Commission approves change to city’s "family" definition, replacing relationship rules with bedroom-based occupancy (3–2)

The Planning Commission voted 3–2 to forward a City Council-initiated zoning text amendment that removes relationship-based limits in the code’s definition of “family” and replaces them with occupancy limits tied to the number of bedrooms.

Planning staff presenter Madison Blodgett told the commission the change is intended to increase housing flexibility and address enforcement challenges tied to proving familial relationships. The proposed rule would generally limit occupancy to two people per bedroom plus one additional person per unit; for studio/efficiency units staff proposed caps to address the smallest units. "Enforcing relationship is difficult because it requires proving relationships of occupants," Blodgett said. "This proposal creates one uniform rule for all households and bases occupancy on bedrooms."

Community councils and neighbors urged caution. Brian Brunette, vice chair of the Foothill/Sunnyside Community Council, told commissioners he fears investor owners could convert large houses into high-occupancy rentals near the University of Utah, increasing parking, noise and neighborhood turnover. "If an investor acquires a six-bedroom home and rents two per bedroom plus one, that results in substantial parking and nuisance concerns," Brunette warned.

Commissioners debated trade-offs of enforcement, parking and family needs and worked amendments on the dais. The commission adopted two recommendations to send to Council: (1) for efficiency units under 300 square feet set a maximum of two persons per unit and for larger studios set a maximum of three persons, and (2) for occupancy calculations count each person under 18 as one-half (effectively excluding children from the full count). The motion passed 3–2 (Burrows, Rosenfield and Scott voted yes; Leverett and Sullivan voted no).

Commission discussion highlighted a tension repeated in the record: relationship-based rules are hard to prove in enforcement actions, but bedroom-based caps can sometimes “size out” large families or create edge cases for owners and tenants. Staff and commissioners noted that enforcement would rely on building-permit and assessment data for bedroom counts and on complaint-driven code enforcement; parking enforcement lacks broad access to vehicle registration data, which limits some enforcement options.

Next steps: The commission’s recommendation and its two language suggestions will be transmitted to City Council, which will consider final ordinance language and any additional amendments.