled by anyone standard." It does, however, list
five standards, which should be analyzed prior to rezoning property (Section 21A.SO.OSO A-E).
The five standards are discussed in detail starting on page 10 of the June 22, 2011 Planning
Commission Staff Report (see Attachment S.B).
Other Information: During the public review process, the proposed ordinance has been modified
in several key areas:
Definition and standards for owner occupancy has been added (modeled after the Provo
City Code, which has been upheld by the State Supreme Court);
Arumal permit limitation has been added, except for ADUs funded by the RDA or
comply with accessibility standards (2S per calendar year);
Limitation on accessory dwelling unit height when located within a detached structure
and outside of the principal building setbacks (must comply with height restrictions for
accessory structures); and
Limitation on accessory dwelling unit height in relation to principal building height (must
be equal to or less than the height of the principal building).
Page 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY

2. ORDINANCE

3. CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE

4. MAILING LABELS

5. PLANNING COMMISSION

A) ORIGINAL NOTICE AND POSTMARK
March 10, 2011

B) STAFF REPORT
March 17, 2011 (publication date)
June 16, 2011 (publication date)

C) AGENDA AND MINUTES
March 23, 2011
June 22, 2011

6. ORIGINAL PETITION

SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. of2011
(An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code
pertaining to accessory dwelling units)
An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pursuant to
Petition No. PLNPCM2010-00612 to allow accessory dwelling units as defined herein.
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") held public
hearings on March 23, 2011 and June 22,2011 to consider a request made by Salt Lake City Mayor
Ralph Becker (petition no. PLNPCM201 0-00612) to amend the text of sections 21A.24.190 (Zoning:
Residential Districts: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Residential Districts); 21A.60.020
(Zoning: List of Terms: List of Defined Terms); and 21A.62.040 (Zoning: Definitions: Definitions
of Terms) of the Salt Lake City Code and adopting a new section 21AAO.180 (Zoning: Accessory
Dwelling Units); and
WHEREAS, at its June 22, 2011 hearing, the Plalming Commission voted in favor of
recommending to the City Council that the City Council amend and adopt the sections of Title 21A
of the Salt Lake City Code identified herein; 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 text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.24.190. That section
21A.24.190 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: Table of Permitted and
Conditional Uses for Residential Districts), shall be, and hereby is, amended to insert the use
category of "Accessory dwelling unit" under the residential category listed on said table as depicted
in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. The codifier is instructed to only insert the "Accessory dwelling
unit" use category and designations of such use as a pennitted or conditional use (as noted by a "P"
or "C") as shown on Exhibit "A" and make no other revisions to that table.
SECTION 2. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code chapter 21AAO to adopt section
21A.40.180. That the Salt Lake City Code shall be, and hereby is, amended to adopt section
21A.40.180 (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures: Accessory Dwelling Units), which
shall read as follows:
21AA0.180: ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS: Accessory dwelling units, as defined in
chapter 21A.62 ofthis title, shall be subject to the following:
A. Purpose Statement: The purposes ofthe accessory dwelling unit provisions are to:
development;
2. Increase the housing stock of existing neighborhoods in a manner that is less intense
than alternatives;
households;
5. Offer a means for residents, particularly seniors, single parents, and families with
grown children, to remain in their homes and neighborhoods, and obtain extra
income, security, companionship, and services;
7. Provide opportunity for workforce housing in developed and new neighborhoods,
close to places of work, thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions and reducing fossil
fuel consumption through less car commuting;
8. Support transit-oriented development and reduce auto usage by increasing density
near transit stops; and
9. Support the economic viability of historic properties and the city's historic
preservation goals by allowing accessory residential uses in historic structures.
B. Applicability: An accessory dwelling unit may be incorporated within or added onto an
existing house, garage, or other accessory structure, or may be built as a separate,
detached structure on a lot where a single-family dwelling exists. Accessory dwelling
units are allowed in the following residential zone districts: FR-1I43,560, FR-2/21,780,
FR-3112,000, R-lIl2,000, R-ll7,OOO, R-1I5,000, SR-l, SR-IA, SR-3, R-2, RMF-30,
RMF-35, RMF-45, and RMF-75 subject to the provisions of this section.
C. Owner Occupant: For the purposes of this title, owner occupant shall mean the following:
1. An individual who:
a. Possesses, as shown by a recorded deed, fifty (50) percent or more ownership in a
dwelling unit, and
b. Occupies the dwelling unit with a bona fide intent to make it his or her primary
residence; or
a. Is a trustor of a family trust which:
(1) Possesses fee title ownership to a dwelling unit;
(2) Was created for estate plmming purposes by one (1) or more trustors of the
trust; and
b. Occupies the dwelling unit owned by the family trust with a bona fide intent to
make it his or her primary residence. Each living trustor of the trust shall so
occupy the dwelling unit except for a trustor who temporarily resides elsewhere
due to a disability or infirmity. In such event, the dwelling unit shall nevertheless
be the domicile of the trustor dnring the trustor's temporary absence.
3. Even if a person meets the requirements of Subsections I or 2 of this definition, such
person shall not be deemed an owner occupant if the property on which the dwelling
unit is located has more than one (1) owner and all owners of the property do not
occupy the dwelling unit with a bona fide intent to make the dwelling unit their
primary residence.
a. A claim by the City that a person is not an owner occupant may be rebutted only
by documentation, submitted to the Community and Economic Development
Department, showing such person has a bona fide intent to make the dwelling unit
his or her primary residence. Such intent shall be shown by:
(1) Documents for any loan presently applicable to the property where the
dwelling unit is located which nmne the person as a borrower;
(2) Tax returns which show the person has claimed income, deductions, or
depreciation from the property;
(3) Rental documents and agreements with any tenant who occupies the dwelling
unit, including an accessory apartment;
(4) Insurance, utility, appraisal, or other contractual documents related to the
property which name the person as the property owner; and
(5) Documents which show the person is a full-time resident of Utah for Utah
State income tax purposes.
b. Any person who fails, upon request of the Community and Economic
Development Department, to provide any of the documents set forth in
Subsections 3a of this definition or who provides a document showing that
ownership of a dwelling unit is shared among persons who do not all occupy the
dwelling unit shall mean for the purpose ofthis Title that such person shall not be
deemed an "owner occupant" of the dwelling unit in question.
4. The provisions of Subsection 3 of this definition shall apply to any person who began
a period of owner occupancy after July 1, 2011, regardless of when the person
purchased the property.
D. Permit Allocation:
1. The city shall limit the establishment of accessory dwelling units, pursuant to this
ordinance, to twenty-five (25) units per calendar year, with the following exceptions;
a. Accessory dwelling units located within a Redevelopment Agency (RDA) of Salt
Lake City project area, or funded in part by RDA housing funds, shall be exempt
from annual pennit allocation limits;
b. Accessory dwelling units that comply with all accessibility standards as contained
within the current building code shall be exempt from annual permit allocation
limits.
2. Building permit applications for an accessory dwelling unit shall be accepted and
processed in order of date and time submitted, however order of approval shall be
based solely on compliance with current building code.
E. Standards: Accessory dwelling units shall conform to the following purpose statement
and requirements:
1. Purpose: These design and development standards are intended to ensure that
accessory dwelling units are:
a. Compatible with the desired character and livability of the residential zoning
districts;
b. Compatible with the historic district and landmark resources of the city;
c. Compatible with the general building scales and placement of structures to allow
sharing of common space on the lot, such as yards and driveways; and
d. Smaller in size than the principal dwelling on the site.
2. General Requirements:
a. Owner Occupant Requirement: Accessory dwelling units shall only be permitted
when an owner occupant lives on the property within either the principal dwelling
or accessory dwelling unit. Owner occupancy shall not be required when:
(1) The owner has a bona fide, temporary absence of three (3) years or less for
activities such as military service, temporary job assignments, sabbaticals, or
voluntary service (indefinite periods of absence from the dwelling shall not
qualify for this exception), or
(2) The owner is placed in a hospital, nursing home, assisted living facility or
other similar facility that provides regular medical care, excluding retirement
living facilities or communities.
b. Deed Restriction: A lot approved for development with an accessory dwelling
unit shall have a deed restriction, the fonn of which shall be approved by the City
Attorney, filed with the county recorder's office indicating such owner-occupied
requirement of the property prior to issuance of a final certificate of occupancy
for the accessory dwelling unit by the city. Such deed restriction shall run with the
land until the accessory dwelling unit is abandoned or revoked.
c. One per Lot: One accessory dwelling unit is permitted per residential lot.
d. Underlying Zoning Applies: Unless specifically provided otherwise in this
section, accessory dwelling units are subject to the regulations for a principal
building of the underlying zoning district with regard to lot and bulk standards,
such as building and wall height, setbacks, yard requirements, and building
coverage.
(1) The requirements of Section 21A.40.050, Accessory Uses, Buildings, and
Structures, which govern all non-residential accessory structures, do not apply to
accessory dwelling wlits.
(2) Accessory dwelling units may have the same building setbacks as that allowed
in the zoning district for the principal dwelling on the property. An existing
accessory structure whose setbacks do not meet the setback requirements for a
dwelling as noted above may be converted into an accessory dwelling unit but any
non-complying setbacks may not become more non-complying.
e. Existing Development on Lot: A single-family dwelling shall exist on the lot or
will be constructed in conjunction with the accessory dwelling unit.
f. Internal, Attached, or Detached: While accessory dwelling units are allowed only
in conjunction with a principal dwelling on a lot, the unit may be built internal to,
attached to, or as a separate unit detached from the principal dwelling.
g. Minimum Lot Area: Within permissible zoning districts, the minimum lot area
required for an accessory dwelling unit shall be:
(1) Internal: For accessory dwelling units located within the principal single-
family structure, no minimum lot area is required.
(2) Detached: For accessory dwelling units located within a detached structure, a
minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet is required.
(3) Attached: For accessory dwelling units located within an addition to the
single-family structure, no minimum lot area is required.
h. Building Code Compliance: Accessory dwelling units are subject to compliance
with current building code at time of permit approval.
i. Public Utilities: No structure that is not connected to the public water and sanitary
sewer systems shall have an accessory dwelling unit.
j. Multi-Family Districts with Single Family Dwelling on Lot: A lot located within a
multi-family zoning district that is cunentIy built out with a single-family
detached dwelling and does not have the required minimum amount of land to add
additional units pursuant to the multifamily zoning district requirement, one
accessory dwelling unit may be pennitted.
k. Not a Unit of Density: Accessory dwelling units are not considered a unit of
density and therefore are not included in the density calculation for residential
property.
1. Rooming House: Neither dwelling unit may be used as a roomll1g house as
defined by Section 21A.62.040 of this title.
m. Home Occupations: Home occupations listed in Section 21A36.030 B, Pennitted
Home Occupations, may be conducted in an accessory dwelling unit. Those home
occupations listed in this section tmder "Conditional Home Occupations" are
explicitly not allowed in accessory dwelling units in order to maintain the
residential nature of the dwelling unit.
n. Historic Preservation Overlay District: Accessory dwelling units located in an H
Historic Preservation Overlay District are subject to the applicable regulations and
review processes of Section 2IA.34.020, including the related guidelines and
standards as adopted by Salt Lake City to ensure compatible building and
preservation of historic resources.
3. Methods of Creation: An accessory dwelling unit may only be created through one of
more of the following methods:
a. Converting existing living area within a principal structure, such as a basement or
attic space;
b. Adding floor area to a principal structure;
c. Constructing a new single-family detached dwelling unit structure with an intemal
or detached accessory dwelling unit;
d. Converting or adding onto an existing accessory structure on a lot, such as to a
garage or other outbuilding, where no required parking for the principal dwelling
is eliminated by the accessory dwelling unit; and
e. Constructing a new accessory dwelling unit within a separate detached structure
in compliance with applicable lot coverage regulations.
4. Size of Accessory Dwelling Unit: The maximum size of an accessory dwelling unit
may be no more than 50% of the gross square footage of the principal dwelling unit
or 650 squaTe feet whichever is less. The minimum size of an accessory dwelling unit
is that size specified and required by the adopted building code of the city.
5. Ownership: An accessory dwelling unit shall not be sold sepaTately or subdivided
from the principal dwelling unit or lot.
6. Number of Residents: The total number of residents that may reside in an accessory
dwelling unit may not exceed the number that is allowed for a family as defined in
Section 21A.62.040, Definition of Terms.
7. Parking:
a. An accessory dwelling unit that contains a studio or single bedroom, one
additional on-site parking space is required.
b. An accessory dwelling unit that contains two or more bedrooms, two additional
on-site parking spaces is required.
c. The City Transportation Director may approve a request to waive, or modify the
dimensions of, the accessory dwelling unit parking space upon finding that the
parking requirement for the principal dwelling is met and:
(1) Adequate on-street parking in the immediate vicinity is available to serve the
accessory dwelling unit and will not cause congestion in the area; or
(2) The accessory dwelling unit is located within Y. mile of a fixed transit line or
an arterial street with a designated bus route.
d. The City Transportation Director may allow tandem parking, within a legal
location behind an existing on-site parking space, to meet the accessory dwelling
unit parking requirement so long as the parking space requirement is met for the
principal dwelling.
8. Location of Entrance to Accessory Dwelling Unit:
a. Internal or Attached Units: Accessory dwelling units that are internal to or
attached to a principal dwelling may take access from an existing entrance on a
street-facing front fayade of the principal dwelling. No new entrances may be
added to the front fayade of a principal dwelling for an accessory dwelling unit
unless such access is located at least twenty (20) feet behind the front fayade of
the principal dwelling unit.
b. Detached Units: Accessory dwelling units that are detached from the principal
dwelling:
(1) May utilize an existing street-facing front fayade entrance as long as the
entrance is located a minimum of twenty (20) feet behind the front fayade of the
principal dwelling, or install a new entrance to the existing or new detached
stmcture for the purpose of serving the accessory dwelling unit as long as the
entrance is facing the rear or side of lot.
(2) Shall be located no closer than thirty (30) feet from the front property line and
shall talce access from an alley when one is present and accessible.
c. Corner Lots: On comer lots, existing entrances on the street-facing sides may be
used for an accessory dwelling unit, but any new entrance shall be located facing
toward the rear property line or interior side yard, or toward the back of the
principal dwelling.
d. H Historic Preservation Overlay District: When accessory dwelling units are
proposed in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District, the regulations and
design guidelines governing these properties in Section 21A.34.020 shall take
precedence over the location of entrance provisions above.
e. Side Entrance Exemption: Side entrance for an accessory dwelling unit shall not
be subject to compliance with code 21A.24.010.H Side Entry Buildings of this
title.
9. Exterior Design:
a. Within an H Historic Preservation Overlay District: Accessory dwelling units
located within an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall meet the process,
regulations, and applicable design guidelines in Section 21A.34.020 of this title.
b. Outside H Historic Preservation Overlay District or Historic Landmark Site:
Accessory dweIIing units shall be regulated by the following exterior design
standards:
(I) The maximum height of a detached accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed
the principal structure.
(2) An accessory dweIIing unit shall be designed and constructed to be compatible
with the principal structure.
10. Registration: Accessory dwelling units shall be registered with the city to evaluate
whether the accessory dwelling unit initially meets applicable requirements; to ensure
that the accessory dwelling unit meets health and safety requirements; to ensure that
the property owner is aware of all city regulations goveming accessory dwelling
lmits; to ensure that the distribution and location of accessory dwelling units is
known, to assist the City in assessing housing supply and demand; and to fulfill the
Accessory Dwelling Units Purpose Statement listed above. To accomplish this,
property owners seeking to establish an accessory dwelling unit shall comply with the
following:
a. Building Permit: Apply for and obtain a building permit for the proposed
accessory dwelling unit, regardless of method of creation;
b. Inspection: Ensure accessory dwelling unit is constructed, inspected, and
approved in compliance with current building code;
c. Business License: Apply for and obtain an annual business license for the
accessory dweIIing unit in accordance with the applicable provisions of the city.
11. Occupancy: No accessory dwelling unit shall be occupied until the property owner
obtains a business license for the accessory dwelling unit from the city.
2IA.60.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: List of Terms: List of Defined Terms), shall be, and
hereby is, amended only to inseli the following terms into that list in alphabetical order:
Accessory dwelling nnit
Owner occupant
21A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Definitions: Definitions of Terms), shall be, and
hereby is, amended only to insert the following definitions into that list in alphabetical order:
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT: A residential nnit that is located on the same lot as a
single-family dwelling unit, either internal to or attached to the single family unit or in a
detached structure. The accessory dwelling unit shall be a complete housekeeping unit with a
shared or separate entrance, and separate kitchen, sleeping area, closet space, and bathroom
facilities.
OWNER OCCUPANT: See section 21A.40.l80 of this title.
SECTION 5. 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 _____ ~
2011.
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on __________
Mayor's Action: ___ Approved. ___ Vetoed.
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. ___ 0[2011.
Published: _____ _
MAYOR
HB _ A TTY# accessory units. DOC

1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY

Chronology
Sustainable City Code InitiativeAccessory Dwelling Units
December 2009 General information about Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) in Urbanusthe
monthly Planning Division e-newsletter
December 2009 Fact sheet and draft ordinance posted to Planning Division website
December 17, 2009 Open House: all people on ListServe notified of open house, including all community
council chairs
July 1, 2010 Second article about ADUs in Urbanusthe monthly Planning Division e-newsletter
July 14, 2010 ADU Focus Group: Clarion met with focus group comprised of community council
chairs, citizens, housing builders, and housing advocates
July 15, 2010 Open House / Public Forum at Salt Lake City Library conducted by Clarion Associates
September 1, 2010 Open City Hall forum began (20 comments as of November 4, 2010)
September 2, 2010 Presented information to Community Council Chairs at Mayors breakfast meeting with
Community Council Chairs
September 16, 2010 Presented information at Salt Lake Network meeting
October 21, 2010 Public Forum City Hall
October 27, 2010 Wasatch Hollow Community Council meeting
November 10, 2010 Planning Commission Work Session
December 9, 2010 Planning Commission Briefing: Clarion Associates and Mayor Becker attended
meeting
January 5, 2011 Presented information to the Utah Housing Coalition
February 3, 2011 Presented information to Community Council Chairs at Mayors breakfast meeting with
February 9, 2011 Presented information to the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board Meeting
February 17, 2011 Presented information to Housing Trust Fund Board Lunch
February 17, 2011 Open House: all people on ListServe notified of open house, including all community
council chairs
February 22, 2011 Presented information at the Mayor's Accessible Services Advisory Council
February 23, 2011 Planning Commission Work Session
March 2, 2011 Historic Landmark Commission Work Session
March 9, 2011 Follow-up meeting with Housing Advisory and Appeals Board
March 23, 2011 Planning Commission conducted public hearing, and voted 5-0 to table petition
June 8, 2011 Planning Commission Briefing by Dr. Arthur C. Nelson, University of Utah
June 22, 2011 Planning Commission concluded public hearing, and voted 4-1 to recommend approval
of petition
July 13, 2011 Planning Commission ratified meeting minutes for June 22, 2011
July 28, 2011 Submitted draft transmittal to Planning Manager for review
August 9, 2011 Received draft ordinance from City Attorney

2. ORDINANCE

No. _____ of 2011


WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (Planning Commission) held public
hearings on March 23, 2011 and June 22, 2011 to consider a request made by Salt Lake City Mayor
Ralph Becker (petition no. PLNPCM2010-00612) to amend the text of sections 21A.24.190 (Zoning:
of Terms) of the Salt Lake City Code and adopting a new section 21A.40.180 (Zoning: Accessory
WHEREAS, at its June 22, 2011 hearing, the Planning Commission voted in favor of
adopting this ordinance is in the Citys best interests,

category of Accessory dwelling unit under the residential category listed on said table as depicted
in Exhibit A attached hereto. The codifier is instructed to only insert the Accessory dwelling

unit use category and designations of such use as a permitted or conditional use (as noted by a P
or C) as shown on Exhibit A and make no other revisions to that table.
SECTION 2. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code chapter 21A.40 to adopt section
21A.40.180. That the Salt Lake City Code shall be, and hereby is, amended to adopt section

21A.40.180: ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS: Accessory dwelling units, as defined in
chapter 21A.62 of this title, shall be subject to the following:

A. Purpose Statement: The purposes of the accessory dwelling unit provisions are to:

development;

than alternatives;


households;





9. Support the economic viability of historic properties and the citys historic

units are allowed in the following residential zone districts: FR-1/43,560, FR-2/21,780,
FR-3/12,000, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, SR-1, SR-1A, SR-3, R-2, RMF-30,



dwelling unit, and

residence; or




(2) Was created for estate planning purposes by one (1) or more trustors of the
trust; and

be the domicile of the trustor during the trustor's temporary absence.

3. Even if a person meets the requirements of Subsections 1 or 2 of this definition, such
primary residence.


dwelling unit is located which name the person as a borrower;





dwelling unit shall mean for the purpose of this Title that such person shall not be




from annual permit allocation limits;

limits.


and requirements:


districts;








unit shall have a deed restriction, the form of which shall be approved by the City
Attorney, filed with the county recorders office indicating such owner-occupied


coverage.

accessory dwelling units.










multi-family zoning district that is currently built out with a single-family
accessory dwelling unit may be permitted.

property.

l. Rooming House: Neither dwelling unit may be used as a rooming house as
m. Home Occupations: Home occupations listed in Section 21A36.030 B, Permitted
occupations listed in this section under Conditional Home Occupations are


review processes of Section 21A.34.020, including the related guidelines and


attic space;


c. Constructing a new single-family detached dwelling unit structure with an internal



or 650 square feet whichever is less. The minimum size of an accessory dwelling unit

5. Ownership: An accessory dwelling unit shall not be sold separately or subdivided


7. Parking:




(2) The accessory dwelling unit is located within mile of a fixed transit line or

principal dwelling.


street-facing front faade of the principal dwelling. No new entrances may be
added to the front faade of a principal dwelling for an accessory dwelling unit
unless such access is located at least twenty (20) feet behind the front faade of

dwelling:

(1) May utilize an existing street-facing front faade entrance as long as the
entrance is located a minimum of twenty (20) feet behind the front faade of the
structure for the purpose of serving the accessory dwelling unit as long as the

shall take access from an alley when one is present and accessible.

c. Corner Lots: On corner lots, existing entrances on the street-facing sides may be
principal dwelling.

title.

9. Exterior Design:


Accessory dwelling units shall be regulated by the following exterior design
standards:

(1) The maximum height of a detached accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed

(2) An accessory dwelling unit shall be designed and constructed to be compatible

the property owner is aware of all city regulations governing accessory dwelling
units; to ensure that the distribution and location of accessory dwelling units is
following:



accessory dwelling unit in accordance with the applicable provisions of the city.


21A.60.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: List of Terms: List of Defined Terms), shall be, and
hereby is, amended only to insert the following terms into that list in alphabetical order:
Accessory dwelling unit
SECTION 4.
Owner occupant
Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.62.040. That section

ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT: A residential unit that is located on the same lot as a
facilities.

OWNER OCCUPANT: See section 21A.40.180 of this title.
SECTION 5. 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 ______________,
2011.
______________________________
CHAIRPERSON


______________________________
CITY RECORDER

Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________.

Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed.

______________________________
MAYOR

______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)

Bill No. ________ of 2011.
Published: ______________.

HB_ATTY-#19149-v1-Ordinance_allowing_accessory_dwelling_units.DOC

No. _____ of 2011


WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (Planning Commission) held public
hearings on March 23, 2011 and June 22, 2011 to consider a request made by Salt Lake City Mayor
Ralph Becker (petition no. PLNPCM2010-00612) to amend the text of sections 21A.24.190 (Zoning:
of Terms) of the Salt Lake City Code and adopting a new section 21A.40.180 (Zoning: Accessory
WHEREAS, at its June 22, 2011 hearing, the Planning Commission voted in favor of
adopting this ordinance is in the Citys best interests,

category of Accessory dwelling unit under the residential category listed on said table as depicted
in Exhibit A attached hereto. The codifier is instructed to only insert the Accessory dwelling
unit use category and designations of such use as a permitted or conditional use (as noted by a P
or C) as shown on Exhibit A and make no other revisions to that table.
SECTION 2. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code chapter 21A.40 to adopt section
21A.40.180
21A.40.180: ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS: Accessory dwelling units, as defined in
chapter 21A.62 of this title, shall be subject to the following:
. That the Salt Lake City Code shall be, and hereby is, amended to adopt section

A. Purpose Statement: The purposes of the accessory dwelling unit provisions are to:

development;

than alternatives;


households;





9. Support the economic viability of historic properties and the citys historic

units are allowed in the following residential zone districts: FR-1/43,560, FR-2/21,780,
FR-3/12,000, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, SR-1, SR-1A, SR-3, R-2, RMF-30,



dwelling unit, and

residence; or




(2) Was created for estate planning purposes by one (1) or more trustors of the
trust; and

be the domicile of the trustor during the trustor's temporary absence.

3. Even if a person meets the requirements of Subsections 1 or 2 of this definition, such
primary residence.


dwelling unit is located which name the person as a borrower;





dwelling unit shall mean for the purpose of this Title that such person shall not be




from annual permit allocation limits;

limits.


and requirements:


districts;








unit shall have a deed restriction, the form of which shall be approved by the City
Attorney, filed with the county recorders office indicating such owner-occupied


coverage.

accessory dwelling units.










multi-family zoning district that is currently built out with a single-family
accessory dwelling unit may be permitted.

property.

l. Rooming House: Neither dwelling unit may be used as a rooming house as

m. Home Occupations: Home occupations listed in Section 21A36.030 B, Permitted
occupations listed in this section under Conditional Home Occupations are

review processes of Section 21A.34.020, including the related guidelines and


attic space;


c. Constructing a new single-family detached dwelling unit structure with an internal



or 650 square feet whichever is less. The minimum size of an accessory dwelling unit

5. Ownership: An accessory dwelling unit shall not be sold separately or subdivided


7. Parking:





(2) The accessory dwelling unit is located within mile of a fixed transit line or

principal dwelling.


street-facing front faade of the principal dwelling. No new entrances may be
added to the front faade of a principal dwelling for an accessory dwelling unit
unless such access is located at least twenty (20) feet behind the front faade of

dwelling:

(1) May utilize an existing street-facing front faade entrance as long as the
entrance is located a minimum of twenty (20) feet behind the front faade of the
structure for the purpose of serving the accessory dwelling unit as long as the

shall take access from an alley when one is present and accessible.

c. Corner Lots: On corner lots, existing entrances on the street-facing sides may be
principal dwelling.


title.

9. Exterior Design:


Accessory dwelling units shall be regulated by the following exterior design
standards:

(1) The maximum height of a detached accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed

(2) An accessory dwelling unit shall be designed and constructed to be compatible

the property owner is aware of all city regulations governing accessory dwelling
units; to ensure that the distribution and location of accessory dwelling units is
following:



accessory dwelling unit in accordance with the applicable provisions of the city.


SECTION 3. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.60.020
Accessory dwelling unit
. That section
21A.60.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: List of Terms: List of Defined Terms), shall be, and
hereby is, amended only to insert the following terms into that list in alphabetical order:
Owner occupant
SECTION 4. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code section 21A.62.040
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT: A residential unit that is located on the same lot as a
facilities.
. That section

OWNER OCCUPANT: See section 21A.40.180 of this title.

SECTION 5. 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 ______________,
2011.
______________________________
CHAIRPERSON


______________________________
CITY RECORDER

Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________.

Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed.

______________________________
MAYOR

______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)

Bill No. ________ of 2011.

Published: ______________.

HB_ATTY-#19149-v2-Ordinance_allowing_accessory_dwelling_units.DOC

APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorneys Office

Date:__________________________________

By: ___________________________________
Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney

3. CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

Text Amendment Language

PLN2010-00612 Accessory Dwelling Units

- A request by Mayor Ralph Becker for a zoning
text amendment to permit accessory dwelling units within the following single-family and multi-
family residential districts: FR-1/43,560, FR-2/21,780, FR-3/12,000, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-
1/5,000, SR-1, SR-1A, SR-3, R-2, RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45, and RMF-75. This request is
part of the Sustainability City Code Initiative and would affect areas City-wide. The amendment
creates chapter 21A.41 and affects sections 21A.24.190 and 21A.62.140 of Title 21A - Zoning.
Related provisions of the zoning ordinance may also be amended as part of this petition.

As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive
comments regarding the petition. During this hearing, anyone desiring to address the City
Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The hearing will be held:

DATE:

TIME: 7:00 p.m.

PLACE: Room 315
City & County Building
451 South State Street
Salt Lake City, Utah

If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call
Michael Maloy at 801-535-7118 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday or via e-mail at michael.maloy@slcgov.com.

People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours
in advance in order to attend this hearing. Accommodations may include alternate formats,
interpreters, and other auxiliary aids. This is an accessible facility. For questions, requests, or
additional information, please contact the Planning Division at (801) 535-7757; TDD (801) 535-
6021.

4. MAILING LABELS

Erin Youngberg
1910 Bridge Crest Circle
Salt Lake City UT 84116

Elke Phillips
839 S. Washington St

Cabot Nelson
984 E Simpson Avenue

Brad Bartholomew
871 N Poinsettia Dr

Thomas Mutter
228 East 500 South

Michael Cohn
PO Box 520123
Salt Lake City, Utah 84125

Angie Vorher
1988 Sir James Dr

East Central Community Council
606 Trolley Square

Gordon Storrs
223 North 800 West

DeWitt Smith
328 E Hollywood Ave

Andrew Johnston
716 Glendale Street

Esther Hunter
606 Trolley Square

Randy Sorenson
1184 S. Redwood Dr
Salt Lake City UT 84104-3325

George Kelner
1000 Military Drive

Katherine Gardner
606 De Soto St

John Bennion
1684 E. Browning Ave

Dave Van Langeveld
807 Northcliffe Dr

Pete Taylor
933 S. 2300 E.

Gene Fitzgerald
1385 Butler Ave

Ellen Reddick
2177 Roosevelt Ave

D. Christian Harrison
336 W. Broadway, #308

R. Gene Moffitt
1410 Chancellor Way

Last update from CC website 5.11.11

5. PLANNING COMMISSION

5.A PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
March 10, 2011

4770 S. 5600 W.
1'.0. BOX 704005
WEST VALLEY CITY. UTAI I 84170
FED.TAX I.D.# 87-02 17663
milt .iillt nkt '0ribunt
Deseret News
','''10'''' AC t"(. (u ....
.... \, p. r ," ..
PROOF OF PUBLICATION CUSTOMER'S COPY
CUSTOMER NAME AND ADDRESS ACCOUNT NUMBER DATE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT,
9001381805 3/1 0/20 II
Salt Lake City Planning Division
P. O. Box 145480
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84 11 J
ACCOUNT NAME
BOARD O F ADJUSTMENT,
TEWPHONE ADORDER# 1 I NVOICE NUMBER
80 1535774 1 0000670659 /
SCHEDULE
Start 03/09/20 I I End 03/09/20 I I
CUST, REF. NO.
ADU Ord inance
CAPTI ON
Noti ce of Publi c Hearing On March 23, 201 1, the Salt Lake City Pla nni ng Commi ssi on will hold
SIZE
23 Li nes 2.00 COLUMN
ri MES RATE
None. 01 Public H,orll'lll
4 On Mo,,;h '21, 201 1, Ih' Son LokI CII)' CO",,,,I\ll011
will hold IIllVbUC to coruld., making IfCommendll-
Iiont 10 Ihl 11'( Council the fOllowing p.IiIIOII,
MI SC. CII ARGES , AD CHARGES rlNPCM201 0.006 1:2 .-"c.llory OWllllnll U!\II " r.quill by
Motor Rolph htlcer l or a tonIng !lAt om.ndm.nl 10 allow
oectllOfI dwelling UIIlh w11ll1" Ill. 1'"$,.'omll'(
ond !TN 01l1r1<11< fRo /0 60, fit .
2/2 '780 Fl ,'2000, '/ '2,000 R.
1/S0oo'SR. ' S . ,l Sl . 3,. ,RMf. J6, RMF.J
Ond'RMf.7S. tllil r.q;"'11 II porI 01 tilt 01'1
TOTAL COST
Cod. 11I1!lali'" GIld would aU.et Off 01 Cltrw1o..
Tile heorlng will b'$n 01 5,<IS p.m. In room J211 al
Itlt County r.ulldll\9. .. , So)uitl Sto'. Slrul, Sot! lok.
82.28
For mil" rMOfmaUOII or lor 'r.,aol AQ,l, oecommo-
110 ronl . whldl fIIoy 1nc;lud, oll.fllol, Of malo, InltrPf.
r
.".
and other aldl or gddmonol Inlo'tllotloll. pleol.
contact MlcMel Slott 01 801 5].579711 Of coli TOO 801-
5J5t.r220,
UPf,XlP
AFFII)A VIT or PUBLICATION
t.r70ir!o9
AS NEWSPAPER AGENCY COMPANY, LLC db, MEDIAONE OF UTAH LEGAL BOOKER, I CERTIFY THAT THE A'ITACHED ADVERTISEMENT or No.k,
or !)lIhlic lI cll l"ing 0 11 1\1:11" (' 11 23.201 J. Ihe Salt Lllkc City r lulllli ng Commi ssion will holt! jl public h('llrilig to llIuldng I" CCOlll lllCminliolls 10 til l' Cit), Co
FOR !lOAIlD OF ADJ USTMENT, WAS PUBLISHED BY Ti lE NEWSPAPER AGENCY COMPANY, LLC db" MEDIAONE OF UTAH, AGENT FOR Til E SALT
LAKE TRIBUNE AND DESERET NEWS, DAILY NEWSPAPERS PRI NTED IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE WITH GENERAL CIRCULATION IN UTAH, AND
PUOLISHED IN SALT LAKE CITY. SALT LAKE COUNTY IN THE STATE OF UTAH. NOTICE IS ALSO POSTED ON UTAII LEGALS.COM ON THE SAME DAY
AS THE FIRST NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION DATE AND REMAINS ON UTAHLEGALS.COM INDEFINATELY.
PUBLISHED ON
SIGNATURE
DATE
Stort 03/09/20 I I End 03/09/20 I I
311 0/20 I I
of Utah
CommisSion" 14139
My Commlulon
"1' 11 IS IS NOT A STATEMENT BUT A "PROOF OF
PLEASE PAY FROM BILLI NG STATEMENT
20t'

5.B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
March 17, 2011
June 16, 2011
PLNPCM2010-00612 Accessory Dwelling Units 1 Published Date: March 17, 2011
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT

Planning Division
Department of Community &
Economic Development
Accessory Dwelling Units
Zoning Text Amendment
Petition No. PLNPCM2010-00116
March 23, 2011

Applicant:
Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker

Staff:
Michael Maloy AICP at (801) 535-7118 or
michael.maloy@slcgov.com

Tax ID:
Citywide

Current Zone:
Citywide

Master Plan Designation:
Citywide

Council District:
Citywide

Lot Size:
Citywide

Current Use:
Single-family dwellings

Applicable Land Use Regulations:
Chapter 21A.24 Residential Districts
Chapter 21A.40 Accessory Uses,
Buildings and Structures
Chapter 21A.62 Definitions

Notification:
Notice published in Salt Lake Tribune
on March 11, 2011
Notice mailed to Community Councils
on March 11, 2011
Agenda posted on the Planning
Division and Utah Public Meeting
Notice websites on March 11, 2011

Attachments:
A. Accessory Dwelling Units Ordinance
B. Residential Districts Map
C. Quarter Mile Transit Overlay Map
D. Half Mile Transit Overlay Map
E. Sample Illustrations
F. APA Quick Notes
G. Public Input Chronology and Notes
H. Public Comments
I. Community Council Comments
J. Department Comments
Request
A request by Mayor Ralph Becker for a zoning text amendment to allow
accessory dwelling units within the following single-family and multi-
family residential districts: FR-1/43,560, FR-2/21,780, FR-3/12,000, R-
1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, SR-1, SR-1A, SR-3, R-2, RMF-30,
RMF-35, RMF-45, and RMF-75. This request is part of the Sustainability
City Code Initiative and would affect areas City-wide. The Planning
Commissions authority in this matter is advisory to the City Council,
which has the legislative authority to make the final decision.

Staff Recommendation
Based on the analysis and findings contained within the staff report, staff
recommends; the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing on the
proposed ordinance, discuss the proposal, and if needed direct staff to
provide additional information or modification of the ordinance, and
table the petition for consideration during a future public meeting.
Background
Project Description
Mayor Ralph Becker, in cooperation with the City Council, has initiated a series of administrative policies and
legislative petitions to encourage sustainable land use within Salt Lake City. The petitions address various city
codes, including zoning. In support of this effortwhich is generally known as the Sustainability City Code
Initiativethe City retained the services of Clarion Associates, an experienced and respected land use planning
and real estate consulting firm to research and produce draft ordinances.

Petition PLNPCM2010-00612 proposes to permit accessory dwelling units in single-family and multi-family
residential districts (see Attachment A Accessory Dwelling Units Ordinance). An accessory dwelling unit
(ADU) is a residential unit that is established on the same lot as a single-family dwelling unit, and may be
located within a single-family dwelling, attached to a single-family dwelling (such as in an addition), or in a
detached structure (such as in a garage or separate accessory structure). The accessory dwelling unit must be a
complete housekeeping unit with a separate kitchen, sleeping area, closet space, bathroom facilities, and a
shared or separate entrance.

The proposed ordinance requires owner occupancy of the principal or accessory dwelling, one additional
parking stall, and compliance with current building codes. To ensure the accessory dwelling is subordinate to
the principal dwelling, the draft ordinance establishes a maximum building square footage, a scalable building
height limit, and requires building setbacks and lot coverage be compliant with the underlying zone.

Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) have become an important component of the housing stock in many
communitiesboth large and smallin the United States. By providing housing on existing lots in developed
neighborhoods, ADUs are a form of land use that makes good use of land and public infrastructure investment.
Accessory Dwelling Units, when located near employment and retail centers, help increase the use of
circulation alternativessuch as walking, cycling, mass transitleading to a reduction in green house gas
emissions and energy (fuel) use. Additionally, the changing face of the American public and its housing needs
supports the inclusion of ADUs as a housing alternative. More people are aging, are empty nesters, and desire
to down-size. In addition, the work force continues to be challenged to find affordable housing and ADUs can
help address that demand (see Attachment F APA Quick Notes).

With respect to observable trends in sustainability, demographics, land use development, and economic
conditions, the stated purposes for Petition PLNPCM2010-00612 Accessory Dwelling Units are:

1. Create new housing units while respecting the look and scale of single-dwelling development;
2. Increase the housing stock of existing neighborhoods in a manner that is less intense than alternatives;
3. Allow more efficient use of existing housing stock, public infrastructure, and the embodied energy
contained within existing structures;
4. Provide a mix of housing options that responds to changing family needs and smaller households;
5. Offer a means for residents, particularly seniors, single parents, and families with grown children, to
remain in their homes and neighborhoods, and obtain extra income, security, companionship, and
services;
7. Provide opportunity for workforce housing in developed and new neighborhoods, close to places of
work, thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions and reducing fossil fuel consumption through less car
commuting;
8. Support transit-oriented development and reduce auto usage by increasing density near transit stops; and
9. Support the economic viability of historic properties and the citys historic preservation goals by
allowing accessory residential uses in historic structures.
Comments
Public Comments
Since December of 2009, the Planning Division has discussed the proposal in more than 20 public meetings (see
Attachment G Public Input Chronology and Notes). All public comments received to date have been included
for review and consideration (see Attachment H Public Comments).

Based on a review of public comment, staff has provided the following summary of issues:

Density. In 2010, the Unites States Census Bureau estimated the population of Salt Lake City at 186,440,
which is up from 181,743 in 2000. Salt Lake Citys population per square mile is 1,688. Because the
development pattern of Salt Lake City is unique within Utahdue to extensive commercial development,
an international airport, and notable quantities of undeveloped landit is difficult to compare density with
other communities. However, for reference purposes only, the Census Bureau in May of 2001 identified the
City of Taylorsville as the most densely populated city in the state with 5,376.2 persons per square mile.
Other densely populated Utah cities include Midvale (4,627.4), Orem (4,573.6), Washington Terrace
(4,477.4), Roy (4,330.8), Sandy (3,961.5), and South Ogden (3,917.1).

If approved, the proposed ordinance will impact all single-family and multi-family districts within the City.
The area contained within the impacted residential districts is 8,777 acres, which is approximately 12.42%
of the total area of Salt Lake City.

A significant element of density is the average household size. The Unites States Census Bureau defines
household as:

A household includes all the persons who occupy a housing unit. A housing unit is a house, an
apartment, a mobile home, a group of rooms, or a single room that is occupied (or if vacant, is intended
for occupancy) as separate living quarters. Separate living quarters are those in which the occupants live
and eat separately from any other persons in the building and which have direct access from the outside
of the building or through a common hall. The occupants may be a single family, one person living
alone, two or more families living together, or any other group of related or unrelated persons who share
living arrangements.

Based on information gleaned from Census reports, the average household size within in Salt Lake City is
declining:

Census Year Salt Lake City Average Household Size United States Average Household Size
1950 3.38 persons 3.40 persons
2010 Data not yet published 2.59 persons

During the past 50 years, the decline in average household size is clear. However, the anomalous increase in
the average household size in 2000 is due to the notable population growth among minorities. In 1990,
minorities in Salt Lake City were 9.77% of the total population. In 2010, minorities in Salt Lake City form
20.8% of the total population. This issue is further explained in a report entitled Age and Family Structure
by Race, Ethnicity and Place of Residence published by the United States Department of Agriculture,
minority groups have a larger average household size than whites:

Both household and family size declined between 1980 and 1990 in urban and rural areas. In 1990,
average household size was 2.5 persons for Whites, 2.9 for Blacks, and 3.5 for Hispanics. Average
family size in 1990, regardless of residence, was 3.1 for Whites, 3.5 for Blacks, and 3.9 for Hispanics.
Both Whites and Blacks experienced declines in household and family size between 1980 and 1990. As
declines were larger for the Black population, the racial gap contracted. Much of the decline in
household and family size is due to decreased childbearing and a drop in the average number of children
and other household members under age 18 (Hernandez, 1993). Large families usually reduce the
amount of time and resources parents can devote to each child. Smaller family size implies improved
educational, occupational, and economic opportunities for children.

Minorities tend to have larger families and households than Whites, with Hispanics having the largest
families. About 12 percent of Hispanic households in 1991 had 6 or more members, compared with 3
percent of non-Hispanic households (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1991).

Opponents of the proposal often cite the comprehensive 1995 zoning update that reduced development
density in many Salt Lake City residential neighborhoods (see Attachment I Community Council
Comments). Opponents believe that ADUs represent a reversal of that previous legislative action. In
response, some residents have suggested that ADUs should be limited to zoning districts that permit multi-
family development. Within multi-family districts, the proposed ordinance will allow development of an
accessory dwelling unitregardless of lot sizeif compliant with all other applicable building and zoning
regulations.

Option 1. Approve regulation as proposed (citywide, limited to 25 permits per calendar year).
Option 2. Modify regulation to restrict accessory dwelling units to zoning districts that currently allow
more than one dwelling unit per lot, such as SR-1, SR-1A, SR-3, R-2, RMF-30, RMF-35,
RMF-45, and RMF-75 (see Attachment B Residential Districts Map).

Location. As previously described, the proposal is restricted to single-family dwellings within specific
residential zoning districts. Some opponents of the proposal have recommended prohibiting ADUs within
specific communities, such as the Avenues, or requiring ADUs to locate within a specified distance (4
blocks) from a fixed public transportation line, such as TRAX or the future Sugar House streetcar line (see
Attachment D Half Mile Transit Overlay Map).

Option 2. Modify regulation to restrict ADUs to specific neighborhoods or areas.
Option 3. Modify regulation to restrict ADUs to single-family dwellings within mile of transit lines.

Design. The proposal recommends compliance with all underlying zoning requirements, including overlays
such as the H Historic District. Additional development requirements are included to ensure compatibility
with established development patterns, such as limitations on building height and placement of entrances.
However, opponents remain concerned that the proposal will alter the character of single-family
neighborhoods (see Attachment E Sample Illustrations).

Option 1. Approve regulation as proposed (design subject to overlays, compatible with principal
dwelling).
Option 2. Modify regulation to include additional design and material regulations (to be specified).

Privacy. A common concern when dealing with residential infill development is privacy. Although privacy
is an issue that is addressed within portions of City Code, assurance of privacywithin a rear a rear yard for
exampleis not listed within the Purpose and Intent Statement (21A.020.030) of Title 21A Zoning, and is
only identified as a type of fence within the General Provisions (21A.24.010) of Chapter 21A.24 Residential
Districts.
In a 1961 landmark book on planning, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, famed author and
urbanist Jane Jacobs offers the following comment on privacy:

Architectural and planning literature deals with privacy in terms of windows, overlooks, sight lines. The
idea is that if no one from outside can peek into where you livebehold, privacy. This is simple
minded. Window privacy is the easiest commodity in the world to get. You just pull down the shades or
adjust the blinds. The privacy of keeping ones personal affairs to those selected to know them, and the
privacy of having reasonable control over who shall make inroads on your time and when, are rare
commodities in most of this world, however, and they have nothing to do with the orientation of
windows (p. 77).

Whereas the proposal requires compliance with all applicable yard and bulk regulations when located within
the buildable area for a single-family dwellingidentical to limitations on a residential addition permitted
under current regulationsstaff does not recommend additional restrictions in response to this concern.
However, when an ADU is located outside the buildable area for a principal dwelling, the Commission may
consider additional regulations for the placement of windows, similar to the following standard for a hobby
shop when located in a residential district:

21A.52.100: Specific Conditions for Special Exceptions:
If the accessory building is located within ten feet (10') of a property line, no windows shall be allowed
in the walls adjacent to the property lines.

Option 1. Approve regulation as proposed (no additional criteria regulating privacy).
Option 2. Modify regulation to limit the placement of windows if the accessory dwelling is located
outside the buildable area for a single-family dwelling and within ten feet (10') of a property
line.

Owner Occupancy. Although there has been some support to remove the owner occupancy requirement,
most comments recommend that this is an essential component of the proposal. The primary concern
regarding owner occupancy is the citys ability to enforce the proposed regulation. The proposed owner
occupancy regulation is derived from language used by Provo City for a similar ordinance, which has been
successfully upheld by the Supreme Court of Utah (Case No. 20030679).

Option 1. Approve regulation as proposed (owner occupancy required).
Option 2. Modify regulation to reduce length of bona fide absence from three years to one year.

Parking. The proposed regulation generally requires only one parking stall for an ADU, in addition to two
off-street parking stalls for a single-family dwelling. However, under certain conditions the Transportation
Division may modify the requirement if located within mile of a fixed transit line or an arterial street with
a designated bus route (see Attachment C Quarter Mile Transit Overlay Map). The proposal represents a
balance between requiring parking and discouraging additional pavement. Additional pavement increases
storm water drainageas well as the urban heat islandwhich impacts are contrary to sustainability.
Opponents have expressed concerns that insufficient off-street parking will increase on-street parking
which in some neighborhoods is severely limitedand attracts car prowlers. However, Police Sergeant
Michelle Ross did not identify this issue as a concern (see Attachment J Department Comments).

Option 1. Approve regulation as proposed (one parking stall, which may be tandem).
Option 2. Require one off-street parking stall, without tandem parking.
Option 3. Require two off-street stalls, may use tandem parking.
Option 4. Require two off-street parking stalls, without tandem parking.

Traffic. Whereas Salt Lake City is a significant source of employment and services, proponents of the
proposal argue that permitting ADUs within the Cityrather than forcing growth into suburban
communitieswill reduce the total amount of vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Although the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) does not publish a report on traffic generation for ADUs, the ITE finds that
a rental townhouse will generate (on average) 0.73 trips during the weekday a.m. peak hour, and 0.73 trips
during the weekday p.m. peak hour. In comparison, a single-family detached house will generate (on
average) 0.77 trips per a.m. peak hours, and 1.02 trips per p.m. peak hour. Although this issue, along with
parking, has been a significant concern for opponents, the Transportation Division and Engineering Division
did not identify traffic as a notable concern (see Attachment J Department Comments).

Option 1. Approve regulation as proposed (no restriction relative to street classification, encourages use
of alleys).
Option 2. Modify regulation to restrict location of ADUs to parcels that are accessible from a City
arterial or collector street.

Accessibility. On February 22, 2011, staff presented the proposed ADU ordinance to the Mayor's
Accessible Services Advisory Council. In response, the committee prepared a statement in support of the
proposal, with recommendations to modify the regulation to encourage development of visitable or
accessible ADUs (see Attachment G Public Input Chronology and Notes).

Option 1. Approve regulation as proposed (no requirement for visitable or accessible improvements).
Option 2. Modify regulation to increase the square foot maximum for an accessible ADU by 150
square feet (specified amount may be modified).
Option 3. Modify regulation to require 20 percent of ADU permits to meet accessibility standards.
Option 4. Modify regulation to exempt accessible ADUs from annual permit limit.
Option 5. Modify regulation to reduce building permit fee for ADUs (amount to be specified).
City Department Comments
The comments received from pertinent City Departments / Divisions are attached to this staff report in
Attachment J Department Comments. Although the Planning Division has not received any comments from
applicable City Departments / Divisions that cannot be reasonably fulfilled or that warrant denial of the petition,
staff recommends discussion of the following issues:

Utilities. One of the arguments in favor of the proposal is its efficient use of existing public infrastructure,
which reduces pressure to develop new streets and utility lines. However, opponents of the proposal have
expressed concern regarding capacity of existing public utilities. In a 1981 report entitled Accessory
Apartments: Using Surplus Space in Single Family Houses published by the American Planning Association
(APA) the authors addressed the following question:

How Many Units are Likely to be Built? Civic groups are frequently fearful about the number of units
that may be created under an ordinance. A little guidance is provided by the experience of towns that
have ordinances. When Portland, Oregon's Add-A-Rental went into effect in January, 1981, after
considerable controversy, almost nothing happened. It was five months before Portland had its first three
applications, and, by the end of the year, only five had come in. Babylon, Long Island (New York),
estimated in 1979 that it had accessory apartments in 10-20 percent of its stock. Lyndenhurst, next to
Babylon, has had an accessory apartment ordinance since 1955, and only 10 percent of its single-family
stock has been converted legally. Weston, Connecticut, has about 10 percent of its housing stock in
accessory apartments, even though it has had an ordinance since the early 1960s. Renton, Washington,
with an ordinance since 1955, has conversions in about eight percent of its house.

There is one lesson to be drawn: the presence of an ordinance permitting accessory apartments doesn't
necessarily stimulate conversion to accessory apartments, and the absence of one doesn't necessarily
discourage them (italics added for emphasis).

Locally, Daybreaka successful planned development community in South Jordan, Utah that is modeled
after older Salt Lake City neighborhoodsincludes provisions for accessory apartments. George Shaw,
Community Development Director for the City of South Jordan, reported that there are approximately 20
detached accessory dwellings, and 6 attached accessory dwellings within Daybreak, which contains
approximately 2,500 households and 9,000 residents.

Based upon research, and upon receipt of a letter of recommendation from the Department of Public
Utilities that did not identify utility capacity as a concern, staff finds that this issue is not a significant
concern (see Attachment J Department Comments).

Another issue relative to utilities that has persisted throughout the development of the draft ordinance is
whether to require separate utility meters for ADUs. Because an ADU may be attached to or detached from
the principal dwelling, and construction of utility infrastructure will vary, the proposed ordinance allows for
property owner preference (subject to compliance with City regulations). However, some have argued that
prohibiting separate utility meters may encourage compliance with owner occupancy provisions. In
response to this issue, Justin Stoker (Engineer V with the Department of Public Utilities) recommended
approval of the proposed regulation with the following modification:

If sewer or water utility service will be connected through the primary residence and not connected
through a separate connection to the sewer or water main, the deed restriction will also identify any
sewer or water connections into or through the primary residence.

Option 1. Approve regulation as proposed (limit number of permits issued per calendar year, separate
utility meters for ADU are not required but may be installed by a licensed contractor upon
approval of the City and utility company).
Option 2. Modify regulation to include deed restriction regarding utility services when connected
through principal (or primary) residence.
Option 2. Modify regulation to require installation of separate utility meters for an ADU.
Option 3. Modify regulation to prohibit the installation of additional utility meters for an ADU.

Enforcement. As a matter of legislative policy, Salt Lake City desires to preserve housing that
substantially complies with life and safety codes. Currently, Salt Lake City administrates a process to
legalize existing dwelling units that were constructed before 1970 and have been continuously used. This
process is known as Legalization of Excess Dwelling Units and is governed by Section 21A.52.100 of the
Zoning Title. However, the unit legalization process is completely separate and independent from the
proposed ADU regulation.

A common concern is the Citys ability to enforce the proposed ADU regulation. To address this issue, the
City will require an annual business license for each ADU. In turn, the business license fee will be used to
administrate inspection and enforcement of ADUs. Violation of business license regulations are specified in
Article I of Chapter 5.04 of Title 5 Business Taxes, Licensing and Regulation. However, violators of the
proposed ordinance would also be subject to the following zoning enforcement regulations:

21A.20.040: Fines for Violations:
A. Violations of the provisions of this title or failure to comply with any of its requirements shall be
punishable as a class B misdemeanor upon conviction (italics added for emphasis).
B. This title may also be enforced by injunction, mandamus, abatement, civil fines or any other
appropriate action in law or equity.
C. Each day that any violation continues after the citation deadline shall be considered a separate
offense for purposes of the fines and remedies available to the city (italics added for emphasis).
D. Accumulation of fines for violations, but not the obligation for payment of fines already accrued,
shall stop upon correction of the violation.
E. Any one or more of the fines and remedies identified herein may be used to enforce this title.

21A.20.050: Civil Fines:
If the violations are not corrected by the citation deadline, civil fines shall accrue at twenty five dollars
($25.00) a day per violation for properties in residential zoning districts and one hundred dollars
($100.00) per day per violation for properties in nonresidential zoning districts (italics added for
emphasis).

In response to the proposal, Craig Spangenberg, Civil Enforcement Manager, recommended that the draft
ordinance should contain specific, verifiable criteria to be used in order to meet the owner occupied
requirement (see Attachment J Department Comments).

Option 1. Approve regulation as proposed.
Option 2. Modify regulation to improve capability of enforcement (recommendations to be specified).
Project Review
Focus Group. On July 14, 2010, the Planning Division conducted a focus group to review and discuss
the proposed accessory dwelling units regulation. During the meeting, Chris Duerksen and Joyce
Allgaier with Clarion Associates presented a comprehensive overview on the proposal, answered
questions, and noted concerns for future consideration. The ADU focus group was comprised of the
following individuals:

NAME REPRESENTATION ATTENDANCE
Cindy Cromer Property Owner Yes
George Kelner Yalecrest Community Council No
Gordon Storrs Fairpark Community Council Yes
DeWitt Smith Liberty Wells Community Council No
Jim Jenkin Greater Avenues Community Council No
Philip Carlson Sugar House Community Council Yes
David Richardson Capitol Hill Construction No
Michael Mahaffey Contractor Yes
Bryson Garbett Developer Yes
Ed Sperry Realtor No
Tim Funk Crossroads Urban Center No
Maria Garciaz Neighborworks Salt Lake Yes
Jon Lear Downey Mansion No
Paul Smith Utah Apartment Association Yes
Mike Ostermiller Utah Association of Realtors No
Justin Allen Salt Lake Board of Realtors Yes
Sonya Martinez Community Action Agency Yes
Roger Borgenicht ASSIST Yes
Philip Carroll Community Housing Services Inc Yes
Arla Funk Historic Landmark Commission Yes
Claudia O'Grady Utah Housing Corporation No
Ashken Tanielian Housing Advocate No
Dan Bethel Architect No
Annalisa Steggell Holcombe Westminster College Yes
Francisca Blanc Utah Housing Coalition Yes

Revisions. The Planning Division and Clarion Associates have revised the proposed regulation
numerous times during the past year. Primarily, changes in the draft ordinance addressed owner
occupancy requirements, building height regulations, minimum setbacks, building design, and limiting
the number of ADU permits issued per calendar year.
Analysis and Findings
Options
Whereas the City Council has final legislative authority over the petition, the Planning Commission may:

Recommend approval of the proposal based on testimony and findings contained within the staff report;
Recommend approval with specific modifications;
Recommend denial of the petition based on testimony and findings; or
Table the proposal for further review.

If the Commission votes to table the petition, the Planning Division respectfully requests the Commission
provide specific direction to staff.
Findings
Section 21A.50.050. A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is
a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the city council and is not controlled by any one
standard. However, in making its decision concerning a proposed amendment, the city council should
consider the following factors:
1. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of
the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents;
Finding: Within the Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan, which was prepared by the Housing and
Neighborhood Division of Community and Economic Development Department and adopted by the Salt
Lake City Council in April of 2000, the following policy statements and implementation strategies are
applicable:
City Council Policy Statement. The City Council supports a citywide variety of housing units,
including affordable housing and supports accommodating different types and intensities of
residential development. (p. 8)
City Council Policy Statement. The City Council supports mixed use and mixed income concepts
and projects that achieve vibrant, safe, integrated, walkable neighborhoods through a diverse mix of
uses and incomes in areas with established services (p. 19)
Affordable and Transitional Housing Implementation Strategy 1. Review Best Practices from
other cities and establish new programs or expand existing programs that meet housing needs and
maximize housing opportunities for all residents within Salt Lake City. (p. 24)
City Council Policy Statement. On a citywide basis, the City Council endorses accessory housing
units in single-family zones, subject to restrictions designed to limit impacts and protect
neighborhood character. (p. 32)
Action Step for Implementation Strategy 5. Define accessory housing units. Determine residential
zones that could support such changes. Prepare necessary criteria and amendments for future
ordinances on accessory units. (p. 33)
In another policy document entitled Creating Tomorrow Together: Final Report of the Salt Lake City
Futures Commission, which was commissioned in February 1996 by former Mayor Ted Wilson and
delivered to the City Council in March 1998 the following assertions, goals, and recommendations are
applicable:
Assertion M: There is a mix of housing types, densities, and costs so that people of various
economic groups can co-exist. Services for those less fortunate are seen as a positive attribute
and are nurtured within our community.
o Recommendation 1: Amend zoning laws to encourage mixed use in appropriate areas.
Proposed Action: Adopt amendments to city zoning ordinances that allow mixed-use
development in designated areas of the city. Identify areas to be included in
ordinances, define types of mixed uses allowed (p. 13).
Goal B: The ideal neighborhood will be diverse. Neighborhoods will encourage persons of
different incomes, ages, cultures, races, religions, genders, lifestyles, and familial statuses to be
active community stakeholders. Families of various size and composition can be well served through
a variety of programs and services. Service organizations will also be available to special-needs
populations (p. 41).
Goal D: The ideal neighborhood will be well maintained. Landlords, tenants, and homeowners
will share responsibility for keeping properties in good condition. Home ownership will be
encouraged where possible. Neighborhoods should contain a variety of housing types, but more units
should be owner occupied than renter occupied. This leads to longer term residents and stabilizes
property values. Owners of rental units will be responsible and will maintain their properties.
Mechanisms need to be in place to address problems caused by owners/renters who fail to maintain
their properties. Landlords must screen tenants to ensure that they will be responsible renters.
Landlords must also make repairs to their housing units to keep them as viable assets in the
neighborhood. Housing should be designed for the changing needs of our current and future
population (p. 43).
Based on a review of the Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan, and the Creating Tomorrow Together:
Final Report of the Salt Lake City Futures Commission, which documents are applicable citywide, staff
finds the proposal is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan
of Salt Lake City.
2. Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning
ordinance;
Finding: Chapter 21A.02.030 of the Zoning Ordinance states:
Purpose and Intent: The purpose of this title is to promote the health, safety, morals, convenience,
order, prosperity and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of Salt Lake City, to implement the
adopted plans of the city, and to carry out the purposes of the municipal land use development and
management act, title 10, chapter 9, of the Utah Code Annotated or its successor, and other relevant
statutes. This title is, in addition, intended to:

a. Lessen congestion in the streets or roads;
b. Secure safety from fire and other dangers;
c. Provide adequate light and air;
d. Classify land uses and distribute land development and utilization;
e. Protect the tax base;
f. Secure economy in governmental expenditures;
g. Foster the city's industrial, business and residential development; and
h. Protect the environment.

Additionally, Section 21A.24.010 of the Zoning Ordinance provides the following general provision for
all residential districts:

Statement of Intent: The residential districts are intended to provide a range of housing choices to meet
the needs of Salt Lake City's citizens, to offer a balance of housing types and densities, to preserve and
maintain the city's neighborhoods as safe and convenient places to live, to promote the harmonious
development of residential communities, to ensure compatible infill development, and to help implement
adopted plans.

Although staff agrees with opponents that accessory dwelling units may increase congestion and parking on
neighborhood streets, permitting accessory dwelling units will:

Improve viability of public transit;
Improve property values;
Is an economical use of public and private infrastructure;
Protect the environment through reduction of vehicle miles driven within the region;
Provide a range of housing choices; and
Preserve and maintain neighborhoods as safe and convenient places to live.

Therefore, staff finds that the proposal furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance.

3. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable
overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards; and
Finding: As stated within the proposed text amendment, accessory dwelling units shall be subject to
compliance with the underlying zoning ordinance, which includes any applicable overlay zoning districts,
such as the H Historic Preservation Overlay District and the YCI Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay
District. Therefore, the proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any
applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standard.
4. The extent to which a proposed text amendment implements best current, professional practices of
urban planning and design.
Finding: The proposed text amendment was originally crafted after reviewing best practices of various
cities, such as Portland, OR, Santa Cruz and Chula Vista, CA, Seattle, WA, Lexington, MA, and Aspen,
CO. As summarized within Attachment F APA Quick Notes, the American Planning Association
recommends that communities would do well to seriously consider adopting an approach thatallows
ADUs by right with clear written conditions; does not require owner occupancy; prohibits condominium
ownership on the basis that a condo could not be considered accessory; provides a simple procedure for
legalizing preexisting or formerly illegal apartments provided the unit is inspected; provides a generous size
standard; and provides a water and sewer adequacy standard.

Although the proposed text amendment does not strictly achieve all of the recommendations provided by the
American Planning Association, the proposal does reflect best practices tempered by local concerns, such as
preference for owner occupancy requirements. Therefore, staff finds the proposal is consistent with this
factor.


Attachment A
Accessory Dwelling Units Ordinance

Salt Lake City 1
March 2011
CHAPTER 21A.XX
21A.XX.XX: ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
A. Purpose Statement...2
B. Applicability.2
C. Definitions4
D. Standards..4

Salt Lake City 2
March 2011
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
Background/Commentary:

communitiesboth large and smallin the United States. Noted ADU programs include Portland, OR, Santa
Cruz and Chula Vista, CA, Seattle, WA, Lexington, MA, and Aspen, CO. By providing housing on existing
lots in developed neighborhoods, ADUs are a form of land use that makes good use of land and public
infrastructure investment. ADUs, when located near employment and retail centers, help increase use of
mobility alternatives leading to a reduction in green house gas emissions and energy (fuel) use. Additionally,
the changing face of the American public and its housing needs supports the inclusion of ADUs as a housing
alternative. More people are aging, are empty nesters, and desire to down-size. The work force continues to
be challenged to find affordable housing and ADUs can help address that demand.

Clarions approach to addressing ADUs in the Salt Lake City context, where the zoning code currently does not
address ADUs, is straight-forward and relatively simple. ADUs would be allowed in specific residential zones,
but only in conjunction with an owner-occupied single-family dwelling and a number of design and use related
standards are provided to address neighborhood compatibility.

A. PURPOSE STATEMENT
The purposes of the accessory dwelling unit provisions are to:
2. Increase the housing stock of existing neighborhoods in a manner that is less intense than
alternatives;
5. Offer a means for residents, particularly seniors, single parents, and families with grown children,
to remain in their homes and neighborhoods, and obtain extra income, security, companionship,
and services;
7. Provide opportunity for workforce housing in developed and new neighborhoods, close to places
of work, thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions and reducing fossil fuel consumption through less
car commuting;
8. Support transit-oriented development and reduce auto usage by increasing density near transit
stops; and

B. APPLICABILITY
Accessory dwelling units may be incorporated within or added onto an existing house, garage, or other
accessory structure, or may be built as a separate, detached structure on a lot where a single-family
dwelling exists. Accessory dwelling units are allowed in the following residential zone districts: FR-
1/43,560, FR-2/21,780, FR-3/12,000, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, SR-1, SR-1A, SR-3, R-2,
RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45, and RMF-75 subject to the provisions of this section.
Accessory dwelling units are subject to the applicable adopted building codes of the city.

Salt Lake City 3
March 2011
C. PERMIT ALLOCATION
The city shall limit issuance of accessory dwelling unit permits pursuant to this ordinance to twenty-five (25)
permits per calendar year within the corporate limits of the city. After a two (2) year period beginning on
the date this ordinance takes effect, the city council may evaluate the appropriateness of the number of
permits allocated.
D. DEFINITION
Accessory Dwelling Unit: A residential unit that is located on the same lot as a single-family detached
dwelling, either internal to or attached to the single-family detached dwelling or in a detached structure.
The accessory dwelling unit shall be a complete housekeeping unit with a shared or separate entrance, and
separate kitchen, sleeping area, closet space, and bathroom facilities.
1
Owner Occupant: Except as set forth in subsection 3 of this definition:

a. possesses, as shown by a recorded deed, fifty (50) percent or more ownership in a dwelling
unit, and
b. occupies the dwelling unit with a bonafide intent to make it his or her primary residence; or
a. is a trustor of a family trust which:
(1) possesses fee title ownership to a dwelling unit;
(2) was created for estate planning purposes by one (1) or more trustors of the trust; and
b. occupies the dwelling unit owned by the family trust with a bonafide intent to make it his or
her primary residence. Each living trustor of the trust shall so occupy the dwelling unit except
for a trustor who temporarily resides elsewhere due to a disability or infirmity. In such event,
the dwelling unit shall nevertheless be the domicile of the trustor during the trustor's temporary
absence.
3. A person who meets the requirements of subsections 1 and 2 of this definition shall not be deemed
an owner occupant if the property on which the dwelling unit is located has more than one (1)
owner and all owners of the property do not occupy the dwelling unit with a bona fide intent to
make the dwelling unit their primary residence.
a. A claim that a person is not an owner occupant may be rebutted only by documentation,
submitted to the Community and Economic Development Department, showing that the person
who occupies the dwelling unit has a bona fide intent to make the dwelling unit his or her
primary residence as indicated by the following documents which show such person:
(1) is listed as a primary borrower on documents for any loan presently applicable to the
property where the dwelling unit is located;
(2) has claimed all income, deductions, and depreciation from the property on his or her tax
returns for the previous year;
(3) is the owner listed on all rental documents and agreements with tenants who occupy the
principal dwelling unit or accessory dwelling unit
(4) is the owner listed on all insurance, utility, appraisal, or other contractual documents
related to the property; and
(5) is a full-time resident of Utah for Utah State income tax purposes.

