Transmittal - 5/8/2020ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Marcia L. White
Director
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
Date Received: April 30, 2020
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council:5/8/2020
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 04/30/2020
Chris Wharton, Chair
FROM: Marcia L. White, Director Department of Community & Neighborhoods
SUBJECT: PLNPCM2019-00313 – RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential
Zoning District Text Amendments
STAFF CONTACT: Mayara Lima, Principal Planner, mayara.lima@slcgov.com, (801)535-
7118
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council follow the recommendation of the Planning
Commission and approve Petition PLNPCM2019-00313 for text amendments to the RMF-30
Low Density Multi-Family Residential Zoning District
BUDGET IMPACT: None. The proposal involves changing the text in the zoning ordinance.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
On April 4, 2019, Mayor Jackie Biskupski initiated a petition requesting that the Planning Division
amend Section 21A.24.120 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance regarding the RMF-30 Low Density
Multi-Family Residential District to remove zoning barriers to housing development as recommended
within Growing SLC: A Five Year Housing Plan (2018-2022). Strict zoning standards in the RMF-30
zoning district do not allow for multi-family developments – three or more units – on an average size lot
in the district. Therefore, multiple amendments are being proposed to allow for multi-family housing that
is compatible in size and scale with existing buildings in areas zoned RMF-
30.These text amendments include:
1. Introducing design standards for all new development
2. Allowing the construction of compatible multi-family building types including cottage
developments, sideways row houses, and tiny houses without special approval
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV
P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005
3. Reducing minimum lot area requirements per unit
4. Removing minimum lot width requirements
5. Allowing more than one building on a lot without public street frontage
6. Granting a unit bonus for the retention of an existing structure on a lot
7. Introducing a lot width maximum to discourage land banking
The following section provides a summary of each of the proposed RMF-30 text amendments
that received a positive recommendation by the Planning Commission on September 25, 2019.
For further details please refer to the June 26th Staff Report and September 25th
Memorandum contained in Exhibit 3.
Summary of Proposed Text Amendments
1. Design Standards –
Design standards for new construction are intended to utilize planning and architecture principles to
shape and promote a walkable environment in specific zoning districts, foster place making as a
community and economic development tool, protect property values and assist in maintaining the
established character of the city. Design requirements are in place within many of the city’s
commercial and mixed-use zoning districts, but not in any of the RMF (Multi-Family Residential)
districts. The following design elements consistent with Chapter 21A.37: Design Standards of the
Zoning Ordinance will be required for all new development in the RMF-30 district:
Durable Building Materials – Other than windows and doors, 50% of a new building’s
street facing façade shall be clad in durable materials including stone, brick, masonry,
textured or patterned, and fiber cement board. Traditional stucco falls under masonry.
Other durable materials may be approved at the discretion of the planning director.
Glass – All new buildings shall have at least 20% of glass (windows, doors, etc.) on the
ground floor street facing façade(s) and 15% on the upper street facing façade(s).
Building Entrances – At least one operable building entrance on the ground floor is
required for every street facing façade, which includes corner façades.
Blank Wall Maximum – The maximum length of any blank wall uninterrupted by
windows, doors, art or architectural detailing at the ground level along any street facing
facade is 15 feet.
Screening of Mechanical Equipment and Services Areas – All mechanical
equipment and service areas shall be screened from public view and sited
to minimize their visibility and impact.
RMF Entry Features – Along with required building entrances, each entrance shall have
one of the following entry features including lighting and a walkway that connects to a
public sidewalk.
a. Covered Porch – A covered, raised porch structure with or without railings spanning at least a third the
length of the front building façade.
b. Portico – A structure with a roof protruding over the building entry supported by columns over a
landing or walkway.
c. Awning or Canopy – A cover suspended above the building entry over a landing or walkway where the
wall(s) around the entry project out or recess in by at least one foot (1’) from the front building plane.
d. Emphasized Doorway – A doorway that is recessed by at least ten inches (10’’) from the front building
plane and architecturally emphasized with a doorframe of a different material than the front façade,
differentiated patterns or brickwork around the door, and/or sidelights. Doorways need not be recessed
more than six inches (6’’) on a tiny house.
2. New Building Forms in RMF-30 –
In addition to single-family homes, duplexes, triplexes, apartment buildings, etc., the City would
like to encourage three specific housing types or forms in the RMF-30 zoning district that may
allow for slightly higher unit counts, but are also compatible in mass and scale with existing
development areas zoned RMF-30. These three types include cottage developments, side
oriented row houses and tiny houses that otherwise would be difficult to construct in RMF
districts without special approval.
Cottage Developments consist of two or more detached dwelling units, where each unit appears
to be a small single-family home, arranged around common green or open space. The City would
like to encourage this building type as each unit is limited in size and; therefore, works well as
compatible infill development and promotes homeownership. Specifically, units would be
limited to 850 feet of gross floor area, excluding basement area and 23’ tall for a pitched roof or
16’ tall for a flat roof.
Sideways Row Houses where the entries of single-family attached units face the side of a lot as
opposed to the street are difficult to build in any zoning district because code currently does not
allow lots without public street frontage. With intentional design, side oriented row houses can
make good use of the long narrow lots in the city while maintaining compatibility with lower-
scale residential development. These forms are frequently reviewed by the Planning Commission
and just as frequently approved provided that the front-most unit is completely oriented to the
street and adequate buffers are maintained around the property. Therefore, it is being proposed
that side oriented row houses be allowed by right, per the additional design
standards below. Keep in mind that these standards will be applied in
conjunction with the proposed standards in Chapter 21A.37: Design
Standards.
i.Setbacks: Setbacks shall be applied as depicted in Reference Illustration 21A.24.120B.
The interior side yard setbacks shall be ten feet (10’) on one side and six feet (6’) on the
other. A sideways row house is not subject to provision 21A.24.H of this section
regarding buildings with side entries.
ii.Front Building Entry: The unit adjacent to a public street shall have its primary
entrance on the street facing façade of the building with an entry feature per chapter
21A.37 of this title.
iii.Garage Doors: Garage doors are prohibited on the façade of the building that is
parallel to, or located along, a public street.
iv.Required Glass: Ground and upper floor glass requirements shall apply per section
21A.37.060 and table 21A.37.060 of this title to the front and interior facades of a
sideways row house.
Tiny Houses are limited by building code to 400 square feet
maximum in area excluding lofted space. A tiny home differs
from a detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) as they are
more limited in size and would not have to be owner occupied
or associated with a single-family home. These structures
would also have a permanent foundation and could not be on
wheels. Tiny houses can be built today, but are treated the
same as a single-family home and require 5,000 square feet of
land area to build. This amount of land is not necessary for a
400 square-foot structure. Therefore, standards are being
proposed to allow these structures on smaller lots with
reduced setbacks, building height, etc.
3. Reduced Lot Area Requirements –
In most residential zoning districts in the city, the Zoning Ordinance regulates the number of units
per square footage of land area – otherwise known as density requirements. Currently, the RMF-30
zone permits one multi-family unit per every 3,000 square feet of land (must have at least 3 units to
have a multi-family building or 9,000 square feet of land). Considering that about half
of existing lots in the RMF-30 zone fall between 3,000 and 6,000 square feet, these lots
couldn’t accommodate anything more than a single-family home, which is why these area
requirements must be revised.
The Central Community Master Plan, where the majority of the RMF-30 properties are located,
calls for 10-20 units per acre in areas that have been designated as Low Medium Density
Residential, which represents the RMF-30 district. The Sugar House Master Plan designates
RMF-30 areas as Medium Density Residential, which calls for 8-20 units per acre. Therefore, the
3,000 square foot requirement for multi-family units (14 units per acre) is proposed to be
reduced to 2,000 square feet (21 units per acre), which optimizes the recommendation of this
future land use designation. Reducing this requirement to an even 2,000 square feet instead of
the exact 20 units per acre at 2,178 square feet also allows the average size lot in the RMF-30
district of 6,114 square feet to accommodate three units as opposed to two. As noted in the table
below, the propose area requirement for cottage houses and tiny houses will be reduced further
to 1,500 as these building types are limited in size and can fit on smaller lots.
LAND USE CURRENT LOT AREA PROPOSED LOT AREA
REQUIREMENT REQUIREMENT
Single-Family 5,000 2,000
Two-Family 8,000 (for 2 units)4,000 (for 2 units)
Multi-Family (Must have at least 3 units)9,000 (for 3 units)6,000 (for 3 units)
Single-Family Attached/Row House 9,000 (for 3 units)6,000 (for 3 units)
(Must have at least 3 attached units)
Cottage Development (New Form)n/a 3,000 (for 2 units)
(Must have at least 2 cottages)
Tiny House (New Form)n/a 1,500
4. Removal of Required Lot Width –
In addition to required lot area, Salt Lake
City’s Zoning Ordinance also requires that
lots be a certain width for different land
uses. Currently, lots are required to be at
least 80-100 feet wide in the City’s Multi-
Family Residential (RMF) zoning districts
to accommodate a new multi-family use (3
or more housing units). These requirements
do not reflect the established lot width patterns in the RMF-30 district with an average lot width
is 58 feet and where more than half of existing lots are under 50 feet wide. For example, the
vacant lot pictured above couldn’t accommodate more than two units because it is less than 80
feet wide, though it has enough lot area to accommodate three units.
Many other standards are in place that encourage adequate lot widths and spacing between
buildings including required side yard setbacks, driveway widths and building code standards.
Per the proposed updates, minimum lot width requirements would be removed.
5. More Than One Principal Structure on A Lot –
Constructing more than one principal structure on a lot that do not all have public street frontage
is currently not permitted in RMF districts without planned development approval. The idea
behind this is to discourage new buildings with poor access and little visibility for general safety
purposes. However, Salt Lake City’s deeper lots tend to have a significant amount of
underutilized land towards their rear and can have more than adequate access and visibility.
Allowing multiple buildings on a lot may encourage more efficient and creative developments.
Other zoning, building code, and fire regulations besides this limitation on multiple structures on
a lot also work together to ensure adequate access and visibility.
Provided that the additional structures meet all other zoning/city department standards, it is
being proposed that more than one principal structure be permitted on all lots in the RMF-30
zoning district. Both cottage developments and sideways row houses would also be able to create
lots without public street frontage per the additional standards listed under these building forms.
Mechanisms to Limit Demolition
6. Unit Bonus for the Maintenance of Existing Structures –
In an effort to maintain existing and/or affordable housing stock in the RMF-30 while
allowing for some new development, a unit bonus is being proposed to apply when housing
is retained. Because the updates to lot area requirements may allow additional units to be
added on a lot, this unit bonus will apply when a building permit is applied for to add an
additional housing unit(s) to an existing structure – internal or external – that meets lot area
requirements and the existing structure on the lot is retained. The idea is that this unit
bonus would encourage units to be added onto or within existing structures (single-
family homes in particular) as opposed to demolishing the existing structure and
rebuilding fewer units than what could be achieved with the bonus. One bonus unit will
be granted for the retention of a single-family home or duplex and two bonus units will be
grated for the retention of multi-family buildings (3 or more units).
7. Lot Width Maximum –
In an effort to minimize of collection of multiple parcels or “land banking” to
accommodate large developments, a lot width maximum is proposed that would limit the
widths of new lots to 110 feet wide or less. The maximum would be applied to the
development as a whole as opposed to individual lots within a development. Based on
average lots widths in the RMF-30 district, this would typically prevent the consolidation
of more than three parcels.
Planning Commission
This petition was initially presented to the Planning Commission at a public hearing held on June
26, 2019. The Commission brought up multiple big picture questions, which were subsequently
addressed in the September 25th memo. Three members of the public spoke and expressed
concerns that the proposal would not do enough to create new affordable units, would trigger the
demolition existing affordable units and would limit community involvement in terms of no
longer reviewing sideways row houses as planned developments. The Commission tabled the
request to give staff additional time for fine tuning of the text amendment language.
The petition went back to the Planning Commission for a public hearing on September 25, 2019.
Staff made some additional changes to the amendments that differed from what was presented to
the Commission in June in an effort to address some of the publics’ and Commissioners’
concerns. These additional changes are detailed in the September 25th memo and are included in
the proposed text amendment language. Several members of the public spoke both in favor and
against the proposed changes as documented in the September 25th meeting minutes. Following
the public hearing, the Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City
Council by a vote of 8-0 per the following conditions:
1. Provisions for tiny homes are removed from the proposed text amendment until
further study is done – clarify what [provisions] mean, what [tiny house
developments] would look like, and how they would function.
2. That staff does further review of design standards for the sideways row house
developments to identify how the front relates to the street and pedestrian and how
the sides relate to the street view as a particular lot warrants.
1. Tiny House Allowance – Staff proposed to add tiny houses as a permitted building type in the
RMF-30 district after multiple community members expressed their interest in them during the
project’s community engagement period. Salt Lake City’s Zoning Ordinance does not prohibit
tiny homes, but the 5,000 square foot lot size requirement renders them unrealistic to build. The
proposal reduces this requirement to 1,500 square feet per tiny house.
The Planning Commission commented that tiny houses and tiny house communities may not fit
in with established neighborhoods in the city. Assessing the existing building typology in RMF-
30 areas, multiple building forms are found along streetscapes of both smaller and larger scales.
Staff does not feel that the addition of a tiny house along an established streetscape would
interfere with the cohesion of a given street or physical character of a certain area. Facilitating
the construction of tiny houses – and a variety of housing types in general – is something that the
housing plan and city-wide master plans specifically encourage.
Staff envisions that tiny houses would be built in addition to an existing structure on a lot;
however, multiple tiny houses could be sited on a single lot as long as all other zoning standards
are met. Staff does not take issue with multiple tiny houses on a lot, but a limitation of eight
houses per development could be imposed similar to a cottage development if the City Council
felt it to be necessary. The Council could also remove the standards for tiny houses all together
and, if a tiny house were to be built, the standards for single-family homes would apply.
2. Design Standards for Sideways Row Houses – When the proposed text amendments were
initially presented to the Planning Commission at the June 26th public hearing, the
Commission made the comment that the “delineation” standard for sideways row houses may
be too prescriptive and limit design as follows:
iv. Delineation: Each dwelling unit shall be delineated as an individual unit through the use of color,
materials, articulation of building walls, articulation in building height, lighting, and/or other
architectural elements.
This standard was proposed to help break up longer side building walls as not to loom over
neighboring properties; however, staff agreed that this delineation standard could restrict design,
is difficult to review, and other standards are in place to break up side building walls. Therefore,
the design standard was removed during the final tuning of the proposed amendments.
However, at the September 25th Planning Commission meeting, some Commissioners felt that
not enough was being done to break up these side walls and orient the building to the street as
indicated in their second condition. Staff asserts that sufficient design standards have been
proposed for sideways row houses, including required entry features and glass on the front and
interior of the building. If desired, this delineation standard could be added back into the text
amendment per the Planning Commission’s recommendation.
The Commission also indicted that they would like to continue to review sideways row houses as
planned developments instead of being reviewed by staff administratively, which is something
the Council may also wish to consider. Looking back at the sideways row house projects that
have gone to the Planning Commission over the past three years as planned developments,
almost all have been approved without additional design conditions imposed by the Commission.
The Housing Plan encourages more housing projects to be reviewed administratively. Therefore,
Staff does not feel that these particular building forms need to be reviewed by the Planning
Commission.
PUBLIC PROCESS:
A work session was held with the Planning Commission on December 12, 2018.
Recognized community-based organizations that contain land zoned RMF-30 were
notified of the proposed text amendments via email on February 13, 2019.
An open house was held at Salt Lake City’s Downtown Library on February 26, 2019.
Planning staff presented at the Sugar House Community Council on March 18, 2019.
Planning staff presented at the East Central Community Council on March 21, 2019.
Planning staff presented at the Central City Community Council on April 3, 2019.
A focus group was held with local professionals on April 2, 2019.
A work session was held with the Historic Landmark Commission on May 2, 2019.
The public hearing notice for the June 26th Planning Commission meeting was posted
on City and State websites and sent via email to the Planning listserv on June 14, 2019.
The newspaper notice for the June 26th Planning Commission meeting ran June 15, 2019.
A public hearing with the Planning Commission was held on June 26, 2019. The
Commission reviewed the petition during the public hearing and voted table the text
amendment per Planning Staff’s request.
The public hearing notice for the September 25th Planning Commission meeting
was posted on City and State websites and sent via email to the Planning listserv on
September 12, 2019.
The newspaper notice for the September 25th Planning Commission meeting
ran September 14, 2019.
The public hearing with the Planning Commission was held on September 25, 2019. The
Commission reviewed the petition during the public hearing and voted to forward a positive
recommendation with conditions to City Council for the zoning text amendment.
EXHIBITS:
1) PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
2) NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
3) PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS
a) JUNE 26, 2019 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
i. ORIGINAL NOTICE & POSTMARK
ii. STAFF REPORT
iii. AGENDA & MINUTES
iv. Public Comments Received After Staff Report Published
b) SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
i. ORIGINAL NOTICE & POSTMARK
ii. MEMORANDUM
iii. AGENDA & MINUTES
iv. Public Comments Received After Staff Report Published
4) ORIGINAL PETITION
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. of2020
(An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A
pertaining to the RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District)
An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code
pertaining to the RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District pursuant to Petition
No. PLNPCM2019-00313.
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on
September 25, 2019 to consider a petition submitted by then Mayor Jackie Biskupski (Petition
No. PLNPCM2019-00313) to amend Section 21A.24.120; and
WHEREAS, at its September 25, 2019 meeting, the planning commission voted in favor
of transmitting a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council on said petition with
conditions; 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 the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.24.120. That
Section 21A.24.120 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: RMF-30 Low
Density Multi-Family Residential District) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows:
21A.24.120: RMF-30 LOW DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT:
A.Purpose Statement: The purpose ofthe RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family
Residential District is to provide area in the city for various multi-family housing
1
types that are small scale in nature and that provide a transition between single-
family housing and larger multi-family housing developments. The primary
intent of the district is to maintain the existing physical character of established
residential neighborhoods in the city, while allowing for incremental growth
through the integration of small scale multi-family building types. The
standards for the district are intended to promote new development that is
compatible in mass and scale with existing structures in these areas along with a
variety of housing options. This district reinforces the walkable nature of multi-
family neighborhoods, supports adjacent neighborhood-serving commercial
uses, and promotes alternative transportation modes.
B. Uses: Uses in the RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District, as
specified in section 21A.33.020, "Table Of Permitted And Conditional Uses For
Residential Districts'', of this title, are permitted subject to the general provisions
set forth in section 21A.24.010 of this chapter and this section.
C. Multiple Buildings on a Single Parcel: More than one principal building may be
located on a single parcel, without all having public street frontage, provided that
all other zoning requirements are met. Where new principal buildings do not
have public street frontage, design standards applicable to street facing facades
in Chapter 21A.37 of this title shall be applied to the building face where the
primary entrance is located.
D. Lot Width Maximum: The width of a new lot shall not exceed one hundred
and ten feet (11 O'). Where more than one lot is created, the combined lot
width of adjacent lots within a new subdivision, including area between lots,
shall not exceed one hundred and ten feet (11 O').
E. Density Bonus: To encourage the preservation of existing structures, bonus
dwelling units may be granted when an existing principal structure is retained
as part of a project that adds at least one additional dwelling unit on the same lot
pursuant to the following:
1. A density bonus may only be requested at the time of filing for a building
permit application to add at least one additional unit on a lot where that unit
meets the minimum lot area requirement.
2.One (1) bonus unit may be granted for retaining an existing single or two-family
structure and two (2) bonus units for retaining an existing multi-family structure.
3. A bonus unit may be added within or attached to the existing principal structure or
as a separate building provided that all other applicable zoning requirements are
met. Bonus units are not subject to minimum lot area requirements.
4. The addition of a bonus unit to an existing principal structure does not
change the building type of the existing structure.
2
5. Bonus units are exempt from off-street parking requirements.
6. The exterior building walls and rootline ofthe existing principal structure
must be retained to obtain a bonus unit; however, architectural elements
such as window openings and doorways may be modified; dormers may
be added; and additions to the rear of the structure are allowed.
7. Any density bonus granted will be documented through a zoning certificate
in accordance in Chapter 21A.08. The zoning certificate will be issued by
the Building Services Division once the bonus unit has passed its final
building inspection. The certificate will indicate that this unit was
established through the preservation ofthe existing structure on the site.
F. RMF-30 Building Types: The permitted building types are described in this
subsection. Each building type includes a general description and definition.
These definitions in Section 21A.24.120F shall prevail over those in the
definitions in Chapter 21A.62 ofthis title as applied to this section.
1. Single-Family Dwelling: A detached residential structure that contains one
(1) dwelling unit. The structure has an entry facing the street, a front porch or
landing, and a front yard.
2. Two-Family Dwelling: A residential structure that contains two (2) dwelling
units in a single building. The units may be arranged side by side, up and
down, or front and back. Each unit has its own separate entry directly to the
outside. Dwellings may be located on separate lots or grouped on one lot.
3. Cottage Development: A unified development that contains a minimum of
two (2) and a maximum of eight (8) detached dwelling units with each unit
appearing to be a small single-family dwelling with a common green or open
space. Dwellings may be located on separate lots or grouped on one lot.
a. Additional Development Standards for Cottage Building Forms:
i. Setbacks Between Individual Cottages: All cottages shall have a
minimum setback of eight feet (8') from another cottage.
ii. Area: No cottage shall have more than eight hundred and fifty square
feet (850 ft2) of gross floor area, excluding basement area
iii. Building Entrance: All building entrances shall face a public street or a
common open space.
iv. Open Space: A minimum of two hundred fifty square feet (250 ft2) of
common, open space is required per cottage. At least fifty percent (50%) of
the open space shall be contiguous and include landscaping and walkways
or other amenities intended to serve the residents of the development.
3
v. Parking: A minimum of one (1) off street parking space per unit is required.
b. Cottage Units on Individual Lots without Public Street Frontage: Lots without
public street frontage may be created to accommodate cottage developments
without planned development approval per the following standards.
i.Required setbacks in Table 21A.24.120G shall be applied to the perimeter of the
cottage development as opposed to each individual lot within the development.
The front and comer yards of the perimeter shall be maintained as landscaped
yards.
ii. Lot coverage shall be calculated for the overall development as opposed to
each individual lot within the development.
iii. Required off street parking stalls for a unit within the cottage development is
permitted on any lot within the development.
iv. A final subdivision plat is required for any cottage development creating
individual lots without public street frontage. The final plat must document
the following:
1. The new lots have adequate access to a public street by way of easements or
a shared driveway.
2. A disclosure of private infrastructure costs for any shared infrastructure
associated with the new lots per Section 21A.55.l 10 of this title is
submitted with the preliminary subdivision plat.
4. Row House: A series of attached single-family dwellings that share at least one
common wall with an adjacent dwelling unit and where each unit's entry faces a
public street. A row house contains a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of
six ( 6) residential dwelling units in order to maintain the scale found within the
RMF-30 zoning district. Each unit may be on its own lot, however, each lot
must have frontage on a public street unless approved as a planned
development.
5. Sideways Row House: A series of attached single-family dwellings that share at
least one common wall with an adjacent dwelling unit and where each unit's
entry faces a side yard as opposed the front yard. A sideways row house
contains a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of six (6) residential dwelling
units in order to maintain the scale found within the RMF-30 zoning district.
Each unit may be on its own lot.
a. Additional Development Standards for Sideways Row House Building Forms:
i. Setbacks: Setbacks shall be applied as depicted in Reference Illustration
21A.24.120B. The interior side yard setbacks shall be ten feet (1 O') on one
4
side and six feet (6') on the other. A sideways row house is not subject to
Subsection 21A.24.010H of this section regarding buildings with side entries.
ii. Front Building Entry: The unit adjacent to a public street shall have its
primary entrance on the street facing fa~ade of the building with an entry
feature per Chapter 21A.37 of this title.
iii. Garage Doors: Garage doors are prohibited on the f~ade of the building that is
parallel to, or located along, a public street.
iv. Required Glass: Ground and upper floor glass requirements shall apply per
Section 21A.37.060 and Table 21A.37.060 of this title to the front and each
interior f~ade of a sideways row house.
b. Sideways Row House Units on Individual Lots without Public Street Frontage: Lots
without public street frontage may be created to accommodate sideways row houses
without planned development approval per the following standards:
i. Required setbacks shall be applied to the perimeter of the row house
development as opposed to each individual lot within the development. The
front and comer side yards of the perimeter shall be maintained as landscaped
yards.
ii. Lot coverage shall be calculated for the overall development as opposed to
each individual lot within the development.
iii. Required off street parking for a unit within the row house development is
permitted on any lot within the development.
iv. A final subdivision plat is required for any row house development creating
individual lots without public street frontage. The final plat must document the
following:
1. The new lots have adequate access to a public street by way of easements or
a shared driveway.
2. A disclosure of private infrastructure costs for any shared infrastructure
associated with the new lots per Section 21A.55.110 of this title is
submitted with the preliminary subdivision plat.
5
REFERENCE ILLUSTRATION 21A.24.120B
Required Setbacks for Public Street Facing Row House
Units on Separate Lots
IR IR
+I I++I
IF IF
Required Setbacks for Sideways Row House
Units on Separate Lots
IR IR
6'
~~
s s
6'10'6'10'
~~~~
s s s s
6'
~~
s s
-~
IF IF
F = Front Yard Adjacent to a Public Street
S =Side Yard
R=RearYard
6. Multi-Family Residential: A multi-family residential structure containing at
least three (3) dwelling units that may be arranged in a number
ofconfigurations. A maximum of eight (8) dwellings units are allowed in
each multi-family residential building.
6
7. Tiny House: A detached residential structure that contains one (1) dwelling
unit with a pennanent foundation that is four hundred square feet (400 ft2)
or less in usable floor area excluding lofted space. The structure has a single
entry facing the street, an alley or open space on a lot, but shall not face an
interior property line.
a. Additional Development Standards for Tiny House Forms:
i. Balconies and Decks: Balconies and decks shall not exceed eighty square feet
(80ft2) in size when located above the ground level of the buildings and shall
be located a minimum of ten feet (1 O') from a side or rear yard lot line
unless the applicable side or rear yard lot line is adjacent to an alley.
ii. Rooftop Decks: Rooftop decks on tiny houses are prohibited.
iii. Parking: A minimum of one ( 1) off street parking space per unit is required.
8. Non Residential Building: A building that houses a non-residential use either
permitted or permitted as a conditional use in the RMF-30 zoning district.
