Council reviews ordinance to allow unenclosed patio covers within reduced residential setbacks
Loading...
Summary
Staff presented amendments to multiple residential zoning sections to allow unenclosed, one‑story patio covers and decks to encroach into rear and front setbacks under specified size, openness, and foundation requirements.
Murray City staff presented an amendment Aug. 5 to multiple residential zoning sections to allow limited encroachments into front and rear setbacks for unenclosed patio covers, decks and similar open‑air structures.
Chad Wilkinson explained the text change would harmonize setback rules across residential zones and permit attached, unenclosed covers that meet several constraints: no more than one story high; open on three sides except for support columns; a maximum depth equal to half the dwelling’s width; no closer than 10 feet to the rear property line and no closer than 20 feet to the front property line; and footings limited to spot footings (columns) rather than continuous foundations. The amendment would allow encroachment up to half of the rear setback but not within the minimum clearances stated.
Wilkinson said the change is intended to let homeowners with smaller lots add covered outdoor spaces without converting the area to additional enclosed living space. He stressed that the structures must remain unenclosed (not sunrooms or additions), and described that detached structures remain regulated as accessory structures and the usual setbacks for accessory buildings would apply.
The amendment was reviewed and recommended unanimously by the planning commission, Wilkinson said. Council members asked for clarifications about partial walls or low knee walls and whether existing permitted covers would be affected; staff replied that the rule requires openness on three sides and that existing permitted enclosures and additions would fall under regular setback rules. Several council members expressed appreciation for the clarification for smaller yards; one councilor noted concerns heard elsewhere about government overreach into private yards but staff reiterated limits to new development and exceptions for existing recreational turf.
The measure was presented for discussion; no adoption vote occurred at the meeting.