1
This definition will be inserted in Chapter 21A.62, Definitions, of the current zoning code. The definition of, dwelling, single-
family is used intentionally in this section to exclude mobile homes, travel homes, and temporary housing to qualify as the
principal dwelling for the purposes of accessory unit on the same lot.

Salt Lake City 4
March 2011
b. In a dispute with any person who claims to be an owner of the dwelling unit, but who does not
occupy it, such person shall provide documentation to the Community and Economic Development
Department which shows such person:
(1) has not claimed any income, tax deduction, or depreciation for the property on the person's
tax returns for the previous year;
(2) is not listed as an owner on any rental document or agreement with any tenant who occupies
the principal or accessory dwelling unit; and
(3) is not listed as an owner on any insurance, utility, appraisal, or an agreement related to the
property.
c. Any person, or group of persons, who fails, upon request of the Community and Economic
Development Department, to provide any of the documents set forth in subsections 3a or 3b of this
definition or who provides a document showing that ownership of a dwelling unit is shared among
persons who do not all occupy the dwelling unit shall mean for the purpose of this Title that such
person or persons shall not be deemed an "owner occupant" of the dwelling unit in question.
4. The provisions of subsection 3 of this definition shall apply to any person who began a period of
owner occupancy after ________, 20__, regardless of when the person purchased the property where
such person resides.
E. STANDARDS
1. Purpose
These design and development standards are intended to ensure that accessory dwelling units:
a. Are compatible with the desired character and livability of the residential zoning districts;
c. Compatible with the general building scales and placement of structures to allow sharing of
common space on the lot, such as yards and driveways; and
d. Are smaller in size than the principal dwelling on the site.
2. General Requirements
a. Owner-occupied Property Required. Accessory dwelling units shall only be permitted when
the property owner lives on the property within either the principal dwelling or accessory
dwelling unit. Owner occupancy shall not be required when:
(1) The owner has a bona fide, temporary absence of three (3) years or less for activities
such as temporary job assignments, sabbaticals, or voluntary service (indefinite
periods of absence from the dwelling shall not qualify for this exception), or
(2) The owner is placed in a hospital, nursing home, assisted living facility or other similar
facility that provides regular medical care, excluding retirement living facilities or
communities.
b. Deed Restriction. A lot approved for development with an accessory dwelling unit must have
a deed restriction filed with the county recorders office indicating such owner-occupied
requirement of the property prior to issuance of a final certificate of occupancy for the
accessory dwelling unit by the city. Such deed restriction shall run with the land until the
accessory dwelling unit is abandoned or revoked.
c. One per Lot. One accessory dwelling unit is permitted per residential lot.
d. Underlying Zoning Applies. Unless specifically addressed in this section, accessory dwelling
units are subject to the regulations for a principal building of the underlying zoning district with

Salt Lake City 5
March 2011
regard to lot and bulk standards (e.g., height, setback/yard requirements, building coverage,
etc.).
(1) The requirements of Section 21A.40.050, Accessory Uses, Buildings, and Structures, which
govern all non-residential accessory structures, do not apply to accessory dwelling units.
(2) Accessory dwelling units may be of the same height and have the same setbacks as that
allowed in the zoning district for the principal dwelling on the property. An existing
accessory structure whose setbacks do not meet the setback requirements for a dwelling
as noted above may be converted into an accessory dwelling unit but any non-complying
setbacks may not become more non-complying.
e. Multi-Family Districts with Single Family Dwelling on Lot. In multi-family zoning districts that
are currently built out with a single-family detached dwelling and do not have the required
minimum amount of land to add additional units pursuant to the multifamily zoning district
requirement, one accessory dwelling unit is allowed.
f. Not a Unit of Density. Accessory dwelling units are not considered a unit of density and
therefore are not included in the density calculation for a single-family residential property.
g. Home Occupations. Home occupations listed in Section 21A36.030 B, Permitted Home
Occupations, may be conducted in an accessory dwelling unit. Those home occupations listed in
this section under Conditional Home Occupations are explicitly not allowed in accessory
dwelling units in order to maintain the residential nature of the dwelling unit.
h. Internal, Attached, or Detached. While accessory dwelling units are allowed only in
conjunction with a principal dwelling on a lot, the unit may be built internal to, attached to, or
as a separate unit detached from the principal dwelling.
i. H Historic Preservation Overlay District. Accessory dwelling units located in an H Historic
Preservation Overlay District are subject to the applicable regulations and review processes
of Section 21A.34.020, including the related guidelines and standards as adopted by Salt
Lake City to ensure compatible building and preservation of historic resources.
3. Methods of Creation
An accessory dwelling unit may only be created through one of more of the following methods:
a. Converting existing living area within a principal structure, such as a basement or attic space;
c. Constructing a new single-family detached dwelling unit structure with an internal or detached
accessory dwelling unit;
d. Converting or adding onto an existing accessory structure on a lot, such as to a garage or
other outbuilding, where no required parking for the principal dwelling is eliminated by the
accessory dwelling unit; and
e. Constructing a new accessory dwelling unit within a separate detached structure in compliance
with applicable lot coverage regulations.
4. Size
The maximum size of an accessory dwelling unit may be no more than 50% of the gross square
footage of the principal dwelling unit or 650 square feet whichever is less. The minimum size of an
accessory dwelling unit is that size specified and required by the adopted building code of the
city.

Salt Lake City 6
March 2011
5. Ownership/Number of Residents
The accessory dwelling unit shall not be sold separately or subdivided from the principal dwelling
unit or lot. The total number of residents that may reside in an accessory dwelling unit may not
exceed the number that is allowed for a family as defined in Section 21A.62.040, Definition of
Terms.
6. Parking
One additional on-site parking space is required for an accessory dwelling unit. The City
Transportation Director may approve a request to waive or modify the dimensions of the
accessory dwelling unit parking space upon finding that the parking requirement for the principal
dwelling is met and:
a. Adequate on-street parking in the immediate vicinity is available to serve the accessory
dwelling unit and will not cause congestion in the area; or
b. The accessory dwelling unit is located within mile of a fixed transit line or an arterial street
with a designated bus route.
Additionally, the City Transportation Director may allow a tandem parking space, which is located
behind an existing on-site parking space, to meet the accessory dwelling unit parking requirement
so long as the parking space requirement is met for the principal dwelling.
7. Location of Entrances/Units
a. Internal or Attached Units. Accessory dwelling units that are internal to or attached to a
principal dwelling may take access from an existing entrance on a street-facing front faade
of the principal dwelling. No new entrances may be added to the front faade of a principal
dwelling for an accessory dwelling unit unless such access is located at least twenty (20) feet
behind the front faade of the principal dwelling unit.
b. Detached Units.
Accessory dwelling units that are detached from the principal dwelling:
(1) May utilize an existing street-facing front faade entrance as long as the entrance is
located a minimum of twenty (20) feet behind the front faade of the principal dwelling,
or install a new entrance to the existing or new detached structure for the purpose of
serving the accessory dwelling unit as long as the entrance is facing the rear or side of lot.
(2) Shall be located no closer than thirty (30) feet from the front property line and shall take
access from an alley when one is present.
c. Corner Lots. On corner lots, existing entrances on the street-facing sides may be used for an
accessory dwelling unit, but any new entrance shall be located facing toward the rear
property line or interior side yard, or toward the back of the principal dwelling.
d. H Historic Preservation Overlay District. When accessory dwelling units are proposed in an H
Historic Preservation Overlay District, the regulations and design guidelines governing these
properties in Section 21A.34.020 shall take precedence over the location of entrance
provisions above.

Salt Lake City 7
March 2011
8. Exterior Design
a. Within an H Historic Preservation Overlay District. Accessory dwelling units located within an
H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall meet the process, regulations, and applicable
design guidelines in Section 21A.34.020 of the zoning code.
b. Outside H Historic Preservation Overlay District or Historic Landmark Site. Accessory
dwelling units shall be regulated by the following exterior design standards:
(1) The maximum height of a detached accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed the principal
structure.
(2) An accessory dwelling unit shall be designed and constructed to be compatible with the
principal structure.
9. Registration
Accessory dwelling units are required to be registered with the city to ensure compliance with
applicable regulations, to assist the City in assessing housing supply and demand, and to fulfill the
Accessory Dwelling Unit Purpose Statement, above.
a. No accessory dwelling unit shall be occupied until the owner obtains a business license for the
dwelling unit from the city. The requirement for licensing is intended to ensure that the
applicant is aware of all city regulations governing accessory dwelling units; that the city has
all information necessary to evaluate whether the accessory dwelling unit initially meets and
continues to comply with applicable requirements; that the accessory dwelling unit meets
health and safety requirements; and that the distribution and location of accessory dwelling
units is known.
b. Accessory dwelling units used for rental purposes shall be licensed and certified in accordance
with the applicable provisions of the city.

Attachment B
Residential Districts Map
Residential Zoning Districts
Legend
"''''-'''1
i ; City Boundary
.. "._"' ..
_ FR Single Famil y Districts
_ R-1 Single Famil y Districts
_ SR Single Famil y Districts
_ R-2 Singl y and Two-Famil y District
_ RMF Multi -Famil y Districts

Attachment C
Quarter Mile Transit Overlay Map
Residential Zoning Districts, 1/4 Mile Buffer Around Stations
UTA Rail Stations Zoning
I
Streetcar (Proposed) FR Single Famil y Districts
o TRAX (Existing) _ R-1 Single Famil y Districts
o TRAX (Proposed) SR Single Famil y Districts
UTA Rail Lines R-2 Singly and Two-Famil y District
= FrontRunner _ RMF Multi-Famil y Distri cts
=-:J Streetcar (Proposed)
=-:J TRAX (Existing)
=-:J TRAX (Proposed)

Attachment D
Half Mile Transit Overlay Map
I
= FrontRunner _ RMF Multi-Famil y Districts

Attachment E
Sample Illustrations

Attachment F
APA Quick Notes
Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are small, self-contained living units that typically have their own
kitchen, bedroom(s), and bathroom space. Often called granny flats, elder cottage housing opportuni-
ties (ECHO), mother-daughter residences, or secondary dwelling units, ADUs are apartments that can
be located within the walls of an existing or newly constructed single-family home or can be an addi-
tion to an existing home. They can also be freestanding cottages on the same lot as the principal
dwelling unit or a conversion of a garage or barn.
The benefits to the home owner and the ADU occupant are many. For the home owner, ADUs provide
the opportunity to offer an affordable and independent housing option to the owners grown son or
daughter just starting out or to an elderly parent or two who might need a helping hand nearby. The
unit could also be leased to unrelated individuals or newly established families, which would provide
the dual benefit of providing affordable housing to the ADU occupant and supplemental rental
income to the owner. Supplemental income could offset the high cost of a home mortgage, utilities,
and real estate taxes. Finally, leasing an ADU to a young person or family can provide an elderly home
owner with a sense of security and an opportunity to exchange needed work around the house and
yard for a discount on rent.
Despite the benefits, some communities resist allowing ADUs, or allow them only after time-consuming
and costly review procedures and requirements. Public resistance to ADUs usually takes the form of a
perceived concern that they might transform the character of the neighborhood, increase density, add
to traffic, make parking on the street more difficult, increase school enrollment, and put additional pres-
sure on fire and police service, parks, or water and wastewater. However, communities that have allowed
ADUs find that these perceived fears are mostly unfounded or overstated when ADUs are actually built.
ADUs are a particularly desirable option for many communities today considering the current econom-
ic climate, changes in household size, increasing numbers of aging baby boomers, and the shortage of
affordable housing choices. They provide a low-impact way for a community to expand its range of
housing choices.
LOCALITIES AND STATES GET INTOTHE ACT
Towns, cities, and counties across the country have done the right thing by proactively amending local
zoning ordinances to allow ADUs. This is typically done either as a matter of right or as a special or con-
ditional use. In either case, reasonable conditions may be imposed. Some states, including California,
have enacted legislation that limits the ability of localities to zone out ADUs.
In 2001 AARP retained APAs Research Department to write a guidance report for citizens interested in
convincing local and state officials of the benefits of allowing ADUs and showing them how to do it.
Entitled Accessory Dwelling Units: Model State Act and Model Local Ordinance, the monograph provides
alternative statute and ordinance language useful to implementing all forms of ADUs.
The Model Local Ordinance suggests recommendations for communities. Additionally, the intent of the
ordinance describes the permitting process for eligibility and approval, and further outlines standards
for ADU approval pertaining to lot size, occupancy, building standards, parking and traffic, public
health, and how to deal with nonconforming ADUs. The Model State Act provides findings and policies
encouraging the approval of ADUs and names local governments as the entities entitled to authorize
Planning fundamentals
for public officials and
engaged citizens
A Publication of the American Planning Association | PAS QuickNotes No. 19
Towns, cities, and
counties across the
country have done
the right thing by
proactively
amending local
zoning ordinances
to allow ADUs.
OUICKNOTES
This PAS QuickNotes was prepared by APA
research staff with contributions from
Elisa L. Paster and Evan D. Fieldman,
associates at the Paul Hastings law firm.
For a complete list of references visit
http://www.planning.org/pas/quicknotes/
REFERENCES
1. Published by American
Planning Association
American Planning Association. Affordable
Housing Reader: Articles from Zoning
News and Zoning Practice. Available at
http://myapa.planning.org/affordableread
er (members-only access).
American Planning Association. 2006.
Policy Guide on Housing. Chicago: American
Planning Association. Available at
www.planning.org/policy/guides/pdf/hou
sing.pdf.
Baggett, Sharon, Nancy Chapman, and
Deborah Howe. 1994. Planning for an
Aging Society. Planning Advisory Service
Report no. 451. Chicago: American
Planning Association.
For more information on this topic visit
www.planning.org.
adoption of an ADU statute. It specifies
the limits to which local governments
may prohibit ADUs and outlines
default permitting provisions if a locali-
ty does not adopt an ADU ordinance.
It details optional approaches for
adopting ADU ordinances, certifying
local ADU ordinances, gathering data
on ADU efforts, preparing reports and
recommendations, and forming a
statewide board overseeing ADUs.
WHAT ISSUES ARISE WHEN A
PROPOSED ADU ORDINANCE
IS CONSIDERED?
ADU ordinances offer a variety of ben-
efits to local communities but the road
to implementation may not be an
easy process. While ADUs are more
widely accepted now than in years
past, skeptics still remain and some still
oppose ADU zoning. The following
describes some issues or decision
points that communities must address
in order to successfully navigate the
perilous waters of public acceptance.
The approach that is right for your city
or town will be unique, based on local
physical, political, social, and economic conditions.
By-right Permitting. Should permits for ADUs be issued as a matter of right (with clear standards
built into the ordinance) or should they be allowed by discretion as a special or conditional use after
a public hearing?
Occupancy. Should ordinance language allow an ADU only on the condition that the owner of the
property lives in one of the units?
Form of Ownership. Should the ordinance prohibit converting the ADU unit into a condominium?
Preexisting, nonconforming ADUs. How should the ordinance treat grandfathered ADUs? How
do you treat illegal apartments that want to apply for an ADU permit?
Unit Size: Should the ordinance limit the square footage of the ADU to assure that the unit is truly
accessory to the principal dwelling on the property?
Adequacy of Water and Sewer Services. How do you guarantee there is enough capacity in
sewer lines, pumping stations, and treatment facilities to accommodate ADUs?
These are not easy issues. However, communities would do well to seriously consider adopting an
approach that: allows ADUs by right with clear written conditions; does not require owner occupan-
cy; prohibits condominium ownership on the basis that a condo could not be considered accessory;
provides a simple procedure for legalizing preexisting or formerly illegal apartments provided the
unit is inspected; provides a generous size standard; and provides a water and sewer adequacy stan-
dard.
PAS QuickNotes is a publication of the American Planning Association's Planning Advisory Service (PAS). Copyright 2009. Visit
PAS online at www.planning.org/pas to find out how PAS can work for you. American Planning Association staff: W. Paul
Farmer, FAICP, Executive Director and CEO; William R. Klein, AICP, Director of Research and Advisory Services; Tre Jerdon,
QuickNotes Editor; Tim Mennel, Senior Editor; Julie Von Bergen, Assistant Editor; Susan Deegan, Senior Graphic Designer.
Page 2
Single story ADU floor plan.
D
a
v
i
d
B
a
k
e
r
a
n
d
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s

Attachment G
Public Input Chronology and Notes
Public Input Chronology
December 2009 General Information about Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) in Urbanus
the monthly Planning Division e-newsletter.
December 2009 Fact sheet and draft ordinance posted to Planning Division website.
December 17, 2009 Open House (all people on ListServe notified of open house, including all
community council chairs).
July 1, 2010 Second article about ADUs in Urbanusthe monthly Planning Division e-
newsletter.
July 14, 2010 Focus Group. Clarion met with Focus Group made up of community council
chairs, citizens, housing builders and housing advocates.
July 15, 2010 Open House / Public Forum at Salt Lake City Library conducted by Clarion
Associates.
September 1, 2010 Open City Hall forum began (20 comments as of November 4, 2010).
September 2, 2010 Presented information to Community Council Chairs at Mayors breakfast
meeting with Community Council Chairs.
September 16, 2010 Presented information at Salt Lake Network meeting.
October 21, 2010 Public Forum City Hall.
October 27, 2010 Wasatch Hollow Community Council.
November 10, 2010 Planning Commission Work Session.
December 9, 2010 Planning Commission Briefing. Clarion Associates and Mayor Becker
attended meeting.
January 5, 2011 Presentation to the Utah Housing Coalition.
February 3, 2011 Presented information to Community Council Chairs at Mayors breakfast
meeting with Community Council Chairs.
February 9, 2011 Presentation at the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board Meeting.
February 17, 2011 Presentation at Housing Trust Fund Board Lunch.
February 17, 2011 Open House (all people on ListServe notified of open house, including all
community council chairs).
February 22, 2011 Presentation at the Mayor's Accessible Services Advisory Council.
February 23, 2011 Planning Commission Work Session.
March 2, 2011 Historic Landmark Commission Work Session.
March 23, 2011 Planning Commission Public Hearing.

ADU Focus Group
July 14, 2010

Present:
Cindy Cromer-Property Owner/ Landlord
Roger Borgenicht- Assist
Phil Carlson- Sugar House Community Council Chair
Gordon Storrs- Fairpark Community Council Chair
Phil Carroll- Community Housing Services and Avenues Community Council member
Bob Lund- NeighborWorks
Sonya Martinez-Community Action Program
Francisca Blanc- Utah Housing Corporation
Justin Allen- Salt Lake Board of Realty
Paul Smith- Utah Apartment Association
Annalisa Steggell Holcombe- Westminster College
Michael Michaffey- Contractor
Arla Funk- Landlord and East Central Community Council member
Richard Welch- Garbett Homes

Staff
Cheri Coffey- Planning Staff
Joyce Algiers- Clarion Associates
Chris Duerkson-Clarion Associates

Questions and Comments
Richard Welch. The Accessory Structure with Dwelling Unit on Capitol Hill that was built by Bryson
Garbett is much bigger than proposal would allow. It is basically a carriage house for the Wolfe Mansion.
The regulation should allow the ADU to be larger if lot and structure can handle it. Requirement for a
setback of a garage versus a setback for a residential setback is conflicting. The setback for the garage is
too much (has to be within 5 feet of rear yard setback).
Cheri Coffey- Should we only require a duplex to have a minimum of 6,000 square feet like we used to
have, rather than the minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet that was put in place with the 1995 Zoning
Rewrite Project?
Phil Carlson- SHMP policy supports ADUs. The requirement for owner occupancy is important. Many
ADUs already exist.
Roger Borgenicht- The owner occupancy regulation is good to help manage problems but what if owner
moves. Parking is not an issue. Do not pave more of the lot. Just allow them to park on street. Benefit of
ADUs is that it provides more eyes in the neighborhood. Privacy in backyard may be an issue. Require
them to be built so they dont overlook the neighbors. (Regulate where windows can be, etc.)
Michael Michaffey- Parking is an issue in Avenues and Sugar House. Should allow parking in front of
the front wall of the house. Current regulations require the parking to be located behind the front wall of
the house.
Analissa Steggell Holcombe. It is good to have more housing options near the college. Young
professionals (staff, faculty of college, etc) like to live near the college. An ADU would minimize the
price of housing and allow them to reduce their commute times. Owner occupied-The regulation may
not work well. Good landlords can result in the same benefit that an owner occupied rental would have
(solving problems quickly).
Arla Funk- The timing of the proposal is inappropriate. There currently are a lot of vacant apartments.
Dont believe that everyone in an R-1 zone should be able to have an ADU. If you want to have two
family, just rezone to R-2 and call them duplexes. Allowing a two story garage with ADU for a single-
story home is conflicting. Dont allow Conditional Home Occupations where someone can come to the
home. That would only increase the disturbance in the neighborhood. Dont allow someone to convert
more than 650 square feet to an ADU. You need to specify a minimum size. You need to be very specific
because enforcement doesnt work. Being able to address problems will be very difficult.
Gordon Storrs- There are many benefits to ADUs: they increase housing options, keep people in the
neighborhood, allows elderly to stay in the neighborhood. Allow younger married kids to get help when
they are just starting out (help from parents); strengthens families and increases owner occupancy. How
do you maintain an ADU if the owner sells the property (what happens to the tenant? Increases
permanent housing in the City. Allow ADUs to be built within one foot of rear yards. The size should be
geared to the size of the lot. Some lots are really deep. Allowing a use like this would help clean up rear
yards that now are so deep, they just are unkempt.
Paul Smith- Agrees with the requirement for owner occupancy. Landlords want to be good neighbors.
One bedroom u7nits are hard to rent. May have a saturated market of one bedroom units. If they have
more than one bedroom, you should require more parking. ADUs should be licensed.
Justin Allen- The requirement for owner occupancy will be difficult because the owner may need to sell
the property. Encourage them to be located near transit / streetcar. Good landlord program is a good idea.
It may help with enforcement.
Francisca Blanc. We support ADUs as an affordable housing type in single family neighborhoods. Utah
Housing Corporation focuses more on multi-family. ADUs should be licensed to protect tenants.
Perhaps you could have a pilot program relating to parking. If they are located near TRAX they arent
required to have parking. If not located near TRAX, they would need to met a parking requirement.
Sonya Martinez. CAPs focus is on low income population. They support more choices for affordable
housing. They support requiring a license for the units. They want to ensure they are inspected. They
support allowing the owner to live in the ADU with the rental unit being the primary unit. They believe
there needs to be some type of tenant protection. Allow the lease to transfer with the property if it is sold.
What happens if the property goes in to foreclosure?
Bob Lund- Large lots present a good opportunity for ADUs. Must address issues with how the ADU is
placed on the lot to address privacy, egress windows etc. Must ensure they meet some type of health,
safety code.
Cindy Cromer- ADUs should be allowed where they are served by fixed mass transit. Requiring a license
for single family and two family dwellings is being reviewed. The City is bad at enforcement. Allow
more units when they are zoned multi-family but are on small lots that wouldnt otherwise allow for an
additional unit. How does this relate to the Unit legalization process? How does it relate to compatible
infill regulations? How do you enforce on ADUs if the criteria is not met? Need to allow these
incrementally. Create a pilot program to see how it works. Try it in areas where the master plan supports
it, near transit, and historic districts (as an incentive). ADUs will compete with landlords who are trying
to rent small units in multi-family buildings.
Phil Carroll- All rental units, including ADUs should be licensed. They should all meet minimum
standards for health and safety. All ADUs should be accessible. Allow the person who develops these to
determine how big they should be. Some larger units you cant rent. A two bedroom, two bath unit is
usually 1100 square foot minimum. Need to overcome issues / problems with rental houses.
AccessoryDwellingUnits:
MayorsMonthlyMeetingwithCommunityCouncilChairs
September1,2010
Comments:
JudiShortSugarHouseLandUseChairHowareyougoingtoaddressenforcementofillegalunits.Itis
alreadyanissueandtheCitysenforcementisnotadequate.
ChristianHarrisonDowntownChairTherequirementtohaveoffstreetparkingisnotsquarewiththe
goalsofthetransportationtoencouragewalkingandothernonprivateautomobileformsofcirculation.
ChristianHarrisonDowntownChairAsaphaseIIforADUs,youshouldallowthemasCondossoit
addressesDowntownHousing.Sometimesyoumaybuytwounits,combinethemandthenseparate
themagaintoallowforasmallerunit(motherinlawetc.)
PhilCarlsonSugarHouseChair(Imnotsureifhesaidtheregulationsforparkingareok,orifitisokif
peopleparkonthestreet.
JimJenkinAvenuesChairintheSR1A,thereisarestrictiononheightforaccessorystructures.The
reasonforthisisthatyoudonthavearighttohaveyouraccessorystructureimpactyourneighborfrom
aprivacyissue.Therefore,youwouldntbeabletohaveaunitoveragarage.Howdoyouaddressthat?
BillDavisBallparkChairThereshouldbedesignguidelinesforAccessoryDwellingUnits.TheCityneeds
tomovemoretowardsdesignguidelines.
ChristianHarrisonDowntownChair;TheCityneedsdesignguidelinesandreviewinareasotherthan
justinhistoricdistricts.
EstherHunter;EastCentralChairTherearealotofillegalunitsinEastCentral.Thereneedstobe
criteriaforparking.Thereisalotoftransitintheareabutpeopledontuseit.Theynowaddressthe
lackofparkingintheareawith45degreeonstreetparking.HowdoestheTransportationDivision
decideifthereisenoughparkingonthewholeblock.Someuseswerebuiltwithoutparkingandarent
requiredtohaveitbuttheirlackofparking,impactsthewholeblockandtheonstreetparkingisused
forthoseusesthatareunderparked.
OtherEastCentralGuy?Ifyouallowonstreetparkingtomeettherequirementandyoucantparkon
thestreetformorethan72hoursatatime,whatdoyoudowithyourcarwhenyougoonvacation?
Howdosmallerlotsdealwiththis?TherearemanylotsinEastCentralthathavebackalleys.Ideally,
youwouldputtheADUbacktherebutifthelotistoosmall,canyoustilldoit?
HowdoesthisrelatetoUnitLegalization?
ORION GOF"F' f"RANK 8. eRAY
DEPARTMe:NT OF" COMMUNITY & ECONOMI C DEVE:l .. OPMENT
BLJILD IN G SI!:AVIC8 CIVIB I ON
OIH'I!; CTOII:
MARY OE L.A MARE-SCHAEF"ER
DEP UTY
ROBERT FARRINGTON, .JR.
D EPUTV OUH!:CTOR
March 10, 2011
During the monthly Housing Advisory & Appeals Board meeting held on March 9, 2011, the HAAB
unanimously voted that the following concernS shoul d be taken into consideration regarding the
Accessory Dwelling Unit Initi ative.
1. Neighborhood issues are, infrastructure's abi lity to handle additional density. parking, a lack of market
demand and change of neighborhood character.
2. More Information should be compiled from other cities regarding the success of their ADU programs.
3. Parking issues should be addressed in the ordinance to meet tile needs of the neighborhoods.
4. Limit ADU's to certain zoning districts. Also limit ADU's to a specific number during the test period.
5. Exactly what cOnstitutes owner occupied? This is especiall y relevant due to the complexi ties of
ownership such as LLC's, trusts, partnerships etc. Criteria should be established that would be used
to substantiate the owner occupied status and to assist in any enforcement action that may become
necessary.
6. Consider allowing ADU's in multi -famil y 20ning districts first.
7. The ADU initiative should address the area master plan.
During the same meeting the HAAB unanimously voted their support for the Proposed Housing Diversity
Sustainabl lity Ordinance, provided there is a mix of housing types in multi-fami ly housi ng developments.
However a specific number of each type of unit should not be mandated. Instead the ordinance should
be more market responsive. The ordinance should also address the need for open space and other
amenities near more dense housing developments.
Sincerely, l ---' /
jJ)li U---//l -Ji d J'-'
Diana Hansen, Secretary
Housing Advisory and Appeals Board
45 1 S OUTH STATE: 8 TREE'l' , ROOM . 106\ ':' 0 BOX SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 14'!S 4 13 1
TELEPHONE: 00 80 1' 535' 6 I 3 I
WWW. S LCOClv.CClM
* ... ....

Attachment H
Public Comments
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)
What do you think about the proposed ordinance allowing Accessory

Dwelling Units?
Public Comments as of March 21, 2011, 7:31 AM

Dwelling Units?
Introduction
As part of the Sustainability Code Amendment Project, the Planning
Division is currently working with Clarion Associates to propose
regulations which would allow accessory dwelling units in Salt Lake
City. The Planning Division is currently working to obtain public
feedback on the proposed regulations prior to scheduling a public
hearing with the Planning Commission. The proposed regulations
would be a text amendment to the Citys Zoning Ordinance.
1 of 14
www.PeakDemocracy.com/512
Public comments as of March 21, 2011, 7:31 AM from all participants.
What do you think about the proposed ordinance allowing Accessory Dwelling Units?
Summary of Statements Users

33 Total:
As of March 21, 2011, 7:31 AM, this forum had:
Attendees: 381
Participants: 33
Hours of Public Comment: 1.7
As with any public comment process, participation in Open City Hall is voluntary. The tally
and statements in this record are not necessarily a representative sample of the whole
population, nor do they reflect the opinions of any government agency or elected officials.
2 of 14
Semi-anonymous inside Salt Lake City

February 24, 2011, 9:32 AM
I oppose implementation of ADU in the areas outlined by Mayor Becker and his plan.

February 20, 2011, 7:47 AM
I am against ADU's. Time and time again, during our local historic district discussions, many
of us have been saying we do not want a sea of rentals. Is the City listening? ADU's will
increase the number of rentals and end up lowering our property values. It takes away from the
style and charm of Yalecrest.
Brad Bartholomew inside Salt Lake City

February 16, 2011, 2:04 AM
I think that this is fantastic and would be beneficial to the Rose Park area. The owner occupancy
is a MUST and I'm not sure if I agree with the exceptions. ADU's could be an incentive to bring
more home ownership into the westside neighborhoods and fewer absentee rentals. I'm not sure
why there is a square foot size limit - it should just be a percentage of the lot, 50%. Set backs
shouldn't be any different from conforming principle dwelling. I don't see the need of the
entrance requirements, its also a burden on corner lots that already have smaller usable lots.
Exterior design should be required to match the existing residence. If you do decide with a test
area first, I hope that it is the westside of SLC.

February 1, 2011, 12:48 PM
Some years ago the home owners of our surrounding neighborhoods worked in conjunction with
then Mayor Ted Wilson to change our communities zoning back to single family residential
(R1). This change was motivated by the fact that this section of the city was in bad shape and
deteriorating. Crime rates were high and low property values lured developers to target our
vintage neighborhoods to build apartment units or divide existing homes into duplexes. At that
time, the Mayors office deemed this downward trend unacceptable and believed that the
preservation of single family homes and strong neighborhood communities were in the vital
interest of Salt Lake City. As a result of this zoning change, our quaint and quiet neighborhoods
have flourished. New families have moved in, pride in ownership has soared, homes have been
restored, and our property values have appreciated. Our neighborhoods are amongst the most
desirable to live in the Salt Lake valley.
Unfortunately, Mayor Ralph Becker is proposing an initiative that will circumvent our current
zoning laws, posing a direct threat to our neighborhoods as they currently exists. Mayor Becker
wants Accessory Dwelling Units, or ADUs, be allowed to be built on existing single family
lots. This proposal completely undermines the single family philosophy that was successfully
promoted by Mayor Wilson and takes us back to what previously plagued our community.
In short, Mayor Becker's proposed change to the zoning laws that have allowed our
neighborhood to prosper, will, in effect, promote the subdivision of houses back to the same
cheap rental properties that threatened our community in the past. The Mayors office attempts
to mask the monumental impact that this change will have on our neighborhoods by promoting
alleged benefits that a very small portion of our community may gain. The Mayors plan
increases population density, but does not provide for increased infrastructure or services; as if
these additional people will be without need or will not put additional strain on existing services
and dismisses the reality that they will have cars to park and trash to empty. The Mayors plan
3 of 14
All Statements
proposes very vague concepts, backs them up with little substance, yet wants to implement this
plan faster and more aggressively than any other city that has allowed ADUs.
The ADU proposal is not about existing rentals, it is about the encouragement of developing
new, additional rentals. I have researched other cities ADUs and the Salt Lake City plan is
vague and doesnt take neighborhood impact into consideration.
These are my specific suggestions:
Issues not addressed in this proposal:

1.Minimum lot size 5000sq ft
2.Require formal review for design compatibility with adjacent properties and impact of
privacy, light, air, solar access or adjacent property parking
3.Open space and landscaping requirements (would you like a cement covered lot?)
4.Minimize windows that impact privacy - Little or no direct view into neighbor's
property
5.Regulate the concentration of ADUs in specific neighborhoods
6.Power, water, sewer connections should be through current house
7.Number of bedrooms tied to number of mandatory parking spaces (no waivers for proximity
to bus, rail or business districts)
8. Require review process similar to variance procedures
Issues addressed in this proposal and my suggestions:

D.2.a. Owner occupied property required
What is the definition of an owner? How far does this reach to extended family?
What defines owner occupied? 6 months occupancy? a year? This should require a yearly
certification.
If the owner does not occupy either unit, the ADU should be declared:
a. non-habitable space, and
b. may not be used as a dwelling ,and
c. may not be used as a rented space

D.2.c. Underlying Zoning applies. if there is a conflict...the provisions of this section shall
take precedence.
There should be additional restrictions in place in addition to the existing setbacks.
Currently:
Max height (pitched) 28 and flat (20) (21A.24.070)
Setbacks:
-accessory building 10 from residential building on adjacent lot, located at least 1 from side
property line (21A.34.020)
- primary residence corner lot 4, interior lot 4 on one side and 10 on the other
(24A.24.200)
Create decreased height allowances and increased distances from property line for the
ADU
Max height for 1 story- 13, 1.5 or 2 story 22 at roof peak,
for ADUs higher than 1 story, increase setback additional 2 to 5 feet
4 of 14
All Statements
Lot coverage of ADU count toward parcel maximum building coverage (40% of lot also
known as the 60/40 rule) this should be reduced to 35% on lots with ADUs
Only allowed with existing single family PRIMARY residence
D.3. Methods of Creation

Specifically prohibit trailers and mobile homes
Set a minimum size to 220-400 sq ft
Maximum size 500 sq ft for 5000 to 7500 sq ft lot, 650 sq ft for larger lots
Demolition of existing unit not allowed for ADU construction
Require similar exterior wall materials, window types, door and window trim, roofing
materials to existing home
D.5 Ownership/ Number of residents

the total number of residents...may not [be] exceed[ed]...as defined in the zoning code
Limit the number of bedrooms to one (1) and define number of residents in ADU by
number (2-3 people max), not by definition of family
Zoning Ordinance limits occupancy through the definition of a family. Family is defined as
blood relatives, a couple or legal guardians living together with their children, or a group of not
more than three unrelated individuals living together as a single housekeeping unit. The
definition controls occupancy regardless of the size of the unit.
For example: 10 individuals could occupy a 650 sq ft ADU (myself, my husband, my parents,
his father and 5 children)
This ADU proposal is not well thought out and will have a significant impact on our
communities as neighborhoods.
I oppose this proposal.

January 27, 2011, 12:57 PM
I DO NOT Support ADU's. I do not support and increased number of rental apartments in my
neighborhood. I am opposed to someone legally building an overlooking apartment into my
back yard.

January 14, 2011, 10:54 PM
Great idea, with owner occupancy required no harm done to neighborhoods. Size restrictions
should also prevent "Monster ADU's" from becoming a problem. Great way to utilize
additional available land while respecting the traditional nature of our neighborhoods.
Paige Pitcher inside Salt Lake City

January 11, 2011, 1:13 PM
I am in strong support of the ADU ordinance, so long as the application and adoption is
sensitive to the valid concerns of residents like those below. ADU's need not be an allowed use
5 of 14
All Statements
in every zone. There are some communities that they are obviously not compatible with. On
this matter, I am sympathetic to the wise observations of Beverly Nelson.
So far, only the neighborhoods of Federal Heights and Avenues have cried out in opposition,
saying-- NO! Not Here! But just because they don't want it in their backyards doesn't mean that
ADU's don't have a purpose and place somewhere in SLC. One of the questions the fact sheet
posed, that no one has yet answered, was, "Where?" My suggestions are next to transit,
business districts, employment centers, educational institutions, and other draws where a mix of
housing types makes sense. Locating some appropriate spots for a pilot program would be a
great approach and example.
May I also entertain some other applications of ADU's for neighborhoods in need.
Neighborhoods that want to increase home ownership might be the same neighborhoods to
implement ADU's in order to reward people who choose to buy and live in the area. Coupled
with home ownership incentives this might be one way to create a diverse, cohesive community
while rewarding home owners.
ADU's are an important part of housing choices, and the legalization of this legitimate housing
option needs to be addressed. As our demographic continues to shift, the demand for centrally
located, attainable housing will continue to be raised by our aging boomers, young professionals
and families. This flexible option will help us respond to demographic shifts before they
become an issue.
So long as design and quality standards for ADU's remain high, I believe they can be integrated
into our existing amenities, community fabric, and public infrastructure systems to increase our
resiliency, sustainability and unity.

January 10, 2011, 3:23 PM
I live in the Fremont Heights neighborhood of Salt Lake City. Having been raised in a California
community with legal and illegal "mother-in-laws" adjacent and included in existing homes I
must register my opinion on this proposal as I believe I have adequate experience with the
consequences.
Allowing carve-out rental units in existing houses and permitting the construction of "stand-
alone" apartment-type units on developed lots simply increases population density and
facilitates a more transient character in a residential neighborhood. Parking is always a problem,
as is noise, street activity, and conflict between neighbors.
Additional garbage collection is required, as is additional utilities maintenance, adding a burden

to the delivery of city services. Additional people draw additional services. The frequency of
delivery vehicles in the neighborhood rises, as does the traffic generated by gardeners,
housekeepers, baby sitters, and visiting medical, mechanical maintenance and repair people, and
a multitude of "soft" services.
In short, the character of the neighborhood radically changes over time and the long-term
residents find that they now live in a neighborhood they would never have chosen had the
"mother-in-laws" not been permitted in the first place. This leads to an embittered, hostile
population that becomes "super-sensitive" to any changes in the neighborhood, even positive
ones that benefit everyone.
6 of 14
All Statements
Legal "mother-in-laws" are not a win-win situation. I have lived in an older neighborhood
sandwiched in between two properties with legal mother-in-laws and have personally
experienced the helplessness of watching my neighborhood become an indifferent, transient, "I
don't care, it doesn't effect me" kind of place. The homeowners on either side were generally
embarrassed by their indifferent tenants and avoided others in the neighborhood, ignoring our
common concerns and removing themselves from cooperative projects and issues. I hope Salt
Lake City does not want this kind of atmosphere to take hold in its greatly-varied, generally
well-maintained and pleasant older neighborhoods.
Despite all the altruistic arguments in favor of ADUs, my direct experience has been that such
an ordinance would allow those who want to squeeze additional revenue from their real
property, at the expense of those living around them, to do so without restriction. Permitting
sand-alone and carve-out "mother-in-laws" degrades residential property values and the quality
of life in R1 residential neighborhoods. Such an ordinance would create an underclass of renters
in a residential neighborhood with little political power and likely no interest in the rational
development and quality of life in the neighborhood as a whole. I feel that permitting ADUs in
R1 neighborhoods is a very bad idea.
Also, please note that Mike Kephart, who has posted a comment here and has promoted ADUs
in other discussions on this site, designs stand-alone ADUs and lives in Colorado. He would
obviously personally benefit from the passage of this ordinance.
I strongly recommend that Salt Lake City reject this proposed ordinance.
Michel Weekley inside Salt Lake City

January 7, 2011, 10:51 PM
I agree with Susan Fisher's November 1 posting completely.
I am against ADUs in the already crowded & densely populated Avenues neighborhood. As an
Avenues homeowner, I am shocked & saddened that this proposal is even being considered. The
proposal would undo all the good that years of work to get the Avenues back to a "single-famliy
dwelling" atmosphere have achieved. There are very few aesthetically pleasing neighborhoods
in the Salt Lake Valley, and encouraging more development in and around many "historic" and
beautiful Avenues homes is an unwise choice.
I believe we can work toward "sustainability" in Salt Lake, not by more development & the
building of ever more structures....but rather by filling the plethora of empty homes & rentals
currently available en masse.
A "sustainability" topic that gets very little attention these days is to encourage the creation of
smaller families....NOT the continuing accomodation of huge ones! Fewer people in the first
place equals less pollution, less development, less crowding....and a better quality of life for
everyone. Responsible population growth could alleviate many of our societal challenges, both
locally & globally.
Matt Johnson inside Salt Lake City

December 8, 2010, 4:12 PM
I like the general idea but I have a few concerns.
Why 650 sqft? Is that the difference between a duplex and an ADU? If a lot is big enough
7 of 14
All Statements
could the ADU not be bigger?
What about new home construction? Can a new home be built with an ADU included in the
plans? Where would the door be?
What about end of life scenarios? The plan says that it must be an owner occupied situation, but
what if the home is sold, the tenants are kicked out and the new owners now have extra living
space that they get taxed extra for? And if the tenants decide to move out, does that mean I now
have an above-the-garage shop where I couldnt have one before?
I also agree that we should allow businesses similar accommodations as ADUs like an in-home
office, but for someone else.
Mike Kephart outside Salt Lake City

November 28, 2010, 2:59 PM
ADUs use resources very efficiently compared to many other types of residential development.
They require no additional land for development and use existing infrastructure (such as water,
sewer, roads, and other utilities), so they increase the supply of affordable housing without
promoting sprawl or requiring the construction of expensive new infrastructure.
Clarion, your code consultant, helped us here in Denver as well. As unbelievably contentious as
the subject was for us the atmosphere immediately cooled upon passage of the ordinance by our
city council. The fear of a rush to build is a red herring that has not proven real in any of the 20
or 30 cities in Colorado that have passed similar ordinances in the last few years. It was over
two years before the first ADU was built in Arvada, CO after they passed their ordinance
without major public debate. I believe ADUs are a legitimate housing type that over time can
do much to diversify our neighborhoods economically. I support your efforts to include
provisions for ADUs in your neighborhoods. The excitement will quickly dissipate.
Mike Kephart, Denver, CO

November 10, 2010, 11:17 AM
Owner occupancy, owner occupancy, owner occupancy, strict enforcement of owner occupancy.
Otherwise this is a carte blanch for house flippers, and slumlords.
Occupancy of one unit must be full time by the actual living person with majority interest listed
on the ownership deed. Do not allow ownership by "trusts","corportations" or any other entitiy.
Otherwise they will always claim that their family trust allows them to rent to "family" with
different last names (aka, someone who isn't family at all, but the true owner is willing to bet
that the city will never check because it is too expensive and time consuming)

November 7, 2010, 9:10 AM
I support ADU's
Susan Fisher inside Salt Lake City

November 1, 2010, 3:09 PM
As a 41-year resident of the Greater Avenues, I have some perspective on their history. First, let
me say that the quality of the Avenues as a place to live and raise a family is far better now than
it was even twenty years ago, and one of the principle reasons is that residents have fought to
limit density, often by re-converting apartments back into single-family structures. Furthermore,
8 of 14
All Statements
the few apartments that existed in lower Federal Heights from the Depression era have been
phased out over the years. One can scarcely argue that residents found an additional apartment
in their home a desirable thing. We appreciate R-1 zoning precisely because it disallows
multiple-family dwellings.
There are two density issues in this proposed ADU ordinance, and they are not clearly and
separately addressed: building density and population density. I was astounded to read in the
proposed ordinance that an ADU is expressly interpreted as NOT increasing density! Clearly,
only structural density is considered here at all, and adding an additional structure would
increase even that parameter. Common sense indicates that increased population density means
more cars, more traffic, more ambient noise, more school children (in already overcrowded
schools), increased use of already overburdened parks, less play area at home per child, etc. The
proposed ordinance even stipulated that additional off-street parking space provisions can be
waived, thus adding to street congestion. I cannot see that this would improve quality of life in
any respect. I saw the dramatic results of decreased population density and noise and
increased resident satisfaction in my own neighborhood when the Pi Kappa Alpha house
burned and the fraternity was relocated.
Furthermore, the implied altruism for assisting an aging population is weak. As an older
resident, I cannot believe that having a separate apartment in my home would provide me with
increased companionship and services. No renter is legally bound to watch out for the
landlord. In addition, it would be a long time before the cost of creating an apartment would be
amortized by rental income; even a reverse mortgage would be faster and less demoralizing for
both resident and neighborhood. The proposed ordinance does not offer any protection at all for
the character of the existing neighborhood. It is inappropriate to force such a far-reaching
ordinance change upon us when Historic District designation for Federal Heights is under
consideration. The City Council should consider carefully the vested interests of those who
propose to change the integral character of a single-family district. I think the respondent who
proposed high-rise apartments (with underground parking) on already existing parking lots is on
the right track.
The truth of the matter is that one of the first things people buy is privacy, and this is usually
expressed first in the space they can place between themselves and their neighbors. Federal
Heights has larger lots, and the coverage is far less than the city-allowed 40%. Indeed, even the
smallest lots in this zone average only 25-30% coverage, while on the larger lots the coverage is
even less. This lower density is directly correlated to house prices and the increased taxes they
generate. People consistently demonstrate they are willing to pay for privacy and what it brings:
less traffic, less noise, more space and the joy of more big trees. This proposed ordinance
would degrade our quality of life.
Beverly Nelson inside Salt Lake City

October 28, 2010, 12:41 AM
An ordinance allowing homeowners to build accessory dwelling units on their property could
provide benefits to homeowners, families, the elderly and renters in some Salt Lake
communities. But ADUs should not be considered to be a panacea for every neighborhood in
Salt Lake. There are neighborhoods in Salt Lake where accessory dwellings would not be
appropriate, particularly those where high density is already an issue, where crime is high, and
where schools already suffer from over-population. To allow residents to built accessory
9 of 14
All Statements
dwelling units on properties in these neighborhoods would only serve to exacerbate the
problems they are already dealing with and would be detrimental to the entire community.
In regard to my own community, I live in lower Federal Heights in close proximity to University
fraternities and sororities. My community already suffers from lack of parking, traffic
congestion, excessive noise and crime. We already have problems with duplexes that started out
as mother-in-law apartments 20 or 30 years ago, but that now house University students who,
unfortunately, think it is cool to disrespect the community in which they live. I would not
support an ordinance that allowed my neighbors, or residents in areas of the City that are
experiencing the problems I have listed to build accessory dwellings on their properties.
Gene Fitzgerald inside Salt Lake City

October 27, 2010, 9:32 AM
As president of the Federal Heights Neighborhood association and a member of the board of the
GACC I think I can say that in general we oppose the move toward allowing accessory dwelling
units. In our neighborhoods especially (Butler ave, Federal way etc) over the years we have
had many rental units that were merely extensions of Greek housing and the problems that
accompany those organizations. In the past 20 years or so, we have been moving toward and
achieving more restrictive zoning rather than moving toward rental units in family homes. The
ADU would significantly change that dynamic and open up homes in the area to the sort of
abuse that we have seen in the past. We feel this way despite the restrictions the ADU has put
on renting--people have a way of skirting those restrictions especially when we do not see an
adequate oversight by the city to enforce them. So that is my feeling at this point and I sense
that many neighbors agree with me
Esther Hunter inside Salt Lake City

October 26, 2010, 8:24 PM
I believe there is a justified need for the ability to legalize accessory dwelling units in the City.
This can be useful and helpful to many. I support the owner occupied requirement.
Having said that, I also believe that this ordinance is not yet ready for prime time.
This is a significant change.
While we need to step forward, a blanket approach rather than a carefully planned,
appropriately applied approach will further exacerbate many city issues and problems such as
our failing and underfunded infrastructure especially evident in many older neighborhoods.
The benefit of not being first is that we can learn from and avoid the long term problems this
type of change has created in other cities.
This ordinance needs to be built on a firm foundation.
The foundation should come first.
In Salt Lake the very zones/properties that could best absorb additional density due to their size
and stature will not likely be utilized in this manner but instead it will be the older already more
dense, smaller lots that will be further compromised.
This is not socially responsible.
This type of significant change should be carefully trialed, have a great deal more thought out
criteria (ie design guidelines), correlation with other ordinances (ie the duplex legalization
10 of 14
All Statements
process), and have more details developed that give specific criteria for approval.
Is it near transit, what does the master plan say, how much density already exists, how much
parking is available, is there a lit street lamp, impact to property values, what is the crime rate,
roads/water/sewer impacts to name but a few.
What exactly tips the balance into the negative for a particular block face, a neighborhood?
Instead, we could begin by having the ordinance trialed through a one off review process such as
conditional use or Board of Adjustments rather than implemented in a blanket fashion. Maybe
where the least negative impact is likely but where a thoughtfully assessed minimum criteria has
been met (ie new Sugar House streetcar line).
While the manpower to prepare a case for review is staggering, the ability of the City to
manage/enforce/police this ordinance city wide as written is not likely feasible at all.
If a more restricted/one off trial run proves successful, this gate can always be widened.
As Dr. Chris Nelson (UU FAICP Presidential Professor City and Metropolitan Planning) has
stated,
ALL of the Cities anticipated growth could be absorbed by utilizing the many existing flat
surface parking lots which also coincides with one of the goals of the Downtown Community
Council.
Incentives for this type of development would meet the need for additional tax base,
density/growth while at the same time enriching the City without disrupting existing
neighborhoods.
I sincerely hope the administration will take the additional time to develop this into a win-win
approach that does not harm some areas while protecting others. This is doable.
quinn mccallum-law inside Salt Lake City

October 25, 2010, 6:26 PM
I think this plan has great potential to both preserve existing buildings and create new housing
opportunities. I currently live in an owner occupied legal triplex and it works well for my wife
and I but I think we could take it further as a city. What about "ABU's" or accessory business
units as well on owner occupied properties? I am aware of home-occupation permits but within
many area's of the city this could contribute to the liveliness of up and coming areas as well as
create places for people to actually walk to, something that is still lacking in SLC albeit
growing. I see so many of these buildings around the city going to waste because the current
owners see no value in commercial space, yet, seemingly, are disinterested in selling them (I've
found 1 for sale publicly in the last five years.) So letting others build businesses as well would
be as or more beneficial than the ADU's. I am still all for the ADU ordinance in the interim.
Kelly Stevens inside Salt Lake City

October 25, 2010, 9:37 AM
I am a 15 year resident of the Avenues. I have owned two owner-occupied duplexes and have
been working with the city to legalize a triplex that was non-conforming. I am absolutely
opposed to ADU's. Residents of the Avenues have protected this neighborhood for decades,
working hard to make it a safe, live-able community. When rampant development of apartment
complexes and creation of non-conforming apartments was the norm for the Avenues, it was a
dangerous, drug-ridden neighborhood on the decline. With the hard work of many citizens,
regulations have made it difficult to add apartments and break up single-family dwellings. This
11 of 14
All Statements
trend has protected our neighborhood and created a GREAT place to live. The avenues can be
seen as an at-risk neighborhood in SLC. Crime is relatively high within our boundaries. With
more apartments and a more transient population, the scale could be tipped. Parking is another
complicated issue with negative implications from allowing ADU's especially with an
allowance for 'limited' exemptions. The requirement for an owner-occupied house seems very
tenuous and difficult to regulate down-the-line.
Stephanie Churchill Jackel outside Salt Lake City

October 23, 2010, 1:32 PM
I'm concerned that the "fact sheet" and the draft ordinance don't agree as to the size of ADU
allowed. The fact sheet says 50% of sq. ftg. of primary structure or 650 sq.ft., whichever is
GREATER, while the ordinance says 50% or 650 sq.ft., whichever is LESS. This is a serious
discrepancy. I also think strict design guidelines should apply wherever the ADU is located,
historic district or not.
Dana Schaffer inside Salt Lake City

October 16, 2010, 4:51 PM
I'm an Avenues Homeowner. This is a city and neighborhoods closest to the city should
become more dense. Also, I agree with this proposal because it is environmentally friendly to
increase density within the city and limit sprawl. The more the merrier. I think this will allow
our neighborhood to be diverse and it will keep it so that people providing services within the
community and others like teachers, can afford to live in the neighborhood in which they are
contributors. Since we are experiencing severe property tax increases, I imagine this move may
allow many people (e.g. fixed incomes) who are a valuable part of the neighborhood to keep
their homes. Also, if our neighborhood becomes more dense, we might actually be able to
support some more small businesses. I for one would like a few more restaurant options within
walking distance and perhaps a store other than Smith's. Someone brought up parking. I'm not
really worried about that, having lived in San Francisco and Seattle. The more dense it
becomes, the more people will take public transit and hopefully those people won't need cars at
all, if there are businesses within walking distance and transit to the U and downtown. I do hope
they will consider adding traffic lights and enforce the speed limit so that we can be pedestrian
friendly, even if we increase density. However, even recent requests for those services/changes
have fallen on deaf ears.
Jon Parrish inside Salt Lake City

October 8, 2010, 12:41 PM
Highly in favor of ADU. What a great way to stimulate economy, provide low cost housing to
grad students, young couples, and young families; not to mention bringing extra taxes in which
will keep my taxes lower! Let's ask the business owner who just shut down due to the lack of
business, the school teacher who just got laid off due to the lack of students, or the student who
just took the semester off to pay for the gas it takes to drive from out of town if they are in favor
of infill. I vote yes.
linda burr outside Salt Lake City

October 6, 2010, 8:16 AM
As a former Avenues resident for over twenty years, I think having Accessory Dwellings are not
going to detract from the neighborhood. There are many already being used. I know the area had
a bad period where many Victorians were split up as apartments, but now that many are single
family dwellings again, a small cottage for students or for working singles/couple residences
would be great infill. Of course there would be zoning still in place for fire safety, noise,
parking, etc. We have the countries' worst air pollution partly because people drive to get
12 of 14
All Statements
downtown for work and school. I'm sure many would like to have a closer, quiet, residential,
more affordable place to live.
Hilary Verson inside Salt Lake City

October 1, 2010, 5:12 PM
I support ADU. As long as these rentals are on owner-occupied property, they will be well-
maintained. ADU's will increase the population density & increase property tax without causing
duress. Additionally, I suggest a small annual rental unit tax for apartment dwellers to help
maintain infrastructure and services, perhaps $25/year. I think this would provide about
$750,000/year without raising residential property tax.
Jim Ferguson inside Salt Lake City

October 1, 2010, 3:54 PM
This is a terrible idea. It will turn back years of work making the Avenues one of the nicest
places in the city to live. We have all worked for years to get rid of Accessory Dwelling Units.
There is no rational reason, other than greed, to bring back the blight.
James Ferguson.
Pax Rasmussen inside Salt Lake City

September 24, 2010, 11:58 PM
I strongly support this ordinance. I keep hearing about the 'inevitability' of growth in the valley,
and it makes me sick. There really is only so much space, not to mention water. And the more
we sprawl, the worse the already terrible air gets. Instead of dinking around with ideas like the
northwest quadrant, we should focus on INFILL. I find the comment referring to Tokyo
offensive: To that commenter, I ask, "Would you prefer Tokyo or L.A.?" Because L.A. is the
direction we're headed. If you don't like density, move to the country. Up to a point, the denser
the city, the betterthe city becomes more walkable, more supportive of independent, locally-
owned business, and more community-oriented. Hurrah for the ADU!
Mike Kephart outside Salt Lake City

September 22, 2010, 7:25 AM
Here in the city of Denver we included ADUs in our new zoning ordinance adopted recently. I
would suggest letting the maximum size of an ADU increase with the size of the lot. We
included this provision in our code. I would also suggest that you ask families to tell their
stories rather than trying to appeal to the populace with logic and reason. This is a change and
people generally fear change unless they can personalize it. We failed in this respect and it
became a divisive issue when it could have been seen as good for families.
bruce beck inside Salt Lake City

September 20, 2010, 7:51 AM
I agree with Alysa K

September 15, 2010, 9:08 PM
If this can be accomplished without creating mega houses or mega barns then go for it along
with the following: I believe a ratio between property size and house foot print needs to be
established. There should also be a limit on number of people based on family relation and total
number per square foot.
Kathryn Fitzgerald inside Salt Lake City

I am concerned about the parking consequences of this ordinance in the University area,
especially near the blocks zoned for Greeks. The Greek houses are already allowed virtually
13 of 14
All Statements
unlimited parking permits while single family homes are limited to three permits. This should
not be a blanket citywide ordinance. It must examine the differences among neighborhoods and
differing consequences of the change.
Philip Carlson inside Salt Lake City

I hope this moves along!
We need more residents in the City. This will not likely increase density dramatically, but even
a slight increase will be good for our community.
The owner occupation requirement is an important part of the proposal. Really, I would hope
that few houses are divided, but that accessory units would be detached keeping the main house
intact for larger families. Units above garages or even separate buildings would be best.

I am opposed to this proposed ordinance as it will increase population density in already
crowded areas. We are already suffering from crime, congestion, transportation problems, lack
of privacy and other intrusions to a calm and peaceful life. Is Tokyo really the city we want to
morph into?
Alyssa Kay inside Salt Lake City

This is a positive move for Salt Lake City. Accessory Dwelling Units will allow extended
families to live closer together, provide rental income and increase the city's density (without
significant impact on character) to mitigate urban sprawl. I am in favor of this ordinance.
Some of the specifics of the ordinance, however, are unnecessarily restrictive such as the Owner-
Occupied Property requirement. There are many renters who would benefit from this kind of
living arrangement. This section seems to be prejudiced against renters.
Section 7.b.(1) is unclear. If the accessory unit is detached how/why would an existing entrance
be used? Why would a new entrance be required to face away from the street? In my opinion
that would create a mass that would be unattractive from the streetscape.
Overall, this is a good start. Thanks!