G. RMF-30 Building Type Zoning Standards
Table 21A.24.120.G
Building Type
Single-Two-Multi-Row Sideways Cottage Tiny Non
Family Family Family House Row Develop House Residentia
Building Dwelling Dwelling Residen 1 House1 ment1 1 1 Building
Regulation tial
~
H Height 30'Pitched 16'30'
Roof-23'
Flat
Roof-16'r Front 20' or the average of the block face
yard
setback
~c Comer 10'
side
yard
setback
7
-s Interior 4' on one side 10'4'6' on one 4'10'
side 10' on the other side
yard
setback 10' on
the
other-
R Rear Minimum of 20% lot depth, need not exceed 25'10'Minimum
yard of20% lot
depth,
need not
exceed
25'
Minimu 12,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit 1,500 sq. ft. per 5,000 sq.
m lot dwelling unit ft. per
size2 buildingI-~~~-~~~~~~~~,~~~~~~~~~~-~~~~--~~-~~~~--
DU
-
BC
-
LY
-
LB
Maxim 1 2 8 6 8 per 1 n/a
um developm
Dwellin ent
g Units
per
Form
Maxim 50%
um
Buildin
g
Covera
ge
Require The front and comer side yards shall be maintained as landscape yards. d
Landsc
aped
Yards
Landsc x x x
ape
Buffers
per
subsecti
on
21A.48.
080Cof
8
l~I-II
G Attache Garage doors accessed from the front or comer side yard shall be no wider than 50%
d of the front facade of the structure and set back at least 5' from the street facing Garage building
facade and at least 20' from the property line. Interior side loaded garages are
spermitted.I Design All new buildings are subject to applicable design standards in chapter 21A.37 of this Standar title.
ds
Notes:
1.See Subsection 21A.24.120F of this title for additional standards
2. Minimum lot size may be calculated for a development as whole as opposed to each
individual lot within a development.
H. Additional Lot Area Requirements: No minimum lot area is required for public or
private natural open space and conservation areas; public pedestrian pathways,
trails, greenways, parks and community gardens; or, public or private utility
transmission wires, lines, pipes, poles, and utility buildings or structures.
I.Accessory Uses, Buildings, And Structures: All accessory uses, buildings, and structures shall
comply with the applicable standards in Chapter 21A.40 and Section 21A.36.020 of this title.
SECTION 2. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.37.050. That
Section 21A.37.050 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Design Standards: Design Standards
Defined) shall be, and hereby is amended to add a new subsection, which shall be added
alphabetically to Section 21A.37.050 and reads as follows:
P. Entry Features: Each required entrance per Section 21A.37.050D of this title shall include a
permitted entry feature with a walkway connected to a public sidewalk and exterior lighting
that highlights the entryway(s). Where buildings are located on a comer lot, only one street
facing f~ade must include an entry feature. Where a building does not have direct public
street frontage, the entry feature should be applied to the f~ade where the primary entrance is
determined to be located. A two-family dwelling arranged side by side, row house and
cottage development shall include at least one entry feature per dwelling unit.
9
1. Permitted Encroachments: A permitted entry feature may encroach up to five feet (5')
into a required front yard; however, in no case shall an encroachment be closer than five
feet (5') to a front property line. A covered entry feature encroaching into a front yard
may not be enclosed.
2. Permitted Entry Features:
a. Covered Porch - A covered, raised porch structure with or without railings
spanning at least a third the length of the front building fa~ade.
Entry Feature II Covered Porch
(aerial view)
Minimum ol1f3theleogth
of the fll)f)t builOing facade
(front view)(slOeviev.o)
10
b. Portico - A structure with a roof protruding over the building entry supported by
columns over a landing or walkway.
Entry Feature II Portico
(aerial view)
BBB
B
(t Olltview)(s«:le view)
c. Awning or Canopy - A cover suspended above the building entry over a landing or
walkway where the wall(s) around the entry project out or recess in by at least one
foot (1 ' )from the front building plane.
Entry Feature II Awning or Canopy
(aerial view)
D --fo--o--f bdl
~-
.a.
p -f D--_D-f
...e======="
---~----~
-
--,'
{from view)(side view)
11
d. Emphasized Doorway-A doorway that is recessed by at least ten inches (10") from
the front building plane and architecturally emphasized with a doorframe of a
different material than the front fac;ade, differentiated patterns or brickwork around
the door, and/or sidelights. Doorways need not be recessed more than six inches (6")
on a tiny house.
Entry Feature II Emphasized Doorway
1o~ Min
B BB
(front view)
+-- Recessed min of 1O"
(siOOYiew)
SECTION 3. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection Table 21A.37.060A.
That Subsection Table 21A.37.060A of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Design Standards:
Design Standards Required in Each Zoning District: Residential Districts) shall be, and hereby is
amended to read as follows:
A. Residential districts:
12
District
r=r=r=r=1~~r:-Standard 1-3o- l-35- l-45 l-75 IRB 135- 145- IMU ao
(Code Section)
-~~undflooru-se~I llFFI
(21A.37.050Al)I I I I I I
Ground floor use
+ visual interest
(%)
(21A.37.050A2)
Building 50 80 80
materials: ground
floor(%)
(21A.37.050Bl)
Building 50
materials: upper
floors(%)
(21A.37.050B2)
Glass: ground
floor(%)
(21A.37.050Cl)
Building entrances X 75 75 x
(feet)
(21A.37.050D)
Blank wall:
maximum length
13
District
f~fr:FStandardRMF- RMF- RMF-MU- MU- R-
(Code Section)354575 RB35- ff45-pMU RO-~~.0SOE)11111111
37
Street facing
facade: maximum
length (feet)
(21A.37.050F)
Upper floor step
(21A.37.050G)11111111
back (feet)
- Lighting:-exterior 11111111 ----
(21A.37.050H)IIII IIII
Lighting: parking 11111111 lot (21A.37.050I)
Screening of x x x x
mechanical
equipment
(21A.37.050J)
Screening of
service areas
(21A.37.050K)
Ground floor
residential
entrances
(21A.37.050L)
14
District
r=r=r=r=1~~r:-Standard 1-3o- l-35- l-45 l-75 IRB 135- 145- IMU RO
(Code Section)
-::~:e~arag-esor~I 11111---
(21A.37.050M)I I I I I I
Residential x character in RB
District
(21A.37.050N)
Entry Features 1 1111111
(21A.37.050P)
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its
first publication.
15
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this __ day of _____~ 2020.
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on __________
Mayor's Action: ___Approved.---Vetoed.
MAYOR
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. --- of 2020.APPROVED AS TO FORM
Published: ------Salt Lake City Attorney's Office
By- ~
AllisonM~O)
16
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
2.NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
3. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS
a) JUNE 26, 2019 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
i.ORIGINAL NOTICE & POSTMARK
ii.STAFF REPORT
iii.AGENDA & MINUTES
iv.PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER STAFF REPORT PUBLISHED
b) SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 PUBLIC HEARING
i.ORIGINAL NOTICE & POSTMARK
ii.MEMORANDUM
iii.AGENDA & MINUTES
iv.PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER STAFF REPORT PUBLISHED
4.ORIGINAL PETITION
1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
PETITION: PLNPCM2019-00313 – RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential Zoning
District Text Amendments
January 30, 2017 Petition for zoning map amendment to update lot width
requirements in the RMF-30 zoning district was received by the
Planning Division (scope of petition was updated at a later date).
January 30, 2017 Petition was assigned to Lauren Parisi, Principal Planner, for staff
analysis and processing.
December 12, 2018 Planning staff presented the proposed text amendments to the
Planning Commission at a briefing to inform them of the project
and obtain initial feedback.
February 13, 2019 Recognized community-based organizations that contain land
zoned RMF-30 were notified of the proposed text amendments via
email in order to solicit public comments and start the 45-day
recognized organization input and comment period.
February 14, 2019 All recognized community-based organizations were notified of
the proposed text amendments via standard open house noticing.
February 26, 2019 Open house was held at Salt Lake City’s downtown public library.
March 18, 2019 Planning staff presented proposed text amendments to the Sugar
House Land Use Committee.
March 21, 2019 Planning staff presented proposed text amendments to the East
Central Community Council.
April 1, 2019 45-day comment period for Recognized Organizations ended.
April 2, 2019 Focus group was held with local professionals including architects
and developers who have done work in RMF-30 districts previously.
April 3, 2019 Planning staff presented proposed text amendments to the Central
City Community Council.
April 9, 2019 Petition for zoning map amendment to update all requirements in
the RMF-30 zoning district was received by the Planning Division
(scope of petition expanded from initial 2017 request).
May 2, 2019 Planning staff presented the proposed text amendments to the
Historic Landmark Commission at a briefing to inform them of the
project and obtain feedback.
June 14, 2019 Public notice was posted on City and State websites and sent via
the Planning list serve for the Planning Commission meeting.
June 15, 2019 Newspaper notice ran.
June 26, 2019 Public hearing with the Planning Commission was held. Planning
Commission tabled the item per planning staff’s request.
September 12, 2019 Public notice was posted on City and State websites and sent via
the Planning list serve for the Planning Commission meeting.
September 14, 2019 Newspaper notice ran.
September 25, 2019 Planning Commission held public hearing. The Planning
Commission reviewed the petition, conducted a public hearing and
voted to forward a positive recommendation with conditions to the
City Council for the zoning text amendment.
2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2019-00313: RMF-30 Low
Density Multi-Family Residential Zoning District Text Amendments - The purpose of this
project is to review the existing zoning requirements in the City’s RMF-30 Low Density Multi-
Family Residential Zoning District and make amendments to corresponding sections of Salt Lake
City’s Zoning Ordinance. The intent of the proposed amendments is to implement multiple
master plan policies found in Plan Salt Lake, various community master plans, the recently
adopted Growing SLC; A Five-Year Housing Plan (2018-2022) and remove zoning barriers to
housing development. The RMF-30 zoning district is located throughout the city. Proposed
amendments include:
• Introducing design standards for all new development
• Allowing the construction of new building types including sideways row houses, cottage
developments, and tiny houses
• Reducing minimum lot area requirements per unit
• Removing lot width minimum requirements and adding a lot width maximum
• Allowing more than one primary structure on a lot
• Granting a density bonus for the retention of an existing structure
The proposed regulation changes will affect sections 21A.24.120 of the zoning ordinance.
Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. (Staff
Contact: Mayara Lima at (801) 535-7118 or Mayara.lima@slcgov.com) Case number
PLNPCM2019-00313
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
electronically:
DATE:
TIME: 7:00 p.m.
PLACE: This will be an electronic meeting pursuant to Salt Lake City Emergency
Proclamation No.2 of 2020(2)(b). Please visit
https://www.slc.gov/council/news/featured-news/virtually-attend-city-council-meetings/
to learn how you can share your comments live during electronic City Council meetings.
If you would like to provide feedback or comment, via email or phone, please contact us
at: 801-535-7654 (24-Hour comment line) or by email at:
council.comments@slcgov.com.
If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call
Mayara Lima 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 Mayara.lima@slcgov.com.
People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48
hours in advance in order to participate in this hearing. Please make requests at least two
business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at
council.comments@slcgov.com , 801-535-7600, or relay service 711.
3A. PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 26,
2019 i. ORIGINAL NOTICE AND POSTMARK
4770 S. 5600 W.
WEST VALLEY CJTY, UTAH 841 18
·.!..~t t \II .. ~l.t • r 1 1mrFED.TAX l.D .# 87-0217663
801-204-6910
PROOF OF PUBLICATION CUSTOMER'SCOPY
ICUSTOMER NAME AND ADDRESS ACCOUNT NUMBER
PLANN ING DIVISION,9001394298 Hone. of N>llc Hearing
On Wednesday, J..,., 26, 201 9, !he Solt Lake City
Planning Convnission will hold a public hearing to con-PO BOX 145480 sider making recoovnendations to !he City CO\JlCll re-DATE gar ding !he following petitions:
1. Text ~ to ttie RMF-3Q LOw Density t.11.J111-
Fanlly Resldenllal District - The purpose of !his proLectSALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 6/18/2019 is to review the existin9. zoning requirements in 1he Cit-
y's RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential ZOil·ing District and make amendments to correspondingsections of Salt Lake pty•s Zoning Ordinanoe. The in-ACCOUNT NAME tent of 111e propa!ed ailenclments is to implement 111eIrecently adopted Growing SLC; A Five-Year Housing
Plan (2018-2022) and remave zoning barriers to newPLANNING DIVISION housin9 development. Proposed amendments include: In-•~~:i'~9 ~5~st~..';'~} ~~ ~~il~~g ~~~o~~~EPH~NE Ol'DER #',NVOJCC NUM.iBER ing side orlented row houses, cottage developments,ITE'L V J I ~and tiny houses; reduc:ing lot size requirements per unit;
r;:oo.;;~i '~;~~igi,'/:.~n~~~:.Sn ci~e ag~~~80 15357759 0001257969 st ruc:ture on a lot and !he creation of new lots wi!houtstreet frontage; and granting a 1.<1it bonus for !he re-i~i~a0~~ !filst~~~~i;;,,~1'f~~~'b r~?u~: UBLJ CATJON SCHEDULE zoning ordlnanoe. Related provisions of Title 21A·l Zoning may also be amended as part of !his petition.START 06/ J 5/20 J9 END 06/15/20 19 jStaff Contact· Lauren Parisi at (801} 535-7226 or
003;3parisi@slcgov.com) em. rum.tr PlM'CM2019-
CUSTOMER REFERENCE NUM BER The public hearing wm begin at 5,30 p.m. in room 326I.of !he City County Building, 45 l Sou1h State Street,
Solt Lake Oty, UT.
Planning Commission 6/26/19 The City & County Building is an accessible facility.
.------------------------------------------. CAPTION I People wi!h disabilities may make requests for reason-
able accommodation, which may Include alternate for-
L------------------------------------------'I~~· ~:,e6~e~';,~~ ~~~~';,t"l':~~a~oa~~i~~ ~~;1 .0 w 26 2019 h s I L k c· Pl .c in advance.To make a request, please oontact !he
Notice of Public Hearing n ednesday, June 'I t e at a e 1ty anning orr Planning Office at 801-535-7757, or relay service71 l .
1257'969 lJ>AXIPSIZE
46LINES 2 COLUMN(S)
ITIMES ITOTAL COST
2 120.00
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
AS NEWSPAPER AGENCY COMPANY, LLC dba UTAH MEDIA GROUP LEGAL BOOKER, I CERTIPY THAT THE ATTAC HED ADVERTI SEMEN T
OF Notice of Public Hearing On Wednesday, June 26, 2019, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to consider making r
ecommendations to t FOR PLANNING DIVI SION, WAS PUBLI SHED BY THE NEWSPA PER AGENCY COM PANY, LLC dba UTAH MEDIA GROUP,
AGENT FOR DESERET NEWS AND THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE, DAILY NEWSPAPERS PRfNTED IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE WITH GENERAL
CIRCULATION IN UTAH, AND PUB LI SHED IN SALT LAKE CITY, SALT LAKE COUNTY IN THE STATE OF UTA H. NOTICE IS ALSO POSTED ON
UTAHLEGALS.COM ON THE SAME DAY AS THE FIRST NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION DATE AND REMAfNS ON UTA I-JL EGALS.COM INDEFIN
ITELY . COMPLIES WITH UTAH DIG ITAL SIGNATURE ACT UTAH CODE 46-2-10 I; 46-3-104.
PUBLI SHED ON Start 06/15/2019 End 06115120 19
--------------------
DATE6/ 18/20 19 SIGNATURE ------------
STATE OF UTAH
COUNTY OF ---"'S.A""L:....:_,_T-=L""'A:..:..:K=E' ---
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME ON T HI S 15TH DAY OFJUNE IN THE YEAR 2019
BY LORAIN E GUDMUNDSON.
JAE LEVI
NOTARY PUBLIC -STATE OF UTAH
My Comm. Exp 05/29/2022 NOTARY PUBLIC SIGNATURE
Commission # 700608
3A. PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 26, 2019
ii. STAFF REPORT
Staff Report
PLANNING DIVISION
COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS
TO:Salt Lake City Planning Commission
FROM:Lauren Parisi, Principal Planner
DATE:June 26th, 2019
RE:PLNPCM2019-00313 - Text Amendments to the RMF-30
Low Density Multi-Family Residential Zoning District
ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT
PROPERTY ADDRESS: City-Wide
PARCEL ID: N/A
MASTER PLAN: Growing SLC: A Five Year Housing Plan 2018-2022 / Plan Salt Lake
ZONING DISTRICT: RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential
REQUEST: A request by Mayor Jackie Biskupski to review the zoning standards of the RMF-
30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District and propose amendments in an effort
to remove zoning barriers to housing development as recommended within Growing
SLC: A Five Year Housing Plan (2018-2022). The proposed text amendments to the
RMF-30 District include:
1. Introducing design standards for all new development
2. Allowing the construction of new building types including side oriented row houses,
cottage developments, and tiny houses without special approval
3. Reducing lot size requirements
4. Removing lot width minimums
5. Allowing more than one building on a lot without planned development approval
6. Granting a unit bonus for the retention of a structure on a lot
7. Introducing a maximum lot width for newly created lots
RECOMMENDATION: At this time, staff recommends that the Planning Commission table
petition PLNPCM2019-00313 regarding updates to the RMF-30 Low Density Multi-
Family Residential Zoning District and make a recommendation to City Council at a
later date once the proposed text amendments have been finalized.
ATTACHMENTS:
A.Proposed Text Amendments
B.Informational Maps
C.Analysis of Standards
D.Public Process and Comments
E.City Department Comments
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The purpose of this project is to review the zoning standards within the RMF-30 Low Density
Multi-Family Residential District and propose amendments in an effort to remove zoning
barriers to housing development as recommended within Growing SLC: A Five Year Housing
Plan (2018-2022). For some time, staff has recognized that many of the zoning standards within
the city’s four multi-family residential (RMF) zoning districts can be quite restrictive and limit
creative housing development, which is why these amendments are being proposed starting the
lowest density RMF-30 district. The goal is to solidify changes to this multi-family district first,
and apply similar changes to the rest of the multi-family districts in the near future.
A Closer Look at RMF-30.
The majority of Salt Lake City’s RMF-30 districts are scattered throughout the northern center
of the City – north of Liberty Park, east of the Downtown and west of the University of Utah.
There is also a large concentration of RMF-30 just south of 1-80 off of 700 East. City data
indicates there are approximately:
1,028 RMF-30 parcels .06 acres (2,613 square feet) or greater – large enough to build upon
331 RMF-30 are located in a local historic district where the demolition of historic structures
must be approved by the Historic Landmark Commission
3,212 parcels .06 acres or greater in all RMF-30, -35, -45 and -75 zoning districts.
*Larger maps of all of the RMF zoning districts and the RMF-30 lots located within a local
historic district can be found in Attachment B.
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 2
Lot Size
The average lot size in the RMF-30 zone is 6,114 square feet1; however, as illustrated by the
distribution graph below, close to half of the lots (487 of 1,028) fall between 3,000 – 6,000
square feet in size. By current standards, the average lot couldn’t accommodate
anything more than a single-family home, which requires 5,000 square feet of lot area
per unit. Three quarters of the lots (783) couldn’t accommodate a duplex or twin-home, which
requires 8,000 square feet of lot area per unit. There is no special process in place to request
additional units on a lot if it does not meet these minimum area requirements.
Lot Width
A similar pattern can be seen with existing lot widths in the city. The average lot width in the
RMF-30 zone is 58 feet wide2; however, 662 or 65% of the lots fall between 31 and 50 feet wide
– well under the 80-foot lot width requirement to accommodate a multi-family development or
3+ units without special approval. In fact, more than half of the lots are under 50 feet
wide, and do not have the width to accommodate a single-family home by current
standards. Required lot width can be modified through planned development approval.
To note – the total number of lot width measurements is greater than the total number of lots in the
RMF-30 district as it accounts for the two sides on every corner lot.
Land Use
RMF-30 Land Use Historic Designation
1%
20%32%33%
15%64%
35%
Single Family Duplex Multifamily Other None Local and National National only
1 66 outlier parcels removed from average over 14,000 square feet in area
2 42 outliers parcels removed with widths less than 25 feet and greater than 250 feet
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 3
Looking at existing land use on the 1,028 parcels in the RMF-30 district, Salt Lake County tax
assessor classifies: 565 as single-family homes, 130 as duplexes, 178 as multi-family buildings
(3+ units), and 14 as a combination of residential uses and the rest vary in use (vacant,
commercial, planned development, etc.). Of those 887 residential properties, 35% or 313 are
located in a local historic district where the demolition of historic structures must be reviewed
and approved by the City’s Historic Landmark Commission.
Missing Middle Housing. With the proposed RMF-30 updates, the City hopes to encourage
the development of “missing middle housing” in particular, which has been described as:
“Range of multi-unit or clustered housing types compatible in scale with single-family homes
that help meet the growing demand for walkable urban living. These types provide diverse housing options
along a spectrum of affordability, including duplexes, fourplexes, and [cottage developments], to support
walkable communities, locally-serving retail, and public transportation options. Missing Middle Housing
provides a solution to the mismatch between the available U.S. housing stock and shifting demographics
combined with the growing demand for walkability” (Congress for the New Urbanism).
Diagram of Missing Middle Housing Types. Source: Opticos Design, Inc.
Missing middle housing is not a new type of housing. It’s housing that exists in Salt Lake City today:
duplexes, triplexes, fourplex buildings, townhouses, small-scale apartment buildings, etc. However,
more often than not, these housing types are difficult to build because they do not meeting current
zoning standards, especially in areas where they’re best suited near the city’s downtown, universities
and, of course, public transit. Below are some examples of existing missing middle housing types
that “fit in” with their surroundings while providing higher unit counts. Note the number of units
that exist on the lot, the number of units that are allowed per current RMF-30 standards.
682-688 E. 700 South – 16 units on 8,429 sq. ft. = 527 sq. ft. per
unit Current Allowance – 2 units
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 4
661 S. Green St. –10 units on 27,234 sq. ft. = 2,723 sq. ft. per unit
Current Allowance 9 units (separate structures on single lot also not permitted)
852 S. 800 East –12 units on 17,424 sq. ft. = 1,452 sq. ft. per unit
Current Allowance 5 units (separate structures on single lot also not permitted)
620 S. Park St. –12 units on 17,877 sq. ft. = 1,490 sq. ft. per unit
Current Allowance 5 units
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 5
Proposed RMF-30 Text Amendments.
The following section of this report goes into more detail regarding each of the specific updates
being proposed to the RMF-30 zoning standards. By updating these standards, the City hopes to
remove some of the zoning barriers that limit new housing development, while encouraging
compatible design and maintaining existing housing stock. With this in mind, Planning Staff is
recommending implementing what could be described as “hybrid” form based standards.
Form based codes focus on the regulation of what buildings look like in terms of their compatibility
with existing buildings in a neighborhood as well as their relationship with the street or what is
referred to as the “public realm.” This differs from traditional zoning approaches, which emphasize
the separation of land uses – single-family here, multi-family over there, on this amount of land, etc.
With this hybrid approach, the proposed updates work to facilitate the development of slightly
denser, “missing-middle” housing types that fit in with existing development patterns in the RMF-30
districts, while continuing to regulate required lot area per unit.
1. Design Standards – Promote compatible design with durable building materials.
Design standards for new construction are intended to utilize planning and architecture principles to
shape and promote a walkable environment in specific zoning districts, foster place making as a
community and economic development tool, protect property values, assist in maintaining the
established character of the city, and implementing the city's master plans. Design requirements are
in place within many of the city’s commercial and mixed-use zoning districts, but not in any of the
RMF districts. Therefore, the following design requirements consistent with Chapter 21A.37: Design
Standards of the Zoning Ordinance are proposed to be applied to the RMF-30 district:
Durable Building Materials – Other than windows and doors, 50% of a new building’s
street facing façade shall be clad in durable materials including stone, brick, masonry,
textured or patterned, and fiber cement board. Traditional stucco falls under masonry.
Other durable materials may be approved at the discretion of the planning director.
Glass – All new buildings shall have at least 20% of glass (windows, doors, etc.) on the
ground floor street facing façade and 15% on the upper street facing façade.
Building Entrances – At least one operable building entrance on the ground floor is
required for every street facing façade, which includes corner façades.
Blank Wall Maximum – The maximum length of any blank wall uninterrupted by windows,
doors, art or architectural detailing at the ground level along any street facing facade is 15 feet.
Screening of Mechanical Equipment and Services Areas – All mechanical
equipment and service areas shall be screened from public view and sited to
minimize their visibility and impact.
RMF Entry Features – Along with required building entrances, each entrance
shall have one of the following entry features including lighting and a walkway
that connects to a public sidewalk:
a. Covered Porch – A covered, raised porch structure with or without railings spanning at least a
third the length of the front building façade.
b. Portico – A structure with a roof protruding over the building entry supported by columns or
enclosed by walls over a stoop or walkway.
c. Awning or Canopy – A hood or cover suspended above the building entry over a stoop or walkway where the
wall(s) around the entry project out or recess in by at least one foot (1’) from the front building plane.
d. Emphasized Doorway – A doorway that is recessed by at least one foot (1’) from the front building
plane and architecturally emphasized with a doorframe of a different material than the front
façade, differentiated patterns or brickwork around the door, and/or sidelights. Doorways need
not be recessed more than six inches (6’’) on a tiny house.
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 6
2.New Building Forms in RMF-30 – Encourage building forms and arrangements
that are compatible with smaller-scale development with lower perceived density.
In addition to single-family homes, duplexes, triplexes, apartment buildings, etc., the City would
like to encourage three new specific housing types or forms in the RMF-30 zoning district that
may allow for slightly higher unit counts, but are also compatible with existing development in
the area. These three types include cottage developments, side oriented row houses and tiny
houses that otherwise wouldn’t be allowed in RMF districts without special approval.
Cottage Developments are currently allowed in the city’s existing Form Based districts and are
defined as, “a unified development that contains two (2) or more detached dwelling units with each
unit appearing to be a small single-family dwelling with a common green or open space. Dwellings
may be located on separate lots or grouped on one lot.” Cottage structures have relatively small
footprints and are grouped in a communal fashion on a lot. The following design standards would be
applied to these forms including limiting usable floor area to 850 square feet.
i. Setbacks Between Cottages: All cottages shall have a minimum setback of eight feet (8') from
another cottage.
ii. Area: No cottage shall have more than eight hundred fifty (850) square feet of usable
floor area.
iii. Building Entrance: All building entrances shall face a public street or a common open space.
iv. Open Space: A minimum of two hundred fifty (250) square feet of common, open space is
required per cottage up to a maximum of one thousand (1,000) square feet. At least fifty percent
(50%) of the open space shall be contiguous and include landscaping, walkways or other
amenities intended to serve the residents of the development.
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 7
Side Oriented Row Houses where the entries of single-family attached units face the side of a lot
as opposed to the street are difficult to build in any zoning district because code currently does not
allow lots without public street frontage. With intentional design, side oriented row houses can make
good use of the long narrow lots in the city while maintaining compatibility with lower-scale
residential development. These forms are frequently reviewed by the Planning Commission and just
as frequently approved provided that the front-most unit is completely oriented to the street and
adequate buffers are maintained around the property. Therefore, it is being proposed that side
oriented row houses be allowed by right, per the additional standards below. Keep in mind that these
standards will be applied in conjunction with the proposed standards in Chapter 21A.37: Design
Standards and a special exception will be required if each unit is on its own lot.
i. Interior Setbacks: The interior side yard setbacks (S) shall be ten feet (10’)
on one side and six feet (6’) on the other.
ii. Front Building Entry: The unit adjacent to a street shall have its primary
entrance on the façade of the building parallel to the street with an entry
feature per section 21A.37 of this title.
iii. Garage Doors: Garage doors are prohibited on the façade facing the front yard area.
iv. Delineation: Each dwelling unit shall be delineated as an individual unit
through the use of color, materials, articulation of building walls,
articulation in building height, lighting, and/or other architectural elements.
v. Required Glass: For all floors or levels above the ground floor, a minimum of
twenty percent (20%) of all street facing facades must be glass. Interior
building facades shall also have a minimum of fifteen (15%) ground floor
glass and fifteen (15%) upper floor glass.
