Salt Lake City hearing takes variance request over artificial turf under advisement

Administrative Hearing Officer Clayton Preece heard a variance request on whether artificial turf may remain at 1363 South 1300 East during a Salt Lake City administrative hearing. The applicant, Richard Holm, asked for relief from Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.48.080(b)(4), which the city interprets to prohibit artificial turf in front and corner side yards.

The issue matters because the applicant says steep slopes on the property make maintaining live turf hazardous and that engineered artificial turf provides safer, lower-maintenance groundcover. Clayton Preece clarified the scope of the proceeding at the start: "This hearing today is just on the variance. This is not an appeal of any kind of code enforcement or other action with regards to removing the artificial turf." The city’s planning staff and the applicant each presented their positions, and Preece said he would issue a written decision within about 10 business days.

Richard Holm, the property owner, described the yard’s slopes and said professional measurements show the west side rises about 33.5 inches over 11 feet (about a 25% slope) and the south side rises about 35 inches over 10 feet (about a 29% slope). Holm said those grades meet or exceed the code’s 25% slope threshold for restrictions on certain groundcover. He also described a historical safety concern: his grandfather once lost control of a lawnmower on the south slope, which Holm said underscores maintenance hazards.

Holm disputed the city’s assertion that other landscaping alternatives satisfying the code could be implemented on the slope. He argued that rock, mulch or crushed rock could erode or wash down the slope, increasing maintenance burdens and risk of debris reaching the sidewalk or street. Holm also raised environmental questions the staff cited — microplastics, PFAS and permeability — and said he contacted the installer for product testing. He told the hearing officer that "our artificial turf tested nondetectable at every level" for PFAS in the installer-supplied laboratory report and offered to provide the installer’s reports and drainage tests if the hearing officer wished to review them.

Jason Bernsen, the city planning staff member who prepared the staff report, reiterated the code’s landscaping standards and emphasized that no property is required to have natural grass. He noted the minimum landscaping standard is 33% live vegetation and that turf can count toward that requirement. Bernsen also pointed out that the park strip adjacent to the property is city property and that, regardless of the variance outcome for the private yard, the artificial turf installed in the park strip must be removed because the city has not granted permission for its installation there.

On procedural points, Bernsen confirmed a typographical error in the staff report’s zoning reference and verified the property is in the R-15000 zone; he said landscaping standards are the same for the related zone designation. The hearing officer and staff also clarified that an enforcement action regarding the private yard is currently on hold pending the administrative decision, and that enforcement would resume if the decision so directs. Preece told the parties he would consider Holm’s oral proffer of studies and would request them only if they became necessary for his review.

The hearing officer did not issue a decision at the hearing. Preece closed the record by saying he would "take the matter under advisement, and you should expect to see a formal written decision issued within about the next 10 business days." The city’s separate enforcement process and the requirement to remove turf from the city park strip remain distinct from the variance proceeding.

The record from this hearing will be the basis for the written decision; Holm offered to provide additional installer test reports and drainage data if requested by the hearing officer.