14 of 14
All Statements
State or Utah
(iARY IL IIIIWIKI
( iOl'l'JNOr
(il{Hi IIU.I
I.h'ufrwml f jIH'CI 1101'
Department of Agriculture and Fond
1.1 O:-l;\I{i) \ I IlL\l'Id i'\M
( 'OlUtJlH.HIlJl<'f
KYlI' J{ SIII'III:-lS
I 't'/utly ('nmmfnlllJ1,'1
K:\IIII I-I-N 1'I I\JU, I:
f).'plllr ( 'oIllUno.; ...'IOJII..'J'
Utah Department of Agriculture and Food
supports ADUs and Salt Lake City's Sustainable Code
February 23,2011
The Utah Department of Agriculture and Food would like to offer its suppOli for the creation of Accessory Dwelling
Units (ADUs) in Salt Lake City. With regards to our Utah agricultural food production system, our consumers, and
our environment, we view ADUs as a tool that can help benefit these interests.
We support the concept that by adding ADUs to a city's dwelling mix there will be reduced demand
to develop suburban farmland into residential subdivisions.
We support the concept that housing units located closer to employment centers will increase
participation in public transportation and decrease automobile traffic on our interstate freeways and
arterial highways.
We suppOli the concept that during this economic downturn, families may need to reside closer
together, and AD Us can meet these families' needs.
With regard to the City's Sustainable City Code Initiative;
We fully support code provisions that enable citizens to grow, consume and even sell raw produce
from their private or community gardens provided that reasonable qualifYing provisions are offered
to protect the health of neighbors and children.
We encourage EVERY Utahn to embrace agriculture and become more aware of the food system
and the role our 16,000 farmers and ranchers play in their lives.
The energy savings associated with backyard or community gardens can be significant.
We support organized educational efforts that disseminate growing and harvesting techniques that
protect food supply and safety interests.
A moment to reflect on the historical importance of agriculture.
This July 24th will be the 164th anniversary of our pioneer forefathers' entrance into the Salt Lake valley.
Even before Brigham Young uttered his famous statement, "This is the Place" the pioneers were already
digging up the soil and planting crops just one block north of Salt Lake City Hall.
Agriculture came first for them. We would like to work with you to make agriculture first AGAIN for our
citizens and leaders.
SLncel'ely>-

Leonard M. Blackham, Commissioner
Utah Depmiment of Agriculture and Food
350 "!\IIlh i{ed\\(ll,d i{oad, 1'( 11\0\ 111.)00, salt I.ak,' t'it)_ II J X-IIII-h.'OIi
lekphlllie XIII, '.lX, 71011' Ih",illlik
Maloy, Michael
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Categories:
Ruthann Povinelli [rpov@comcast.net]
Tuesday, February 01, 2011 12:30 PM
'Leeann Sudbury'; Mayor; Maloy, Michael
'Ann Maloy'; 'CERT Amy Smith'; 'CERT Annette Gillis'; 'CERT Barr Christensen'; 'CERT Ben
Anjeweirden'; 'CERT Bob and Judy Jaggi'; 'CERT Brandon Howlett'; 'CERT Eric Hull'; 'CERT
Eric Madsen'; 'CERT Jean Robinson'; 'CERT Jeff Yancey'; 'CERT Jeremy Jackson'; 'CERT
Jessica Hill'; 'CERT Karen Geertsen'; 'CERT Kari Hull'; 'CERT Kim Gillis'; 'CERT Kim
Ventura'; 'CERT Laurie Goodsell'; 'CERT Lisa Marley'; 'CERT Monica Ruegner'; 'CERT
Patrick Quinn'; 'CERT Patty Henetz'; 'CERT Penny Catanzaro'; 'CERT Rhonda Parker'; 'CERT
Stacey Denison'; 'CERT Stan Heaton'; 'CERT Susan Helier'; 'CERT Suzanne Hennefer';
'CERT Tara Daniels'; 'CERT Tim Geertsen'; 'CERT W.D. Robinson'; 'Southers';
stqc;:ey.denison@hotmail.com; tom.denison@hotmail.com; annlschmidt@gmail.com; 'Dianne
Fuller'; Douvilles@comcast.net; 'Julie S Steele'; 'Julie Personal Email'; 'Gillian Tufts'; 'Leissa
Roberts'; 'Michael Povinelli'
RE: It is URGENT that you protect our neighborhood from allowing Accessory dwellings on
our properties!!
Follow up
Flagged
Other
Some 15 years ago the home owners of our surrounding neighborhoods worked in conjunction with then Mayor
Ted Wilson to change our communities zoning back to single family residential (Rl). This change was
motivated by the fact that this section of the city was in bad shape and deteriorating. Crime rates were high and
low property valuys lured developers to target our vintage neighborhoods to build apartment units or divide
existing homes into duplexes. At that time, the Mayor's office deemed this downward trend unacceptable and
believed that the preservation of single family homes and strong neighborhood communities were in the vital
interest of Salt Lake City. As a result of this zoning change, our quaint and quiet neighborhoods have
flourished. New families have moved in, pride in ownership has soared, homes have been restored, and our
property values have appreciated. Our neighborhoods are amongst the most desirable to live in the Salt Lake
valley.
Unfortunately, Salt Lake City's current Mayor does not apparently value strong neighborhood communities
based on single family homes. To the contrary, Ralph Becker is proposing an initiative that will circumvent our
current zoning laws, posing a direct threat to our neighborhood as it currently exists. Mayor Becker wants
Accessory Dwelling Units or ADU's be allowed to be built on existing single family lots. This proposal
completely undermines the single family philosophy that was successfully promoted by Mayor Wilson and
takes us back to what previously plagued our community.
In short, Mayor Becker wants to change the zoning laws that have allowed our neighborhood to prosper and in
effect, promote the subdivision of houses and new construction of the same cheap rental prosperities that
threatened our community in the past. The Mayor's office attempts to mask the monumental impact that this
change will have on our neighborhood by promoting alleged benefits that a very small portion of our
community may gain. The Mayor's plan increases population density, but does not provide for increased
infrastructure or services; as if these additional people will be without need or will not put additional strain on
existing service and dismisses the reality that they will have cars to park and trash to empty. The Mayor's plan
proposes very vague concepts, backs them up with little if any substance, yet wants to implement this plan
faster and more aggressively than any other city that has allowed ADU's.
1
The ADU proposal is not about existing rentals, it is about the encouragement of developing new, additional
rentals. I have researched other cities' ADU's and the Salt Lake City plan is vague and doesn't take
neighborhood impact into consideration.
1. Minimum lot size (SOOOsq ft)
2. Require formal review for design compatibility with adjacent properties and impact of privacy, light, air,
solar access or adjacent property parking
3. Open space and landscaping requirements (would you like a cement covered lot?)
4. Minimize windows that impact privacy
S. Regulate the concentration of ADU's in specific neighborhoods
6. Power, water, sewer connections? Through current house?
7. Number of bedrooms tied to number of mandatory parking spaces (no waivers for proximity to bus, rail
or business districts)
What defines owner occupied? 6 months a year? This should require a yearly certification.
D.2.c. Underlying Zoning applies. "if there is a conflict ... the provisions of this section shall take
precedence."
.. There should be additional restrictions in place in addition to the existing setbacks.
.. Currently:
Max height (pitched) 28' and flat (20') (21A.24.070)
Setbacks:
,-accessory building 10' from residential building on adjacent lot, located at least l' from side
- primary residence corner lot 4', interior lot 4' on one side and 10' on the other
(24A.24.200)
II Create decreased height allowances and increased distances from property line for the ADU
Max height for 1 story- 13', 1.S or 2 story - 22' at roof peak,
for ADU's higher than 1 story, increase setback additional 2-S'
.. Lot coverage of ADU count toward parcel maximum building coverage (40% of lot - also known
as the 60/40 rule) - this should be reduced to 3S% on lots with ADU's
Only allowed with existing single family primary residence onsite.
II Specifically prohibit trailers and mobile homes
.. Set a minimum size to 220-400 sq ft
.. Maximum size SOO sq ft for SOOO -7S00 sq ft lot, 6S0 sq ft for larger lots
II Demolition of existing unit not allowed for ADU construction
Require similar exterior wall materials, window types, door and window trim, roofing materials
D.S Ownership/ Number of residents
"the total number of residents ... may not [be] exceed[ed] ... as defined in the zoning code"
2
III Limit the number of bedrooms to one (1) and define number of residents in ADU by number (2-3
people max), not by definition of family
Zoning Ordinance limits occupancy through the definition of a/ami/yo Family is defined as blood relatives, a
couple or legal guardians living together with their children, or a group of not more than three unrelated
individuals living together as a single housekeeping unit. The definition controls occupancy regardless of the
size of the unit.
For example: 10 individuals could occupy a 650 sq ft ADU (myself, my husband, my parents, his father and 5
children)
1'-
This ADU proposal as it stands is not well thought out and will have a significant impact on our communities as
neighborhoods.
Ruthann Povinelli
1027 E Herbert Ave
Salt Lake City, UT
I rl
From: Leeann Sudbury [mailto:leeann.sudbury@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 20119:30 AM
To: mayor@slcgov.com; MichaeI.Maloy@slcgov.com
Cc: Ann Maloy; CERT; CERT Amy Smith; CERT Annette Gillis; CERT Barr Christensen; CERT Ben Anjeweirden; CERT Bob
and Judy Jaggi; CERT Brandon Howlett; CERT Eric Hull; CERT Eric Madsen; CERT Jean Robinson; CERT Jeff Yancey;
CERT Jeremy Jackson; CERT Jessica Hill; CERT Karen Geertsen; CERT Kari Hull; CERT Kim Gillis; CERT Kim Ventura;
CERT Laurie Goodsell; CERT Lisa Marley; CERT Monica Ruegner; CERT Patrick Quinn; CERT Patty Henetz; CERT Penny
Catanzaro; CERT Rhonda Parker; CERT Stacey Denison; CERT Stan Heaton; CERT Susan Helier; CERT Suzanne Hennefer;
CERT Tara Daniels; CERT Tim Geertsen; CERT W.D. Robinson; Southers
Subject: It is URGENT that you protect our neighborhood from allowing Accessory dwellings on our properties!!
Years ago the East Liberty Park neighborhood worked with the city to make our area a single family
neighborhood with the exception of those apartments that already existed. The city actually initiated
the project until it got enough support from the neighborhood. At the time, they felt that keeping a
neighborhood a non-rental neighborhood near the center of the city would actually help protect the
city from being vulnerable and would increase the values of the neighborhood. Ted Wilson came to
many back yard, meetings and spoke, asking us to help the city to fight those developers who would
want to break down the strength of the neighborhood by putting in accessory building units and
turning the houses into multiple unit dwellings. It worked! Our neighborhood became a good, strong
neighborhood with increasing property property values. Nothing has changed since then except that
the neighborhood has become more appealing. By keeping the properties single family dwellings in
this neighborhood, it has remained strong and has continued to hold property values. If people are
allowed to do "whatever" and are allowed to build houses in the backyard or over the garage, our
neighborhood will become like those to the west and north and south of us. We have a unique little
niche and we do not want it destroyed or changed!! We have chosen to buy in this neighborhood
because of its characteristics of stability and inner strength. Now it appears that someone wants to
destroy that strength, by creating rental spaces under the guise of "taking care of elderly parents".
3
Suzanne Hennefer; CERT Tara Daniels; CERT Tim Geertsen; CERT W.o. Robinson; Southers
Years ago the East Uberty Park neighborhood worked with the city to make our area a single family
many back yard meetings and spoke, asking us to help the city to fight those developers who would
want to break down the s t r e ~ g t h of the neighborhood by putting in accessory building units and
They feel that over the garage or in backyards is a perfect place for this type of space.
I took care of all the elderly in my family, including older aunts and uncles, until they died. I brought
them into my home because if the elderly are too old to live alone, they are too old to live alone over
your garage. Elderly who cannot care for themselves are typically bought into your home or put in an
assisted living center, not placed in a apartment over a garage or put outback in a shack. If people
legitimately need more space, they should increase the space in what they already have by adding an
extra bedroom in the attic or the basement. Just as Ted Wilson asked us years ago to protect the
strength of our neighborhood, we are now asking you to please help us. These accessory units will
destroy the appeal and strength of our neighborhood. We would appreciate all you can do to prevent
the breakdown of our neighborhood.
We know that you are the people who have the power to keep our neighborhoods safe from these
kinds of structures, and we are asking you to help us, please. (Others may express their opinions by
writing mayor@slcgov.com and MichaeI.Maloy@slcgov.com, but we want you to know this is how we
feel!!)
Thank you,
The Sudburys
1232 South McClelland Street
801-548-0543
4
Public Meeting
PUBLIC COMMENT FORM
December 9, 2010
Sustainability City Code Initiative
Name:

! )/)11,(7
Address:
Planning and Zoning Division
Department of Community and
(----> I ( l ' .:?)J' . , !
;--LL--'-_________ --'Zip Code ) {y:,)
I
Ph
", ,) en (':)(,.'\ ,I ":')' '1 \ i'l
one: }'y/' ;: j ) \ / E-mm ()dlJ/{)i{(\I/\; ((( IN\ /d'\t t{) I/!!
Please circle all that apply Practitioner

Please provide your contact infonnation so we can notify you of other meetings or hefuTIgs on
this issue.' .
You may submit this sheet before the end of the Open House, or you can provide your comments
via e-mail to cheri.coffey@slcgov.com or via mail at the following address: Cheri Coffey,
Planning' Manager, Salt Lake City Planning Division, PO Box 145480, Salt Lake City, UT
84114-5480. Please provide your comments by Friday December 31,2010.
Other opportunities for public comment will be available as specific draft ordinances are process.
Look for updates on this project by visiting our website at www.slcgov.comlCEDlPlanning
Questions? Cheri Coffey 801-535-6188
Continue comments on back
Maloy. Michael
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Categories:
To: Cheri Coffey
Michael Maloy
Beth Bowman [bbowman@hsc.utah.edu]
Wednesday, November 10, 2010 2:41 PM
Coffey, Cheri; Maloy, Michael
angela.hansenberg@slcgov.com
Acessory Dwelling Units
Other
Planning Commission Members
As a resident of an older (1920's) neighborhood, (not included in Yalecrest) I am not in favor of
the proposed creation of zoning for accessory dwelling units. There are many requirements
inCluded in the the amendment project memorandum concerning Accessory Dwelling Units which
seem to me to be impossible to enforce.
Few other comments:
1) I do not have any confidence that any of the zoning and building code changes and requirements
as listed in the fact sheet for ADU's could be adequately regulated by the city. From personal
experience with construction projects on our street, current enforcement of the building codes does
not work.
2) The older neighborhoods already have a population density that is consistent with sustainable
living.
There already is a mix in our older neighborhoods of varying size homes as well as numerous
duplexes. It is the newer building projects that have not been required to include housing units for
all incomes. This should include the new building in the downtown area as well as newer projects
along the light-rail tracks.
3) How is the city able to regulate who buys property with an accessory dwelling? There is no way
to prevent the dwelling from becoming two rental properties. The city cannot enforce the number
of residents that reside in a unit.
4) There is an infrastructure concern. The old city sewer lines are already a problem. Parking is a
problem as well. Most garages in our area are small and most residents already park on the street.
The narrow streets are a concern for emergency vehicles when cars are parked on both sides of the
street.
Beth Bowman
1445 Harrison Ave
SLC, Ut 84105
801-582-0708
1
Maloy, Michael
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Categories:
Mary Ann Wright [MAW@pbageo.comJ
Friday, November 05, 2010 11:45 AM
Maloy, Michael
ADUs
Other
I am writing in support of the ADUs ordinance for Salt Lake City, This makes good sense in
that it retains urban character but allows for greater use of property within the city for
living space. The idea of not gobbling up natural habitat for more buildings is sound. I
wish the county had a better handle on this idea for commercial space.
1
Maloy, Michael
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Categories:
cindy cromer [3cinslc@live.comJ
Thursday, October 21, 20109:02 PM
Maloy, Michael
more on ADU's
Follow up
Flagged
Other
Michael-Thanks for your patience regarding my numerous objections to Clarion's proposal for ADU's. I just spotted the
following information in a much longer list of incentives for historic preservation that I proposed to Planning in January.
Again, the City gives away development rights that it could use to leverage the kind of reinvestment it wants in housing.
It is not getting enough benefit in the right places under Clarion's proposal. cindy
excerpt from a list of proposed incentives for historic preservation, submitted to Planning in January 2010:
Restrict ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS initially to historic properties (either as stand alone Register sites or in City
Register Districts) located in multiple family zoning districts. Focus on RMF-30 and RMF-35 zones especially in the Capitol
Hill, Avenues, and Central City Districts. Rationale: These zones are established for multiple unit occupancy. The current
residents and property owners EXPECT tenants as neighbors. The Landmarks Commission is currently doing an excellent
job of implementing the design guildelines and ordinances that are available. The regulatory process for infill in historic
districts is working far better than the compatible infill ordinances for single family zoning districts. Structures in historic
districts have higher maintenance costs and would benefit from the additional income that accessory dwelling units could
provide. The majority of the City's surviving carriage houses are concentrated in the historic districts and on stand alone
Register sites
Provide DENSITY BONUSES for property owners who are reinvesting in historic Districts and stand alone historic sites.
(This would be one way the City could create incentives for protecting excellent historic buildings that would qualify for
stand alone status but are not surrounded by the critical mass of surviving historic buildings to be in a District).
1
ZIP CODE
E-MAIL
COMMENT
Public Forum
COMMENT FORM
October 21, 2010
Accessory Dwelling Unit-Draft Ordinance
TIC/If.- wdd" j'-
r&J/ ft\ <'1' COf If oA
NAME
ADDRESS
ZIP CODE
btio(J
E-MAIL
l
COMMENT
NAME S 0., ...
ADDRESS
ZIP CODE
E-MAIL S V\(\(J ,\( \ '\ . J
Maloy. Michael
From:
Sent:
To:
esther e. hunter [estherehunter@hotmail.com]
Wednesday, October 27,20108:17 AM
Subject: Re: ADU question
Categories: Other
Concerns:
Does the sentence "Ifthere is any conflict between the provisions of this section shall take precedence. /I not
undo many protections in place to make sure the ADU do not negatively impact an area. This concern is based
on my experience of code interpretations in Building Services when permits are actually pulled. Can this be
clartfied to avoid conflicts in the future.
Experience has tallght us that the review criteria utilized by various departments when the approve exceptions
and plans is not spec{fic and does not encompass neighborhood concerns.
Specific criteriafor assessment for parking, infrastructure, etc. would make this ordinance more sellable.
Right now many communities are mounting opposition. Those that have the strongest land use experience will
be most vocal (ie GACC) and those that are not as organized or versed (ie Central City) will not. Since the
Mayor has stated we will start with a trial "where this is wanted, I am concerned.
Can something more be done to clartIY parking? Exceptions given due to transit does not mean the current or
fi/ture tenant does not own a car. I am sure transportation has some guidelinesfor if there is enough parking on
a streetfor the housing units in the area. What is the break even point? Concern that people will pull up back
yards to put in asphalt and additionalflat swface parking which does nothing to keep the character of an area.
Concern that parking pads "will appear in the fiont of homes. Is this allowed and when?
This ordinance and process need" to be integrated 11lfth the legalization process. Again since at one point
leasing rooms in all homes during and a,jter the war was allowed in the UNC area,
this does not establish a documented right for a duplex, triplex, etc. Since this is not clear, many are obtaining
approval by staff and the BOA. What is realistic for an established neighborhood in terms of infi'astructure,
parking, density, enforcement, etc. when you take this process and the ADU plan into consideration. Should
there be a limit to allow a neighborhood to be stable? The single family owners are loosing in this context what
they thought they were acquiring in neighborhoodfeel {(the density o.(these two programs is too high. Have not
brainstormed how but let me know if talking more about this could help clar@ the issue. I think there are
solutions.
Maybe the community could help ident{IY a trial area that agrees. To have buy in to be a trial area that agrees
would be excellent. The community mightform a committee that gives monthlyfeedback to the stqlland work
jointly to form what can work city H'ide.
More as I have time. best, e
From: esther e. hunter
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 7:29 AM
To: Cheri Coffey; michael.maloy@slcgov.com
Subject: ADU question
Hi,
1
The/act sheet states that we do not have design guidelines/or areas besides historic districts. Does the
compatible inflll guideline not apply?
Thanks, e
Esther Hunter
801.583.9804
2
Maloy. Michael
From:
Sent:
To:
Maloy, Michael
Categories: Other
Thank you Michael.
Maybe this could be clarified in a Question and Answer type of added piece. Most in the community give the
name design to all of the things in both.
best, e
From: Maloy, Michael
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 20108:16 AM
To: 'esther e. hunter'
Subject: RE: ADU question
Esther:
Thanks for the question. Any compatible infill regulation would still apply under the proposed ADU ordinance. I think
when we made the summary statement regarding "design guidelines" we were thinking more about aesthetic controls
(Le. material, architectural design, etc.) rather than height, bulk, or spatial relationships, which our infill regulations
primarily address.
Sincerely,
Michael Maloy, AICP
Principal Planner
Salt Lake City Corp
PO Box 145480
451 S State Street Rm 406
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-5480
(801) 535-7118 Office
(801) 535-6174 Fax
michael. maloy@slcgov.com
From: esther e. hunter [mailto:estherehunter@hotmail.com]
To: Coffey, Cheri; Maloy, Michael
Hi,
The fact sheet states that we do not have design guidelinesfor areas besides historic districts. Does the
compatible injill guideline not apply?
Thanks, e
Esther Hunter
801.583.9804
1
Maloy, Michael
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Categories:
Hi ...
ADU Pilot Idea
Other
Had an after thought ... not sure if the goal right now is still attempting to go city wide or to have a 3-6
month pilot somewhere.
Do you have any areas interested? All I am hearing is mounting opposition.
If you are looking to pilot, how large would the area have to be? Would 16 blocks be enough .... thinking of the
UNC
What about the idea of having a working the community pilot area that works collaboratively to
help sort out some solutions in a positive yvayfor the issues listed in my previous email?
Not sure I could sell my board but maybe? Right now they are opposed but they are reasonable and if they
could have a hand it forming a win win solution, I think
they would be all over this. I know it would require the community committee with allowance for real team work
like we did with IHC
IHC was a terrific example. We were in and out of the PC within 10 minutes due to steering efforts yet
this a very long negative starting point.
Besides .. we love a challenge.
Benefits of the UNC are:
transit
R2 zone
Historic
next to UU
Tons of illegal units
Have strong working committee that already speaks land use with extensive experience working/thinking win
win
Small area that has all issues in spades so we have realistic experience to work out what could work City wide.
It could be a real win win example o.fshowing how the community can work together with the City in a pilot vs
what has been going on in Yalecrest, etc.
See what you think.
best, e
Esther Hunter
801.583.9804
1
Maloy, Michael
From:
Sent:
esther e. hunter [estherehunter@hotmail.comJ
Friday, August 20,201012:43 AM
To: Maloy, Michael
Subject: ADU's
Categories: Other
Hi Michael,
I have just come back.fi'om a very long ECCC Executive Board meeting where ADU's were discussed atgreat
length. The interest in our council area is very high.
However, this interest is being heightened due to Cindy's document has made it's way around several of the
neighborhoods.
As we wrote before, Gary and I are very interested in making sure that our council area is providing accurate .
and fair information to our members regarding this potential concept and have not had the opportunity to have
a representative attend the ,\pecialfocus groups. We believe the ECCC is one of the most impacted areas.
We would very much appreciate your help in this area. The neighbors Gwy and I have c\poken with (this week
alone) number in the low 50's. This is unusual high for an early policy discussion when the concept is not yet
fitlly developed. .
The informal majority opinion is that neighbors are very concerned that this policy be inclusive and allow all
residential zones the ability to earn this extra income for their building even if they are not historic or in a
higher density zone. Many are also wanting to conform with City law since they have been illegalfor many a
year. As you know, we have a very high rate of illegal duplexes.
When you are ready, we would greatly appreciate anything you can give us so that we can distribute it to our
council area so they have a full picture of the concept. Or ff you are able to attend a general meeting we would
welcome this very much.
Please let us know your suggestion and ideas.
best, Esther
Co-Chair, ECCC
Esther Hunter
801.583.9804
1
Maloy, Michael
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Categories:
cindy cromer [3cinslc@live.com]
Thursday, August 19, 2010 8:45 PM
ADU's
ADU71410.rtf
Other
Cheri and Michael-The Community Network asked me to talk about ADU's at the August meeting. I suggested that the
Network invite Planning to talk about Clarion's proposal and I would talk about mine. I passed out the attachment this
morning at the Network meeting and hope that the topic will be scheduled again next month with someone from Planning
in attendance.
The longer I consider Clarion's proposal, the more problems I see with it. The City could NEVER enforce the owner
occupancy requirement. I cannot imagine a judge deciding against a property owner who had an ADU and could no
longer live in the property. It would not happen. Maybe it would in Colorado but it wouldn't happen in Utah; EVER.
The attachment is the same one I circulated in July with a few minor tweaks. c
1
Maloy, Michael
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Categories:
Mr. Maloy,
Allen Family [mecj@me.com]
Friday, July 23, 2010 10:28 AM
Maloy, Michael
Complete-Sustainability and ADU's in R-2 district
Other
I am writing to ask that zoning district R-2 be included in the ADU section of the proposed
sustainablility ordinance. Living in a rental district and trying to rent out a duplex
apartment in an owner occupied home is unnecessarily difficult. Zoning and code impose
guidelines for renting that are outdated and outlandish. I would like to see restrictions
such as lot size and frontal space removed from city code. I would also like to see the R-2
district included in the upcoming ADU portion of the sustainability ordinance.
I appreciate your attention to this matter.
Liz Allen
1
What would it take to put them in Single-family zoning districts?
Comments by Cindy Cromer
July 14, 2010, revised August 18, 2010
Clarion has proposed that Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU's) be allowed in
single-family zoning districts, in owner-occupied housing. I want to start by
identifying the prerequisites for such an approach to work.
The Ci,ty would have to have effective enforcement regarding violations of
its zoning ordinance and permitting process. While there are effective
employees who work in enforcement in Salt Lake, we do not have
consistent and comprehensive enforcement. The City will not be able to
enforce the "owner occupancy" requirement.
The City would need a successful program for compatible infill to
address design issues associated with ADU's. The current ordinance for
infill has not been successful and is under revision.
Logically there would need to be a demand for additional units, or the
City would be undermining the efforts of existing landlords to fill their
vacancies. As every landlord I know would atest, the last couple of years
have been very challenging with higher vacancy rates, concessions, and
stagnant rents in the face of rising taxes and utilities. The,Clarion proposal
restricts ADU's to one-bedroom apartments. That is the very part of the
market that is the weakest right now, as people have downsized to studios
or rented rooms or move in with someone to share expenses.
There would need to be pubiic support for unit legalization and
expansion of housing in low density neighborhoods. The Board of
Adjustment did an about face a year and a half ago and began approving
unit legalizations that it would have denied previously. Public opinion has
not made a similar shift. Recent cases on the Board's agenda in the
University and Gilmer Park Neighborhoods indicate that property owners in
low density areas do not always share the Administration's enthusiasm for
additional units.
It would make sense to have additional housing located in areas served
by mass transit. Clarion's proposal to restrict ADU's to single family
zoning districts introduces new units of housing in areas that typically have
limited or no mass transit.
In order to have safe housing as part of an ADU initiative, the City has to
have a process for business licensing in single family structures.
Currently, the City licenses buildings with 3 or more units. While the City
has discussed requiring bus'iness licenses for rental properties that are
single family and duplex structures, the City does not have a process in
place to regulate rental housing already in single family structures, much
less to regulate the additional units created as ADU's.
Some of the deficits mentioned above are long standing and cannot be
overcome by the Mayor' directive to improve/create the tool. The one
involving public opinion is not under the Mayor's control.
So what could the City do that would increase housing without aggravating
existing problems and creating a firestorm of opposition?
The City could begin the implementation of ADU's in the existing
multiple-family zoning districts, RMF-30 and RMF-35. It could narrow the
opportunity even further initially by restricting ADU's to the City's historic
districts where there is a design review process that is working well. The
residents in these zoning districts expect' renters as neighbors .. These
parts of the City have much better service by mass transit, especially
TRAX. The City is already licensing many of these buildings as
businesses.
, Because of current market conditions, it is important that the City take an
incremental approach. Starting in the multi-family zones within historic
districts allows that. The City could start with the RMF-30 and -35 zones
and then add the R-2 zone. Or, it could add properties within the National
Register Historic Districts using guidelines similar to those used for
additions in historic districts.
Not only would this approach have a greater potential for success, the City
would also be offering an incentive for historic preservation, which already
has a longer approval process.
The immediate risk of Clarion's approach is that it will create a
nonproductive uproar of opposition from residents in some of the City's
more exclusive neighborhoods. The long term risk is that it will create a
mess on a City-wide level, which like so many previous bad ideas, the
City's planners will not be able to fix.
July 14, 2010
Clarion has proposed that Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU's) be allowed in single-family zoning districts,
in owner-occupied housing. I want to start by identifying the prerequisites for such an approach to work.
The City would have to have effective enforcement regarding violations of its zoning ordinance and
permitting process. While there are effective employees who work in enforcement in Salt Lake, we do
not have consistent and comprehensive enforcement. The City will not be able to enforce the "owner
occupancy" requirement.
The City would need a successful program for compatible infill to address design issues associated
with ADU's. The current ordinance for infill has not been successful and is under revision.
Logically there would need to be a demand for additional units, or the City would be undermining the
efforts of existing landlords to fill their vacancies. As every landlord I know would atest, the last couple of
years have been very challenging with higher vacancy rates, concessions, and stagnant rents in the face
of rising taxes and utilities.
There would need to be public support for unit legalization and expansion of housing in low density
neighborhoods. The Board of Adjustment did an about face a year and a half ago and began approving
unit legalizations that it would have denied previously. Public opinion has not made a similar shift. The
case on the Board's agenda this coming Monday is likely to be another demonstration of how neighbors
in low density neighborhoods feel about legalizations and rental units in general.
It would make sense to have additional housing located in areas served by mass transit.
Clarion's proposal to restrict ADU's to single family zoning districts introduces new units of housing in
areas that typically have limited or no mass transit.
In order to have safe housing as part of an ADU initiative, the City has to have a process for business
licensing in single family structures. Currently, the City licenses buildings with 3 or more units.
While the City has discussed requiring business licenses for rental properties that are single family and
duplex structures, the City does not have a process in place to regulate rental housing already in single
family structures, much less to regulate the additional units created as ADU's.
Some of the deficits mentioned above are long standing and cannot be overcome by the Mayor' directive
to improve/create the tool. The one involving public opinion is not under the Mayor's control.
So what could the City do that would increase housing without aggravating existing problems and
creating a firestorm of opposition?
The City could begin the implementation of ADU's in the existing multiple-family zoning districts, RMF-30
and RMF-35. It could narrow the opportunity even further initially by restricting ADU's to the City's
historic districts where there is a design review process that is working well. The residents in these
zoning districts expect renters as neighbors. These parts of the City have much better service by mass
transit, especially TRAX. The City is already licensing many of these buildings as businesses.
Because of current market conditions, it is important that the City take an incremental approach. Starting
in the multi-family zones within historic districts allows that. The City could start with the RMF-30 and -35
zones and then add the R-2 zone. Or, it could add properties within the National Register Historic
Districts using guidelines similar to those used for additions in historic districts.
Not only would this approach have a greater potential for success, the City would also be offering an
incentive for historic preservation, which already has a longer approval process.
The immediate risk of Clarion's approach is that it will create a nonproductive uproar of opposition from
residents in some of the City's more exclusive neighborhoods. The long term risk is that it will create a
mess on a City-wide level, which like so many previous bad ideas, the City's planners will not be able to
fix.
Maloy, Michael
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Categories:
robert daniels [bipdaniels@gmail.com]
Tuesday, July 06,20108:38 AM
Maloy, Michael
ADU's
Other
Good morning MichaeL ....
I am both pleased and interested in the city developing plans regarding ADD's. They are in integral part of this
city's housing stock. I am, however, concerned that they will be inappropriately regulated. A foreseeable
problem might be Mrs. Murphy's Exemption. I will not try to explain this outmoded loophole to you but I will
say that it is a part of the Fair Housing law that has outlived its useful existence. I was a victim of it and know
of others who were also adversely affected. It would be so simple for the city to create an ordinance to render it
obsolete. I would appreciate your looking into that.
Thanks,
Bip
1
Coffey. Cheri
From: Gary Harding [garyh99@comcast.net]
Tuesday, January 19, 2010 1:40 PM
Coffey, Cheri
Sent:
To:
Cc: Yalecrest CC Chair
Subject: RE: Comments---FW: Yalecrest Notice - Accessory Dwelling Units proposed by SLC
Accessory Dwelling Units Purpose and Background.pdf Attachments:
Ms. Coffey,
I read the brief attachment. First I observe that the attachllwnt has very little definition it just floats a broad concept.
Deviating from the current rc<,icielltial zoning restrictions by allowing people to add ADU's is just that, a violation of the
existing zoning concepts. I would oppose any broad bclsed variance sLich as this. After the opposition stated above my
thoughts on your General Questions Me:
1. Yes onsite parking should be lequil"ed dlong with any new dwellings. If an ADU is approved the owner should
have to periodic ally sllilnlit hay wil h properly lnX jJilyrnents) a certification that they still have the required on-
site
2. Defini\ely 1\1)1 i'i ill /(JIIl",
3. Size sholilcl bl:' ;,(,lIoIJ',iy i <l1lt1 cicfinitr>lv nul un par with i:1 Principal Structure.
4. Any rf:'glilaLions :;liolilci be suIJulclin(J\erJ io eXlstill); If>guldtions and infill restrictions.
5. Yes, allY stru(l.lIre (Clil or beyund the scale of ,1 ? i',clrage) on residential property in the city should be subject
to design gUide Iii It'S.
6. ilild Home Of u.lpdtions .should be prohibited in AUUs. Otherwise they would be built specifically as
busines', IOC(lti()11S de::.pilc wlldtevel" guicielilws ate olfered.
7. If ADU's are made available the property owner should have to submit with property tax payments a
certification that the sil ucture is nut Iunger Llsed ()S (1 Dwelling, or was vacant all year, or that the occupancy still
complies with lile ADU
As you can tell I think l:lii'; initidtiv(:' would jll',t bt" used as il to increase population density and undermine the
character of the resident-i;ll distlir l', for which city is jLf',lifiably pruud,
From: dmgib@xmission.com [mailto:dmgib@xmission.com]
Sent: MondaYI December 211 2009 11:38 AM
To: dmgib@xmission.com
Subject: Yalecrest Notice - Accessory Dwelling Units proposed by SLC
Neighbors,
The Salt Lake City Planning Division is currently looking at creating an ordinance that, if approved, could
greatly impact our neighborhood. The City is moving forward with a Sustainability Code Revision Project that
includes, among other items, Allowing "Accessory Dwelling Units".
I encourage you to read the attached document and send your comments to the staff contact, Cheri Coffey,
801.535.6188, or (c1wri.cotfey(Cl!sicgov.com), The proposed ordinance is in the early stages and the City is
eager to receive comments.
You can sign up for SLC Planning notices at:
http://www.slcgov.com/CED/planning/pages/projects.htm
Reminder - N 0 Jan. 6 Yalecrest Meeting
1
Happy Holidays!
Lisette Gibson
Yalecrest Neighborhood Council Chair
day 801-583-9316
Accessory Dwelling Unit (definition):
A residential unit that is located on the same lot as a single-family dwelling unit, either internal to or attached to
the single family unit or in a detached structure. The accessory dwelling unit shall be a complete housekeeping
unit with a shared or separate entrance, kitchen, sleeping area, closet space, and bathroom facilities.
Public Open House Notification
Sustainability Code Revision Project. The Plmming Division is currently working with Clarion Associates to
develop various amendments to the City?s Zoning, Site Development
and Subdivision Ordinances relating to sustainability regulations.
The proposed changes include allowance for ACCESSORY DWELLING
UNITS, Alternative Energy Systems (Solar Oriented Subdivisions,
Small Wind Energy Systems, Solar Arrays, Solar Collection Systems);
Urban Agriculture (Community Gardens, Seasonal Farm Stands, Community Supported Agriculture,
hoophouses, greenhouses and coldframes) and Street and Pedestrian Connectivity Standards for new
development (Staff contact: Cheri Coffey at 801.535.6188 or
cheri.coffey@islcgoY.com).
2
Coffey, Cheri
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dan Jones [djones7530@hotmail.comJ
Tuesday, January 05,20106:17 PM
Coffey, Cheri
Ms.Coffey, I am a resident at 1738 Yale Avenue in the "Harvard-Yale" area of the city.
I have learned some news from our neighborhood council that has me quite concerned, to wit, that the
city is considering rezoning fo allow "Accessory Dwelling Units" to be constructed in our neighborhood. My
comments below refer to an information circular I received from ARCH giving the definition, background,
and purpose statement of ADUs.
My concerns fall into three areas:
1. This is already a high-density (small-lot) neighborhood with challenging parking. We don't need to
increase the density by "increasing the housing stock of existing neighborhoods"!
2. It is a neighborhood with great charm. In the recent past the city has realized this and taken steps to
prevent architectural monstosities from being built (in some cases, alas, too late.) This ordinance if passed
could kick off another cycle of ugly remodelling. The picture shown in the ARCH circular of an attached
ADY above-garage was anything but reassuring in this regard.
3. This is a very safe, family-oriented neighborhood. No matter how well-intentioned, these units once
built will certainly turn into rentals that will forever change the historically stable character of our
neighborhood.
I would appreciate hearing from regarding any public fora that will be provided for feedback on this
proposal. I am quite sure that if our neighborhood was canvassed in any manner, an overwhelming
negative response would be turned in.
Thank you in advance for your consideration of these comments.
Dan Jones
1738 Yale Ave.
SLC 84108
Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up now.
1
Coffey. Cheri
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Warren,
dmgib@xmission.com
Monday, January 04, 2010 11 :54 AM
Warren Lloyd
Coffey, Cheri; Hunter Esther; Oliver Anne; Schwemmer AlA Annie; Huffaker Kirk; Love, Jill;
Garrott, Luke; Martin, JT; Simonsen Soren; Virginia Hylton home; GEORGE CATHY
KELNER; Sally Patrick; Michael F. Jones; Jon Dewey; Yalecrest CC Chair
Re: ADU Zoning
Thank you for copying us on your email regarding the City's proposed idea of allowing Accessory Dwelling
Units. Personally, I think this is a
terrible idea and it should NOT be implemented city wide. The
Yale crest Executive Board is opposed to the idea.
Here are my comments to the Accessory Dwelling Unit section that
was included with the "Sustainability Code Revision Project".
The Accessory Dwelling Unit section language should be removed from
the Sustainability Project. It needs to stand alone as a separate
ordinance as this is a huge issue that would have tremendous impact
on our neighborhoods.
These units would not work in the Yalecrest neighborhood.
Yalecrest is a Single-Family Residential Neighborhood
(R-1-5000 and R-1-7000) with the exception of two businesses (zoned
CN).
Allowing accessory dwelling units would essentially change the
underlying zoning from single family to multi-family. Allowing
these dwellings would eliminate the predictability of living (or
moving into) a
quiet single family neighborhood. We already have the problem in
the Yalecrest area of "lack of privacy" when oversized new and
existing garages and home additions loom over neighboring yards and
homes. These units should NOT be allowed in R-1 zoned areas.
Character - Yalecrest already has a huge problem in maintaining
the character of our historic neighborhood due to historically
insensitive new construction and additions. Encouraging this type
of
development would only add to the problem. The "worse case" has to considered. As with the Hubbard
McMansion and the new detached
garage at 1605 Princeton Avenue, people WILL take advantage of the
City's ordinances and push the limits. The garage at
1605 Princeton has three dormers on the east side, has a sliding
glass door on the southwest side and is almost as tall as the
primary structure. An illegal sewer line was "caught" by the city and
plugged. It is clear this detached garage was planned as a dwelling
unit. Please drive by and see the garage for yourself!
1
Don't apply this city wide. If it appears that this ordinance would
be appropriate for a particular area of SLC (and you have the public
support), try it out and see how it goes first. This idea might work
in some areas of SLC (possibly along existing public transit lines).
UTA has eliminated a tremendous amount of public transportation in
the
Yalecrest area over the years and there are no nearby businesses to
easily walk to (#7 and #8).
Lot coverage - how would these units impact the current lot coverage
requirements? The lot coverage percentage was reduced in 2005 with
the city-wide compatible infill zoning.
Units and Occupancy - would there be a cap on units per lot? What
about the rule of "no more than three unrelated adults living
together"? How many occupants would be allowed in these units?
Parking - As I mentioned, large out of scale garages are a huge issue
for the Yalecrest area. And who would want to see parking pads
added
to our lots (and is getting rid of green space for asphalt or
concrete parking pads sustainable)? I don't see how the parking
could
work. Most lots and garages in our area are small and a lot of
residents
already park one car on the street. Where would all the cars be
parked? Off street parking has to be a requirement.
This should NOT take precedence over other existing regulations. This
section should NOT be rushed through.
I moved into our neighborhood years ago with the assumption (and
the zoning) that only single-family homes would be line our streets
and garages (containing cars) would line most backyards.
Thank you,
Lisette Gibson,
Chair - Y alecrest Neighborhood Council
Quoting Warren Lloyd <warren@lloyd-arch.com>:
> Cheri:
>
> Thanks for your work on the Sustainability Code Project.
>
> I am responding (in red) to the General questions with some brief
> comments with a cc to several neighborhood advocates for their
thoughts.
>
2
> Happy New Year!
>
>
> Warren
>
> General Concepts
> Regulations to ensure mitigation of negative impacts
>
> 1. Limit Size of Unit: Proposal is to limit the size of Accessory
> Dwelling Unit to ensure it is subordinate of the principal
structure.
>
>
> 2. Owner Occupancy: Require either the principal unit or the ADU to
be
> occupied by the owner of the lot.
>
> General Questions
>
> 1. Parking Requirement: Should an Accessory Dwelling Unit have to
> include on-site parking?
>
> In general I would be opposed to additional on-site parking
> requirements for the ADU but would suggest a tool that would give
> planning staff ability to respond to specific conditions where on-
> street parking problems have been documented.
>
> 2. Where to Allow: In what zoning districts should Accessory
Dwelling
> Units be allowed?
>
> I would consider it in ALL residential zones
>
:> 3. Should the size of the structure conform to the regulations of
> Principal Structures or Accessory Structures?
>
> I would use the Accessory Structure standards
>
> 4. Should these regulations take precedence over other existing
> regulations ifthere is a conflict (such as those relating to
> compatible infill or historic preservation regulations?)
>
> No, but they should be a criteria for approving a special exception
or
> variance.
>
> In H overlay districts, the ADU could be noted in a staff report as
> mitigating or supporting condition to an application
>
> Is there a way to confirm the intent of an applicant to provide
> additional housing?
3
> Have we now come full circle from requiring homeowners to verify
that
> the accessory structure (ADU) WON'T be used for housing to
requmng
> that it WILL be housing?
>
> 5. Should there be design guidelines for these types of structures
> (where they are detached?)
>
> Yes, There should be a Design guideline for detached ADD's
> They could be developed from the patterns established in the
> Compatible Infill Overlay and the Residential Design Guidelines
from
> the H Overlay.
>
> 6. Should home occupations be allowed in Accessory Dwelling Units?
>
> Yes
>
> 7. Other
> '
>
>
> Warren K Lloyd, AlA LEED AP
> Principal
>
>
> LloydArchitects
> Salt Lake City + Seattle
>
> 573 E 600 S, Salt Lake City UT 84102
> ph 801.328.3245 I fax 801.328.3246
> lloyd-arch. com
4
Coffey, Cheri
From:
Sent:
To:
Warren Lloyd [warren@lIoyd-arch.com]
Saturday, January 02, 2010 10:03 AM
Coffey, Cheri
Cc: Yalecrest CC Chair; Hunter Esther; Oliver Anne; Schwemmer AlA Annie; Huffaker Kirk; Love,
Jill; Garrott, Luke; Martin, JT; Simonsen Soren
Subject: ADU Zoning
Cheri:
Thanks for your work on the Sustainability Code Project.
I am responding (in red) to the General questions with some brief comments with a cc to several neighborhood advocates for their thoughts.
Happy New Year!
Warren
General Concepts
Regulations to ensure mitigation of negative impacts
1. Limit Size of Unit: Proposal is to limit the size of Accessory Dwelling Unit to ensure it is subordinate of the principal structure.
2. Owner Occupancy: Require either the principal unit or the ADU to be occupied by the owner of the lot.
General Questions
1. Parking Requirement: Should an Accessory Dwelling Unit have to include on-site parking?
In general I would be opposed to additional on-site parking requirements for the ADU but would suggest a tool that would give planning staff ability to
respond to specific conditions where on-street parking problems have been documented.
2. Where to Allow: In what zoning districts should Accessory Dwelling Units be allowed?
I would consider it in ALL residential zones
3. Should the size ofthe structure conform to the regulations of Principal Structures or Accessory Structures?
I would use the Accessory Structure standards
4. Should these regulations take precedence over other existing regulations ifthere is a conflict (such as those relating to compatible infill or historic
preservation regulations?)
No, but they should be a criteria for approving a special exception or variance.
In H overlay districts, the ADU could be noted in a staffreport as mitigating or supporting condition to an application
Is there a way to confirm the intent of an applicant to provide additional housing?
Have we now come full circle from requiring homeowners to verify that the accessory structure (ADU) WON'T be used for housing to requiring that it WILL
be housing?
5. Should there be design guidelines foJ' these types of structures (where they are detached?)
Yes, There should be a Design guideline for detached ADU's
They could be developed from the patterns established in the Compatible Infill Overlay and the Residential Design Guidelines from the H Overlay.
6. Should home occupations be allowed in Accessory Dwelling Units?
Yes
7. Other
1
Warren K Lloyd, AlA LEED AP
Principal
LloydArchitects
Salt Lake City + Seattle
573 E 600 S, Salt Lake City UT 84102
ph 801.328.32451 fax 801.328.3246
lloyd-arch. com
2
Coffey, Cheri
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Owen & Deanna Lunt [odlunt@juno.com]
Monday, December 28, 20094:52 PM
Coffey, Cheri
I belong to the Yalecrest Community Council, and I oppose the "Accessory Dwelling Units"
proposal by SLC.
Deanna Lunt
1870 Harvard Ave.
Salt Lake City, Ut 84108
Criminal Lawyer
Criminal Lawyers - Click here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=3WISwGVJ-
yHzEg9nABsd8QAAJzlGjldoot8yPQSjfgOF0tsYAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAiFgAAAAA=
1
Coffey. Cheri
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
vankays5@aol,com
Thursday, December 24, 2009 10:39 AM
Coffey, Cheri
ADU'S
As a resident of the Yalecrest community (residing at 1234 So. 1800 E.) I encourage making ADU's a viable option to our
neighborhood. I think the economic advantages would make living in this area accessible to more people, and might
make it possible for my wife and I to stay here.
Neil vanKeizerswaard
1
Coffey, Cheri
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Cheri,
Tom A. Lund [talund@tannerco.comj
Wednesday. December 23. 2009 10:08 AM
Coffey. Cheri
Gretchen Lund
"Accessory Dwelling Units" proposal
My wife, Gretchen, and I have lived in the Harvard/Yale area for almost 20 years. Even though most
of the lots and houses are small, it's been a wonderful place to raise our children.
We recently learned that the Salt Lake City Planning Division is considering an ordinance allowing
"Accessory Dwelling Units", and we wanted to give you our input:
We are against such an ordinance because we feel that our neighborhood already has a high
density, old quaint density but density nevertheless. Simply put, one would be hard pressed to find
another historical neighborhood, other than the avenues and central city, with the density that
exists in the Harvard/Yale area. This proposed ordinance would create additional traffic and "new
rental density" that would detract from, not add to, the quality of life in our area. The small lots in
our area already don't have very much open space. At a time when we are hearing more and more
about "open space", it is hard for us to understand why a proposed ordinance like this is even being
consideredl
Thank you for taking our input. Please share our input with the SLC Planning Division. Please feel
free to call us as well!
Thank you.
Tom & Gretchen Lund
1553 Laird Avenue
C-(80 1) 856-2005
This e-mail message may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended
recipient(s), or the employee or agent responsible for delivery of this message to the intended recipient(s), you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail message is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail message from your computer.
To ensure compliance with U.S. Treasury rules, unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. Tax advice contained in this
communication (including attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by the recipient for the
purpose of 1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code, and 2) promoting, marketing, or
recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed in this communication.
1
Coffey, Cheri
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Coffey, Cheri
Tuesday, December 22, 2009 4:23 PM
Coffey, Cheri
ADU Public Comment
Received a voice mail message today from Wayne Cannon at 1373 East Harvard Avenue. He is supportive of Accessory
Dwelling Units if they require on-site parking (and they don't generate a parking problem) and they are built in a way
that is compatible with the neighborhood (no garage mahals). He is not sure how regulations can address that but if
they can he supports them.
12/22/09
1
Coffey. Cheri
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Ms Coffey
LYNN Pershing [Ikpershing@gmail.com]
Coffey, Cheri; dmgib@mission.com
accessory dwelling units
I implore you to stop the madness and continuous, aggressive destruction of one of SLC most charming
neighborhoods (YaleCrest).
I have read the accessory dwelling units and sustainability code revisions and have concluded it allows for
rental additions to existing family dwellings. Provisions for consistency with existing architecture, etc are
always "good speak" but have "no teeth to defend or protect" these provisions.
Homes in Yale crest neighborhood are small-medium sized single family dwelling units and a fair number of
already existing rental duplexes. We don't need nor want to become rental units. It is important to the city that
this neighborhood retains its property values. Rental additions will only decrease home values. Previous city
approval of , mega mansions' and new commercial business has surely been beneficial to the city's tax base, but is
destroying the very charming fiber of this historic neighborhood that has been critical to its high real estate
demand, excellent property values and high quality of life (walkability) which benefits the city's tax base.
The City speaks of 'improving our city neighborhoods' but doesn't interact with residents to identify how that
might be best accomplished.
Stop the Madness, the Greed and the Destruction of what is inherently good. Protect what is precious and so
easily lost to good intentions. Go change something that is NOT working--the DOWNTOWN. Get the massive
downtown projects completed, give free parking for year to re-establish downtown shopping behavior and get
commerce rolling there again. Leave us alone--we're already a great neighborhood and doing our part to insure a
"better Downtown living experience".
DO NOT implement this proposed city ordinancelzoning change. It will DESTROY the YaleCrest
neighborhood, its charm, congeniality and high quality of life.
Respectfully,
Lynn K. Pershing, Ph.D.
Consultant
Dermatopharmaceutics
tel: 801/971-4959
email: lkpershing@gmail.com
1
Coffey. Cheri
From:
Sent:
To:
Sally M Patrick [Sally.Patrick@utah.edu]
Tuesday, December 22, 2009 9:01 AM
Yalecrest CC Chair; Coffey, Cheri
Cc: Sally M Patrick
Subject: RE: Accessory Dwelling Units Comments
Cheri-
Lisette did a great job of expanding on my initial comments to you-I second these 100% on
behalf of Yalecrest.
Sally M. Patrick
1413 Laird Circle
YCC Secretary/Treasurer
From: dmgib@xmission.com [dmgib@xmission.com]
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 2:50 PM
To: Coffey, Cheri
Cc: dmgib@xmission.com
Subject: Accessory Dwelling Units Comments
Cheri,
Here are my comments to the Accessory Dwelling Unit section that was included with the
Sustainability Code Revision Project.
I feel that the Accessory Dwelling Unit section language should be removed from the
Sustainability Project. It needs to stand alone as a separate ordinance as this is a huge
issue that would have tremendous impacts on our neighborhoods.
Yalecrest is an entirely single-family residential neighborhood (R-1-5000 and R-1-7000) with
the exception of two businesses (zoned CN).
Allowing accessory dwelling units would essentially change the underlying zoning from single
family to multi-family. Allowing these dwellings would eliminate the predictability of
living (or moving into) a quiet single family neighborhood. We already have the problem of
"lack of privacy" when oversized new and existing garages and home additions loom over
neighboring yards. These units should not be allowed in R-1 zoned areas.
Character - Yalecrest already has a huge problem in maintaining the character of our historic
neighborhood due to historically insensitive new construction and additions. Encouraging
this type of development would only add to the problem.
Don't apply this City-Wide. If it appears to be appropriate for a particular area of SLC
(and you have the public support), try it out and see how it goes. This idea might work in
some areas of SLC (possibly along existing public transit lines).
UTA has eliminated a tremendous amount of public transportation in the Yalecrest area over
the years and there are no nearby businesses to easily walk to (#7 and #8).
Lot coverage - how would allowing these dwellings impact lot coverage requirements? The lot
coverage percentage was reduced in 2005 with the city-wide compatible infill zoning.
Units - would there be a cap on units per lot and what about the rule of "no more than three
unrelated adults living together"?
1
Parking - As I mentioned, large out of scale garages are a huge lssue for the Yalecrest area.
And who would want to see parking pads added to our lots (and is getting rid of green space
for asphalt or concrete parking pads sustainable)? I don't see how the parking could work.
Most lots and garages in our area are small and a lot of residents already park one car on
the street.
This should NOT take precedence over other existing regulations. This section should NOT be
rushed through.
I am in favor of the other sustainable measures.
Thank you,
Lisette Gibson
Yalecrest Compatible Infill Ordinance Committee
2
Coffey, Cheri
From:
Sent:
To:
k moncla [kmonc2003@yahoo.com]
Coffey, Cheri
I am opposed to this, It seems that it would just increase rental units in our older neighborhoods, to which we
have to many already. It would increase traffic and congestion and it is a terrible idea.
1
Coffey, Cheri
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Cheri,
Michael F. Jones [mjones@mfjlaw.com]
Tuesday, December 22, 20097:44 AM
Coffey, Cheri
DeLaMare-Schaefer, Mary; Yalecrest CC Chair
FW: Yalecrest Notice - Accessory Dwelling Units proposed by SLC
Accessory Dwelling Units Purpose and Background.pdf
You may recall that I was a member of the Board of Adjustment for 15 years starting in 1993, and Chair of the Board from
2001 to the end of my service in 2008.
I noted this morning that you're the staff contact for this ADU idea, so I'm sending you my comment to Mary next below.
In order not to be selfish and to look at this not just from the perspective of my own Yalecrest neighborhood but also the
rest of the City, I must say that this is a terrible idea for much if not all of the City. It would change the scale and
appearance of any neighborhood where it was permitted - destroying Federal Heights, the Avenues, Sugarhouse, and so
on. The owner-occupancy aspect would be impossible to enforce.
Please stop this terrible idea before it gains any traction at all.
Respectfully,
Mike
Michael F. Jol1es I Michael F . .Jones, r).c. I Wells Fargo Center I 299 South Main Street, Suite '1300, Salt Lake City,
Utah (WI'I 'I I
f I F 80'1.582.4353 I mjones@mfjlaw.com I www.mfjlaw.com
This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If YOLl are not an intended recipient, please delete
the e-mail and any attachments and immediately notify this law firm by replying to this message, and then delete the
communication from any computer or network system This e-mail does not create an attorney-client relationship with you
if you are not already a client of this law firm
From: Michael F. Jones [mailto:mjones@mfjlaw.com]
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 17:22
To: 'De La Mare-Schaefer, Mary'
Cc: 'dmgib@xmission.com'
Subject: FW: Yalecrest Notice - Accessory Dwelling Units proposed by SLC
Hi Mary,
This ADU idea is simply a terrible one as it relates to my Yalecrest neighborhood. Without doubt, it would result in even
larger garages, and even more of a scale problem than my neighborhood already has, not to mention tearing asunder the
historical fabric of the neighborhood once and for all.
Respectfully,
Mike
Michael F. Jones I Michael F, Jones, P.c. I Wells Fargo Center I 'l99 SOllth Main Street, Suite '1300, Salt Lake City,
Utah 841'11
T 80'1.'38'/.2400 I F 801.'iB2./i353 I mjones@mfjlaw.com I www.mfjlaw.com
This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, please delete
1
communication (rom any computer or network system. This e-mail does not create iJlI attorney-client relationship with you
if you are not already a client of this law firm.
Neighbors,
801.535.6188, or (cheri.coffey@slcgov.com). The proposed ordinance is in the early stages and the City is
Reminder - NO Jan. 6 Yalecrest Meeting
Happy Holidays!
Lisette Gibson
day 801-583-9316
Sustainability Code Revision Project. The Planning Division is currently working with Clarion Associates to
cheri.coffey@slcgov.com).
2
Coffey. Cheri
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Cheri,
dmgib@xmission.com
Coffey, Cheri
Yalecrest CC Chair
Accessory Dwelling Units Comments
Plaintext Version of Message; HTML Version of Message
was included with the Sustainability Code Revision Project.
I feel that the Accessory Dwelling Unit section language should be removed from the Sustainability Project. It
needs to stand alone as a separate
ordinance as this is a huge issue that would have tremendous impacts
Yalecrest is an entirely single-family residential neighborhood
CN).
underlying zoning from single family to multi-family. Allowing these dwellings would eliminate the
predictability of living (or moving into) a
quiet single family neighborhood. We already have the problem of
"lack of privacy" when oversized new and existing garages and home additions loom over neighboring yards.
These units should not be allowed in R-l zoned areas.
the character of our historic neighborhood due to historically insensitive new construction and additions.
Encouraging this type of
development would only add to the problem.
Don't apply this City-Wide. If it appears to be appropriate for
a particular area of SLC (and you have the public support), try it out and
see how it goes. This idea might work in some areas of SLC (possibly along existing public transit lines).
UTA has eliminated a tremendous amount of public transportation in the
Lot coverage - how would allowing these dwellings impact lot coverage
Units - would there be a cap on units per lot and what about the rule of "no more than three unrelated adults
living together"?
for the Yalecrest area. And who would want to see parking pads added
1
concrete parking pads sustainable)? I don't see how the parking could
work. Most lots and garages in our area are small and a lot of residents
already park one car on the street.
Thank you,
Lisette Gibson
2
Coffey, Cheri
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Ms. Coffey,
GEORGE CATHY KELNER [kelnergeo@msn.com]
Monday, December 21,2009 1 :38 PM
Coffey, Cheri
accessory dwelling unit proposal
We have taken the opportuity to review the information you sent out regarding the possiblity of creating
regulations that would allow accessory dwelling units in existing residential neighborhoods. We live in the
Yalecrest neighborhood and have been working to have it designated as a local historic district. While we
appreciate the city's efforts to develop sustainable green policies, we absolutely and wholeheartedly
oppose opening up the Yalecrest neighborhood or other city neighborhoods that are historically significant
to the character of our city to accessory dwelling units. The character of our Yalecrest neighborhood has
eroded significantly with teardowns and oversized out of character additions. The privacy of neighbors
has been encroached upon, traffic has increased, parking problems have grown, property values have
suffered and ill will has replaced neighborhood cohesion. We strongly believe that these problems would
grow exponentially if our beautiful old neighborhoods would be subjected to accessory dwelling units. We
urge the city to drop this proposal.
George and Cathy Kelner
1000 Military Drive
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ms. Coffey;
Virginia Hylton [virginiahylton@gmail.com]
Thursday, December 17, 20095:11 PM
Page 1 of 1
Coffey, Cheri; GEORGE CATHY KELNER; Sally M Patrick; Yalecrest CC Chair
Proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance
While I completely support sustainability, I do not feel that wholesale zoning for accessory dwelling
units throughout Salt Lake's residential neighborhoods is in the best interest of Salt Lake's
residents. There are many neighborhoods that have a well recognized development pattern and sense of
place. My Yalecrest neighborhood is one example. We would like to be recognized for our
architectural and historic contribution to Salt Lake City, as well as our quality of life. Allowing
additions, remodels and construction of new detached structures to accomodate a second residential unit
in a single-family neighborhood and the concomitant increase in traffic and parking pressure on
our residential streets is contrary to our goals.
Respectfully,
Virginia Hylton
file:/!\ \slcinas2\Planning\Common\Sustainability\Accessory Dwelling Units-Mike\Accesso... 11/4/2010
From:
Sent:
To:
Sally M Patrick [Sally.Patrick@utah.edul
Thursday, December 17,20093:18 PM
Coffey, Cheri
Page 1 of3
Cc:
Subject:
GEORGE CATHY KELNER; Jon Dewey; Virginia Hylton home; Yalecrest CC Chair
Accessority Dwelling Units Comment
Hello Cheri-
As Secretary/Treasurer of the Yalecrest Community Council, Lisette Gibson forwarded to several of us the
Accessorily Dwelling Units Info on the agenda for the open house tonight. Here are my comments back to Lisette
which I am also sending to you for tonight's discussion. I strongly support our YCC letter to the City Council
requesting consideration for Historic District designation and expect those considerations to take precedence
over other Accessorily Dwelling Unit considerations.
This is indeed an important issue and could indeed be a Trojan horse
> as a way to supersede the Historic District issues of compatible
> design and size we are pushing. While I support the "green" and
> aging population issues, I would not want allowances made to our
> direction in order to allow for encroachment for accessory
> structures-I've got one right next door!
Sally Patrick
1413 Laird Circle
(1210 South 1410 East)
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 20093:04 PM
To: Sally M Patrick
Cc: Virginia Hylton home; GEORGE CATHY KELNER; Jon Dewey; sally.patrick@gmail.com
Subject: RE: RE: Accessority Dwelling Units Info
Good comments Sally!
All, we need to get on this NOW! Everyone, please send your comments to Cheri Coffey.
What do you think: of me emailing it out to our distribution list?
Thanks, Lisette
Quoting Sally M Patrick <Sally.Patrick({v,utah.edu>:
> Hi Lisette-
> This is indeed an important issue and could indeed be a Trojan horse
>
> My 2 cents
> Sally
>
> PS all-please note new personal e-mail.sally.patrick(a).gmail.com
file:/!\ \slcinas2\Planning\Common\Sustainability\Accessory Dwelling Units-Mike\Accesso... 1114/2010
>
>
------------------------------
> From: dmgib@xl11ission.com [l11ailto:dl11gib@xmission.coml
> Sent: Thursday, December 17,2009 1 :08 PM
> To: Virginia Hylton home; GEORGE CATHY KELNER; Jon Dewey;
> sally.patrick@gmail.com; dmgib(a),xmission.com
> Subject: Fwd: RE: Accessority Dwelling Units Info
>
> See attached from Cheri Coffey. Accessory Dwelling Units are just
> one item that will be presented at the SLC Planning Open House
> tonight that is included with other "Sustainability Code
> Revisions".
>
> Here is the Open House info and Cheri's contact info. I will try to
> attend the open house tonight. I think this one is very important
> and we should all send comments! What do you all think?
>
> Thanks, Lisette
>
> Sustainability Code Revision Project?The Planning Division is
> currently working with Clarion Associates to develop various
> amendments to the City?s Zoning, Site Development and Subdivision
> Ordinances relating to sustainability regulations. The proposed
> changes include allowance for Accessory Dwelling Units, Alternative
> Energy Systems (Solar Oriented Subdivisions, Small Wind Energy
> Systems, Solar Arrays, Solar Collection Systems); Urban Agriculture
> (Community Gardens, Seasonal Farm Stands, Community Supported
> Agriculture, hoophouses, greenhouses and coldframes) and Street and
> Pedestrian Connectivity Standards for new development (Staff contact:
> Cheri Coffey at 801.535.6188 or cheri.coffey@slcgov.com).
>
> Thursday December 17, 2009
> From 4:30 to 6:00 P.M.
> FIRST FLOOR HALL WAY
> SALT LAKE CITY AND COUNTY BUILIDNG
>
>
> ----- Forwarded message from Cheri.CofTeY({I),slcgov.com -----
> Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 12:36:32 -0700
> From: "Coffey, Cheri" <Cheri.CofTey(Zi{slcgov.com>
> Reply-To: "Coffey, Cheri" <Cheri.Coffey@slcgov.com>
> Subject: RE: Accessority Dwelling Units Info
> To: Yalecrest CC Chair <dl11gib@xmission.com>
>
> Lisette,
>
> I have attached the open house materials. We don't have a finalized
> version of the ordinance. We are taking the opportunity at
> tonight's meeting to pose general questions to the public on the
> issues to get a better understanding of what issues you may have.
>
Page 2 of3
file:1 1\ \slcinas2\Planning\Common \Sustainability\Accessory Dwelling U nits-Mike\Accesso... 11/4/2010
> Please send me your comments. We will use them to help us
> finalize the draft ordinance. Once we get a draft ordinance, we
> will send it back out for the public to comment on as and hold
> meetings to receive public input.
>
> Thanks for your interest. (Please forward to anyone who may be
> interested.)
>
> Cheri
>
> From: dmgib(a)xmissiol1.com [mailto:dmgib@xmission.coml
> Sent: Thursday, December 17,2009 12:24 PM
> To: Coffey, Cheri
> Subject: Accessority Dwelling Units Info
>
> Hi Cheri,
> I would like to know if there is any information you could email to
> me on the Accessory Dwelling Units that will be presented at today's
> Open House. I don't know if! will be able to attend the open
> house.
>
> Are you looking at proposing the Dwellings Units for all parts of the
> City and in all residential areas (like the Yalecrest area)?
>
> Any information would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks!
> Lisette Gibson
> Y alecrest Neighborhood Council Chair
>
> ----- End forwarded message -----
>
Page 3 of3
Comments to Historic Landmarks Commission
Re draft Sustainability ordinances
12/2/09
, Speaking about the 4 draft ordinances in the sustainability initiative:
These proposals are being fast-tracked and because of their potential impact on historic preservation are
worth your attention. The draft ordinances address connectivity, urban agriculture, alternative energy,
and accessory dwelling units. They were developed for other communities, in different economic
times ... communities that must not have the historic resources that ours does.
A problem that a member of the ZAP group identified is the trumping of ALL other zoning regulations. So
if there's a conflict between historic preservation and the provisions of the urban agriculture ordinance,
urban agriculture prevails.
My greatest disappointment is the proposed ordinance for accessory dwelling units. More on that
shortly. Here are some scenarios that could happen and could have a negative impact on
resources.
-private vegetable gardens in our historic parks with the associated maintenance issues,
-connectivity requirements that disrupt the historical development pattern of our blocks,
-the absence of any provisions for solar in multiple family or mixed use projects--and the failure to protect
solar access in those parts of the City.
The focus on single- and two-family dwellings reflects how disconnected the proposed ordinance is with
Salt Lake and with our economic times. When do you expect to see a new subdivision with more than 25
single-family and twin-family dwellings on the Planning Commission's agenda?
My greatest disappointment is the proposal to restrict accessory dwelling units to owner-occupied single
family dwellings. The huge irony is that accessory dwelling units won't be allowed at all in the very parts
of the City that retain most of the historic carriage houses. I had viewed accessory dwelling units as a
possible incentive for historic preservation. The path that the consultant has chosen offers nothing for
property owners in historic districts. In fact, accessory dwellings under this proposed ordinance offer
nothing for me on any of my properties.
There is a significant opportunity for historic preservation here that is being lost as these proposals ignore
structures that already have a history of being sustainable.
Cindy Cromer

Attachment I
Community Council Comments
Greater Avenues Community Council
[E 0 \!) [Em
IJU MAR 9 1011
By
The Honorable Ralph Becker
Mayor of Salt Lake City
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Dear Mayor Becker,
March 3, 2011
Greater A VeI1IU!S COllll1ltlllily COllncil
Dave Van L(ll1gel'eld,
807 Norfhcliffe Drive
Salt Lake Ciry, UT 84103-3342
SCANNED TO:
SCANNED BY:

-
The Greater Avenues Community Council took an official position last evening in opposition to the
proposed City Ordi nance on Accessory Dwelling Units. This position was passed by a vote of 30 to 2.
The vote was taken after months of discussion and input from residents as well as attendance at
informational hearings on the subject. We also had city planning people attend meetings to explain
the proposal in detail.
Numerous points of concern were raised with the ADU proposal. A few of those concerns are:
1. The ordinance would go against the Master Plan created in and supported by our
community for the last 30 years and as a City-wide mandate would subvert the whole Master
Plan-based planning process.
2. The Avenues has worked for years to control deterioration of our neighborhoods,
including gaining the adoption of SR1-A zoning for most of the Avenues. The ADU proposal
would subvert the existing zoning.
3. The owner occupancy requirement would be very difficult to enforce and if it were
enforced could lead to empty ADUs being used for business uses the area is not zoned for.
4, Most one bedroom units would add two vehicles to the already crowded streets and
parking problems related to that crowding.
5. There already is an abundance of available housing of this size in the City currently with
more being brought on-line in the near term.
6, Avenue residents have little if any confidence in the Planning and Zoning Office's ability
to enforce the existing ordinances let a lone a new ordinance. Complaint based
enforcement pits neighbor against neighbor and that is all we have known for years.
It is for these and many other reasons that we have taken this action. We hope that the City Council
wilt understand the depth of these concerns and not pass an ordinance allowing ADUs.
cc: Stan Penfold
SiCfL

Chairman, GAGC

606 Trolley Square
east.central@live.com
Page | 1

March 17, 2011

Michael Maloy, AICP
Principal Planner
Salt Lake City Corporation

Salt Lake City Planning Commission
c/o Angela Hasenberg, Senior Secretary
angela.hasenberg@slctgov.com

Regarding: PLNPCM2010-00612 Accessory Dwelling Units

Dear Planning Commissioners;

Gary and I have been asked to write to you in behalf of the general membership and the
Executive Board of the Eastside Community Council & East Central Planning District (formerly
called East Central) to consider our recommendations for a successful pilot of the ADU policy.
Our area represents from South Temple to 1700 South, 1365 East to 700 East or 9
neighborhoods, 3 business districts.

First a thank you and also a plea for your ongoing support.
Our community council area is not opposed to change or to growth.
We have educated ourselves to clearly understand the many changes that need to take place to
ready for the growth and housing options anticipated by 2040.
On the other hand, this area is also uniquely fragile.
Its location within walking distance to downtown, the University of Utah, Westminster and Sugar House,
with transit intersecting the area and charming business districts such as Ninth and Ninth and the
proposed Canal District makes it highly desirable. For the same reasons it is also at risk.

It is a rich fabric with an extensive history and undisputed character (example please see the This Old
House article included with this letter). A neighborhood where on the same block you see a 5 story
apartment buildings, a group home, a medical clinic, duplexes, single family homes, neighborhood
businesses such as a coffee shop and a yoga studio.

In other words, we have organically grown the very sustainable and walkable community that
the City hopes to encourage throughout Salt Lake.

606 Trolley Square
Page | 2

A thoughtful approach to land use policy that takes into account our fully developed
neighborhood can never be done in a broad paint brush manner or we end up loossing what we
all cherish with unintended consequences. We believe detailed planning as well as extensive
community vetting/buy in ensures that good growth can be realized.

We do not simply fight for single family homes but instead for the full fabric of our council area.

So next we would like to add our applause to the administsration for taking the added time to
develop this particular land use policy. To date, we feel that the community involvement and the
time invested to create a tailored ADU policy for Salt Lake City has been handled with good
communication and care. We hope this continues.

Last, we understand that this pilot may be restricted to areas with fixed transit such as
ours.

We believe better would be a pilot spread across the different areas of the City and the different
zones which would give better data for when later the City opens this policy to all areas; would
give equal access to this new and lucrative property right and instead of negatively packing
our less affluent areas of the city, provide this option to areas with larger lots better able to
absorb the impacts.

However, long familiar with multiple units and mulitple uses in our area, in concept, the
membership and the ECPD Executive Board are highly interested in andy fully supportive of the
idea of ADUs.

The following are what we believe we will need for a successful and supported pilot
should you propose it be in our area.

Please consider:

1. The owner occupied requirement be upheld.

2. These units be counted when calculating density.

3. The first time a unit is approved it include an on site inspection for both building
and health/life/safety. (Could be administered through a third party.)

606 Trolley Square
Page | 3

4. The program be fully self funding including all necessary enforcement. We
encourage this same thought for the business licensing of existing units down to 2 units.

5. Design standards include the requirement to maintain the green, open space
characteristics of the neighborhood in front, side and backyards rather than the
wholesale tearing up of property frontage, side yards and back yards to install parking
lots, parking pads, and asphalt instead of a yard.
We ask that standards be included to protect this point.

6. We would need a targeted education/enforcement effort in this area. We have a
disproportionately high amount of exisitng illegal duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, etc. that
are causing both the City and neighborhood extensive impact/cost/deterioration.

7. Eliminate the special exception unit legalization process currently in place that
bypasses the standards put in place in each zone and the master plan. Put in place as a 1-2
year temporary measure to protect property rights in 95 is being used to bypass the
system now 16 years later. It more than any other program has caused significant
problems in the area and between neighbors.
Also, costs to City to administer this program are very high in staff and board time.

8. Implementation of the Good Landlord Program.

Thank you for considering our thoughts and recommendations.

In behalf of the Executive Board and General Membership

Gary Felt
Esther Hunter
Co-Chairs
East Central Planning District

cc ECPD Executive Board
Luke Garrott
Jill Love
Wilf Sommerkorn

606 Trolley Square
Page | 4

http://www.thisoldhouse.com/toh/photos/0,,20466527_20917999,00.html

Ten Best Old House Neighborhoods 2011: The
West and Northwest
By: Keith Pandol fi , Gi l li an Barth, Carol e Braden, Amanda Keiser, Eri c Hagerman, Sal
Vagl i ca, and Dani ell e Bl undell , This Ol d House onl i ne
For t he fourt h year in a row, we've t racked down Nort h America's most t imeless
neighborhoodsplaces where lovingly craft ed old houses have ext raordinary past s and
unarguably promising f ut ures. Wit h help from our friends at Port land, Oregon-based
Preservat ionDirect ory.comwho dist ribut ed our nominat ion forms t o more t han 14,000
hist orical societ ies, neighborhood groups, and preservat ion nonprof it swe've
assembled our biggest -ever list of off -t he-beat en-pat h places t hat are wort h eyeing for
a great old home.

From quaint New England villages t o bust ling urban enclaves, here are a dozen places
where you can find a perfect old house of your own along t he nort hern At lant ic coast .
Here are our picks for t he perfect spot s t o buy a home in t he land west of t he Rockies.

606 Trolley Square
Page | 5
University District, Salt Lake City, Utah
< >
Photo: Courtesy of Alison Flanders
Young families live alongside professors and college st udent s in t his Salt Lake Cit y
neighborhood bet ween downt own and t he Universit y of Ut ah campus. Think of t he
Universit y Dist rict as a perfect college t own, where resident ial st reet s divided by grassy
medians are wit hin walking dist ance of locally owned pizza parlors and coffee shops;
and where a sea of resident s, donning t heir finest red and whit e, migrat e t o nearby
Rice-Eccles st adium on aut umnal Sat urdays t o wat ch t heir beloved Ut es play foot ball.
"People love t his neighborhood," says Realt or Celest e Council, whose client s are drawn
t o it s progressive vibe and t he close-set houses, which she says adds t o t he Universit y
Dist rict 's sense of communit y. The neighborhood had a scare in t he 1970s when
developers st art ed knocking down hist oric houses t o make way for apart ment s and
commercial buildings. But resident s fought back, secured new zoning laws, and got a
large chunk of t he neighborhood list ed on t he Nat ional Regist er of Hist oric Places.

The Houses
Most are brick or clapboard Folk Vict orians built for Universit y of Ut ah professors and
employees bet ween 1900 and 1920. Ot her st yles include Got hic Revival, Queen Anne,

606 Trolley Square
Page | 6
Tudor, and Craft sman. You can get a modest t wo-bedroom Folk Vict orian for less t han
$200,000, t hough larger homes are priced $500,000 and up.