Tiny Houses are limited by building code to 400 square feet in area
excluding lofted space. A tiny home differs from a detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) as they
are more limited in size and would not have to be owner occupied or associated with a single-family
home. These structures would also have a permanent foundation and could not be on wheels. Tiny
houses can be built today, but are treated the same as a single-family home and require 5,000 square
feet of land area to build. This amount of land is not necessary for a 400 square-foot structure.
Therefore, standards are being proposed to allow these structures on smaller lots with reduced
setbacks, building height, etc. To note, the public has expressed a lot of interest in building these
types of structures, which is another reason why this form is being proposed.
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 8
3. Reduced Lot Area Requirements – Allow multi-family housing on average size
lots equipped to accommodate multi-family development (3+ units).
In most residential zoning districts in the city, the Zoning Ordinance regulates the number of units
per square footage of land area – otherwise known as density requirements. Currently, the RMF-30
zone permits one multi-family unit per every 3,000 square feet of land (must have at least 3 units to
have a multi-family building or 9,000 square feet of land). Considering that about half of
existing lots in the RMF-30 zone fall between 3,000 and 6,000 square feet, these lots
couldn’t accommodate anything more than a single-family home. For additional
perspective, the existing historic developments on pages 4 and 5 of this report have between 530 to
1,500 square feet of land per unit. The Central Community Master Plan’s future land use designation
for these areas also calls for up to 20 units per acre or 2,178 square feet per unit.
It is clear that the existing lot area requirements do not promote multi-family housing, which is why this
proposal includes reducing the lot area requirements to 2,500 square feet per unit for traditional multi-
family units (apartment building and condo buildings) and to 1,500 square feet for row houses, cottage
developments and tiny house or building forms that can accommodate more units while remaining
compatible with lower density development. This proposal also tends to align with lot area requirements
in other urban areas of the country, which generally range from 1,500 to 2,900 square feet per unit.
Denver, for example, that utilizes a form based code, allows 10 units maximum on a minimum of 6,000
square feet in similar-type zoning districts. This equates to 6oo square feet of lot area per unit. Staff
acknowledges that this proposal for Salt Lake City’s RMF-30 zoning district is relatively moderate in
comparison to Denver. Current and proposed lot area requirements have been listed below and a table
with lot area requirements across the U.S. can be found in Attachment B.
LAND USE CURRENT AREA REQUIREMENT PROPOSED AREA REQUIRED
Single-Family 5,000 2,500
Two-Family 8,000 5,000
Multi-Family (Must have at least 3 units)3,000 (9,000 for first 3)2,500 (7,500 for first 3)
Single-Family Attached/Row House 3,000 (9,000 for first 3)1,500 (4,500 for first 3)
(Must have at least 3 units)
Cottage Development (New Form)n/a 1,500
Tiny House (New Form)n/a 1,500
With these changes to lot area, approximately 39% or 345 of the 887 residential RMF-30 properties
would become eligible to add at least one more unit in addition to the existing units(s) on the
property (excluding the addition of tiny houses). The eligibility maps in Attachment B highlight
these eligible parcels in green. Keep in mind that other factors may limit whether or not additional
units can be added on a lot including accommodating required setbacks, lot coverage, building and
fire code regulations, etc. Additionally, smaller lot size requirements should also promote smaller
and more affordable housing units. The City does acknowledge that smaller lot sizes may put
additional development pressure on lots with single-family homes, which is why some mechanisms
to limit demolition are being introduced as detailed in the changes below.
4. Removal of Required Lot Width –
Allow other building requirements to
drive lot width and remove this zoning
barrier to multi-family housing
development.
In addition to required lot area, Salt Lake
City’s Zoning Ordinance also requires that lots
be a certain width for different land uses.
Currently, lots are required to be at least 80-
100 feet wide in the City’s Multi-Family
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 9
Residential (RMF) zoning districts to accommodate a new multi-family use (3 or more housing
units). The City has found that these current requirements do not reflect the established lot
width patterns in the RMF zoning districts as discussed in the Closer Look at RMF-30 section of
this report and can, ultimately, impede housing development. For example, the vacant lot
pictured above could not be developed with more than three units as it does not have 80 feet of
lot width even though it meets the minimum lot size requirements.
Many other standards are in place that encourage adequate lot widths and spacing between
buildings including required side yard setbacks, driveway widths and building code standards.
Therefore, per the proposed updates, minimum lot width requirements would be removed.
5.More Than One Principal Structure On A Lot –
Allow for historic development pattern to occur
and encourage creative building arrangements.
Constructing more than one principal structure on a lot is
currently not permitted in RMF districts, unless both
structures have public street frontage. The idea behind this
is partly to discourage new buildings with poor access and
little visibility for general safety purposes. However, Salt
Lake City’s deeper lots tend to have a significant amount of
underutilized land towards their rear and can have more
than adequate access and visibility. Other zoning, building code, and fire regulations besides
this limitation on multiple structures on a lot also work together to ensure adequate access and
visibility. Constructing more than one building on a lot is characteristic of the historic
development pattern and tends to encourage creative housing developments. Today, planned
development approval is required for multiple structures on a lot. Therefore, provided that the
additional structures meet all other zoning/city department standards, it is being proposed that
more than one principal structure be permitted on all lots in the RMF-30 zoning district.
6 & 7 – Mechanisms to Limit Demolition
Unit Bonus for the Maintenance of Existing Structures – Incentivize the
retention of existing structures and creative housing solutions. In an effort to
maintain existing and/or affordable housing stock in the RMF-30 zone – particularly historic
or character-contributing buildings – while allowing for some new development, a unit
bonus is being proposed to apply when housing is retained. Because the updates to lot area
requirements may allow additional units to be added on a lot, this unit bonus will apply
when a building permit is applied for to add an additional housing unit(s) to an existing
structure – internal or external – that meets lot area requirements and the existing structure
on the lot is retained. The idea is that this unit bonus would encourage units to be
added onto or within existing structures (single-family homes in particular) as
opposed to demolishing the existing structure and rebuilding fewer units than
what could be achieved with the bonus. One bonus unit will be granted for the
retention of a single-family home or duplex and two bonus units will be grated for the
retention of multi-family buildings (3 or more units).
Lot Width Maximum – Discurage land banking and the demolition of
exsting structures. In an effort to minimize of collection of multiple parcels or “land
banking” to accommodate large developments, a lot width maximum is proposed that
would limit the widths of new lots to 110 feet wide or less. The maximum would be
applied to the development as a whole as opposed to individual lots within a
development. Based on average lots widths in the RMF-30 district, this would typically
prevent the consolidation of more than two parcels, or three at the very most.
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 10
KEY CONSIDERATIONS: The following key considerations have been identified for the
Planning Commission’s review and potential discussion.
#1. Compliance with Citywide Master Plans
Growing SLC: A Five Year Housing Plan (2018-2022)
The Growing SLC Housing Plan “outlines…solutions…[for reaching a point] where all residents,
current and prospective, regardless of race, age, economic status, or physical ability can find a
place to call home. To achieve this goal, the City’s housing policy must address issues of
affordability at the root cause, creating long-term solutions for increasing the housing supply,
expanding housing opportunities throughout the city, addressing systemic failures in the rental
market, and preserving our existing units” (p. 9). The proposed text amendments directly
support the following priorities identified in Growing SLC:
Goal 1: Reform City practices to promote a responsive, affordable, high-opportunity housing market.
Objective 1: Review and modify land-use and zoning regulations to reflect the
affordability needs of a growing, pioneering city.
o 1.1.1 Develop flexible zoning tools and regulations, with a focus along
significant transportation routes.
“Land use decisions of the 1990s came about as a reaction to the gradual
population decline that occurred over the preceding three decades.
Conversely, the city’s population has grown by 20 percent in the last two
decades, (the fastest rate of growth in nearly a century) presenting a need
for a fundamentally different approach. Household type and makeup has
also significantly changed to reflect smaller household sizes in the city.
Increasing flexibility around dimensional requirements and code
definitions will reduce barriers to housing construction that are
unnecessary for achieving city goals, such as neighborhood preservation. A
concentrated zoning and land use review is warranted to address these
critical issues and to refine code so that it focuses on form and scale of
development rather than intended use” (p. 18).
o 1.1.2 Develop in-fill ordinances that promote a diverse housing stock, increase
housing options, create redevelopment opportunities, and allow additional
units within existing structures, while minimizing neighborhood impacts.
“In-fill ordinances provide both property owners and developers with options
to increase the number of units on particular parcels throughout the city. Such
options would also help restore the “missing middle” housing types where new
construction has principally been limited to single-family homes and multi-
story apartment buildings for decades. Missing middle housing types are those
that current zoning practices have either dramatically reduced or eliminated
altogether: accessory dwelling units, duplexes, tri-plexes, small multi-plexes,
courtyard cottages and bungalows, row houses, and small apartment
buildings. Finding a place for these housing types throughout the city means
more housing options in Salt Lake City, and restoring choices for a wider
variety of household sizes, from seniors to young families.
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 11
Apart from traditional infill ordinances, responding to the unusual age,
form, and shape of housing stock should be addressed and leveraged to
add incremental density in existing structures. This would include
options for lot subdivision where there is ample space to build an
additional home on a property or alternatively expand rental
opportunities in existing structures” (p. 19).
Objective 2: Remove impediments in City processes to encourage housing development.
o 1.2.1 Create an expedited processing system to increase City access for
those developers constructing new affordable units.
“Providing developers who build affordable units with a fast-tracked
permitting process will decrease the cost of those projects, increasing the
likelihood that such projects make it to the market. The process will
empower the administration with the authority to waive fees and expedite
City procedures” (p. 21).
Objective 3. Lead in the construction of innovative housing solutions.
o 1.3.1 Lead in the development of new affordable housing types, as well as
construction methods that incorporate innovative solutions to issues of form,
function, and maintenance.
“Additionally, the City will support the development of new or
underutilized housing types that meet the unique needs of the diverse
communities that live in Salt Lake City. This has already begun with
projects that focus on a significant mix of resident incomes and micro-
units and could be expanded to include other housing types. Efforts to
develop well-designed and well-built homes that serve the changing
needs of residents will improve housing choice into the future” (p. 22).
Plan Salt Lake (2015):
Plan Salt Lake identifies multiple ‘Guiding Principles,’ ‘Targets,’ and ‘Initiatives’ to help
the city achieve its vision over the next 25 years. This project supports the following:
Guiding Principle 1/Neighborhoods that provide a safe environment, opportunity for
social interaction, and services needed for the wellbeing of the community therein.
Initiatives:
3. Create a safe and convenient place for people to carry out
their daily lives.
5. Support policies that provides people a choice to stay in their
home and neighborhood as they grow older and household
demographics change.
7. Promote accessible neighborhood services and
amenities, including parks, natural lands, and schools.
9. Support policies that provides people a choice to stay in
their home and neighborhood as they grow older and
household demographics change.
Guiding Principle 2/Growth: Growing responsibly, while providing people with
choices about where they live, how they live, and how they get around.
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 12
Initiatives:
1. Locate new development in areas with existing infrastructure and
amenities, such as transit and transportation corridors.
3. Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land.
6. Accommodate and promote an increase in the City’s population.
Guiding Principle 3/Housing: Access to a wide variety of housing types for all
income levels throughout the city, providing the basic human need for safety and
responding to changing demographics.
Initiatives:
2. Increase the number of medium density housing types
and options.
3. Encourage housing options that accommodate aging in place.
4. Direct new growth toward areas with existing infrastructure
and services that have the potential to be people-oriented.
5. Enable moderate density increases within existing
neighborhoods where appropriate.
Salt Lake City Council’s 20 Guiding Principles on Housing
Development (2017)
Principal 6 – Create a net increase in affordable housing units while: i. Avoiding
displacement of existing affordable housing to the extent possible, and ii.
Retaining and expanding the diversity of AMI and innovative housing types.
Principal 8 – Create a spectrum of housing options for people of all backgrounds
and incomes.
Principal 16 – Identify tools to increase and diversify the total housing supply
including housing types that the private market does not sufficiently provide
such as family housing in the downtown area, innovative housing types, missing
middle housing and middle- to low-income apartments.
As documented above, the proposed text amendments are in line with goals and
objectives outlined in the City’s housing plan. Current lot area and width standards in
place make it difficult to develop multi-family housing in the city’s multi-family
zoning districts – let alone multi-family development that’s compatible with lower-
scale neighborhoods. Yet, not only does the city need more housing in general, there is
an increasing demand among millennials and baby boomers alike for smaller,
accessible units of higher quality construction that are easier to maintain. The
proposed text amendments aim not only remove restrictive zoning barriers to new
housing development that the city needs, but to facilitate missing-middle type housing
in walkable, desirable neighborhoods where RMF districts tend to be located.
#2. Community Concerns – The following concerns regarding the proposed text
amendments were voiced by the community throughout the RMF-30 engagement
process:
Demolition of Existing Housing. With any proposal that allows more housing density in an area,
there tends to be concern that existing historic and/or affordable housing will be demolished to make way
for larger more expensive housing developments. This is a legitimate concern that has been
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 13
raised by multiple community members throughout the engagement process. At the same time,
multi-family zoning districts should allow multi-family development on an average site lot. Per
current standards, close to half of the existing lots zoned RMF-30 are less than 6,000 square feet in
area and couldn’t accommodate anything more than a single dwelling unit. Close to three-quarters of
the lots are less than 8,000 square feet in area and couldn’t accommodate anything more than two
units or a duplex. As we see with historic multi-family development already in place throughout the
city, the average size lot in the RMF-30 district of 6,114 square feet can and should be able to
accommodate more than a single-family home. With all of this in mind, a delicate balance needs to
be struck between allowing more housing on adequately sized lots and promoting the preservation of
existing structures, which is what this proposal aims to achieve.
First, close to a third of lots zoned RMF-30 are located in a local historic district where demolition of
structures must be approved by the Historic Landmark Commission. Second, lot area requirements have
been strategically reduced the most for single and two-family development (2,500 to 3,000 square-foot
reduction), as well as compatible multi-family development including cottage developments, row houses
and tiny houses (1,500 square foot reduction). Though compatible, row houses and cottage developments
must meet many other design, building code and fire code regulations. Therefore, though the lot area
requirements have been reduced the most for these forms, staff does not anticipate widespread
demolition to accommodate these forms because they are more difficult to construct. Third, lot area has
only been reduced by 500 square feet for multi-family building forms with three or more units. Not only
does this promote the smaller building forms, but the proposed 2,500 square feet per unit also remains in
line with the Central Community’s Master Plan future land use designation for Low Medium Density
Residential of 20 units per acre or 2,178 square feet of lot area per unit. Staff anticipates decreasing lot
area requirements further for the RMF-35, -45, and -75 districts as these areas area meant to
accommodate higher density.
Reducing lot area requirements also makes the proposed density bonus more functional. If an
existing lot could accommodate one more unit with the proposed changes to lot area – which is the
case of 299 lots zoned RMF-30 with single-family homes – the lot could then have two more units if
the existing structure is preserved. This incentive aligns directly with the City’s Housing Plan to “lot
subdivision where there is ample space to build an additional home on a property or alternatively
expand rental opportunities in existing structures” (p. 19). Finally, the proposed lot width
maximum was born directly out of the need to limit land banking and subsequent demolition. Based
on average lot width, this maximum would typically prevent more than three lots from being
consolidated into one, and subsequently three existing units from being demolished.
Affordable Housing Development. Questions were often asked regarding how these text
amendments work to promote affordable housing development throughout the engagement process.
These amendments do not directly facilitate affordable units per the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) standards3. However, by reducing required lot size per unit, units
3 Housing Affordability - Is the level of homeowner or rental housing prices relative to the level of household income. Housing
is considered affordable, when a household is paying no more than 30% of their total gross income towards housing expenses;
rent or mortgage and utilities. The 30% of income standard is a widely used and accepted measure of the extent of housing
affordability problems across the country. This standard applies to households of any income level.
Affordable Housing - Is government-subsidized housing for low-income households. A residential unit is generally considered
affordable if the household pays 30% or less of their total gross income towards rent, for eligible households with low, very-low and
extremely-low incomes, including low-wage working families, seniors on fixed incomes, veterans, people with disabilities
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 14
themselves might also be smaller and, in turn, more affordable. The three housing types that are
being promoted with this amendment including cottage developments, row houses and tiny
houses also tend to have smaller footprints. More than anything, these amendments are aimed
at facilitating new multi-family housing in general. A greater supply of market rate housing may
free up the number of affordable or mid-priced units for those who truly qualify for them. As the
City’s Housing Plan acknowledges, introducing flexible zoning regulations is merely a piece of
the affordable housing puzzle and the Division of Housing and Neighborhood Development has
many other programs in place that work to not only promote, but preserve affordable housing.
Preservation of Allen Park. Multiple concerns have been raised regarding the preservation
of Allen Park, which is a large 5-acre parcel located across from Westminster College at
approximately 1700 South and 1300 East and zoned RMF-30. While open space is certainly
important to preserve, the park is private property that could currently be redeveloped with
housing without the proposed text amendments. Per current standards, 72 multi-family units
could be constructed on the 5-acre lot based on lot area requirements alone. Per proposed
standards, 87 multi-family units could be constructed; though, if row house or cottage units
were to be development this allowance would increase to 145 units at 1,500 square feet per unit.
However, a large stream runs through the property that is protected by riparian corridor
regulations, which do not permit principal structures within 50 feet on either side of the
stream’s waterline. Though more units could be built under the proposed text amendments, any
future development would still be greatly limited due to these riparian regulations.
Parking Requirements. Concerns from community members regarding parking
requirements go both ways – current requirements are either too much or not enough. The East
Central Community Council in particular, where many RMF-30 parcels are located, voiced
multiple concerns regarding the lack of street parking in their neighborhoods. Because of this,
they do not believe new developments should receive parking reductions for completing
transportation demand management strategies. Others, including the Historic Landmark
Commission, expressed that if parking requirements are not reduced for multi-family housing,
missing-middle-type housing might not be feasible as there’s simply not enough space on a lot
to accommodate multiple parking stalls and multiple housing units.
Parking will not be updated as a part of this zoning text amendment; however, the parking
chapter is being updated at this time per a different text amendment. Staff will work together
closely to see how parking can be best accommodate within the city’s RMF districts.
NEXT STEPS:
Because staff does want to obtain feedback from both the Planning Commission and the public
at this time, but also acknowledges that additional fine-tuning must be done to the proposed
text amendments, it is recommended that the Planning Commission keep table petition
PLNPCM2019-00313 regarding updates to the RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential
Zoning District and make a positive or negative recommendation to City Council at a later date
once the proposed text amendments have been finalized.
and those experiencing homeless. There are different kinds of affordable units, including public housing,
voucher-subsidized units, or income restricted units.
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 15
ATTACHMENT A: PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 16
Proposed Changes to the RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential
Ordinance (21A.24.120)
Strike and Underline Draft – 6/26/2019
21A.24.120: RMF-30 LOW DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT:
A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District is
to provide an environment suitable for a variety of housing types of a low density nature,
including single-family, two-family, and multi-family dwellings, with a maximum height of thirty
feet (30'). This district is appropriate in areas where the applicable Master Plan policies
recommend multi-family housing with a density of less than fifteen (15) up to twenty (20)
dwelling units per acre. Uses are intended to be compatible with the existing scale and intensity
of the neighborhood. The standards for the district are intended to provide for safe and
comfortable places to live and play, promote sustainable and compatible development patterns
and to preserve the existing character of the neighborhood.
B. Uses: Uses in the RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District, as specified in
section 21A.33.020, "Table Of Permitted And Conditional Uses For Residential Districts", of this
title, are permitted subject to the general provisions set forth in section 21A.24.010 of this
chapter and this section.
C. Multiple Buildings on a Single Parcel: More than one principal building may be located on
a single parcel, and are allowed without having public street frontage, provided that all
other zoning requirements are met; and,
1. Design Standards: All new buildings are subject to applicable design standards in chapter
21A.37 of this title. For buildings not located along a street, the standards applicable to street
facing facades shall be applied to the face where the primary entrance is located.
D. Lot Width Maximum: No newly created lot shall have a lot width greater than one hundred
ten feet (110’). This maximum shall be applied to the development as a whole as opposed to
the individual lots within the development.
E. Density Bonus: To encourage the preservation of neighborhood character, bonus dwelling units
may be granted when an existing principal structure is retained as part of a project that adds at
least one additional dwelling unit on the lot pursuant to the following:
1. One (1) bonus unit may be granted for retaining an existing single or two-family structure
and two (2) bonus units for retaining an existing multi-family structure.
2. Dwelling units may be added internally to the existing structure or
detached from the structure as a separate building form.
3. The addition of a bonus unit to the existing principal structure does not
change the building form of that existing structure.
4. Bonus dwelling units are not subject to minimum lot area requirements, but must comply with all
other underlying lot and bulk regulations when located outside of an existing structure.
5. Bonus units shall be exempt from accommodating off-street parking.
6. Exterior building walls of the existing principal structure shall be retained; however,
rear additions are allowed. Non-structural modifications, such as modification to
windows, doorways, the addition of dormers, and the addition of other architectural
design elements to the structure are also allowed.
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 17
C. Minimum Lot Area And Lot Width: The minimum lot areas and lot widths required in this
district are as follows:
Minimum Minimum
Land Use Lot Area Lot Width
Multi-family dwellings 9,000 square feet1 80 feet
Municipal service uses, including City utility uses and No minimum No
police and fire stations minimum
Natural open space and conservation areas, public and No minimum No
private minimum
Places of worship less than 4 acres in size 12,000 square feet 140 feet
Public pedestrian pathways, trails and greenways No minimum No
minimum
Public/private utility transmission wires, lines, pipes No minimum No
and poles minimum
Single-family attached dwellings (3 or more)3,000 square feet Interior: 25
per unit feet
Corner: 35
feet
Single-family detached dwellings 5,000 square feet 50 feet
Twin home dwelling 4,000 square feet 25 feet
per unit
Two-family dwellings 8,000 square feet 50 feet
Utility substations and buildings 5,000 square feet 50 feet
Other permitted or conditional uses as listed in 5,000 square feet 50 feet
section 21A.33.020 of this title
Qualifying provisions:
1.9,000 square foot minimum for 3 dwelling units plus 3,000 square feet for each additional
dwelling unit.
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 18
F. RMF-30 Building Types and Forms
1. Single-Family Dwelling: A detached residential structure that contains one (1) dwelling unit. The
structure has an entry facing the street, a front porch or stoop, and a small front yard.
2. Two-Family Dwelling: A residential structure that contains two (2) dwelling units in a single
building. The units may be arranged side by side, up and down, or front and back. Each unit
has its own separate entry directly to the outside. Dwellings may be located on separate
lots or grouped on one lot.
3. Cottage Development: A unified development that contains two (2) or more detached
dwelling units with each unit appearing to be a small single-family dwelling with a common
green or open space. Dwellings may be located on separate lots or grouped on one lot.
a. Additional Development Standards for Cottage Building Forms
i.Setbacks Between Individual Cottages: All cottages shall have a minimum
setback of eight feet (8') from another cottage.
ii.Area: No cottage shall have more than eight hundred fifty (850) square feet
of usable floor area, excluding basement area.
iii.Building Entrance: All building entrances shall face a public street or
a common open space.
iv.Open Space: A minimum of two hundred fifty (250) square feet of common,
open space is required per cottage up to a maximum of one thousand (1,000)
square feet. At least fifty percent (50%) of the open space shall be
contiguous and include landscaping, walkways or other amenities intended to
serve the residents of the development.
b. Cottage Development Units on Individual Lots:
i.Required setbacks shall be applied to the perimeter of the cottage
development as opposed to each individual lot within the development. The
front and corner yards of the perimeter shall be maintained as landscaped
yards.
ii.Lot coverage shall be calculated for the cottage development as a whole,
as opposed to each individual lot within the development.
iii.Required off street parking for a unit within the cottage development is
permitted on any lot within the development.
iv.A cottage development where each cottage is on its own lot shall require final
subdivision plat approval. The final plat must document the following:
1. The new lot(s) has adequate access to a public street by way of
easements or a shared driveway.
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 19
2. A disclosure of private infrastructure costs for any common area
associated with the new lot(s) per section 21A.55.110 of this title
is submitted with the Preliminary Subdivision Plat.
4. Row House: A series of attached single-family dwellings that share at least one common
wall with an adjacent dwelling unit. A row house contains a minimum of three (3)
residential dwelling units. Each unit may be on its own lot. If possible, off street parking is
accessed from an alley.
Side Oriented Row House:
a. Additional Development Standards for Row House Building Forms with Entrances
Oriented Towards the Side of a Lot.
i.Interior Setbacks: The interior side yard setbacks (S) shall be ten feet (10’)
on one side and six feet (6’) on the other.
ii.Front Building Entry: The unit adjacent to a street shall have its
primary entrance on the façade of the building parallel to the street
with an entry feature per section 21A.37 of this title.
iii.Garage Doors: Garage doors are prohibited on the façade facing the
front yard area.
iv.Delineation: Each dwelling unit shall be delineated as an individual unit
through the use of color, materials, articulation of building walls,
articulation in building height, lighting, and/or other architectural elements.
v.Required Glass: For all floors or levels above the ground floor, a minimum of
twenty percent (20%) of all street facing facades must be glass. Interior
building facades shall also have a minimum of fifteen (15%) ground floor
glass and fifteen (15%) upper floor glass.
b. Side Oriented Row House Units on Individual Lots:
i.Required setbacks shall be applied to the perimeter of the row house
development as opposed to each individual lot within the development. The
front and corner yards of the perimeter shall be maintained as landscaped
yards.
ii.Lot coverage shall be calculated for the row house development as a
whole, as opposed to each individual lot within the development.
iii.Required off street parking for a unit within the row house development is
permitted on any lot within the development.
iv.A row house development where each unit is on its own lot shall require
final subdivision plat approval. The final plat must document the following:
1. The new lot(s) has adequate access to a public street by way of
easements or a shared driveway.
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 20
2. A disclosure of private infrastructure costs for any common area
associated with the new lot(s) per section 21A.55.110 of this title
is submitted with the Preliminary Subdivision Plat.
Required Setbacks for Street (Normal) Oriented Row House
Required Setbacks for Side Oriented Row House
5. Multi-Family Residential: A multi-family residential structure containing three (3) or
more dwelling units that may be arranged in a number of configurations.