Why Buy Here?
Preservat ion-minded buyers are purchasing and renovat ing an increasing number of t he
old houses here, ensuring t hat t his hist oric neighborhood ret ains it s classic archit ect ure
and charact er. Many smaller, low-carbon-f oot print houses are also bringing eco-savvy
buyers, who inst all solar panels, swap t hirst y lawns for xeriscaping, and use rain barrels
t o collect wat er for gardens. Universit y Dist rict resident s are also eschewing cars,
relying on bicycles and Salt Lake Cit y's light -rail syst em t o get t o and from downt own.
Gal l ery: Best Ol d House Nei ghborhoods 2011:

EAST LIBERTY PARK COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION
PO Box 520123
Sal t Lake Ci t y, UT 84125

March 21, 2011
Ms. Jill Remington Love
Salt Lake City Counc il Chair and Distric t 5 Counc il Member
451 South State Street, Room 304

Dear Ms. Love,
The East Libert y Par k Communit y Organizat ion ( ELPCO) met Thursday
evening, January 27, 2011 t o discuss t he proposed Accessory Dwelling
Unit port ion of Mayor Beckers Sust ainabilit y I nit iat ive. At t he
conclusion of t he discussion, t he members present vot ed
overwhelmingly against

adopt ing t he Accessory Dwelling Unit port ion
of t he Mayors Sust ainabilit y ordinance. The vot e was against ADUs
being allowed in East Libert y Park.
Specifically cit ed as concerns were ( in no part icular order) :
1. Ult imat ely, ADUs will negat ively affect t he essent ial charact er of
t he East Libert y Par k area. Several resident s said t hey moved
here for t he feel of East Libert y Park.
2. There are already t oo many rent ers in t his area anyway, and
rent ers cont inue t o display an I dont care at t it ude about t he
neighborhood.
3. The pot ent ial creat ed for overcrowded and canyon- like alleys.
The current condit ion and maint enance of t he alleys was a
relat ed concern.
4. Concerns about par king, t raffic, and t he large number of already
boarded up alley garages where t he occupant s/ owners are
parking on t he st reet .
5. The failure in t he past of t he Cit y t o properly and t horoughly
enforce current ordinances relat ed t o planning and housing
issues.

6. The general vagueness of t he act ual ordinance and t he lack of
informat ion about enforcement and administ rat ive cost s t hat
might be associat ed wit h enforcement .
7. General concerns about t he abilit y of t he exist ing infrast ruct ure
t o properly handle addit ional densit y.
8. Quest ioned whet her t he proposed ordinance would reduce
driving and reliance on aut omobiles wit hin East Libert y Par k.

As co- chairperson of ELPCO, and as a r esult of t he vot e t aken
Thursday, January 27, 2011, I advise you t hat as a neighborhood, t he
East Libert y Park Communit y Organizat ion is against Accessory
Dwelling Unit s in any form wit hin East Libert y Park.

Sincerely,

Mi chael A. Cohn, Co- Chai r per son
East Li ber t y Par k Communi t y Or gani zat i on ( ELPCO)
PO Box 520123
Salt Lake Cit y, UT 84125
macohn9@comcast . net

801.521.9450 phone
801.770.2040 fax
macohn9 skype
Cc Honorable Ralph Bec ker, Mayor, Salt Lake City, UT
Mr. David Everitt, Chief of Staff, Mayor s Offic e, Salt Lake City, UT
Planning Department, Salt Lake City, UT
Salt Lake Community Network & Community Counc il Chairs
Ms. Marielle Siraa, Co-Chairperson, East Liberty Park Community
Organization

Attachment J
Department Comments
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
1001< X Cil Seiect

iii Sh-Ye'

" . e rrOch->e ",
Q S<.we,tod Site, ' Free HotrMiI dIo; Yekow Pi>QO' & Online ft,o " @] Recc<der Ho me Get Add-on
11iII 5-oIO: Loke aY (Ci" I""'f Sal Loke ClySe" I 1 fiJ ' !ilI !2l oIjI . TQOIs . fl "1
D Pl..NSU!l2010-00614 Lm In Progr. .. W' A
'""' A ctIvIt.".
A ctIvities- Summa ry
DOCUment Vi" ...
'"'
,..,."
,. My
,. lIuildin!!
-,,101,.
,. lIu,.in.,,.s
,. CEO
,. En!lin_ rin!l
,. Financr
,. Fir ..
,.
,. GrI>und Tr"nsJlOr1:ation
,. HAZE
,. Insl>edi ons
,.
,.
,.
,. Uti l ili.".
,. WBIk-In
QLickti nks
Prefe-reoce
c.

Def_ ModtJe
1
-
arM.,.", Q. r Se<lrdl 111-
'""
D """""

""""
""
.....
"""'"

D
1 &-006 12 Commi
""""lIdment/NA
Q<I/16/2010

PETITION . : PlNPCMZ010--llQ;1Z
iiJ! Menu
+ GoTo
.0_
'
c..".,.,.
--
?
if Workflow Tasks

i!J- D f'J4 nn ioo p e pt
i!J- 0 Pubk Util jty ...
;:9" in" R".ie",
8- 0 Byil dina Rey iew
Revi ew
Tw,,"oorBllon Rellj."
$- 0 Cod. R<;y j. "
i!J---Q Poli u:

Itt-a Commun,ty Open Hou,""
$---0 Community Cou",," 1 Review
Stoff ..
$---0 PI.nnlrlll
i!J---Q Tro=mltl.!! 1
[!J--O Commun,ty [lev Rev ",w
e--o City Counci l Bri. fing
City Council
i!J---0 Close <" FiMI Ordi""""",
There currently n-o.d f>oc 1,,,1<:0

Assigood OIIt e
03/ 07/2011
Assi9ne<lto
Randy Drummond
Curroot Stilus
Comp"'te
Actioo By
Randy Drummond

]Msmuch 0< the r e 'PP""'s 10 be n-o imP1ld on t he Publi c W.y. we no
co""""", th,,. propo".d tn. Cod .
Eoo lime:
Ild(able:
'" " lme l racktllQ SUlrt Date
In I'<>ssessioll Time lIml
()j spiay Coolmem in ACA
S\rwtTYN llI $tHallle
K
R1> lph
"
'L-- >
Doo Date
O:J}07/2011
As5ignedto Departmoot

Stltus Date
03/07001.1
OVertime:
'" SllIrt Time:
_.-
Acbon by Deportment
Engine e ring
Est COIlI1lI etion Date
r DiSplay Address in ACA
Commem ACA
All ACA lise",
Record
Li<:en=d Prof. ,."ioMI
Cont.-.ct

1
Maloy, Michael
From: Spangenberg, Craig
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 11:29 AM
To: Maloy, Michael
Cc: Isbell, Randy
Subject: ADU's
Categories: Other
Michael:
Asperyourrequest,thefollowingaddressesconcernsfromanenforcementstandpoint:
E.2.a.Owneroccupiedpropertyrequired.Accessorydwellingunitsshallonlybepermittedwhenthe
propertyownerlivesonthepropertywithineithertheprincipaldwellingoraccessorydwellingunit.
Duringournormalenforcementactivities,wesometimesfinditnecessarytoconfirmwhoactuallyresidesata
particulardwelling.Manytimes,thiscanprovetobedifficult.Nomatterhowmanyutilitybillsorownership
recordsareprovidedshowingthemailingaddressofthepropertyowner,wehavenoproofthattheindividual
actuallyresidesatthatlocation.ThenetresultcanbefrustratedneighborswhosaythattheCitywillnot
enforcetheirordinances,wheninactualitywehavenoproofthatwhattheneighborsallegeisaccurate
regardingtheoccupancyoftheproperty.
Inordertoprovideeffectiveenforcement,thedraftordinanceshouldcontainspecific,verifiablecriteriatobe
usedinordertomeettheowneroccupiedrequirements.Iftherequirementsaremet,thepropertyis
consideredtobeowneroccupied.Ifthecriteriacannotbemet,thepropertyisnotconsideredtobeowner
occupiedandwillnotbeeligibleasanaccessorydwellingunit.
1
Maloy, Michael
From: Walsh, Barry
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 12:28 PM
To: Maloy, Michael
Cc: Young, Kevin; Weiler, Scott; Itchon, Edward; Garcia, Peggy; Butcher, Larry
Subject: PLNPCM2010- 00612 ADU
Categories: Other
March10,2011
MichaelMaloy,Planning
Re:PetitionPLNPCM201000612toamendtheSaltLakeCityZoningCodetoallowAccessoryDwellingUnitswithin
singlefamilyandmultifamilyresidentialdistricts.
Thedivisionoftransportationreviewcommentsandrecommendationsareforapprovalasfollows:
TheAccessoryDwellingUnitscodesuggestthatthisisnotduplexesorapartments,butlivingunitswithinaowner
occupiedcontrolledresidence.Whereparkingisincomplianceandtheaccessoryunitwillrequiringoneparkingstallper
ADU.Aswritten,theparkingwouldberequiredbutthetransportationdivisioncouldmodifytherequirements(suchas
allowtandemparkingornoparking)wherecertainfactorsareevident(suchaswherethereisavailableonstreet
parking,parkingiswithin1/4mileofatraxstation,theunitiswithinwalkingdistancetoabusinessdistrictareas,etc.
andhomeoccupationsarelimitedtonovisitorsorparkinggeneratorsetc.)
Sincerely,
BarryWalsh
CcKevinYoung,P.E.
ScottWeiler,P.E.
TedItchon,Fire
PeggyGarcia,PublicUtilities
LarryButcher,Permits
File
1
Maloy, Michael
From: Ross, Michelle
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 10:41 AM
To: Maloy, Michael
Subject: PLNPCM2010-00612
Categories: Other
Michael,
ThePDhasnoissues.
Thanks,
Sgt.MichelleRoss
1
Maloy, Michael
From: Stoker, Justin
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 12:48 PM
To: Maloy, Michael
Subject: FW: Accessory Dwelling Unit - Request for Comment
Importance: High
Categories: Other
From: Vet t er, Rust y

Sent : Monday, March 14, 2011 4: 39 PM
To: St oker, Just in
Cc: Garcia, Peggy; St ewart , Brad
Subj ect : RE: Accessory Dwelling Unit - Request for Comment
ItalkedtoMichaelandPaulNielsonaboutthis.Theyareveryhappytoworkwithusandaskedforproposedlanguage
fromus.MichaeljustsaidheneedsitbyWednesdaymorning.
Thereisaprovisionintheproposedordinancethatadeedrestrictionbeplacedonthepropertytoindicatethatthereis
anowneroccupiedrequirementontheproperty.Wecouldaddinaprovisionalsoalertingpeopleoftheexistenceofa
connectionofsewerorwaterservicethroughtheprimaryresidence.Hereissomeproposedlanguagehighlightedin
yellow:
b.DeedRestriction.Alotapprovedfordevelopmentwithanaccessorydwellingunitmusthaveadeedrestrictionfiled
withthecountyrecordersofficeindicatingsuchowneroccupiedrequirementofthepropertypriortoissuanceofafinal
certificatedoccupancyfortheaccessorydwellingunitybythecity.Ifsewerorwaterutilityservicewillbeconnected
throughtheprimaryresidenceandnotconnectedthroughaseparateconnectiontothesewerorwatermain,thedeed
restrictionwillalsoidentifyanysewerorwaterconnectionsintoorthroughtheprimaryresidence.Suchdeed
restrictionshallrunwiththelanduntiltheaccessorydwellingunityisabandoned.
LetmeknowifthisworksforyouorwhatchangesareneededandIllsendittoMichael.
1
Maloy, Michael
From: Nielson, Paul
To: Maloy, Michael
Subject: Accessory Dwelling Units draft ordinance
Categories: Other
Michael:
Ihavesomebriefcommentsregardingthedraftaccessorydwellingunitsordinance.
Definitionofowneroccupantatparagraph2(a)(2):howdowedeterminewhatthepurposewasforcreatinga
familytrust?Thisisarhetoricalquestionasitcanbesafelyassumedthatallfamilytrustsweredoneaspartof
estateplanning,butthelanguageofthedraftmakesitseemlikethisneedstobeverified.Justmytwocentson
that.
E(2)(e)(Standards:GeneralRequirements:MultiFamilyDistrictswithSingleFamilyDwellingonLot):whatdoes
builtoutmean.Ihavemyguesses,butIshouldnthavetoguess.
E(4):IassumethatthesizeofanADUisstillrestrictedevenifitiswithintheprincipaldwelling.
E(7)(a):lastsentencere:addingentrancestoprincipaldwellingfrontfaadeisconfusingandprobably
contradictory.Howcananewentrancebelocatedonthefrontfaadeofaprincipaldwellingonlyifitislocated
atleast20feetbehindthefrontfaade?
E(9):requiringabusinesslicenseforanaccessorydwellingunitmaynotworkwithSLCCodesec.5.14.020,which
onlyrequiresbusinesslicensesfor3+units.Theattorneyinmyofficefor
BusinessLicensingcommentedthatthiscouldpresentasignificantincreaseinadministrativeeffortsasallone
(andpossiblytwo)unitapartmentsassociatedwithaprincipal,singlefamilydwellingcouldrequirehiringof
additionalpersonneltomanage.Thequestionalsoaroseastowhetherbusinesslicensingwasthebestchoice
toprocessapplicationsforthese.
Inlightofthepriorcomment,commentsshouldbesoughtfromJamieAllredinBusinessLicensingonthe
proposedordinance.
Paul C. Nielson
Senior City Attorney
801.535.7216

IMPORTANT: E-mail from the City Attorney's Office is likely to contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use
of the intended recipient. The use, distribution, transmittal or re-transmittal of any such communication is prohibited
without the express approval of the City Attorney or a Deputy City Attorney in writing or by e-mail. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
PLNPCM2010-00612 Accessory Dwelling Units 1 Published Date: June 16, 2011
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT

Planning Division
Department of Community &
Zoning Text Amendment
Petition No. PLNPCM2010-00612
June 22, 2011

Applicant:
Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker

Staff:
Michael Maloy AICP at (801) 535-7118 or
michael.maloy@slcgov.com

Tax ID:
Citywide

Current Zone:
Citywide

Master Plan Designation:
Citywide

Council District:
Citywide

Lot Size:
Citywide

Current Use:
Single-family dwellings

Applicable Land Use Regulations:
Chapter 21A.24 Residential Districts
Chapter 21A.40 Accessory Uses,
Buildings and Structures
Chapter 21A.62 Definitions

Notification:
Notice published in Salt Lake Tribune on
March 9, 2011 (for March 23, 2011 hearing)
Notice mailed to Community Councils
on June 9, 2011
Agenda posted on the Planning Division
and Utah Public Meeting Notice
websites on June 9, 2011

Attachments:
A. Accessory Dwelling Units Ordinance
B. Residential Districts Map
C. Transit Overlay Maps
D. Sample Illustrations
E. APA Quick Notes
F. News Article: Seattle Looks to Cottages
G. Dr. Arthur C. Nelson PowerPoint
H. Public Input Chronology and Notes
I. Public Comments
J. Community Council Comments
K. Department Comments
Request
A request by Mayor Ralph Becker for a zoning text amendment to allow
accessory dwelling units within the following single-family and multi-family
residential districts: FR-1/43,560, FR-2/21,780, FR-3/12,000, R-1/12,000, R-
1/7,000, R-1/5,000, SR-1, SR-1A, SR-3, R-2, RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45, and
RMF-75. This request is part of the Sustainability City Code Initiative and
would affect areas City-wide. The Planning Commissions authority in this
matter is advisory to the City Council, which has the legislative authority to
make the final decision.
Recommendation
Based on the findings listed in the staff report, it is the opinion of Planning
Staff that overall the proposal meets the applicable standards and therefore,
recommends the Planning Commission transmit a favorable recommendation
to the City Council relating to this request.
Potential Motions
Consistent with Staff Recommendation: Based on the findings listed in the
staff report, testimony, and information presented, I move that the Planning
Commission transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council relating
to petition PLNPCM2010-00612 to permit and regulate accessory dwelling
units within the following single-family and multi-family residential districts:
FR-1/43,560, FR-2/21,780, FR-3/12,000, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000,
SR-1, SR-1A, SR-3, R-2, RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45, and RMF-75.

Not Consistent with Staff Recommendation: Based on public testimony,
information received, and the following findings, I move that the Planning
Commission transmit a negative recommendation to the City Council relating
to petition PLNPCM2010-00612 to permit and regulate accessory dwelling
units within the following single-family and multi-family residential districts:
FR-1/43,560, FR-2/21,780, FR-3/12,000, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000,
SR-1, SR-1A, SR-3, R-2, RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45, and RMF-75.

The Planning Commission shall make findings on the Zoning Text
Amendment standards as listed below:
1. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals,
objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted
planning documents;
2. Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the specific purpose
statements of the zoning ordinance;
3. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes and
provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose
additional standards; and
4. The extent to which a proposed text amendment implements best current,
professional practices of urban planning and design.
Background
Project Description
Mayor Ralph Becker, in cooperation with the City Council, has initiated a series of administrative policies and
legislative petitions to encourage sustainable land use within Salt Lake City. The petitions address various city
codes, including zoning. In support of this effortwhich is generally known as the Sustainability City Code
Initiativethe City retained the services of Clarion Associates, an experienced and respected land use planning
and real estate consulting firm to research and produce draft ordinances.

Petition PLNPCM2010-00612 proposes to permit accessory dwelling units in single-family and multi-family
residential districts (see Attachment A Accessory Dwelling Units Ordinance). An accessory dwelling unit
(ADU) is a residential unit that is established on the same lot as a single-family dwelling unit, and may be
located within a single-family dwelling, attached to a single-family dwelling (such as in an addition), or in a
detached structure (such as in a garage or separate accessory structure). The accessory dwelling unit must be a
complete housekeeping unit with a separate kitchen, sleeping area, closet space, bathroom facilities, and a
shared or separate entrance.

The proposed ordinance requires owner occupancy of the principal or accessory dwelling, additional parking,
and compliance with current building codes. To ensure the accessory dwelling is subordinate to the principal
dwelling, the draft ordinance establishes a maximum building square footage, a scalable building height limit,
minimum building setbacks, and maximum lot coverage in compliance with the underlying zone.

communitiesboth large and smallin the United States. By providing housing on existing lots in developed
neighborhoods, ADUs are a form of land use that makes good use of land and public infrastructure investment.
Accessory Dwelling Units, when located near employment and retail centers, help increase the use of
circulation alternativessuch as walking, cycling, mass transitleading to a reduction in green house gas
emissions and energy (fuel) use. Additionally, the changing face of the American public and its housing needs
supports the inclusion of ADUs as a housing alternative. More people are aging, are empty nesters, and desire
to down-size. In addition, the work force continues to be challenged to find affordable housing and ADUs can
help address that demand (see Attachment E APA Quick Notes and Attachment F News Article: Seattle
Looks to Cottages).

With respect to observable trends in sustainability, demographics, land use development, and economic
conditions, the stated purposes for Petition PLNPCM2010-00612 Accessory Dwelling Units are:

2. Increase the housing stock of existing neighborhoods in a manner that is less intense than alternatives;
5. Offer a means for residents, particularly seniors, single parents, and families with grown children, to remain
in their homes and neighborhoods, and obtain extra income, security, companionship, and services;
7. Provide opportunity for workforce housing in developed and new neighborhoods, close to places of work,
thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions and reducing fossil fuel consumption through less car commuting;
8. Support transit-oriented development and reduce auto usage by increasing density near transit stops; and
9. Support the economic viability of historic properties and the citys historic preservation goals by allowing
accessory residential uses in historic structures.
Comments
Public Comments
Since December of 2009, the Planning Division has discussed the proposal in more than 20 public meetings (see
Attachment H Public Input Chronology and Notes).

On March 23, 2011, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and afterward voted to table the
petition until a future public meeting, and directed staff to research several issues, such as:

Increase parking requirement for an ADU. Staff reviewed this issue and has included a provision for two
additional parking stalls for ADUs with two bedrooms or more.
Establish minimum lot size for a detached ADU. Staff reviewed this issue and has included regulation
that requires a minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet for detached ADUs.
Limit the number of residents allowed within an ADU. Staff reviewed this issue, and based upon legal
council, staff does not recommend amending this section of the proposed regulation, which relies upon the
following definition of a family as found within Salt Lake City Code, Section 21A.62.040, which is
entitled Definitions of Terms:

Family:
A. One or more persons related by blood, marriage, adoption, or legal guardianship, including foster
children, living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit; or
B. A group of not more than three (3) persons not related by blood, marriage, adoption, or legal
guardianship living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit; or
C. Two (2) unrelated persons and their children living together as a single housekeeping unit in a
dwelling unit.
The term "family" shall not be construed to mean a club, group home, transitional victim home,
substance abuse home, transitional home, a lodge or a fraternity/sorority house.

On June 9, 2011, the Planning Commission received a briefing on accessory dwelling units by Presidential
Professor of City & Metropolitan Planning, Dr. Arthur C. Nelson, from the University of Utah College of
Architecture + Planning. Professor Nelson delivered a PowerPoint presentation that included census data and
demographic trends relative to accessory dwelling units (see Attachment G Dr. Arthur C. Nelson PowerPoint).

All public comments received to date have been included for review and consideration (see Attachment I
Public Comments).

Based on a review of public comments received, staff has provided the following summary of issues:

Density. In 2010, the Unites States Census Bureau estimated the population of Salt Lake City at 186,440,
which is up from 181,743 in 2000. Salt Lake Citys population per square mile is 1,688. Because the
development pattern of Salt Lake City is unique within Utahdue to extensive commercial development,
an international airport, and notable quantities of undeveloped landit is difficult to compare density with
other communities. However, for reference purposes only, the Census Bureau in May of 2001 identified the
City of Taylorsville as the most densely populated city in the state with 5,376.2 persons per square mile.
Other densely populated Utah cities include Midvale (4,627.4), Orem (4,573.6), Washington Terrace
(4,477.4), Roy (4,330.8), Sandy (3,961.5), and South Ogden (3,917.1).

If approved, the proposed ordinance will impact all single-family and multi-family districts within the City.
The area contained within the impacted residential districts is 8,777 acres, which is approximately 12.42%
of the total area of Salt Lake City.

A significant element of density is the average household size. The Unites States Census Bureau defines
household as:

A household includes all the persons who occupy a housing unit. A housing unit is a house, an
apartment, a mobile home, a group of rooms, or a single room that is occupied (or if vacant, is intended
for occupancy) as separate living quarters. Separate living quarters are those in which the occupants live
and eat separately from any other persons in the building and which have direct access from the outside
of the building or through a common hall. The occupants may be a single family, one person living
alone, two or more families living together, or any other group of related or unrelated persons who share
living arrangements.

Based on information gleaned from Census reports, the average household size within in Salt Lake City is
declining:

Census Year Salt Lake City Average Household Size United States Average Household Size

During the past 50 years, the decline in average household size is clear. However, the anomalous increase in
the average household size in 2000 is in part due to the notable population growth among minorities. In
1990, minorities in Salt Lake City were 9.77% of the total population. In 2010, minorities in Salt Lake City
form 20.8% of the total population. This issue is further explained in a report entitled Age and Family
Structure by Race, Ethnicity and Place of Residence published by the United States Department of
Agriculture, minority groups have a larger average household size than other cohorts:

Both household and family size declined between 1980 and 1990 in urban and rural areas. In 1990,
average household size was 2.5 persons for Whites, 2.9 for Blacks, and 3.5 for Hispanics. Average
family size in 1990, regardless of residence, was 3.1 for Whites, 3.5 for Blacks, and 3.9 for Hispanics.
Both Whites and Blacks experienced declines in household and family size between 1980 and 1990. As
declines were larger for the Black population, the racial gap contracted. Much of the decline in
household and family size is due to decreased childbearing and a drop in the average number of children
and other household members under age 18 (Hernandez, 1993). Large families usually reduce the
amount of time and resources parents can devote to each child. Smaller family size implies improved
educational, occupational, and economic opportunities for children.

Minorities tend to have larger families and households than Whites, with Hispanics having the largest
families. About 12 percent of Hispanic households in 1991 had 6 or more members, compared with 3
percent of non-Hispanic households (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1991).

Opponents of the proposal often cite the comprehensive 1995 zoning update that reduced development
density in many Salt Lake City residential neighborhoods (see Attachment J Community Council
Comments). Opponents believe that ADUs represent a reversal of that previous legislative action. In
response, some residents have suggested that ADUs should be limited to zoning districts that permit multi-
family development. Within multi-family districts, the proposed ordinance will allow development of an
accessory dwelling unit if compliant with all other applicable building and zoning regulations.

Option 2. Modify regulation to restrict accessory dwelling units to zoning districts that currently allow
more than one dwelling unit per lot, such as SR-1, SR-1A, SR-3, R-2, RMF-30, RMF-35,
RMF-45, and RMF-75 (see Attachment B Residential Districts Map).

Location. As previously described, the proposal is restricted to single-family dwellings within specific
residential zoning districts. Some opponents of the proposal have recommended prohibiting ADUs within
specific communities, such as the Avenues, or requiring ADUs to locate within a specified from a fixed
public transportation line, such as TRAX or the future Sugar House streetcar line (see Attachment C
Transit Overlay Maps). To further illustrate the impact of this proposal, Dr. Arthur C. Nelson, from the
University of Utah College of Architecture + Planning, provided a tabulation of single-family dwellings
located within mile of current and proposed TRAX and street car stations.

Streetcar Stations Number of Single-Family Dwellings within Mile of Station
2100 South 210
State Street 236
300 East 596
500 East 936
700 East 1,122
900 East 823
1040 East 664
Sub Total 4,587
Light Rail Stations Number of Single-Family Dwellings within Mile of Station
Ballpark 73
City Center 47
Gallivan Center 0
Temple Square 93
Delta Center 39
Courthouse 4
Library 113
Trolley 579
900 East 909
Stadium 676
University South
Campus
0
University Medical 101
Fort Douglas 0
900 South 22
Greektown 56
SLC Central 114
Planetarium 9
Cornell 142
800 West 599
500 West 178
Fairpark 430
Winifred 217
Sub Total 4,401
Grand Total 8,988

According to Dr. Nelson, the grand total represents (approximately) 25% of the total supply of single-family
units within the City.

Option 2. Modify regulation to restrict ADUs to specific neighborhoods or areas.
Option 3. Modify regulation to restrict ADUs to single-family dwellings within mile of transit lines.

Design. The proposal recommends compliance with all underlying zoning district requirements, including
overlays such as the H Historic District. Additional development requirements are included to ensure
compatibility with established development patterns, such as limitations on building height and placement
of entrances. However, opponents remain concerned that the proposal will alter the character of single-
family neighborhoods (see Attachment D Sample Illustrations).

Option 1. Approve regulation as proposed (design subject to overlays, compatible with principal
dwelling).
Option 2. Modify regulation to include additional design and material regulations (to be specified).

Privacy. A common concern when dealing with residential infill development is privacy. Although privacy
is an issue that is addressed within portions of City Code, assurance of privacywithin a rear a rear yard for
exampleis not listed within the Purpose and Intent Statement (21A.020.030) of Title 21A Zoning, and is
only identified as a type of fence within the General Provisions (21A.24.010) of Chapter 21A.24 Residential
Districts.
In a 1961 landmark book on planning, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, famed author and
urbanist Jane Jacobs offers the following comment on privacy:

Architectural and planning literature deals with privacy in terms of windows, overlooks, sight lines. The
idea is that if no one from outside can peek into where you livebehold, privacy. This is simple
minded. Window privacy is the easiest commodity in the world to get. You just pull down the shades or
adjust the blinds. The privacy of keeping ones personal affairs to those selected to know them, and the
privacy of having reasonable control over who shall make inroads on your time and when, are rare
commodities in most of this world, however, and they have nothing to do with the orientation of
windows (p. 77).

Whereas the proposal requires compliance with all applicable yard and bulk regulations when located within
the buildable area for a single-family dwellingidentical to limitations on a residential addition permitted
under current regulationsstaff does not recommend additional restrictions in response to this concern.
However, when an ADU is located outside the buildable area for a principal dwelling, the Commission may
consider additional regulations for the placement of windows, similar to the following standard for a hobby
shop when located in a residential district:

21A.52.100: Specific Conditions for Special Exceptions:
If the accessory building is located within ten feet (10') of a property line, no windows shall be allowed
in the walls adjacent to the property lines.

Option 1. Approve regulation as proposed (no additional criteria regulating privacy).
Option 2. Modify regulation to limit the placement of windows if the accessory dwelling is located
outside the buildable area for a single-family dwelling and within ten feet (10') of a property
line.

Owner Occupancy. Although there has been some support to remove the owner occupancy requirement,
most comments recommend that this is an essential component of the proposal. The primary concern
regarding owner occupancy is the citys ability to enforce the proposed regulation. The proposed owner
occupancy regulation is derived from language used by Provo City for a similar ordinance, which has been
successfully upheld by the Supreme Court of Utah (Case No. 20030679).

Option 1. Approve regulation as proposed (owner occupancy required).
Option 2. Modify regulation to reduce length of bona fide absence from three years to one year.

Parking. The attached proposal requires one parking stall for a studio or one bedroom ADU, or two parking
stalls for a two bedroom ADU, in addition to the required off-street parking for a single-family dwelling.
However, under certain conditions the Transportation Division may modify the requirement if located
within mile of a fixed transit line or an arterial street with a designated bus route (see Attachment C
Transit Overlay Maps).

It is the opinion of Planning Staff, that earlier proposals which required only one parking stall for an ADU
represented a balance between requiring on-site parking and discouraging additional pavement. Additional
pavement increases storm water drainageas well as the urban heat islandwhich impacts are contrary
to sustainability. However, based on concerns expressed during the March 23, 2011 public hearing that
insufficient off-street parking will increase on-street parkingwhich in some neighborhoods is severely
limitedstaff modified the proposal. With respect to concerns regarding vehicle damage and thefts, Police
Sergeant Michelle Ross did not identify car prowling within residential neighborhoods as an issue (see
Attachment K Department Comments).

Option 1. Approve proposed regulation (one parking stall for studio or one bedroom unit, and two
parking stalls with two or more bedrooms) with tandem parking.
Option 2. Modify proposed regulation (one parking stall for studio or one bedroom unit, and two
parking stalls with two or more bedrooms) to exclude tandem parking.
Option 3. Modify proposed regulation to require two off-street parking stalls per ADU (without regard
to the number of bedrooms) with tandem parking.
Option 4. Modify proposed regulation to require two off-street parking stalls per ADU (without regard
to the number of bedrooms) without tandem parking.

Traffic. Whereas Salt Lake City is a significant source of employment and services, proponents of the
proposal argue that permitting ADUs within the Cityrather than forcing growth into suburban
communitieswill reduce the total amount of vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Although the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) does not publish a report on traffic generation for ADUs, the ITE finds that
a rental townhouse will generate (on average) 0.73 trips during the weekday a.m. peak hour, and 0.73 trips
during the weekday p.m. peak hour. In comparison, a single-family detached house will generate (on
average) 0.77 trips per a.m. peak hours, and 1.02 trips per p.m. peak hour. Although this issue, along with
parking, has been a significant concern for opponents, the Transportation Division and Engineering Division
did not identify traffic as a notable concern (see Attachment K Department Comments).

Option 1. Approve regulation as proposed (no restriction relative to street classification, encourages use
of alleys).
Option 2. Modify regulation to restrict location of ADUs to parcels that are accessible from a City
arterial or collector street.

Accessibility. On February 22, 2011, staff presented the proposed ADU ordinance to the Mayor's
Accessible Services Advisory Council. In response, the committee prepared a statement in support of the
proposal, with recommendations to modify the regulation to encourage development of visitable or
accessible ADUs (see Attachment H Public Input Chronology and Notes).

Option 1. Approve regulation as proposed (no requirement for visitable or accessible improvements,
however accessible ADUs are exempt from annual permit allocation).
Option 2. Modify regulation to increase the square foot maximum for an accessible ADU by 150
square feet (specified amount may be modified).
Option 3. Modify regulation to require 20 percent of ADU permits to meet accessibility standards.
Option 5. Modify regulation to reduce building permit fee for ADUs (amount to be specified).
City Department Comments
The comments received from pertinent City Departments / Divisions are attached to this staff report in
Attachment K Department Comments (which include comments from Building Services that were not
attached to the March 23, 2011 Planning Commission Staff Report). Although the Planning Division has not
received any comments from applicable City Departments / Divisions that cannot be reasonably fulfilled or that
warrant denial of the petition, staff recommends discussion of the following issues:

Utilities. One of the arguments in favor of the proposal is its efficient use of existing public infrastructure,
which reduces pressure to develop new streets and utility lines. However, opponents of the proposal have
expressed concern regarding capacity of existing public utilities. In a 1981 report entitled Accessory
Apartments: Using Surplus Space in Single Family Houses published by the American Planning Association
(APA) the authors addressed the following question:

How Many Units are Likely to be Built? Civic groups are frequently fearful about the number of units
that may be created under an ordinance. A little guidance is provided by the experience of towns that
have ordinances. When Portland, Oregon's Add-A-Rental went into effect in January, 1981, after
considerable controversy, almost nothing happened. It was five months before Portland had its first three
applications, and, by the end of the year, only five had come in. Babylon, Long Island (New York),
estimated in 1979 that it had accessory apartments in 10-20 percent of its stock. Lyndenhurst, next to
Babylon, has had an accessory apartment ordinance since 1955, and only 10 percent of its single-family
stock has been converted legally. Weston, Connecticut, has about 10 percent of its housing stock in
accessory apartments, even though it has had an ordinance since the early 1960s. Renton, Washington,
with an ordinance since 1955, has conversions in about eight percent of its house.

There is one lesson to be drawn: the presence of an ordinance permitting accessory apartments doesn't
necessarily stimulate conversion to accessory apartments, and the absence of one doesn't necessarily
discourage them (italics added for emphasis).

Locally, Daybreaka successful planned development community in South Jordan, Utah that is modeled
after older Salt Lake City neighborhoodsincludes provisions for accessory apartments. George Shaw,
Community Development Director for the City of South Jordan, reported that there are approximately 20
detached accessory dwellings, and 6 attached accessory dwellings within Daybreak, which contains
approximately 2,500 households and 9,000 residents.

Based upon research, and upon receipt of a letter of recommendation from the Department of Public
Utilities that did not identify utility capacity as a concern, staff finds that this issue is not a significant
concern (see Attachment K Department Comments).

Another issue relative to utilities that has persisted throughout the development of the draft ordinance is
whether to require separate utility meters for ADUs. Because an ADU may be attached to or detached from
the principal dwelling, and construction of utility infrastructure will vary, the proposed ordinance allows for
property owner preference (subject to compliance with City regulations). However, some have argued that
prohibiting separate utility meters may encourage compliance with owner occupancy provisions. In
response to this issue, Justin Stoker (Engineer V with the Department of Public Utilities) recommended
approval of the proposed regulation with the following modification:

If sewer or water utility service will be connected through the primary residence and not connected
through a separate connection to the sewer or water main, the deed restriction will also identify any
sewer or water connections into or through the primary residence.

Option 1. Approve regulation as proposed (limit number of permits issued per calendar year, separate
utility meters for ADU are not required but may be installed by a licensed contractor upon
approval of the City and utility company).
Option 2. Modify regulation to include deed restriction regarding utility services when connected
through principal (or primary) residence.
Option 2. Modify regulation to require installation of separate utility meters for an ADU.
Option 3. Modify regulation to prohibit the installation of additional utility meters for an ADU.

Enforcement. As a matter of legislative policy, Salt Lake City desires to preserve housing that
substantially complies with life and safety codes. Currently, Salt Lake City administrates a process to
legalize existing dwelling units that were constructed before 1970 and have been continuously used. This
process is known as Legalization of Excess Dwelling Units and is governed by Section 21A.52.100 of the
Zoning Title. However, the unit legalization process is completely separate and independent from the
proposed ADU regulation.

A common concern is the Citys ability to enforce the proposed ADU regulation. To address this issue, the
City will require an annual business license for each ADU, which fee was recently approved by the City
Council as part of the 2011-2012 City Budget (base license fee is $110.00, plus $342.00 per rental unit, or
$20.00 per rental unit with Good Landlord Certification). In turn, the business license fee will be used to
administrate inspection and enforcement of ADUs. Violation of business license regulations are specified in
Article I of Chapter 5.04 of Title 5 Business Taxes, Licensing and Regulation. However, violators of the
proposed ordinance would also be subject to the following zoning enforcement regulations:

21A.20.040: Fines for Violations:
A. Violations of the provisions of this title or failure to comply with any of its requirements shall be
punishable as a class B misdemeanor upon conviction (italics added for emphasis).
B. This title may also be enforced by injunction, mandamus, abatement, civil fines or any other
appropriate action in law or equity.
C. Each day that any violation continues after the citation deadline shall be considered a separate
offense for purposes of the fines and remedies available to the city (italics added for emphasis).
D. Accumulation of fines for violations, but not the obligation for payment of fines already accrued,
shall stop upon correction of the violation.
E. Any one or more of the fines and remedies identified herein may be used to enforce this title.

21A.20.050: Civil Fines:
If the violations are not corrected by the citation deadline, civil fines shall accrue at twenty five dollars
($25.00) a day per violation for properties in residential zoning districts and one hundred dollars
($100.00) per day per violation for properties in nonresidential zoning districts (italics added for
emphasis).

In response to the proposal, Craig Spangenberg, Civil Enforcement Manager, recommended that the draft
ordinance should contain specific, verifiable criteria to be used in order to meet the owner occupied
requirement (see Attachment K Department Comments).

Option 1. Approve regulation as proposed.
Option 2. Modify regulation to improve capability of enforcement (recommendations to be specified).
Project Review
Focus Group. On July 14, 2010, the Planning Division conducted a focus group to review and discuss
the proposed accessory dwelling units regulation. During the meeting, Chris Duerksen and Joyce
Allgaier with Clarion Associates presented a comprehensive overview on the proposal, answered
questions, and noted concerns for future consideration. The ADU focus group was comprised of the
following individuals:

NAME REPRESENTATION ATTENDANCE
Cindy Cromer Property Owner Yes
George Kelner Yalecrest Community Council No
Gordon Storrs Fairpark Community Council Yes
DeWitt Smith Liberty Wells Community Council No
Jim Jenkin Greater Avenues Community Council No
Philip Carlson Sugar House Community Council Yes
David Richardson Capitol Hill Construction No
Michael Mahaffey Contractor Yes
Bryson Garbett Developer Yes
Ed Sperry Realtor No
Tim Funk Crossroads Urban Center No
Maria Garciaz Neighborworks Salt Lake Yes
Jon Lear Downey Mansion No
Paul Smith Utah Apartment Association Yes
Mike Ostermiller Utah Association of Realtors No
Justin Allen Salt Lake Board of Realtors Yes
Sonya Martinez Community Action Agency Yes
Roger Borgenicht ASSIST Yes
Philip Carroll Community Housing Services Inc Yes
Arla Funk Historic Landmark Commission Yes
Claudia O'Grady Utah Housing Corporation No
Ashken Tanielian Housing Advocate No
Dan Bethel Architect No
Annalisa Steggell Holcombe Westminster College Yes
Francisca Blanc Utah Housing Coalition Yes

Revisions. The Planning Division and Clarion Associates have revised the proposed regulation
numerous times during the past year. Primarily, changes in the draft ordinance addressed owner
occupancy requirements, building height regulations, minimum setbacks, building design, limiting the
number of ADU permits issued per calendar year, and parking requirements.
Analysis and Findings
Options
Whereas the City Council has final legislative authority over the petition, the Planning Commission may:

Recommend approval of the proposal based on testimony and findings contained within the staff report;
Recommend approval with specific modifications;
Recommend denial of the petition based on testimony and findings; or
Table the proposal for further review.

If the Commission votes to table the petition, the Planning Division respectfully requests the Commission
provide specific direction to staff.
Findings
Section 21A.50.050. A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is
a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the city council and is not controlled by any one
standard. However, in making its decision concerning a proposed amendment, the city council should
consider the following factors:
1. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of
the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents;
Finding: Within the Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan, which was prepared by the Housing and
Neighborhood Division of Community and Economic Development Department and adopted by the Salt
Lake City Council in April of 2000, the following policy statements and implementation strategies are
applicable:
City Council Policy Statement. The City Council supports a citywide variety of housing units,
including affordable housing and supports accommodating different types and intensities of
residential development. (p. 8)
City Council Policy Statement. The City Council supports mixed use and mixed income concepts
and projects that achieve vibrant, safe, integrated, walkable neighborhoods through a diverse mix of
uses and incomes in areas with established services (p. 19)
Affordable and Transitional Housing Implementation Strategy 1. Review Best Practices from
other cities and establish new programs or expand existing programs that meet housing needs and
maximize housing opportunities for all residents within Salt Lake City. (p. 24)
City Council Policy Statement. On a citywide basis, the City Council endorses accessory housing
units in single-family zones, subject to restrictions designed to limit impacts and protect
neighborhood character. (p. 32)
Action Step for Implementation Strategy 5. Define accessory housing units. Determine residential
zones that could support such changes. Prepare necessary criteria and amendments for future
ordinances on accessory units. (p. 33)
In another policy document entitled Creating Tomorrow Together: Final Report of the Salt Lake City
Futures Commission, which was commissioned in February 1996 by former Mayor Ted Wilson and
delivered to the City Council in March 1998 the following assertions, goals, and recommendations are
applicable:
Assertion M: There is a mix of housing types, densities, and costs so that people of various
economic groups can co-exist. Services for those less fortunate are seen as a positive attribute
and are nurtured within our community.
o Recommendation 1: Amend zoning laws to encourage mixed use in appropriate areas.
Proposed Action: Adopt amendments to city zoning ordinances that allow mixed-use
development in designated areas of the city. Identify areas to be included in
ordinances, define types of mixed uses allowed (p. 13).
Goal B: The ideal neighborhood will be diverse. Neighborhoods will encourage persons of
different incomes, ages, cultures, races, religions, genders, lifestyles, and familial statuses to be
active community stakeholders. Families of various size and composition can be well served through
a variety of programs and services. Service organizations will also be available to special-needs
populations (p. 41).
Goal D: The ideal neighborhood will be well maintained. Landlords, tenants, and homeowners
will share responsibility for keeping properties in good condition. Home ownership will be
encouraged where possible. Neighborhoods should contain a variety of housing types, but more units
should be owner occupied than renter occupied. This leads to longer term residents and stabilizes
property values. Owners of rental units will be responsible and will maintain their properties.
Mechanisms need to be in place to address problems caused by owners/renters who fail to maintain
their properties. Landlords must screen tenants to ensure that they will be responsible renters.
Landlords must also make repairs to their housing units to keep them as viable assets in the
neighborhood. Housing should be designed for the changing needs of our current and future
population (p. 43).
Based on a review of the Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan, and the Creating Tomorrow Together:
Final Report of the Salt Lake City Futures Commission, which documents are applicable citywide, staff
finds the proposal is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan
of Salt Lake City.
2. Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance;
Finding: Chapter 21A.02.030 of the Zoning Ordinance states:
Purpose and Intent: The purpose of this title is to promote the health, safety, morals, convenience,
order, prosperity and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of Salt Lake City, to implement the
adopted plans of the city, and to carry out the purposes of the municipal land use development and
management act, title 10, chapter 9, of the Utah Code Annotated or its successor, and other relevant
statutes. This title is, in addition, intended to:

a. Lessen congestion in the streets or roads;
b. Secure safety from fire and other dangers;
c. Provide adequate light and air;
d. Classify land uses and distribute land development and utilization;
e. Protect the tax base;
f. Secure economy in governmental expenditures;
g. Foster the city's industrial, business and residential development; and
h. Protect the environment.

Additionally, Section 21A.24.010 of the Zoning Ordinance provides the following general provision for
all residential districts:

Statement of Intent: The residential districts are intended to provide a range of housing choices to meet
the needs of Salt Lake City's citizens, to offer a balance of housing types and densities, to preserve and
maintain the city's neighborhoods as safe and convenient places to live, to promote the harmonious
development of residential communities, to ensure compatible infill development, and to help implement
adopted plans.

Although staff agrees with opponents that accessory dwelling units may marginally increase congestion and
parking on neighborhood streets, permitting accessory dwelling units will:

Improve viability of public transit;
Improve property values;
Is an economical use of public and private infrastructure;
Protect the environment through reduction of vehicle miles driven within the region;
Provide a range of housing choices; and
Preserve and maintain neighborhoods as safe and convenient places to live.

Therefore, staff finds that the proposal furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance.

3. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable
overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards; and
Finding: As stated within the proposed text amendment, accessory dwelling units shall be subject to
compliance with the underlying zoning ordinance, which includes any applicable overlay zoning districts,
such as the H Historic Preservation Overlay District and the YCI Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay
District. Therefore, the proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any
applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standard.
4. The extent to which a proposed text amendment implements best current, professional practices of
urban planning and design.
Finding: The proposed text amendment was originally crafted after reviewing best practices of various
cities, such as Portland, OR; Santa Cruz and Chula Vista, CA; Seattle, WA; Lexington, MA; and Aspen,
CO. As summarized within Attachment E APA Quick Notes, the American Planning Association
recommends that communities would do well to seriously consider adopting an approach thatallows
ADUs by right with clear written conditions; does not require owner occupancy; prohibits condominium
ownership on the basis that a condo could not be considered accessory; provides a simple procedure for
legalizing preexisting or formerly illegal apartments provided the unit is inspected; provides a generous size
standard; and provides a water and sewer adequacy standard.

Although the proposed text amendment does not strictly achieve all of the recommendations provided by the
American Planning Association, the proposal does reflect best practices tempered by local concerns, such as
preference for owner occupancy requirements. Therefore, staff finds the proposal is consistent with this
factor.


Attachment A
Accessory Dwelling Units Ordinance

Salt Lake City 1
June 2011
CHAPTER 21A.XX
21A.XX.XX: ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
A. Purpose Statement ... 2
B. Applicability .... 2
C. Permit Allocation . 2
D. Definitions 3
E. Standards . 4

Salt Lake City 2
June 2011
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
A. PURPOSE STATEMENT
alternatives;
5. Offer a means for residents, particularly seniors, single parents, and families with grown children,
to remain in their homes and neighborhoods, and obtain extra income, security, companionship,
and services;
7. Provide opportunity for workforce housing in developed and new neighborhoods, close to places
of work, thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions and reducing fossil fuel consumption through less
car commuting;
8. Support transit-oriented development and reduce auto usage by increasing density near transit
stops; and
B. APPLICABILITY
An accessory dwelling unit may be incorporated within or added onto an existing house, garage, or other
accessory structure, or may be built as a separate, detached structure on a lot where a single-family
dwelling exists. Accessory dwelling units are allowed in the following residential zone districts: FR-
1/43,560, FR-2/21,780, FR-3/12,000, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, SR-1, SR-1A, SR-3, R-2,
RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45, and RMF-75 subject to the provisions of this section.
C. PERMIT ALLOCATION
1. The city shall limit the establishment of accessory dwelling units, pursuant to this ordinance, to
twenty-five (25) units per calendar year, with the following exceptions;
a. Accessory dwelling units located within a Redevelopment Agency (RDA) of Salt Lake City
project area, or funded in part by RDA housing funds, shall be exempt from annual permit
allocation limits;
b. Accessory dwelling units that comply with all accessibility standards as contained within the
current building code shall be exempt from annual permit allocation limits.
2. Building permit applications for an accessory dwelling unit shall be accepted and processed in
order of date and time submitted, however order of approval shall be based solely on
compliance with current building code.

Salt Lake City 3
June 2011
D. DEFINITIONS
1

Accessory Dwelling Unit: A residential unit that is located on the same lot as a single-family dwelling unit,
either internal to or attached to the single family unit or in a detached structure. The accessory dwelling
unit shall be a complete housekeeping unit with a shared or separate entrance, and separate kitchen,
sleeping area, closet space, and bathroom facilities.

Owner Occupant:
a. Possesses, as shown by a recorded deed, fifty (50) percent or more ownership in a dwelling
unit, and
b. Occupies the dwelling unit with a bona fide intent to make it his or her primary residence; or
(2) Was created for estate planning purposes by one (1) or more trustors of the trust; and
b. Occupies the dwelling unit owned by the family trust with a bona fide intent to make it his or
her primary residence. Each living trustor of the trust shall so occupy the dwelling unit except
for a trustor who temporarily resides elsewhere due to a disability or infirmity. In such event,
the dwelling unit shall nevertheless be the domicile of the trustor during the trustor's temporary
absence.
3. Even if a person meets the requirements of Subsections 1 or 2 of this definition, such person shall
not be deemed an owner occupant if the property on which the dwelling unit is located has more
than one (1) owner and all owners of the property do not occupy the dwelling unit with a bona
fide intent to make the dwelling unit their primary residence.
a. A claim by the City that a person is not an owner occupant may be rebutted only by
documentation, submitted to the Community and Economic Development Department, showing
such person has a bona fide intent to make the dwelling unit his or her primary residence. Such
intent shall be shown by:
(1) Documents for any loan presently applicable to the property where the dwelling unit is
located which name the person as a borrower;
(2) Tax returns which show the person has claimed income, deductions, or depreciation from
the property;
(3) Rental documents and agreements with any tenant who occupies the dwelling unit,
including an accessory apartment;
(4) Insurance, utility, appraisal, or other contractual documents related to the property which
name the person as the property owner; and
(5) Documents which show the person is a full-time resident of Utah for Utah State income tax
purposes.
b. Any person who fails, upon request of the Community and Economic Development Department,
to provide any of the documents set forth in Subsections 3a of this definition or who provides a
document showing that ownership of a dwelling unit is shared among persons who do not all
occupy the dwelling unit shall mean for the purpose of this Title that such person shall not be

1
Definitions will be inserted in Chapter 21A.62, Definitions, of the current zoning code. The definition of, dwelling, single-family is used intentionally in this
section to exclude mobile homes, travel homes, and temporary housing to qualify as the principal dwelling for the purposes of accessory unit on the same lot.

Salt Lake City 4
June 2011
4. The provisions of Subsection 3 of this definition shall apply to any person who began a period of
owner occupancy after July 1, 2011, regardless of when the person purchased the property.
E. STANDARDS
Accessory dwelling units shall conform to the following purpose statement and requirements:
1. Purpose. These design and development standards are intended to ensure that accessory dwelling
units are:
a. Compatible with the desired character and livability of the residential zoning districts;
c. Compatible with the general building scales and placement of structures to allow sharing of
common space on the lot, such as yards and driveways; and
2. General Requirements.
a. Owner-occupied Property Required. Accessory dwelling units shall only be permitted when
the property owner lives on the property within either the principal dwelling or accessory
dwelling unit. Owner occupancy shall not be required when:
(1) The owner has a bona fide, temporary absence of three (3) years or less for activities
such as military service, temporary job assignments, sabbaticals, or voluntary service
(indefinite periods of absence from the dwelling shall not qualify for this exception), or
(2) The owner is placed in a hospital, nursing home, assisted living facility or other similar
facility that provides regular medical care, excluding retirement living facilities or
communities.
b. Deed Restriction. A lot approved for development with an accessory dwelling unit shall have
a deed restriction, the form of which shall be approved by the City Attorney, filed with the
county recorders office indicating such owner-occupied requirement of the property prior to
issuance of a final certificate of occupancy for the accessory dwelling unit by the city. Such
deed restriction shall run with the land until the accessory dwelling unit is abandoned or
revoked.
c. One per Lot. One accessory dwelling unit is permitted per residential lot.
d. Underlying Zoning Applies. Unless specifically provided otherwise in this section, accessory
dwelling units are subject to the regulations for a principal building of the underlying zoning
district with regard to lot and bulk standards, such as building and wall height, setbacks, yard
requirements, and building coverage.
(1) The requirements of Section 21A.40.050, Accessory Uses, Buildings, and Structures, which
govern all non-residential accessory structures, do not apply to accessory dwelling units.
(2) Accessory dwelling units may have the same building setbacks as that allowed in the
zoning district for the principal dwelling on the property. An existing accessory structure
whose setbacks do not meet the setback requirements for a dwelling as noted above may
be converted into an accessory dwelling unit but any non-complying setbacks may not
become more non-complying.
e. Existing Development on Lot. A single-family dwelling shall exist on the lot or will be
constructed in conjunction with the accessory dwelling unit.

Salt Lake City 5
June 2011
f. Internal, Attached, or Detached. While accessory dwelling units are allowed only in
conjunction with a principal dwelling on a lot, the unit may be built internal to, attached to, or
as a separate unit detached from the principal dwelling.
g. Minimum Lot Area. Within permissible zoning districts, the minimum lot area required for an
accessory dwelling unit shall be:
(1) Internal. For accessory dwelling units located within the principal single-family structure,
no minimum lot area is required.
(2) Detached. For accessory dwelling units located within a detached structure, a minimum lot
area of 5,000 square feet is required.
(3) Attached. For accessory dwelling units located within an addition to the single-family
structure, no minimum lot area is required.
h. Building Code Compliance. Accessory dwelling units are subject to compliance with current
building code at time of permit approval.
i. Public Utilities. No structure that is not connected to the public water and sanitary sewer
systems shall have an accessory dwelling unit.
j. Multi-Family Districts with Single Family Dwelling on Lot. A lot located within a multi-family
zoning district that is currently built out with a single-family detached dwelling and does not
have the required minimum amount of land to add additional units pursuant to the multifamily
zoning district requirement, one accessory dwelling unit may be permitted.
k. Not a Unit of Density. Accessory dwelling units are not considered a unit of density and
therefore are not included in the density calculation for residential property.
l. Rooming House. Neither dwelling unit may be used as a rooming house as defined by
Section 21A.62.040 of this title.
m. Home Occupations. Home occupations listed in Section 21A36.030 B, Permitted Home
Occupations, may be conducted in an accessory dwelling unit. Those home occupations listed in
this section under Conditional Home Occupations are explicitly not allowed in accessory
dwelling units in order to maintain the residential nature of the dwelling unit.
n. H Historic Preservation Overlay District. Accessory dwelling units located in an H Historic
Preservation Overlay District are subject to the applicable regulations and review processes
of Section 21A.34.020, including the related guidelines and standards as adopted by Salt
Lake City to ensure compatible building and preservation of historic resources.
3. Methods of Creation. An accessory dwelling unit may only be created through one of more of the
following methods:
a. Converting existing living area within a principal structure, such as a basement or attic space;
c. Constructing a new single-family detached dwelling unit structure with an internal or detached
accessory dwelling unit;
d. Converting or adding onto an existing accessory structure on a lot, such as to a garage or
other outbuilding, where no required parking for the principal dwelling is eliminated by the
accessory dwelling unit; and
e. Constructing a new accessory dwelling unit within a separate detached structure in compliance
with applicable lot coverage regulations.
4. Size of Accessory Dwelling Unit. The maximum size of an accessory dwelling unit may be no
more than 50% of the gross square footage of the principal dwelling unit or 650 square feet

Salt Lake City 6
June 2011
whichever is less. The minimum size of an accessory dwelling unit is that size specified and required
by the adopted building code of the city.
5. Ownership. An accessory dwelling unit shall not be sold separately or subdivided from the
principal dwelling unit or lot.
6. Number of Residents. The total number of residents that may reside in an accessory dwelling unit
may not exceed the number that is allowed for a family as defined in Section 21A.62.040,
Definition of Terms.
7. Parking. An accessory dwelling unit that contains a studio or single bedroom, one additional on-
site parking space is required. An accessory dwelling unit that contains two or more bedrooms, two
additional on-site parking spaces is required. The City Transportation Director may approve a
request to waive or modify the dimensions of the accessory dwelling unit parking space upon
finding that the parking requirement for the principal dwelling is met and:
a. Adequate on-street parking in the immediate vicinity is available to serve the accessory
dwelling unit and will not cause congestion in the area; or
b. The accessory dwelling unit is located within mile of a fixed transit line or an arterial street
with a designated bus route.
Additionally, the City Transportation Director may allow tandem parking, within a legal location
behind an existing on-site parking space, to meet the accessory dwelling unit parking requirement
so long as the parking space requirement is met for the principal dwelling.
8. Location of Entrance to Accessory Dwelling Unit.
a. Internal or Attached Units. Accessory dwelling units that are internal to or attached to a
principal dwelling may take access from an existing entrance on a street-facing front faade
of the principal dwelling. No new entrances may be added to the front faade of a principal
dwelling for an accessory dwelling unit unless such access is located at least twenty (20) feet
behind the front faade of the principal dwelling unit.
b. Detached Units. Accessory dwelling units that are detached from the principal dwelling:
(1) May utilize an existing street-facing front faade entrance as long as the entrance is
located a minimum of twenty (20) feet behind the front faade of the principal dwelling,
or install a new entrance to the existing or new detached structure for the purpose of
serving the accessory dwelling unit as long as the entrance is facing the rear or side of lot.
(2) Shall be located no closer than thirty (30) feet from the front property line and shall take
access from an alley when one is present and accessible.
c. Corner Lots. On corner lots, existing entrances on the street-facing sides may be used for an
accessory dwelling unit, but any new entrance shall be located facing toward the rear
property line or interior side yard, or toward the back of the principal dwelling.
d. H Historic Preservation Overlay District. When accessory dwelling units are proposed in an H
Historic Preservation Overlay District, the regulations and design guidelines governing these
properties in Section 21A.34.020 shall take precedence over the location of entrance
provisions above.
e. Side Entrance Exemption. Side entrance for an accessory dwelling unit shall not be subject to
compliance with code 21A.24.010.H Side Entry Buildings of this title.

Salt Lake City 7
June 2011
9. Exterior Design.
a. Within an H Historic Preservation Overlay District. Accessory dwelling units located within an
H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall meet the process, regulations, and applicable
design guidelines in Section 21A.34.020 of this title.
b. Outside H Historic Preservation Overlay District or Historic Landmark Site. Accessory
dwelling units shall be regulated by the following exterior design standards:
(1) The maximum height of a detached accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed the principal
structure.
(2) An accessory dwelling unit shall be designed and constructed to be compatible with the
principal structure.
10. Registration. Accessory dwelling units shall be registered with the city to evaluate whether the
accessory dwelling unit initially meets applicable requirements; to ensure that the accessory
dwelling unit meets health and safety requirements; to ensure that the property owner is aware of
all city regulations governing accessory dwelling units; to ensure that the distribution and location
of accessory dwelling units is known, to assist the City in assessing housing supply and demand;
and to fulfill the Accessory Dwelling Units Purpose Statement listed above. To accomplish this,
property owners seeking to establish an accessory dwelling unit shall comply with the following:
a. Building Permit. Apply for and obtain a building permit for the proposed accessory dwelling
unit, regardless of method of creation;
b. Inspection. Ensure accessory dwelling unit is constructed, inspected, and approved in
compliance with current building code;
c. Business License. Apply for and obtain an annual business license for the accessory dwelling
unit in accordance with the applicable provisions of the city.
11. Occupancy. No accessory dwelling unit shall be occupied until the property owner obtains a
business license for the accessory dwelling unit from the city.