6. Tiny House: A detached residential structure that contains one (1) dwelling unit with a
permanent foundation that is 400 square feet or less in usable floor area excluding lofted
space. The structure has a single entry facing the street, an alley or open space on a lot, but
shall not face an interior property line.
a. Additional Development Standards for Tiny House Forms:
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 21
i.Balconies and Decks: Balconies and decks shall not exceed eighty (80)
square feet in size when located above the ground level of the buildings
and shall be located a minimum of ten feet (10') from a side or rear yard lot
line unless the applicable side or rear yard lot line is adjacent to an alley.
ii.Rooftop Decks: Rooftop decks on tiny houses are prohibited.
iii.Parking: A tiny house shall require one (1) off street parking space per unit.
7. Non Residential Building: A building that houses a non-residential use either permitted or
permitted as a conditional use in the underlying zoning district.
D. Maximum Building Height: The maximum building height permitted in this district is thirty
feet (30').
E. Minimum Yard Requirements:
1. Front Yard: Twenty feet (20').
2. Corner Side Yard: Ten feet (10').
3. Interior Side Yard:
a. Single-family detached and two-family dwellings:
(1) Interior lots: Four feet (4') on one side and ten feet (10') on the other.
(2) Corner lots: Four feet (4').
b. Single-family attached: No yard is required, however if one is provided it shall not be less than
four feet (4').
c. Twin home dwelling: No yard is required along one side lot line. A ten foot (10') yard is required
on the other.
d. Multi-family dwelling: Ten feet (10') on each side.
e. All other permitted and conditional uses: Ten feet (10') on each side.
4. Rear Yard: Twenty five percent (25%) of the lot depth, but not less than twenty feet (20') and need
not exceed twenty five feet (25').
5. Accessory Buildings And Structures In Yards: Accessory buildings and structures may be located in
a required yard subject to section 21A.36.020, table 21A.36.020B, "Obstructions In Required
Yards", of this title.
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 22
F. Required Landscape Yards: The front and corner side yards shall be maintained as
landscape yards.
G. Maximum Building Coverage:
1. Single-Family Detached: The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings shall not
exceed forty five percent (45%) of the lot area.
2. Single-Family Attached Dwellings: The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings
shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the lot area.
3. Two-Family And Twin Home Dwellings: The surface coverage of all principal and accessory
buildings shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the lot area.
4. Multi-Family Dwellings: The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings shall not
exceed forty percent (40%) of the lot area.
5. Existing Dwellings: For dwellings existing on April 12, 1995, the coverage of such existing buildings
shall be considered legally conforming.
6. Nonresidential Land Uses: The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings shall
not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the lot area.
H. Landscape Buffers: For multiple-family uses where a lot abuts a lot in a single-family or two-family
residential district, a landscape buffer shall be provided in accordance with chapter 21A.48
of this title.
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 23
G. Building Form Standards: Building form standards are listed in table 21A.24.120.H of this section.
Table 21A.24.120.H
RMF-30 Building Form Standards
Building Form
Single-Two-Multi-Row Cottage Tiny NonBuildingFamilyFamilyFamilyHouse1Development1House1Residential
Regulation Dwelling Dwelling Residential Building
Building height
and placement:
H Height 30’17’30’
F Front yard 20’
setback
C Corner side 10’
yard
setback
S Interior side 4’ on one side 10’4’10’
yard 10’ on the other
setback
R Rear yard Minimum of 20% lot depth up to 25'10’Minimum of
20% lot
depth up to
25'
L Minimum lot 2,500 sq. ft.1,500 sq. ft.5,000 sq. ft.
size
BC Maximum 50%
Building
Coverage
LY Required The front and corner side yards shall be maintained as landscape yards.
Landscaped
Yards
LB Landscape X X X
Buffers per
subsection
21A.48.080C
of this title.
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 24
G Attached
Garages
Garage doors accessed from the front or corner side yard shall be no wider than
50% of the front facade of the structure and set back at least 5' from the street
facing building facade and at least 20' from the property line. Side loaded garages
are permitted.
DS Design All new buildings are subject to applicable design standards in chapter 21A.37 of
Standards this title.
Notes:
1. See subsection 21A.24.120F of this title for additional standards
I. Accessory Buildings And Structures In Yards: Accessory buildings and structures may be
located in a required yard subject to section 21A.36.020, table 21A.36.020B, "Obstructions In
Required Yards", of this title.
(Ord. 66-13, 2013: Ord. 12-11, 2011: Ord. 62-09 §§ 5, 8, 2009: Ord. 61-09 § 6, 2009: Ord. 88-95 § 1
(Exh. A), 1995: Ord. 26-95 § 2(12-11), 1995)
Chapter 21A.37 DESIGN STANDARDS
21A.37.050: DESIGN STANDARDS DEFINED:
The design standards in this chapter are defined as follows. Each design standard includes a
specific definition of the standard and may include a graphic that is intended to help further
explain the standard, however the definition supersedes any conflict between it and a graphic.
P. Entry Features in the RMF Districts: At least one operable building entrance with one or more
permitted entry features and a walkway connected to a public sidewalk is required on every street
facing façade. Where an entry does not face a street, All entry features shall also include exterior
lighting to highlight the entrance. Row house and cottage development building forms shall have at
least one entrance with an entry feature on each unit.
1. Encroachments: A permitted entry feature may encroach up to five feet (5') into a required
yard.
2. Permitted Entry Features:
a. Covered Porch – A covered, raised porch structure with or without
railings spanning at least a third the length of the front building façade.
b. Portico – A structure with a roof protruding over the building entry supported
by columns or enclosed by walls over a stoop or walkway.
c. Awning or Canopy – A hood or cover suspended above the building entry over
a stoop or walkway where the wall(s) around the entry project out or recess in by
at least one foot (1’) from the front building plane.
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 25
d. Emphasized Doorway – A doorway that is recessed by at least one foot (1’)
from the front building plane and architecturally emphasized with a doorframe of a
different material than the front façade, differentiated patterns or brickwork around
the door, and/or sidelights. Doorways need not be recessed more than six inches
(6’’) on a tiny house.
21A.37.060: DESIGN STANDARDS REQUIRED IN EACH ZONING DISTRICT:
This section identifies each design standard and to which zoning districts the standard applies. If a
box is checked, that standard is required. If a box is not checked, it is not required. If a specific
dimension or detail of a design standard differs among zoning districts or differs from the definition, it
will be indicated within the box. In cases when a dimension in this table conflicts with a dimension in
the definition, the dimensions listed in the table supersede those in the definition.
TABLE 21A.37.060
A. Residential districts:
Standard
(Code Section)
Ground floor use (%)
(21A.37.050A1)
District
R-R-
RMF-RMF-RMF-RMF-MU-MU-R-
30 35 45 75 RB 35 45 MU RO
75 75
Ground floor use +
visual interest (%)
(21A.37.050A2)
Building materials:50 80 80
ground floor (%)
(21A.37.050B1)
Building materials:50
upper floors (%)
(21A.37.050B2)
Glass: ground floor 20 60 60 40
(%) (21A.37.050C1)
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 26
District
R-R-
Standard RMF-RMF-RMF-RMF-MU-MU-R-
(Code Section)30 35 45 75 RB 35 45 MU RO
Glass: upper floors 15
(%) (21A.37.050C2)
Building entrances (feet)X 75 75 X
(21A.37.050D)
Blank wall: maximum 15 15 15 15
length (feet)
(21A.37.050E)
Street facing facade:
maximum length (feet)
(21A.37.050F)
Upper floor step back 10
(feet) (21A.37.050G)
Lighting: exterior
(21A.37.050H)
Lighting: parking lot X X
(21A.37.050I)
Screening of X X X X
mechanical equipment
(21A.37.050J)
Screening of service X X X X
areas (21A.37.050K)
Ground floor residential
entrances
(21A.37.050L)
Parking garages or
structures
(21A.37.050M)
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 27
District
R-R-
Standard RMF-RMF-RMF-RMF-MU-MU-R-
(Code Section)30 35 45 75 RB 35 45 MU RO
Residential character in X
RB District
(21A.37.050N)
Entry Features in the X
RMF Districts
(21A.37.050P)
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 28
ATTACHMENT B: INFORMATIONAL MAPS
1.RMF-30 Zoning Districts
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 29
2. All Multi-Family Residential (RMF) Zoning Districts
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 30
3. RMF-30 Zones in Local Historic Districts
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 31
4. Building Morphology in RMF-30 Areas
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 32
5. Unit Eligibility Maps
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 33
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 34
6. Multi-Family Zoning Requirements Across the U.S.
MULTI-FAMILY ZONING DENSITY (sq. ft. per unit or dwellingCITYPOPULATION LOT WIDTH HEIGHT LOT COVERAGE FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR)DISTRICT unit/acre)
San Antonio, TX 1.5 million MF-18 (Limited Density)18 du/acre 50 35 --
MF-25 (Low Density)25 du/acre 50 35 --
San Diego, CA 1.4 million RM-1-1/2/3 (Lower Density)3,000/2,500/2,000 50 30 -0.75/0.9/1.05
RM-2-4/5/6 (Medium Density)1,750/1,500/1,250 50 40 -1.2/1.35/1.5
Austin, TX 950,000 MF-1 (Limited Density)17 du/acre 50 40 45%-
MF-2 (Low Density)23 du/acre 50 40 50%-
Jacksonville, FL 892,000 RMD-B/C/D (Medium Density)4,400/2,900/2,100 60 45 50%-
Columbus, OH 879,000 R-4 2,500 50 35 --
Fort Worth, TX 874,000 CR (Low Density)16 du/acre -36 40%-
C (Medium Density)24 du/acre -36 55%-
Seattle, WA 725,000 LR1/2/3 (Lowrise)2,200-no min (based on use)-40-18 (by use /location)-0.9-2.0 (based on use and location)
Denver, CO 705,000 E-RH-2.5 (Urban Edge Rowhouse)max 10 du / min lot 6,000 50 30 37.50%-
E-MU-2.5 (Urban Edge)-50 30 37.50%-
U-RH-2.5 (Urban Rowhouse)max 10 du / min lot 6,000 50 35 --
G-RH-3 (General Urban Rowhouse)-50 30 --
G-MU-3 (General Urban)-50 40 --
Washington, DC 694,000 RA-1 (Apartment Low to Moderate --40 40%0.9
Boston, MA 685,000 H-1-40 (Apartment)1,500 -40 -1.0
El Paso, TX 684,000 A-1/2 (Apartment)2,400/1,750 60/50 35 50%-
Nashville, TN 668,000 R15/20 15/20 du/acre (1,800/1,500 RH)40 20/30 (3 stories RH)-IRS 0.7
Portland, OR 648,000 R2/3 (Low Density)14.5 (21 w/ bonus)/21.8 (32 w/ bonus)-35/40 45%/50%
Oklahoma City, OK 644,000 R-3M (Medium Multi-Family)2,200 100 35 -
Lousiville, KY 621,000 R-5A/6 12.01/17.42 35 45 -0.5/0.75
Milwaukee, WI 595,000 RM1/2/3 2,400/1,200 40 (25 RH)/30 (18 45 50%
Albuquerque, NM 558,000 R-2 30 du/acre 60 26 0.5
Tuscon, AR 536,000 R-2/3 15/36 du/acre -25/40 75%/70%-
Fresno, CA 527,000 RM-1 12-16 du/acre -40 50%-
Sacramento, CA 502,000 R-2A/2B/3 17/27/30 du/acre 20 35 50%
Mesa, AZ 496,000 RM-2/3/4 15/20/30 du/acre 36 30/40 45%/50%-
Kansas City, MO 489,000 R-2.5/1.5 2,500/1,500 40/30 40/45 --
Omaha, NE 467,000 R-WRN (Walkable Residential)2,500 50 35 --
R-6 (Low-Density)2,000 50 45 50%0.5
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 35
ATTACHMENT C: ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS
As per 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.
Factor Finding Rationale
1. Whether a proposed Complies As outlined above in the ‘Key
text amendment is Considerations’ section, the
consistent with the proposed text amendments
purposes, goals,support multiple principles and
objectives, and initiatives of Plan Salt Lake (2015).
policies of the city as
stated through its In addition, these amendments
various adopted were born from the immediate
planning documents;need to implement the recently-
adopted Growing SLC housing
plan.
Staff finds that the proposed text
amendments are consistent with
City purposes, goals, and policies.
2. Whether a Complies The proposed text amendments
proposed text advance the purpose and intent
amendment furthers of the Zoning Ordinance,
the specific purpose specifically the following:
statements of the
zoning ordinance;..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…
This title is, in addition,
intended to:
C. Provide adequate light and
air;
D. Classify land uses and
distribute land development and
utilization;
G. Foster the city’s industrial,
business and residential
development.
The proposed amendments
further the purpose and intent of
the Zoning Ordinance by
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 36
allowing/fostering well-designed
multi-family residential building
forms on adequately sized lots in
the city.
3. Whether a proposed text Complies The proposed zoning standards
amendment is consistent are in line with development
with the purposes and principals within the local historic
provisions of any applicable overlay, especially in terms of
overlay zoning districts compatible development.
which may impose Mechanisms are also being
additional standards;proposed to limit demolition of
existing structures outside of the
local historic overlays.
4. The extent to which a Complies The proposed text amendments
proposed text amendment directly support the Growing SLC
implements best current,housing plan, which is a forward-
thinking document when it comes toprofessional practices of addressing affordable housing for allurban planning and design.residents, now and into the future as
the City continues to grow.
The amendments propose to use
elements of a form based code, which
has proven success in fostering well-
designed, pedestrian-friendly
communities across the nation.
Additionally, the American Planning
Association (APA) recently published
a Housing Policy Guide on June 4,
2019. The APA advocates for public
policies that create just, healthy, and
prosperous communities that expand
opportunity for all through good
planning and their advocacy is based
on adopted positions and principles
contained in policy guides. Position 1
within the Housing Policy Guide
aligns directly with the proposed text
amendments as follows:
POSITION 1 – Modernize state and local laws to ensure housing opportunities
are available, accessible, and affordable to all.
Position 1B – The American Planning Association and its Chapters and Divisions support the
modernization of local zoning bylaws and ordinances to increase housing production, while
taking local context and conditions into account. While challenging to confront and, ultimately,
amend or dismantle exclusionary zoning, rules, and practices, planners must take the lead in
modernizing zoning. Local jurisdictions should adopt bylaws or ordinances, policies,
and incentives that facilitate a range of housing types and densities and that serve a
diversity of housing needs. Local jurisdictions should review and modernize bylaws
and ordinances and planners need resources to make updates happen and to ensure
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 37
adequate public engagement occurs. Updates to bylaws and ordinances should
address mixed use and multifamily development, including affordability.
Updates should also include rezoning for higher densities where there may be
existing lower densities. Local jurisdictions should consider reducing or
eliminating minimum lot size requirements, reducing minimum dwelling unit
requirements, allowing greater height and density and reducing or eliminating
off-street minimum parking requirements, and they should specifically identify and
eliminate or minimize regulatory obstacles to the establishment of accessory dwelling units,
whether attached to or detached from the principal dwelling unit. Local jurisdictions should
also allow for and encourage adaptive reuse and use conversions to encourage housing
production. Local jurisdictions should also research and analyze, and as part of any zoning
amendment, preempt all restrictive covenants and barriers to fair housing and access to
housing choice, including barriers to on-street, overnight parking.
Location should be addressed without compromising equity or resiliency. Local jurisdictions
should consider incorporating into bylaws and ordinances transit-oriented development principles
and principles that address the importance of housing location in relation to access and proximity
to schools, jobs, parks, transportation, and other critical amenities and resources. States should
consider moving to a Housing + Transportation Index when determining affordability.
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 38
ATTACHMENT D: PUBLIC PROCESS AND COMMENTS
Notice to Community/Neighborhood Councils:
Recognized community-based organizations that contain land zoned RMF-30 were notified of
the proposed text amendments via email on February 13, 2019. Upon their request, the changes
were presented at the Sugar House Land Use Committee’s March 18th meeting, the East Central
Community Council’s March 21st meeting and the Central City Community Council’s April 3rd
meeting. No other councils requested a presentation. Formal comments received from the
council chairs have been attached.
Open House:
All recognized community-based organizations were also notified of the proposed text
amendments via Open House notices sent on February 14th, 2019. Because these zoning text
amendments impact the different areas of the city and not one specific Community or
Neighborhood Council, an Open House was held on February 26th, 2019 at the Salt Lake City’s
downtown public library. All written comments received have been attached.
Focus Group: A focus group with local professionals who have worked in RMF-30 areas previously
was held on April 2, 2019. Many felt that the proposed design standards would drive up the cost of
units as things like durable building materials and glass drive up the cost of construction. In general,
the more requirements and processes the higher the cost of their units – costs get transferred to the
buyer or renter. They also suggested clarifying some of the design standards. At times they can be
vague and it’s unclear if a certain design or material would qualify.
In terms of the proposed unit bonus, some were enthusiastic about working with existing
structures while others only work with new construction. The restoration of existing units can
also be expensive and drive up costs. It is, however, more profitable to build/restore smaller
units. Most were on board with all of the new proposed building forms, especially tiny homes.
Parking and fire regulations are two things that could stop this kind of infill development. They
suggested reduced parking requirements for preserving a unit and reduced parking in general.
Planning Commission Notice of the public hearing for the proposal included:
Agenda posted on the Planning Division and Utah Public Meeting Notice websites on
June 14th, 2019.
Newspaper notice ran on June 15th, 2019.
Public Input:
Throughout the engagement process, there has been general public input both in favor and
against the proposed text amendments. Community concerns that were heard the most have
been described under the Key Considerations section of this report. Formal comments
submitted by community members have been included as a part of this attachment below.
Commission Briefings:
The following points and recommendations were made during briefings with the Planning
Commission and Historic Landmark Commission where they were asked for their direct
feedback on the proposed changes.
PC Briefing – December 12, 2018
Second-floor balconies may not an appropriate design requirement in low density
residential zoning districts like RMF-30
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 39
Requiring certain building forms and design standards may counteract the a goal of
facilitating affordable housing – may be too restrictive
The 20% glass requirements on front facades may be too
high Cottage units may be limited further in size
General interest in allowing tiny house building forms on smaller size lots
Should somehow mitigate the impact of long interior walls of side oriented row houses –
interior walls are also very visible from the public way
Not confident in allowing side oriented row houses per more design guidelines and
administrative review alone because design is objective and these forms may need a
closer level Commission review
Re-review minimum lot width requirements
Re-review standards for creating lots without public streets frontage
Access easements for lots without public street frontage should be recorded on the
plat Suggested looking into decreasing lot area requirements for multi-family uses
Suggested having different standards for lots abutting single-family zoning
districts rezone certain areas to be more or less dense
Over time, Central City might all be up-zoned
Other zoning standards could be relaxed when buildings are preserved – amount of
vegetation in the park strip could be relaxed
HLC Briefing – May 2, 2019
Two parking spaces per unit is too high for cottage developments
Parking can drive an entire development – on the cusp of radical change in terms of
living preferences and parking
May utilize a shared parking arrangement in between buildings on a site
EIFS isn’t always a bad material – can be getting into the minutia by regulating
EIFS Stucco, Hardie plank, Hardie lap and any cementitious siding can work well
Existing building envelopes, especially in terms of scale and form, should be
maintained Side oriented row houses can have a negative impact on adjacent neighbors
New driveways too close to property lines can have negative impact on historic homes
Side oriented row houses should have smaller side yard setbacks than 10’ and 10’
Generally in favor of tiny house forms
Unit bonus shouldn’t create an explosion of housing as some might think
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 40
March 25, 2019
TO: Salt Lake City Planning Commission
FROM: Judi Short, Land Use Chair, Sugar House Community Council
RE: RMF 30 Zoning Update
We have reviewed this proposal at our LUZ meeting on March 18, and I also sent it out to the trustees on our council who
live in affected neighborhoods. I got a few comments back. One said, “Judi, I’ve been talking to folks and attended the
open house tonight. I’m not sure this is a huge deal for people in my neighborhood. Many of the people I spoke to seem
to be okay with it. I’ll keep trying to get a feel for the neighbors’ sentiment. Thanks.” The other told me that she had
talked to a number of the people in the area who seemed to feel like these were welcome changes. She was referring to
the areas along 700 East on both sides, and 900 East on the West side.
The committee members discussed through the month the 700 East and 900 East locations. We seemed to feel that
these were mostly large and deep lots that could stand to be renovated. The parcels that have been already upgraded
were welcomed. We don’t like the “shipping container” look, and feel that more care can be taken to design something
attractive. Even though these are heavily trafficked streets, that doesn’t give a builder license to build the cheapest
project and charge the highest price the market will bear.
There are other areas in Sugar House where we did not feel any changes would be coming for many years. They were the
Graystone Condos, built in 1960, and the condos all along Elizabeth Street built in 1971, as well as the Forest Glen Condos
along the freeway, built in about 1978. I have been in a number of those units, and walked through these developments.
Each unit is owner occupied, and very well maintained. Even though these are older buildings, no one seemed to feel like
they were at risk of being redeveloped in the next 20 years. And, if we look at the layout of these, they are very close
together, three stories. The only thing that might be worrisome is this ordinance would allow buildings closer together.
That might eliminate some of the green space. These have very formidable condominium associations, and I think that
would be difficult to change. No one could imagine taking one of the buildings down and building something different.
The last parcel I want to bring your attention to is Allen Park, located across from Westminster College along 1300 East.
This is an 8 acre parcel, built in the 1930’s by Dr. George Allen, who collected birds, and later donated them to form what
is now Tracy Aviary. And, it has a big riparian corridor right through the middle of it, which identifies a big, no-build zone.
The existing buildings are historic, but certainly not up to code. A few are probably worth saving and restoring, especially
the log home. This parcel needs to be removed from consideration. By definition, you can’t leave space for the riparian
corridor and still cram in a ton of new housing at the density this projected code change would encourage. This needs
some thoughtful historic preservation, to maintain the ambiance (without rats and peacocks), and with careful design,
could add a number of very large, high-end homes that could be a real asset to the city, and Sugar House. Figure out a
way to remove Allen Park from this plan. The litigation over this parcel could go on for years, but it needs to be protected
now.
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 41
OPEN HOUSE
PUBLIC COMMENT FORM
February 26, 2019
Planning Division
Department of
Community and
Neighborhoods
RMF-30 Text Amendment
Name:C\enn¥ 1ae
Address:
l,/4-'
Phone: ________E-mail
Comments:/ WOti fd (.ti£ /k: C.iy Jo <!tm J /cle,,
Sfa-"ad /J:fterPJ--1-- -I- fie ±!}, y hoi,,_¥S
o«:.Q(Gr-c/q h k & d CPI: en v, v-a fl,,.£Jn+-r I Iv
{}kflJA;If- -hh y hofl.us 4,-e -q_/t_cf t;h
aJ SJ.YlW-y I _.c:s u.!_IZ!_ q/V'f:<(S ¥e<
{(J -
ro < m, ,sf UJ?re qooka,e M PtZ C.
&f prD-/it .Tin;ko¼Jes 3/1 faAf'i 'frmXfW
cv,,cJ_ · e -CffA.. -Ye rS-e!u.S> 1;;, +--r
Please provide your contact information so we can notify you of other me tings or he · gs on this
issue. You may submit this sheet before the end of the Open House, or you can provide your
comments via e-mail at lauren .parisi@slcgov .com or via mail at the following address: Lauren
Parisi, Salt Lake City Planning Division, PO Box 145480, Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5480.
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 42
Name:
OPEN HOUSE
PUBLIC COMMENT FORM
February 26, 2019
Planning Division
Department of Community and
Neighborhoods
F-30 Text Amendment
'(MtAltSCO
Address:
Phone:
-
-------
---:l'-
E m
Comments:
Jo-es /(Jo-I-
/JV'OV(
-+.QAA 0-«i-J /4 tAJ V9
VO e C w VQ,
o<J sc· +,7arkAJt
tU i{ s I ;t; tJ /2 a {).y
..uev,clJ;-e..rr
✓ ;c/4 ,
1
Please provide your1contact infonnation so we can notify you of other meetings or hearings on
this issue. You may submit this sheet before the end of the Open House, or you can provide
your comments via e-mail at lauren.paiisi@s lcgov.com or via mail at the following address:
Lauren Parisi, Salt Lake City Planning Division, PO Box 145480, Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5480.
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 43
OPEN HOUSE
PUBLIC COMMENT FORM
February 26, 2019
Planning Division
Department of Community and
NeighborhoodsRMF-30 Text Amendment
b C{W_ (00 ( '2t/}1xz£ C ,ft [ vfNtVV\V 'Ill f-/ (CU'll{ I)Name:
ClNC\J- cv-
Address:
Phone:
______________-
Zip Code ___ Email \
UJ\\ s· "1) ±\f v/2:\:) (fur S li Ct2)J b<__
Comments:
(M<D12 \w V>lf .a"" ttD:b1 ? &.. )\f\A,), ) Cb b.-0 ,(-.t4
11,cc SA=h.0Y\PO We f 9.e4t- c\.lU!n,
c\c) \)AQ t?Lil t)Gfef'.Y:l °'l,evl u:r S"-t@(.µ.[\ W]
R hMtt vn ((Y->\0-.5¼ c;{/ JlrA') =t:f so I w L\ s
ow:"'-\Y
Please provide your contact infonnation so we can notify you of other meetings or hearings on this
issue. You may submit this. sheet before the end of the Open House, or you can provide your
comments via e-mail at lauren.parisi@slcgov.com or via mail at the following address: Lauren
Parisi, Salt Lake City Planning Division, PO Box 145480, Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5480.
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 44
OPEN HOUSE
PUBLIC COMMENT FORM
February 26, 2019
RMF-30 Text Amendment
Name:c:=-SL ::c
Address:
ip Code
________________Z __________
Phone:
Comments:
0
S?c:n---'C"--.
'C>....::: c_c,d.c._"::::,C\..Q'-.--::C2.d- o...C-c._c.._\.
c
0
s
'1'!'-,C-.;-g__S) I &.a...s;:, e" 'm_ S \,
Please provide your contact infonnation so we can notify you of other meetings or hearings on this
issue. You may submit this sheet before the end of the Open House, or you can provide your
comments via e-mail at lauren.parisi@slcgov.com or via mail at the following address: Lauren
Parisi, Salt Lake City Planning Division, PO Box 145480, Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5480.
Q...• <2'- a_ o.c '-.:- /\-cf:»S"-\.-;,--
-...J..._.
>
0PLNPCM2019-00313
err'\Page 45
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 46
-...•:\
fVo b "'"\co r-e,r_,wr-er1=+1\/Mtlird- f\6t-Mo,.,iuh b(oe,t "'-'4
-P
v0S C: lv:yjt-•1-er
1
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 47
Ian Kaplan via email – 2/14/2019
I had time over the break to review the proposed changes to the RMF zone and have some feedback for
you from the architecture/development side. I will be present at the public hearings to voice these
matters, but thought it could be of potential use as the document changes prior to public comment.
1. Parking Reductions for Bonus Units/Row-houses. There is no mention of this - but in order to
actually accomplish the density you're looking for in the tight lots there needs to be a 1
Stall/Unit regardless of bed count. Many historic examples of cottage style development don't
have parking at all and it's the only way they work on tight lots. The proximity to transit helps,
but anything outside of transit will be undevelopable.
2. Parking Reductions for preserving existing structures. It's often very difficult to provide additional
parking for increased density if preserving the existing structure is a priority. This is where most
infill projects hit a road block. Especially if they do not have an Alleyway for access.
3. Tandem Parking Regulations. For lots with access to an alley (and without) - tandem parking can
be a great way to increase density and provide additional parking for 2+ bedroom units. It gives
the designer a lot more flexibility in site layout.
4. Side Yard Setbacks for Rowhouses. More than half of the RMF-30 lots are between 31-50' wide.
With a required side yard setback of 10' for rowhouses, that leave's 30' width for a building.
However, take into account a 24' backup for a car coming out of a garage and add that to the 10'
setback, and now you only have room for a 16' deep garage stall. That makes more than half of
these lots un-developable for the rowhouse. I would suggest a wedding cake setback above 1st
story leaving 3' req'd setbacks on the ground floor and 5-8' above that. It would provide
opportunity for more diversified building designs instead of a second story cantilever over the
garage.
5. Rear yard Setbacks for Cottage Style. The historic cottage style developments typically had two
units at the back of the property with front doors turned and oriented to the street. With a 20'
setback, you are essentially losing the potential for 2 units in the rear of the property. I believe it
would be easier to achieve the desired density of these lots if the rear yard setback was reduced
to 10' for cottage style developments.
6. Building Coverage. 50% is very limiting, and will create major difficulty in achieving the desired
density on a majority of these lots. Can you eliminate private garages counting towards lot
coverage? Is there a way to offset the max. building coverage by subtracting private balconies,
or rooftop patio's from the lot coverage? Or can there be an exception for lots that maintain the
existing structure in place?
7. Administrative review of existing non-conforming structures when adding density. Not sure how
this is covered... but it is a concern of mine when trying to maintain existing structures on a
property that may be non-conforming to new setback regulations.
8. Minimum Lot widths - Could there be an exception to the 50' req'd min. lot width for existing
parcels? Per Planning Commission review or something... This is becoming a huge barrier to me
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 48
for infill development. I currently have two projects that are exactly 49.5' wide and it is bringing
both of them to a grinding halt.
Lynn K. Pershing via email – 2/27/2019
I wasn’t able to attend the open house on RMF-30 zoning changes last night. I want to express my
deep concern about the RMF-30 zoning change in historic neighborhoods, which include Local historic
districts in our City.
I do NOT support the proposed zoning changes in historic neighborhoods, both LHD, CCD and those
listed on the National Register Of Historic Places.
Obtaining Approval of an LHD is a tortuous, extended process. The main purpose of obtaining an LHD is
the City’s promise to minimize demolitions of contributing structures and in those areas.
Now The City wants to approve SFD demolitions in historic districts? This will be viewed as City
hypocrisy. Trust in government will be further eroded and will be deserved. LHD and Character
Conservation Districts zoning are in grave danger. They should be considered sacrosanct.
My recent review of demolitions of SFD housing in our City in 2018 shows that the vast majority of
demolitions have occurred in 84102 (Bryant (6) and Bennion-Douglas)8)) and 84108 portion Yalecrest
(8), both neighborhoods listed on the National Register Of Historic Places. I acknowledge, much to
my dismay, that these areas have NO City nor state protections against demolitions-an oversight of
great proportions that will end the existence of the very SOUL of our City.
Allowing RMF-30-like zoning in historic areas has occurred before that you and others creating this
zoning change are likely probably too young to have witnessed. In the 1960-70s, historically
contributing, architectural significant SFD were demolished to create non compatible apt buildings in
the lower Avenues that destroyed the historic environs, neighborhood identity and cohesion. Real
estate prices in that area have not recovered to date. The current proposed zoning changes requested
will support HISTORY REPEATING ITSELF in our remaining historic districts
I strongly urge you to reconsider this zoning change in historic neighborhoods. The claim of “compatible
structures” is not viable, as the City has NO definition of “compatibility” in any ordinance (previous
discussion with Planning, CAN, Mayor Office). Further, ONLY LHD and CCD have design guidelines
concerning “compatibility”.
I conclude, therefore, that the claims of ensuring “compatibility” misrepresents and offers false intent of
achieving or enforcing any “compatibility” in future developments.
Please. Stop the destruction of the SOUL of this City. Historic neighborhoods tell the stories and
celebrate the greatness of our City and State. Housing for a diverse City requires a diversity of housing
options. SFD in desirable historic areas offer choices to many families who wish to locate into the
urban environs in safe, desirable neighborhoods with good public schools.
Short term gains to fulfill “affordable housing” needs with long term permanent losses to the City
constitutes a grave irreversible loss to our very identity and viable family housing.
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 49
Kirk Huffaker (Executive Director, Preservation Utah) – March 30, 2019
While I provided some comments to you and other staff at the open house, I wanted to follow that up
with a brief message that particularly identifies Allen Park in Sugar House's Westminster Heights
neighborhood as a sensitive site that should be removed form consideration of rezoning.
Allen Park is a site or unique are remarkable historic, architectural, and artistic significance that is
located along a designated riparian corridor. I believe the site was zoned RMF-30 prior to the
designation of the riparian corridor, and was not appropriately considered at that time for rezoning that
would allow the riparian protections to take precedence. I believe this is the opportunity or the
Planning Commission to correct this conflict.
Thank you for your consideration.
Esther Hunter via email (East Central City Chair) – April 2, 2019
Thank you for coming out to the meeting. This community is pretty versed in land use and in
between the varied comments I hope you saw the key points we were trying to make.
1. The ECC has zoning on many lots that is incorrect and should have been dealt with years and years
ago that has nothing to do with the changes you are making to the specific zones. This is not your issue
nor can we fix the past. However, this may cause significant damage to some of this area. This has
nothing to do with the changes you are making within the specific zone and everything to do with the
zone on various properties. This is not a new issue. We have been saying this for years and attempted to
make corrections caused by our long ago council person since this could have all been addressed
seamlessly years ago.
Since so many people are new to various commissions and staff we tend to repeat ourselves in every
letter we write and every statement we make. Speaking of, would you please let me know the names of
the two folks who came with you and their positions? I appreciated how you took the feedback and
basically said we will take this feedback back. This is the most helpful response.
2. The ECC is not opposed to development. We welcome all types of infill and redevelopment but do
feel it needs to be thoughtfully placed so that we do not lose the very precious organically grown
community that has developed. It is a jewel in its charm, types of residential options available that allow
aging in place as well as proximity to so many beneficial features from senior services, schools, transit to
shopping to employment. It is rarity not only in this city/state but across the county. This is why the bad
zoning is so frustrating in that the zoning should be protecting the right things and informing the
development community where they should focus.
3. The point that Jen made related to affordable housing is a key one. While this is not your key focus,
we are hoping you can help carry the message. I know this is beyond the immediate challenge you
have been given and the effort the Planning Division will be doing based on the recommendations
from the housing plan for all the RMF zones. Most people are repeating the words missing middle. In
the ECC we are concerned about the missing middle but also very concerned about workforce housing
and affordable housing. In our area it is the workforce housing and affordable housing that tends to be
targeted by development. The replacements we have seen shift to market rate housing displacing a
great many in our community. It is heart wrenching to look into the eyes of community members who
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 50
have lived in our area for 25-30 years, now much more senior, dependent on the services and the
transportation offered in our area that have been literally been given 30 days or less to vacate and
now can not find any housing options in the area.
Many in the audience last night in their day jobs are expert professionals in their field. Taylor that spoke
up related to the ability to build in the new zone so that it can be either affordable or workforce housing
is not probable is such an expert. This is true certainly not for a family vs simply a boarding house or
small studio more likely for a student population. My suggestion on this front is that maybe a small
working group that could give feedback much like you are assembling the development/architectural
folks like Ian could provide some feedback that could help.
4. It's all a delicate balance. Way beyond the scope of what you are working on is the viability of the city
financially which is a very complicated issue that includes dependence on building permit fees. It would
be well if that state as a whole would do better to allow support for the extra wear and tear on
everything from our infrastructure to services as our city doubles in size everyday but barring that while
the city survives day to day we need to make sure we don't erode the wrong things, key areas of
neighborhood being part of that concern.
Yda Smith via email – April 19, 2019
I am a resident in Sugar House and am hoping to be involved in the future of Allen Park it terms of
advocating for the preservation of the open space, the trees, some of the historic features of the space
and even the peacocks, if possible. I know that there are legal issues in terms of who the current owner
is but in the meantime there are several of us in the area who are getting organized to see if we can start
to move forward with possible options for preserving the beauty of the place and not let it turn into a
dreadful housing development with the loss of all the trees, birds, peace and quiet, etc. For example, if
the Aviary and/or Preservation Utah were involved in creating a public space it would greatly enhance the
quality of life in the area with walking space among the trees and along the stream, space for bicycle
riders, and information about the history of the Allen family, and possible exotic birds to enjoy that
extend the tradition of the family. The land has a significant legacy with the history of Dr. Allen and the
contributions he made to this area including to the Aviary and the Zoo.
I can understand the desire to change zoning in the areas on the map for possible rezoning of RMF-30 to
create more affordable, smaller unit housing. I can see that Allen Park is marked as one of these areas
as well. I would like to state my opinion that Allen Park should not be a part of this process and should
be exempt from any changes that would increase the options for building new homes at this time. If
there are any meetings associated with this I would like to know about them and attend.
Thank you for your time and I look forward to getting more involved in the future plans for this city
and to get my neighbors more involved as well.
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 51
ATTACHMENT E: CITY DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The following comments were received from other City divisions/departments with regard to
the proposed text amendments:
Housing and Neighborhood Development (HAND):
Housing Plan:
Thank you for citing the Housing Plan (you listed the plans dates as 2017-
2021, but is actually 2018-2022), “all residents of SLC, current and
prospective, regardless of race, age, economic status, or physical ability can
find a place to call home.” But I think it would be better to note the following
Goals and Objectives of the plan that align with this proposal:
Goal 1: Reform City practices to promote a responsive, affordable, high-opportunity
housing market.
o Objective 1. Review and modify land-use and zoning regulations to reflect
the affordability needs of a growing, pioneering city.
o Objective 2. Remove impediments in City processes to encourage
housing development.
o Objective 3. Lead in the construction of innovative housing solutions.
Additionally, you can cite the Council’s 20 Guiding Principles on Housing
Development, adopted in 2017. Below are three that align with this proposal:
6. Create a net increase in affordable housing units while: i. Avoiding displacement of
existing affordable housing to the extent possible, and ii. Retaining and expanding the
diversity of AMI and innovative housing types.
8. Create a spectrum of housing options for people of all backgrounds and incomes.
16. Identify tools to increase and diversify the total housing supply including housing
types that the private market does not sufficiently provide such as family housing in the
downtown area, innovative housing types, missing middle housing and middle- to low-
income apartments.
In summaries and the proposal, I would highlight the standout items/take
aways (which are great):
Missing middle is not a new type of housing, in fact SLC used to do this very well if you
look at the Avenues and Sugarhouse.
Most of RMF-30 is well under density that the master plan calls for.
By updating these standards, the city hopes to remove some of the zoning barriers that
limit new housing developments, while encouraging compatible design and maintain
existing housing stock.
The city’s deeper lots tend to have a significant amount of underutilize land.
Requiring larger lot areas for these types of housing somewhat force developers to
building larger units that are less affordable.
May encourage more affordable units with smaller footprints.
Other thoughts:
Do you have any direct positive feedback or input from developers that you can cite?
When mentioning “affordable,” it’s helpful to clarify that “they would be more affordable as
homeowner or rental units due to a smaller interior square footage and lot size, and/or
shared common spaces and amenities, similar to Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing.”
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 52
Fire (Ted Itchon): Thanks for the information, I like to give some input on the above
caption. First is thank you for the height requirement. That requirement keeps the
customer from providing aerial apparatus roads for their developments. Looking at the
Cottage Developments and the Side Oriented Row Homes may be a little more tricky.
Because if there are more than 2 residences on a single parcel then there is a Fire Code
requirement that we have to apply which is called access.
Engineering: No comments.
Public Utilities:
Public Utilities has just a few concerns and recommendations for the text
amendment. Water and sewer service is required for each lot. Two buildings on the
same lot will be required to use a single water service and each building with street
frontage should have its own sewer lateral.
Water and sewer services must have 10 feet of horizontal separation. This
should be considered for the lot width reduction and lot size reduction.
Lots without street frontage will require an easement from the neighboring lot for
water and sewer services. This will also be a requirement for cottage developments.
This usually can be identified in the preliminary plat process but will be required in the
subdivision improvement plans or 1st building permit.
One of the other issues that we are seeing with ADUs, secondary building and buildings without
street frontage is the capability for the sewer to drain given the distance to the sewer main from
these buildings. Many will not be able to have basements. Some may need to be raised, and in
some cases, the adu or additional building cannot meet the requirements.
I don’t think we have any problem with any of the language, we want to make sure
that applicants consider the utility concerns and obstacles that may come up with
some of these changes.
The riparian and flood plain ordinances both apply [to Allen Park]. Riparian has
some flexibility if it is replacing an existing structure
Sustainability: No comments.
Transportation: No comments.
Zoning (Greg Mikolash 3/11/2019):
•The ‘proposed standard’ box should be colored orange to indicate a change from the
current ordinance regarding maximum building height. It appears the change for
building height is now being proposed to be measured from ‘established grade’ and not
‘finished grade’ and the height changes from ‘the average elevation at each building
face’ to ’30 feet’ (but measured to where?). We assume it means ‘30 feet measured as
the vertical distance between the top of the roof and the established grade at any given
point of lot coverage’. This should be spelled out clearly, since it is left undefined. This
proposal will also require changing the Illustration B in 21A.62.050.
There is a question of why are we returning to counting the number of building stories for
determination of maximum height when this was previously removed from the ordinance due to
difficulty in determining what is a basement and what is a story on a sloping lot? Why
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 53
are we proposing to go back to counting building stories over the simple
measurement of height?
The Zoning Reviewers are concerned about the addition of front yard setback averaging
(i.e., prevailing setback—the determination of an unknown, ambiguous dimension) into
the RMF zones. Front yard averaging offers no positive benefit to our neighborhoods
beyond what can be achieved by choosing a (known, non-ambiguous) fixed dimension.
Explaining the rationale behind setback averaging is difficult to explain to customers,
and it is even more difficult to obtain adequate information on the plans, showing the
averaging of setbacks. Ostensibly, requiring front yard averaging extends the timeframe
for issuing permits, where also, many new construction projects become contentious if
any entity believes these measurements are incorrect. What is the rationale of adding
front yard setback averaging to the multi-family zoning districts?
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 54
3A. PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 26,
2019 iii. AGENDA AND MINUTES
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
In Room 326 of the City & County Building
June 26, 2019, at 5:30 p.m.
(The order of the items may change at the Commission’s discretion)
FIELD TRIP - The field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m.
DINNER - Dinner will be served to the Planning Commissioners and Staff at 5:00 p.m. in Room 126 of the
City and County Building. During the dinner break, the Planning Commission may receive training on
city planning related topics, including the role and function of the Planning Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 5:30 PM IN ROOM 326
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR JUNE 12, 2019 REPORT OF THE CHAIR
AND VICE CHAIR REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1.ADU at approximately 2250 South 1800 East - Lance and Kaelin Frame, owners of the property at 2250
South 1800 East, are requesting Conditional Use approval to construct a detached Accessory Dwelling
Unit (ADU) to the rear of the existing single-family home on site. All ADU proposals in the R-1/7,000 Single-
Family Residential zoning district are required to go through the Conditional Use review process. The
subject property is located within Council District 7, represented by Amy Fowler. (Planning Staff contact:
Ashley Scarff (801) 535-7660 or ashley.scarff@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2019-00263
2.ADU at approximately 64 W Andrew Ave - ASSIST Inc, the representative of the owner of the property,
is requesting Conditional Use approval to construct a detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) in the rear
yard of the home which is located at 64 W Andrew Avenue. All ADU proposals in the R-1/5,000 Single-
Family Residential zoning district are required to go through the Conditional Use review process. The
subject property is located in within Council District 5, represented by Erin Mendenhall. (Staff contact;
Kristina Gilmore at (801) 535-7780 or kristina.gilmore@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2019-00325
3.Text Amendments to the RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District - The purpose of this
project is to review the existing zoning requirements in the City’s RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential
Zoning District and make amendments to corresponding sections of Salt Lake City’s Zoning Ordinance. The
intent of the proposed amendments is to implement the recently adopted Growing SLC; A Five-Year Housing
Plan (2018-2022) and remove zoning barriers to new housing development. Proposed amendments include:
Introducing design standards for all new development; allowing the construction of new building types including
side oriented row houses, cottage developments, and tiny houses; reducing lot size requirements per unit;
removing lot width minimum requirements and adding a lot width maximum; allowing more than one primary
structure on a lot and the creation of new lots without street frontage; and granting a unit bonus for the retention
of an existing structure. The proposed regulation changes will affect sections 21A.24.120 of the zoning
ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. (Staff Contact -
Lauren Parisi at (801) 535-7226 or lauren.parisi@slcgov.com) Case number
PLNPCM2019-00313
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 Division’s website at www.slcgov.com /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.
The City & County Building is an accessible facility. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which
may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in
advance. To make a request, please contact the Planning Office at 801-535-7757, or relay service 711.
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
City & County Building
451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah
Wednesday, June 26, 2019
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was
called to order at 5:32:00 PM. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are
retained for a period of time.
Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Chairperson Maurine Bachman;
Commissioners Weston Clark, Carolynn Hoskins, Matt Lyon, Andres Paredes and Brenda
Scheer. Vice Chairperson Sara Urquhart; Commissioners Amy Barry, and Adrienne Bell were
excused.
Planning Staff members present at the meeting were Wayne Mills, Planning Manager; Paul
Nielson, Attorney; Krissy Gilmore, Principal Planner; Ashley Scarff, Principal Planner; Lauren
Parisi, Principal Planner; and Marlene Rankins, Administrative Secretary.
Field Trip
A field trip was held prior to the work session. Planning Commissioners present were: Maurine
Bachman, Weston Clark, and Carolynn Hoskins. Staff members in attendance were Wayne
Mills, Krissy Gilmore, and Ashley Scarff.
2250 South 1800 East - Staff gave an overview of the proposal.
64 W Andrew Ave - Staff gave an overview of the proposal.
APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 12, 2019, MEETING MINUTES. 5:32:36
PM MOTION 5:32:40 PM
Commissioner Scheer moved to approve the June 12, 2019, meeting minutes.
Commissioner Clark seconded the motion. Commissioners Lyon, Hoskins, Clark,
Scheer and Paredes voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 5:33:07 PM
Chairperson Bachman stated she had nothing to report.
Vice Chairperson Urquhart was not present.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 5:33:11 PM
Wayne Mills, Planning Manager, informed the commission that we currently have 9
commission members and Planning Staff is currently in the process to assign more. He kindly
reminded the commission the importance of attendance.
5:33:48 PM
ADU at approximately 2250 South 1800 East - Lance and Kaelin Frame, owners of the
property at 2250 South 1800 East, are requesting Conditional Use approval to construct a
detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) to the rear of the existing single-family home on site.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission June 26, 2019 Page 1
How the project was perceived by attendees at the Community Council
PUBLIC HEARING 6:21:35 PM
Chairperson Bachman opened the Public Hearing;
Nicole Zinnanti - Provided additional design detail information and purpose of the requested
ADU.
Seeing no one else wished to speak; Chairperson Bachman closed the Public Hearing.
The Commission and Staff further discussed the following:
Legal parking location
Parking requirements
MOTION 6:26:13 PM
Commissioner Hoskins stated, regarding PLNPCM2019-00325 ADU – 64 W Andrew Ave.,
based on the findings listed in the staff report, the information presented, and input
received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission approve the
Conditional Use. Final approval of the details noted in the following conditions shall be
delegated to the Planning Staff which would be 1-4.
Commissioner Lyon seconded the motion. Commissioners Paredes, Scheer, Clark,
Hoskins, and Lyon voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously.
6:28:42 PM
Text Amendments to the RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District - The purpose
of this project is to review the existing zoning requirements in the City’s RMF-30 Low Density Multi-
Family Residential Zoning District and make amendments to corresponding sections of Salt Lake
City’s Zoning Ordinance. The intent of the proposed amendments is to implement the recently
adopted Growing SLC; A Five-Year Housing Plan (2018-2022) and remove zoning barriers to new
housing development. Proposed amendments include: Introducing design standards for all new
development; allowing the construction of new building types including side oriented row houses,
cottage developments, and tiny houses; reducing lot size requirements per unit; removing lot width
minimum requirements and adding a lot width maximum; allowing more than one primary structure
on a lot and the creation of new lots without street frontage; and granting a unit bonus for the
retention of an existing structure. The proposed regulation changes will affect sections 21A.24.120
of the zoning ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may also be amended as part of
this petition. (Staff Contact - Lauren Parisi at (801) 535-7226 or lauren.parisi@slcgov.com) Case
number PLNPCM2019-00313
Lauren Parisi, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located
in the case file). She stated Staff recommended that the Planning Commission table the item
for further information.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission June 26, 2019 Page 4
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
Non-conforming uses clarification
Parking location
Park strips and whether it can be used as parking
Tiny house definition clarification
Whether tiny houses can be subdivided without street frontage
When the last time the zone has been updated
PUBLIC HEARING 7:01:00 PM
Chairperson Bachman opened the Public Hearing;
Lynn Schwarz, Vice Chairperson Sugar House Community Council Land Use and Zoning
Committee – Raised concern on how the proposal could reduce existing affordable housing.
Also expressed concern regarding reviewing cottage developments and side-oriented row
houses administratively instead of going through the planned development process where the
public has a chance to review and comment on the proposal.
Judi Short, Chairperson of Land Use Sugar House Community Council – Raised concern with
the density, parking, and affordability. Would like to see redevelopment along 700 East where
some properties are zoned RMF-30.
Cindy Cromer – Stated this is the wrong zoning district to start with in trying to increase density
in the RMF zones. Current minimum lot size and width requirements are more effective in
terms of preserving historic and affordable structures than the local historic overlay. The
assumption that economics and tax advantages are not relevant is wrong. Must consider
increased construction costs for historic structures and building behind existing properties.
There are also multiple master plans that promote preservation that have not been addressed.
The 1995 zoning updated downzoned multiple residential neighborhoods.
Public hearing was left open for further information.
MOTION 7:16:21 PM
Commissioner Scheer moved to table the matter for further information. Commissioner
Hoskins seconded the motion.
The commission further discussed the proposed project.
Commissioners Lyon, Hoskins, Clark, Scheer, and Andres voted “Aye”. The motion
passed unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 7:32:19 PM
Salt Lake City Planning Commission June 26, 2019 Page 5
3A. PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 26, 2019
iv. Public Comments Received After Staff Report Published
Cindy Cromer – 6/26/2019
I own 6 properties in the RMF-30 and -35 zoning classifications, all located in National Register
Districts. I have managed rental properties since the mid-1970's. I probably have more experience with
affordable rental properties than anyone working in this building because of my age. And for the past
year and a half, I have been saying to the Planning staff, "This is the wrong place to start in an effort to
increase density." I have no objection to increasing density. I can show you the difference in the
performance of a building with 4 units and one with 6 units.
The handout is a picture of a house of cards. I am asking you to think of the structure as containing the
unsubsidized affordable units in the City. Two of the cards holding up the structure are the
requirements for minimum lot width and minimum lot size. These two requirements in the existing
ordinance are more effective in protecting the existing affordable units than the overlay for an historic
district. In fact, we have lost 52 contributory historic structures in the Central City Historic District
since it was adopted.
The research that the staff has done is meticulous but misguided. We could accomplish more for
affordable housing by doing what Dr. Chris Nelson told us to do: redevelop surface parking lots and
one-story office buildings. We could provide density bonuses for affordable units or for preservation
or for ADA compliant units or for removal of nonconforming uses. It would have been better to begin
by examining the RMF-75 which does not occur in the most fragile of our multiple family areas. Much
of the RMF-30 zoning doesn't even appear to be multiple family; my own buildings are regularly
mistaken for single family residences.
At issue:
The concept that a district which often appears to be single family should be the starting point for
increasing density.
That historic district status will protect what is valuable. It has not and will not, especially in Central City
and especially when the appeal can be handled by the Mayor who overturned the Landmarks
Commission's decisions on 4 historic structures last year.
That economics are not relevant to the outcome. What drives landlords, including me, are the tax
advantages. Regardless of how valuable a property may be, when the tax advantages through
depreciation disappear, an owner is motivated to redevelop the property or to sell it to someone who
will.
That construction costs are not a deciding factor. You only have to look at the suppression of height in
the transit corridors to see that construction costs, not the ordinance, determine the height of
buildings. No contractor is going to be willing to work around an existing building without additional
compensation.
Missing information:
Where are design standards working? They are usually, but not always, working in the historic
districts. They have not worked well in the transit corridors.
How many vacant residential buildings do we have? Salt Lake only keeps track of boarded
buildings. What are the obstacles to putting these vacant structures back into service?
What is the cost of losing an unsubsidized affordable unit?
What are the data on demolitions within the City's adopted historic districts? This information
is especially relevant to the Central City, Capitol Hill, and Avenues Historic Districts.
What is the effect on construction costs when an existing building remains on the site?
What do the Master Plans for the City's planning districts such as the Central Community say
about redevelopment? What about the Preservation Plan? What about the City's support for
National Register designations, including the funding for the Bennion/Douglas nomination?
3B. PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 25, 2019
i. ORIGINAL NOTICE AND POSTMARK
4770 s. 5600 w.
WEST VALLEY CITY, UTAH 84 1J8
FED.TAX l.D.# 87-02 17663
801-204-6910
PROOF OF PUBLICATION CUSTOMER'S COPY
I~c_u_sToMER N_AM. E_AND ADDRE s_s______________~ll~----A_cco_UNT_Nu _MB E_R____,
PLANNING DIV1SION,9001394298
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
PO BOX 145480 DATE
SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 9/16/201 9
IACCOUNT NAME
PLANNING DIVISION,
ITELEPHONE IORDER #INVOICE NUMBER
8015357759 0001267129
IPUBLICATION SCHED ULE
START 09/1 4/2019 END 09/14/2019ICUSTOMER REFERENCE NUMBER
19Planning Commission Meeting 9/25/19
ICAPTION
Notice of Public Hearing On Wednesday, September 25, 2019, the Salt Lake City Plannin
SIZE
52 LINES 2 COLUMN(S)
ITIMES ITOTAL COST
2 135.00
..