Attachment B
Residential Districts Map
Residential Zoning Districts
Legend
"''''-'''1
i ; City Boundary
.. "._"' ..
_ FR Single Famil y Districts
_ R-1 Single Famil y Districts
_ SR Single Famil y Districts
_ R-2 Singl y and Two-Famil y District
_ RMF Multi -Famil y Districts

Attachment C
Transit Overlay Maps
I
= FrontRunner _ RMF Multi-Famil y Distri cts
I
= FrontRunner _ RMF Multi-Famil y Districts

Attachment D
Sample Illustrations

Attachment E
APA Quicknotes
Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are small, self-contained living units that typically have their own
kitchen, bedroom(s), and bathroom space. Often called granny flats, elder cottage housing opportuni-
ties (ECHO), mother-daughter residences, or secondary dwelling units, ADUs are apartments that can
be located within the walls of an existing or newly constructed single-family home or can be an addi-
tion to an existing home. They can also be freestanding cottages on the same lot as the principal
dwelling unit or a conversion of a garage or barn.
The benefits to the home owner and the ADU occupant are many. For the home owner, ADUs provide
the opportunity to offer an affordable and independent housing option to the owners grown son or
daughter just starting out or to an elderly parent or two who might need a helping hand nearby. The
unit could also be leased to unrelated individuals or newly established families, which would provide
the dual benefit of providing affordable housing to the ADU occupant and supplemental rental
income to the owner. Supplemental income could offset the high cost of a home mortgage, utilities,
and real estate taxes. Finally, leasing an ADU to a young person or family can provide an elderly home
owner with a sense of security and an opportunity to exchange needed work around the house and
yard for a discount on rent.
Despite the benefits, some communities resist allowing ADUs, or allow them only after time-consuming
and costly review procedures and requirements. Public resistance to ADUs usually takes the form of a
perceived concern that they might transform the character of the neighborhood, increase density, add
to traffic, make parking on the street more difficult, increase school enrollment, and put additional pres-
sure on fire and police service, parks, or water and wastewater. However, communities that have allowed
ADUs find that these perceived fears are mostly unfounded or overstated when ADUs are actually built.
ADUs are a particularly desirable option for many communities today considering the current econom-
ic climate, changes in household size, increasing numbers of aging baby boomers, and the shortage of
affordable housing choices. They provide a low-impact way for a community to expand its range of
housing choices.
LOCALITIES AND STATES GET INTOTHE ACT
Towns, cities, and counties across the country have done the right thing by proactively amending local
zoning ordinances to allow ADUs. This is typically done either as a matter of right or as a special or con-
ditional use. In either case, reasonable conditions may be imposed. Some states, including California,
have enacted legislation that limits the ability of localities to zone out ADUs.
In 2001 AARP retained APAs Research Department to write a guidance report for citizens interested in
convincing local and state officials of the benefits of allowing ADUs and showing them how to do it.
Entitled Accessory Dwelling Units: Model State Act and Model Local Ordinance, the monograph provides
alternative statute and ordinance language useful to implementing all forms of ADUs.
The Model Local Ordinance suggests recommendations for communities. Additionally, the intent of the
ordinance describes the permitting process for eligibility and approval, and further outlines standards
for ADU approval pertaining to lot size, occupancy, building standards, parking and traffic, public
health, and how to deal with nonconforming ADUs. The Model State Act provides findings and policies
encouraging the approval of ADUs and names local governments as the entities entitled to authorize
Planning fundamentals
for public officials and
engaged citizens
Towns, cities, and
counties across the
country have done
the right thing by
proactively
amending local
zoning ordinances
to allow ADUs.
OUICKNOTES
This PAS QuickNotes was prepared by APA
research staff with contributions from
Elisa L. Paster and Evan D. Fieldman,
associates at the Paul Hastings law firm.
For a complete list of references visit
http://www.planning.org/pas/quicknotes/
REFERENCES
1. Published by American
Planning Association
American Planning Association. Affordable
Housing Reader: Articles from Zoning
News and Zoning Practice. Available at
http://myapa.planning.org/affordableread
er (members-only access).
American Planning Association. 2006.
Policy Guide on Housing. Chicago: American
Planning Association. Available at
www.planning.org/policy/guides/pdf/hou
sing.pdf.
Baggett, Sharon, Nancy Chapman, and
Deborah Howe. 1994. Planning for an
Aging Society. Planning Advisory Service
Report no. 451. Chicago: American
Planning Association.
For more information on this topic visit
www.planning.org.
adoption of an ADU statute. It specifies
the limits to which local governments
may prohibit ADUs and outlines
default permitting provisions if a locali-
ty does not adopt an ADU ordinance.
It details optional approaches for
adopting ADU ordinances, certifying
local ADU ordinances, gathering data
on ADU efforts, preparing reports and
recommendations, and forming a
statewide board overseeing ADUs.
WHAT ISSUES ARISE WHEN A
PROPOSED ADU ORDINANCE
IS CONSIDERED?
ADU ordinances offer a variety of ben-
efits to local communities but the road
to implementation may not be an
easy process. While ADUs are more
widely accepted now than in years
past, skeptics still remain and some still
oppose ADU zoning. The following
describes some issues or decision
points that communities must address
in order to successfully navigate the
perilous waters of public acceptance.
The approach that is right for your city
or town will be unique, based on local
physical, political, social, and economic conditions.
By-right Permitting. Should permits for ADUs be issued as a matter of right (with clear standards
built into the ordinance) or should they be allowed by discretion as a special or conditional use after
a public hearing?
Occupancy. Should ordinance language allow an ADU only on the condition that the owner of the
property lives in one of the units?
Form of Ownership. Should the ordinance prohibit converting the ADU unit into a condominium?
Preexisting, nonconforming ADUs. How should the ordinance treat grandfathered ADUs? How
do you treat illegal apartments that want to apply for an ADU permit?
Unit Size: Should the ordinance limit the square footage of the ADU to assure that the unit is truly
accessory to the principal dwelling on the property?
Adequacy of Water and Sewer Services. How do you guarantee there is enough capacity in
sewer lines, pumping stations, and treatment facilities to accommodate ADUs?
These are not easy issues. However, communities would do well to seriously consider adopting an
approach that: allows ADUs by right with clear written conditions; does not require owner occupan-
cy; prohibits condominium ownership on the basis that a condo could not be considered accessory;
provides a simple procedure for legalizing preexisting or formerly illegal apartments provided the
unit is inspected; provides a generous size standard; and provides a water and sewer adequacy stan-
dard.
PAS QuickNotes is a publication of the American Planning Association's Planning Advisory Service (PAS). Copyright 2009. Visit
PAS online at www.planning.org/pas to find out how PAS can work for you. American Planning Association staff: W. Paul
Farmer, FAICP, Executive Director and CEO; William R. Klein, AICP, Director of Research and Advisory Services; Tre Jerdon,
QuickNotes Editor; Tim Mennel, Senior Editor; Julie Von Bergen, Assistant Editor; Susan Deegan, Senior Graphic Designer.
Page 2
Single story ADU floor plan.
D
a
v
i
d
B
a
k
e
r
a
n
d
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s

Attachment F
News Article: Seattle Looks to Cottages
Seattle Looks to Cottages for Affordable Housing
Cities are struggling to increase residential density without destroying single-family
neighborhoods. That could mean the return of the backyard cottage.
Zach Patton | May 2011
Its chilly, gray and raining.
In other words, its an utterly unremarkable spring day in Seattle, as the citys urban planning supervisor
Mike Podowski pulls up to a home in the Columbia City neighborhood southeast of downtown. The
large clapboard-and-cedar house is a charming two-story Craftsman, but Podowskis not interested.
Instead, he makes a beeline for a freestanding structure in the backyard. This is great! he says, as the
homeowner ushers him through a gate. Its an ideal set-up.
Podowski has come to check in on one of Seattles fastest-growing new modes of housing: the
backyard cottage. Since 2006, the city has allowed homeowners to build stand-alone cottages
officially known as detached accessory dwelling unitsbehind existing single-family homes. At first,
the zoning change only applied to a few neighborhoods on the citys south side, including Columbia
City. But in November 2009, Seattle expanded the pilot program throughout the city, to any residential
lot of at least 4,000 square feet. In the 18 months following the expansion, 57 backyard cottages have
been permitted, and roughly 50 of those are either completed or nearly finished.
Like other mid-size cities that came of age in the first few decades of the 20th century, Seattle is made
up largely of compact neighborhoods filled with single-family bungalows. Today, almost two-thirds of
the city is zoned for single-family homes, so its harder for Seattle to accommodate its growing
populationthe city swelled from 563,374 residents in 2000 to 608,660 last yearwithout spreading
farther and farther into the forests of the Pacific Northwest. Thats partly why the city saw backyard
cottages as an attractive new alternative, a way to add affordable housing options without a wholesale
redesign of the citys signature neighborhoods.
These structures are small: Seattles code limits them to a footprint of 800 square feet, and they max
out at 22 feet tall. Construction costs typically range from $50,000 to $80,000, although more elaborate
units can cost upward of $140,000 to build. Some homeowners use the freestanding cottages as home
offices, or as extra room for when relatives visit. Others are building them as in-law apartments for
aging parents, or as crash pads for post-college children who cant yet afford their own place. But a
large number of homeowners are actually renting the cottages to tenants. (City law requires that the
homeowners live on the property at least six months out of the year.) In some cases, the owners
themselves have moved into the backyard cottage in order to rent out the larger house facing the
street.
Seattle isnt alone in its experiment with accessory dwelling units (ADUs). Localities everywhere from
California to Minnesota to Massachusetts are re-examining their zoning laws and considering the role
that ADUs can play in the makeup of their urban design. To be sure, there are plenty of critics who say
backyard cottages are a bad idea, that renting out tiny apartments to strangers will destroy the
character of a neighborhood. Were seeing both a continued resistance to [ADUs], but also a
recognition that they provide a level of moderately priced housing, says John McIlwain, a senior
housing fellow at the Urban Land Institute. The growing driver, he says, are elderly parents who cant
afford nursing care, or who simply would rather age in place with their families. Thats hard for a
community to rally against, he says. And once you cross that threshold, its hard to exclude other uses
for backyard cottages. Were going to be seeing a lot more of this style of housing in the next several
years.
Backyard cottages are actually a throwback. Stand-alone in-law apartments, or granny flats, were
common neighborhood features a century ago when multiple generations of a family lived together. By
the 1950s, however, Americans were decamping for the suburbs, pursuing the dream of a single-family
home on a large tract of land. Many urban zoning codes of the second half of the century essentially
banned the construction of new backyard cottages.
But as attitudes toward urban density have shifted in recent yearsand as affordable housing has
become scarce in many placesmore and more cities have reconsidered the granny flat as an
important part of a neighborhood. Portland, Ore., and Santa Cruz, Calif., both have strong backyard
cottage programs. Chicago and Madison, Wis., have considered relaxing their prohibitions against
ADUs. Denver last summer revamped its entire city zoning code and now permits stand-alone ADUs in
certain neighborhoods. California in 2003 passed landmark legislation essentially forcing localities to
allow ADUs. (However, because cities were allowed to design restrictions as narrowly as they wanted,
the law hasnt had as much impact as it could have. Pasadena, for example, only allows ADUs on lots
larger than 15,000 square feet, and mandates that an ADU have its own two-car garage. Only one
backyard cottage has been built in Pasadena since the 2003 law took effect.)
Not everyone is pleased. Critics say the additional residents put a crunch on available street parking.
Some neighbors worry about privacy with a two-story cottage looming just over the property line. But
the biggest concern tends to be the notion that allowing backyard rental cottages will irrevocably
change the feel of a neighborhood. While Seattle was debating the cottages in 2009, one real estate
agent called the citys proposal a de facto rezone of the entire city, adding, There will no longer be
single-family neighborhoods in Seattle.
Podowski acknowledges that vocal objections from some critics made it challenging to get the
legislation passed. People are very protective of their single-family neighborhoods, and they werent
sure this was something that was going to fit in.
But after the citys three-year experiment with ADUs in the southeast part of town, Podowskis office
conducted a survey of residents living near a permitted backyard cottage to gauge the impact the units
had on neighborhoods. What the city found was something of a surprise. Eighty-four percent of the
respondents said the ADUs hadnt had any discernible impact on parking or traffic. Whats more, most
people didnt even know they lived near an ADU, says Podowski. More than half of them didnt even
realize there was a unit next door. It really helped us to show that a lot of the fears people had about
these were not going to be realized.
That positive feedback helped encourage the city to expand ADU zoning citywide. Council members
also eliminated a cap on the number of backyard cottages that could be built in the city, and they
rejected a proposed dispersion requirement, which would have limited the number of ADUs in a given
neighborhood. The city prepared a design guide for homeowners, tips on being a good landlord and
ideas for how to best respect neighbors privacy. Since then, the 57 new permits for backyard cottages
number in the ballpark of what the city had predicted, says Podowski, and theyre evenly spread in
neighborhoods across Seattle.
To hear Podowski tell it, the benefits of an ADU are relatively prosaic: Theyre good for aging parents,
or the rental income can help offset a homeowners mortgage. But in some ways, backyard cottages
represent a bigger shift than that. Cities are struggling with, How on earth do you increase density in a
suburban neighborhood of single-family homes? says Witold Rybczynski, an urbanism professor at
the University of Pennsylvania and the author of Makeshift Metropolis and other books on urban
planning. The backyard cottage is an easy first step toward densification, he says. Unlike high-rise
residential towers or even mid-rise apartment buildings, Rybczynski says, backyard cottages are an
effective way to increase density without a radical change in neighborhood standards. With the twin
challenges of accommodating an aging population and providing diverse housing options to an ever-
growing pool of residents, an increasing number of cities may find a solution right in their own
backyards.
This article was printed from: http://www.governing.com/seattle-looks-cottages-affordable-housing-options.html

Attachment G
Dr. Arthur C. Nelson PowerPoint
6/17/2011
1
Todays lesson
Accessory Dwelling Units Accessory Dwelling Units
Arthur C. Nelson, Ph.D. FAICP
P id ti l P f Presidential Professor
University of Utah
Changing Household Size
Year
SLC
HHSize
US
HHSize Year HH Si e HH Si e
1950 3.38 3.40
1960 3.29 3.29
1070 2.93 3.10
1980 2.60 2.76
1990 2.33 2.63
2000 2.48 2.59
2
2010 2.50 2.58
6/17/2011
2
Salt Lake City Households
Household Number Share
TotalHH 72k
FamilyHH 38k 53%
SingleHH 26k 37%
NonfamilyHH 8k 11%
3
Source:AmericanCommunitySurvey200709.Excludesgroupquarters.
Salt Lake City Households
by Tenure
HHType Rent
Family 34%
Single 54%
Nonfamily 64%
4
Source:AmericanCommunitySurvey200709.Excludesgroupquarters.
6/17/2011
3
People Turning 65 Each Year
[Figures in 000s]
4000
4500
2500
3000
3500
Source: USCensusBureau 65+intheUnitedStates:2005;WanHe,ManishaSengupta,VictoriaA.Velkoff,&KimberlyADeBarros.December2005.
1000
1500
2000
1
9
5
0
1
9
5
5
1
9
6
0
1
9
6
5
1
9
7
0
1
9
7
5
1
9
8
0
1
9
8
5
1
9
9
0
1
9
9
5
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
5
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
5
2
0
2
0
2
0
2
5
Multi-Generational Households
25
30
o
l
d

S
h
a
r
e
15
20
25
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

H
o
u
s
e
h
o
1900
1910
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2008
Year
10
M
u
l
t
i
-
g
Source:AdaptedfromTheReturnoftheMultiGenerationalFamilyHousehold (Pew) by
ArthurC.Nelson,PresidentialProfessor&DirectorofMetropolitanResearch,Univ.ofUtah.
6/17/2011
4
Change in HHs 2010-2020
LowHigh
Source: JohnMcIlwain,ULI,2010
Buy-Sell Rates by Age Cohort
AHS
9.0
10.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
Buy Rate
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
20-
24
25-
29
30-
34
35-
39
40-
44
45-
49
50-
54
55-
59
60-
64
65-
69
70-
74
75-
79
80+
Sell Rate
Source: DowellMyers&SungHo Ryu,AgingBabyBoomersandtheGenerationalHousingBubble:ForesightandMitigationofanEpic
6/17/2011
5
1. 20
1. 60
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
l
a
s
k
a
W
y
o
m
i
n
g
M
o
n
t
a
n
a
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
H
a
w
a
i
i
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o
O
r
e
g
o
n
U
t
a
h
I
d
a
h
o
N
e
w

M
e
x
i
c
o
A
r
i
z
o
n
a
N
e
v
a
d
a
M
i
c
h
i
g
a
n
I
n
d
i
a
n
a
I
l
l
i
n
o
i
s
O
h
i
o
W
i
s
c
o
n
s
i
n
N
o
r
t
h

D
a
k
o
t
a
I
o
w
a
M
i
n
n
e
s
o
t
a
N
e
b
r
a
s
k
a
K
a
n
s
a
s
S
o
u
t
h

D
a
k
o
t
a
L
o
u
i
s
i
a
n
a
W
e
s
t

V
i
r
g
i
n
i
a
V
i
r
g
i
n
i
a
M
i
s
s
o
u
r
i
K
e
n
t
u
c
k
y
A
l
a
b
a
m
a
M
i
s
s
i
s
s
i
p
p
i
T
e
x
a
s
O
k
l
a
h
o
m
a
G
e
o
r
g
i
a
T
e
n
n
e
s
s
e
e
N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
A
r
k
a
n
s
a
s
S
o
u
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
F
l
o
r
i
d
a
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
c
u
t
N
e
w

Y
o
r
k
R
h
o
d
e

I
s
l
a
n
d
P
e
n
n
s
y
l
v
a
n
i
a
M
a
r
y
l
a
n
d
M
a
i
n
e
N
e
w

J
e
r
s
e
y
M
a
s
s
a
c
h
u
s
e
t
V
e
r
m
o
n
t
N
e
w

H
D
e
WES MI DWES SOUT NORTHEA
Buy
0. 00
0. 40
0. 80
BUY BUY
SELL SELL
THEGREATSENIORSELL THEGREATSENIORSELLOFF OFF
- 1. 20
- 0. 80
- 0. 40
S
M
Sel
Source: DowellMyers&SungHo Ryu,AgingBabyBoomersandtheGenerationalHousingBubble:ForesightandMitigationofanEpic
Transition,JournaloftheAmericanPlanningAssociation 74(1):117(2007).Figuresfornetbuyingorsellingrateage.
SELL SELL
Relocation Choices of Seniors
Before Move After Move
Rental 20% 59%
Source: Arthur C. Nelson based on analysis of American Housing Survey 2005, 2007, 2009.
New movers means moved in past five years. Annual senior movers are about 3% of all senior
households; 60%+ of all seniors will change housing type between ages 65 and 85.
6/17/2011
6
New Housing Market Realities
Sub-prime mortgages are history.
20% d t ill b l 20% down-payments will become normal
But only 1/3
rd
of HHs paid 20%+ down
Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac are history.
Meaning
Smaller homes maybe more people per unit
Smaller lots more attached units
More renters including doubled-up renters
QRM (as in squirm)
Qualified Residential Mortgage
Lenders will need a 5% reserve Lenders will need a 5% reserve.
20% minimum down payment
Only FHA-backed lending for low down
payments.
Anyone with a 60 day delinquency in their Anyone with a 60 day delinquency in their
credit history in past 2 years will not
qualify for a QRM.
6/17/2011
7
Effect of Higher Down Payment?
Percentofpurchaseprice Percent Cumulative
Nodownpayment 14% 14%
Lessthan3percent 8% 22%
35percent 12% 34%
610percent 16% 50%
1115percent 6% 56%
1620percent 13% 69%
2140percent 13% 82%
4199percent 7% 90%
Boughtoutright 10% 100%
Source:AdaptedbyArthurC.NelsonfromAmericanHousingSurvey2009(2010)
Life-Stage Flexibility
Needed
14
Source:GraphicbyRyanSullivan.http://nwrenovation.com/greenremodeling/accessory
dwellingunits%E2%80%94cangrannyflatssavetheworld/
6/17/2011
8
An Accessory Dwelling Unit is a secondary
housing unit on the same property as a main
id
What is an ADU?
residence.
ADUs are also called accessory apartments,
in-law apartments, family apartments, or
secondary units, granny flats, etc.
ADUs are not duplexes: p
ADU is subsidiary to the main residence
Owner of ADU usually lives on the property
ADUs are self-contained
Why consider an ADU Option?
Shrinking household size
Rising real estate costs
Aging population
Neighborhood stability
Character of neighborhoods
Environmental benefits
6/17/2011
9
Public ADU Benefits
Increases tax revenues
Minimizes subsidies for affordable
units
Maximizes use of existing
infrastructure and services
Keeps growing/aging families together
Preserves existing housing/historic
structures
Promotes safer and stable neighborhoods
Private ADU Benefits
Homeowners rental income
Local businesses employee housing
Real estate firms rental stock
Residential contractors remodeling g
Lending institutions home
improvement loans
6/17/2011
10
Who typically builds ADUs?
Older singles/couples Older singles/couples
Middle-aged "empty nesters"
Younger singles/couples
Single working parents g g p
People who travel often
Apartments in single-family homes
How and where are ADUs built?
Apartments in single-family homes
Additions to homes
Conversion of garages/secondary
structures
Free-standing cottages Free-standing cottages
Designed into new construction
6/17/2011
11
21
Summary of ADU Benefits
Creates new housing using existing
infrastructure and services infrastructure and services
Reduces energy consumption
Generates community economic
development
Reduces costs for the elderly Reduces costs for the elderly
Preserves housing stock and
neighborhood stability
6/17/2011
12
US ADU Household Market
All 65+
Householdswith HHs HHs
Relativesotherthanspouse/children 21% 16%
Nonrelatives 10% 5%
Totalotherrelativesornonrelatives 31% 21%
23
Source:AmericanHousingSurveyfor2009.
Salt Lake City ADU
Demand 2030?
250 000 Population 250,000 Population
100,000 Households
50,000 Single & Nonfamily HHs
30,000 Demand for ADU-like options
~2-sq mi of land saved from development ~2-sq. mi. of land saved from development
~$100M saved from new infrastructure
24
6/17/2011
13
25
TODs and Energy Consumption
55%
57%
Source:AdaptedfromJonathanRoseCompanies(2011)forEPA.
57%
60%

Attachment H
Public Input Chronology and Notes
Public Input Chronology
December 2009 General Information about Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) in Urbanusthe
monthly Planning Division e-newsletter
December 2009 Fact sheet and draft ordinance posted to Planning Division website
December 17, 2009 Open House: all people on ListServe notified of open house, including all
community council chairs
July 1, 2010 Second article about ADUs in Urbanusthe monthly Planning Division e-
newsletter
July 14, 2010 Focus Group: Clarion met with Focus Group made up of community council
chairs, citizens, housing builders and housing advocates
July 15, 2010 Open House / Public Forum at Salt Lake City Library conducted by Clarion
Associates
September 1, 2010 Open City Hall forum began (20 comments as of November 4, 2010)
September 2, 2010 Presented information to Community Council Chairs at Mayors breakfast
meeting with Community Council Chairs
September 16, 2010 Presented information at Salt Lake Network meeting
October 21, 2010 Public Forum City Hall
October 27, 2010 Wasatch Hollow Community Council
November 10, 2010 Planning Commission Work Session
December 9, 2010 Planning Commission Briefing. Clarion Associates and Mayor Becker attended
meeting
January 5, 2011 Presentation to the Utah Housing Coalition
February 3, 2011 Presented information to Community Council Chairs at Mayors breakfast
meeting with Community Council Chairs
February 9, 2011 Presentation at the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board Meeting
February 17, 2011 Presentation at Housing Trust Fund Board Lunch
February 17, 2011 Open House: all people on ListServe notified of open house, including all
community council chairs
February 22, 2011 Presentation at the Mayor's Accessible Services Advisory Council.
February 23, 2011 Planning Commission Work Session
March 2, 2011 Historic Landmark Commission Work Session
March 23, 2011 Planning Commission Public Hearing
June 8, 2011 Planning Commission Briefing by Dr. Arthur C. Nelson, University of Utah
June 22, 2011 Planning Commission Public Hearing

ADU Focus Group
July 14, 2010

Present:
Cindy Cromer-Property Owner/ Landlord
Roger Borgenicht- Assist
Phil Carlson- Sugar House Community Council Chair
Gordon Storrs- Fairpark Community Council Chair
Phil Carroll- Community Housing Services and Avenues Community Council member
Bob Lund- NeighborWorks
Sonya Martinez-Community Action Program
Francisca Blanc- Utah Housing Corporation
Justin Allen- Salt Lake Board of Realty
Paul Smith- Utah Apartment Association
Annalisa Steggell Holcombe- Westminster College
Michael Michaffey- Contractor
Arla Funk- Landlord and East Central Community Council member
Richard Welch- Garbett Homes

Staff
Cheri Coffey- Planning Staff
Joyce Algiers- Clarion Associates
Chris Duerkson-Clarion Associates

Questions and Comments
Richard Welch. The Accessory Structure with Dwelling Unit on Capitol Hill that was built by Bryson
Garbett is much bigger than proposal would allow. It is basically a carriage house for the Wolfe Mansion.
The regulation should allow the ADU to be larger if lot and structure can handle it. Requirement for a
setback of a garage versus a setback for a residential setback is conflicting. The setback for the garage is
too much (has to be within 5 feet of rear yard setback).
Cheri Coffey- Should we only require a duplex to have a minimum of 6,000 square feet like we used to
have, rather than the minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet that was put in place with the 1995 Zoning
Rewrite Project?
Phil Carlson- SHMP policy supports ADUs. The requirement for owner occupancy is important. Many
ADUs already exist.
Roger Borgenicht- The owner occupancy regulation is good to help manage problems but what if owner
moves. Parking is not an issue. Do not pave more of the lot. Just allow them to park on street. Benefit of
ADUs is that it provides more eyes in the neighborhood. Privacy in backyard may be an issue. Require
them to be built so they dont overlook the neighbors. (Regulate where windows can be, etc.)
Michael Michaffey- Parking is an issue in Avenues and Sugar House. Should allow parking in front of
the front wall of the house. Current regulations require the parking to be located behind the front wall of
the house.
Analissa Steggell Holcombe. It is good to have more housing options near the college. Young
professionals (staff, faculty of college, etc) like to live near the college. An ADU would minimize the
price of housing and allow them to reduce their commute times. Owner occupied-The regulation may
not work well. Good landlords can result in the same benefit that an owner occupied rental would have
(solving problems quickly).
Arla Funk- The timing of the proposal is inappropriate. There currently are a lot of vacant apartments.
Dont believe that everyone in an R-1 zone should be able to have an ADU. If you want to have two
family, just rezone to R-2 and call them duplexes. Allowing a two story garage with ADU for a single-
story home is conflicting. Dont allow Conditional Home Occupations where someone can come to the
home. That would only increase the disturbance in the neighborhood. Dont allow someone to convert
more than 650 square feet to an ADU. You need to specify a minimum size. You need to be very specific
because enforcement doesnt work. Being able to address problems will be very difficult.
Gordon Storrs- There are many benefits to ADUs: they increase housing options, keep people in the
neighborhood, allows elderly to stay in the neighborhood. Allow younger married kids to get help when
they are just starting out (help from parents); strengthens families and increases owner occupancy. How
do you maintain an ADU if the owner sells the property (what happens to the tenant? Increases
permanent housing in the City. Allow ADUs to be built within one foot of rear yards. The size should be
geared to the size of the lot. Some lots are really deep. Allowing a use like this would help clean up rear
yards that now are so deep, they just are unkempt.
Paul Smith- Agrees with the requirement for owner occupancy. Landlords want to be good neighbors.
One bedroom u7nits are hard to rent. May have a saturated market of one bedroom units. If they have
more than one bedroom, you should require more parking. ADUs should be licensed.
Justin Allen- The requirement for owner occupancy will be difficult because the owner may need to sell
the property. Encourage them to be located near transit / streetcar. Good landlord program is a good idea.
It may help with enforcement.
Francisca Blanc. We support ADUs as an affordable housing type in single family neighborhoods. Utah
Housing Corporation focuses more on multi-family. ADUs should be licensed to protect tenants.
Perhaps you could have a pilot program relating to parking. If they are located near TRAX they arent
required to have parking. If not located near TRAX, they would need to met a parking requirement.
Sonya Martinez. CAPs focus is on low income population. They support more choices for affordable
housing. They support requiring a license for the units. They want to ensure they are inspected. They
support allowing the owner to live in the ADU with the rental unit being the primary unit. They believe
there needs to be some type of tenant protection. Allow the lease to transfer with the property if it is sold.
What happens if the property goes in to foreclosure?
Bob Lund- Large lots present a good opportunity for ADUs. Must address issues with how the ADU is
placed on the lot to address privacy, egress windows etc. Must ensure they meet some type of health,
safety code.
Cindy Cromer- ADUs should be allowed where they are served by fixed mass transit. Requiring a license
for single family and two family dwellings is being reviewed. The City is bad at enforcement. Allow
more units when they are zoned multi-family but are on small lots that wouldnt otherwise allow for an
additional unit. How does this relate to the Unit legalization process? How does it relate to compatible
infill regulations? How do you enforce on ADUs if the criteria is not met? Need to allow these
incrementally. Create a pilot program to see how it works. Try it in areas where the master plan supports
it, near transit, and historic districts (as an incentive). ADUs will compete with landlords who are trying
to rent small units in multi-family buildings.
Phil Carroll- All rental units, including ADUs should be licensed. They should all meet minimum
standards for health and safety. All ADUs should be accessible. Allow the person who develops these to
determine how big they should be. Some larger units you cant rent. A two bedroom, two bath unit is
usually 1100 square foot minimum. Need to overcome issues / problems with rental houses.
AccessoryDwellingUnits:
MayorsMonthlyMeetingwithCommunityCouncilChairs
September1,2010
Comments:
JudiShortSugarHouseLandUseChairHowareyougoingtoaddressenforcementofillegalunits.Itis
alreadyanissueandtheCitysenforcementisnotadequate.
ChristianHarrisonDowntownChairTherequirementtohaveoffstreetparkingisnotsquarewiththe
goalsofthetransportationtoencouragewalkingandothernonprivateautomobileformsofcirculation.
ChristianHarrisonDowntownChairAsaphaseIIforADUs,youshouldallowthemasCondossoit
addressesDowntownHousing.Sometimesyoumaybuytwounits,combinethemandthenseparate
themagaintoallowforasmallerunit(motherinlawetc.)
PhilCarlsonSugarHouseChair(Imnotsureifhesaidtheregulationsforparkingareok,orifitisokif
peopleparkonthestreet.
JimJenkinAvenuesChairintheSR1A,thereisarestrictiononheightforaccessorystructures.The
reasonforthisisthatyoudonthavearighttohaveyouraccessorystructureimpactyourneighborfrom
aprivacyissue.Therefore,youwouldntbeabletohaveaunitoveragarage.Howdoyouaddressthat?
BillDavisBallparkChairThereshouldbedesignguidelinesforAccessoryDwellingUnits.TheCityneeds
tomovemoretowardsdesignguidelines.
ChristianHarrisonDowntownChair;TheCityneedsdesignguidelinesandreviewinareasotherthan
justinhistoricdistricts.
EstherHunter;EastCentralChairTherearealotofillegalunitsinEastCentral.Thereneedstobe
criteriaforparking.Thereisalotoftransitintheareabutpeopledontuseit.Theynowaddressthe
lackofparkingintheareawith45degreeonstreetparking.HowdoestheTransportationDivision
decideifthereisenoughparkingonthewholeblock.Someuseswerebuiltwithoutparkingandarent
requiredtohaveitbuttheirlackofparking,impactsthewholeblockandtheonstreetparkingisused
forthoseusesthatareunderparked.
OtherEastCentralGuy?Ifyouallowonstreetparkingtomeettherequirementandyoucantparkon
thestreetformorethan72hoursatatime,whatdoyoudowithyourcarwhenyougoonvacation?
Howdosmallerlotsdealwiththis?TherearemanylotsinEastCentralthathavebackalleys.Ideally,
youwouldputtheADUbacktherebutifthelotistoosmall,canyoustilldoit?
HowdoesthisrelatetoUnitLegalization?

INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
Office of the Mayor
TO: Mayor Ralph Becker
FROM: Michael Stott, ADA Coordinator, on behalf of The Accessibility
Services Advisory Council (ASAC)
SUBJECT: Recommendation on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) in the
Sustainability Initiative
DATE: February 22, 2011
CC: David Everitt; Karen Hale; Cheri Coffey; Michael Maloy
BACKGROUND
On January 25, 2011, the Accessibility Services Advisory Council (ASAC), an
advisory council to the mayor on disability and accessibility issues in Salt Lake City
government, recommended the following to Mayor Becker:
ASAC recommends that City staff and decision-makers involved in
the sustainability initiative evaluate various alternatives with
consideration for how people with various types of disabilities
(including but not limited to physical, cognitive, and sensory
disabilities) will be able to participate in or benefit from the solutions
implemented. We recommend incorporating to the extent possible
principles of universal design and visitability to the benefit of not only
the disability community but to people of all types of ability ranging
from infants riding in strollers to senior citizens interested in aging in
place. ASAC encourages and strongly recommends the assurance that
ADA compliance be met and even exceeded in addressing all
applicable focus areas of the sustainability initiative. ASAC will review
the sustainability initiative in greater detail to determine if there are any
opportunities for constructive feedback and specific suggestions.

2
RECOMMENDATION
On February 22, 2011, ASAC voted and unanimously approved the following specific
recommendation to Mayor Ralph Becker and others involved in the sustainability
initiative:
Housing that is accessible should be an important consideration in the effort to
promote a diverse and sustainable housing stock in Salt Lake City. In order to
increase the availability of accessible housing in Salt Lake City, ASAC recommends
incorporating a new concept called Accessible ADUs into the Accessory Dwelling
Units ordinance in the following ways:
1. Add the following size exception for Accessible ADUs: For ADUs that
are visitable (that have a no-step entry, adequate doorways, and a usable
bathroom) and that have accessible living quarters, an exception would be
granted on the maximum size of the ADU. For example, an additional 150
sqft could be added on top of the 50% or 650 sqft maximum size rule,
resulting in a maximum size of 50% plus 150 sqft or 800 sqft, whichever is
less. (The additional amount of 150 sqft seems reasonable to ASAC but the
amount is negotiable.)
a. Visitability Features:
i. No-Step Entry: The dwelling unit can be accessed without
having to step up or down.
ii. Adequate Doorways: 32 clear opening, low threshold of
step or ramp
iii. Usable Bathroom: 30 x 48 clear space (outside of the door
swing space) within the bathroom
b. Accessible Living Quarters: A bedroom or sleeping area can be
accessed without having to step up or down.
2. Modify the Permit Allocation section in the ordinance as follows: Require
that 20% of the maximum allowable number of ADU permits per year be
Accessible ADUs that meet the Accessible ADU requirements. For
example, 20% of the maximum 25 permits per year would mean that 5 out of
25 permits would be reserved for Accessible ADUs and not more than 20
ADUs that are not accessible would be permitted that year.
ORION GOF"F' f"RANK 8. eRAY
DEPARTMe:NT OF" COMMUNITY & ECONOMI C DEVE:l .. OPMENT
BLJILD IN G SI!:AVIC8 CIVIB I ON
OIH'I!; CTOII:
MARY OE L.A MARE-SCHAEF"ER
DEP UTY
ROBERT FARRINGTON, .JR.
D EPUTV OUH!:CTOR
March 10, 2011
During the monthly Housing Advisory & Appeals Board meeting held on March 9, 2011, the HAAB
unanimously voted that the following concernS shoul d be taken into consideration regarding the
Accessory Dwelling Unit Initi ative.
1. Neighborhood issues are, infrastructure's abi lity to handle additional density. parking, a lack of market
demand and change of neighborhood character.
2. More Information should be compiled from other cities regarding the success of their ADU programs.
3. Parking issues should be addressed in the ordinance to meet tile needs of the neighborhoods.
4. Limit ADU's to certain zoning districts. Also limit ADU's to a specific number during the test period.
5. Exactly what cOnstitutes owner occupied? This is especiall y relevant due to the complexi ties of
ownership such as LLC's, trusts, partnerships etc. Criteria should be established that would be used
to substantiate the owner occupied status and to assist in any enforcement action that may become
necessary.
6. Consider allowing ADU's in multi -famil y 20ning districts first.
7. The ADU initiative should address the area master plan.
During the same meeting the HAAB unanimously voted their support for the Proposed Housing Diversity
Sustainabl lity Ordinance, provided there is a mix of housing types in multi-fami ly housi ng developments.
However a specific number of each type of unit should not be mandated. Instead the ordinance should
be more market responsive. The ordinance should also address the need for open space and other
amenities near more dense housing developments.
Sincerely, l ---' /
jJ)li U---//l -Ji d J'-'
Diana Hansen, Secretary
Housing Advisory and Appeals Board
45 1 S OUTH STATE: 8 TREE'l' , ROOM . 106\ ':' 0 BOX SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 14'!S 4 13 1
TELEPHONE: 00 80 1' 535' 6 I 3 I
WWW. S LCOClv.CClM
* ... ....

Attachment I
Public Comments
Dwelling Units?
Public comments as of June 13, 2011, 4:39 PM
All Participants Around Salt Lake City
As with any public comment process, participation in Open City Hall is voluntary. The statements in this record are not
necessarily representative of the whole population, nor do they reflect the opinions of any government agency or elected
officials.
Dwelling Units?
Introduction
As part of the Sustainability Code Amendment Project, the Planning Division is currently working with
Clarion Associates to propose regulations which would allow accessory dwelling units in Salt Lake
City. The Planning Division is currently working to obtain public feedback on the proposed
regulations prior to scheduling a public hearing with the Planning Commission. The proposed
regulations would be a text amendment to the Citys Zoning Ordinance.
Page 1 of 15 Public comments as of June 13, 2011, 4:39 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/512
Dwelling Units?
Total: 0
As with any public comment process, participation in Open City Hall is voluntary. The statements in this record are not
necessarily representative of the whole population, nor do they reflect the opinions of any government agency or elected
officials.
As of June 13, 2011, 4:39 PM, this forum had:
Attendees: 421
Participants Around Salt Lake City: 34
Hours of Public Comment: 1.7
Page 2 of 15 Public comments as of June 13, 2011, 4:39 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/512
Semi-anonymous inside Salt Lake City May 8, 2011, 3:24 PM
I oppose the ADU proposal. Every neighbor I have spoken to thinks it is a bad initiative. There may be
places in town where it is useful and beneficial but certainly not in the smaller R-1 areas. The city will
not enforce the owner occupancy requirement after initial approval any more than they seek out the
thousands of existing illegal appartments. Further the city will not be sensitive to the parking
congestion and find the will to deny permits to owners who don't have unblocked offstreet parking
space. This will just let everyone feel that they have the right to convert their R-1 into an R-2
everywhere in the city. Since the Mayor won't, the City Council should kill this bad idea.
Semi-anonymous inside Salt Lake City February 24, 2011, 9:32 AM
I oppose implementation of ADU in the areas outlined by Mayor Becker and his plan.
Semi-anonymous inside Salt Lake City February 20, 2011, 7:47 AM
I am against ADU's. Time and time again, during our local historic district discussions, many of us
have been saying we do not want a sea of rentals. Is the City listening? ADU's will increase the
number of rentals and end up lowering our property values. It takes away from the style and charm of
Yalecrest.
Brad Bartholomew inside Salt Lake City February 16, 2011, 2:04 AM
I think that this is fantastic and would be beneficial to the Rose Park area. The owner occupancy is a
MUST and I'm not sure if I agree with the exceptions. ADU's could be an incentive to bring more
home ownership into the westside neighborhoods and fewer absentee rentals. I'm not sure why there
is a square foot size limit - it should just be a percentage of the lot, 50%. Set backs shouldn't be any
different from conforming principle dwelling. I don't see the need of the entrance requirements, its
also a burden on corner lots that already have smaller usable lots. Exterior design should be required
to match the existing residence. If you do decide with a test area first, I hope that it is the westside of
SLC.
Semi-anonymous inside Salt Lake City February 1, 2011, 12:48 PM
Some years ago the home owners of our surrounding neighborhoods worked in conjunction with then
Mayor Ted Wilson to change our communities zoning back to single family residential (R1). This
change was motivated by the fact that this section of the city was in bad shape and deteriorating.
Crime rates were high and low property values lured developers to target our vintage neighborhoods
to build apartment units or divide existing homes into duplexes. At that time, the Mayors office
deemed this downward trend unacceptable and believed that the preservation of single family homes
and strong neighborhood communities were in the vital interest of Salt Lake City. As a result of this
zoning change, our quaint and quiet neighborhoods have flourished. New families have moved in,
pride in ownership has soared, homes have been restored, and our property values have
appreciated. Our neighborhoods are amongst the most desirable to live in the Salt Lake valley.
Unfortunately, Mayor Ralph Becker is proposing an initiative that will circumvent our current zoning
laws, posing a direct threat to our neighborhoods as they currently exists. Mayor Becker wants
Page 3 of 15
Public comments as of June 13, 2011, 4:39 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/512
Accessory Dwelling Units, or ADUs, be allowed to be built on existing single family lots. This proposal
completely undermines the single family philosophy that was successfully promoted by Mayor Wilson
and takes us back to what previously plagued our community.
In short, Mayor Becker's proposed change to the zoning laws that have allowed our neighborhood to
prosper, will, in effect, promote the subdivision of houses back to the same cheap rental properties
that threatened our community in the past. The Mayors office attempts to mask the monumental
impact that this change will have on our neighborhoods by promoting alleged benefits that a very
small portion of our community may gain. The Mayors plan increases population density, but does not
provide for increased infrastructure or services; as if these additional people will be without need or
will not put additional strain on existing services and dismisses the reality that they will have cars to
park and trash to empty. The Mayors plan proposes very vague concepts, backs them up with little
substance, yet wants to implement this plan faster and more aggressively than any other city that has
allowed ADUs.
The ADU proposal is not about existing rentals, it is about the encouragement of developing new,
additional rentals. I have researched other cities ADUs and the Salt Lake City plan is vague and
doesnt take neighborhood impact into consideration.
1.Minimum lot size 5000sq ft
2.Require formal review for design compatibility with adjacent properties and impact of privacy, light,
air, solar access or adjacent property parking
3.Open space and landscaping requirements (would you like a cement covered lot?)
4.Minimize windows that impact privacy - Little or no direct view into neighbor's property
5.Regulate the concentration of ADUs in specific neighborhoods
6.Power, water, sewer connections should be through current house
7.Number of bedrooms tied to number of mandatory parking spaces (no waivers for proximity to bus,
rail or business districts)
8. Require review process similar to variance procedures
What defines owner occupied? 6 months occupancy? a year? This should require a yearly
certification.
Page 4 of 15
D.2.c. Underlying Zoning applies. if there is a conflict...the provisions of this section shall take
precedence.
There should be additional restrictions in place in addition to the existing setbacks.
Currently:
Max height (pitched) 28 and flat (20) (21A.24.070)
Setbacks:
-accessory building 10 from residential building on adjacent lot, located at least 1 from side property
line (21A.34.020)
- primary residence corner lot 4, interior lot 4 on one side and 10 on the other (24A.24.200)
Create decreased height allowances and increased distances from property line for the ADU
Max height for 1 story- 13, 1.5 or 2 story 22 at roof peak,
for ADUs higher than 1 story, increase setback additional 2 to 5 feet
Lot coverage of ADU count toward parcel maximum building coverage (40% of lot also known as
the 60/40 rule) this should be reduced to 35% on lots with ADUs
Only allowed with existing single family PRIMARY residence
Specifically prohibit trailers and mobile homes
Set a minimum size to 220-400 sq ft
Maximum size 500 sq ft for 5000 to 7500 sq ft lot, 650 sq ft for larger lots
Demolition of existing unit not allowed for ADU construction
Require similar exterior wall materials, window types, door and window trim, roofing materials to
existing home
D.5 Ownership/ Number of residents
the total number of residents...may not [be] exceed[ed]...as defined in the zoning code
Limit the number of bedrooms to one (1) and define number of residents in ADU by number (2-3
Zoning Ordinance limits occupancy through the definition of a family. Family is defined as blood
relatives, a couple or legal guardians living together with their children, or a group of not more than
three unrelated individuals living together as a single housekeeping unit. The definition controls
occupancy regardless of the size of the unit.
For example: 10 individuals could occupy a 650 sq ft ADU (myself, my husband, my parents, his
father and 5 children)
This ADU proposal is not well thought out and will have a significant impact on our communities as
neighborhoods.
Page 5 of 15
Semi-anonymous inside Salt Lake City January 27, 2011, 12:57 PM
I DO NOT Support ADU's. I do not support and increased number of rental apartments in my
neighborhood. I am opposed to someone legally building an overlooking apartment into my back
yard.
Great idea, with owner occupancy required no harm done to neighborhoods. Size restrictions should
also prevent "Monster ADU's" from becoming a problem. Great way to utilize additional available land
while respecting the traditional nature of our neighborhoods.
Paige Pitcher inside Salt Lake City January 11, 2011, 1:13 PM
I am in strong support of the ADU ordinance, so long as the application and adoption is sensitive to
the valid concerns of residents like those below. ADU's need not be an allowed use in every zone.
There are some communities that they are obviously not compatible with. On this matter, I am
sympathetic to the wise observations of Beverly Nelson.
So far, only the neighborhoods of Federal Heights and Avenues have cried out in opposition, saying--
NO! Not Here! But just because they don't want it in their backyards doesn't mean that ADU's don't
have a purpose and place somewhere in SLC. One of the questions the fact sheet posed, that no
one has yet answered, was, "Where?" My suggestions are next to transit, business districts,
employment centers, educational institutions, and other draws where a mix of housing types makes
sense. Locating some appropriate spots for a pilot program would be a great approach and example.
May I also entertain some other applications of ADU's for neighborhoods in need. Neighborhoods
that want to increase home ownership might be the same neighborhoods to implement ADU's in order
to reward people who choose to buy and live in the area. Coupled with home ownership incentives
this might be one way to create a diverse, cohesive community while rewarding home owners.
ADU's are an important part of housing choices, and the legalization of this legitimate housing option
needs to be addressed. As our demographic continues to shift, the demand for centrally located,
attainable housing will continue to be raised by our aging boomers, young professionals and families.
This flexible option will help us respond to demographic shifts before they become an issue.
So long as design and quality standards for ADU's remain high, I believe they can be integrated into
our existing amenities, community fabric, and public infrastructure systems to increase our resiliency,
sustainability and unity.
I live in the Fremont Heights neighborhood of Salt Lake City. Having been raised in a California
Page 6 of 15
community with legal and illegal "mother-in-laws" adjacent and included in existing homes I must
register my opinion on this proposal as I believe I have adequate experience with the consequences.
Allowing carve-out rental units in existing houses and permitting the construction of "stand-alone"
apartment-type units on developed lots simply increases population density and facilitates a more
transient character in a residential neighborhood. Parking is always a problem, as is noise, street
activity, and conflict between neighbors.
Additional garbage collection is required, as is additional utilities maintenance, adding a burden to the
delivery of city services. Additional people draw additional services. The frequency of delivery
vehicles in the neighborhood rises, as does the traffic generated by gardeners, housekeepers, baby
sitters, and visiting medical, mechanical maintenance and repair people, and a multitude of "soft"
services.
In short, the character of the neighborhood radically changes over time and the long-term residents
find that they now live in a neighborhood they would never have chosen had the "mother-in-laws" not
been permitted in the first place. This leads to an embittered, hostile population that becomes "super-
sensitive" to any changes in the neighborhood, even positive ones that benefit everyone.
Legal "mother-in-laws" are not a win-win situation. I have lived in an older neighborhood sandwiched
in between two properties with legal mother-in-laws and have personally experienced the
helplessness of watching my neighborhood become an indifferent, transient, "I don't care, it doesn't
effect me" kind of place. The homeowners on either side were generally embarrassed by their
indifferent tenants and avoided others in the neighborhood, ignoring our common concerns and
removing themselves from cooperative projects and issues. I hope Salt Lake City does not want this
kind of atmosphere to take hold in its greatly-varied, generally well-maintained and pleasant older
neighborhoods.
Despite all the altruistic arguments in favor of ADUs, my direct experience has been that such an
ordinance would allow those who want to squeeze additional revenue from their real property, at the
expense of those living around them, to do so without restriction. Permitting sand-alone and carve-out
"mother-in-laws" degrades residential property values and the quality of life in R1 residential
neighborhoods. Such an ordinance would create an underclass of renters in a residential
neighborhood with little political power and likely no interest in the rational development and quality of
life in the neighborhood as a whole. I feel that permitting ADUs in R1 neighborhoods is a very bad
idea.
Also, please note that Mike Kephart, who has posted a comment here and has promoted ADUs in
other discussions on this site, designs stand-alone ADUs and lives in Colorado. He would obviously
personally benefit from the passage of this ordinance.
I strongly recommend that Salt Lake City reject this proposed ordinance.
Michel Weekley inside Salt Lake City January 7, 2011, 10:51 PM
I agree with Susan Fisher's November 1 posting completely.
Page 7 of 15
I am against ADUs in the already crowded & densely populated Avenues neighborhood. As an
Avenues homeowner, I am shocked & saddened that this proposal is even being considered. The
proposal would undo all the good that years of work to get the Avenues back to a "single-famliy
dwelling" atmosphere have achieved. There are very few aesthetically pleasing neighborhoods in the
Salt Lake Valley, and encouraging more development in and around many "historic" and beautiful
Avenues homes is an unwise choice.
I believe we can work toward "sustainability" in Salt Lake, not by more development & the building of
ever more structures....but rather by filling the plethora of empty homes & rentals currently available
en masse.
A "sustainability" topic that gets very little attention these days is to encourage the creation of smaller
families....NOT the continuing accomodation of huge ones! Fewer people in the first place equals less
pollution, less development, less crowding....and a better quality of life for everyone. Responsible
population growth could alleviate many of our societal challenges, both locally & globally.
Matt Johnson inside Salt Lake City December 8, 2010, 4:12 PM
I like the general idea but I have a few concerns.
Why 650 sqft? Is that the difference between a duplex and an ADU? If a lot is big enough could the
ADU not be bigger?
What about new home construction? Can a new home be built with an ADU included in the plans?
Where would the door be?
What about end of life scenarios? The plan says that it must be an owner occupied situation, but
what if the home is sold, the tenants are kicked out and the new owners now have extra living space
that they get taxed extra for? And if the tenants decide to move out, does that mean I now have an
above-the-garage shop where I couldnt have one before?
I also agree that we should allow businesses similar accommodations as ADUs like an in-home office,
but for someone else.
Mike Kephart outside Salt Lake City November 28, 2010, 2:59 PM
ADUs use resources very efficiently compared to many other types of residential development. They
require no additional land for development and use existing infrastructure (such as water, sewer,
roads, and other utilities), so they increase the supply of affordable housing without promoting sprawl
or requiring the construction of expensive new infrastructure.
Clarion, your code consultant, helped us here in Denver as well. As unbelievably contentious as the
subject was for us the atmosphere immediately cooled upon passage of the ordinance by our city
council. The fear of a rush to build is a red herring that has not proven real in any of the 20 or 30
cities in Colorado that have passed similar ordinances in the last few years. It was over two years
before the first ADU was built in Arvada, CO after they passed their ordinance without major public
debate. I believe ADUs are a legitimate housing type that over time can do much to diversify our
neighborhoods economically. I support your efforts to include provisions for ADUs in your
neighborhoods. The excitement will quickly dissipate.
Page 8 of 15
Mike Kephart, Denver, CO
Semi-anonymous inside Salt Lake City November 10, 2010, 11:17 AM
Owner occupancy, owner occupancy, owner occupancy, strict enforcement of owner occupancy.
Otherwise this is a carte blanch for house flippers, and slumlords.
Occupancy of one unit must be full time by the actual living person with majority interest listed on the
ownership deed. Do not allow ownership by "trusts","corportations" or any other entitiy. Otherwise
they will always claim that their family trust allows them to rent to "family" with different last names
(aka, someone who isn't family at all, but the true owner is willing to bet that the city will never check
because it is too expensive and time consuming)
Semi-anonymous inside Salt Lake City November 7, 2010, 9:10 AM
I support ADU's
Susan Fisher inside Salt Lake City November 1, 2010, 3:09 PM
As a 41-year resident of the Greater Avenues, I have some perspective on their history. First, let me
say that the quality of the Avenues as a place to live and raise a family is far better now than it was
even twenty years ago, and one of the principle reasons is that residents have fought to limit density,
often by re-converting apartments back into single-family structures. Furthermore, the few apartments
that existed in lower Federal Heights from the Depression era have been phased out over the years.
One can scarcely argue that residents found an additional apartment in their home a desirable thing.
We appreciate R-1 zoning precisely because it disallows multiple-family dwellings.
There are two density issues in this proposed ADU ordinance, and they are not clearly and separately
addressed: building density and population density. I was astounded to read in the proposed
ordinance that an ADU is expressly interpreted as NOT increasing density! Clearly, only structural
density is considered here at all, and adding an additional structure would increase even that
parameter. Common sense indicates that increased population density means more cars, more traffic,
more ambient noise, more school children (in already overcrowded schools), increased use of already
overburdened parks, less play area at home per child, etc. The proposed ordinance even stipulated
that additional off-street parking space provisions can be waived, thus adding to street congestion. I
cannot see that this would improve quality of life in any respect. I saw the dramatic results of
decreased population density and noise and increased resident satisfaction in my own
neighborhood when the Pi Kappa Alpha house burned and the fraternity was relocated.
Furthermore, the implied altruism for assisting an aging population is weak. As an older resident, I
cannot believe that having a separate apartment in my home would provide me with increased
companionship and services. No renter is legally bound to watch out for the landlord. In addition, it
would be a long time before the cost of creating an apartment would be amortized by rental income;
Page 9 of 15
even a reverse mortgage would be faster and less demoralizing for both resident and neighborhood.
The proposed ordinance does not offer any protection at all for the character of the existing
neighborhood. It is inappropriate to force such a far-reaching ordinance change upon us when
Historic District designation for Federal Heights is under consideration. The City Council should
consider carefully the vested interests of those who propose to change the integral character of a
single-family district. I think the respondent who proposed high-rise apartments (with underground
parking) on already existing parking lots is on the right track.
The truth of the matter is that one of the first things people buy is privacy, and this is usually
expressed first in the space they can place between themselves and their neighbors. Federal Heights
has larger lots, and the coverage is far less than the city-allowed 40%. Indeed, even the smallest lots
in this zone average only 25-30% coverage, while on the larger lots the coverage is even less. This
lower density is directly correlated to house prices and the increased taxes they generate. People
consistently demonstrate they are willing to pay for privacy and what it brings: less traffic, less noise,
more space and the joy of more big trees. This proposed ordinance would degrade our quality of
life.
Beverly Nelson inside Salt Lake City October 28, 2010, 12:41 AM
An ordinance allowing homeowners to build accessory dwelling units on their property could provide
benefits to homeowners, families, the elderly and renters in some Salt Lake communities. But ADUs
should not be considered to be a panacea for every neighborhood in Salt Lake. There are
neighborhoods in Salt Lake where accessory dwellings would not be appropriate, particularly those
where high density is already an issue, where crime is high, and where schools already suffer from
over-population. To allow residents to built accessory dwelling units on properties in these
neighborhoods would only serve to exacerbate the problems they are already dealing with and would
be detrimental to the entire community.
In regard to my own community, I live in lower Federal Heights in close proximity to University
fraternities and sororities. My community already suffers from lack of parking, traffic congestion,
excessive noise and crime. We already have problems with duplexes that started out as mother-in-
law apartments 20 or 30 years ago, but that now house University students who, unfortunately, think it
is cool to disrespect the community in which they live. I would not support an ordinance that allowed
my neighbors, or residents in areas of the City that are experiencing the problems I have listed to
build accessory dwellings on their properties.
Gene Fitzgerald inside Salt Lake City October 27, 2010, 9:32 AM
As president of the Federal Heights Neighborhood association and a member of the board of the
GACC I think I can say that in general we oppose the move toward allowing accessory dwelling units.
In our neighborhoods especially (Butler ave, Federal way etc) over the years we have had many rental
units that were merely extensions of Greek housing and the problems that accompany those
organizations. In the past 20 years or so, we have been moving toward and achieving more
restrictive zoning rather than moving toward rental units in family homes. The ADU would
significantly change that dynamic and open up homes in the area to the sort of abuse that we have
Page 10 of 15
seen in the past. We feel this way despite the restrictions the ADU has put on renting--people have a
way of skirting those restrictions especially when we do not see an adequate oversight by the city to
enforce them. So that is my feeling at this point and I sense that many neighbors agree with me
Esther Hunter inside Salt Lake City October 26, 2010, 8:24 PM
I believe there is a justified need for the ability to legalize accessory dwelling units in the City.
This can be useful and helpful to many. I support the owner occupied requirement.
Having said that, I also believe that this ordinance is not yet ready for prime time.
This is a significant change.
While we need to step forward, a blanket approach rather than a carefully planned, appropriately
applied approach will further exacerbate many city issues and problems such as our failing and
underfunded infrastructure especially evident in many older neighborhoods.
The benefit of not being first is that we can learn from and avoid the long term problems this type of
change has created in other cities.
This ordinance needs to be built on a firm foundation.
The foundation should come first.
In Salt Lake the very zones/properties that could best absorb additional density due to their size and
stature will not likely be utilized in this manner but instead it will be the older already more dense,
smaller lots that will be further compromised.
This is not socially responsible.
This type of significant change should be carefully trialed, have a great deal more thought out criteria
(ie design guidelines), correlation with other ordinances (ie the duplex legalization process), and have
more details developed that give specific criteria for approval.
Is it near transit, what does the master plan say, how much density already exists, how much parking
is available, is there a lit street lamp, impact to property values, what is the crime rate,
roads/water/sewer impacts to name but a few.
What exactly tips the balance into the negative for a particular block face, a neighborhood?
Instead, we could begin by having the ordinance trialed through a one off review process such as
conditional use or Board of Adjustments rather than implemented in a blanket fashion. Maybe where
the least negative impact is likely but where a thoughtfully assessed minimum criteria has been met
(ie new Sugar House streetcar line).
While the manpower to prepare a case for review is staggering, the ability of the City to
manage/enforce/police this ordinance city wide as written is not likely feasible at all.
If a more restricted/one off trial run proves successful, this gate can always be widened.
As Dr. Chris Nelson (UU FAICP Presidential Professor City and Metropolitan Planning) has stated,
ALL of the Cities anticipated growth could be absorbed by utilizing the many existing flat surface
parking lots which also coincides with one of the goals of the Downtown Community Council.
Page 11 of 15
Incentives for this type of development would meet the need for additional tax base, density/growth
while at the same time enriching the City without disrupting existing neighborhoods.
I sincerely hope the administration will take the additional time to develop this into a win-win approach
that does not harm some areas while protecting others. This is doable.
quinn mccallum-law inside Salt Lake City October 25, 2010, 6:26 PM
I think this plan has great potential to both preserve existing buildings and create new housing
opportunities. I currently live in an owner occupied legal triplex and it works well for my wife and I but I
think we could take it further as a city. What about "ABU's" or accessory business units as well on
owner occupied properties? I am aware of home-occupation permits but within many area's of the
city this could contribute to the liveliness of up and coming areas as well as create places for people
to actually walk to, something that is still lacking in SLC albeit growing. I see so many of these
buildings around the city going to waste because the current owners see no value in commercial
space, yet, seemingly, are disinterested in selling them (I've found 1 for sale publicly in the last five
years.) So letting others build businesses as well would be as or more beneficial than the ADU's. I
am still all for the ADU ordinance in the interim.
Kelly Stevens inside Salt Lake City October 25, 2010, 9:37 AM
I am a 15 year resident of the Avenues. I have owned two owner-occupied duplexes and have been
working with the city to legalize a triplex that was non-conforming. I am absolutely opposed to ADU's.
Residents of the Avenues have protected this neighborhood for decades, working hard to make it a
safe, live-able community. When rampant development of apartment complexes and creation of non-
conforming apartments was the norm for the Avenues, it was a dangerous, drug-ridden neighborhood
on the decline. With the hard work of many citizens, regulations have made it difficult to add
apartments and break up single-family dwellings. This trend has protected our neighborhood and
created a GREAT place to live. The avenues can be seen as an at-risk neighborhood in SLC. Crime
is relatively high within our boundaries. With more apartments and a more transient population, the
scale could be tipped. Parking is another complicated issue with negative implications from allowing
ADU's especially with an allowance for 'limited' exemptions. The requirement for an owner-occupied
house seems very tenuous and difficult to regulate down-the-line.
Stephanie Churchill Jackel outside Salt Lake City October 23, 2010, 1:32 PM
I'm concerned that the "fact sheet" and the draft ordinance don't agree as to the size of ADU allowed.
The fact sheet says 50% of sq. ftg. of primary structure or 650 sq.ft., whichever is GREATER, while
the ordinance says 50% or 650 sq.ft., whichever is LESS. This is a serious discrepancy. I also think
strict design guidelines should apply wherever the ADU is located, historic district or not.
Dana Schaffer inside Salt Lake City October 16, 2010, 4:51 PM
I'm an Avenues Homeowner. This is a city and neighborhoods closest to the city should become
more dense. Also, I agree with this proposal because it is environmentally friendly to increase density
within the city and limit sprawl. The more the merrier. I think this will allow our neighborhood to be
diverse and it will keep it so that people providing services within the community and others like
Page 12 of 15
teachers, can afford to live in the neighborhood in which they are contributors. Since we are
experiencing severe property tax increases, I imagine this move may allow many people (e.g. fixed
incomes) who are a valuable part of the neighborhood to keep their homes. Also, if our neighborhood
becomes more dense, we might actually be able to support some more small businesses. I for one
would like a few more restaurant options within walking distance and perhaps a store other than
Smith's. Someone brought up parking. I'm not really worried about that, having lived in San
Francisco and Seattle. The more dense it becomes, the more people will take public transit and
hopefully those people won't need cars at all, if there are businesses within walking distance and
transit to the U and downtown. I do hope they will consider adding traffic lights and enforce the speed
limit so that we can be pedestrian friendly, even if we increase density. However, even recent requests
for those services/changes have fallen on deaf ears.
Jon Parrish inside Salt Lake City October 8, 2010, 12:41 PM
Highly in favor of ADU. What a great way to stimulate economy, provide low cost housing to grad
students, young couples, and young families; not to mention bringing extra taxes in which will keep my
taxes lower! Let's ask the business owner who just shut down due to the lack of business, the school
teacher who just got laid off due to the lack of students, or the student who just took the semester off
to pay for the gas it takes to drive from out of town if they are in favor of infill. I vote yes.
linda burr outside Salt Lake City October 6, 2010, 8:16 AM
As a former Avenues resident for over twenty years, I think having Accessory Dwellings are not going
to detract from the neighborhood. There are many already being used. I know the area had a bad
period where many Victorians were split up as apartments, but now that many are single family
dwellings again, a small cottage for students or for working singles/couple residences would be great
infill. Of course there would be zoning still in place for fire safety, noise, parking, etc. We have the
countries' worst air pollution partly because people drive to get downtown for work and school. I'm
sure many would like to have a closer, quiet, residential, more affordable place to live.
Hilary Verson inside Salt Lake City October 1, 2010, 5:12 PM
I support ADU. As long as these rentals are on owner-occupied property, they will be well-maintained.
ADU's will increase the population density & increase property tax without causing duress.
Additionally, I suggest a small annual rental unit tax for apartment dwellers to help maintain
infrastructure and services, perhaps $25/year. I think this would provide about $750,000/year without
raising residential property tax.
Jim Ferguson inside Salt Lake City October 1, 2010, 3:54 PM
This is a terrible idea. It will turn back years of work making the Avenues one of the nicest places in
the city to live. We have all worked for years to get rid of Accessory Dwelling Units. There is no
rational reason, other than greed, to bring back the blight.
James Ferguson.
Pax Rasmussen inside Salt Lake City September 24, 2010, 11:58 PM
Page 13 of 15
I strongly support this ordinance. I keep hearing about the 'inevitability' of growth in the valley, and it
makes me sick. There really is only so much space, not to mention water. And the more we sprawl,
the worse the already terrible air gets. Instead of dinking around with ideas like the northwest
quadrant, we should focus on INFILL. I find the comment referring to Tokyo offensive: To that
commenter, I ask, "Would you prefer Tokyo or L.A.?" Because L.A. is the direction we're headed. If
you don't like density, move to the country. Up to a point, the denser the city, the betterthe city
becomes more walkable, more supportive of independent, locally-owned business, and more
community-oriented. Hurrah for the ADU!
Mike Kephart outside Salt Lake City September 22, 2010, 7:25 AM
Here in the city of Denver we included ADUs in our new zoning ordinance adopted recently. I would
suggest letting the maximum size of an ADU increase with the size of the lot. We included this
provision in our code. I would also suggest that you ask families to tell their stories rather than trying
to appeal to the populace with logic and reason. This is a change and people generally fear change
unless they can personalize it. We failed in this respect and it became a divisive issue when it could
have been seen as good for families.
bruce beck inside Salt Lake City September 20, 2010, 7:51 AM
I agree with Alysa K
Semi-anonymous inside Salt Lake City September 15, 2010, 9:08 PM
If this can be accomplished without creating mega houses or mega barns then go for it along with the
following: I believe a ratio between property size and house foot print needs to be established. There
should also be a limit on number of people based on family relation and total number per square foot.
Kathryn Fitzgerald inside Salt Lake City September 10, 2010, 4:25 PM
I am concerned about the parking consequences of this ordinance in the University area, especially
near the blocks zoned for Greeks. The Greek houses are already allowed virtually unlimited parking
permits while single family homes are limited to three permits. This should not be a blanket citywide
ordinance. It must examine the differences among neighborhoods and differing consequences of the
change.
Philip Carlson inside Salt Lake City September 2, 2010, 3:58 PM
I hope this moves along!
We need more residents in the City. This will not likely increase density dramatically, but even a slight
increase will be good for our community.
The owner occupation requirement is an important part of the proposal. Really, I would hope that few
houses are divided, but that accessory units would be detached keeping the main house intact for
larger families. Units above garages or even separate buildings would be best.
Semi-anonymous inside Salt Lake City September 1, 2010, 8:39 PM
Page 14 of 15
I am opposed to this proposed ordinance as it will increase population density in already crowded
areas. We are already suffering from crime, congestion, transportation problems, lack of privacy and
other intrusions to a calm and peaceful life. Is Tokyo really the city we want to morph into?
Alyssa Kay inside Salt Lake City September 1, 2010, 6:30 PM
This is a positive move for Salt Lake City. Accessory Dwelling Units will allow extended families to live
closer together, provide rental income and increase the city's density (without significant impact on
character) to mitigate urban sprawl. I am in favor of this ordinance.
Some of the specifics of the ordinance, however, are unnecessarily restrictive such as the Owner-
Occupied Property requirement. There are many renters who would benefit from this kind of living
arrangement. This section seems to be prejudiced against renters.
Section 7.b.(1) is unclear. If the accessory unit is detached how/why would an existing entrance be
used? Why would a new entrance be required to face away from the street? In my opinion that would
create a mass that would be unattractive from the streetscape.
Overall, this is a good start. Thanks!
Page 15 of 15
1
Maloy, Michael
From: Tarbet, Nick
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 10:34 AM
To: Maloy, Michael
Cc: Coffey, Cheri; Jardine, Janice; City Council Liaisons
Subject: Comments regarding ADU Proposal--D5
Categories: Other
HiMichael
CouncilMemberLovereceivedthefollowingcommentregardingtheADUproposal.Thecitizenmentionedhehas
commentedonOpenCityHall,butIjustwantedtomakesureyoureceivedthem.
Thanks
From: Gary Harding [ mailt o: garyh99@comcast .net ]
Sent : Sunday, May 08, 2011 5: 35 PM
To: 'j ill.love@slcgov.com'
Subj ect : ADU Proposal
I just submitted comments on Open City Hall and then an email request of the City Council to oppose
the ADU proposal. In the latter I asked the Council not to vote for any proposal lacking specific on 5
points. Would you please ask the appropriate City people to either include the following in the ADU
proposal or explain to you why they cannot do so?
Code that unambiguously defines the following:
A mechanism stronger than a business license (perhaps something tied to property tax payment
process) to assure that owners certify that they remain compliant with the ADU requirements
each year or that they officially forfeit the ADU designation on the property.
Gary C Harding
garyh99@comcast.net
(c) 801 870 8410
Nick Tarbet
Salt Lake City Council Office
Policy Analyst / Constituent Liaison
(801) 535-7603
nick.tarbet@slcgov.com

To assure proper attention to your email, please 'Reply to All' or include CityCouncilLiaisons@slcgov.com on
the address line of this email.

If you would like to receive email updates about important City events and issues from your Council Member
please reply to this email and say yes.or scan the QR Code with your phone.
1
Maloy, Michael
From: Sean Clark [slingshot8@yahoo.com]
To: Maloy, Michael
Subject: ADU?
Categories: Other
HiMichael,IspokewithMikaelayesterdayandshesaidthatiwouldnotbeallowedtoputa
bathroominmyCarriagehouse.Iwasjustreadingupontheproposalregardingallowing
ADU'sbyMayorBecker,andIaminfavorofallowingthemwithnorestrictions.
Beyondthat,Iwashopingtogetsomecalrificationifmyplantoputabathroomwithaplace
towashmyhands,maybeevenshowerafterworkingintheyardetc.qualifiesasanADU.It
isnotmyintentiontocreateastandalonelivingspace.Itisnotmyintentiontorent
spacetoanyone,thoughIhaveplentyofspaceinthemainhouseasitisjustme,mywife,
andoursonina5500sqfthome.Seemssillytorestrictmyabilitytomakeabathroom
basedonlegislationaimedtodeterhighpopulationdensityandrentingrooms.....Isit
yourunderstandingthattherestrictionsonADU'swouldprocludemefromhavingrunningwater
inthegarage?
Also,thereappearstobeadrainpipeintheCarriageHouse,andaccordingtoourresearch,
quarterswereusedintheCarriageHouseforlaundryearlyinthecentury....soourtheoryis
thatitisstillconnectedtothesewersystem.Notsureifthatwouldalsoaffecthowthe
currentconditionisdefinedorifthepresenceofasewerdrainallowsmetorestorerunning
watertothebuilding.
Thanksforyourguidance,appreciateyoureffortstoallowADU'sastherightofaproperty
owner.LetmeknowifthereisanythingIcandotohelpingettingthelegislationpassed.
Thanksagain,
SeanClark
8015999065

To Members of the Planning Commission
From Cindy Cromer
Re ADU's
March 23, 2011

I have had plenty of experience with the Administration's proposal for ADU's: First as a member of the
ZAP Committee almost 2 years ago, then as a participant in the ADU Task Force last summer, and on
numerous occasions since then in various community meetings. You received a copy of the memo I
wrote for the Task Force meeting at your December discussion and it is included in the materials in the
packet for tonight's hearing. The theme of that memo is that the City's lacks the skills to make the
proposal as drafted by Clarion a success. Clarion's proposal does not consider the uniqueness and
diversity of Salt Lake City's neighborhoods.

I want to make a few points tonight in the two minutes allowed.

1. As a community, we do not need another divisive issue. Parley's Historic Nature Park and
Yalecrest were enough to last us for a long time. The proposal as drafted by Clarion has armor that is
almost impenetrable. Despite my constructive and critical comments for almost two years, the proposal
has changed very little. I implore you to make recommendations to the City Council which will move the
proposal to a place where it can be supported by more people, and vigorously opposed by few.

2. What would such a proposal look like? What would I be willing to support? I could support a
proposal that allowed ADU's in the RMF-30 and RMF-35 zones in single-family dwellings regardless of lot
size and which were also within 4 blocks of fixed transit. There are lots of reasons to emphasize those
criteria for ADU's, including the fact that all residents and business owners in those parts of the City
expect to have tenants as neighbors.

3. It has become clear to me that the people ultimately responsible for this decision have little
understanding of the complex relationship between current market forces, enforcement, unit legalization,
the Good Landlord Program, business licensing, housing inspections, and the building code. Please ask
for a briefing that would clarify the relationships between these influences before you proceed. By staff
estimate, there are still 1000 units in the unit legalization process. The map in front of you shows the
number of nonconforming properties with 3 and 4 units within the single-family zoning district of East
Liberty alone. There is already far more density in the City's older neighborhoods than the
Administration has acknowledged. All of my own properties are nonconforming with respect to density
except my personal residence. I would not have invested in them without the additional units.

4. The compatible infill ordinance isn't working well but it does not apply to the RMF zones AT ALL.
There is no compatibility process for ADU's in the RMF zones outside an historic district.

5. The first person to bring up the issue of accessiblity was one of the housing advocates at a Task
Force meeting. Now the Mayor's Advisory Council has suggested some incentives for accessible ADU's.
While the TRAX may be accessible, most of the housing around it is not. The City should certainly
provide substantial incentives to increase this type of housing. It is more expensive to construct.

6. The Administration has misrepresented ADU's as "affordable." They may cost less per square foot
because of the absence of additional land costs, but ADU's are market-rate housing. The use of the
word "affordable" is inappropriate and misleading.

March 20, 2011

Mayor Ralph Becker
Salt Lake City Council
Salt Lake Planning Department

Members of the Salt Lake City Planning Department,

During the late 1990s, in response to changing national demographics, changing economics and
changing community goals, AARP engaged in national research analyzing fifty local accessory dwelling
unit ordinances. The organization then drafted the Model State Accessory Dwelling Unit Act and the
Model Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance.* In the forward to this publication, the following conclusion
was reached:

"Reductions in the size of American households, along with changes in their composition and
economic circumstances, warrant consideration of zoning policies that encourage the more
efficient use of the nation's infrastructure and supply of single-family homes to meet current
and future housing needs. States and localities are also seeking ways to assure the
independence and security of older residents with a minimum of public investment. ADUs
provide a potential resource for addressing these issues by making more effective use of existing
housing stock and providing older homeowners with a potential source of income to maintain
their independence."

In the document's Introduction, it is pointed out that, the American family is, "... growing in number but
shrinking in size...In some communities, the need for housing, especially for people with special physical
and financial needs, has become acute. Underused space in single-family houses in one of the nation's
largest untapped housing resources." The document goes on to suggest that, "As the population ages,
many older people find themselves living in their family homes alone. They may need additional income
to pay for health care services, cover home maintenance costs, or make mortgage payments. Others
may want a family member or a caretaker to live nearby, while maintaining privacy for both parties."

The document's Introduction further observes that across the United States, local communities, "...have
recognized the need to stabilize or increase population densities in certain areas in order to maintain
the existing public infrastructure, services, and tax base. In addition, many communities have sought to
concentrate population density in specific areas in order to encourage public transit service and reduce
urban sprawl. These communities do not, however, necessarily want their single-family neighborhoods
to become structurally more dense."

The Introduction goes on to point out that accessory dwelling units offer, "...the potential for assisting
older homeowners and other in maintaining their independence while increasing the supply of
affordable rental housing within a community." It further states that, "Income from an ADU can offset
rising property taxes, maintenance and repair costs, and other housing expenses that are often a burden
for older homeowners. ADUs can also make it easier for households with children to afford the housing
they need. In some situations, an ADU may provide enough additional income so that a family can afford
to buy a house in a preferred neighborhood that is safer, has better schools, or is closer to work."

As the document observes, it should come as no surprise that what is now called an accessory dwelling
unit is nothing new. Before World War II, it was a very common living arrangement in our nation's cities,
including Salt Lake City. Difficult economic times during the Great Depression made it necessary for
families to find affordable housing and for widows and single seniors to supplement their incomes by
taking in roomers and boarders who could not afford their own homes. But the post-war housing and
economic boom, and subsequent development of sprawling suburbs, essentially put an end to this
common practice. As a result, most cities wrote their zoning ordinance to not allow ADUs. However, the
post war building boom has now come to an end, and with our current economic reality, which some
are calling our new reality, families are once again forced into seeking affordable housing.