Nolb of N>llc: Heartlg
On Wednesday, SeoterOOer 25, 2019, lhe Solt' 1.ak• Clly
PlaMlng COnmlsslon will hold a public hearing tcconsidermcikingreoou•netldatlons lo lhe Cily COU'lcilregarding lhe following petitions: ·
1. Tut Anwd1wds to ... l!Mf..30 Low tlllllnY Mull!-~
lleoldlnllal Dlllrld - The purpose of lhls proied Is lo review 1he
existing zoning requirements In lhe Cit· y's RMF·30 Low Density Mulli-F!rnily Reslclenllal Zon-mg District and make ameudmenb
lo a>rretf)Olldl~ sections Of Solt 1.ake City's Zoning Ordinance. The
in-tent of lhe proposed ameod111ents is lo lf11:11""*1t ..... 111.
pie mas!er plan policies fol.old ln Plan Solt Lake varl· ous
<X>ITli'U1lty master plans, lhe r- . tly a~c Growing Sl.C; A
Five-Year Housing Pion (2018~2622 and remove zoning
barrlen to housing development
The RMF-30 zoning dlstrlct ls localed lhroughout lh< clly. Proposed Qmet Onerrts Include:
• Introducing design stondards for all new develop-~fow1ng lhe ccnstructlon of new building types in.
duding sideways row houses, oottage deYelopments and tiny houses; .• ReduClng mlnlnun lot area requirements per ~II;• Removing lot wldlh mlnlnun requirements and add Ing a lot wldlh maxtnun;• Allawlng more than one prinary structure on a lot;
• Granting a clensily borus for lhe retention of an ex
Isling slnldur..The pr0j)058d regulation changes will affect sections ; 1 A.24.120 of lhe zoning ordinance. Reloled provision of Tiiie 21 A-Zoning may also be amended at pcirt o this petition. \Slaff Contact: Lauren Parisi at (80 l ) 535-7226 or auren.parlsl@slcgov.a>m) em. ....m.Nf'CM2019-oo:n.3
The Plbllc ~ring will begin at 5 :30 p.m. in room 321
of the City Ccu1ly Building, ll.51 SoUlh State Stree1
Salt Lake Oly, VT.
The City & County Building Is Oil ao::essible facillly.
People wllh dlsabflltles may make requests for reason able aac:onmodatlon. whldl may Include alternate for mots, lnlerpretel's, and other auxiliary aids and serv
icm.Please make requests at leml two business do)
ln advance . To ·ma1ce a r~. please ocntact th
Plamlng Offloe at 801-535-7757, or relay servio 711.
1267129 l.PAXlJ
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLJCATION
AS NEWSPAPER AGENCY COMPANY, LLC dba UTAH MEDIA GROUP LEGAL BOOKER, I CERTIFY THAT THE ATTACHED ADVERTI
SEMENT OF Notice of Public Hearing On Wednesday, September 25, 2019, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to
consider making recommendations FOR PLANNING DIVISION, WAS PUBLISHED BY THE NEWSPAPER AGENCY COMPANY, LLC dba UTAH
MEDIA GROUP, AGENT FOR DESERET NEWS AND THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE, DAILY NEWSPAPERS PRINTED IN THE ENGLISH
LANGUAGE WITH GENERAL CIRCULATION IN UTAH, AND PUBLISHED IN SALT LAKE CITY, SALT LAKE COUNTY IN THE STATE OF
UTAH. NOTICE IS ALSO POSTED ON UTAHLEGALS.COM ON THE SAME DAY AS THE FIRST NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION DATE AND
REMAINS ON UTAHLEGALS.COM INDEFIN ITELY. COMPLIES WITH UTAH DIGITAL SIGNATURE ACT UTAH CODE 46-2- 101 ;
46-3- 104.
PUBLISHED ON Start 09/14/2019 End 09/14/2019
DATE 9/1 6/20 19 SIGNATURE ------------
STATE OF UTAH
COUNTYOF __S~Al-=JT~L=A~K=E--.._ __
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME ON THIS 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER IN THE YEAR 20 19
BY LORAINE GUDMLJNPSON.
JAE LEVI I
NOTARY PUBLIC -STATE OFUTAH
My Comm. Exp 05/29/2022
NOTARY PUBLIC SIGNATURE®Commission # 700608
3B. PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 25, 2019
ii. MEMORANDUM
MEMORANDUM
PLANNING DIVISION
COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS
TO:Salt Lake City Planning Commission
FROM:Lauren Parisi, Principal Planner
(801) 535-7226 or lauren.parisi@slcgov.com
DATE:September 25, 2019
RE:PLNPCM2019-00313 – Text Amendments to the RMF-30
Low Density Multi-Family Residential Zoning District
ACTION REQUIRED: Consider and make a recommendation to City Council regarding the
proposed text amendments to the RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District,
Section 21A.24.120 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance.
REQUEST: On June 26th, 2019, the Planning Commission tabled this petition regarding proposed text
amendments to the RMF-30 zoning district to allow additional time for staff to fine tune the text
amendment language. The language has now been finalized and the proposal has been further updated to
address some additional concerns raised by the Planning Commission and members of the public. The
request remains generally the same as what was presented at the June meeting as follows:
A request by Mayor Jackie Biskupski to review the zoning standards of the RMF-30 Low Density
Multi-Family Residential District and propose amendments in an effort to remove zoning
barriers to housing development as recommended within Growing SLC: A Five Year Housing
Plan (2018-2022). The proposed text amendments to the RMF-30 District include:
1. Introducing design standards for new development
2. Allowing the construction of compatible multi-family building types including sideways
row houses, cottage developments, and tiny houses without special approval
3. Reducing minimum lot area requirements per unit
4. Removing minimum lot width requirements and introducing a lot width maximum
5. Allowing more than one building on a lot without public street frontage
6. Granting a unit bonus for the retention of an existing structure on a lot
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the information in the staff report, Planning Staff
recommends that the Planning Commission forward on a positive recommendation to the City
Council for petition PLNPCM2019-00313 regarding the proposed text amendments to the RMF-
30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential Zoning District.
ATTACHMENTS:
A.Proposed Text Amendments
B.June 26th Planning Commission Staff Report (Detailing Proposed Text Amendments)
C.Informational Maps/Photos
D.Analysis of Standards
E.Central City and Preservation Master Plan Responses
F.Public Process and Comments
G.City Department Comments
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 1
BACKGROUND: On June 26th, 2019, the Planning Commission tabled this petition regarding
proposed text amendments to the RMF-30 zoning district to allow additional time for staff to
fine tune the text amendment language, which has now been completed. The proposed text
amendments remain generally the same as what was presented at the June meeting and detailed
in the original staff report HERE, with the exception of some updates that have been made to
address concerns raised by both the Planning Commission and members of the public and that
staff feels make for a better proposal. The following section of this memo details each of the
larger updates that have been made since the June 26th Planning Commission meeting.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS:
Major Updates to the Proposed RMF-30 Text Amendments since June 26th
Planning Commission
1.Purpose Statement for the RMF-30 Zoning District
The general goal of this project is to remove zoning barriers to housing development. Within the
RMF-30 zoning district, the more specific goal is to facilitate the development of small-scale,
multi-family housing types that are compatible in terms of mass and scale with existing
structures in established residential neighborhoods of Salt Lake City. Not only do these smaller-
scale housing types “fit in” better with existing development, but they provide for a transitional
area between predominantly single-family neighborhoods and larger multi-family housing
developments. The allowance of smaller-scale, multi-family housing types also offers a different
option for people in various stages of their lives that may not be looking for a large single-family
home nor a small studio apartment in a high-rise building. This is something that Plan Salt Lake
identifies as a 2040 Target stating, “Increase diversity of housing types for all income
levels throughout the city.” Therefore, staff proposes to update the purpose statement for
the RMF-30 zoning district to remove the emphasis on number of units allowed per acre –
though density will continue to be regulated – and place new emphasis on facilitating a variety of
housing types that are compatible with existing development patters as follows:
The purpose of the RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential zoning district is to provide an area in the city for
various multi-family housing types that are small scale in nature and that provide a transition between single-family
housing and larger multi-family housing developments. The primary intent of the district is to maintain the existing
physical character of established residential neighborhoods in the city, while allowing for incremental growth
through the integration of small-scale multi-family building types. The standards for the district are intended to
promote new development that is compatible in mass and scale with existing structures in these areas along with a
variety of housing options. This district reinforces the walkable nature of multi-family neighborhoods, supports
adjacent neighborhood-serving commercial uses, and promotes alternative transportation modes.
2. Standards for Cottage Developments
Cottage developments consist of two or more detached dwelling units, where each unit appears
to be a small single-family home, arranged around common green or open space. The City would
like to encourage this building type as each unit is limited in size and; therefore, works well as
compatible infill development and promotes homeownership. Concerns were raised at the June
26th Planning Commission meeting that the parking requirement of two stalls per unit was not
feasible on an average sized lot. Planning staff has found that reduced parking requirements are
recommended by the professional community to accommodate cottage developments. RMF-30
areas are also typically located close to public transit. Because of these reasons the parking
requirement has been reduced to one stall per cottage unit. Additionally, as these units are
intended to be smaller in nature, the maximum permitted height has been reduced from 30 feet
to 23 feet for a pitched roof and 16 feet for a flat roof.
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 2
3. Standards for Sideways Row Houses
Sideways row houses consist of attached single-family dwellings that share at least one common
wall with an adjacent dwelling unit and where at least one unit’s entry faces a side yard as
opposed the front yard. Staff proposes to simplify the name of this building type from “side
oriented row house” to “sideways row house” as side oriented can mean different things
depending on the specific lot. Per the Planning Commission’s suggestion, staff also removed the
delineation standard for sideways row houses that required each dwelling unit to be delineated
as its own individual unit through the use of color, materials, articulation, etc. This standard was
in place to help break up longer side building walls as not to loom over neighboring properties.
Required glass and entry features are also in place to help break up side building walls. Because
this delineation standard can restrict design, is difficult to review, and other standards are in
place to break up side building walls, it has been removed.
4. Minimum Lot Area Requirements
Per the previous proposal presented to the Planning Commission on June 26th, minimum lot
area requirements were 2,500 square feet per unit for single-family, two-family and multi-
family buildings, and 1,500 square feet per unit for row houses, cottages and tiny houses.
However, staff felt that these numbers should be revisited to better align with the density
recommendations within the neighborhood master plans.
The Central Community Master Plan, where the majority of the RMF-30 properties are located, calls
for 10-20 units per acre in areas that have been designated as Low Medium Density Residential,
which represents the RMF-30 district. The Sugar House Master Plan designates RMF-30 areas as
Medium Density Residential, which calls for 8-20 units per acre. Therefore, the 2,500 square foot
requirement (17 units per acre) has been further reduced to 2,000 square feet (21 units per acre),
which optimizes the recommendation of this future land use designation. Reducing this requirement
to an even 2,000 square feet instead of the exact 20 units per acre at 2,178 square feet also allows the
average size lot in the RMF-30 district of 6,114 square feet to accommodate three units as opposed to
two.
RMF-35 district and 1,000 square feet per unit for the RMF-45 and RMF-75 districts in the future, which also falls in line
with the density recommendations in the neighborhood master plans).
The requirement for cottages and tiny houses has remained the same at 1,500 square feet
per unit. This is because these buildings types are limited in size and can be accommodated
on a smaller area of land. Row houses, however, are not limited in size and have a similar
impact as a multi-family building, which is why the requirement was increased back to
2,000 square feet per unit Overall, these reduced minimum lot requirements support small-
medium building footprints, which aligns with Plan Salt Lake’s housing initiative to
“Increase the number of medium density housing types and options.”
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 3
(For future reference, staff anticipates reducing this requirement to 1,500 square feet per unit for the
Limited Dwelling Units per Multi-Family Building Common “Multi-Plex” Form Layout
As noted in the purpose statement, the RMF-30 zoning district is intended to
accommodate small scale multi-family building types. This district is not
intended to accommodate very large apartment or condo buildings. With
traditional form-based codes, the number of dwelling units are limited within a
building type. “Multiplex” building types or small apartment/condo buildings
are typically limited to 6-10 units per building. Looking at the multi-family
buildings that currently exist in the RMF-30 district, very few have more than
eight units. Therefore, in order to encourage compatible development similar to
a form-based code, multi-family buildings will be limited to eight units. Unlike a
form-based code, minimum lot area requirements will still apply per unit (2,000
sq. ft./unit). If a lot is large enough to accommodate more than eight units, this
can be done with multiple buildings on the same lot as long as no building has
more than eight units.
Questions from the Public and Planning Commission
At the June 26th Planning Commission public hearing, multiple questions were asked by both the
Commission and members of the public that have been revisited below with more detailed responses.
1. Is existing housing being demolished and replaced with fewer, more expensive units in
Salt Lake City?
To get a general idea of whether or not this is happening, staff looked into the projects that have
gone through the housing mitigation process. Development projects must go through what is
referred to as housing mitigation when housing units are demolished and not replaced
– either fewer units are rebuilt, the housing is replaced with a commercial use, or not replaced at
all. When units are lost, the mitigation process requires that new units are built on a different site
in the vicinity or the developer must pay into the city’s housing mitigation fund.
Since 2015, 26 projects have gone through the housing mitigation process. That means that there
were 26 projects where housing units were demolished without being replaced; however, most of
these units were replaced with commercial uses or were demolished because they were deemed a
“nuisance” or unsafe. Based on this information, housing units are not being demolished and
replaced with fewer units and the city isn’t experiencing a net loss if housing.
Nonetheless, members of the public still have concerns that this replacement of existing
housing units with fewer, more expensive units will be triggered by the proposed text RMF-
30 text amendments due to the reduced lot area requirements and the ability to
accommodate more units on a lot. For example, a building that is “grandfathered in” in
terms of density with six relatively affordable units on a 6,000 square foot lot could now be
replaced with three larger, more expensive units with the proposed changes as opposed to
one unit under current standards. Although circumstances of every development project
vary, high demolition and construction costs in addition to the general uncertainty of any
new development project may work to encourage rehabilitation over demolition. And though
the proposed lot area requirements will allow more units that what is allowed today, many
existing multi-family buildings that are grandfathered in with a certain number of units have
significantly more units than they could ever have with the proposed changes, which may
also discourage demolition even if units could be sold at a higher price.
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 4
2. How do the proposed text amendments promote the development of affordable housing
units?
Though promoting the development of affordable housing is a top priority of the City’s as
indicated within the City’s master planning documents, the goal of this project was never to
facilitate the development of affordable housing units (or units that cost less than 30% of the
average median income (AMI) for the area on a monthly basis). Instead, the general goal of
this project was to remove zoning barriers to the development of all types of housing.
However, as the law of supply and demand explains, allowing more housing units in general
may indirectly increase the availability of affordable units and stabilize rents. One may also
consider the economic theory of “filtering,” which says that as new market-rate housing is
built, higher-income people move into it and free up more affordable units. In the policy
brief, “The Effect of New Market-Rate Housing Construction on the Low-Income Housing
Market,” Economist Evan Mast of the Upjohn Institute found that for every 100
new market-rate units built, approximately 70 units are freed
up in neighborhoods earning below the area’s median
income. This is important to note as data from CBRE shows
rental rates are the highest in Salt Lake County and Salt
Lake City’s population growth rate is over triple that of
the U.S. rate.
Additionally, the first housing initiative in Plan Salt Lake states to, “Ensure success to
affordable housing citywide.” Properties zoned RMF-30 are scattered across the city and
removing zoning barriers within this particular district increases the amount of land available for
creative multi-family housing development. This is particularly important as the City looks invest
in affordable housing options in high-opportunity neighborhoods where slightly denser housing
arrangements like cottage developments are almost impossible to build due to zoning. Finally,
smaller lot size requirements may equate to smaller, more affordable units. Overall, the proposed
text amendments may indirectly promote the development of affordable units, or at the very
least, more affordable units. Removing zoning barriers to housing development is a small piece of
the overall housing affordability puzzle and should be implemented in conjunction with other
affordability programs in order to make the most meaningful impact.
3. What is being done to encourage the preservation of existing structures with this proposal?
Community members have expressed that they feel the existing minimum lot area and lot width
standards in the RMF zoning districts that have been in place since 1995 are preserving historic
structures in these areas. This is because most lots in the RMF-30 district are well under the
9,000 square feet of land and 80 feet of lot width required to accommodate just three
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 5
units. In fact, almost half of the lots zoned RMF-30 are under the 5,000 square feet of land
required to accommodate just one unit or a single-family home. The current lot area and
width standards do not allow for change. The RMF zones are meant to accommodate multi-
family uses and Salt Lake City is in need of more housing to accommodate its rapidly
growing population, which is why these standards must be updated.
Staff does acknowledge that reducing lot area and width requirements may lead to some
demolition of existing structures. However, different safeguards have been proposed an
effort to encourage preservation. First, a lot width maximum of 110’ for new lots has been put
in place to discourage the collection of parcels or “land banking” and, subsequently, the
demolition of multiple structures to accommodate larger developments. Second, a unit
bonus is being offered in conjunction with projects where the existing structure on the lot is
preserved. The idea is that this unit bonus would encourage units to be added within or onto
existing structures (single-family homes in particular) as opposed to demolishing the
structure and rebuilding fewer units than what could be achieved with the bonus. Portland,
Oregon is proposing a bonus along the same lines where an increased floor area ratio (FAR)
is given for the preservation of an existing structure. Moreover, a third of the parcels zoned
RMF-30 are located in a local historic district where demolition must be reviewed and
approved by the Historic Landmark Commission. Many other standards are also in place
that must be met to accommodate new development besides lot area and lot width including
fire and building code standards. Though a lot may now be able to accommodate additional
units based on reduced lot area requirements, this does not guarantee new development.
4.Should properties zoned RMF-30 with single-family homes be rezoned to a single-
family zoning district?
No. The existing land use on a lot does not determine what its zoning classification
should be. The properties currently zoned RMF-30 were identified as being able to
accommodate multi-family uses based on their location within the city and adequate
access to transit, commercial services and public facilities. Salt Lake
City’s population is growing and multi-family
zoning districts must be in place to
accommodate this. Cities across the country
are starting to outlaw single-family zoning
due to severe housing shortages and this is
not a time to downzone multi-family
districts. To clarify, this proposal does not
include eliminating single-family homes as
an allowed use in the RMF-30 district, but
instead attempts to facilitate the
construction of compatible multi-family
structures. Incentives are being offered to
encourage preservation of existing structures
zoned RMF-30 including single-family
houses, but the preservation of areas that can
accommodate multi-family uses is also very
important.
The map above illustrates the discrepancy between the amount of land designated solely for
single-family homes (yellow) vs. the amount of land zoned multi-family residential (orange).
Single-family zones in yellow will not be affected by the proposed text amendments.
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 6
5.What does building typology look like in the RMF-30 zoning district?
The Planning Commission mentioned that the different building types being introduced to
the RMF-30 zoning district including cottage developments, sideways row houses and tiny
houses may not be consistent with the existing building typology we find in RMF
neighborhoods. Looking at the existing building types in RMF-30 districts, there is a definite
mix of single-family, two-family and multi-family buildings of different sizes and
configurations. There are, in fact, existing cottage developments and sideways row houses in
these neighborhoods. Moreover, the building types being introduced work well as infill
development, which is something the city is working to promote in these areas as opposed to
land banking and subsequent demolition. Tiny houses are not typically seen in this district as
they would require 5,000 square feet of land to build; however, the community has
expressed a significant amount of interest in allowing these building types and staff does not
feel that their construction will disrupt the established building typology.
The City’s Housing Plan and Plan Salt Lake both specifically call for the allowance a wide variety
of housing types for all income levels throughout the city that respond to the shift in
demographics we’re seeing in terms of smaller household sizes, longer lifespans, etc. Principal 8
of the Council’s Guiding Principles on Housing Development says to, “Create a spectrum of
housing options for people of all backgrounds and incomes,” and Principal 16 says to
“Identify tools to increase and diversify the total housing supply including housing
types that the private market does not sufficiently provide such as family housing in
the downtown area, innovative housing types, missing middle housing and middle- to
low-income apartments.” All of the housing types being introduced, including tiny houses,
work to achieve this goal. Maximum height requirements, consistent setbacks, and required
design elements are also in place to promote compatible street typology.
The images below depict all of the different housing types found on a single street in Salt Lake City (Park
Street between 8th and 9th South) zoned RMF-30 and Attachment C includes photos of all proposed
building types currently zoned RMF-30.
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 7
6. How does this proposal align with the goals in the city’s Central Community Master Plan and
Community Preservation Plan?
It was brought up that although the proposed text amendments may be in line with the City’s
Housing Plan, Plan Salt Lake and the City Council’s Principals on Housing Development as
detailed on the original staff report, the Central Community and Community Preservation
Master Plans were not addressed. The proposal falls in line with the Central Community
Master Plan including all four of the residential land use policies as follows:
Policy RLU 1.0 – Based on the Future Land Use map, use residential
zoning to establish and maintain a variety of housing opportunities
that meet social needs and income levels of a diverse population.
The proposed text amendments have been crafted to promote missing middle
housing or “a range of multi-unit or clustered housing types – compatible is size and scale with
detached single-family homes – that help meet the growing demand for walkable urban living”
(Opticos Design). Duplexes, triplexes, townhouses, small-scale apartment buildings,
etc., not only fit in with lower-scale, single-family neighborhoods in terms of mass,
scale, and overall residential character, but offer a different mid-size housing option
that is lacking across the city and in high opportunity areas like the Lower Avenues,
East Central and Central City. Because the height and footprint of these buildings
tend to be smaller, the units also tend to be more affordable and, in theory,
increasing the overall housing stock works to stabilize housing prices and ensure that
there are units available to a variety of income levels. However, these types of
housing are almost impossible to construct under current RMF zoning standards,
which is why the RMF-30 district must be updated to allow missing middle housing
and better align with this policy.
Policy RLU 2.0 – Preserve and protect existing single- and multi-
family residential dwellings within the Central Community through
codes, regulations, and design review.
Existing regulations within single-family zoning districts are not changing per the
proposed RMF-30 text amendments and as illustrated on the map on page 6 of this
report, single-family zoning districts cover a much larger area of the city than multi-
family (RMF) zones. A third of the properties zoned RMF-30 fall within a local historic
districts where demolition of existing structure must be approved by the historic
landmark commission and is difficult to achieve. For those properties outside of the
historic overlay, a density bonus is being offered for retaining the existing structure. A
maximum lot width restriction is being added to prevent large, out of scale residential
developments, discourage the assembly of parcels and discourage land banking over
time. The proposed zoning standards allow for the flexibility to add units within, onto or
detached from an existing structure. This flexibility to work with existing structures may
promote preservation as opposed to having to demolish to meet current zoning
standards. Additionally, as the Master Plan encourages, design standards are being
introduced to promote quality, compatible development.
Policy RLU 3.0 – Promote construction of a variety of housing options
that are compatible with the character of the neighborhoods of the
Central Community.
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 8
The proposed text amendments promote the development of a variety of housing
options that are small scale in nature including cottage developments, row
houses and small multi-family buildings. These housing types can not only
accommodate more units, but fit in with the physical character of established
residential neighborhoods in Central City in terms of mass and scale.
Policy RLU 4.0 – Encourage mixed use development that provides
residents with a commercial and institutional component while
maintaining the residential character of the neighborhood.
While the proposed text amendments do not include the allowance of commercial uses
within the RFM-30 district, properties within this zoning designation tend to be located
near established commercial uses, especially in the Central City neighborhoods. Because
of this, these areas tend to be more walkable, which is something that more and more
residents are willing to trade for smaller living spaces. Therefore, by allowing more
housing in these areas, the city is promoting both the preservation of residential-serving
commercial uses and increasing walkability.
The city’s Community Preservation Plan encourages the adoption of a wider range
of preservation tools. Specifically, Action 1 under this policy states:
Action 1. Amend the zoning regulations to allow density bonuses, in the
form of an additional unit, for structures in the local historic district or a
Landmark Site which are zoned multi-family on lots that would not
otherwise allow additional units due to size.
Many of the structures outside of local districts – where demolition does not have to be
reviewed and approved by the Historic Landmark Commission – are single-family
homes. Per the proposed changes to minimum lot area requirements, 544 properties
would be eligible to add at least one additional unit on the lot in addition to what is there
(see eligibility maps highlighting all properties that could add at least one additional unit
on the same lot per the proposed changes in Attachment C). Of those properties, 229 or
42% are currently single-family homes and could add one additional unit per the
changes (at 2,000 square feet per unit). The proposed unit bonus targets these homes by
allowing the addition of two units within or onto the existing structure instead of
demoing what is there and only being able to add one additional unit.
Overall, the proposed text amendments have been crafted to achieve a balance between
facilitating the construction of more housing units (different housing options) and preserving
existing structures along with existing residential character that the Central Community Master
Plan and Community Preservation Plan both encourage. More detailed responses to the Central
Community Master and Preservation Plan have been included under
NEXT STEPS: Because the proposal aligns with the recommendations within City-wide and
neighborhood master plans and because staff feels that it achieves the overall goal of facilitating
the development of multi-family housing that is compatible in size and scale with existing
residential neighborhoods, planning staff is recommending that the Planning Commission
forward on a positive recommendation to the City Council.
The City Council has the final authority to make changes to the text of the City Code. The
recommendation of the Planning Commission for this request will be forwarded to the City
Council for their review and decision.
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 9
Attachment E.
ATTACHMENT A: PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS
Proposed Changes to the RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential
Ordinance (21A.24.120)
21A.24.120: RMF-30 LOW DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT:
A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District is
to provide an environment suitable for a variety of housing types of a low density nature,
including single-family, two-family, and multi-family dwellings, with a maximum height of thirty
feet (30'). This district is appropriate in areas where the applicable Master Plan policies
recommend multi-family housing with a density of less than fifteen (15) up to twenty (20) dwelling
units per acre. Uses are intended to be compatible with the existing scale and intensity of the
neighborhood. The standards for the district are intended to provide for safe and comfortable
places to live and play, promote sustainable and compatible development patterns and to
preserve the existing character of the neighborhood.
The purpose of the RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential zoning district is to provide an
area in the city for various multi-family housing types that are small scale in nature and that
provide a transition between single-family housing and larger multi-family housing developments.
The primary intent of the district is to maintain the existing physical character of established
residential neighborhoods in the city, while allowing for incremental growth through the
integration of small scale multi-family building types. The standards for the district are intended
to promote new development that is compatible in mass and scale with existing structures in
these areas along with a variety of housing options. This district reinforces the walkable nature of
multi-family neighborhoods, supports adjacent neighborhood-serving commercial uses, and
promotes alternative transportation modes.
B. Uses: Uses in the RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District, as specified in
section 21A.33.020, "Table Of Permitted And Conditional Uses For Residential Districts", of this
title, are permitted subject to the general provisions set forth in section 21A.24.010 of this
chapter and this section.
C. Multiple Buildings on a Single Parcel: More than one principal building may be located on
a single parcel, and are allowed without having public street frontage, provided that all
other zoning requirements are met; and,
1. Design Standards: Where new principal buildings do not have public street frontage, design
standards applicable to street facing facades in chapter 21A.37 of this title shall be applied to
the building face where the primary entrance is located.
D. Lot Width Maximum: The width of a new lot shall not exceed one hundred and ten feet (110’).
Where more than one lot is created, the combined lot width of adjacent lots within a new
subdivision, including area between lots, shall not exceed one hundred and ten feet (110’).