The AARP document quoted above is over ten years old, and written well before the current economic
crisis that has put millions of Americans out of work, and in the most extreme cases, has caused them to
become homeless. Moreover, scientific research on the environment has made it clear that we cannot
resume building far-flung suburbs at the neglect of our urban neighborhoods. So the nationwide
pendulum of allowing accessory dwelling units in city neighborhoods has now swung in the other
direction, and it is high time for Salt Lake City to follow suit.

I fully support Mayor Ralph Becker, the Salt Lake City Council, and the Salt Lake City Planning
Department in their efforts, with the retained professional help of Clarion Associates, to implement the
Sustainable City Code Initiative, which provides changes in our city zoning ordinance to allow, among
many other sustainable and reasonable measures, accessory dwelling units in our city.

Respectfully,

Erin R Silva

Architect Erin R Silva, RA
Architect Erin R Silva & Associates
115 South 1100 East, #505
801-557-3400
erinrsilva@comcast.net

Adjunct Faculty, College of Architecture + Planning
Leap Faculty, College of Undergraduate Studies
University of Utah
silvaer@arch.utah.edu

* AARP, Accessory Dwelling Units, Model State Act and Local Ordinance, A Publication of the Public Policy Institute, American
Planning Association, by Rodney L. Cobb and Scott Dvorak, American Planning Association, 2000, AARP

February 23, 2011

supports ADUs and Salt Lake Citys Sustainable Code

The Utah Department of Agriculture and Food would like to offer its support for the creation of Accessory Dwelling
Units (ADUs) in Salt Lake City. With regards to our Utah agricultural food production system, our consumers, and
our environment, we view ADUs as a tool that can help benefit these interests.

We support the concept that by adding ADUs to a citys dwelling mix there will be reduced demand
to develop suburban farmland into residential subdivisions.
We support the concept that housing units located closer to employment centers will increase
participation in public transportation and decrease automobile traffic on our interstate freeways and
arterial highways.
We support the concept that during this economic downturn, families may need to reside closer
together, and ADUs can meet these families needs.

With regard to the Citys Sustainable City Code Initiative;

We fully support code provisions that enable citizens to grow, consume and even sell raw produce
from their private or community gardens provided that reasonable qualifying provisions are offered
to protect the health of neighbors and children.
We encourage EVERY Utahn to embrace agriculture and become more aware of the food system
and the role our 16,000 farmers and ranchers play in their lives.
The energy savings associated with backyard or community gardens can be significant.
We support organized educational efforts that disseminate growing and harvesting techniques that
protect food supply and safety interests.

A moment to reflect on the historical importance of agriculture.
This July 24
th
will be the 164th anniversary of our pioneer forefathers entrance into the Salt Lake valley.
Even before Brigham Young uttered his famous statement, This is the Place the pioneers were already
digging up the soil and planting crops just one block north of Salt Lake City Hall.
Agriculture came first for them. We would like to work with you to make agriculture first AGAIN for our
citizens and leaders.

Sincerely,

Leonard M. Blackham, Commissioner

Maloy, Michael
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Categories:
Ruthann Povinelli [rpov@comcast.net]
Tuesday, February 01, 2011 12:30 PM
'Leeann Sudbury'; Mayor; Maloy, Michael
'Ann Maloy'; 'CERT Amy Smith'; 'CERT Annette Gillis'; 'CERT Barr Christensen'; 'CERT Ben
Anjeweirden'; 'CERT Bob and Judy Jaggi'; 'CERT Brandon Howlett'; 'CERT Eric Hull'; 'CERT
Eric Madsen'; 'CERT Jean Robinson'; 'CERT Jeff Yancey'; 'CERT Jeremy Jackson'; 'CERT
Jessica Hill'; 'CERT Karen Geertsen'; 'CERT Kari Hull'; 'CERT Kim Gillis'; 'CERT Kim
Ventura'; 'CERT Laurie Goodsell'; 'CERT Lisa Marley'; 'CERT Monica Ruegner'; 'CERT
Patrick Quinn'; 'CERT Patty Henetz'; 'CERT Penny Catanzaro'; 'CERT Rhonda Parker'; 'CERT
Stacey Denison'; 'CERT Stan Heaton'; 'CERT Susan Helier'; 'CERT Suzanne Hennefer';
'CERT Tara Daniels'; 'CERT Tim Geertsen'; 'CERT W.D. Robinson'; 'Southers';
stqc;:ey.denison@hotmail.com; tom.denison@hotmail.com; annlschmidt@gmail.com; 'Dianne
Fuller'; Douvilles@comcast.net; 'Julie S Steele'; 'Julie Personal Email'; 'Gillian Tufts'; 'Leissa
Roberts'; 'Michael Povinelli'
RE: It is URGENT that you protect our neighborhood from allowing Accessory dwellings on
our properties!!
Follow up
Flagged
Other
Some 15 years ago the home owners of our surrounding neighborhoods worked in conjunction with then Mayor
Ted Wilson to change our communities zoning back to single family residential (Rl). This change was
motivated by the fact that this section of the city was in bad shape and deteriorating. Crime rates were high and
low property valuys lured developers to target our vintage neighborhoods to build apartment units or divide
existing homes into duplexes. At that time, the Mayor's office deemed this downward trend unacceptable and
believed that the preservation of single family homes and strong neighborhood communities were in the vital
interest of Salt Lake City. As a result of this zoning change, our quaint and quiet neighborhoods have
flourished. New families have moved in, pride in ownership has soared, homes have been restored, and our
property values have appreciated. Our neighborhoods are amongst the most desirable to live in the Salt Lake
valley.
Unfortunately, Salt Lake City's current Mayor does not apparently value strong neighborhood communities
based on single family homes. To the contrary, Ralph Becker is proposing an initiative that will circumvent our
current zoning laws, posing a direct threat to our neighborhood as it currently exists. Mayor Becker wants
Accessory Dwelling Units or ADU's be allowed to be built on existing single family lots. This proposal
completely undermines the single family philosophy that was successfully promoted by Mayor Wilson and
takes us back to what previously plagued our community.
In short, Mayor Becker wants to change the zoning laws that have allowed our neighborhood to prosper and in
effect, promote the subdivision of houses and new construction of the same cheap rental prosperities that
threatened our community in the past. The Mayor's office attempts to mask the monumental impact that this
change will have on our neighborhood by promoting alleged benefits that a very small portion of our
community may gain. The Mayor's plan increases population density, but does not provide for increased
infrastructure or services; as if these additional people will be without need or will not put additional strain on
existing service and dismisses the reality that they will have cars to park and trash to empty. The Mayor's plan
proposes very vague concepts, backs them up with little if any substance, yet wants to implement this plan
faster and more aggressively than any other city that has allowed ADU's.
1
The ADU proposal is not about existing rentals, it is about the encouragement of developing new, additional
rentals. I have researched other cities' ADU's and the Salt Lake City plan is vague and doesn't take
neighborhood impact into consideration.
1. Minimum lot size (SOOOsq ft)
2. Require formal review for design compatibility with adjacent properties and impact of privacy, light, air,
solar access or adjacent property parking
3. Open space and landscaping requirements (would you like a cement covered lot?)
4. Minimize windows that impact privacy
S. Regulate the concentration of ADU's in specific neighborhoods
6. Power, water, sewer connections? Through current house?
7. Number of bedrooms tied to number of mandatory parking spaces (no waivers for proximity to bus, rail
or business districts)
What defines owner occupied? 6 months a year? This should require a yearly certification.
D.2.c. Underlying Zoning applies. "if there is a conflict ... the provisions of this section shall take
precedence."
.. There should be additional restrictions in place in addition to the existing setbacks.
.. Currently:
Max height (pitched) 28' and flat (20') (21A.24.070)
Setbacks:
,-accessory building 10' from residential building on adjacent lot, located at least l' from side
- primary residence corner lot 4', interior lot 4' on one side and 10' on the other
(24A.24.200)
II Create decreased height allowances and increased distances from property line for the ADU
Max height for 1 story- 13', 1.S or 2 story - 22' at roof peak,
for ADU's higher than 1 story, increase setback additional 2-S'
.. Lot coverage of ADU count toward parcel maximum building coverage (40% of lot - also known
as the 60/40 rule) - this should be reduced to 3S% on lots with ADU's
Only allowed with existing single family primary residence onsite.
II Specifically prohibit trailers and mobile homes
.. Set a minimum size to 220-400 sq ft
.. Maximum size SOO sq ft for SOOO -7S00 sq ft lot, 6S0 sq ft for larger lots
II Demolition of existing unit not allowed for ADU construction
Require similar exterior wall materials, window types, door and window trim, roofing materials
D.S Ownership/ Number of residents
"the total number of residents ... may not [be] exceed[ed] ... as defined in the zoning code"
2
III Limit the number of bedrooms to one (1) and define number of residents in ADU by number (2-3
Zoning Ordinance limits occupancy through the definition of a/ami/yo Family is defined as blood relatives, a
couple or legal guardians living together with their children, or a group of not more than three unrelated
individuals living together as a single housekeeping unit. The definition controls occupancy regardless of the
size of the unit.
For example: 10 individuals could occupy a 650 sq ft ADU (myself, my husband, my parents, his father and 5
children)
1'-
This ADU proposal as it stands is not well thought out and will have a significant impact on our communities as
neighborhoods.
Ruthann Povinelli
1027 E Herbert Ave
Salt Lake City, UT
I rl
From: Leeann Sudbury [mailto:leeann.sudbury@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 20119:30 AM
To: mayor@slcgov.com; MichaeI.Maloy@slcgov.com
Cc: Ann Maloy; CERT; CERT Amy Smith; CERT Annette Gillis; CERT Barr Christensen; CERT Ben Anjeweirden; CERT Bob
and Judy Jaggi; CERT Brandon Howlett; CERT Eric Hull; CERT Eric Madsen; CERT Jean Robinson; CERT Jeff Yancey;
CERT Jeremy Jackson; CERT Jessica Hill; CERT Karen Geertsen; CERT Kari Hull; CERT Kim Gillis; CERT Kim Ventura;
CERT Laurie Goodsell; CERT Lisa Marley; CERT Monica Ruegner; CERT Patrick Quinn; CERT Patty Henetz; CERT Penny
Catanzaro; CERT Rhonda Parker; CERT Stacey Denison; CERT Stan Heaton; CERT Susan Helier; CERT Suzanne Hennefer;
CERT Tara Daniels; CERT Tim Geertsen; CERT W.D. Robinson; Southers
Years ago the East Liberty Park neighborhood worked with the city to make our area a single family
many back yard, meetings and spoke, asking us to help the city to fight those developers who would
want to break down the strength of the neighborhood by putting in accessory building units and
3
Suzanne Hennefer; CERT Tara Daniels; CERT Tim Geertsen; CERT W.o. Robinson; Southers
Years ago the East Uberty Park neighborhood worked with the city to make our area a single family
many back yard meetings and spoke, asking us to help the city to fight those developers who would
want to break down the s t r e ~ g t h of the neighborhood by putting in accessory building units and
They feel that over the garage or in backyards is a perfect place for this type of space.
I took care of all the elderly in my family, including older aunts and uncles, until they died. I brought
them into my home because if the elderly are too old to live alone, they are too old to live alone over
your garage. Elderly who cannot care for themselves are typically bought into your home or put in an
assisted living center, not placed in a apartment over a garage or put outback in a shack. If people
legitimately need more space, they should increase the space in what they already have by adding an
extra bedroom in the attic or the basement. Just as Ted Wilson asked us years ago to protect the
strength of our neighborhood, we are now asking you to please help us. These accessory units will
destroy the appeal and strength of our neighborhood. We would appreciate all you can do to prevent
the breakdown of our neighborhood.
We know that you are the people who have the power to keep our neighborhoods safe from these
kinds of structures, and we are asking you to help us, please. (Others may express their opinions by
writing mayor@slcgov.com and MichaeI.Maloy@slcgov.com, but we want you to know this is how we
feel!!)
Thank you,
The Sudburys
1232 South McClelland Street
801-548-0543
4
1
Maloy, Michael
From: phenetz@xmission.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 11:15 AM
To: Maloy, Michael
Cc: leannsudbury@yahoo.com
Subject: ADUs
Categories: Other
Mr.Maloy:
Thanksforyourexplication.
IhavebeeninterestedinADUsasanewlysinglepersonwhocan't=20affordhermortgage
withoutassistance.Whileacertainkindof=20supplementarysupportmaybepossiblefora
shortperiod,inthe=20longterm,ifIwanttokeepmyhome,creatingastudioapartmentin
=20myhome'ssecondstorywouldbeagoodwaytooffsetmyfinancial=20burden,especially
asIamsoclosetoretirement.
IbelieveallowingADUsonlyifthepropertyowneralsolivesonthe=20premisesmakesgood
sensebetter,certainly,thanbeingforcedto=20sellinadownmarketandmovetoa
lessdesirablelocation.Iam=20quitefondofwhereIlive,likemyneighborsandwould
liketostay.
Sincerely,
PattyHenetz
1
Maloy, Michael
From: Sommerkorn, Wilford
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 4:20 PM
To: Maloy, Michael
Subject: FW: accessory dwelling units
Categories: Other

Wilf Sommerkorn
Director
Salt Lake City Planning Division

From: Gale, Amy
Sent : Monday, January 31, 2011 3: 22 PM
To: Sommerkorn, Wilford
Cc: Langan, Helen; Mayor
Subj ect : FW: accessory dwelling unit s

FYIforyouguys.
From: drholladay@msn.com [ mailt o: drholladay@msn.com]

Sent : Friday, January 28, 2011 9: 20 AM
To: Mayor
Subj ect : accessory dwelling unit s

Mayor Becker ,

I woul d l i ke t o whol ehear t edl y suppor t your pl an t o al l ow
accessor y dwel l i ng uni t s, when appr opr i at e, i n r esi dent i al
nei ghbor hoods. I have l i ved i n a number of ci t es wher e t hese
uni t s enhance t he l i f e of t he communi t y; New Or l eans, Tucson,
Sant a Cr uz.

Last ni ght I at t ended a nei ghbor hood counci l meet i ng of El pco, of
whi ch I am past chai r . Mi chael Kohn, t he cur r ent chai r conduct ed a
sessi on i n whi ch he made i t cl ear t hat he opposes t he pl an and
t ook vot e whi ch came out as opposed. Mi chael wi l l pr esent hi s
f i ndi ngs at t he Mayor ' s br eakf ast next week. I have done st r aw
pol l of r esi dent s on my bl ock ( Ni nt h East bet ween Bel mont and
Yal e) and f i nd t hat al l of t he r esi dent pr oper t y owner s ar e i n f avor
2
of t he amendment .

Thi s vot e i s not r epr esent at i ve of t he r esi dent s of t he ar ea. Onl y
t hose who shar ed hi s vi ews wer e i nvi t ed, wi t h t he except i on of
mysel f and t wo ot her s. I f el t t hat t he pr esent at i on was bi ased and
based on ot her per sonal mot i ves ( such as a depr essed r ent al
mar ket )

Dan Bet hel , an acquai nt ance of your s, and I have di scussed t hi s
i ssue at some l engt h and woul d l i ke t o l end our suppor t t o i t . Most
of t he obj ect i ons bei ng r ai sed ar e smoke scr eens f or somet hi ng
el se.

Keep up t he good wor k

Randol ph Hol l aday
1014 Sout h 900 East 84105

801 322-0832

dr hol l aday@msn.com
1
Maloy, Michael
From: Judi Short [judi.short@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 3:29 PM
To: Maloy, Michael
Subject: Re: ADU's
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Categories: Other
And I think it is on the HAAB board as well coming up. without a draft of whatever you are working on, it is
hard to get input.

I have several concerns - one is that to apply it city-wide without a trial period could create problems, I know
the Avenues folks are pretty clear they don't want it in their area, because they have spent a lot of time cleaning
up illegal units to the point that the area is more livable. The second is that the ordinance does not have a lot of
specifics in it, and can be interpreted to create a lot of problems. Are you going to the East Liberty Community
Council meeting on Thursday? They have a lot of concerns and good examples. Most of Sugar House might be
ok with it, but my Emerson neighborhood wouldn't work except maybe on two or three lots, lots are too small.

When might you have the next draft?
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Maloy, Michael <Michael.Maloy@slcgov.com> wrote:
Judi:

You are correct, we did brief the Planning Commission on the draft ADU ordinance on November 15, and thought we
would have had the official public hearing by now. But following the briefing and another round of internal discussions,
we thought the ADU ordinance needed more work before proceeding. Right now, we are working on the next draft with
the idea that it may be ready for a Planning Commission public hearing in March or April. Also for your information,
HLC has expressed interest in being briefed on the ordinance, which will probably happen on March 2
nd
.

Sincerely,

Michael Maloy, AICP
Principal Planner
Salt Lake City Corp
PO Box 145480
Public Meeting
PUBLIC COMMENT FORM
December 9, 2010
Sustainability City Code Initiative
Name:

! )/)11,(7
Address:
Planning and Zoning Division
Department of Community and
(----> I ( l ' .:?)J' . , !
;--LL--'-_________ --'Zip Code ) {y:,)
I
Ph
", ,) en (':)(,.'\ ,I ":')' '1 \ i'l
one: }'y/' ;: j ) \ / E-mm ()dlJ/{)i{(\I/\; ((( IN\ /d'\t t{) I/!!
Please circle all that apply Practitioner

Please provide your contact infonnation so we can notify you of other meetings or hefuTIgs on
this issue.' .
You may submit this sheet before the end of the Open House, or you can provide your comments
via e-mail to cheri.coffey@slcgov.com or via mail at the following address: Cheri Coffey,
Planning' Manager, Salt Lake City Planning Division, PO Box 145480, Salt Lake City, UT
84114-5480. Please provide your comments by Friday December 31,2010.
Other opportunities for public comment will be available as specific draft ordinances are process.
Look for updates on this project by visiting our website at www.slcgov.comlCEDlPlanning
Questions? Cheri Coffey 801-535-6188
Continue comments on back
Maloy. Michael
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Categories:
To: Cheri Coffey
Michael Maloy
Beth Bowman [bbowman@hsc.utah.edu]
Wednesday, November 10, 2010 2:41 PM
angela.hansenberg@slcgov.com
Acessory Dwelling Units
Other
Planning Commission Members
As a resident of an older (1920's) neighborhood, (not included in Yalecrest) I am not in favor of
the proposed creation of zoning for accessory dwelling units. There are many requirements
inCluded in the the amendment project memorandum concerning Accessory Dwelling Units which
seem to me to be impossible to enforce.
Few other comments:
1) I do not have any confidence that any of the zoning and building code changes and requirements
as listed in the fact sheet for ADU's could be adequately regulated by the city. From personal
experience with construction projects on our street, current enforcement of the building codes does
not work.
2) The older neighborhoods already have a population density that is consistent with sustainable
living.
There already is a mix in our older neighborhoods of varying size homes as well as numerous
duplexes. It is the newer building projects that have not been required to include housing units for
all incomes. This should include the new building in the downtown area as well as newer projects
along the light-rail tracks.
3) How is the city able to regulate who buys property with an accessory dwelling? There is no way
to prevent the dwelling from becoming two rental properties. The city cannot enforce the number
of residents that reside in a unit.
4) There is an infrastructure concern. The old city sewer lines are already a problem. Parking is a
problem as well. Most garages in our area are small and most residents already park on the street.
The narrow streets are a concern for emergency vehicles when cars are parked on both sides of the
street.
Beth Bowman
1445 Harrison Ave
SLC, Ut 84105
801-582-0708
1
Maloy, Michael
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Categories:
Mary Ann Wright [MAW@pbageo.comJ
Friday, November 05, 2010 11:45 AM
Maloy, Michael
ADUs
Other
I am writing in support of the ADUs ordinance for Salt Lake City, This makes good sense in
that it retains urban character but allows for greater use of property within the city for
living space. The idea of not gobbling up natural habitat for more buildings is sound. I
wish the county had a better handle on this idea for commercial space.
1
Maloy, Michael
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Categories:
cindy cromer [3cinslc@live.comJ
Thursday, October 21, 20109:02 PM
Maloy, Michael
more on ADU's
Follow up
Flagged
Other
Michael-Thanks for your patience regarding my numerous objections to Clarion's proposal for ADU's. I just spotted the
following information in a much longer list of incentives for historic preservation that I proposed to Planning in January.
Again, the City gives away development rights that it could use to leverage the kind of reinvestment it wants in housing.
It is not getting enough benefit in the right places under Clarion's proposal. cindy
excerpt from a list of proposed incentives for historic preservation, submitted to Planning in January 2010:
Restrict ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS initially to historic properties (either as stand alone Register sites or in City
Register Districts) located in multiple family zoning districts. Focus on RMF-30 and RMF-35 zones especially in the Capitol
Hill, Avenues, and Central City Districts. Rationale: These zones are established for multiple unit occupancy. The current
residents and property owners EXPECT tenants as neighbors. The Landmarks Commission is currently doing an excellent
job of implementing the design guildelines and ordinances that are available. The regulatory process for infill in historic
districts is working far better than the compatible infill ordinances for single family zoning districts. Structures in historic
districts have higher maintenance costs and would benefit from the additional income that accessory dwelling units could
provide. The majority of the City's surviving carriage houses are concentrated in the historic districts and on stand alone
Register sites
Provide DENSITY BONUSES for property owners who are reinvesting in historic Districts and stand alone historic sites.
(This would be one way the City could create incentives for protecting excellent historic buildings that would qualify for
stand alone status but are not surrounded by the critical mass of surviving historic buildings to be in a District).
1
ZIP CODE
E-MAIL
COMMENT
Public Forum
COMMENT FORM
October 21, 2010
Accessory Dwelling Unit-Draft Ordinance
TIC/If.- wdd" j'-
r&J/ ft\ <'1' COf If oA
NAME
ADDRESS
ZIP CODE
btio(J
E-MAIL
l
COMMENT
NAME S 0., ...
ADDRESS
ZIP CODE
E-MAIL S V\(\(J ,\( \ '\ . J
Maloy. Michael
From:
Sent:
To:
Categories: Other
Concerns:
Does the sentence "Ifthere is any conflict between the provisions of this section shall take precedence. /I not
undo many protections in place to make sure the ADU do not negatively impact an area. This concern is based
on my experience of code interpretations in Building Services when permits are actually pulled. Can this be
clartfied to avoid conflicts in the future.
Experience has tallght us that the review criteria utilized by various departments when the approve exceptions
and plans is not spec{fic and does not encompass neighborhood concerns.
Specific criteriafor assessment for parking, infrastructure, etc. would make this ordinance more sellable.
Right now many communities are mounting opposition. Those that have the strongest land use experience will
be most vocal (ie GACC) and those that are not as organized or versed (ie Central City) will not. Since the
Mayor has stated we will start with a trial "where this is wanted, I am concerned.
Can something more be done to clartIY parking? Exceptions given due to transit does not mean the current or
fi/ture tenant does not own a car. I am sure transportation has some guidelinesfor if there is enough parking on
a streetfor the housing units in the area. What is the break even point? Concern that people will pull up back
yards to put in asphalt and additionalflat swface parking which does nothing to keep the character of an area.
Concern that parking pads "will appear in the fiont of homes. Is this allowed and when?
This ordinance and process need" to be integrated 11lfth the legalization process. Again since at one point
leasing rooms in all homes during and a,jter the war was allowed in the UNC area,
this does not establish a documented right for a duplex, triplex, etc. Since this is not clear, many are obtaining
approval by staff and the BOA. What is realistic for an established neighborhood in terms of infi'astructure,
parking, density, enforcement, etc. when you take this process and the ADU plan into consideration. Should
there be a limit to allow a neighborhood to be stable? The single family owners are loosing in this context what
they thought they were acquiring in neighborhoodfeel {(the density o.(these two programs is too high. Have not
brainstormed how but let me know if talking more about this could help clar@ the issue. I think there are
solutions.
Maybe the community could help ident{IY a trial area that agrees. To have buy in to be a trial area that agrees
would be excellent. The community mightform a committee that gives monthlyfeedback to the stqlland work
jointly to form what can work city H'ide.
More as I have time. best, e
From: esther e. hunter
To: Cheri Coffey; michael.maloy@slcgov.com
Hi,
1
Maloy. Michael
From:
Sent:
To:
Maloy, Michael
Categories: Other
Thank you Michael.
Maybe this could be clarified in a Question and Answer type of added piece. Most in the community give the
name design to all of the things in both.
best, e
From: Maloy, Michael
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 20108:16 AM
To: 'esther e. hunter'
Subject: RE: ADU question
Esther:
Thanks for the question. Any compatible infill regulation would still apply under the proposed ADU ordinance. I think
when we made the summary statement regarding "design guidelines" we were thinking more about aesthetic controls
(Le. material, architectural design, etc.) rather than height, bulk, or spatial relationships, which our infill regulations
primarily address.
Sincerely,
Michael Maloy, AICP
Principal Planner
Salt Lake City Corp
PO Box 145480
(801) 535-7118 Office
(801) 535-6174 Fax
michael. maloy@slcgov.com
From: esther e. hunter [mailto:estherehunter@hotmail.com]
To: Coffey, Cheri; Maloy, Michael
Hi,
The fact sheet states that we do not have design guidelinesfor areas besides historic districts. Does the
compatible injill guideline not apply?
Thanks, e
Esther Hunter
801.583.9804
1
Maloy, Michael
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Categories:
Hi ...
ADU Pilot Idea
Other
Had an after thought ... not sure if the goal right now is still attempting to go city wide or to have a 3-6
month pilot somewhere.
Do you have any areas interested? All I am hearing is mounting opposition.
If you are looking to pilot, how large would the area have to be? Would 16 blocks be enough .... thinking of the
UNC
What about the idea of having a working the community pilot area that works collaboratively to
help sort out some solutions in a positive yvayfor the issues listed in my previous email?
Not sure I could sell my board but maybe? Right now they are opposed but they are reasonable and if they
could have a hand it forming a win win solution, I think
they would be all over this. I know it would require the community committee with allowance for real team work
like we did with IHC
IHC was a terrific example. We were in and out of the PC within 10 minutes due to steering efforts yet
this a very long negative starting point.
Besides .. we love a challenge.
Benefits of the UNC are:
transit
R2 zone
Historic
next to UU
Tons of illegal units
Have strong working committee that already speaks land use with extensive experience working/thinking win
win
Small area that has all issues in spades so we have realistic experience to work out what could work City wide.
It could be a real win win example o.fshowing how the community can work together with the City in a pilot vs
what has been going on in Yalecrest, etc.
See what you think.
best, e
Esther Hunter
801.583.9804
1
Maloy, Michael
From:
Sent:
esther e. hunter [estherehunter@hotmail.comJ
Friday, August 20,201012:43 AM
To: Maloy, Michael
Subject: ADU's
Categories: Other
Hi Michael,
I have just come back.fi'om a very long ECCC Executive Board meeting where ADU's were discussed atgreat
length. The interest in our council area is very high.
However, this interest is being heightened due to Cindy's document has made it's way around several of the
neighborhoods.
As we wrote before, Gary and I are very interested in making sure that our council area is providing accurate .
and fair information to our members regarding this potential concept and have not had the opportunity to have
a representative attend the ,\pecialfocus groups. We believe the ECCC is one of the most impacted areas.
We would very much appreciate your help in this area. The neighbors Gwy and I have c\poken with (this week
alone) number in the low 50's. This is unusual high for an early policy discussion when the concept is not yet
fitlly developed. .
The informal majority opinion is that neighbors are very concerned that this policy be inclusive and allow all
residential zones the ability to earn this extra income for their building even if they are not historic or in a
higher density zone. Many are also wanting to conform with City law since they have been illegalfor many a
year. As you know, we have a very high rate of illegal duplexes.
When you are ready, we would greatly appreciate anything you can give us so that we can distribute it to our
council area so they have a full picture of the concept. Or ff you are able to attend a general meeting we would
welcome this very much.
Please let us know your suggestion and ideas.
best, Esther
Co-Chair, ECCC
Esther Hunter
801.583.9804
1
Maloy, Michael
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Categories:
cindy cromer [3cinslc@live.com]
Thursday, August 19, 2010 8:45 PM
ADU's
ADU71410.rtf
Other
Cheri and Michael-The Community Network asked me to talk about ADU's at the August meeting. I suggested that the
Network invite Planning to talk about Clarion's proposal and I would talk about mine. I passed out the attachment this
morning at the Network meeting and hope that the topic will be scheduled again next month with someone from Planning
in attendance.
The longer I consider Clarion's proposal, the more problems I see with it. The City could NEVER enforce the owner
occupancy requirement. I cannot imagine a judge deciding against a property owner who had an ADU and could no
longer live in the property. It would not happen. Maybe it would in Colorado but it wouldn't happen in Utah; EVER.
The attachment is the same one I circulated in July with a few minor tweaks. c
1
Maloy, Michael
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Categories:
Mr. Maloy,
Allen Family [mecj@me.com]
Friday, July 23, 2010 10:28 AM
Maloy, Michael
Complete-Sustainability and ADU's in R-2 district
Other
I am writing to ask that zoning district R-2 be included in the ADU section of the proposed
sustainablility ordinance. Living in a rental district and trying to rent out a duplex
apartment in an owner occupied home is unnecessarily difficult. Zoning and code impose
guidelines for renting that are outdated and outlandish. I would like to see restrictions
such as lot size and frontal space removed from city code. I would also like to see the R-2
district included in the upcoming ADU portion of the sustainability ordinance.
I appreciate your attention to this matter.
Liz Allen
1
July 14, 2010, revised August 18, 2010
Clarion has proposed that Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU's) be allowed in
single-family zoning districts, in owner-occupied housing. I want to start by
identifying the prerequisites for such an approach to work.
The Ci,ty would have to have effective enforcement regarding violations of
its zoning ordinance and permitting process. While there are effective
employees who work in enforcement in Salt Lake, we do not have
consistent and comprehensive enforcement. The City will not be able to
enforce the "owner occupancy" requirement.
The City would need a successful program for compatible infill to
address design issues associated with ADU's. The current ordinance for
infill has not been successful and is under revision.
Logically there would need to be a demand for additional units, or the
City would be undermining the efforts of existing landlords to fill their
vacancies. As every landlord I know would atest, the last couple of years
have been very challenging with higher vacancy rates, concessions, and
stagnant rents in the face of rising taxes and utilities. The,Clarion proposal
restricts ADU's to one-bedroom apartments. That is the very part of the
market that is the weakest right now, as people have downsized to studios
or rented rooms or move in with someone to share expenses.
There would need to be pubiic support for unit legalization and
expansion of housing in low density neighborhoods. The Board of
Adjustment did an about face a year and a half ago and began approving
unit legalizations that it would have denied previously. Public opinion has
not made a similar shift. Recent cases on the Board's agenda in the
University and Gilmer Park Neighborhoods indicate that property owners in
low density areas do not always share the Administration's enthusiasm for
additional units.
It would make sense to have additional housing located in areas served
by mass transit. Clarion's proposal to restrict ADU's to single family
zoning districts introduces new units of housing in areas that typically have
limited or no mass transit.
In order to have safe housing as part of an ADU initiative, the City has to
have a process for business licensing in single family structures.
Currently, the City licenses buildings with 3 or more units. While the City
has discussed requiring bus'iness licenses for rental properties that are
single family and duplex structures, the City does not have a process in
place to regulate rental housing already in single family structures, much
less to regulate the additional units created as ADU's.
Some of the deficits mentioned above are long standing and cannot be
overcome by the Mayor' directive to improve/create the tool. The one
involving public opinion is not under the Mayor's control.
So what could the City do that would increase housing without aggravating
existing problems and creating a firestorm of opposition?
The City could begin the implementation of ADU's in the existing
multiple-family zoning districts, RMF-30 and RMF-35. It could narrow the
opportunity even further initially by restricting ADU's to the City's historic
districts where there is a design review process that is working well. The
residents in these zoning districts expect' renters as neighbors .. These
parts of the City have much better service by mass transit, especially
TRAX. The City is already licensing many of these buildings as
businesses.
, Because of current market conditions, it is important that the City take an
incremental approach. Starting in the multi-family zones within historic
districts allows that. The City could start with the RMF-30 and -35 zones
and then add the R-2 zone. Or, it could add properties within the National
Register Historic Districts using guidelines similar to those used for
additions in historic districts.
Not only would this approach have a greater potential for success, the City
would also be offering an incentive for historic preservation, which already
has a longer approval process.
The immediate risk of Clarion's approach is that it will create a
nonproductive uproar of opposition from residents in some of the City's
more exclusive neighborhoods. The long term risk is that it will create a
mess on a City-wide level, which like so many previous bad ideas, the
City's planners will not be able to fix.
July 14, 2010
Clarion has proposed that Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU's) be allowed in single-family zoning districts,
in owner-occupied housing. I want to start by identifying the prerequisites for such an approach to work.
The City would have to have effective enforcement regarding violations of its zoning ordinance and
permitting process. While there are effective employees who work in enforcement in Salt Lake, we do
not have consistent and comprehensive enforcement. The City will not be able to enforce the "owner
occupancy" requirement.
The City would need a successful program for compatible infill to address design issues associated
with ADU's. The current ordinance for infill has not been successful and is under revision.
Logically there would need to be a demand for additional units, or the City would be undermining the
efforts of existing landlords to fill their vacancies. As every landlord I know would atest, the last couple of
years have been very challenging with higher vacancy rates, concessions, and stagnant rents in the face
of rising taxes and utilities.
There would need to be public support for unit legalization and expansion of housing in low density
neighborhoods. The Board of Adjustment did an about face a year and a half ago and began approving
unit legalizations that it would have denied previously. Public opinion has not made a similar shift. The
case on the Board's agenda this coming Monday is likely to be another demonstration of how neighbors
in low density neighborhoods feel about legalizations and rental units in general.
It would make sense to have additional housing located in areas served by mass transit.
Clarion's proposal to restrict ADU's to single family zoning districts introduces new units of housing in
areas that typically have limited or no mass transit.
In order to have safe housing as part of an ADU initiative, the City has to have a process for business
licensing in single family structures. Currently, the City licenses buildings with 3 or more units.
While the City has discussed requiring business licenses for rental properties that are single family and
duplex structures, the City does not have a process in place to regulate rental housing already in single
family structures, much less to regulate the additional units created as ADU's.
Some of the deficits mentioned above are long standing and cannot be overcome by the Mayor' directive
to improve/create the tool. The one involving public opinion is not under the Mayor's control.
So what could the City do that would increase housing without aggravating existing problems and
creating a firestorm of opposition?
The City could begin the implementation of ADU's in the existing multiple-family zoning districts, RMF-30
and RMF-35. It could narrow the opportunity even further initially by restricting ADU's to the City's
historic districts where there is a design review process that is working well. The residents in these
zoning districts expect renters as neighbors. These parts of the City have much better service by mass
transit, especially TRAX. The City is already licensing many of these buildings as businesses.
Because of current market conditions, it is important that the City take an incremental approach. Starting
in the multi-family zones within historic districts allows that. The City could start with the RMF-30 and -35
zones and then add the R-2 zone. Or, it could add properties within the National Register Historic
Districts using guidelines similar to those used for additions in historic districts.
Not only would this approach have a greater potential for success, the City would also be offering an
incentive for historic preservation, which already has a longer approval process.
The immediate risk of Clarion's approach is that it will create a nonproductive uproar of opposition from
residents in some of the City's more exclusive neighborhoods. The long term risk is that it will create a
mess on a City-wide level, which like so many previous bad ideas, the City's planners will not be able to
fix.
Maloy, Michael
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Categories:
robert daniels [bipdaniels@gmail.com]
Tuesday, July 06,20108:38 AM
Maloy, Michael
ADU's
Other
Good morning MichaeL ....
I am both pleased and interested in the city developing plans regarding ADD's. They are in integral part of this
city's housing stock. I am, however, concerned that they will be inappropriately regulated. A foreseeable
problem might be Mrs. Murphy's Exemption. I will not try to explain this outmoded loophole to you but I will
say that it is a part of the Fair Housing law that has outlived its useful existence. I was a victim of it and know
of others who were also adversely affected. It would be so simple for the city to create an ordinance to render it
obsolete. I would appreciate your looking into that.
Thanks,
Bip
1
Coffey. Cheri
From: Gary Harding [garyh99@comcast.net]
Tuesday, January 19, 2010 1:40 PM
Coffey, Cheri
Sent:
To:
Cc: Yalecrest CC Chair
Subject: RE: Comments---FW: Yalecrest Notice - Accessory Dwelling Units proposed by SLC
Accessory Dwelling Units Purpose and Background.pdf Attachments:
Ms. Coffey,
I read the brief attachment. First I observe that the attachllwnt has very little definition it just floats a broad concept.
Deviating from the current rc<,icielltial zoning restrictions by allowing people to add ADU's is just that, a violation of the
existing zoning concepts. I would oppose any broad bclsed variance sLich as this. After the opposition stated above my
thoughts on your General Questions Me:
1. Yes onsite parking should be lequil"ed dlong with any new dwellings. If an ADU is approved the owner should
have to periodic ally sllilnlit hay wil h properly lnX jJilyrnents) a certification that they still have the required on-
site
2. Defini\ely 1\1)1 i'i ill /(JIIl",
3. Size sholilcl bl:' ;,(,lIoIJ',iy i <l1lt1 cicfinitr>lv nul un par with i:1 Principal Structure.
4. Any rf:'glilaLions :;liolilci be suIJulclin(J\erJ io eXlstill); If>guldtions and infill restrictions.
5. Yes, allY stru(l.lIre (Clil or beyund the scale of ,1 ? i',clrage) on residential property in the city should be subject
to design gUide Iii It'S.
6. ilild Home Of u.lpdtions .should be prohibited in AUUs. Otherwise they would be built specifically as
busines', IOC(lti()11S de::.pilc wlldtevel" guicielilws ate olfered.
7. If ADU's are made available the property owner should have to submit with property tax payments a
certification that the sil ucture is nut Iunger Llsed ()S (1 Dwelling, or was vacant all year, or that the occupancy still
complies with lile ADU
As you can tell I think l:lii'; initidtiv(:' would jll',t bt" used as il to increase population density and undermine the
character of the resident-i;ll distlir l', for which city is jLf',lifiably pruud,
Sent: MondaYI December 211 2009 11:38 AM
Neighbors,
801.535.6188, or (c1wri.cotfey(Cl!sicgov.com), The proposed ordinance is in the early stages and the City is
Reminder - N 0 Jan. 6 Yalecrest Meeting
1
Happy Holidays!
Lisette Gibson
day 801-583-9316
Sustainability Code Revision Project. The Plmming Division is currently working with Clarion Associates to
cheri.coffey@islcgoY.com).
2
Coffey, Cheri
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dan Jones [djones7530@hotmail.comJ
Tuesday, January 05,20106:17 PM
Coffey, Cheri
Ms.Coffey, I am a resident at 1738 Yale Avenue in the "Harvard-Yale" area of the city.
I have learned some news from our neighborhood council that has me quite concerned, to wit, that the
city is considering rezoning fo allow "Accessory Dwelling Units" to be constructed in our neighborhood. My
comments below refer to an information circular I received from ARCH giving the definition, background,
and purpose statement of ADUs.
My concerns fall into three areas:
1. This is already a high-density (small-lot) neighborhood with challenging parking. We don't need to
increase the density by "increasing the housing stock of existing neighborhoods"!
2. It is a neighborhood with great charm. In the recent past the city has realized this and taken steps to
prevent architectural monstosities from being built (in some cases, alas, too late.) This ordinance if passed
could kick off another cycle of ugly remodelling. The picture shown in the ARCH circular of an attached
ADY above-garage was anything but reassuring in this regard.
3. This is a very safe, family-oriented neighborhood. No matter how well-intentioned, these units once
built will certainly turn into rentals that will forever change the historically stable character of our
neighborhood.
I would appreciate hearing from regarding any public fora that will be provided for feedback on this
proposal. I am quite sure that if our neighborhood was canvassed in any manner, an overwhelming
negative response would be turned in.
Thank you in advance for your consideration of these comments.
Dan Jones
1738 Yale Ave.
SLC 84108
Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up now.
1
Coffey. Cheri
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Warren,
dmgib@xmission.com
Monday, January 04, 2010 11 :54 AM
Warren Lloyd
Coffey, Cheri; Hunter Esther; Oliver Anne; Schwemmer AlA Annie; Huffaker Kirk; Love, Jill;
Garrott, Luke; Martin, JT; Simonsen Soren; Virginia Hylton home; GEORGE CATHY
KELNER; Sally Patrick; Michael F. Jones; Jon Dewey; Yalecrest CC Chair
Re: ADU Zoning
Thank you for copying us on your email regarding the City's proposed idea of allowing Accessory Dwelling
Units. Personally, I think this is a
terrible idea and it should NOT be implemented city wide. The
Yale crest Executive Board is opposed to the idea.
was included with the "Sustainability Code Revision Project".
The Accessory Dwelling Unit section language should be removed from
the Sustainability Project. It needs to stand alone as a separate
ordinance as this is a huge issue that would have tremendous impact
Yalecrest is a Single-Family Residential Neighborhood
CN).
underlying zoning from single family to multi-family. Allowing
these dwellings would eliminate the predictability of living (or
moving into) a
quiet single family neighborhood. We already have the problem in
the Yalecrest area of "lack of privacy" when oversized new and
existing garages and home additions loom over neighboring yards and
homes. These units should NOT be allowed in R-1 zoned areas.
the character of our historic neighborhood due to historically
insensitive new construction and additions. Encouraging this type
of
development would only add to the problem. The "worse case" has to considered. As with the Hubbard
McMansion and the new detached
garage at 1605 Princeton Avenue, people WILL take advantage of the
City's ordinances and push the limits. The garage at
1605 Princeton has three dormers on the east side, has a sliding
glass door on the southwest side and is almost as tall as the
primary structure. An illegal sewer line was "caught" by the city and
plugged. It is clear this detached garage was planned as a dwelling
unit. Please drive by and see the garage for yourself!
1
Don't apply this city wide. If it appears that this ordinance would
be appropriate for a particular area of SLC (and you have the public
support), try it out and see how it goes first. This idea might work
in some areas of SLC (possibly along existing public transit lines).
UTA has eliminated a tremendous amount of public transportation in
the
Lot coverage - how would these units impact the current lot coverage
Units and Occupancy - would there be a cap on units per lot? What
about the rule of "no more than three unrelated adults living
together"? How many occupants would be allowed in these units?
for the Yalecrest area. And who would want to see parking pads
added
concrete parking pads sustainable)? I don't see how the parking
could
work. Most lots and garages in our area are small and a lot of
residents
already park one car on the street. Where would all the cars be
parked? Off street parking has to be a requirement.
I moved into our neighborhood years ago with the assumption (and
the zoning) that only single-family homes would be line our streets
and garages (containing cars) would line most backyards.
Thank you,
Lisette Gibson,
Chair - Y alecrest Neighborhood Council
Quoting Warren Lloyd <warren@lloyd-arch.com>:
> Cheri:
>
> Thanks for your work on the Sustainability Code Project.
>
> I am responding (in red) to the General questions with some brief
> comments with a cc to several neighborhood advocates for their
thoughts.
>
2
> Happy New Year!
>
>
> Warren
>
> General Concepts
> Regulations to ensure mitigation of negative impacts
>
> 1. Limit Size of Unit: Proposal is to limit the size of Accessory
> Dwelling Unit to ensure it is subordinate of the principal
structure.
>
>
> 2. Owner Occupancy: Require either the principal unit or the ADU to
be
> occupied by the owner of the lot.
>
> General Questions
>
> 1. Parking Requirement: Should an Accessory Dwelling Unit have to
> include on-site parking?
>
> In general I would be opposed to additional on-site parking
> requirements for the ADU but would suggest a tool that would give
> planning staff ability to respond to specific conditions where on-
> street parking problems have been documented.
>
> 2. Where to Allow: In what zoning districts should Accessory
Dwelling
> Units be allowed?
>
> I would consider it in ALL residential zones
>
:> 3. Should the size of the structure conform to the regulations of
> Principal Structures or Accessory Structures?
>
> I would use the Accessory Structure standards
>
> 4. Should these regulations take precedence over other existing
> regulations ifthere is a conflict (such as those relating to
> compatible infill or historic preservation regulations?)
>
> No, but they should be a criteria for approving a special exception
or
> variance.
>
> In H overlay districts, the ADU could be noted in a staff report as
> mitigating or supporting condition to an application
>
> Is there a way to confirm the intent of an applicant to provide
> additional housing?
3
> Have we now come full circle from requiring homeowners to verify
that
> the accessory structure (ADU) WON'T be used for housing to
requmng
> that it WILL be housing?
>
> 5. Should there be design guidelines for these types of structures
> (where they are detached?)
>
> Yes, There should be a Design guideline for detached ADD's
> They could be developed from the patterns established in the
> Compatible Infill Overlay and the Residential Design Guidelines
from
> the H Overlay.
>
> 6. Should home occupations be allowed in Accessory Dwelling Units?
>
> Yes
>
> 7. Other
> '
>
>
> Warren K Lloyd, AlA LEED AP
> Principal
>
>
> LloydArchitects
> Salt Lake City + Seattle
>
> 573 E 600 S, Salt Lake City UT 84102
> ph 801.328.3245 I fax 801.328.3246
> lloyd-arch. com
4
Coffey, Cheri
From:
Sent:
To:
Warren Lloyd [warren@lIoyd-arch.com]
Saturday, January 02, 2010 10:03 AM
Coffey, Cheri
Cc: Yalecrest CC Chair; Hunter Esther; Oliver Anne; Schwemmer AlA Annie; Huffaker Kirk; Love,
Jill; Garrott, Luke; Martin, JT; Simonsen Soren
Subject: ADU Zoning
Cheri:
Thanks for your work on the Sustainability Code Project.
I am responding (in red) to the General questions with some brief comments with a cc to several neighborhood advocates for their thoughts.
Happy New Year!
Warren
General Concepts
Regulations to ensure mitigation of negative impacts
1. Limit Size of Unit: Proposal is to limit the size of Accessory Dwelling Unit to ensure it is subordinate of the principal structure.
2. Owner Occupancy: Require either the principal unit or the ADU to be occupied by the owner of the lot.
General Questions
1. Parking Requirement: Should an Accessory Dwelling Unit have to include on-site parking?
In general I would be opposed to additional on-site parking requirements for the ADU but would suggest a tool that would give planning staff ability to
respond to specific conditions where on-street parking problems have been documented.
2. Where to Allow: In what zoning districts should Accessory Dwelling Units be allowed?
I would consider it in ALL residential zones
3. Should the size ofthe structure conform to the regulations of Principal Structures or Accessory Structures?
I would use the Accessory Structure standards
4. Should these regulations take precedence over other existing regulations ifthere is a conflict (such as those relating to compatible infill or historic
preservation regulations?)
No, but they should be a criteria for approving a special exception or variance.
In H overlay districts, the ADU could be noted in a staffreport as mitigating or supporting condition to an application
Is there a way to confirm the intent of an applicant to provide additional housing?
Have we now come full circle from requiring homeowners to verify that the accessory structure (ADU) WON'T be used for housing to requiring that it WILL
be housing?
5. Should there be design guidelines foJ' these types of structures (where they are detached?)
Yes, There should be a Design guideline for detached ADU's
They could be developed from the patterns established in the Compatible Infill Overlay and the Residential Design Guidelines from the H Overlay.
6. Should home occupations be allowed in Accessory Dwelling Units?
Yes
7. Other
1
Coffey, Cheri
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Owen & Deanna Lunt [odlunt@juno.com]
Coffey, Cheri
I belong to the Yalecrest Community Council, and I oppose the "Accessory Dwelling Units"
proposal by SLC.
Deanna Lunt
1870 Harvard Ave.
Salt Lake City, Ut 84108
Criminal Lawyer
Criminal Lawyers - Click here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=3WISwGVJ-
yHzEg9nABsd8QAAJzlGjldoot8yPQSjfgOF0tsYAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAiFgAAAAA=
1
Coffey. Cheri
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
vankays5@aol,com
Thursday, December 24, 2009 10:39 AM
Coffey, Cheri
ADU'S
As a resident of the Yalecrest community (residing at 1234 So. 1800 E.) I encourage making ADU's a viable option to our
neighborhood. I think the economic advantages would make living in this area accessible to more people, and might
make it possible for my wife and I to stay here.
Neil vanKeizerswaard
1
Coffey, Cheri
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Cheri,
Tom A. Lund [talund@tannerco.comj
Wednesday. December 23. 2009 10:08 AM
Coffey. Cheri
Gretchen Lund
"Accessory Dwelling Units" proposal
My wife, Gretchen, and I have lived in the Harvard/Yale area for almost 20 years. Even though most
of the lots and houses are small, it's been a wonderful place to raise our children.
We recently learned that the Salt Lake City Planning Division is considering an ordinance allowing
"Accessory Dwelling Units", and we wanted to give you our input:
We are against such an ordinance because we feel that our neighborhood already has a high
density, old quaint density but density nevertheless. Simply put, one would be hard pressed to find
another historical neighborhood, other than the avenues and central city, with the density that
exists in the Harvard/Yale area. This proposed ordinance would create additional traffic and "new
rental density" that would detract from, not add to, the quality of life in our area. The small lots in
our area already don't have very much open space. At a time when we are hearing more and more
about "open space", it is hard for us to understand why a proposed ordinance like this is even being
consideredl
Thank you for taking our input. Please share our input with the SLC Planning Division. Please feel
free to call us as well!
Thank you.
Tom & Gretchen Lund
1553 Laird Avenue
C-(80 1) 856-2005
This e-mail message may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended
recipient(s), or the employee or agent responsible for delivery of this message to the intended recipient(s), you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail message is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail message from your computer.
To ensure compliance with U.S. Treasury rules, unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. Tax advice contained in this
communication (including attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by the recipient for the
purpose of 1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code, and 2) promoting, marketing, or
recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed in this communication.
1
Coffey, Cheri
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Coffey, Cheri
Coffey, Cheri
ADU Public Comment
Received a voice mail message today from Wayne Cannon at 1373 East Harvard Avenue. He is supportive of Accessory
Dwelling Units if they require on-site parking (and they don't generate a parking problem) and they are built in a way
that is compatible with the neighborhood (no garage mahals). He is not sure how regulations can address that but if
they can he supports them.
12/22/09
1
Coffey. Cheri
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Ms Coffey
LYNN Pershing [Ikpershing@gmail.com]
Coffey, Cheri; dmgib@mission.com
accessory dwelling units
I implore you to stop the madness and continuous, aggressive destruction of one of SLC most charming
neighborhoods (YaleCrest).
I have read the accessory dwelling units and sustainability code revisions and have concluded it allows for
rental additions to existing family dwellings. Provisions for consistency with existing architecture, etc are
always "good speak" but have "no teeth to defend or protect" these provisions.
Homes in Yale crest neighborhood are small-medium sized single family dwelling units and a fair number of
already existing rental duplexes. We don't need nor want to become rental units. It is important to the city that
this neighborhood retains its property values. Rental additions will only decrease home values. Previous city
approval of , mega mansions' and new commercial business has surely been beneficial to the city's tax base, but is
destroying the very charming fiber of this historic neighborhood that has been critical to its high real estate
demand, excellent property values and high quality of life (walkability) which benefits the city's tax base.
The City speaks of 'improving our city neighborhoods' but doesn't interact with residents to identify how that
might be best accomplished.
Stop the Madness, the Greed and the Destruction of what is inherently good. Protect what is precious and so
easily lost to good intentions. Go change something that is NOT working--the DOWNTOWN. Get the massive
downtown projects completed, give free parking for year to re-establish downtown shopping behavior and get
commerce rolling there again. Leave us alone--we're already a great neighborhood and doing our part to insure a
"better Downtown living experience".
DO NOT implement this proposed city ordinancelzoning change. It will DESTROY the YaleCrest
neighborhood, its charm, congeniality and high quality of life.
Respectfully,
Lynn K. Pershing, Ph.D.
Consultant
Dermatopharmaceutics
tel: 801/971-4959
email: lkpershing@gmail.com
1
Coffey. Cheri
From:
Sent:
To:
Sally M Patrick [Sally.Patrick@utah.edu]
Yalecrest CC Chair; Coffey, Cheri
Cc: Sally M Patrick
Subject: RE: Accessory Dwelling Units Comments
Cheri-
Lisette did a great job of expanding on my initial comments to you-I second these 100% on
behalf of Yalecrest.
Sally M. Patrick
1413 Laird Circle
YCC Secretary/Treasurer
From: dmgib@xmission.com [dmgib@xmission.com]
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 2:50 PM
To: Coffey, Cheri
Cc: dmgib@xmission.com
Subject: Accessory Dwelling Units Comments
Cheri,
Here are my comments to the Accessory Dwelling Unit section that was included with the
Sustainability Code Revision Project.
I feel that the Accessory Dwelling Unit section language should be removed from the
Sustainability Project. It needs to stand alone as a separate ordinance as this is a huge
issue that would have tremendous impacts on our neighborhoods.
Yalecrest is an entirely single-family residential neighborhood (R-1-5000 and R-1-7000) with
the exception of two businesses (zoned CN).
Allowing accessory dwelling units would essentially change the underlying zoning from single
family to multi-family. Allowing these dwellings would eliminate the predictability of
living (or moving into) a quiet single family neighborhood. We already have the problem of
"lack of privacy" when oversized new and existing garages and home additions loom over
neighboring yards. These units should not be allowed in R-1 zoned areas.
Character - Yalecrest already has a huge problem in maintaining the character of our historic
neighborhood due to historically insensitive new construction and additions. Encouraging
this type of development would only add to the problem.
Don't apply this City-Wide. If it appears to be appropriate for a particular area of SLC
(and you have the public support), try it out and see how it goes. This idea might work in
some areas of SLC (possibly along existing public transit lines).
UTA has eliminated a tremendous amount of public transportation in the Yalecrest area over
the years and there are no nearby businesses to easily walk to (#7 and #8).
Lot coverage - how would allowing these dwellings impact lot coverage requirements? The lot
coverage percentage was reduced in 2005 with the city-wide compatible infill zoning.
Units - would there be a cap on units per lot and what about the rule of "no more than three
unrelated adults living together"?
1
Parking - As I mentioned, large out of scale garages are a huge lssue for the Yalecrest area.
And who would want to see parking pads added to our lots (and is getting rid of green space
for asphalt or concrete parking pads sustainable)? I don't see how the parking could work.
Most lots and garages in our area are small and a lot of residents already park one car on
the street.
This should NOT take precedence over other existing regulations. This section should NOT be
rushed through.
Thank you,
Lisette Gibson
2
Coffey, Cheri
From:
Sent:
To:
k moncla [kmonc2003@yahoo.com]
Coffey, Cheri
I am opposed to this, It seems that it would just increase rental units in our older neighborhoods, to which we
have to many already. It would increase traffic and congestion and it is a terrible idea.
1
Coffey, Cheri
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Cheri,
Michael F. Jones [mjones@mfjlaw.com]
Tuesday, December 22, 20097:44 AM
Coffey, Cheri
DeLaMare-Schaefer, Mary; Yalecrest CC Chair
FW: Yalecrest Notice - Accessory Dwelling Units proposed by SLC
Accessory Dwelling Units Purpose and Background.pdf
You may recall that I was a member of the Board of Adjustment for 15 years starting in 1993, and Chair of the Board from
2001 to the end of my service in 2008.
I noted this morning that you're the staff contact for this ADU idea, so I'm sending you my comment to Mary next below.
In order not to be selfish and to look at this not just from the perspective of my own Yalecrest neighborhood but also the
rest of the City, I must say that this is a terrible idea for much if not all of the City. It would change the scale and
appearance of any neighborhood where it was permitted - destroying Federal Heights, the Avenues, Sugarhouse, and so
on. The owner-occupancy aspect would be impossible to enforce.
Please stop this terrible idea before it gains any traction at all.
Respectfully,
Mike
Michael F. Jol1es I Michael F . .Jones, r).c. I Wells Fargo Center I 299 South Main Street, Suite '1300, Salt Lake City,
Utah (WI'I 'I I
f I F 80'1.582.4353 I mjones@mfjlaw.com I www.mfjlaw.com
This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If YOLl are not an intended recipient, please delete
communication from any computer or network system This e-mail does not create an attorney-client relationship with you
if you are not already a client of this law firm
From: Michael F. Jones [mailto:mjones@mfjlaw.com]
To: 'De La Mare-Schaefer, Mary'
Cc: 'dmgib@xmission.com'
Subject: FW: Yalecrest Notice - Accessory Dwelling Units proposed by SLC
Hi Mary,
This ADU idea is simply a terrible one as it relates to my Yalecrest neighborhood. Without doubt, it would result in even
larger garages, and even more of a scale problem than my neighborhood already has, not to mention tearing asunder the
historical fabric of the neighborhood once and for all.
Respectfully,
Mike
Michael F. Jones I Michael F, Jones, P.c. I Wells Fargo Center I 'l99 SOllth Main Street, Suite '1300, Salt Lake City,
Utah 841'11
T 80'1.'38'/.2400 I F 801.'iB2./i353 I mjones@mfjlaw.com I www.mfjlaw.com
This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, please delete
1
communication (rom any computer or network system. This e-mail does not create iJlI attorney-client relationship with you
if you are not already a client of this law firm.
Neighbors,
801.535.6188, or (cheri.coffey@slcgov.com). The proposed ordinance is in the early stages and the City is
Reminder - NO Jan. 6 Yalecrest Meeting
Happy Holidays!
Lisette Gibson
day 801-583-9316
Sustainability Code Revision Project. The Planning Division is currently working with Clarion Associates to
cheri.coffey@slcgov.com).
2
Coffey. Cheri
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Cheri,
dmgib@xmission.com
Coffey, Cheri
Yalecrest CC Chair
Accessory Dwelling Units Comments
Plaintext Version of Message; HTML Version of Message
was included with the Sustainability Code Revision Project.
I feel that the Accessory Dwelling Unit section language should be removed from the Sustainability Project. It
needs to stand alone as a separate
ordinance as this is a huge issue that would have tremendous impacts
Yalecrest is an entirely single-family residential neighborhood
CN).
underlying zoning from single family to multi-family. Allowing these dwellings would eliminate the
predictability of living (or moving into) a
quiet single family neighborhood. We already have the problem of
"lack of privacy" when oversized new and existing garages and home additions loom over neighboring yards.
These units should not be allowed in R-l zoned areas.
the character of our historic neighborhood due to historically insensitive new construction and additions.
Encouraging this type of
development would only add to the problem.
Don't apply this City-Wide. If it appears to be appropriate for
a particular area of SLC (and you have the public support), try it out and
see how it goes. This idea might work in some areas of SLC (possibly along existing public transit lines).
UTA has eliminated a tremendous amount of public transportation in the
Lot coverage - how would allowing these dwellings impact lot coverage
Units - would there be a cap on units per lot and what about the rule of "no more than three unrelated adults
living together"?
for the Yalecrest area. And who would want to see parking pads added
1
concrete parking pads sustainable)? I don't see how the parking could
work. Most lots and garages in our area are small and a lot of residents
already park one car on the street.
Thank you,
Lisette Gibson
2
Coffey, Cheri
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Ms. Coffey,
GEORGE CATHY KELNER [kelnergeo@msn.com]
Monday, December 21,2009 1 :38 PM
Coffey, Cheri
accessory dwelling unit proposal
We have taken the opportuity to review the information you sent out regarding the possiblity of creating
regulations that would allow accessory dwelling units in existing residential neighborhoods. We live in the
Yalecrest neighborhood and have been working to have it designated as a local historic district. While we
appreciate the city's efforts to develop sustainable green policies, we absolutely and wholeheartedly
oppose opening up the Yalecrest neighborhood or other city neighborhoods that are historically significant
to the character of our city to accessory dwelling units. The character of our Yalecrest neighborhood has
eroded significantly with teardowns and oversized out of character additions. The privacy of neighbors
has been encroached upon, traffic has increased, parking problems have grown, property values have
suffered and ill will has replaced neighborhood cohesion. We strongly believe that these problems would
grow exponentially if our beautiful old neighborhoods would be subjected to accessory dwelling units. We
urge the city to drop this proposal.
George and Cathy Kelner
1000 Military Drive
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ms. Coffey;
Virginia Hylton [virginiahylton@gmail.com]
Thursday, December 17, 20095:11 PM
Page 1 of 1
Coffey, Cheri; GEORGE CATHY KELNER; Sally M Patrick; Yalecrest CC Chair
Proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance
While I completely support sustainability, I do not feel that wholesale zoning for accessory dwelling
units throughout Salt Lake's residential neighborhoods is in the best interest of Salt Lake's
residents. There are many neighborhoods that have a well recognized development pattern and sense of
place. My Yalecrest neighborhood is one example. We would like to be recognized for our
architectural and historic contribution to Salt Lake City, as well as our quality of life. Allowing
additions, remodels and construction of new detached structures to accomodate a second residential unit
in a single-family neighborhood and the concomitant increase in traffic and parking pressure on
our residential streets is contrary to our goals.
Respectfully,
Virginia Hylton
file:/!\ \slcinas2\Planning\Common\Sustainability\Accessory Dwelling Units-Mike\Accesso... 11/4/2010
From:
Sent:
To:
Sally M Patrick [Sally.Patrick@utah.edul
Thursday, December 17,20093:18 PM
Coffey, Cheri
Page 1 of3
Cc:
Subject:
GEORGE CATHY KELNER; Jon Dewey; Virginia Hylton home; Yalecrest CC Chair
Accessority Dwelling Units Comment
Hello Cheri-
As Secretary/Treasurer of the Yalecrest Community Council, Lisette Gibson forwarded to several of us the
Accessorily Dwelling Units Info on the agenda for the open house tonight. Here are my comments back to Lisette
which I am also sending to you for tonight's discussion. I strongly support our YCC letter to the City Council
requesting consideration for Historic District designation and expect those considerations to take precedence
over other Accessorily Dwelling Unit considerations.
This is indeed an important issue and could indeed be a Trojan horse
Sally Patrick
1413 Laird Circle
(1210 South 1410 East)
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 20093:04 PM
To: Sally M Patrick
Cc: Virginia Hylton home; GEORGE CATHY KELNER; Jon Dewey; sally.patrick@gmail.com
Subject: RE: RE: Accessority Dwelling Units Info
Good comments Sally!
All, we need to get on this NOW! Everyone, please send your comments to Cheri Coffey.
What do you think: of me emailing it out to our distribution list?
Thanks, Lisette
Quoting Sally M Patrick <Sally.Patrick({v,utah.edu>:
> Hi Lisette-
> This is indeed an important issue and could indeed be a Trojan horse
>
> My 2 cents
> Sally
>
> PS all-please note new personal e-mail.sally.patrick(a).gmail.com
>
>
------------------------------
> From: dmgib@xl11ission.com [l11ailto:dl11gib@xmission.coml
> Sent: Thursday, December 17,2009 1 :08 PM
> To: Virginia Hylton home; GEORGE CATHY KELNER; Jon Dewey;
> sally.patrick@gmail.com; dmgib(a),xmission.com
> Subject: Fwd: RE: Accessority Dwelling Units Info
>
> See attached from Cheri Coffey. Accessory Dwelling Units are just
> one item that will be presented at the SLC Planning Open House
> tonight that is included with other "Sustainability Code
> Revisions".
>
> Here is the Open House info and Cheri's contact info. I will try to
> attend the open house tonight. I think this one is very important
> and we should all send comments! What do you all think?
>
> Thanks, Lisette
>
> Sustainability Code Revision Project?The Planning Division is
> currently working with Clarion Associates to develop various
> amendments to the City?s Zoning, Site Development and Subdivision
> Ordinances relating to sustainability regulations. The proposed
> changes include allowance for Accessory Dwelling Units, Alternative
> Energy Systems (Solar Oriented Subdivisions, Small Wind Energy
> Systems, Solar Arrays, Solar Collection Systems); Urban Agriculture
> (Community Gardens, Seasonal Farm Stands, Community Supported
> Agriculture, hoophouses, greenhouses and coldframes) and Street and
> Pedestrian Connectivity Standards for new development (Staff contact:
> Cheri Coffey at 801.535.6188 or cheri.coffey@slcgov.com).
>
> Thursday December 17, 2009
> From 4:30 to 6:00 P.M.
> FIRST FLOOR HALL WAY
> SALT LAKE CITY AND COUNTY BUILIDNG
>
>
> ----- Forwarded message from Cheri.CofTeY({I),slcgov.com -----
> Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 12:36:32 -0700
> From: "Coffey, Cheri" <Cheri.CofTey(Zi{slcgov.com>
> Reply-To: "Coffey, Cheri" <Cheri.Coffey@slcgov.com>
> Subject: RE: Accessority Dwelling Units Info
> To: Yalecrest CC Chair <dl11gib@xmission.com>
>
> Lisette,
>
> I have attached the open house materials. We don't have a finalized
> version of the ordinance. We are taking the opportunity at
> tonight's meeting to pose general questions to the public on the
> issues to get a better understanding of what issues you may have.
>
Page 2 of3
file:1 1\ \slcinas2\Planning\Common \Sustainability\Accessory Dwelling U nits-Mike\Accesso... 11/4/2010
> Please send me your comments. We will use them to help us
> finalize the draft ordinance. Once we get a draft ordinance, we
> will send it back out for the public to comment on as and hold
> meetings to receive public input.
>
> Thanks for your interest. (Please forward to anyone who may be
> interested.)
>
> Cheri
>
> From: dmgib(a)xmissiol1.com [mailto:dmgib@xmission.coml
> Sent: Thursday, December 17,2009 12:24 PM
> To: Coffey, Cheri
> Subject: Accessority Dwelling Units Info
>
> Hi Cheri,
> I would like to know if there is any information you could email to
> me on the Accessory Dwelling Units that will be presented at today's
> Open House. I don't know if! will be able to attend the open
> house.
>
> Are you looking at proposing the Dwellings Units for all parts of the
> City and in all residential areas (like the Yalecrest area)?
>
> Any information would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks!
> Lisette Gibson
> Y alecrest Neighborhood Council Chair
>
> ----- End forwarded message -----
>
Page 3 of3
Comments to Historic Landmarks Commission
Re draft Sustainability ordinances
12/2/09
, Speaking about the 4 draft ordinances in the sustainability initiative:
These proposals are being fast-tracked and because of their potential impact on historic preservation are
worth your attention. The draft ordinances address connectivity, urban agriculture, alternative energy,
and accessory dwelling units. They were developed for other communities, in different economic
times ... communities that must not have the historic resources that ours does.
A problem that a member of the ZAP group identified is the trumping of ALL other zoning regulations. So
if there's a conflict between historic preservation and the provisions of the urban agriculture ordinance,
urban agriculture prevails.
My greatest disappointment is the proposed ordinance for accessory dwelling units. More on that
shortly. Here are some scenarios that could happen and could have a negative impact on
resources.
-private vegetable gardens in our historic parks with the associated maintenance issues,
-connectivity requirements that disrupt the historical development pattern of our blocks,
-the absence of any provisions for solar in multiple family or mixed use projects--and the failure to protect
solar access in those parts of the City.
The focus on single- and two-family dwellings reflects how disconnected the proposed ordinance is with
Salt Lake and with our economic times. When do you expect to see a new subdivision with more than 25
single-family and twin-family dwellings on the Planning Commission's agenda?
My greatest disappointment is the proposal to restrict accessory dwelling units to owner-occupied single
family dwellings. The huge irony is that accessory dwelling units won't be allowed at all in the very parts
of the City that retain most of the historic carriage houses. I had viewed accessory dwelling units as a
possible incentive for historic preservation. The path that the consultant has chosen offers nothing for
property owners in historic districts. In fact, accessory dwellings under this proposed ordinance offer
nothing for me on any of my properties.
There is a significant opportunity for historic preservation here that is being lost as these proposals ignore
structures that already have a history of being sustainable.
Cindy Cromer

Attachment J
Community Council Comments
Greater Avenues Community Council
[E 0 \!) [Em
IJU MAR 9 1011
By
The Honorable Ralph Becker
Mayor of Salt Lake City
Dear Mayor Becker,
March 3, 2011
Greater A VeI1IU!S COllll1ltlllily COllncil
Dave Van L(ll1gel'eld,
807 Norfhcliffe Drive
Salt Lake Ciry, UT 84103-3342
SCANNED TO:
SCANNED BY:

-
The Greater Avenues Community Council took an official position last evening in opposition to the
proposed City Ordi nance on Accessory Dwelling Units. This position was passed by a vote of 30 to 2.
The vote was taken after months of discussion and input from residents as well as attendance at
informational hearings on the subject. We also had city planning people attend meetings to explain
the proposal in detail.
Numerous points of concern were raised with the ADU proposal. A few of those concerns are:
1. The ordinance would go against the Master Plan created in and supported by our
community for the last 30 years and as a City-wide mandate would subvert the whole Master
Plan-based planning process.
2. The Avenues has worked for years to control deterioration of our neighborhoods,
including gaining the adoption of SR1-A zoning for most of the Avenues. The ADU proposal
would subvert the existing zoning.
3. The owner occupancy requirement would be very difficult to enforce and if it were
enforced could lead to empty ADUs being used for business uses the area is not zoned for.
4, Most one bedroom units would add two vehicles to the already crowded streets and
parking problems related to that crowding.
5. There already is an abundance of available housing of this size in the City currently with
more being brought on-line in the near term.
6, Avenue residents have little if any confidence in the Planning and Zoning Office's ability
to enforce the existing ordinances let a lone a new ordinance. Complaint based
enforcement pits neighbor against neighbor and that is all we have known for years.
It is for these and many other reasons that we have taken this action. We hope that the City Council
wilt understand the depth of these concerns and not pass an ordinance allowing ADUs.
cc: Stan Penfold
SiCfL

Chairman, GAGC

606 Trolley Square
Page | 1

March 17, 2011

Michael Maloy, AICP
Principal Planner

Salt Lake City Planning Commission
c/o Angela Hasenberg, Senior Secretary
angela.hasenberg@slctgov.com

Regarding: PLNPCM2010-00612 Accessory Dwelling Units

Dear Planning Commissioners;

Gary and I have been asked to write to you in behalf of the general membership and the
Executive Board of the Eastside Community Council & East Central Planning District (formerly
called East Central) to consider our recommendations for a successful pilot of the ADU policy.
Our area represents from South Temple to 1700 South, 1365 East to 700 East or 9
neighborhoods, 3 business districts.

First a thank you and also a plea for your ongoing support.
Our community council area is not opposed to change or to growth.
We have educated ourselves to clearly understand the many changes that need to take place to
ready for the growth and housing options anticipated by 2040.
On the other hand, this area is also uniquely fragile.
Its location within walking distance to downtown, the University of Utah, Westminster and Sugar House,
with transit intersecting the area and charming business districts such as Ninth and Ninth and the
proposed Canal District makes it highly desirable. For the same reasons it is also at risk.

It is a rich fabric with an extensive history and undisputed character (example please see the This Old
House article included with this letter). A neighborhood where on the same block you see a 5 story
apartment buildings, a group home, a medical clinic, duplexes, single family homes, neighborhood
businesses such as a coffee shop and a yoga studio.

In other words, we have organically grown the very sustainable and walkable community that
the City hopes to encourage throughout Salt Lake.

606 Trolley Square
Page | 2

A thoughtful approach to land use policy that takes into account our fully developed
neighborhood can never be done in a broad paint brush manner or we end up loossing what we
all cherish with unintended consequences. We believe detailed planning as well as extensive
community vetting/buy in ensures that good growth can be realized.

We do not simply fight for single family homes but instead for the full fabric of our council area.

So next we would like to add our applause to the administsration for taking the added time to
develop this particular land use policy. To date, we feel that the community involvement and the
time invested to create a tailored ADU policy for Salt Lake City has been handled with good
communication and care. We hope this continues.

Last, we understand that this pilot may be restricted to areas with fixed transit such as
ours.

We believe better would be a pilot spread across the different areas of the City and the different
zones which would give better data for when later the City opens this policy to all areas; would
give equal access to this new and lucrative property right and instead of negatively packing
our less affluent areas of the city, provide this option to areas with larger lots better able to
absorb the impacts.

However, long familiar with multiple units and mulitple uses in our area, in concept, the
membership and the ECPD Executive Board are highly interested in andy fully supportive of the
idea of ADUs.

The following are what we believe we will need for a successful and supported pilot
should you propose it be in our area.

Please consider:

1. The owner occupied requirement be upheld.

2. These units be counted when calculating density.

3. The first time a unit is approved it include an on site inspection for both building
and health/life/safety. (Could be administered through a third party.)

606 Trolley Square
Page | 3

4. The program be fully self funding including all necessary enforcement. We
encourage this same thought for the business licensing of existing units down to 2 units.

5. Design standards include the requirement to maintain the green, open space
characteristics of the neighborhood in front, side and backyards rather than the
wholesale tearing up of property frontage, side yards and back yards to install parking
lots, parking pads, and asphalt instead of a yard.
We ask that standards be included to protect this point.

6. We would need a targeted education/enforcement effort in this area. We have a
disproportionately high amount of exisitng illegal duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, etc. that
are causing both the City and neighborhood extensive impact/cost/deterioration.

7. Eliminate the special exception unit legalization process currently in place that
bypasses the standards put in place in each zone and the master plan. Put in place as a 1-2
year temporary measure to protect property rights in 95 is being used to bypass the
system now 16 years later. It more than any other program has caused significant
problems in the area and between neighbors.
Also, costs to City to administer this program are very high in staff and board time.

8. Implementation of the Good Landlord Program.

Thank you for considering our thoughts and recommendations.

In behalf of the Executive Board and General Membership

Gary Felt
Esther Hunter
Co-Chairs
East Central Planning District

cc ECPD Executive Board
Luke Garrott
Jill Love
Wilf Sommerkorn

606 Trolley Square
Page | 4

http://www.thisoldhouse.com/toh/photos/0,,20466527_20917999,00.html

Ten Best Old House Neighborhoods 2011: The
West and Northwest
By: Keith Pandol fi , Gi l li an Barth, Carol e Braden, Amanda Keiser, Eri c Hagerman, Sal
Vagl i ca, and Dani ell e Bl undell , This Ol d House onl i ne
For t he fourt h year in a row, we've t racked down Nort h America's most t imeless
neighborhoodsplaces where lovingly craft ed old houses have ext raordinary past s and
unarguably promising f ut ures. Wit h help from our friends at Port land, Oregon-based
Preservat ionDirect ory.comwho dist ribut ed our nominat ion forms t o more t han 14,000
hist orical societ ies, neighborhood groups, and preservat ion nonprof it swe've
assembled our biggest -ever list of off -t he-beat en-pat h places t hat are wort h eyeing for
a great old home.

From quaint New England villages t o bust ling urban enclaves, here are a dozen places
where you can find a perfect old house of your own along t he nort hern At lant ic coast .
Here are our picks for t he perfect spot s t o buy a home in t he land west of t he Rockies.

606 Trolley Square
Page | 5
University District, Salt Lake City, Utah
< >
Photo: Courtesy of Alison Flanders
Young families live alongside professors and college st udent s in t his Salt Lake Cit y
neighborhood bet ween downt own and t he Universit y of Ut ah campus. Think of t he
Universit y Dist rict as a perfect college t own, where resident ial st reet s divided by grassy
medians are wit hin walking dist ance of locally owned pizza parlors and coffee shops;
and where a sea of resident s, donning t heir finest red and whit e, migrat e t o nearby
Rice-Eccles st adium on aut umnal Sat urdays t o wat ch t heir beloved Ut es play foot ball.
"People love t his neighborhood," says Realt or Celest e Council, whose client s are drawn
t o it s progressive vibe and t he close-set houses, which she says adds t o t he Universit y
Dist rict 's sense of communit y. The neighborhood had a scare in t he 1970s when
developers st art ed knocking down hist oric houses t o make way for apart ment s and
commercial buildings. But resident s fought back, secured new zoning laws, and got a
large chunk of t he neighborhood list ed on t he Nat ional Regist er of Hist oric Places.

The Houses
Most are brick or clapboard Folk Vict orians built for Universit y of Ut ah professors and
employees bet ween 1900 and 1920. Ot her st yles include Got hic Revival, Queen Anne,

606 Trolley Square
Page | 6
Tudor, and Craft sman. You can get a modest t wo-bedroom Folk Vict orian for less t han
$200,000, t hough larger homes are priced $500,000 and up.

Why Buy Here?
Preservat ion-minded buyers are purchasing and renovat ing an increasing number of t he
old houses here, ensuring t hat t his hist oric neighborhood ret ains it s classic archit ect ure
and charact er. Many smaller, low-carbon-f oot print houses are also bringing eco-savvy
buyers, who inst all solar panels, swap t hirst y lawns for xeriscaping, and use rain barrels
t o collect wat er for gardens. Universit y Dist rict resident s are also eschewing cars,
relying on bicycles and Salt Lake Cit y's light -rail syst em t o get t o and from downt own.
Gal l ery: Best Ol d House Nei ghborhoods 2011:

EAST LIBERTY PARK COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION
PO Box 520123
Sal t Lake Ci t y, UT 84125

March 21, 2011
Ms. Jill Remington Love
Salt Lake City Counc il Chair and Distric t 5 Counc il Member
451 South State Street, Room 304

Dear Ms. Love,
The East Libert y Par k Communit y Organizat ion ( ELPCO) met Thursday
evening, January 27, 2011 t o discuss t he proposed Accessory Dwelling
Unit port ion of Mayor Beckers Sust ainabilit y I nit iat ive. At t he
conclusion of t he discussion, t he members present vot ed
overwhelmingly against

adopt ing t he Accessory Dwelling Unit port ion
of t he Mayors Sust ainabilit y ordinance. The vot e was against ADUs
being allowed in East Libert y Park.
Specifically cit ed as concerns were ( in no part icular order) :
1. Ult imat ely, ADUs will negat ively affect t he essent ial charact er of
t he East Libert y Par k area. Several resident s said t hey moved
here for t he feel of East Libert y Park.
2. There are already t oo many rent ers in t his area anyway, and
rent ers cont inue t o display an I dont care at t it ude about t he
neighborhood.
3. The pot ent ial creat ed for overcrowded and canyon- like alleys.
The current condit ion and maint enance of t he alleys was a
relat ed concern.
4. Concerns about par king, t raffic, and t he large number of already
boarded up alley garages where t he occupant s/ owners are
parking on t he st reet .
5. The failure in t he past of t he Cit y t o properly and t horoughly
enforce current ordinances relat ed t o planning and housing
issues.

6. The general vagueness of t he act ual ordinance and t he lack of
informat ion about enforcement and administ rat ive cost s t hat
might be associat ed wit h enforcement .
7. General concerns about t he abilit y of t he exist ing infrast ruct ure
t o properly handle addit ional densit y.
8. Quest ioned whet her t he proposed ordinance would reduce
driving and reliance on aut omobiles wit hin East Libert y Par k.

As co- chairperson of ELPCO, and as a r esult of t he vot e t aken
Thursday, January 27, 2011, I advise you t hat as a neighborhood, t he
East Libert y Park Communit y Organizat ion is against Accessory
Dwelling Unit s in any form wit hin East Libert y Park.

Sincerely,

Mi chael A. Cohn, Co- Chai r per son
East Li ber t y Par k Communi t y Or gani zat i on ( ELPCO)
PO Box 520123
Salt Lake Cit y, UT 84125
macohn9@comcast . net

801.521.9450 phone
801.770.2040 fax
macohn9 skype
Cc Honorable Ralph Bec ker, Mayor, Salt Lake City, UT
Mr. David Everitt, Chief of Staff, Mayor s Offic e, Salt Lake City, UT
Planning Department, Salt Lake City, UT
Salt Lake Community Network & Community Counc il Chairs
Ms. Marielle Siraa, Co-Chairperson, East Liberty Park Community
Organization

Attachment K
Department Comments
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
1001< X Cil Seiect

iii Sh-Ye'

" . e rrOch->e ",
Q S<.we,tod Site, ' Free HotrMiI dIo; Yekow Pi>QO' & Online ft,o " @] Recc<der Ho me Get Add-on
11iII 5-oIO: Loke aY (Ci" I""'f Sal Loke ClySe" I 1 fiJ ' !ilI !2l oIjI . TQOIs . fl "1
D Pl..NSU!l2010-00614 Lm In Progr. .. W' A
'""' A ctIvIt.".
A ctIvities- Summa ry
DOCUment Vi" ...
'"'
,..,."
,. My
,. lIuildin!!
-,,101,.
,. lIu,.in.,,.s
,. CEO
,. En!lin_ rin!l
,. Financr
,. Fir ..
,.
,. GrI>und Tr"nsJlOr1:ation
,. HAZE
,. Insl>edi ons
,.
,.
,.
,. Uti l ili.".
,. WBIk-In
QLickti nks
Prefe-reoce
c.

Def_ ModtJe
1
-
arM.,.", Q. r Se<lrdl 111-
'""
D """""

""""
""
.....
"""'"

D
1 &-006 12 Commi
""""lIdment/NA
Q<I/16/2010

PETITION . : PlNPCMZ010--llQ;1Z
iiJ! Menu
+ GoTo
.0_
'
c..".,.,.
--
?
if Workflow Tasks

i!J- D f'J4 nn ioo p e pt
i!J- 0 Pubk Util jty ...
;:9" in" R".ie",
8- 0 Byil dina Rey iew
Revi ew
Tw,,"oorBllon Rellj."
$- 0 Cod. R<;y j. "
i!J---Q Poli u:

Itt-a Commun,ty Open Hou,""
$---0 Community Cou",," 1 Review
Stoff ..
$---0 PI.nnlrlll
i!J---Q Tro=mltl.!! 1
[!J--O Commun,ty [lev Rev ",w
e--o City Counci l Bri. fing
City Council
i!J---0 Close <" FiMI Ordi""""",
There currently n-o.d f>oc 1,,,1<:0

Assigood OIIt e
03/ 07/2011
Assi9ne<lto
Randy Drummond
Curroot Stilus
Comp"'te
Actioo By
Randy Drummond

]Msmuch 0< the r e 'PP""'s 10 be n-o imP1ld on t he Publi c W.y. we no
co""""", th,,. propo".d tn. Cod .
Eoo lime:
Ild(able:
'" " lme l racktllQ SUlrt Date
In I'<>ssessioll Time lIml
()j spiay Coolmem in ACA
S\rwtTYN llI $tHallle
K
R1> lph
"
'L-- >
Doo Date
O:J}07/2011
As5ignedto Departmoot

Stltus Date
03/07001.1
OVertime:
'" SllIrt Time:
_.-
Acbon by Deportment
Engine e ring
Est COIlI1lI etion Date
r DiSplay Address in ACA
Commem ACA
All ACA lise",
Record
Li<:en=d Prof. ,."ioMI
Cont.-.ct

1
Maloy, Michael
From: Spangenberg, Craig
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 11:29 AM
To: Maloy, Michael
Cc: Isbell, Randy
Subject: ADU's
Categories: Other
Michael:
Asperyourrequest,thefollowingaddressesconcernsfromanenforcementstandpoint:
E.2.a.Owneroccupiedpropertyrequired.Accessorydwellingunitsshallonlybepermittedwhenthe
propertyownerlivesonthepropertywithineithertheprincipaldwellingoraccessorydwellingunit.
Duringournormalenforcementactivities,wesometimesfinditnecessarytoconfirmwhoactuallyresidesata
particulardwelling.Manytimes,thiscanprovetobedifficult.Nomatterhowmanyutilitybillsorownership
recordsareprovidedshowingthemailingaddressofthepropertyowner,wehavenoproofthattheindividual
actuallyresidesatthatlocation.ThenetresultcanbefrustratedneighborswhosaythattheCitywillnot
enforcetheirordinances,wheninactualitywehavenoproofthatwhattheneighborsallegeisaccurate
regardingtheoccupancyoftheproperty.
Inordertoprovideeffectiveenforcement,thedraftordinanceshouldcontainspecific,verifiablecriteriatobe
usedinordertomeettheowneroccupiedrequirements.Iftherequirementsaremet,thepropertyis
consideredtobeowneroccupied.Ifthecriteriacannotbemet,thepropertyisnotconsideredtobeowner
occupiedandwillnotbeeligibleasanaccessorydwellingunit.
1
Maloy, Michael
From: Walsh, Barry
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 12:28 PM
To: Maloy, Michael
Cc: Young, Kevin; Weiler, Scott; Itchon, Edward; Garcia, Peggy; Butcher, Larry
Subject: PLNPCM2010- 00612 ADU
Categories: Other
March10,2011
MichaelMaloy,Planning
Re:PetitionPLNPCM201000612toamendtheSaltLakeCityZoningCodetoallowAccessoryDwellingUnitswithin
singlefamilyandmultifamilyresidentialdistricts.
Thedivisionoftransportationreviewcommentsandrecommendationsareforapprovalasfollows:
TheAccessoryDwellingUnitscodesuggestthatthisisnotduplexesorapartments,butlivingunitswithinaowner
occupiedcontrolledresidence.Whereparkingisincomplianceandtheaccessoryunitwillrequiringoneparkingstallper
ADU.Aswritten,theparkingwouldberequiredbutthetransportationdivisioncouldmodifytherequirements(suchas
allowtandemparkingornoparking)wherecertainfactorsareevident(suchaswherethereisavailableonstreet
parking,parkingiswithin1/4mileofatraxstation,theunitiswithinwalkingdistancetoabusinessdistrictareas,etc.
andhomeoccupationsarelimitedtonovisitorsorparkinggeneratorsetc.)
Sincerely,
BarryWalsh
CcKevinYoung,P.E.
ScottWeiler,P.E.
TedItchon,Fire
PeggyGarcia,PublicUtilities
LarryButcher,Permits
File
1
Maloy, Michael
From: Ross, Michelle
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 10:41 AM
To: Maloy, Michael
Subject: PLNPCM2010-00612
Categories: Other
Michael,
ThePDhasnoissues.
Thanks,
Sgt.MichelleRoss
1
Maloy, Michael
From: Stoker, Justin
To: Maloy, Michael
Subject: FW: Accessory Dwelling Unit - Request for Comment
Importance: High
Categories: Other
From: Vet t er, Rust y

Sent : Monday, March 14, 2011 4: 39 PM
To: St oker, Just in
Cc: Garcia, Peggy; St ewart , Brad
Subj ect : RE: Accessory Dwelling Unit - Request for Comment
ItalkedtoMichaelandPaulNielsonaboutthis.Theyareveryhappytoworkwithusandaskedforproposedlanguage
fromus.MichaeljustsaidheneedsitbyWednesdaymorning.
Thereisaprovisionintheproposedordinancethatadeedrestrictionbeplacedonthepropertytoindicatethatthereis
anowneroccupiedrequirementontheproperty.Wecouldaddinaprovisionalsoalertingpeopleoftheexistenceofa
connectionofsewerorwaterservicethroughtheprimaryresidence.Hereissomeproposedlanguagehighlightedin
yellow:
b.DeedRestriction.Alotapprovedfordevelopmentwithanaccessorydwellingunitmusthaveadeedrestrictionfiled
withthecountyrecordersofficeindicatingsuchowneroccupiedrequirementofthepropertypriortoissuanceofafinal
certificatedoccupancyfortheaccessorydwellingunitybythecity.Ifsewerorwaterutilityservicewillbeconnected
throughtheprimaryresidenceandnotconnectedthroughaseparateconnectiontothesewerorwatermain,thedeed
restrictionwillalsoidentifyanysewerorwaterconnectionsintoorthroughtheprimaryresidence.Suchdeed
restrictionshallrunwiththelanduntiltheaccessorydwellingunityisabandoned.
LetmeknowifthisworksforyouorwhatchangesareneededandIllsendittoMichael.
1
Maloy, Michael
From: Nielson, Paul
To: Maloy, Michael
Subject: Accessory Dwelling Units draft ordinance
Categories: Other
Michael:
Ihavesomebriefcommentsregardingthedraftaccessorydwellingunitsordinance.
Definitionofowneroccupantatparagraph2(a)(2):howdowedeterminewhatthepurposewasforcreatinga
familytrust?Thisisarhetoricalquestionasitcanbesafelyassumedthatallfamilytrustsweredoneaspartof
estateplanning,butthelanguageofthedraftmakesitseemlikethisneedstobeverified.Justmytwocentson
that.
E(2)(e)(Standards:GeneralRequirements:MultiFamilyDistrictswithSingleFamilyDwellingonLot):whatdoes
builtoutmean.Ihavemyguesses,butIshouldnthavetoguess.
E(4):IassumethatthesizeofanADUisstillrestrictedevenifitiswithintheprincipaldwelling.
E(7)(a):lastsentencere:addingentrancestoprincipaldwellingfrontfaadeisconfusingandprobably
contradictory.Howcananewentrancebelocatedonthefrontfaadeofaprincipaldwellingonlyifitislocated
atleast20feetbehindthefrontfaade?
E(9):requiringabusinesslicenseforanaccessorydwellingunitmaynotworkwithSLCCodesec.5.14.020,which
onlyrequiresbusinesslicensesfor3+units.Theattorneyinmyofficefor
BusinessLicensingcommentedthatthiscouldpresentasignificantincreaseinadministrativeeffortsasallone
(andpossiblytwo)unitapartmentsassociatedwithaprincipal,singlefamilydwellingcouldrequirehiringof
additionalpersonneltomanage.Thequestionalsoaroseastowhetherbusinesslicensingwasthebestchoice
toprocessapplicationsforthese.
Inlightofthepriorcomment,commentsshouldbesoughtfromJamieAllredinBusinessLicensingonthe
proposedordinance.
Paul C. Nielson
Senior City Attorney
801.535.7216

IMPORTANT: E-mail from the City Attorney's Office is likely to contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use
of the intended recipient. The use, distribution, transmittal or re-transmittal of any such communication is prohibited
without the express approval of the City Attorney or a Deputy City Attorney in writing or by e-mail. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
Butcher, Larry
To: Maloy, Michael
Subject: RE: Department Comment on ADU Ordinance?
Here are some comments and observations:
The current language in the Zoning Ordinance (21A.04.030) references ((the adopted building code" so Neil's
follows that generic terminology. However, per our previous discussion, the Existing Housing Code is currently used
inspections of existing housing units and in the unit legalization process. The construction of new dwelling units
review and approval pursuant to the current Building Code.
If an additional dwelling unit is created in a district that permits duplexes and meets the standards for either an AOU or a
I assume that the applicant could chose either the AOU or duplex standards for compliance.
Section 01 appears to allow an owner/occupant if they show 50% deeded ownership. Section 3 negates Section 1'?
Section E2 addresses exceptions to the owner occupied requirement. If a property is in foreclosure, or unoccupied and
for sale, would the property be reviewed under the nonconforming use section of the Zoning Ordinance?
Section E2d(2) states ((accessory dwelling units may be of the same height and have the same setbacks ..... " Suggest:
((may be of the same height and must meet the same setbacks ..... "
If a new ADU/garage is constructed to the rear of an SF we would require that the structure meet the applicable
setbacks for a principal structure. Would the garage portion of the construction be required to seek an average setback
determination or a variance because it is further than 5' from the rear property line?
Section E2d(2) states an accessory structure may be converted into an accessory dwelling unit but any non-complying
setbacks may not become more non-complying. If an ADU is constructed on top of an existing garage would that be
considered more non-complying?
Section E2g states conditional home are not allowed in an ADU. Determining which unit is the ADU will
delay horne occupation approvals. Suggest allowing 1 conditional home occupation per SF/ADU when both units are
contained within the primary building.
Section E4 appears to severely restrict up and down principal dwelling/ADU development within larger homes. Perhaps
this requirement should be limited to detached ADU's.
Section E6 states Transportation may waive or modify stall dimensions. This language implys that Transportation may
waive the parking stall requirement as well as modify the stall dimensions. Also, unless front yard parking will be
permitted for ADU's, suggest including wording in the tandem parking paragraph that states all parking must be in a
legal location.
Section E7a does not address side yard entrances. Section 24.01OH will come into play when the principal means of
entry is in the side yard. Suggest noting the 12' minimum yard area and the 8' of landscaping in both the pt'incipal
build and detached building scenarios.
Section E7b(2) requires access from an alley when one is present. Many alleys shown on sidwell plats have been
functionally abandoned.
1

5.C PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 23, 2011
June 22, 2011
SALT LAKE CI TY PLANNI NG COMMI SSI ON MEETI NG AGENDA
I n Room 326 of t he Ci t y & Count y Bui l di ng at 451 Sout h St at e St r eet
Wednesday , Mar ch 23, 2011 at 5: 30 p. m.

The f i el d t r i p i s sch edul ed t o l eav e at 4 : 0 0 p.m .
Di nn er w i l l be ser v ed t o t he Pl an ni ng Commi ssi oner s an d St af f at 5 : 00 p.m. i n Room 126.
Wor k Sessi on: No w or k sessi on i s schedul ed.
Regul ar Meet i ng: 5: 30 p.m.
Appr ov al of Mi nut es
Repor t of t he Chai r and Vi ce Chai r
Repor t of t he Di r ect or

Publ i c Hear i n g
Legi sl at i v e Pet i t i on s
1. PLNPCM2011- 00004 - Sal t Lak e Communi t y Col l ege Al l ey Vacat i on - A request by Salt Lake
Communit y College for an Alley Vacat ion at approximat ely 123 East 1700 Sout h t hat runs nort h t o sout h fr om
1700 Sout h t o approximat ely 1650 Sout h. The adj acent propert ies are zoned I ( I nst it ut ional) , R- 1- 5000
( Single Family Resident ial) and C- C ( Corridor Commercial) . Locat ed in Council Dist rict 5 represent ed by Jill
Remingt on Love. ( St aff Cont act John Anderson at 801- 535- 7214 or j ohn.anderson@slcgov.com

2. PLNPCM2010- 00612 Accessor y Dw el l i ng Uni t s A request by Mayor Ralph Becker for a zoning t ext
amendment t o allow accessory dwelling unit s wit hin t he following single- family and mult i- family resident ial
dist rict s: FR- 1/ 43,560, FR- 2/ 21,780, FR- 3/ 12,000, R- 1/ 12,000, R- 1/ 7,000, R- 1/ 5,000, SR- 1, SR- 1A, SR- 3, R-
2, RMF- 30, RMF- 35, RMF- 45, and RMF- 75. This request is part of t he Sust ainabilit y Cit y Code I nit iat ive and
would affect areas Cit y- wi de. ( St aff cont act : Michael Maloy at 801.535.7118 or michael.maloy@slcgov.com)

3. PLNPCM2010- 00614 Sust ai nabi l i t y Dev el opment Code f or Recy cl i ng and Wast e Management A
request init iat ed by Mayor Ralph Becker t o amend t he Salt Lake Cit y Zoning Or dinance t o facilit at e recycling
and const ruct ion wast e management . Proposed regulat ions will apply t o new development , expansions and
demolit ions t hroughout t he Cit y. ( St aff cont act : Ana Valdemoros at ( 801) 535- 7236 or
ana.valdemoros@slcgov.com)
Admi ni st r at i v e Pet i t i ons
4. PLNPCM2011- 00032: The Sout heast Apar t ment & Ret ai l Bui l di ng at t he Sugar House Loop
Condi t i onal Bui l di ng and Si t e Desi gn Rev i ew A request by Mecham Management , I nc. for building and
sit e design review for a mixed- use proj ect ( commercial & resident ial) locat ed at approximat ely 2130 Sout h
Highland Drive. The subj ect propert y is in t he Sugar House Business Dist rict Zone ( CSHBD- 1) and in Council
Dist rict 7, represent ed by Sren D. Simonsen. ( St aff: Lex Traughber at ( 801) 535- 6184 or
lex.t raughber@slcgov.com)

5. PLNSUB2011- 00053 Publ i c Saf et y Bui l di ng Pl anned Dev el opment - a request by Mayor Ralph Becker
and Salt Lake Cit y Corporat ion for approval of a planned development proposal for t he Public Safet y Building
proj ect . The propert y is locat ed at approximat ely 475 Sout h 300 East , in Council Dist rict 4 represent ed by
Luke Garrot t . ( St aff cont act : Casey St ewart at 801- 535- 6260 or casey.st ewart @slcgov.com)

The files for the above items are available in the Planning Division offices, room 406 of the City and County Building. Please contact
the staff planner for information, Visit the Planning Divisions website at www.slcgov.com/CED/planning for copies of the Planning
Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes. Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be
posted two days after they are ratified, which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission.
Planning Commission Meetings may be watched live on SLCTV Channel 17; past meetings are recorded and archived, and may be
viewed at www.slctv.com
Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2011

Page 1

SALT LAKE CI TY PLANNI NG COMMI SSI ON MEETI NG
I n Room 326 of t h e Cit y & Cou n t y Bu ild in g
4 51 Sou t h St a t e St r eet , Sa lt La ke Cit y, Ut a h
Wed n es d a y, Ma r ch 23, 20 11

Present for the Planning Commission meeting were Chair Michael Fife, Commissioners,
Kathleen Hill, Michael Gallegos, Charlie Luke, Susie McHugh, and Mary Woodhead.
Commissioners Angela Dean, Babs De Lay, Mathew Wirthlin and Emily Drown were excused.

A field trip was held prior to the meeting. Planning Commissioners present were: Michael Fife,
Michael Gallegos and Kathleen Hill, Staff members in attendance were J oel Paterson, J ohn
Anderson and Lex Traughber.

A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was
called to order at 5:45 p.m. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained
in the Planning Office for an indefinite period of time. Planning staff members present at the
meeting were: Wilf Sommerkorn, Planning Director; J oel Paterson, Planning Manager; Casey
Stewart, Senior Planner; Michael Maloy, Principal Planner; Lex Traughber, Senior Planner; J ohn
Anderson, Principal Planner; Ana Valdemoros, Associate Planner; Paul Nielson, Land Use
Attorney; and Angela Hasenberg, Senior Secretary.

FI ELD TRI P NOTES:

PLNPCM20 11-0 0 0 0 4 Sa lt La ke Com mu n it y College Alley Va ca t ion Staff described
the proposed alley vacation and pointed out the exact location of the alley which is located in the
south parking lot of the campus. Staff noted that the alley includes an over-head power line that
provided power to a property recently purchased by the College. The building has since been
demolished and no longer needs power from the overhead line. Staff noted that Qwest would
likely have a representative attend the public hearing. They have concerns about obtaining an
easement for its lines within the alley.

PLNPCM20 11-0 0 0 32 Sou t h ea s t Ap a r t m en t & Ret a il Bu ild in g a t t h e Su ga r Hou s e
Loop Staff described the proposed project and the differences between this application and an
earlier project that the developer proposed, which was approved by the Planning Commission.
The Commission asked questions regarding the subterranean canal, its location and possibilities
of developing a trail along the canal. The Commission asked about the on-site access to the
proposed underground parking structure and the access from Highland Drive. The Commission
asked questions regarding the proposed architecture, building height, mix of uses and type of
housing units proposed.

5:35:58 PM
Ap p r ova l of t h e Min u t es for t h e Feb r u a r y 23, 20 11 Pla n n in g Comm is s ion Me et in g

Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes, March 23, 2011 Page 2

Commissioner Woodhead made a motion to approve the minutes for February 23, 2011 as
corrected.

Commissioner Luke seconded the motion.

Vote: Commissioners Gallegos, Luke and Woodhead all voted aye. Commissioners Hill and
McHugh abstained from the vote. The motion passed.

5:36:58 PM
Rep or t of t h e Ch a ir a n d Vice Ch a ir

Chairperson Fife stated he had nothing to report.

5:36:58 PM
Rep or t of t h e Dir ect or

Mr. Sommerkorn stated the Council would be taking action on proposals from the Planning
Commission at the April 5
th
meeting. He suggested anyone wanting to see how the proposals are
addressed and handled should attend the meeting.

5:37:57 PM
PUBLI C HEARI NGS
LEGI SLATI VE PETI TI ONS

PLNPCM20 11-0 0 0 0 4 : Sa lt La ke Commu n it y College Alley Va ca t ion - A request by Salt
Lake Community College for an Alley Vacation at approximately 123 East 1700 South that runs
north to south from 1700 South to approximately 1650 South. The adjacent properties are zoned
I (Institutional), R-1-5000 (Single Family Residential) and C-C (Corridor Commercial) located in
Council District 5 represented by J ill Remington.

Mr. Anderson stated this was a request from Salt Lake Community College to vacate a north to
south running alley located at approximately 123 West 1700 South. He said it may sound
familiar to the Commission because there was another alley vacated on the same property in J uly
of 2010. Mr. Anderson stated the east/ west alley vacation was heard by the Planning
Commission and approved by the City Council in February. He stated the reason Salt Lake
Community College put off vacating both alleys at the same time was because the owners of the
Baxter Building were still using the alley to access their property. Mr. Anderson explained the
Baxter Building as well as the billboard had been removed. He stated the only comment he
received was from Qwest. They had some issues with the vacation. Mr. Anderson explained
Qwest was working with Salt Lake Community College to figure out how to accommodate the
power lines. Mr. Anderson stated Staffs recommendation was for the Planning Commission to
forward this petition to the City Council with a positive recommendation.

Chairperson Fife asked the Applicant if he would like to speak.

The Applicant stated they had nothing to add to Mr. Andersons comments.


5:40:26 PM
Public Hearing

Chairperson Fife opened the public hearing seeing there was no public in attendance that wanted
to speak on the issue the public hearing was closed.

5:40:34 PM
Mr. Rob Vigil, Right of Way Engineer -Qwest Corporation, stated Qwest was currently working
with Salt Lake Community College to relocate the aerial and cross box facilities in the area. Mr.
Vigil reviewed the reasons vacations are generally not opposed by Qwest and the issues that
would arise if the vacation was granted today before the equipment was moved. He asked that
there be some sort of suspension on the vacation until the matter was resolved.

Chairperson Fife asked if anyone was being served by the line other than the college.

Mr. Vigil stated there are other customers to the North that receive services from the line as wells
as customers along 1700 South.

Commissioner McHugh said Salt Lake Community College was one of the customers serviced by
the line therefore it would be in their interest to be accommodating.

Mr. Vigil stated the college was working to accommodate Qwest. He said the issue was not that
Salt Lake Community College was unwilling to work with Qwest rather the issue was the access
to the equipment for maintenance purposes if the vacation was granted prior to the relocation of
the equipment.

Commissioner McHugh asked how long the relocation would take.

Mr. Vigil stated once Salt Lake Community College paid the bill to relocate the facilities, the job
would be drawn up, drafted and issued for construction. He estimated a minimum of 90 days
from the date of payment.

Chairperson Fife clarified the Community College was paying to have the lines moved.

Mr. Vigil stated that was correct.

Chairperson Fife asked why Qwest would anticipate a problem.

Mr. Vigil stated Qwest did not anticipate a problem but experiences have taught them this was a
better route to take to avoid legal issues.

Commissioner McHugh asked what was being moved.

Mr. Vigil stated poles, aerial cables and a distribution cabinet would need to be moved.

Chairperson Fife asked if Qwest could refuse service to the college if they did not grant Qwest an
easement.

Mr. Vigil stated no, Qwest could not deny the College services.

Commissioner Hill asked who would pay if the vacation was approved at the meeting.

Mr. Vigil stated basically Qwest had the right to be on the property so whoever triggered the
move would pay for it. He said Qwests concern was that in the event the College decided they
did not want the equipment moved then Qwest would be left with limited ability to access,
maintain and replace the equipment.

Commissioner Woodhead asked if the College did not want the equipment moved did Qwest
need to move it.

Mr. Vigil stated no, it would not need to be moved.

Commissioner Woodhead stated then the issue was the access to the equipment and right now
an easement by necessity of access existed.

Mr. Vigil stated Qwest would have an easement by the public way.

Mr. Sommerkorn stated the request was premature. He said the best way to take care of the
issue was to see if the College had any objection to granting an easement for the utility purposes.

Commissioner Woodhead asked if the Planning Commission could make that part of the motion.

Mr. Sommerkorn stated yes that was acceptable.

Mr. Frank Baker, Salt Lake Community College, stated Salt Lake Community College had
entered into contracts with Rocky Mountain Power and Qwest and had paid $23,088 to move
the equipment. He explained the issues with the easement to the south of the College and what
was being done to solve the issues. Mr. Baker stated the College did not use the subject poles

Chairperson Fife clarified the college does not need the poles.

Mr. Baker stated no, Salt Lake Community College planned to have the poles removed by Rocky
Mountain Power and had already paid for that as well.

Mr. Sommerkorn asked if Mr. Baker would have any objection to granting any kind of utility
easement for access to the utility lines.

Mr. Baker stated not at all.

Chairperson Fife asked if a condition stating an easement would be granted should be added to
the potential motion.


Mr. Nielson stated yes and advised the Commission to be specific with the language in order to
not allow Qwest to have an easement over the entire property only necessary access for Qwest to
accomplish the purposes they are pursuing.

Chairperson Fife asked for a motion adding the condition.

Commissioner Hill stated she would make the motion but she wanted to be clear about the
conditions. She said she was inclined to go with staff recommendation for the motion, not allow
for any easement and let Salt Lake Community College work it out with Qwest themselves.

Commissioner Gallegos stated Salt Lake Community College did not have an objection to an
easement.

Commissioner Hill stated she understood that but it seemed if Salt Lake City was vacating the
alley and giving the property to Salt Lake Community College, Salt Lake City should not be
allowed to make the decision. She said she would not want to bind Salt Lake Community College
in any way.

Mr. Nielson stated whenever the City vacates an alley they always do so subject to existing
easements and although this easement was not necessarily expressed in a written document it
existed by prescription. He said adding it to the motion would prevent anyone from having to go
through any litigation caused by the vacation of the alley.

Commissioner Hill stated the condition needed to state subject to the existing easement.

Mr. Nielson stated that was correct.

5:49:14 PM
Mot ion

Comm is s ion er Hill m a d e a mot ion in r ega r d t o PLNPCM20 11-0 0 0 0 4 Sa lt La ke
Comm u n it y College Alley Va ca t ion ; t h e Pla n n in g Com m is s ion t o for wa r d a m ot ion
t o t h e Cit y Cou n cil r ecom m en d in g a p p r ova l wit h t h e followin g con d it ion s :

Comp lia n ce wit h a ll d ep a r t m en t a l comm en t s
Su b ject t o a ll exis t in g ea s em en t s

Comm is s ion er Lu ke s econ d e d t h e m ot ion .

Vot e: Com m is s ion er s Hill, Ga llegos , Lu ke, McHu gh , a n d Wood h ea d a ll vot ed a ye.
Th e m ot ion p a s s ed u n a n im ou s ly.

5:50:22 PM
PLNPCM20 10 -0 0 6 12 Acces s or y Dwellin g Un it s A request by Mayor Ralph Becker for a
zoning text amendment to allow accessory dwelling units within the following single-family and
multi-family residential districts: FR-1/ 43,560, FR-2/ 21,780, FR-3/ 12,000, R-1/ 12,000, R-
1/ 7,000, R-1/ 5,000, SR-1, SR-1A, SR-3, R-2, RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45, and RMF-75.

Mr. Maloy reviewed the history of the Accessory Dwelling Unit Text Amendment as outlined in
the Staff Report. He stated the Staff Report reflected some key concerns that needed to be
addressed. Mr. Maloy said Staff recommended the Public Hearing because it would be
informative and gave the recommendation that the issue be tabled because Staff was looking for
specific policy direction from the Planning Commission before continuing with the ordinance.
He reviewed the issues with detached accessory dwellings throughout the City and how they
apply to the new ordinance. Mr. Maloy said these accessory dwelling units would be located
within single family and multifamily zones and restricted to only single family land uses. He
gave the example that if someone had a twin home within a single family or multifamily zone
they would not be eligible to add a third unit or accessory dwelling unit it would also not be
allowed for a condominium therefore, only a detached single family home would have the ability
to add an ADU.

Commissioner McHugh asked what if there was already a mother-in-law apartment in the
structure.

Mr. Maloy asked if she is presuming the mother-in-law apartment was legal or illegal.

Commissioner McHugh stated either way.

Mr. Maloy stated if it was legal it could continue operating under present terms.

Commissioner McHugh stated under this ordinance another building could not be added in the
back yard.

Mr. Maloy stated that was correct, if there all ready was a recognized mother-in-law apartment
another unit could not be added. He reviewed how parking could be addressed and the
modifications that may be allowed for an accessory structure. Mr. Maloy explained the
suggested distances of a quarter-mile or half a mile from transit stations and indicated the
amount of residences that would be included in the ordinance within those distances. He
explained this restricted the location of ADUs if the Planning Commission supported this
option.

Chairperson Fife stated if bus stops were included that would cover the whole City.

Mr. Maloy stated yes and that because bus stops can be moved, community members wanted the
stand to be fixed rail not bus stops.

Mr. Gallegos stated some of the comments, to stay with fixed rail, may be the result of UTA
cutting back services.

Mr. Maloy reviewed the illustrations included in the packet and emphasized the idea of an ADU
within the buildable area of the single family structure. He indicated the allowable placement of
a single family dwelling and the addition of an accessory dwelling unit after all the setbacks and
regulations were applied. Mr. Maloy reviewed illustrations of ADUs that were attached and
detached to the principle existing structure as well as over a detached garage. He explained the

feedback on ADUs above a detached garage were not supported by many in the community as
most people do not like the over height accessory building at the rear of the yard. Mr. Maloy
stated one of the largest changes to the proposed ordinance was the definition of owner
occupancy. He explained this was modeled after Provo Citys ordinance that was upheld in the
State Supreme Court. Mr. Maloy said it had been reviewed with the City Council Attorney, Neil
Lindberg, who recommended some additional changes which were not included in the packet.
He reviewed the changes indicating what a property owner would have to provide to the City to
demonstrate whether or not they own and occupy the property. Mr. Maloy stated the language
was confusing so it will be changed and brought back to the Commission for approval. He said
language about design guidelines outside of Historic Districts was added requiring the accessory
dwelling unit to be compatible with the existing home and that a detached cottage could not be
taller than the primary structure. Mr. Maloy stated the concern with privacy was addressed by
subjecting accessory dwelling units to the same provisions for hobby shops (no windows on
certain sides of the structure).

Commissioner McHugh asked if a new ADU was required to have a business license, would the
existing legal ADUs have to get a business license because the City wanted to know what was out
there.

Mr. Maloy stated if a unit was legal under the separate provisions of the good landlord program
and the business licensing requirement they would need to come in and get a business license.
He said they would not go through the ADU process because they would be treated as a legal
land use. Mr. Maloy reviewed the issues and questions regarding the fees associated with the
good landlord program and the licensing indicated that the ADU ordinance was tied very closely
to the implementation of that program. He stated that ordinance could precede the ADU
ordinance but the ADU ordinance cannot be put into effect until after the other program was up
and running.

Commissioner McHugh stated in the ADU Staff Report it was stated, a number of times, that it
was less intense then alternatives. She asked what the alternatives would be that were more
intense. Would it be that the zoning could be changed and apartments built in the R1 zones?

Mr. Maloy stated the idea of increasing density within the urban core was more sustainable then
encouraging sprawl within the valley. Up zoning properties to the point where redevelopment of
single family homes into something denser would lead to more intensive development then
establishing an ordinance to allow ADUs.

Commissioner Gallegos asked if the City had an idea of how many illegal mother-in-law
apartments there were or if an estimate had been made.

Mr. Maloy stated he did not have the exact figure however, through this process he learned that
the Buzz Center and the Building Permits Division kept records of unresolved inquiries
regarding multi unit structures which was around 2500. He said the Planning Division had
approved several hundred since the beginning of the unit legalization program and there are
about 100 different cases pending right now.


Commissioner Gallegos stated if right now there are about 2500 illegal units with mother-in-law
apartments or accessory dwelling units that are possibly not up to code or following
requirements, do we think it best to create an Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance and risk
having other illegal accessory dwelling units that would now be even more difficult to find. He
started if anything it seemed it could exacerbate the problem with illegal ADUs.

Mr. Maloy referred to the study published by the American Planning Association concluding that
illegal units already exist so whether or not an ADU regulation was in place was not going to
change that fact. He also stated he did not believe because there was an ADU ordinance in place
that it would incite further infraction.

Commissioner Luke stated it seemed that if the law was a lot looser or accessory dwelling units
were more acceptable there would be individuals that would go ahead and build them without
having the units up to code. He stated it would cause the same types of issues that are going on
now just on a much larger scale.

Mr. Maloy stated that was not Staffs conclusion from the data received.

6:16:10 PM
Commissioner Woodhead asked what experiences other cities had with owner occupancy
requirements. It seemed to her that people have a lot of questions as to whether it was necessary
and enforceable.

Mr. Maloy stated he mentioned in the staff report that the best practice guideline from the
American Planning Association was not to require owner occupancy. He explained he did not
really explore that issue in his report because the community had indicated if the provision was
adopted the supporters would rather have the owner occupancy standard. Mr. Maloy explained
Provo City had problems but when the City conducted follow up inspections the owners had gone
through the process to show owner occupancy. He stated they had not had a single appeal or
legal challenge on that specific provision. Mr. Maloy explained when the code was applied,
Provo City did not have any issues and it had been very effective in eliminating the ADU or
proving the owner occupancy.

Chairperson Fife asked what happened when the property was sold.

Mr. Maloy stated the ADU license would not be transferable and the new owner would need to go
through the process to permit the unit and apply for a business license. He stated that a note on
the deed indicating an ADU would need to be included. Mr. Maloy said this would appear on the
transfer of the title and would be conveyed to the new property owner.

Commissioner Woodhead asked whether Portland and Seattle generally have owner occupancy
requirements.

Mr. Maloy stated he did not recall that specifically and he did not really look into that issue
because he believed if Salt Lake City were to have ADUs, the owner occupancy requirement was a
necessary element.


Commissioner McHugh asked what Staff thought about the comments to trial run this in some
zones and not all zones.

Mr. Maloy stated Staff introduced the idea of limiting the number of permits per year to 25 and
prior to the December draft this was not included. He explained it was city wide with no
limitation. Mr. Maloy stated rather than only allowing it in certain neighborhoods and then later
on trying to broaden the geography of where they are allowed, he would rather recommend
starting city wide and if necessary narrow it down. He said the public hearing noticing referred
to it as a city wide regulation but the option to limit the areas could be listed as an alternative in
the Staff Report. He explained if the provision was to start out in small areas if it is to be
broadened later, the process would have to start again. Mr. Maloy stated most of the comments
he received stated that the 25 permits per year seemed to reduce the unintended consequences
and fear that there would be a landslide of ADUs in the city. He said that according to the few
figures in the staff report other cities had not had a huge increase of ADUs but that the ADUs
tended to scatter when the program was implemented. Mr. Maloy said he thought that was
because of the number of restrictions that go along with the ADU such as having to adhere to
current building code which would not be easy to meet and possibly unaffordable.

Commissioner Woodhead asked if there had been any thought to instead of doing 25 for the
whole city maybe 5 per City Council District, something smaller and wide spread so that the
effects in the areas can be seen.

Mr. Maloy stated that was another option but he thought the 25 city wide was very limited
already. He stated Planning Division Management was worried about the fluidity of some of the
boundaries, Community Council boundaries change from time to time so maybe City Council
boundaries could be used.

Commissioner Luke asked whether there was much discussion on whether or not to start out
with an ADU within and existing structure like a mother-in-law apartment and not having a
separate structure.

Mr. Maloy stated no, that conversation had not taken place. Planning Staff was trying to find a
balance between having ADUs, at all, versus having so many restrictions that it became virtually
unusable and could not be used within an existing home.

Commissioner McHugh stated that before 1995 the units were legal because in 1995, the zoning
changed from R-2 to R-1 in many areas of the City.

Mr. Maloy stated that was correct under certain provisions.

Commissioner Hill asked about the Historic Overlay Districts. There was a lot of push back with
some of the constraints that happened in those neighborhoods and she had noticed several
places where the provision stated in the Historic Overlay where an ADU may be possible that the
Historic Overlay guidelines take precedence. She asked with regards to design are there going to
be places created where people could not afford to build a 650 square foot accessory dwelling
unit within the provision that would also comply with the Historic Overlay standards.


Mr. Maloy stated that particular issue had not been discussed with the Historic Landmark
Commission. He said they were more concerned with design compatibility and not changing the
character of the neighborhoods.

Commissioner Hill stated there was more than just the way the design looked on paper. It
showed up in the landscape and those ordinances are pretty specific with materials.

Mr. Maloy stated it had been his experience with the Landmark Commission that if anyone were
to try and create an exemption within the Historic District regulations it would create a
significant departure from the regulations currently applied.

Commissioner Hill stated she was worried about the cost of materials and would hate to price
out someone in a historic district just because of the codes.

Mr. Maloy stated that issue would be something the Historic Landmark Commission would
explore. He explained they did talk about the idea of a new ADU in a Historic District, although
it may be compatible with the historic character, should reflect current construction.

Commissioner Hill stated the provision as stated in the staff report that the Historic District
regulations override the provision.

Mr. Maloy stated the provision for new construction was already in place regarding materials
and designs.

Commissioner Luke clarified Mr. Maloy was referring to developments or neighborhoods that
had restrictive ordinances that would override the proposed ordinance.

Mr. Maloy stated private requirements such as CC&Rs would have to have an active HOA
enforcing it but that was an entirely private requirement.

6:27:07 PM
Chairperson Fife opened the Public Hearing and asked if there was anyone from the Community
Council that would like to speak on the issue.

6:27:41 PM
Mr. Dave Van Langeveld, Greater Avenues Community Council, stated the Council had major
concerns over the proposal and had discussed the issue as a community council a number of
times. He thanked Mr. Sommerkorn and Councilman Penefold for attending their J anuary
meeting and presenting the proposal to them. Mr. Van Langeveld stated in March the Council
took a position in opposition to the proposed ADU ordinance which was relayed to Major
Beckers office and to Mr. Maloy.

Commissioner Woodhead stated the Commission reviewed the submitted letters and was very
familiar with the concerns.


Mr. Van Langeveld stated with all they had tried to accomplish in the Avenues over the decades
such as trying to upgrade buildings and make the homes into single family homes the proposal
was completely contrary and basically shoves aside the idea of a Master Plan. He stated they also
felt that it undid some of what the community was trying to put in as part of the SR-1A Overlay
in the Avenues. Mr. Van Langeveld stated it was kind of like passing an ordinance that undid all
of the zoning put in place over the years.

Commissioner Woodhead asked if Mr. Van Langeveld felt there was a bright line separating
single family, one house that was it and apartments because it seemed to her that he was looking
at the past history of apartments. She stated she lived in different apartments in the Avenues
when she was in college and knew how much the area had changed for the better since then.

Mr. Van Langeveld stated he recognized there were mother-in-law apartments that should be
legal. He stated the question was, as part of the legalization do they have to go through the
requirements as they become ADUs and are they limited to a number that can be legalized within
a year. Mr. Van Langeveld stated the other issue was the parking where are people going to park
because there are already parking issues. He stated the letters addressed each of the issues in
depth and there were proposals in the Staff Report that offered better options that should be
looked at.

Commissioner Woodhead stated some of her favorite accessory dwelling units are in the
Avenues, there are a number of old houses with little cottages on their property. She said the
structures were good examples of accessory dwelling units that are detached from the principle
structure.

Mr. Van Langeveld stated some of the old carriage houses would be adequate for that kind of
dwelling but the concern then became if garages were turned into dwelling units. He stated he
didnt know if that issue had been addressed by anyone.

6:33:42 PM
Mr. George Kelner, Yalecrest Neighborhood Community Council, stated he too wanted to speak
in opposition to the proposed ordinance because it had not been presented to the communities
properly. He stated the City was asked to attend meetings in order to present the proposal to the
neighborhood which they have not done. He stated he felt the ordinance w0uld cause a
significant change to the neighborhood. Mr. Kelner stated was also told there would be a video
available on the Planning Division Website that could be shown at the meetings. He said had not
seen nor been able to find the video. He stated he thought a lot more people would have
attended the meeting if they would have known about it but there was nothing on the web for
this meeting until Monday. Mr. Kelner stated he didnt think people had the notice to be aware
of the issue. He said his neighborhood had the same issues as the Avenues such as traffic and
parking they have worked for many years to clean up illegal mother-in-law apartments, to deal
with privacy issues and try to preserve the character of the neighborhood. He said many people
in his area are concerned and opposed to the provision. Mr. Kelner said it frightened him to
think those with garages on the property lines could turn the garage into a dwelling unit and
affect his privacy. He said they strongly opposed the way the provision was currently written
and to have a vote when the public had not been informed of what this does would be
inappropriate.

Ms. McHugh stated on Staffs behalf the Commission received a lot of letters from the Yalecrest
Neighborhood.

Mr. Kelner stated they tried to get the information to the neighborhood. He stated he asked
Cheri Coffey if someone could attend a meeting and she told him that if Planning Staff attended
one meeting they would have to attend all the meetings in the city and Planning didnt have the
staff to do that.

Ms. McHugh stated according to what she had, Staff did attend the meeting.

Mr. Kelner said no, no one from the City came to the Yalecrest Council meeting to discuss the
proposition.

Mr. Maloy stated what Staff typically did when a city wide ordinance was proposed was conduct
Open Houses and they have done that on more than one occasion.

Mr. Kelner stated the Open Houses go from 4:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. when people are not able to
come all the way down town and attend a meeting. He stated he didnt think it was a very user
friendly way of getting information out.

Mr. Sommerkorn explained it was one of the methods used. He said in regard to going to the
Community Council meetings there are 24 Community Councils in Salt Lake City and for
someone to attend all of the meetings it would be a full time job. He stated however if a Planner
was requested specifically by City Council member to attend a meeting with them and that was
what happened in a couple of cases.

Chairperson Fife asked if the proposed ordinance was on the Open City Hall website.

Mr. Sommerkorn stated yes it was.

Commissioner Woodhead stated there were a lot of comments from the Yalecrest area. She
asked Mr. Kelner, in his opinion, would his view be different if the accessory dwelling was
limited to the existing home and not something like the garage or another building.

Mr. Kelner stated it would be somewhat different he would still be concerned with the traffic and
parking problems it would create. He stated he lived on a narrow street and parking was a major
problem now, the addition of more dwelling units would make it worse.

6:39:28 PM
Ms. Esther Hunter, East Central Community Council, explained the Councils name change and
how it affected the layout of the East Central Community Council. She explained it was mainly
an R-2 zone with either multi family or single family homes. Ms. Hunter said it was nothing for
the area to have duplexes, triplexes and up, a huge amount of those are illegal. She explained
they believe ADUs will happen anyway, people get creative. Ms. Hunter said one of the concerns
had been about the guidelines and enforcement. She stated she appreciated the changes that
had been made she had personally heard the information on the proposed ordinance at different

community meetings and had many opportunities to give impute. She said they are concerned
that if the 25 units a year idea was put into only the fixed transit zone it would pack the old
neighborhoods and small lots which are already impacted with a lot of the illegal things. She
said other lots in the City would not be affected as much. Ms. Hunter said if it can be dispersed
across the entire city it not only gives data about different areas of the City, how it was applied
and what could be modified but it wouldnt pack and impact the older neighborhoods. She
explained the parking problems that occur when ADUs are add to smaller areas. Ms. Hunter
stated they asked that if there were exceptions made by the Transportation Department, because
they were near transit, that something be held to keep the green space. She stated people know
that Salt Lake City would grow and many changes would happen but the ability to keep the
neighborhood feel was necessary. Ms. Hunter stated their number one concern was to eliminate
the special exception process for unit legalization because people are using it to bypass the
existing Master Plan and the existing zoning. She stated 25 ADUs would be a small number
compared to what was in place in their area.

Chairperson Fife asked if she was in support or opposition to the provision.

Ms. Hunter stated they felt that a lot had all ready been refined and they supported the
proposition if in fact some of the things outlined in their letter were included.

6:44:35 PM
Ms. Cindy Cromer stated she had a lot of experience with the proposal beginning two years ago
and she outlined in her letter what the experience had been. She stated she wanted to emphasize
that the Clarion proposal did not consider the uniqueness and diversity of Salt Lake Citys
neighborhoods the diversity was one of the treasures. She said Christian Harrison once said in a
meeting that our neighborhoods just want to be more vibrant versions of what they are. Ms.
Cromer stated one of the ways neighborhoods differ was in lot size which effected this proposal.
She stated most importantly as a community there was no need for another divisive issue
Parleys Canyon Nature Park and Yalecrest were enough to last a very long time. Ms. Cromer
said the proposal that Clarion had drafted had an armor that was almost impenetrable despite
her constructive and almost critical comments for almost two years the proposal had changed
little. She said although the present Staff Report was the best version she had seen yet. She said
she implored the Commission recommend the proposal to the City Council moving the proposal
to a place where it could be supported by more people and vigorously opposed by very few
people. She explained the idea as to what a proposal like this would be and what she could
support such as a proposal that would allow ADUs in the RMF- 30 and RMF-35 zones in single
family dwellings regardless of the lot size and which was also within four blocks of mass transit.
She stated that basically described her investment properties everything except her personal
property.

6:47:11 PM
Mr. David Gibson, 1764 Hubbard Avenue, stated he was here to discuss detached structures
becoming dwelling units. He said he was a member of the Yalecrest area and was opposed to
allowing detached dwelling units in the Yalecrest area specifically. He expressed his concern
over the proposed height in the ordinance being equal to the height of the principle structure he
was heavily involved with the Yalecrest infill ordinance the most common complaint they
received from residents was that the accessory structures were too tall and to large. Mr. Gibson

said in response to the impute, the YCI changed the height from 17 feet to 15 feet the ordinance
would reverse that and ignore residents concerns regarding the scale of detached accessory
structures. Mr. Gibson said second the owner occupancy was a requirement in the current
proposal. He said he believed it would only be a matter of time before owner occupancy
requirement was removed effectively turning Yalecrest into an R-2 Zone. Mr. Gibson said the
Yalecrest area has become the favored area for developers and has experienced more teardowns
than any other area in the City were accessory dwelling units, that were not owner occupied,
allowed in the area the incentive to develop by means of tearing down the existing structures
would be greatly increased. He said his family moved into the area partly because it was zoned
single family dwelling units; had they wanted to be in a multi-family zone they would have
moved into one. Mr. Gibson stated he would like to say the proposal had been available for three
days and that was not enough time to properly react, he requested that the Public Hearing were
extended to next month.

6:49:09 PM
Mr. Gary Harding, 1170 South 1700 East, stated he was opposed to the current plan as it was
stated. He said Mr. Maloys statements seemed to be amending the published draft on the fly.
He said he read the staff report with great care a lot of things that were presented were changed
and were not in the published draft. Mr. Harding said without owner occupancy this just
becomes a seedy way to change zoning. He said he thought even if this was considered the
R-1/ 5,000 zone should be excluded from consideration as those areas are small enough. Mr.
Harding said the 25 per year for two years was just a way to start the ball rolling and it would
only be a short period of time before it was everywhere. He said he made a proposal earlier that
suggested including a clause stating no ADU could be created that caused the existing lot
coverage regulations to be violated. Mr. Harding stated the Planning Commission didnt put that
in and he had to think they didnt add it because they want to let people violate it. He stated his
concerns about parking and it being limited with the addition of accessory dwelling units. Mr.
Harding said lastly the document had no real provision for enforcement and it would only be a
matter of time before it got out of control.

Commissioner McHugh stated didnt it say that with the fees charged, the extra 25 dollars, would
pay for an enforcement agent specifically for the proposed ordinance.

Mr. Maloy stated that was correct the fees would go to pay for additional enforcement.

6:52:27 PM
Ms. Sheila ODriscall, 1888 South 1800 East, explained her neighborhood was designed with
duplexes and single family homes mixed together. She stated a number of the single family
homes had mother-in-law apartments she lived next door to one that was legalized 12 or 13 years
ago. She said the home on the other side had the same type of space in the basement and until
two years ago it was strictly used as a single family home. Ms. ODriscall said now a family with
6 children lived on the main floor with multiple renters in the basement and had caused but
problems. She said she lived next door in between both the structures in a duplex that has
always been a duplex. She said what she saw happening over the years was that many of the
homes in the area had been changed to rentals and used for multiple renters at a time including
college kids. She said that had caused parking and traffic issues but there was no enforcement of

the existing zoning with the regard to renting mother-in-law apartments for income. Ms.
ODriscall said she thought the ordinance needed more public input before a decision was made.

6:54:41 PM
Ms. J udi Short, 862 Hanson, stated she felt this was a good idea on the surface but the devil was
in then details. She said she was wondering how many of individuals had been to a Board of
Adjustment meeting recently and have seen the stuff that people have to supply in order to get a
unit legalization. Ms. Short stated the gentlemen from the Avenues talked about parking and she
explained about the Board of Adjustment case where a parking pad was installed in the front
yard because parking was not available in another place. She said she could see that sort of thing
multiplying if the provision went forward. She said she was worried about enforcement even
though the fees would be used to hire a new agent but with current budgets that was not a
guarantee. Ms. Short said she thought it may work in some zones but not in the R-1/ 5,000,
Avenues, East Central, Liberty, Emerson and East Liberty those are all small lots built right to
the edges. She stated on the other hand there are places in Sugar House that have deep lots
where it might be possible. Ms. Short said this should be included in the sustainability but
seemed to be going against Major Beckers green space initiative. She stated she would like to
see Staff pick one option and conducted a test case for a year to see how it worked then make
necessary adjustments.

Commissioner Woodhead stated a few individuals said to choose one zone and test it but she
wondered how testing in Popular Grove or Sugar House would teach us a lesson about the
Avenues.

Commissioner Woodhead stated she did not agree with Ms. Short but she thought each area had
different problems and wondered if the provision was restricted to one neighborhood what
would be learned from the test that would be useful.

Ms. Short stated maybe Staff could write the ordinance to allow multiple areas to be sampled at
one time or different ones for different sized lots.

6:58:22 PM
Mr. Phil Carroll explained he lived in the lower avenues and had lived there for about 30 years.
He explained he had been involved with this process for about two years. Mr. Carroll said his
first concern was that the community had worked to create a manageable housing stock. He said
the neighborhoods are very eclectic with a lot of different housing types. Mr. Carroll stated his
main concern was the enforcement issue and the regulation of landlord and tenant. He said he
didnt think it was time for this type of provision and it should be rejected straight away. He said
the provision did not address accessibility which was a big issue in the City and the proposal
would add and legalize units that are not accessible add to the other issue of parking in the
neighborhoods.

7:01:04 PM
Mr. Rawlins Young, Transportation Chairman for Sugar House Community Council, stated he
didnt realize this was being proposed parallel to the trolley in Sugar House. He stated the
reason he was concerned was that in the early 80s he was one of the people that down zoned
Sugar House and East Central. Mr. Young said when they down zoned the area they also put in a

program, because this was a low income CDBG eligible area, to provide loans to fix up the houses
and also provide new public sidewalks. He explained the area was no longer a low income
neighborhood. Mr. Young said there was concern about the proposal and it seemed that
Planning wanted to develop something that would make certain Salt Lake City would be the
capitol to the low income type residences. He stated it was contrary to the work and process
gone through to clean up these areas.

7:03:19 PM
Ms. Margaret Tennant, Yalecrest resident, stated she opposed the project. She stated she didnt
think there was any amount of infill, overlay or changes to the provision that would make it
palatable to her. Ms. Tennant reviewed the parking issues and restrictions that came with a
historic district. She stated federal government does not restrict what can be done in a historic
district. Ms. Tennant said the proposition would not work in her neighborhood but may work in
others.

Commissioner Woodhead asked other than the fear of large families moving into the units and
parking issues what were the other reasons for opposition to ADUs. She asked if the way
families functioned was different didnt people need places for aging parents or siblings, where
do those people go. Commissioner Woodhead stated was it that people in Yalecrest have money
and they will all be in nursing homes.

Ms. Tennant stated she only lived in a 2,000 square foot, one story home and she raised two
children in that home but there was not room for more. She stated there were restrictions on
parking right now and because of the snowplows parking was not available on the street. Ms.
Tennant stated there was not any room on most of the lots for accessory structures other than
maybe garages.

Commissioner Woodhead clarified the issue that space was not available for people in Yalecrest.

Ms. Tennant stated there just wasnt room on the lots in that neighborhood.

7:06:22 PM
Ms. Barbara Madsen stated she was opposed to it and confessed she had not read most of the
document. She explained she wanted to know more specifically what kind of positive impact this
would have on reducing urban sprawl. Ms. Madsen said she supported reducing urban sprawl,
but she didnt know that sacrificing green space in some of the traditional neighborhoods that
they are trying to protect and preserve was acceptable. She stated she was definitely in favor of
denser dwellings but she thought the city would be better served if they included it in a well
planned Master Planned area. She stated she thought planning had all ready been moving in
that direction in Salt Lake City which was notable and very much more well received by people
who lived in residential areas where green space was being created or at least preserved. She
said that if people want to choose to live in a dense dwelling area most of them are not seeking
green space. Ms. Madsen said she thought the City should look at trying to create dense urban
dwellings in appropriate areas.


7:08:19 PM
Chairperson Fife Closed the Public Hearing.

7:08:21 PM
Dis cu s s ion

Ms. McHugh asked if the Public Hearing was closed would it be able to be opened at a future
meeting.

Chairperson Fife stated that was at his discretion depending on whether the Commission voted
or continues.

Commissioner Woodhead stated she would make a motion to continue but she wondered if Staff
wanted some guidance from the Commission first.

Mr. Maloy stated he did want guidance from the Commission. He also made a note of the key
points in the hearing and asked if the Commission wanted him to respond to some of the
comments.

The Commissioners discussed the restrictions a small lot would be subject to if an ADU was
proposed for it. It would have to meet the lot coverage standards and the setbacks requiring the
ADU to be in the principle structure and not in an accessory structure. The Commission
discussed their experiences in living around multifamily units and how parking was
accommodated in the areas. It was stated that there needed to be at least two spaces per unit at
this point one space was just unreasonable. They discussed the size of family that would fit into
some of the units.

Commissioner Hill stated there was a way to address all of the fears and concerns and work with
the language to cover every base. She suggested tabling the issue and addressing the issues
brought up by the public.