E. Density Bonus: To encourage the preservation of existing structures, bonus dwelling units
may be granted when an existing principal structure is retained as part of a project that adds
at least one additional dwelling unit on the same lot pursuant to the following:
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 10
1. A density bonus may only be requested at the time of filing for a building permit
application to add at least one additional unit on a lot where that unit meets the minimum
lot area requirement.
2. One (1) bonus unit may be granted for retaining an existing single or two-family structure
and two (2) bonus units for retaining an existing multi-family structure.
3. A bonus unit may be added within or attached to the existing principal structure or
as a separate building provided that all other applicable zoning requirements are
met. Bonus units are not subject to minimum lot area requirements.
4. The addition of a bonus unit to an existing principal structure does not change
the building type of that existing structure.
5. Bonus units are exempt from required off-street parking.
6. The exterior building walls and roofline of the existing principal structure must be retained
to obtain a bonus unit; however, architectural elements such as window openings and
doorways may be modified; dormers may be added; and additions to the rear of the
structure are allowed.
7. Any density bonus granted shall be recognized with a zoning certificate.
C. Minimum Lot Area And Lot Width: The minimum lot areas and lot widths required in this
district are as follows:
Minimum Minimum
Land Use Lot Area Lot Width
Multi-family dwellings 9,000 square feet1 80 feet
Municipal service uses, including City utility uses and No minimum No
police and fire stations minimum
Natural open space and conservation areas, public and No minimum No
private minimum
Places of worship less than 4 acres in size 12,000 square feet 140 feet
Public pedestrian pathways, trails and greenways No minimum No
minimum
Public/private utility transmission wires, lines, pipes No minimum No
and poles minimum
Single-family attached dwellings (3 or more)3,000 square feet Interior: 25
per unit feet
Corner: 35
feet
Single-family detached dwellings 5,000 square feet 50 feet
Twin home dwelling 4,000 square feet 25 feet
per unit
Two-family dwellings 8,000 square feet 50 feet
Utility substations and buildings 5,000 square feet 50 feet
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 11
Other permitted or conditional uses as listed in 5,000 square feet 50 feet
section 21A.33.020 of this title
Qualifying provisions:
1.9,000 square foot minimum for 3 dwelling units plus 3,000 square feet for each additional
dwelling unit.
F. RMF-30 Building Types: The permitted building types are described in this subsection. Each
building type includes a general description and definition. These definitions shall prevail over
those in the definitions chapter 21A.62 of this title.
1. Single-Family Dwelling: A detached residential structure that contains one (1) dwelling unit.
The structure has an entry facing the street, a front porch or landing, and a front yard.
2. Two-Family Dwelling: A residential structure that contains two (2) dwelling units in a single
building. The units may be arranged side by side, up and down, or front and back. Each unit
has its own separate entry directly to the outside. Dwellings may be located on separate
lots or grouped on one lot.
3. Cottage Development: A unified development that contains a minimum of two (2) and a
maximum of eight (8) detached dwelling units with each unit appearing to be a small single-
family dwelling with a common green or open space. Dwellings may be located on separate
lots or grouped on one lot.
a. Additional Development Standards for Cottage Building Forms
i.Setbacks Between Individual Cottages: All cottages shall have a minimum
setback of eight feet (8') from another cottage.
ii.Area: No cottage shall have more than eight hundred and fifty (850) square
feet of gross floor area, excluding basement area.
iii.Building Entrance: All building entrances shall face a public street or
a common open space.
iv.Open Space: A minimum of two hundred fifty (250) square feet of common,
open space is required per cottage. At least fifty percent (50%) of the open
space shall be contiguous and include landscaping, walkways or other
amenities intended to serve the residents of the development.
v.Parking: A minimum of one (1) off street parking space per unit is required.
b. Cottage Units on Individual Lots without Public Street Frontage: Lots without
public street frontage may be created to accommodate cottage developments
without planned development approval per the following standards.
i.Required setbacks in Table 21A.24.120.G shall be applied to the perimeter of
the cottage development as opposed to each individual lot within the
development. The front and corner yards of the perimeter shall be maintained
as landscaped yards.
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 12
ii.Lot coverage shall be calculated for the overall development as opposed to
each individual lot within the development.
iii.Required off street parking stalls for a unit within the cottage development is
permitted on any lot within the development.
iv.A final subdivision plat is required for any cottage development creating
individual lots without public street frontage. The final plat must document the
following:
1. The new lot(s) has adequate access to a public street by way of
easements or a shared driveway.
2. A disclosure of private infrastructure costs for any shared
infrastructure associated with the new lot(s) per section 21A.55.110
of this title is submitted with the preliminary subdivision plat.
4. Row House: A series of attached single-family dwellings that share at least one common
wall with an adjacent dwelling unit and where each unit’s entry faces a public street. A row
house contains a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of six (6) residential dwelling units in
order to maintain the scale found within the RMF-30 zoning district. Each unit may be on its
own lot; however, each lot must have frontage on a public street unless approved as a
planned development.
5. Sideways Row House: A series of attached single-family dwellings that share at least one
common wall with an adjacent dwelling unit and where each unit’s entry faces a side yard
as opposed the front yard. A sideways row house contains a minimum of three (3) and a
maximum of six (6) residential dwelling units in order to maintain the scale found within the
RMF-30 zoning district. Each unit may be on its own lot.
a. Additional Development Standards for Sideways Row House Building Forms:
i.Setbacks: Setbacks shall be applied as depicted in Reference Illustration
21A.24.120B. The interior side yard setbacks shall be ten feet (10’) on one
side and six feet (6’) on the other. A sideways row house is not subject to
provision 21A.24.H of this section regarding buildings with side entries.
ii.Front Building Entry: The unit adjacent to a public street shall have
its primary entrance on the street facing façade of the building with
an entry feature per chapter 21A.37 of this title.
iii.Garage Doors: Garage doors are prohibited on the façade of the building that
is parallel to, or located along, a public street.
iv.Required Glass: Ground and upper floor glass requirements shall apply per
section 21A.37.060 and table 21A.37.060 of this title to the front and interior
facades of a sideways row house.
b. Sideways Row House Units on Individual Lots without Public Street Frontage: Lots
without public street frontage may be created to accommodate sideways row houses
without planned development approval per the following standards.
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 13
i.Required setbacks shall be applied to the perimeter of the row house
development as opposed to each individual lot within the development. The
front and corner side yards of the perimeter shall be maintained as
landscaped yards.
ii.Lot coverage shall be calculated for the overall development as opposed to
each individual lot within the development.
iii.Required off street parking for a unit within the row house development is
permitted on any lot within the development.
iv.A final subdivision plat is required for any row house development creating
individual lots without public street frontage. The final plat must document
the following:
1. The new lot(s) has adequate access to a public street by way of
easements or a shared driveway.
2. A disclosure of private infrastructure costs for any shared
infrastructure associated with the new lot(s) per section 21A.55.110
of this title is submitted with the preliminary subdivision plat.
REFERENCE ILLUSTRATION 21A.24.120B
Required Setbacks for Public Street (Normal) Facing Row House
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 14
Required Setbacks for Sideways Row House
F = Front Yard Adjacent to a Public Street
S = Side Yard
R = Rear Yard
6. Multi-Family Residential: A multi-family residential structure containing at
least three (3) dwelling units that may be arranged in a number of
configurations. A maximum of eight (8) dwellings units are allowed in each
multi-family residential building.
7. Tiny House: A detached residential structure that contains one (1) dwelling unit
with a permanent foundation that is 400 square feet or less in usable floor area
excluding lofted space. The structure has a single entry facing the street, an alley or
open space on a lot, but shall not face an interior property line.
i.Additional Development Standards for Tiny House Forms:
ii.Balconies and Decks: Balconies and decks shall not exceed eighty (80)
square feet in size when located above the ground level of the buildings
and shall be located a minimum of ten feet (10') from a side or rear yard lot
line unless the applicable side or rear yard lot line is adjacent to an alley.
iii.Rooftop Decks: Rooftop decks on tiny houses are prohibited.
iv.Parking: A minimum of one (1) off street parking space per unit is required.
8. Non Residential Building: A building that houses a non-residential use either permitted or
permitted as a conditional use in the underlying zoning district.
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 15
D. Maximum Building Height: The maximum building height permitted in this district is thirty feet
(30').
E. Minimum Yard Requirements:
1. Front Yard: Twenty feet (20').
2. Corner Side Yard: Ten feet (10').
3. Interior Side Yard:
a. Single-family detached and two-family dwellings:
(1) Interior lots: Four feet (4') on one side and ten feet (10') on the other.
(2) Corner lots: Four feet (4').
b. Single-family attached: No yard is required, however if one is provided it shall not be less than
four feet (4').
c. Twin home dwelling: No yard is required along one side lot line. A ten foot (10') yard is required on
the other.
d. Multi-family dwelling: Ten feet (10') on each side.
e. All other permitted and conditional uses: Ten feet (10') on each side.
4. Rear Yard: Twenty five percent (25%) of the lot depth, but not less than twenty feet (20') and need
not exceed twenty five feet (25').
5. Accessory Buildings And Structures In Yards: Accessory buildings and structures may be located in
a required yard subject to section 21A.36.020, table 21A.36.020B, "Obstructions In Required
Yards", of this title.
F. Required Landscape Yards: The front and corner side yards shall be maintained as
landscape yards.
G. Maximum Building Coverage:
1. Single-Family Detached: The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings shall not
exceed forty five percent (45%) of the lot area.
2. Single-Family Attached Dwellings: The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings
shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the lot area.
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 16
3. Two-Family And Twin Home Dwellings: The surface coverage of all principal and accessory
buildings shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the lot area.
4. Multi-Family Dwellings: The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings shall not
exceed forty percent (40%) of the lot area.
5. Existing Dwellings: For dwellings existing on April 12, 1995, the coverage of such existing buildings
shall be considered legally conforming.
6. Nonresidential Land Uses: The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings shall
not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the lot area.
H. Landscape Buffers: For multiple-family uses where a lot abuts a lot in a single-family or two-family
residential district, a landscape buffer shall be provided in accordance with chapter 21A.48
of this title.
G. Building Type Standards: Building type standards are listed in table 21A.24.120.H of this section.
Table 21A.24.120.G
RMF-30 Building Type Standards
Building Type
Single-Two-Multi-Row Sideways Row Cottage Tiny NonBuildingFamilyFamilyFamilyHouse1House1Development1House1Residential
Regulation Dwelling Dwelling Residential Building
H Height 30’Pitched Roof-16’30’
23’
Flat Roof-16’
F Front yard 20’ or the average of the block face
setback
C Corner 10’
side
yard
setback
S Interior 4’ on one side 10’4’6’ on one side 4’10’
side 10’ on the other 10’ on theyardother
setback
R Rear yard Minimum of 20% lot depth, need not exceed 25'10’Minimum
of 20% lot
depth,
need not
exceed 25’
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 17
L Minimum 2,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit 1,500 sq. ft. per 5,000 sq.
lot size2 dwelling unit ft. per
building
DU Maximum 1 2 8 6 8 per 1 n/a
Dwelling development
Units per
Form
BC Maximum 50%
Building
Coverage
LY Required The front and corner side yards shall be maintained as landscape yards.
Landscaped
Yards
LB Landscape X X X
Buffers per
subsection
21A.48.080C
of this title.
G AttachedGarage doors accessed from the front or corner side yard shall be no wider than 50% of
Garagesthe front facade of the structure and set back at least 5' from the street facing building
facade and at least 20' from the property line. Interior side loaded garages are permitted.
DS Design All new buildings are subject to applicable design standards in chapter 21A.37 of this title.
Standards
Notes:
1. See subsection 21A.24.120F of this title for additional standards
2. Minimum lot size may be calculated for a development as whole as opposed to each
individual lot within a development.
I. Additional Lot Area Requirements: No minimum lot area is required for public or private natural
open space and conservation areas; public pedestrian pathways, trails, greenways, parks and
community gardens; or, public or private utility transmission wires, lines, pipes, poles and utility
buildings or structures.
J. Accessory Buildings And Structures In Yards: Accessory buildings and structures may be located
in a required yard subject to section 21A.36.020, table 21A.36.020B, "Obstructions In Required
Yards", of this title
J. Accessory Uses, Buildings And Structures: All accessory uses, buildings and structures shall
comply with the applicable standards in chapter 21A.40 and section 21A.36.020 of this title.
(Ord. 66-13, 2013: Ord. 12-11, 2011: Ord. 62-09 §§ 5, 8, 2009: Ord. 61-09 § 6, 2009: Ord. 88-95 § 1
(Exh. A), 1995: Ord. 26-95 § 2(12-11), 1995)
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 18
Chapter 21A.37 DESIGN STANDARDS
21A.37.050: DESIGN STANDARDS DEFINED:
The design standards in this chapter are defined as follows. Each design standard includes a
specific definition of the standard and may include a graphic that is intended to help further
explain the standard, however the definition supersedes any conflict between it and a graphic.
P. Entry Features: Each required entrance per section 21A.37.050D of this title shall include a
permitted entry feature with a walkway connected to a public sidewalk and exterior lighting that
highlights the entryway(s). Where buildings are located on a corner lot, only one of the street facing
facades must include an entry feature. Where a building does not have direct public street
frontage, the entry feature should be applied to the façade where the primary entrance is
determined to be located. A two-family dwelling arranged side by side, row house and cottage
development shall include at least one entry feature per dwelling unit.
1. Permitted Encroachments: A permitted entry feature may encroach up to five feet (5')
into a required front yard; however, in no case shall an encroachment be closer than
five feet (5’) to a front property line. A covered entry feature encroaching into a front
yard may not be enclosed.
2. Permitted Entry Features:
a. Covered Porch – A covered, raised porch structure with or without
railings spanning at least a third the length of the front building façade.
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 19
b. Portico – A structure with a roof protruding over the building entry supported
by columns over a landing or walkway.
c. Awning or Canopy – A cover suspended above the building entry over a landing or
walkway where the wall(s) around the entry project out or recess in by at least one
foot (1’) from the front building plane.
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 20
d. Emphasized Doorway – A doorway that is recessed by at least ten inches (10’’)
from the front building plane and architecturally emphasized with a doorframe of a
different material than the front façade, differentiated patterns or brickwork around
the door, and/or sidelights. Doorways need not be recessed more than six inches
(6’’) on a tiny house.
21A.37.060: DESIGN STANDARDS REQUIRED IN EACH ZONING DISTRICT:
This section identifies each design standard and to which zoning districts the standard applies. If a
box is checked, that standard is required. If a box is not checked, it is not required. If a specific
dimension or detail of a design standard differs among zoning districts or differs from the definition,
it will be indicated within the box. In cases when a dimension in this table conflicts with a dimension
in the definition, the dimensions listed in the table supersede those in the definition.
TABLE 21A.37.060
A. Residential districts:
Standard
(Code Section)
Ground floor use (%)
(21A.37.050A1)
District
R-R-
RMF-RMF-RMF-RMF-MU-MU-R-
30 35 45 75 RB 35 45 MU RO
75 75
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 21
District
R-R-
Standard RMF-RMF-RMF-RMF-MU-MU-R-
(Code Section)30 35 45 75 RB 35 45 MU RO
Ground floor use +
visual interest (%)
(21A.37.050A2)
Building materials:50 80 80
ground floor (%)
(21A.37.050B1)
Building materials:50
upper floors (%)
(21A.37.050B2)
Glass: ground floor 20 60 60 40
(%) (21A.37.050C1)
Glass: upper floors 15
(%) (21A.37.050C2)
Building entrances (feet)X 75 75 X
(21A.37.050D)
Blank wall: maximum 15 15 15 15
length (feet)
(21A.37.050E)
Street facing facade:
maximum length (feet)
(21A.37.050F)
Upper floor step back 10
(feet) (21A.37.050G)
Lighting: exterior
(21A.37.050H)
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 22
District
R-R-
Standard RMF-RMF-RMF-RMF-MU-MU-R-
(Code Section)30 35 45 75 RB 35 45 MU RO
Lighting: parking lot X X
(21A.37.050I)
Screening of X X X X
mechanical equipment
(21A.37.050J)
Screening of service X X X X
areas (21A.37.050K)
Ground floor residential
entrances
(21A.37.050L)
Parking garages or
structures
(21A.37.050M)
Residential character in X
RB District
(21A.37.050N)
Entry Features X
(21A.37.050P)
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 23
ATTACHMENT B: JUNE 26TH PC STAFF REPORT
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 24
Staff Report
PLANNING DIVISION
COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS
TO:Salt Lake City Planning Commission
FROM:Lauren Parisi, Principal Planner
DATE:June 26th, 2019
RE:PLNPCM2019-00313 - Text Amendments to the RMF-30
Low Density Multi-Family Residential Zoning District
ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT
PROPERTY ADDRESS: City-Wide
PARCEL ID: N/A
MASTER PLAN: Growing SLC: A Five Year Housing Plan 2018-2022 / Plan Salt Lake
ZONING DISTRICT: RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential
REQUEST: A request by Mayor Jackie Biskupski to review the zoning standards of the RMF-
30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District and propose amendments in an effort
to remove zoning barriers to housing development as recommended within Growing
SLC: A Five Year Housing Plan (2018-2022). The proposed text amendments to the
RMF-30 District include:
1. Introducing design standards for all new development
2. Allowing the construction of new building types including side oriented row houses,
cottage developments, and tiny houses without special approval
3. Reducing lot size requirements
4. Removing lot width minimums
5. Allowing more than one building on a lot without planned development approval
6. Granting a unit bonus for the retention of a structure on a lot
7. Introducing a maximum lot width for newly created lots
RECOMMENDATION: At this time, staff recommends that the Planning Commission table
petition PLNPCM2019-00313 regarding updates to the RMF-30 Low Density Multi-
Family Residential Zoning District and make a recommendation to City Council at a
later date once the proposed text amendments have been finalized.
ATTACHMENTS:
A.Proposed Text Amendments
B.Informational Maps
C.Analysis of Standards
D.Public Process and Comments
E.City Department Comments
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 25
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The purpose of this project is to review the zoning standards within the RMF-30 Low Density
Multi-Family Residential District and propose amendments in an effort to remove zoning
barriers to housing development as recommended within Growing SLC: A Five Year Housing
Plan (2018-2022). For some time, staff has recognized that many of the zoning standards within
the city’s four multi-family residential (RMF) zoning districts can be quite restrictive and limit
creative housing development, which is why these amendments are being proposed starting the
lowest density RMF-30 district. The goal is to solidify changes to this multi-family district first,
and apply similar changes to the rest of the multi-family districts in the near future.
A Closer Look at RMF-30.
The majority of Salt Lake City’s RMF-30 districts are scattered throughout the northern center
of the City – north of Liberty Park, east of the Downtown and west of the University of Utah.
There is also a large concentration of RMF-30 just south of 1-80 off of 700 East. City data
indicates there are approximately:
1,028 RMF-30 parcels .06 acres (2,613 square feet) or greater – large enough to build upon
331 RMF-30 are located in a local historic district where the demolition of historic structures
must be approved by the Historic Landmark Commission
3,212 parcels .06 acres or greater in all RMF-30, -35, -45 and -75 zoning districts.
*Larger maps of all of the RMF zoning districts and the RMF-30 lots located within a local
historic district can be found in Attachment B.
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 26
Lot Size
The average lot size in the RMF-30 zone is 6,114 square feet1; however, as illustrated by the
distribution graph below, close to half of the lots (487 of 1,028) fall between 3,000 – 6,000
square feet in size. By current standards, the average lot couldn’t accommodate
anything more than a single-family home, which requires 5,000 square feet of lot area
per unit. Three quarters of the lots (783) couldn’t accommodate a duplex or twin-home, which
requires 8,000 square feet of lot area per unit. There is no special process in place to request
additional units on a lot if it does not meet these minimum area requirements.
Lot Width
A similar pattern can be seen with existing lot widths in the city. The average lot width in the
RMF-30 zone is 58 feet wide2; however, 662 or 65% of the lots fall between 31 and 50 feet wide
– well under the 80-foot lot width requirement to accommodate a multi-family development or
3+ units without special approval. In fact, more than half of the lots are under 50 feet
wide, and do not have the width to accommodate a single-family home by current
standards. Required lot width can be modified through planned development approval.
To note – the total number of lot width measurements is greater than the total number of lots in the
RMF-30 district as it accounts for the two sides on every corner lot.
Land Use
RMF-30 Land Use Historic Designation
1%
20%32%33%
15%64%
35%
Single Family Duplex Multifamily Other None Local and National National only
1 66 outlier parcels removed from average over 14,000 square feet in area
2 42 outliers parcels removed with widths less than 25 feet and greater than 250 feet
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 27
Looking at existing land use on the 1,028 parcels in the RMF-30 district, Salt Lake County tax
assessor classifies: 565 as single-family homes, 130 as duplexes, 178 as multi-family buildings
(3+ units), and 14 as a combination of residential uses and the rest vary in use (vacant,
commercial, planned development, etc.). Of those 887 residential properties, 35% or 313 are
located in a local historic district where the demolition of historic structures must be reviewed
and approved by the City’s Historic Landmark Commission.
Missing Middle Housing. With the proposed RMF-30 updates, the City hopes to encourage
the development of “missing middle housing” in particular, which has been described as:
“Range of multi-unit or clustered housing types compatible in scale with single-family homes
that help meet the growing demand for walkable urban living. These types provide diverse housing options
along a spectrum of affordability, including duplexes, fourplexes, and [cottage developments], to support
walkable communities, locally-serving retail, and public transportation options. Missing Middle Housing
provides a solution to the mismatch between the available U.S. housing stock and shifting demographics
combined with the growing demand for walkability” (Congress for the New Urbanism).
Diagram of Missing Middle Housing Types. Source: Opticos Design, Inc.
Missing middle housing is not a new type of housing. It’s housing that exists in Salt Lake City today:
duplexes, triplexes, fourplex buildings, townhouses, small-scale apartment buildings, etc. However,
more often than not, these housing types are difficult to build because they do not meeting current
zoning standards, especially in areas where they’re best suited near the city’s downtown, universities
and, of course, public transit. Below are some examples of existing missing middle housing types
that “fit in” with their surroundings while providing higher unit counts. Note the number of units
that exist on the lot, the number of units that are allowed per current RMF-30 standards.
682-688 E. 700 South – 16 units on 8,429 sq. ft. = 527 sq. ft. per
unit Current Allowance – 2 units
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 28
661 S. Green St. –10 units on 27,234 sq. ft. = 2,723 sq. ft. per unit
Current Allowance 9 units (separate structures on single lot also not permitted)
852 S. 800 East –12 units on 17,424 sq. ft. = 1,452 sq. ft. per unit
Current Allowance 5 units (separate structures on single lot also not permitted)
620 S. Park St. –12 units on 17,877 sq. ft. = 1,490 sq. ft. per unit
Current Allowance 5 units
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 29
Proposed RMF-30 Text Amendments.
The following section of this report goes into more detail regarding each of the specific updates
being proposed to the RMF-30 zoning standards. By updating these standards, the City hopes to
remove some of the zoning barriers that limit new housing development, while encouraging
compatible design and maintaining existing housing stock. With this in mind, Planning Staff is
recommending implementing what could be described as “hybrid” form based standards.
Form based codes focus on the regulation of what buildings look like in terms of their compatibility
with existing buildings in a neighborhood as well as their relationship with the street or what is
referred to as the “public realm.” This differs from traditional zoning approaches, which emphasize
the separation of land uses – single-family here, multi-family over there, on this amount of land, etc.
With this hybrid approach, the proposed updates work to facilitate the development of slightly
denser, “missing-middle” housing types that fit in with existing development patterns in the RMF-30
districts, while continuing to regulate required lot area per unit.
1. Design Standards – Promote compatible design with durable building materials.
Design standards for new construction are intended to utilize planning and architecture principles to
shape and promote a walkable environment in specific zoning districts, foster place making as a
community and economic development tool, protect property values, assist in maintaining the
established character of the city, and implementing the city's master plans. Design requirements are
in place within many of the city’s commercial and mixed-use zoning districts, but not in any of the
RMF districts. Therefore, the following design requirements consistent with Chapter 21A.37: Design
Standards of the Zoning Ordinance are proposed to be applied to the RMF-30 district:
Durable Building Materials – Other than windows and doors, 50% of a new building’s
street facing façade shall be clad in durable materials including stone, brick, masonry,
textured or patterned, and fiber cement board. Traditional stucco falls under masonry.
Other durable materials may be approved at the discretion of the planning director.
Glass – All new buildings shall have at least 20% of glass (windows, doors, etc.) on the
ground floor street facing façade and 15% on the upper street facing façade.
Building Entrances – At least one operable building entrance on the ground floor is
required for every street facing façade, which includes corner façades.
Blank Wall Maximum – The maximum length of any blank wall uninterrupted by windows,
doors, art or architectural detailing at the ground level along any street facing facade is 15 feet.
Screening of Mechanical Equipment and Services Areas – All mechanical
equipment and service areas shall be screened from public view and sited to
minimize their visibility and impact.
RMF Entry Features – Along with required building entrances, each entrance
shall have one of the following entry features including lighting and a walkway
that connects to a public sidewalk:
a. Covered Porch – A covered, raised porch structure with or without railings spanning at least a
third the length of the front building façade.
b. Portico – A structure with a roof protruding over the building entry supported by columns or
enclosed by walls over a stoop or walkway.
c. Awning or Canopy – A hood or cover suspended above the building entry over a stoop or walkway where the
wall(s) around the entry project out or recess in by at least one foot (1’) from the front building plane.
d. Emphasized Doorway – A doorway that is recessed by at least one foot (1’) from the front building
plane and architecturally emphasized with a doorframe of a different material than the front
façade, differentiated patterns or brickwork around the door, and/or sidelights. Doorways need
not be recessed more than six inches (6’’) on a tiny house.
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 30
2.New Building Forms in RMF-30 – Encourage building forms and arrangements
that are compatible with smaller-scale development with lower perceived density.
In addition to single-family homes, duplexes, triplexes, apartment buildings, etc., the City would
like to encourage three new specific housing types or forms in the RMF-30 zoning district that
may allow for slightly higher unit counts, but are also compatible with existing development in
the area. These three types include cottage developments, side oriented row houses and tiny
houses that otherwise wouldn’t be allowed in RMF districts without special approval.
Cottage Developments are currently allowed in the city’s existing Form Based districts and are
defined as, “a unified development that contains two (2) or more detached dwelling units with each
unit appearing to be a small single-family dwelling with a common green or open space. Dwellings
may be located on separate lots or grouped on one lot.” Cottage structures have relatively small
footprints and are grouped in a communal fashion on a lot. The following design standards would be
applied to these forms including limiting usable floor area to 850 square feet.
i. Setbacks Between Cottages: All cottages shall have a minimum setback of eight feet (8') from
another cottage.
ii. Area: No cottage shall have more than eight hundred fifty (850) square feet of usable
floor area.
iii. Building Entrance: All building entrances shall face a public street or a common open space.
iv. Open Space: A minimum of two hundred fifty (250) square feet of common, open space is
required per cottage up to a maximum of one thousand (1,000) square feet. At least fifty percent
(50%) of the open space shall be contiguous and include landscaping, walkways or other
amenities intended to serve the residents of the development.