Commissioner Luke asked what it would do if the R-1/ 5,000 and R-1/ 7,000 were excluded.

Mr. Maloy said he could include provisions to limit ADUs to certain lot sizes by indicating
smaller lots would only have the ability to have ADUs within the principle structure and not a
detached ADU. He stated rather than restrict it on a zone it could be based on individual lot size.

The Commission stated there were a lot of good ideas and suggestions that need to be examined
closely.

Commissioner Woodhead stated maybe Staff could draft language that indicated the size of the
lot that would allow for a detached ADU and which lot sizes would only allow ADUs within the
principle structure.

The Commission discussed the issue of parking and possibly encouraging tandem parking even
though it was difficult but was something that needed to be addressed if the ADUs were going to
be allowed with large amounts of vehicles in some of these areas.

Mr. Sommerkorn stated it was part of the sustainability proposals that the Planning Commission
would hear about in the future.

Commissioner Luke asked Mr. Maloy to look at an option starting out with ADUs in an existing
structure and not in a separate structure.

Commissioner McHugh and Commissioner Hill stated they disagree with having that as an
option.

Commissioner Luke asked if they disagreed with it as a whole or as an option.

Commissioner McHugh stated felt if the language regarding lot size was included this
information was not needed.

Commissioner Luke stated he would like it added as an option and investigated.

Mr. Maloy stated this could be added as one of the options in the Staff Report if the Commission
would like.

Commissioner McHugh asked this could be made a condition or a mandatory requirement
stating an extra enforcement agent would be hired and that having this person was necessary.

Mr. Sommerkorn stated it could be recommended but it was really up to the City Council.

Commissioner Hill asked if there was a way to fine property owners heavily for violations enough
to alleviate some of the fear that people had regarding multiple people living in small units.

Mr. Maloy stated that issue had not been discussed among the Planning Division however, the
current fines for violating the zoning ordinance was indicated in the Staff Report. He stated how
the per day violation fees accrue and can become a very serious issue. Mr. Maloy said perhaps
another way to address the issue would be with some provisions to limit the number of people
that can live in an ADU perhaps no more than three.

The Commissioners discussed the appropriate number of people that would be considered
maximum occupancy for a 650 square foot home. They felt 2 or 3 people could live in a home of
this size comfortably. The Commissioners discussed the issues of limiting the number of people
allowed and how to enforce the occupancy. It was stated that the public only wanted the
Planning Commission to help enforce and create beautiful safe neighborhoods.

7:19:15 PM
Mot ion

Comm is s ion er Wood h ea d m a d e t h e m ot ion r ega r d in g p et it ion PLNPCM20 10 -
0 0 116 r ega r d in g a cces s or y d wellin g u n it s s h e m oved t h a t t h e Pla n n in g Com m is s ion
t a ble t h e m a t t er a n d con t in u e t h e Pu b lic Hea r in g u n t il a d a t e wh en St a ff wa s

p r ep a r ed t o com e b a ck wit h a r evis e d or d in a n ce. Comm is s ion er Lu ke s econ d ed
t h e m ot ion .

Vot e: Comm is s ion er s Ga llegos , Lu ke, Hill, McHu gh a n d Wood h ea d a ll vot ed a ye.

7:20:04 PM
PLNPCM20 10 -0 0 6 14 Su s t a in a b ilit y Develop m en t Cod e for Recyclin g a n d Wa s t e
Ma n a gem en t A request initiated by Mayor Ralph Becker to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning
Ordinance to facilitate recycling and construction waste management. Proposed regulations will
apply to new development, expansions and demolitions throughout the City.

Ms. Ana Valdemoros, Associate Planner, presented a one minute video regarding recycling and
the new proposal for recycling in Salt Lake City. She reviewed the different options for
community recycling programs as outlined in the Staff Report and asked the Planning
Commissioners for their direction and suggestions.

Commissioner McHugh stated the code states up to 75% of a home could be demolished without
the requirement for a demolition permit. She said that was a lot of waste and would be difficult
to enforce because there was no way of knowing what percentage of material was being removed.

Mr. Sommerkorn asked if this requirement only applied to demolition permits.

Ms. Valdemoros stated yes it did apply to demolition permits and to new construction.

The Commissioners discussed the possible costs to homeowners if it was required for them to
recycle materials that removed from their homes during a remodel. They said it could become
very expensive for small projects. They discussed the options of having the material sorted onsite
or offsite and the issues with each such as the cost, the possibility that the hauler may not sort
the materials and just take them to the landfill, the issues with contamination onsite causing
entire loads to be un-recyclable and the possible requirement of evidence that the materials were
being recycled.

Mr. Sommerkorn stated it would be better to allow people to do either on-site or off-site sorting
and leave it up to them.

Commissioner McHugh asked if an exception could be applied for if a hauler did not offer
off-site sorting.

Mr. Sommerkorn stated that could be an option.

Commissioner Luke stated this option may not even exist and staff may want to request
information from individuals in the industry as to what options were available.

Commissioner Woodhead asked what the benefit of sorting on-site was.

Mr. Sommerkorn stated it was to make sure it was done.

Commissioner Woodhead asked if the down side to this could be that the materials would stay
on-site longer and overflow more often.

Commissioner Luke stated that was an issue as well as contamination when dealing with
contractors that dont know exactly what was being recycled and throw it in the closest bin. He
explained once non-recyclable material was put in a recyclable material bin it contaminated the
whole load which was problematic.

Commissioner Woodhead stated that was why sorting on-site should be required.

Commissioner Luke stated no that was why off-site sorting was preferred because the hauler
would take the refuse to a place where it would be sorted correctly and lessen the chances for
contamination.

The Commissioners discussed the options for on-site and off-site sorting and allowing the
contactor to decide which best accommodated the development.

Commissioner Hill asked if staff had talked with some of the leading contractors about the
proposal and received comments and feedback.

Ms. Valdemoros stated she had talked to a lot of contractors and were in close contact with a
sustainability representative who was in contact with all of the haulers.

Commissioner McHugh stated Staff just needed to move forward and work on the ordinance.
She said she would like option number two, the neighborhood recycling stations, deleted.

The Commissioners agreed the option requiring a centralized recycling station in neighborhoods
should be deleted as it would be very unsightly, difficult to use and a great place for graffiti. The
Commissioners agree getting people to recycle from their homes was a step in the right direction.

Ms. Valdemoros asked if the Commission had a direction on the threshold for expansions, at
what point should recycling be mandatory and should it be regulated by the square footage of the
development.

Commissioner Luke stated he felt that recycling should be mandatory for commercial buildings,
multi-family apartments or condo units.

Commissioner Luke stated Staffs recommendation was to table the issue and for it to be heard
in April. He asked if there was any reason why Staff was pushing to have it heard in April and
the timeline for the ADU issue was open.

Mr. Sommerkorn stated no, the Planning Division was just trying to move things forward.


7:44:17 PM
Pu blic Hea r in g

Chairperson Fife opened the public hearing. He stated there were no cards from people wanting
to speak on the issue therefore he closed the public hearing.

7:44:36 PM
Mot ion

Comm is s ion er McHu gh m a d e a mot ion in r ega r d t o p et it ion PLMPCM20 10 -0 0 614
s h e r ecom m en d ed t h a t t h e Pla n n in g Com m is s ion t a b le t h e p et it ion wit h t h eir
r ecom m en d a t ion s t o s t a ff t o fin e t u n e t h e or d in a n ce u n t il a n Ap r il m eet in g a n d
con t in u e t h e p u b lic h ea r in g if n e ed b e. Comm is s ion er Lu ke s econ d e d t h e m ot ion .


7:45:29 PM
ADMI NI STRATI VE PETI TI ONS

PLNPCM20 11-0 0 0 32: Th e Sou t h ea s t Ap a r t m en t & Ret a il Bu ild in g a t t h e Su ga r
Hou s e Loop Con d it ion a l Bu ild in g a n d Sit e Des ign Review A request by Meacham
Management, Inc. for building and site design review for a mixed-use project (commercial &
residential) located at approximately 2130 South Highland Drive. The subject property is in the
Sugar House Business District Zone (CSHBD-1).

Mr. Lex Traughber reviewed the proposal as outlined in the Staff Report. He reviewed the
location, layout of the structure and site plan for the proposal. Mr. Traughber explained the
structure would be retail on the first floor at approximately 44,000 square feet and five stories
above with approximately 204 apartment units. He reviewed the height, underground parking,
ingress and egress for the parking structure, the number of bedrooms in the apartments, the
materials the building would be constructed from, and explained that what was being proposed
was consistent with the Sugar House Master Plan and development standards for the Zone. Mr.
Traughber discussed the canal that runs under a portion of the site and the need to move the
canal to accommodate the development.

Commissioner McHugh asked if the project was being held up due to the issue that the canal
could only be moved in the winter.

Mr. Traughber deferred the question to be answered by the Applicant. He stated this project was
submitted to the Community Council on March 2
nd
and he had forwarded all of the public
comment to the Commission. Mr. Traughber said this was a Conditional Building and Site
Design Review, the use of the building was not under review as it was consistent with the Zone.
He reviewed the language from the zoning ordinance for the area stating that no new building or
continuous group of buildings shall exceed a continuous length of 300 feet. The proposed
project exceeded the limit by approximately 60 feet. Mr. Traughber stated the Planning

Commission has the authority to modify that standard as they see fit. He explained Planning
Staff suggested the standard could be modified for a couple reasons; first the previous building
was an uninterrupted length greater than 300 feet. Second, Mr. Traughber said the faade
relates to the smaller business facades typically seen in the Sugar House area. He reviewed the
proposed west elevation stating that if the property on that side were to come available there
could be a trail put in at which time the applicant would also open up retail along the west side.
Mr. Traughber stated the Applicant was asking the Planning Commission to review both facades
and allow an option for either faade dependent upon what happened with the trail property.

Chairperson Fife clarified that if the other property owner donated the property for the trail the
Applicant would like to take advantage of the other property owners donation.

Mr. Traughber stated that the Applicant was not proposing any sort of donation of property, but
if another property owner donated property they would like to take advantage of it.

7:54:31 PM
Mr. Craig Mecham, property owner, introduced Mr. Russell Callister, Mr. J eff Byers and Mr.
Michael Neilson his partners in the project.

Mr. J eff Byers stated they were excited about the project. He explained the architecture and
experience they would like to achieve including walkable sidewalks and outdoor dining. He
reviewed the access into the parking structure and stated there will be 362 parking stalls. Mr.
Byers said they are providing parking a little over 2 stalls per retail unit and on an average of 1.25
cars per apartment which addresses the one car per bedroom requirement.

Commissioner Gallegos asked if the Applicant had taken into consideration the trolley that
would possibly be located fairly close allowing for lower parking requirements.

Mr. Byers stated they had taken that into consideration.

Commissioner Luke said he read the concerns regarding the elimination of some street parking
spots and asked where those were located.

Mr. Byers indicated that three spots, at most, would be eliminated around the entrance to the
parking garage.

Mr. Byers reviewed the different views of the structure, landscape and other positive aspects of
the project that would make it user friendly. He stated the project was wonderful, exciting and
they felt it would be a great addition to the area.

Commissioner Luke asked if the units were proposed as apartments rather than condos because
of the current market.

Mr. Mecham stated that was correct.

Chairperson Fife asked if affordable units would be included.


Mr. Mecham stated that there are not any affordable units included as they are having issues
with financing and the lenders are very skeptical of affordable housing.

Commissioner McHugh stated having affordable housing in the current market was not a good
idea because of the risk, and banks would not lend for that type of project.

Chairperson Fife stated there could be assistance to help with the funding through the City
Housing Trust Fund or the Redevelopment Agency.

Mr. Mecham stated they had looked into that and were skeptical of it.

Chairperson Fife asked if they thought they would not receive the funding if they were to ask for
it.

Commissioner Hill explained her experience with financing. She said that a lot of the funding
available was being constrained because the money was at a high risk and with development
projects like the proposed the banks were actually putting restrictions on the money stating they
wont lend if there was affordable housing components in high-end projects that potentially may
affect the ability to rent out the units.

Mr. Mecham stated that was correct.

Mr. Byers stated that the market survey they conducted indicated that was not an option for this
market.

Chairperson Fife stated he did not agree.

Commissioner Hill explained it had been her experience with a similar project in Washington
that the developers had the same issues with acquiring financing.

Commissioner Woodhead asked about the west elevation, stating the original elevation showed
something that looked like three big garages at the north end.

Mr. Byers stated those were not garages just articulated panels to help break up the blank wall.

Commissioner Woodhead asked if there were reasons retail could not be offered on the west
elevation without the trail.

Mr. Byers stated they do not have access to that property and it was owned by someone else.

8:05:28 PM
Pu blic Hea r in g
Chairperson Fife opened the Public Hearing.


8:05:58 PM
Ms. J udi Short, Sugar House Community Council, stated the Council liked the project. She
explained one of the concerns was affordable housing, and she understood what was said about
the money although she did not agree. Ms. Short said they would like to see a mid-block,
north/ south walkway, through the Granite Block. She felt it was critical to the project and
expressed the hope of the Council that the parcel could be acquired and the trail established so
the corridor could happen. Ms. Short said she thought it would be really cool if there could be
retail on the west side and people could walk around the whole area. Ms. Short said the Open
Space Master Plan called for recognizing the loss of connection, physically and physiologically,
between the urban and natural systems. She said the Master Plan used a system of liner parks
and no motorized transportation corridors to re-establish the connections between the natural
landforms through the urbanized areas of the City. She explained the Sugar House Master Plan
called for pedestrian connections between open space parks and the Business District. She
discussed the canal and the hope that the construction would not interrupt the success of the
Sugar House farmers market hosted on the monument. Ms. Short stated the Council was
worried about the entrance to the parking terrace on Highland Drive. She stated it removed
street parking and reduced the width of the sidewalk directly in front of the entrance to the
apartments. She said the Council would really like to see that reconfigured and she heard that
Mr. Young had a plan to open Elm Avenue up from the east through the block which could
potentially be a way to enter the parking terrace. Ms. Short said if the canal corridor cannot be
opened then the trail needed to follow along Highland Drive. She stated the sidewalk probably
was not wide enough to accommodate pedestrians, rollerblades or other traditional trail users
and at the north end of the block the sidewalk was barely wide enough for two people to pass, a
trail needs to be wider. Ms. Short stated there are many items that need to be taken into
consideration when determining the width of the sidewalk. She said if the J ohnson parcel was
not obtained, the way the current proposal reads there would become a dead end area behind the
Rockwood Building creating the perfect place to for undesirable activities and individuals. She
said the community would like to see small local business located in the building and Mr.
Mecham had said he would give a discount to small local retailers. Ms. Short stated the project
should obtain LEED Gold certification as specified in the RDA documents. She explained that
the applicant stated he may put solar panels up on the roof even if they are not activated and
they felt it should to be an active LEED Certified building. Ms. Short stated in the Staff Report,
Transportation recommended the removal of the mid-block crosswalk because the entrance to
the parking terrace. She said the mid-block cross walk was very valuable with all of the
pedestrian traffic walking across, it may need to be moved but they didnt want it to go away
completely.

8:11:40 PM
Ms. Laurie Bray, 1064 East 2100 South, stated she had a photography studio in the Rockwood
Building owned by the J ohnsons who also own the parcel next door. She states she was
concerned about the canal that runs under her building. Ms. Bray explained the size of the canal
and the problems with flooding she has experienced in the past. She was concerned that if the
south end of the canal was moved what would happen with the section under her building. Ms.
Bray stated there was some speculation that the reason it flooded was that when the demolition
occurred the building fell and the ground shifted. She stated she talked with the Director of
Public Utilities and he said he was not even sure what the plans were regarding the canal. Ms.
Bray stated there needed to be more communication about what was planned for the canal. She

stated she was also concerned about the sidewalks being closed during construction. She
explained that during the demolition the piles of snow were so tall that people had to walk down
the middle of the street and nothing was done by the City to correct the problem. Ms. Bray said
the walks needed to stay open during construction and be monitored. She said her other concern
was traffic and no one has addressed it. She was excited for the project and happy to have
something right next door but she was concerned that her customers would not have parking.
Ms. Bray stated there was already so much traffic in the area and a solution needed to be found.

8:14:03 PM
Ms. Elaine Brown stated she had lived in the Sugar House area for 58 years. She told of when
she used to shop at the old Sugar House stores with her mother. She said she was sad when the
shops closed up and the property deteriorated and she was very excited for the proposed
construction. Ms. Brown stated things change, the whole nature of shopping had changed and
she thought the concept of retail with residential was a great ideas. She stated she felt Mr.
Mecham had done a wonderful job of putting the plan together; she was excited for him and
hoped the Planning Commission would approve and support his plan.

8:15:48 PM
Ms. Grace Sperry stated she lived on Highland Drive and thanked Mr. Traughber for getting her
email to the Commissioners. She stated she looked forward to the project being completed. Mrs.
Sperry stated the sidewalks are narrow and have been for years because of the changes to the
street providing bike lanes and right and left turn lanes. She stated the Urbana Apartments, and
Wilmington Gardens have affordable housing and there was affordable housing all around Sugar
House. Ms. Sperry explained the issues with parking around the Monument and the commons
area and stated parking would always be a problem that would get worse but in the end be
positive in the area.

8:17:54 PM
Mr. Rawlins Young, Transportation Chair of the Sugar House Community Council, stated he
would like to see the Planners use the master plans as they were intended to be used. He
discussed how to get walkability in downtown Sugar House by using plans like City Creek in
Downtown Salt Lake City. Mr. Young explained the connections that should be made with
streets in Sugar House to make the transportation plan more effective. He stated one idea would
be to take Elm Street and bring it through the block to Highland Drive, which would be on the
south side of the proposed building, that way the parking could be accessed off a local street
instead of a main thoroughfare.

Commissioner Woodhead clarified Elm Street was the street located near the south end of the
project.

Mr. Young stated it was on the west side and would create the walkability and take care of the
parking access problem.

Chairperson Fife stated to do that the City would have to condemn the land and build a street.

Mr. Young said condemn the land and build the street then. He said generally what a city would
do was require the developer to develop the street system as part of the project. Mr. Young

explained how access walks and sidewalks should be parallel to each other to form wider
sidewalks. He said the Master Plan states the sidewalks should be 10 feet and incorporated in to
all developments then there would not be the bottlenecks created by of 4 foot sidewalks.

Commissioner Woodhead asked if the sidewalk width was outlined in the ordinance.

Chairperson Fife stated it was not.

Mr. Young stated the problem was that the Planners did not read the Master Plan as part of the
planning process. He stated when developers give extra land they should be allowed to develop
up and have the ability to add more floors possibly up to seven stories. Mr. Young stated the
problem with the building was that because it was apartments and no business there was no
employment opportunities in the area and no reason for the general public to visit the area. He
said this was supposed to be the Center of Sugar House but it was dead and boring.

8:23:20 PM
Chairperson Fife read the comments from Scott Kisling. Mr. Kisling wrote the following:
He supported the project with the conditions that the Salt Lake City Open Space Master Plan
calls for regarding the north-south McCelland Trail. If this proposal does not include the
McCelland Trail on its west side, space should be allocated in the form of a wide sidewalk on its
east side especially between the buildings parking entrance and the building itself. Space for the
trail should not be left up to other property owners.

Mr. J ames Brown wrote he supported the Mecham development as proposed with Staff
recommendations.

8:24:13 PM
Chairperson Fife closed the Public Hearing.

Commissioner Hill asked the Applicant to comment on the width of the sidewalks.

8:24:35 PM
Mr. Byers stated the sidewalk from the back of the curb to the property line was exactly 10 feet.

Commissioner Luke asked whether or not the structure abutted the existing building on the west
side, north corner.

Mr. Byers stated no, that space exists there.

Commissioner Luke asked how wide the space was.

Mr. Byers stated it approximately 30 feet.

Commissioner Luke asked if there was a sidewalk along that area


Mr. Mecham stated there was not a sidewalk along the building but there was a sidewalk in the
front of the area. He explained the reason the building sat the way it did for so long was because
the building was built with a shared wall.

Commissioner Woodhead asked if different options were considered when the parking access
was designed to come off Highland Drive. She stated that was the one thing about the project
she was uncertain about.

Mr. Byers stated a curb cut would automatically interrupt pedestrian traffic along Highland
Drive. The proposed access from Highland Drive used a ramp to go under the sidewalk. This
design was approved two years ago.

Commissioner McHugh stated that the access was only an entrance and not an exit.

Mr. Traughber stated when the project originally came through in 2008 the developer had
proposed an entrance that was basically in front of the Monument which was opposed by the
public. He explained the option before the Commission was designed in response to that
opposition.

Commissioner Woodhead stated the Highland Drive entrance was Plan B.

Mr. Traughber stated yes it was plan B and was approved last time.

Commissioner Hill stated she really liked the way the ramp in that location created a small
barrier between the housing component and the pedestrian flow. She stated the developers had
done a brilliant job with the permeability of the access to all of the retail spaces and the well laid
out potential for every side to be a front side. Commissioner Hill said she is excited for the
project and looks forward to the addition.

Mr. Byers explained the proposed parking entrance would help drive traffic to the retailer. He
stated if the access was off of Elm Street it would not have the same effect which would make it
hard for the retail space to be viable. Mr. Byers stated they had redesigned the west side of the
project so that even the entrance goes under the sidewalk, they have created what they thought
was as walkable a retail area as possible.

The Commissioners agreed with Mr. Mecham that it was a good entrance under the sidewalk for
both ingress and egress.

8:29:16 PM
Chairperson Fife stated we have one person that did not hear the Public Hearing was closed
therefore, he reopened the Public Hearing.

8:29:29 PM
Mr. Robert Williams stated his concern was with the soil under the building that the canal has
possibly affected. He stated he would like to know if there had been geologic studies conducted
to ensure there will not be issues with the building and the soil. Mr. Williams said he was

worried about the stability of the soil. He said he did not think RDA should be putting money
into the project and the developer should be putting forth all of the money required.

Commissioner Woodhead asked the Applicant if they would like to come forward and address
the soil issue. She explained the Planning Commission could not do anything about the RDA.

Mr. Byers stated that issues such as the soil was the kind of question that kept him up at night
and that was why they hired the best structural engineers and geotechnical engineers to make
sure the building stood up. He stated that the portion of the canal being added would be
pristine, brand new and hopefully last another 100 years.

Chairperson Fife stated the developer could not do much about the section of canal under
someone elses property.

Mr. Byers stated exactly, but they will have control over the rebuilt section.

8:32:43 PM
Chairperson Fife closed the Public Hearing

8:32:52 PM
Mot ion

Comm is s ion er Lu ke m a d e a m ot ion r ega r d in g t h e Sou t h ea s t Ret a il/ Ap a r t m en t
Bu ild in g a t t h e Su ga r Hou s e Loop , Con d it ion a l Bu ild in g a n d Sit e Des ign Review,
p et it ion PLNPCM20 11-0 0 0 32 b a s ed on t h e a n a lys is of t h e s t a n d a r d s for t h e
Con d it ion a l Bu ild in g a n d Sit e Des ign Review p r oces s t h e t es t im on y h ea r d a n d t h e
fin d in gs n ot ed in t h e St a ff Rep or t t h a t t h e Pla n n in g Comm is s ion a p p r ove t h e
r eq u es t s u bject t o t h e s even con d it ion s lis t ed in t h e St a ff Rep or t . Com m is s ion er
Hill s e con d ed t h e m ot ion .

Commissioner Woodhead asked to propose an amendment to condition number six referencing
the approval of the West faade. She said there should be language indicating if the trail
property became available that the Planning Commission had a preference for the alternate
version.

The Commission agreed this should be added to the motion.

Comm is s ion er Lu ke s t a t ed on con d it ion n u m b er s ix t h e Pla n n in g Comm is s ion
d elega t es t h e fin a l a p p r ova l of t h e wes t fa a d e of t h e p r op os ed b u ild in g t o Pla n n in g
St a ff s h ou ld p r op er t y b ecom e a va ila b le for t r a il d evelop m en t wit h t h e n ot ed
p r efer en ce for t h e a lt er n a t e wes t e leva t ion .

Comm is s ion er Hill s econ d ed t h e a m en d m en t .



8:35:19 PM
PLNSUB20 11-0 0 0 53 Pu b lic Sa fet y Bu ild in g Pla n n ed De velop m en t - a request by
Mayor Ralph Becker and Salt Lake City Corporation for approval of a planned development
proposal for the Public Safety Building project. The property was located at approximately 475
South 300 East.

Mr. Stewart, Senior Planner, reviewed the petition for the Public Safety Building as outlined in
the Staff Report. He explained the application was referred to as the plan development part of
the project. Mr. Stewart explained this petition was specifically looking at building setbacks and
grade changes in the front and corner side yard areas. He stated this plan development was
actually reviewed based on a zoning of PL-2 which was considered as part of the previous
application. Mr. Stewart stated the City Council was still in the process of considering the PL-2
zone as well as the stipulation on the communication tower. He said they had no objection, as
indicated at City Council meeting, to the PL-2 zone but it would not likely be adopted until the
April 5
th
meeting. Mr. Stewart stated the City Council was still in discussion regarding how to
deal with the height of the communication tower which was a concern from the public. He
reviewed the site plan and explained the changes to the parking for large vehicles, green public
areas, parking under the building, ingress and egress to the parking garage, the extension and
narrowing of forth street through the block to fifth south and onsite solar panels.

Commissioner Luke asked, in regards to the solar energy and the net zero effect, was the energy
created on-site going to be consumed at the site or was it going to flow into the grid. He asked if
the building would be pulling energy from the grid and the solar panels feeding it back in.

Mr. Stewart stated that would be a question for the Architect.

Mr. Sommerkorn stated he recalled, from the last presentation, that there was going to be some
off-site panels that were going to feed into the building and help even out the amount used
versus the amount created.

Mr. Stewart stated that was correct there would be an off-site area, out west, for solar panels. He
stated the Architect/ Project Manager was there and could give more details regarding the issue.
Mr. Stewart reviewed the concerns from the different departments such as the number of
parking stalls required for the site and what Blair Street would be dedicated as have been
resolved.

Chairperson Fife asked if the walkways would still tie in together from the library as proposed.

Mr. Stewart stated there would be a raised crosswalk that will come right into the plaza from
Library Square. He said the two main issues that needed to be addressed were the setbacks and
the grade changes. Mr. Stewart indicated the areas in question and explained that the PL-2
zones require a 20-foot setback from the property line. He said the applicant was requesting a
15-foot encroachment into the front and corner setbacks for ventilation shafts from the parking
garage with terraced landscaping up to the grates. Mr. Stewart explained the grade changes were
in regards to one foot increment steps to accommodate the landscape terraces that could total 6
feet of grade change in the yard area. The Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum of two feet for a
grade change.

Chairperson Fife asked if the parking was available for public use.

Mr. Stewart stated at this point it would be secured parking.

Commissioner McHugh stated there was public parking on Blair Street.

Mr. Stewart stated there was surface parking as well as parking under the library available to the
public.

Chairperson Fife asked if 300 East was being narrowed.

Mr. Stewart stated 300 East will be narrowed down to one lane in each direction with a
landscaped median and a bike lane. He explained the federal setback requirements of 50 feet
from curb causing 300 East to be narrowed.

Commissioner Gallegos stated when the Planning Commission first started talking about the
project there were two buildings, a Public Safety Building and an Emergency Operations Center,
are both in the same building now.

Mr. Stewart stated both would be housed in the same building.

Commissioner Woodhead clarified that the building design was not part of what was in front of
the Commission.

Mr. Stewart stated that was correct this was not a conditional building and site design review so
they were not looking at the design of the building. He stated they could look at the layout and
placement of certain features but materials were not being reviewed.

8:51:32 PM
Mr. David Hart, Architect/ Project Manager, stated he did not have anything to add.

8:51:39 PM
Pu blic Hea r in g
Chairperson Fife opened the Public Hearing.

8:51:38 PM
Ms. Cindy Cromer stated she was not happy with the project and was dismayed at the late
breaking news about the mono pole. She thanked Mr. Stewart for attending the Community
Council and telling people about the pole. Ms. Cromer said that was really the first anyone heard
about the huge mono pole. She stated maybe it was common sense that given the number of
communication devises around the City there might have to be something rather large for this
particular building however, the proposed pole was very, very large and extends above the
building. Ms. Cromer said she would have liked to have known about the pole sooner and was
extremely disappointed at the late notice.


Chairperson Fife stated the Planning Commission talked about the mono pole the last time a
petition for the project was presented to the Planning Commission therefore, the information
had been public for at least a month or so.

Ms. Cromer stated it was a very short time relative to the length of this project.

8:53:06 PM
Chairperson Fife closed the Public Hearing.

8:53:11 PM
Mot ion

Comm is s ion er Lu ke s t a t ed , r ela t ed t o PLNSUB20 11-0 0 0 53, b a s ed on t h e St a ff
Rep or t h e r ecom m en d t h e Pla n n in g Com m is s ion a p p r ove t h e a p p lica t ion s u bject t o
t h e con d it ion s a s ou t lin ed in t h e St a ff Rep or t . Comm is s ion er Hill s econ d ed t h e
m ot ion .


Commissioner Woodhead stated her hesitation was due to not having more information about
the building before making the decisions about the advantages of the setbacks and how they
related to the street.

8:54:20 PM
Meeting adjourned

This document, along with the digital recording, constitute the official minutes of the Salt Lake
City Planning Commission held on March 23, 2011.

____ ____ ___ ___ _ ____ ____ ___ ___ _ ____ ____ ___ ___ _
Michelle Moeller
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
In Room 326 of the City & County Building at 451 South State Street
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 at 6:00 p.m. or immediately following the Work Session

The field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m.
Dinner will be served to the Planning Commissioners and Staff at 5:00 p.m. in Room 126.

Wor k Sessi on: 5: 30 in Room 326. During t he Wor k Session t he Planning St aff will brief t he Planning Commission on
pending proj ect s, discuss proj ect updat es and minor administ rat ive mat t ers. This port ion of t he meet ing is open t o t he
public for observat ion.

Br i ef i ng:
A discussion regarding t he Special Except ion process and t ransferring t he review aut horit y from t he Boar d of
Adj ust ment t o t he Planning Commission and ot her t ext amendment s relat ed t o special except ions. Discussion Only.
( St aff cont act : Maryann Pi ckering at 801- 535- 7660 or maryann.pickering@slcgov.com)
PLNPCM2011- 00783 Condi t i onal Bui l di ng and Si t e Desi gn Rev i ew A request t o updat e t he zoning code t o
eliminat e conflict s and t o st reamline t he Design Review process. The changes are applicable cit ywide. ( St aff cont act :
Doug Dansie at ( 801) 535- 6182 or doug.dansie@slcgov.com) .
Approval of Minutes: June 11, 2011
Report of the Chair and Vice Chair
Report of the Director

Public Hearings 6:30 or immediately following the work session

Public Hearing

Legislative Petitions

1. PLNPCM2010- 00784 Code Mai nt enance Not i ci ng Tex t Amendment - A r equest by Mayor Ralph Becker
t o amend sect ions 21A.10.020, 21A.14.060 of t he zoning Ordinance t o require all public hearings t o be
not iced in a similar manner using t he most st ringent of t he exist ing not icing requirement s. The proposal will
remove signat ure requirement s for rout ine and uncont est ed special except ions and replace wit h an official
not ice of applicat ion. Relat ed provisions of Tit le 21A- Zoning may also be amended as part of t his pet it ion.
( St aff cont act : Michaela Okt ay at ( 801) 535- 6003 or michaela.okt ay@slcgov.com) .

2. PLNPCM2010- 00612 Accessor y Dw el l i ng Uni t A request by Mayor Ralph Becker for a zoning t ext
amendment t o allow accessory dwelling unit s wit hin t he following single- family and mult i- family resident ial
dist rict s: FR- 1/ 43,560, FR- 2/ 21,780, FR- 3/ 12,000, R- 1/ 12,000, R- 1/ 7,000, R- 1/ 5,000, SR- 1, SR- 1A, SR- 3, R-
2, RMF- 30, RMF- 35, RMF- 45, and RMF- 75. This request is part of t he Sust ainabilit y Cit y Code I nit iat ive and
would affect areas Cit y- wi de. ( St aff cont act : Michael Maloy at 801- 535- 7118 or michael.maloy@slcgov.com) .

Admi ni st r at i v e Pet i t i ons
3. Pet i t i on 410- 07- 57 Ri o Gr ande Of f i ce Condi t i onal Use Pl anned Dev el opment A request by t he Boyer
company for clarificat ion t o t he approval of an office building, locat ed at approximat ely 50 Nort h Rio Grande.
The building was approved wit h a dome height of 90 feet , however t he mechani cal equipment is now proposed
t o be enclosed, result ing in more square foot age of t he roof being at 90 feet . This change is being present ed
t o t he Planning Commission for t heir concurrence wit h t he proposed change. The subj ect propert y is locat ed in
a GMU ( Gat eway Mixed- Use) zoning dist rict and is locat ed in Council Dist rict 4, represent ed by Luke Garrot t .
( St aff cont act : Doug Dansi e at ( 801) 535- 6182 or doug.dansie@slcgov.com) .

The files for the above items are available in the Planning Division offices, room 406 of the City and County Building. Please contact
the staff planner for information, Visit the Planning Divisions website at www.slcgov.com/CED/planning for copies of the Planning
Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes. Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be
posted two days after they are ratified, which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission.
Planning Commission Meetings may be watched live on SLCTV Channel 17; past meetings are recorded and archived, and may be
viewed at www.slctv.com
Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes, June 22, 2011 Page 1

SALT LAKE CI TY PLANNI NG COMMI SSI ON MEETI NG
I n Room 326 of t he Ci t y & Count y Bui l di ng
451 Sout h St at e St r eet , Sal t Lak e Ci t y , Ut ah
Wednesday , June 22, 2011

Present for t he Planning Commission meet ing were: Act ing Chair , Mat t hew Wirt hlin,
Commissioners Babs De Lay, Emily Drown, Charlie Luke, Susie McHugh, and Mary
Woodhead. Chair Michael Fife, Vice Chair Angela Dean, and Commissioners Michael
Gallegos and Kat hleen Hill were excused.

The Field Trip was cancelled.

A roll is being kept of all who at t ended t he Planning Commission Meet ing. The meet ing
was called t o order at 5: 30 p.m. Audio recordings of t he Planning Commission meet ings
are ret ained in t he Planning Office for an indefinit e period of t ime. Planning st aff
members present at t he meet ing were: Joel Pat erson, Planning Manager; Maryann
Pickering, Principal Planner; Doug Dansie, Senior Planner; Michaela Okt ay, Principal
Planner; Mike Maloy, Principal Planner; Paul Nielson, Land Use At t orney; and Angela
Hasenberg, Senior Secret ary.

5: 35: 20

Wor k Sessi on

A discussion regarding t he Special Except ion process and t r ansferring t he review
aut horit y from t he Board of Adj ust ment t o t he Planning Commission and ot her t ext
amendment s relat ed t o special except ions. Discussion Only. ( St aff cont act : Maryann
Pickering at 801- 535- 7660 or maryann.pickering@slcgov.com)

Ms. Pickering gave a present at ion t hat was recorded as part of t he Channel 17 broadcast
of t he Planning Commission meet ing.

The following point s were made by Ms. Pickering:

Primary Purpose: To t ransfer t he Approval aut horit y of all special except ions fr om t he
Board of Adj ust ment s t o t he Planning Commission.

Minor Modificat ions:
Change t he approval process for special except ions

o Not ify propert y owners of t he request for special except ions and t hey will
have a t ime t o comment .
Removing t he Rout ine and Uncont est ed Mat t ers Chapt er ent irely.
Give t he Hist oric Landmark Commission approval aut horit y for Special Except ions.
Basic cleanup of chapt er 52, fixing incorrect references t o t he Ut ah St at e code.
Creat ing consist ency.

Quest ions from t he Commissioners:

Commissioner De Lay asked about signs and what t ypes of signs t he document was
referring t o.

Ms. Pickering responded t hat t here might at t imes, be signs in Hist oric Dist rict s t hat
need special except ions.

Commissioner De Lay referred t o page 25 and asked about unit legalizat ion wording.

Ms. Pickering st at ed t hat t he wording was t he current wording and had not been
updat ed.

Commissioner McHugh asked for clar it y of word usage on t he memo.

Ms. Pickering st at ed t hat she would make t he appropriat e changes.

5: 40: 19

Senior Planner Doug Dansie led a discussion on Billboards and signs.

Mr. Dansie st at ed t hat t here had been a briefing regarding t his issue on May 25, 2011.
He asked t he Commissioners t he following quest ions:

1) Should billboards be allowed t o move wit h st at e law being t he default , or should
t he Cit y st ill have some receiving zone beyond st at e law? I f t he Cit y has a
receiving zone, where should it generally be locat ed ( indust rial areas,
neighborhood areas, et c.) ? ( At t he May 25 meet ing t he Planning Commission
indicat ed t hat t hey were int erest ed in not let t ing St at e law be t he default )
a) Allow movement t o any non- resident ial zone?
b) Receiving zone in CG General Commercial or M Manufact uring zones?
c) Move t o CG or M zones wit h condit ions?
d) Ot her?

Mr. Dansie st at ed t hat what ever decision t hat would be made would not be a
replacement for St at e Law. The Cit y Ordinance would det er mine locat ion and would
allow relocat ion wit hout having t o negot iat e t he individual board.


2) Should elect ronic conversions be allowed? I f so where?
a) Allowed?
b) Allowed only in non- resident ial zones?
c) Allowed only in CG and M zones?
d) Allowed wit h condit ions ( i.e. removal of nonconforming or ot her boards) ?
e) Ot her?

Commissioners response: Commissioners McHugh and Woodhead bot h felt t hat d
would be t heir preference t o allow boards in cert ain zones and under cert ain condit ions.

Commissioner Luke st at ed t hat he preferred b, allowed in non- resident ial zones.

Commissioner Wirt hlin st at ed t hat he would like t o see honest input from t he indust r ies
if incent ives would have made a difference.

3. Should conversion be based upon one t o one square foot age rat io or based upon a
higher rat io; or a combinat ion of t he t wo, depending on what boards are being
convert ed?
a) One t o one?
b) Two t o one?
c) Higher t han t wo t o one?
d) One t o one if t he board is being removed from resident ial ( or neighborhood
commercial) zones and higher if being removed from ot her zones?
e) Ot her?

Commi ssi oner s r esponse:

Commissioner De Lay st at ed t hat she did not feel t hat t her e had been enough
informat ion regarding a square foot rat io t rade off t o make a decision.

Mr. Dansie asked for clarit y on what level of t rade t he Commissioners would be
comfort able wit h.

Commissioners Wirt hlin and Woodhead suggest ed t hat a 2: 1 rat io would be a good st art .

Commissioner Drown asked if when somet hing is convert ed, t heoret ically from t he
st andard billboard t o an elect ronic billboard, t he billboard would be t axed at a higher
rat e.

Mr. Dansie responded t hat if t he value of t he st ruct ure went up, it would be.

Commissioner Drown asked if t he t ax was based on t he fact t hat an elect ronic billboard
can change mult iple t imes, which would increase it s profit abilit y.

Mr. Dansie replied t hat it was based on t he value of t he st r uct ure.


Planning Manager Joel Pat erson added t hat t he st ruct ure for an elect ronic boar d would
be more expensive t han a regular board and clarified t hat billboards are t axed as
personal propert y and not real propert y.

Mr. Dansie made it clear t hat t he indust ry does pay income and sales t ax.

4.) Should boards t hat are nonconforming for specific reasons ( spacing, resident ial
locat ion, et c. ) be allowed t o convert ?
a) Allow all t o convert ?
b) Do not allow nonconforming boards t o convert ?
c) Ot her?


Mr. Dansie clarified t hat t his was for elect ronic conversion.

Commissioner Woodhead st at ed t hat t he answer should be b , no. She st at ed t hat was
t he point of non conforming. That would be cont ravent ion of what t he Cit y t hough t he
policy was, about where t hey should be and allowing t hem t o convert made t hem more
likely t o st ay where t hey were.

Commissioner Wirt hlin agreed.

5.) Should Gat eway provisions be preserved as is or should t hey be modified t o more
effect ively encourage t he removal of cert ain boards ( such as t hose on 500 and 600
Sout h) ? Should movement and/ or conversion be t arget ed or at least be like for
like ?
a) Eliminat e gat eways?
b) Allow conversion on freeways if nonconforming or on- ramp boards are
removed?
c) Ot her?


Commissioner Wirt hlin asked if t he Planning Commission st ill was in favor of Gat eways.

Commissioner Woodhead asked if it would be possible t o t r ade Gat eways t o t he West
side of t he freeway.

Mr. Dansie responded t hat st affs int ent ion was t o t rade Gat eways for Gat eways, t o
t rade like for like .

Commissioner Wirt hlin st at ed t hat t his had been long st anding Cit y policy, and he did
not see t he Cit y walking away from t he Gat eway idea.


Commissioner De Lay and Wirt hlin suggest ed t hat b allowing conversions on freeways
if nonconforming or on boards removed from freeway ramps was t he best suggest ion.

Commissioner Wirt hlin asked Mr. Dansie asked if t here were ot her high priorit y
billboards t o remove t hat could be added t o t he suggest ions of 500

and 600 Sout h.

Mr. Dansie responded t hat 600 Nort h 900 Sout h off ramp, resident ial boards, or CN
boards could be added. He asked t he Planning Commission if t hey would want t o see a
nonconforming board on a crowded commercial st reet .

Commissioner De Lay st at ed t hat if t here were fewer boards on resident ial st reet s t hen
absolut ely.

Commissioner Luke said he felt t he chances of compromise were great er if t he indust ry
had more opt ions.

Mr. Dansie responded t hat out of t he six resident ial billboards in t he Cit y, four were
locat ed on land owned by t he billboard company, and one was for sale. Therefore, if t he
billboard company owns t he sign and t he land t here would be less incent ive for t hem t o
move.

Commissioner Luke offered t hat if t here were ot her incent ives, t hrough conversion or
ot herwise, t hen t he indust ry would pot ent ially st ill change t heir mind.

Mr. Dansie clarified t hat conversions, part icular ly on t he freeway in exchange for
removal of specific t hings elsewhere would be a good balance in order t o remove t he
signs t hat t hey t ruly want removed, as opposed t o j ust removing anyt hing.

Commissioner De Lay st at ed t hat she believed t hat t he conversion t o elect ronic boards
would definit ely be incent ive enough for t he billboard companies t o move t he r esident ial
signs.

Mr. Dansie asked if t he idea of moving billboards and allowing t hem t o convert t o
elect ronic based upon a rat io and a pr iorit y syst em based on what signs are t he most
desirable t o move first , would be accept able.

Commissioner De Lay asked if t here was a list .

6.) Should urban design and/ or removal of impediment t o development be used as an
incent ive t o t he conversion process ( require t o be part of building archit ect ure, et c.) ?
a) Do not hing?
b) Allow conversion in Downt own or on Special Gat eways if t he new elect ronic
board is part of t he archit ect ure?
c) Allow conversion t o elect ronic only if boards ( resident ial, nonconforming, et c.)
are removed first ?
d) Ot her?


Mr. Dansie explained t hat his int ent ion was t hat if a billboard was part of t he
archit ect ure, t hey would allow an exist ing sign t o convert t o elect ronic.

Commissioner Wirt hlin st at ed t hat he felt t hat had possibilit ies and asked for a draft t o
look at .

7.) Direct ion regarding elect ronic signage in general ( int eract ive, t iming, size,
locat ion, et c. )
a) Should t here be limit s on size depending on zoning dist rict ?
b) Should t he percent age of t he sign t hat is elect ronic be limit s?
c) Should t here be limit s on mot ion animat ion?
d) Limit s on let t ering size for readabilit y are t here legal issues?
e) Ot her?

Mr. Dansie st at ed t hat what ever decision t hat would be made would not be a
replacement for St at e Law. The Cit y Ordinance would det er mine locat ion and would
allow relocat ion wit hout having t o negot iat e t he individual board.

Commi ssi oner r esponse:

Commissioner De Lay st at ed t hat in regard t o a t here should be limit s on size,
regarding b seemed t o be t hat t hey should be ent irely elect ronic or not elect ronic.
Mr. Dansie st at ed t hat in fact , t here were signs t hat had a large percent age t hat were
fixed images, adding t hat t his applied t o on and off premise signage. He clarified t hat in
CN zones, t here could possibly be percent age rest rict ions on fixed versus elect r onic
port ions of signs.

Commissioner De Lay asked if in regar d t o c was t here not a prior ban on
mot ion/ animat ion.

Mr. Dansie replied t hat t hat t he issue was most ly in regard t o on premise signs and t hat
t he ban needed t o be explicit ly st at ed.

Commissioner Drown asked if t here was a limit t o how many elect ronic billboards could
be wit hin 500 feet .

Mr. Dansie st at ed t hat t here can only be one billboard every 500 feet , however, t here is
no limit t o how many on premise signs t hat could be bet ween t hem. He st at ed t he issue
would be t he possibilit y of t oo many elect ronic signs wit h t oo much animat ion.

Commissioner McHugh asked if animat ion could include live feed.


Mr. Dansie st at ed t hat it was very limit ed t o a t elevision st at ion.

Mr. Dansie asked if t he Planning Commission would be int erest ed in limit ing t he size of
let t ering and readabilit y.

The Commissioners asked if t here were any complaint s regarding let t ering size being
dist ract ing.

Mr. Dansie responded t hat t here had been and st at ed an example of a hospit al sign in
Sandy t hat said look closer forcing driving t o look at small t ext .

Commissioner Wirt hlin st at ed t hat he appreciat ed t he hard work t hat Mr. Dansie had put
int o t his issue.

Commissioner De Lay said t hat she hoped t hat t here were met hods being creat ed t o
ensure enforcement on t he new rules, and suggest ed t hat t he Cit y made sure t hat t he
billboard companies were paying accurat e t axes.

6: 30: 31

Mr. Dansie led a discussion regarding Chapt er 21A.59 Condit ional Building and Sit e
Design Review process.

Mr. Dansie gave a present at ion t hat was recorded as part of t he Channel 17 broadcast of
t he Planning Commission meet ing.

The following point s were made by Mr. Dansie:

1995 Salt Lake Cit y rewrot e t he zoning code. Form based zoning was used where
t he zoning code defined what a building would look like and focused less on t he
use.
2005 a Walkable Communit ies Ordinance t hat included mor e design issues.
Present int ent , t o remove anyt hing t hat was not a use and creat e a new sect ion
and new process for sit e design.

6: 32: 42

Publ i c Hear i ng

6: 32: 45

Appr oval of Mi nut es f r om June 8:

Mot i on: Commi ssi oner Woodhead mov ed t o appr ov e t he mi nut es of June 8,
2011.

Second: Commi ssi oner McHugh seconded t he mot i on.

Vot e: Commi ssi oner s Emi l y Dr ow n, Babs De Lay , Char l i e Luk e, Susi e McHugh
and Mar y Woodhead al l v ot ed ay e . The mot i on passed unani mousl y .

Repor t of t he Vi ce Chai r :

Act ing Chairperson Wirt hlin had not hing t o report .

Repor t of t he Di r ect or :

PLNPCM2010- 00188 Ti me Ex t ensi on f or A1 Aut o Par t s Condi t i onal Use
A request by Mike Vanikiot is for a one- year t ime ext ension for a condit ional use t o
operat e an out door aut o salvage and recycling facilit y at approximat ely 5 Sout h
5100 West . The proj ect was originally approved by t he Planning Commission on
June 23, 2010. The subj ect propert y is locat ed in t he M- 1 ( Light Manufact uring)
zoning dist rict in Cit y Council Dist rict 2, represent ed by Van Turner. ( St aff
cont act : Kat ia Pace at 801- 535- 6354 or kat ia.pace@slcgov. com)

Planning Manager, Joel Pat erson, st at ed t hat t here was a request for a t ime ext ension
for a period of one year. As part of t he proj ect t he applicant was required t o r elocat e
t he drain, because of t he weat her it has been t oo damp t o complet e t he work and need
an ext ension.

Mot i on: Commi ssi oner De Lay made t he mot i on t o appr ov e t he one y ear
ex t ensi on.

Second: Commi ssi oner Woodhead seconded t he mot i on.

and Mar y Woodhead al l v ot ed aye . The mot i on passed unani mousl y .
6: 33: 51

Publ i c Hear i ng

Act ing Chairperson Wirt hlin made a change t o t he order of t he agenda.

Pet i t i on 410- 07- 57 Ri o Gr ande Of f i ce Condi t i onal Use Pl anned
Devel opment A r equest by t he Boyer company for clarificat ion t o t he approval
of an office building, locat ed at approximat ely 50 Nort h Rio Grande. The building
was approved wit h a dome height of 90 feet , however t he mechanical equipment
is now proposed t o be enclosed, result ing in more square foot age of t he roof being
at 90 feet . This change is being present ed t o t he Planning Commission for t heir
concurrence wit h t he proposed change. The subj ect propert y is locat ed in a GMU
( Gat eway Mixed- Use) zoning dist rict and is locat ed in Council Dist rict 4,

represent ed by Luke Garrot t . ( St aff cont act : Doug Dansie at ( 801) 535- 6182 or
doug.dansie@slcgov.com) .

Act ing Chairperson Wirt hlin recognized Doug Dansie as st aff represent at ive.

Mr. Dansie st at ed t hat t his was a request t o clarify a planned development t hat was
proposed at 50 Nort h Rio Grande.

Mr. Dansie gave a PowerPoint present at ion t hat illust rat ed t he change t o t he original
design. The change included t he addit ion square foot age t o t he 90 foot dome.

Commissioner Wirt hlin asked who was r esponsible for t he need t o change t he original
plan.

Mr. Dansie explained t hat t he original plan was concept ual and t hat t he applicant had
more mechanical equipment t han expect ed and want ed t o screen it and cover it .

Commissioner Woodhead made t he st at ement t hat she was disappoint ed t hat Rio
Grande St reet would be blocked by t his proj ect .

Comment f r om t he Appl i cant :

Rob Cot t le, Archit ect from Babcock Design Group clarified t hat t he applicant want ed t o
be a LEED Silver design and t herefore went wit h a more efficient mechanical syst em t hat
required a cooling t ower. He st at ed t hat t he ordinance allowed t hem t o have mechanical
equipment on t he r oof and not be in violat ion. He added t hat it was t heir int ent t o have
it blend in more wit h t he archit ect ure.

6: 40: 25

Open of Publ i c Hear i ng

Act ing Chairperson Wirt hlin opened t he public hearing, seeing no one chose t o speak, he
closed t he public hearing.

6: 40: 31

Mot i on: Commi ssi oner De Lay made t he mot i on r egar di ng Pet i t i on 410- 07- 57
Ri o Gr ande Of f i ce Condi t i onal Use Pl anned Dev el opment af t er t est i mony hear d
t oni ght , t hat t he Pl anni ng Commi ssi on appr ov e t he i t em.

Second: Commi ssi oner McHugh seconded t he mot i on.



6: 41: 23

PLNPCM2010- 00784 Code Mai nt enance Not i ci ng Tex t Amendment - A
request by Mayor Ralph Becker t o amend sect ions 21A.10.020, 21A.14.060 of t he
zoning Ordinance t o require all public hearings t o be not iced in a similar manner
using t he most st ringent of t he exist ing not icing requirement s. The proposal will
remove signat ure requirement s for rout ine and uncont est ed special except ions and
replace wit h an official not ice of applicat ion. Relat ed provisions of Tit le 21A-
Zoning may also be amended as part of t his pet it ion. ( St aff cont act : Michaela
Okt ay at ( 801) 535- 6003 or michaela.okt ay@slcgov.com) .

Act ing Chairperson Wirt hlin recognized Michaela Okt ay as st aff represent at ive.

Ms. Okt ay st at ed t hat t his was a request by Mayor Ralph Becker t o amend sect ions
21A.10.020, 21A.14.060 of t he zoning Ordinance t o requir e all public hearings t o be
not iced in a similar manner.

Ms. Okt ay added t hat t here were t hree maj or changes in t he proposal.
1. Clean up t he language and st andardize t he public hearing r equirement s
a. Eliminat es t he need t o amend t he chapt er every t ime we need t o list
anot her process.
b. Allows for more clarit y and consist ency.
c. Short ens t he chapt er and makes it clearer.
d. Changes and out lines t he specifics and ensures t hat not icing is carried out
using t he correct predict able manner for st aff and cit izens.
e. I ncreases t he neighbor not ificat ion t o 300 feet

2. Change t he appeal period for t he Board of Adj ust ment from 30 days t o 10 days
t o make it more consist ent t o t he ot her Boards.
a. Consist ency wit h St at e Law. St at e Law requires 10 days.
b. Consist ency wit h ot her Boards.
c. Provides t he cit izens consist ent and predict able appeal periods.

3. To remove t he signat ure gat hering requirement for rout ine and uncont est ed
mat t ers and replaces it wit h a modified process t hat would be called t he Not ice
of Applicat ion Process.
a. Technically is an administ rat ive special except ion aut horized by t he Board
of Adj ust ment .
b. St aff is not able t o verify aut hent icit y of signat ures
c. Creat es animosit y bet ween neighbors.


Ms. Okt ay said t hat t he new process would be called Not ice of Applicat ion Process for
Special Except ions and st aff believes t hat t his new process would increase t ransparency
of our process and provide predict able, consist ent processes t hat would include official
not ificat ion. Neighbors would know and be able t o inspect t he exact ly t he proj ect t hat is
being reviewed by t he Cit y st aff and neighbors will be able t o learn about t he appeal
process.

6: 45: 53

Quest i ons f r om t he Commi ssi oner s:

Commissioner De Lay asked about t he language referring t o including owners and
t enant s if held in condo ownership she asked if t he language could be changed t o any
t enant s.

Ms. Okt ay st at ed t hat it was t he current Cit y process t o not ice all t enant s.

Commissioner Woodhead st at ed t hat she appreciat ed t he removal of t he sign gat hering
requirement .

6: 47: 08

Open of Publ i c Hear i ng

Act ing Chairperson Wirt hlin opened t he public hearing, seeing no one chose t o speak, he
closed t he public hearing.

6: 47: 21

Mot i on:
Commi ssi oner Woodhead made t he mot i on as t o PLNPCM2010- 00784 Code
Mai nt enance Not i ci ng Tex t Amendment , mov ed t hat t he Pl anni ng Commi ssi on
f or w ar d a posi t i v e r ecommendat i on t o t he Ci t y Counci l t o adopt t he pr oposed
or di nance t ex t amendment based on t he i nf or mat i on i n t he st af f r epor t , t he
di scussi on dur i ng t he meet i ng and t he pr esent at i on by st af f .

Second: Commi ssi oner Dr ow n seconded t he mot i on.


6: 48: 04

PLNPCM2010- 00612 Accessor y Dw el l i ng Uni t A request by Mayor Ralph
Becker for a zoning t ext amendment t o allow accessory dwelling unit s wit hin t he
following single- family and mult i- family resident ial dist rict s: FR- 1/ 43,560, FR-
2/ 21,780, FR- 3/ 12,000, R- 1/ 12,000, R- 1/ 7,000, R- 1/ 5,000, SR- 1, SR- 1A, SR- 3,

R- 2, RMF- 30, RMF- 35, RMF- 45, and RMF- 75. This request is part of t he
Sust ainabilit y Cit y Code I nit iat ive and would affect areas Cit y- wide. ( St aff cont act :
Michael Maloy at 801- 535- 7118 or michael.maloy@slcgov.com) .

Act ing Chairperson Wirt hlin recognized Michael Maloy as st aff represent at ive.

Mr. Maloy gave a br ief overview

Public Hearing I ssues and Comment s
Densit y
Propert y values
Neighborhood charact er
Design qualit y
Locat ion rest rict ions
Occupancy rest rict ions
Parking ( onsit e and off- sit e)
Fees and penalt ies

Mr. Maloy st at ed t hat he had a conversat ion wit h t he chairman of t he Avenues
Communit y Council because t hey specifically said t hat t his it em was cont rary t o t he
Avenues Mast er Plan. Mr. Maloy st at ed t hat he reviewed t he Mast er Plan looking
specifically for language t hat dealt wit h Accessory Dwelling Unit s ( ADU) and found none.

Mr. Maloy st at ed t hat an issue for t he Mayor was t hat t he Cit y had removed t he
opport unit y for an over- garage ADU t hat would be serviced by an alley. He st at ed t he
reason for t hat was t hat ADU st ruct ure height requirement s were for buildings up t o 17
feet , and an average over- garage unit would be 19 feet . However, Mr. Maloy st at ed t hat
t he Mayor was aware of t he public input and t herefore t he language had not changed.

Mr. Maloy st at ed t hat he researched what ot her communit ies were doing t o assess best
pract ices and found t hat t here were not many design guidelines and was not a common
pract ice t o add t hem t o ordinances.

Mr. Maloy st at ed t hat a suggest ion had been made by cit izen Cindy Cromer t hat t he ADU
ordinance could be linked t o t ransport at ion. The decision was made t o have t he
ordinance be linked t o mixed rail, and be wit hin a half mile of st at ion locat ion. The
result was t hat west side did not benefit from t his proposal.

Commissioner Woodhead made t he point t hat t ransit locat ions changes, and t husly
would put t he decisions in t he hands of Ut ah Transit Aut horit y inst ead of t he Cit y.

Commissioner Luke added t hat wit h fixed rail t ransit it would be different , t hat t here
would not be t oo much movement .

7: 02: 14

Quest i ons f r om t he Commi ssi oner s:

Commissioner McHugh st at ed t hat Mr. Maloy accommodat ed t hose who were worried
about parking by saying t hat a one bedroom unit would have t o have one onsit e parking
spot , however in anot her place in t he ordinance it st at ed t hat t he Depart ment of
Transport at ion could waive it if it became difficult .

Mr. Maloy responded t hat t he opport unit y t o modify t he par king requirement was
act ually in prior draft s and was int roduced by Clarion and Assoc. He added t hat t he
st and would be t hat an applicant would have t o meet t he onsit e parking requirement ,
but if on- st reet parking was available t hey would have t o go t o t he Transport at ion
Division t o demonst rat e t he availabilit y and have t hem modify t he onsit e parking
requirement for t he ADU

Commissioners discussed t he pros and cons of on st reet parking.

7: 10: 04

Publ i c Hear i ng:

Est her Hunt er, Co- Chair of East Cent ral/ Side Communit y Council spoke in f av or of t he
ordinance. She st at ed t hat aft er ext ensive research about what really concerns t hem in
t heir area in t erms of densit y, t hey det ermined t hat t heir concerns were wit h illegal
duplexes, t riplexes and out of st at e landlords.

Some opt ions t hat t hey request ed t he Cit y look at were:
I mplement at ion of Good Landlord program and t aking t hem down t o one unit .
Considerat ion of doing away wit h t he special except ion process t hat legalizes t he
unit s.

Ms. Hunt er st at ed t hat t heir Communit y Council felt t hat t he Ordinance should be across
all zones and not limit ed t o t he t ransit zones.

She st at ed t hat in t he East Cent ral Communit y t hey have nine neighborhoods and t hree
business dist rict s. Of t hose nine, four of t hem are CDBG eligible. She st at ed t hat
wit hout ext ending t he area, five of t heir neighborhoods would not be able t o t ake
advant age of t he Ordinance for t he st udent or aged populat ion.

The East Cent ral Communit ies do believe t hat t he ADUs should be owner occupied.

Ms. Hunt er st at ed t hat she felt t hat Mr. Maloy did an excellent j ob wit h communit y
out reach and really appreciat ed t he work he put int o t his Ordinance.

7: 20: 20

Mot i on:


Commi ssi oner De Lay made t he mot i on i n r egar d t o PLNPCM2010- 00612
Accessor y Dw el l i ng Uni t based on t he f i ndi ngs l i st ed i n t he st af f r epor t ,
t est i mony and i nf or mat i on pr esent ed I mov e t hat t he Pl anni ng Commi ssi on
f or w ar d a f avor abl e r ecommendat i on t o t he Ci t y Counci l . t o al l ow accessor y
dw el l i ng uni t s w i t hi n t he f ol l ow i ng si ngl e- f ami l y and mul t i - f ami l y r esi dent i al
di st r i ct s as l i st ed on page one of t he st af f r epor t .

Second: Seconded by Commi ssi oner Woodhead.

Commi ssi oner Luk e made a subst i t ut e mot i on.

Commi ssi oner Luk e made t he mot i on t hat based on publ i c t est i mony ,
i nf or mat i on r ecei v ed i n t he f ol l ow i ng f i ndi ngs, I mov e t hat t he Pl anni ng
Commi ssi on t r ansmi t a negat i v e r ecommendat i on t o t he Ci t y Counci l r el at i ng t o
pet i t i on PLNPCM2010- 00612 t o per mi t and r egul at e accessor y dw el l i ng uni t s
w i t hi n t he f ol l ow i ng si ngl e- f ami l y and mul t i - f ami l y r esi dent i al di st r i ct s as l i st ed
on page one of t he st af f r epor t .

Seei ng no second t o t he subst i t ut e mot i on, Act i ng Chai r per son Wi r t hl i n w ent
back t o t he or i gi nal mot i on.

Di scussi on on t he mot i on:

Commissioner McHugh asked if t he mot ion would include t he 25 unit s, and will it include
a year end review.

Mr. Maloy st at ed t hat previous draft s of t his ordinance did included t hat aft er t wo years,
t he Cit y Council shall review t he impact of t he ordinance. Mr. Maloy st at ed t hat he was
advised t hat t he Cit y Council could amend t he t ext language at any t ime, and t he review
would t hen be useless.

Land Use At t orney Nielson suggest ed t hat a sunset could be placed on t he ordinance
wit h t he int ent t hat t he Cit y Council could revisit t he ordinance; however he felt t hat it
would add complicat ions t o t he ordinance.
Commissioner Woodhead st at ed t hat t here was negat ive feedback from t he public, and it
was her sense t hat aft er list ening t o t he informat ion t hrough t he present at ions and
t hrough t he reading mat erials, t hat t he ADU ordinance could go forward wit hout
damaging t he single family nat ure of t he Avenues, Yalecrest and ot hers. She felt like t he
ordinance provides a mechanism for t hose neighborhood t o maint ain t heir int egrit y and
reflect t he way families funct ion now. She felt t he ordinance would be a posit ive t hing.

Commissioner Luke st at ed t hat he read t he ordinance different ly.

Land Use At t orney Nielson asked if t he 25 unit s per year would be aft er t he adopt ion of
t he ordinance or if it would be wit hin t he calendar year.

Mr. Maloy responded t hat it was wit hin t he calendar year.

Vot e: Commi ssi oner s Emi l y Dr ow n, Babs De Lay , Susi e McHugh and Mar y
Woodhead al l v ot ed ay e . Char l i e Luk e v ot ed nay . The mot i on passed.

7: 23: 35
Meet i ng adj our ned

Th is d ocu m en t , a lon g wit h t h e d igit a l r ecor d in g, con s t it u t e t h e officia l m in u t es of
t h e Sa lt La ke Cit y Pla n n in g Comm is s ion h eld on J u n e 22, 20 11.

____ ____ ___ ___ _ ____ ____ ___ ___ _ ____ ____ ___ ___ _
Angela Hasenberg

6. ORIGINAL PETITION

-

Petition Initiation
-
Planning Division
Community & Economic Development Department
To: File
From: Cheri Planning Director
Date:
CC:
Re:
September 16, 2010
David Everitt, Chief of Staff; Frank Gray, Community and Economic
Development Director; Mary De La Mare-Schaefer, Community & Economic
Development Department Deputy Director; Wilf Sommerkorn, Planning
Director; file
Sustainability Code Amendment Project: Accessory Dwelling Unit proposed
regulations.
As part of the Sustainability Code Amendment Project, this memo identifies a topic from the Bundle 1
amendment list that is the next to be processed. Chapter 21A.40, Accessory Structures and Uses, (as
well as possibly other sections of the Zoning Ordinance) is proposed to be amended to implement
sustainability goals relating to allowing Accessory Dwelling Units and applicable requirements.
development;
alternatives;
4. Provide a mix of housing that responds to changing family needs and smaller households;
5. Offer a means for'residents, particularly seniors, single parents, and families with grown
children, to remain in their homes and neighborhoods, and obtain extra income, security,
companionship, and services;
6. Promote a broader range of accessible and more affordable housing;
7. Provide opportunity for workforce housing in developed and new neighborhoods, close to
places of work, thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions and reducing fossil fuel
consumption through less car commuting;
Page 1
8. Support transit-oriented development and reduce auto usage by increasing density near
transit stops; and
9. Support the economic viability of historic properties and the city's historic preservation
goals by allowing accessory residential uses in historic structures.
As part ofthe process, the Planning Division will follow the City adoption processes including citizen
input and public hearings with the Planning Commission and City Council.
Page 2

2012.05.16 - Salt Lake City - Options For ADU Ordinance

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

2012.05.16 - Salt Lake City - Options For ADU Ordinance

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

FRANK S.

What do you think about the proposed ordinance allowing Accessory

Public Comments as of March 21, 2011, 7:31 AM

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)

What do you think about the proposed ordinance allowing Accessory

Summary of Statements Users

Semi-anonymous inside Salt Lake City

Semi-anonymous inside Salt Lake City

Brad Bartholomew inside Salt Lake City

Semi-anonymous inside Salt Lake City

These are my specific suggestions:

Issues not addressed in this proposal:

Issues addressed in this proposal and my suggestions:

D.3. Methods of Creation

D.5 Ownership/ Number of residents

I oppose this proposal.

Semi-anonymous inside Salt Lake City

Semi-anonymous inside Salt Lake City

Paige Pitcher inside Salt Lake City

Semi-anonymous inside Salt Lake City

Additional garbage collection is required, as is additional utilities maintenance, adding a burden

Michel Weekley inside Salt Lake City

Matt Johnson inside Salt Lake City

Mike Kephart outside Salt Lake City

Mike Kephart, Denver, CO

Semi-anonymous inside Salt Lake City

Semi-anonymous inside Salt Lake City

Susan Fisher inside Salt Lake City

Beverly Nelson inside Salt Lake City

Gene Fitzgerald inside Salt Lake City

Esther Hunter inside Salt Lake City

quinn mccallum-law inside Salt Lake City

Kelly Stevens inside Salt Lake City

Stephanie Churchill Jackel outside Salt Lake City

Dana Schaffer inside Salt Lake City

Jon Parrish inside Salt Lake City

linda burr outside Salt Lake City

Hilary Verson inside Salt Lake City

Jim Ferguson inside Salt Lake City

Pax Rasmussen inside Salt Lake City

Mike Kephart outside Salt Lake City

bruce beck inside Salt Lake City

Semi-anonymous inside Salt Lake City

Kathryn Fitzgerald inside Salt Lake City

Philip Carlson inside Salt Lake City

Semi-anonymous inside Salt Lake City

Alyssa Kay inside Salt Lake City

Overall, this is a good start. Thanks!

1001< X Cil Seiect

From: Vet t er, Rust y

From: drholladay@msn.com [ mailt o: drholladay@msn.com]

1001< X Cil Seiect

From: Vet t er, Rust y

Você também pode gostar