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 31
Side Oriented Row Houses where the entries of single-family attached units face the side of a lot
as opposed to the street are difficult to build in any zoning district because code currently does not
allow lots without public street frontage. With intentional design, side oriented row houses can make
good use of the long narrow lots in the city while maintaining compatibility with lower-scale
residential development. These forms are frequently reviewed by the Planning Commission and just
as frequently approved provided that the front-most unit is completely oriented to the street and
adequate buffers are maintained around the property. Therefore, it is being proposed that side
oriented row houses be allowed by right, per the additional standards below. Keep in mind that these
standards will be applied in conjunction with the proposed standards in Chapter 21A.37: Design
Standards and a special exception will be required if each unit is on its own lot.
i. Interior Setbacks: The interior side yard setbacks (S) shall be ten feet (10’)
on one side and six feet (6’) on the other.
ii. Front Building Entry: The unit adjacent to a street shall have its primary
entrance on the façade of the building parallel to the street with an entry
feature per section 21A.37 of this title.
iii. Garage Doors: Garage doors are prohibited on the façade facing the front yard area.
iv. Delineation: Each dwelling unit shall be delineated as an individual unit
through the use of color, materials, articulation of building walls,
articulation in building height, lighting, and/or other architectural elements.
v. Required Glass: For all floors or levels above the ground floor, a minimum of
twenty percent (20%) of all street facing facades must be glass. Interior
building facades shall also have a minimum of fifteen (15%) ground floor
glass and fifteen (15%) upper floor glass.
Tiny Houses are limited by building code to 400 square feet in area
excluding lofted space. A tiny home differs from a detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) as they
are more limited in size and would not have to be owner occupied or associated with a single-family
home. These structures would also have a permanent foundation and could not be on wheels. Tiny
houses can be built today, but are treated the same as a single-family home and require 5,000 square
feet of land area to build. This amount of land is not necessary for a 400 square-foot structure.
Therefore, standards are being proposed to allow these structures on smaller lots with reduced
setbacks, building height, etc. To note, the public has expressed a lot of interest in building these
types of structures, which is another reason why this form is being proposed.
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 32
3. Reduced Lot Area Requirements – Allow multi-family housing on average size
lots equipped to accommodate multi-family development (3+ units).
In most residential zoning districts in the city, the Zoning Ordinance regulates the number of units
per square footage of land area – otherwise known as density requirements. Currently, the RMF-30
zone permits one multi-family unit per every 3,000 square feet of land (must have at least 3 units to
have a multi-family building or 9,000 square feet of land). Considering that about half of
existing lots in the RMF-30 zone fall between 3,000 and 6,000 square feet, these lots
couldn’t accommodate anything more than a single-family home. For additional
perspective, the existing historic developments on pages 4 and 5 of this report have between 530 to
1,500 square feet of land per unit. The Central Community Master Plan’s future land use designation
for these areas also calls for up to 20 units per acre or 2,178 square feet per unit.
It is clear that the existing lot area requirements do not promote multi-family housing, which is why this
proposal includes reducing the lot area requirements to 2,500 square feet per unit for traditional multi-
family units (apartment building and condo buildings) and to 1,500 square feet for row houses, cottage
developments and tiny house or building forms that can accommodate more units while remaining
compatible with lower density development. This proposal also tends to align with lot area requirements
in other urban areas of the country, which generally range from 1,500 to 2,900 square feet per unit.
Denver, for example, that utilizes a form based code, allows 10 units maximum on a minimum of 6,000
square feet in similar-type zoning districts. This equates to 6oo square feet of lot area per unit. Staff
acknowledges that this proposal for Salt Lake City’s RMF-30 zoning district is relatively moderate in
comparison to Denver. Current and proposed lot area requirements have been listed below and a table
with lot area requirements across the U.S. can be found in Attachment B.
LAND USE CURRENT AREA REQUIREMENT PROPOSED AREA REQUIRED
Single-Family 5,000 2,500
Two-Family 8,000 5,000
Multi-Family (Must have at least 3 units)3,000 (9,000 for first 3)2,500 (7,500 for first 3)
Single-Family Attached/Row House 3,000 (9,000 for first 3)1,500 (4,500 for first 3)
(Must have at least 3 units)
Cottage Development (New Form)n/a 1,500
Tiny House (New Form)n/a 1,500
With these changes to lot area, approximately 39% or 345 of the 887 residential RMF-30 properties
would become eligible to add at least one more unit in addition to the existing units(s) on the
property (excluding the addition of tiny houses). The eligibility maps in Attachment B highlight
these eligible parcels in green. Keep in mind that other factors may limit whether or not additional
units can be added on a lot including accommodating required setbacks, lot coverage, building and
fire code regulations, etc. Additionally, smaller lot size requirements should also promote smaller
and more affordable housing units. The City does acknowledge that smaller lot sizes may put
additional development pressure on lots with single-family homes, which is why some mechanisms
to limit demolition are being introduced as detailed in the changes below.
4. Removal of Required Lot Width –
Allow other building requirements to
drive lot width and remove this zoning
barrier to multi-family housing
development.
In addition to required lot area, Salt Lake
City’s Zoning Ordinance also requires that lots
be a certain width for different land uses.
Currently, lots are required to be at least 80-
100 feet wide in the City’s Multi-Family
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 33
Residential (RMF) zoning districts to accommodate a new multi-family use (3 or more housing
units). The City has found that these current requirements do not reflect the established lot
width patterns in the RMF zoning districts as discussed in the Closer Look at RMF-30 section of
this report and can, ultimately, impede housing development. For example, the vacant lot
pictured above could not be developed with more than three units as it does not have 80 feet of
lot width even though it meets the minimum lot size requirements.
Many other standards are in place that encourage adequate lot widths and spacing between
buildings including required side yard setbacks, driveway widths and building code standards.
Therefore, per the proposed updates, minimum lot width requirements would be removed.
5.More Than One Principal Structure On A Lot –
Allow for historic development pattern to occur
and encourage creative building arrangements.
Constructing more than one principal structure on a lot is
currently not permitted in RMF districts, unless both
structures have public street frontage. The idea behind this
is partly to discourage new buildings with poor access and
little visibility for general safety purposes. However, Salt
Lake City’s deeper lots tend to have a significant amount of
underutilized land towards their rear and can have more
than adequate access and visibility. Other zoning, building code, and fire regulations besides
this limitation on multiple structures on a lot also work together to ensure adequate access and
visibility. Constructing more than one building on a lot is characteristic of the historic
development pattern and tends to encourage creative housing developments. Today, planned
development approval is required for multiple structures on a lot. Therefore, provided that the
additional structures meet all other zoning/city department standards, it is being proposed that
more than one principal structure be permitted on all lots in the RMF-30 zoning district.
6 & 7 – Mechanisms to Limit Demolition
Unit Bonus for the Maintenance of Existing Structures – Incentivize the
retention of existing structures and creative housing solutions. In an effort to
maintain existing and/or affordable housing stock in the RMF-30 zone – particularly historic
or character-contributing buildings – while allowing for some new development, a unit
bonus is being proposed to apply when housing is retained. Because the updates to lot area
requirements may allow additional units to be added on a lot, this unit bonus will apply
when a building permit is applied for to add an additional housing unit(s) to an existing
structure – internal or external – that meets lot area requirements and the existing structure
on the lot is retained. The idea is that this unit bonus would encourage units to be
added onto or within existing structures (single-family homes in particular) as
opposed to demolishing the existing structure and rebuilding fewer units than
what could be achieved with the bonus. One bonus unit will be granted for the
retention of a single-family home or duplex and two bonus units will be grated for the
retention of multi-family buildings (3 or more units).
Lot Width Maximum – Discurage land banking and the demolition of
exsting structures. In an effort to minimize of collection of multiple parcels or “land
banking” to accommodate large developments, a lot width maximum is proposed that
would limit the widths of new lots to 110 feet wide or less. The maximum would be
applied to the development as a whole as opposed to individual lots within a
development. Based on average lots widths in the RMF-30 district, this would typically
prevent the consolidation of more than two parcels, or three at the very most.
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 34
KEY CONSIDERATIONS: The following key considerations have been identified for the
Planning Commission’s review and potential discussion.
#1. Compliance with Citywide Master Plans
Growing SLC: A Five Year Housing Plan (2018-2022)
The Growing SLC Housing Plan “outlines…solutions…[for reaching a point] where all residents,
current and prospective, regardless of race, age, economic status, or physical ability can find a
place to call home. To achieve this goal, the City’s housing policy must address issues of
affordability at the root cause, creating long-term solutions for increasing the housing supply,
expanding housing opportunities throughout the city, addressing systemic failures in the rental
market, and preserving our existing units” (p. 9). The proposed text amendments directly
support the following priorities identified in Growing SLC:
Goal 1: Reform City practices to promote a responsive, affordable, high-opportunity housing market.
Objective 1: Review and modify land-use and zoning regulations to reflect the
affordability needs of a growing, pioneering city.
o 1.1.1 Develop flexible zoning tools and regulations, with a focus along
significant transportation routes.
“Land use decisions of the 1990s came about as a reaction to the gradual
population decline that occurred over the preceding three decades.
Conversely, the city’s population has grown by 20 percent in the last two
decades, (the fastest rate of growth in nearly a century) presenting a need
for a fundamentally different approach. Household type and makeup has
also significantly changed to reflect smaller household sizes in the city.
Increasing flexibility around dimensional requirements and code
definitions will reduce barriers to housing construction that are
unnecessary for achieving city goals, such as neighborhood preservation. A
concentrated zoning and land use review is warranted to address these
critical issues and to refine code so that it focuses on form and scale of
development rather than intended use” (p. 18).
o 1.1.2 Develop in-fill ordinances that promote a diverse housing stock, increase
housing options, create redevelopment opportunities, and allow additional
units within existing structures, while minimizing neighborhood impacts.
“In-fill ordinances provide both property owners and developers with options
to increase the number of units on particular parcels throughout the city. Such
options would also help restore the “missing middle” housing types where new
construction has principally been limited to single-family homes and multi-
story apartment buildings for decades. Missing middle housing types are those
that current zoning practices have either dramatically reduced or eliminated
altogether: accessory dwelling units, duplexes, tri-plexes, small multi-plexes,
courtyard cottages and bungalows, row houses, and small apartment
buildings. Finding a place for these housing types throughout the city means
more housing options in Salt Lake City, and restoring choices for a wider
variety of household sizes, from seniors to young families.
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 35
Apart from traditional infill ordinances, responding to the unusual age,
form, and shape of housing stock should be addressed and leveraged to
add incremental density in existing structures. This would include
options for lot subdivision where there is ample space to build an
additional home on a property or alternatively expand rental
opportunities in existing structures” (p. 19).
Objective 2: Remove impediments in City processes to encourage housing development.
o 1.2.1 Create an expedited processing system to increase City access for
those developers constructing new affordable units.
“Providing developers who build affordable units with a fast-tracked
permitting process will decrease the cost of those projects, increasing the
likelihood that such projects make it to the market. The process will
empower the administration with the authority to waive fees and expedite
City procedures” (p. 21).
Objective 3. Lead in the construction of innovative housing solutions.
o 1.3.1 Lead in the development of new affordable housing types, as well as
construction methods that incorporate innovative solutions to issues of form,
function, and maintenance.
“Additionally, the City will support the development of new or
underutilized housing types that meet the unique needs of the diverse
communities that live in Salt Lake City. This has already begun with
projects that focus on a significant mix of resident incomes and micro-
units and could be expanded to include other housing types. Efforts to
develop well-designed and well-built homes that serve the changing
needs of residents will improve housing choice into the future” (p. 22).
Plan Salt Lake (2015):
Plan Salt Lake identifies multiple ‘Guiding Principles,’ ‘Targets,’ and ‘Initiatives’ to help
the city achieve its vision over the next 25 years. This project supports the following:
Guiding Principle 1/Neighborhoods that provide a safe environment, opportunity for
social interaction, and services needed for the wellbeing of the community therein.
Initiatives:
3. Create a safe and convenient place for people to carry out
their daily lives.
5. Support policies that provides people a choice to stay in their
home and neighborhood as they grow older and household
demographics change.
7. Promote accessible neighborhood services and amenities,
including parks, natural lands, and schools.
9. Provide opportunities for and promotion of social interaction.
Guiding Principle 2/Growth: Growing responsibly, while providing people with
choices about where they live, how they live, and how they get around.
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 36
Initiatives:
1. Locate new development in areas with existing infrastructure and
amenities, such as transit and transportation corridors.
3. Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land.
6. Accommodate and promote an increase in the City’s population.
Guiding Principle 3/Housing: Access to a wide variety of housing types for all
income levels throughout the city, providing the basic human need for safety and
responding to changing demographics.
Initiatives:
2. Increase the number of medium density housing types
and options.
3. Encourage housing options that accommodate aging in place.
4. Direct new growth toward areas with existing infrastructure
and services that have the potential to be people-oriented.
5. Enable moderate density increases within existing
neighborhoods where appropriate.
Salt Lake City Council’s 20 Guiding Principles on Housing
Development (2017)
Principal 6 – Create a net increase in affordable housing units while: i. Avoiding
displacement of existing affordable housing to the extent possible, and ii.
Retaining and expanding the diversity of AMI and innovative housing types.
Principal 8 – Create a spectrum of housing options for people of all backgrounds
and incomes.
Principal 16 – Identify tools to increase and diversify the total housing supply
including housing types that the private market does not sufficiently provide
such as family housing in the downtown area, innovative housing types, missing
middle housing and middle- to low-income apartments.
As documented above, the proposed text amendments are in line with goals and
objectives outlined in the City’s housing plan. Current lot area and width standards in
place make it difficult to develop multi-family housing in the city’s multi-family
zoning districts – let alone multi-family development that’s compatible with lower-
scale neighborhoods. Yet, not only does the city need more housing in general, there is
an increasing demand among millennials and baby boomers alike for smaller,
accessible units of higher quality construction that are easier to maintain. The
proposed text amendments aim not only remove restrictive zoning barriers to new
housing development that the city needs, but to facilitate missing-middle type housing
in walkable, desirable neighborhoods where RMF districts tend to be located.
#2. Community Concerns – The following concerns regarding the proposed text
amendments were voiced by the community throughout the RMF-30 engagement
process:
Demolition of Existing Housing. With any proposal that allows more housing density in an area,
there tends to be concern that existing historic and/or affordable housing will be demolished to make way
for larger more expensive housing developments. This is a legitimate concern that has been
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 37
raised by multiple community members throughout the engagement process. At the same time,
multi-family zoning districts should allow multi-family development on an average site lot. Per
current standards, close to half of the existing lots zoned RMF-30 are less than 6,000 square feet in
area and couldn’t accommodate anything more than a single dwelling unit. Close to three-quarters of
the lots are less than 8,000 square feet in area and couldn’t accommodate anything more than two
units or a duplex. As we see with historic multi-family development already in place throughout the
city, the average size lot in the RMF-30 district of 6,114 square feet can and should be able to
accommodate more than a single-family home. With all of this in mind, a delicate balance needs to
be struck between allowing more housing on adequately sized lots and promoting the preservation of
existing structures, which is what this proposal aims to achieve.
First, close to a third of lots zoned RMF-30 are located in a local historic district where demolition of
structures must be approved by the Historic Landmark Commission. Second, lot area requirements have
been strategically reduced the most for single and two-family development (2,500 to 3,000 square-foot
reduction), as well as compatible multi-family development including cottage developments, row houses
and tiny houses (1,500 square foot reduction). Though compatible, row houses and cottage developments
must meet many other design, building code and fire code regulations. Therefore, though the lot area
requirements have been reduced the most for these forms, staff does not anticipate widespread
demolition to accommodate these forms because they are more difficult to construct. Third, lot area has
only been reduced by 500 square feet for multi-family building forms with three or more units. Not only
does this promote the smaller building forms, but the proposed 2,500 square feet per unit also remains in
line with the Central Community’s Master Plan future land use designation for Low Medium Density
Residential of 20 units per acre or 2,178 square feet of lot area per unit. Staff anticipates decreasing lot
area requirements further for the RMF-35, -45, and -75 districts as these areas area meant to
accommodate higher density.
Reducing lot area requirements also makes the proposed density bonus more functional. If an
existing lot could accommodate one more unit with the proposed changes to lot area – which is the
case of 299 lots zoned RMF-30 with single-family homes – the lot could then have two more units if
the existing structure is preserved. This incentive aligns directly with the City’s Housing Plan to “lot
subdivision where there is ample space to build an additional home on a property or alternatively
expand rental opportunities in existing structures” (p. 19). Finally, the proposed lot width
maximum was born directly out of the need to limit land banking and subsequent demolition. Based
on average lot width, this maximum would typically prevent more than three lots from being
consolidated into one, and subsequently three existing units from being demolished.
Affordable Housing Development. Questions were often asked regarding how these text
amendments work to promote affordable housing development throughout the engagement process.
These amendments do not directly facilitate affordable units per the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) standards3. However, by reducing required lot size per unit, units
3 Housing Affordability - Is the level of homeowner or rental housing prices relative to the level of household income. Housing
is considered affordable, when a household is paying no more than 30% of their total gross income towards housing expenses;
rent or mortgage and utilities. The 30% of income standard is a widely used and accepted measure of the extent of housing
affordability problems across the country. This standard applies to households of any income level.
Affordable Housing - Is government-subsidized housing for low-income households. A residential unit is generally considered
affordable if the household pays 30% or less of their total gross income towards rent, for eligible households with low, very-low and
extremely-low incomes, including low-wage working families, seniors on fixed incomes, veterans, people with disabilities
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 38
themselves might also be smaller and, in turn, more affordable. The three housing types that are
being promoted with this amendment including cottage developments, row houses and tiny
houses also tend to have smaller footprints. More than anything, these amendments are aimed
at facilitating new multi-family housing in general. A greater supply of market rate housing may
free up the number of affordable or mid-priced units for those who truly qualify for them. As the
City’s Housing Plan acknowledges, introducing flexible zoning regulations is merely a piece of
the affordable housing puzzle and the Division of Housing and Neighborhood Development has
many other programs in place that work to not only promote, but preserve affordable housing.
Preservation of Allen Park. Multiple concerns have been raised regarding the preservation
of Allen Park, which is a large 5-acre parcel located across from Westminster College at
approximately 1700 South and 1300 East and zoned RMF-30. While open space is certainly
important to preserve, the park is private property that could currently be redeveloped with
housing without the proposed text amendments. Per current standards, 72 multi-family units
could be constructed on the 5-acre lot based on lot area requirements alone. Per proposed
standards, 87 multi-family units could be constructed; though, if row house or cottage units
were to be development this allowance would increase to 145 units at 1,500 square feet per unit.
However, a large stream runs through the property that is protected by riparian corridor
regulations, which do not permit principal structures within 50 feet on either side of the
stream’s waterline. Though more units could be built under the proposed text amendments, any
future development would still be greatly limited due to these riparian regulations.
Parking Requirements. Concerns from community members regarding parking
requirements go both ways – current requirements are either too much or not enough. The East
Central Community Council in particular, where many RMF-30 parcels are located, voiced
multiple concerns regarding the lack of street parking in their neighborhoods. Because of this,
they do not believe new developments should receive parking reductions for completing
transportation demand management strategies. Others, including the Historic Landmark
Commission, expressed that if parking requirements are not reduced for multi-family housing,
missing-middle-type housing might not be feasible as there’s simply not enough space on a lot
to accommodate multiple parking stalls and multiple housing units.
Parking will not be updated as a part of this zoning text amendment; however, the parking
chapter is being updated at this time per a different text amendment. Staff will work together
closely to see how parking can be best accommodate within the city’s RMF districts.
NEXT STEPS:
Because staff does want to obtain feedback from both the Planning Commission and the public
at this time, but also acknowledges that additional fine-tuning must be done to the proposed
text amendments, it is recommended that the Planning Commission keep table petition
PLNPCM2019-00313 regarding updates to the RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential
Zoning District and make a positive or negative recommendation to City Council at a later date
once the proposed text amendments have been finalized.
and those experiencing homeless. There are different kinds of affordable units, including public housing,
voucher-subsidized units, or income restricted units.
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 39
ATTACHMENT C: INFORMATIONAL MAPS/PHOTOS
1.RMF-30 Zoning Districts
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 40
2. All Multi-Family Residential (RMF) Zoning Districts
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 41
3. RMF-30 Zones in Local Historic Districts
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 42
4. Eligibility Maps (Updated 9/25/2019)
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 43
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 44
Existing Building Types Zoned RMF
1. Single-Family
637 E. 900 South
845 S. Green St.
2. Two-Family
858 S. Roberta St.
3. Multi-Family (proposed to be limited to 8 units)
682 E. 700 South 836 S. 500 East
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 45
4. Row House
661 S. 500 East
5. Sideways Row House
661 S. Green St.
6. Cottage Development
825 S. 800 East
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 46
ATTACHMENT D: ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS
As per 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.
Factor Finding Rationale
1. Whether a proposed Complies As outlined above in the ‘Key
text amendment is Considerations’ section of the June
consistent with the 26th Planning Commission staff
purposes, goals,report, the proposed text
objectives, and amendments support multiple
policies of the city as principles and initiatives of Plan
stated through its Salt Lake (2015).
various adopted
planning documents;In addition, these amendments
were born from the immediate
need to implement the recently-
adopted Growing SLC housing
plan.
Staff finds that the proposed text
amendments are consistent with
City purposes, goals, and policies.
2. Whether a Complies The proposed text amendments
proposed text advance the purpose and intent
amendment furthers of the Zoning Ordinance,
the specific purpose specifically the following:
statements of the
zoning ordinance;..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…
This title is, in addition,
intended to:
C. Provide adequate light and
air;
D. Classify land uses and
distribute land development and
utilization;
G. Foster the city’s industrial,
business and residential
development.
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 47
The proposed amendments
further the purpose and intent of
the Zoning Ordinance by
allowing/fostering well-designed
multi-family residential building
forms on adequately sized lots in
the city.
3. Whether a proposed text Complies The proposed zoning standards
amendment is consistent are in line with development
with the purposes and principals within the local historic
provisions of any applicable overlay, especially in terms of
overlay zoning districts compatible development.
which may impose Mechanisms are also being
additional standards;proposed to limit demolition of
existing structures outside of the
local historic overlays.
4. The extent to which a Complies The proposed text amendments
proposed text amendment directly support the Growing SLC
implements best current,housing plan, which is a forward-
thinking document when it comes toprofessional practices of addressing affordable housing for allurban planning and design.residents, now and into the future as
the City continues to grow.
The amendments propose to use
elements of a form based code, which
has proven success in fostering well-
designed, pedestrian-friendly
communities across the nation.
Additionally, the American Planning
Association (APA) recently published
a Housing Policy Guide on June 4,
2019. The APA advocates for public
policies that create just, healthy, and
prosperous communities that expand
opportunity for all through good
planning and their advocacy is based
on adopted positions and principles
contained in policy guides. Position 1
within the Housing Policy Guide
aligns directly with the proposed text
amendments as follows:
POSITION 1 – Modernize state and local laws to ensure housing opportunities
are available, accessible, and affordable to all.
Position 1B – The American Planning Association and its Chapters and Divisions support the
modernization of local zoning bylaws and ordinances to increase housing production, while
taking local context and conditions into account. While challenging to confront and, ultimately,
amend or dismantle exclusionary zoning, rules, and practices, planners must take the lead in
modernizing zoning. Local jurisdictions should adopt bylaws or ordinances, policies,
and incentives that facilitate a range of housing types and densities and that serve a
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 48
diversity of housing needs. Local jurisdictions should review and modernize bylaws
and ordinances and planners need resources to make updates happen and to ensure
adequate public engagement occurs. Updates to bylaws and ordinances should
address mixed use and multifamily development, including affordability.
Updates should also include rezoning for higher densities where there may be
existing lower densities. Local jurisdictions should consider reducing or
eliminating minimum lot size requirements, reducing minimum dwelling unit
requirements, allowing greater height and density and reducing or eliminating
off-street minimum parking requirements, and they should specifically identify and
eliminate or minimize regulatory obstacles to the establishment of accessory dwelling units,
whether attached to or detached from the principal dwelling unit. Local jurisdictions should
also allow for and encourage adaptive reuse and use conversions to encourage housing
production. Local jurisdictions should also research and analyze, and as part of any zoning
amendment, preempt all restrictive covenants and barriers to fair housing and access to
housing choice, including barriers to on-street, overnight parking.
Location should be addressed without compromising equity or resiliency. Local
jurisdictions should consider incorporating into bylaws and ordinances transit-
oriented development principles and principles that address the importance of
housing location in relation to access and proximity to schools, jobs, parks,
transportation, and other critical amenities and resources. States should consider
moving to a Housing + Transportation Index when determining affordability.
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 49
ATTACHMENT E: CENTRAL CITY AND
PRESERVATION MASTER PLAN RESPONSES
RMF-30 Central Community Master Plan Response
Future Land Use
Low Density Residential (1-15 dwelling units/acre)
Low Medium Density Residential (10-20 dwelling units/acre)
Medium Density Residential (15-30 dwelling units/acre)
*The proposed RMF-30 zoning amendment does lower the square footage requirement for dwelling
units to 2,000 square feet. This averages to 21 dwelling units per acre. This average falls between the
Low Medium Density Residential and Medium Density Residential, as defined within the Central
Community Master Plan. The Central Community Master Plan anticipates a variety of density and zoning
solutions that account for both Low Medium and Medium Density Residential future land uses.
Livable communities and neighborhoods
A variety of residential land use supports all types of housing and the affordability of the housing
stock.
o While this master plan notes that it supports all types of housing and the affordability of
the housing stock, it has primarily created and preserved single-family residential
housing. The proposed RMF-30 amendments create more flexibility to develop and add
additional dwelling units to existing structures, sites and for new development. The
proposed amendments support and promote a variety of residential land use types and
will ideally create and preserve the affordability of existing and new units.
Preservation of the housing stock is an integral part of maintaining neighborhood character.
o The amendment has built in a bonus unit for the preservation of existing residential
structures. As some of the existing housing stock is replaced with new development,
the amendments have included design standards to ensure quality construction and
neighborhood compatibility.
The appropriate transition of multi-family housing with mixed land uses in designated
areas supports sustainable development within the community.
*The RMF-30 amendments include incentives for preservation of existing structures. This incentive is
provided to encourage flexibility for the ability to add units, while still maintaining an existing principal
structure. Ideally, this incentive would preserve structures, as well as affordable and market rate units.
Compatible development is land uses and structures that are designed and located in a manner
consistent with the development patterns, building masses and character of the area in which they
are located.
*The RMF-30 amendments include design standards for developed building forms that are common and
anticipated for the neighborhoods that contain RMF-30 zoning. The height and number of units are
limited to reduce the impact of any new development. The limitation of the number of units per multi-
family structure will diminish the size of any multi-family development. Additionally, limiting the
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 50
maximum number of dwelling units within one structure ensures compatible development
and consistency within neighborhoods.
Residents, property owners and business owners provided information to create the following definition
for Central Community neighborhoods:
A diversified livable neighborhood in the Central Community is one where; education and
recreational resources are within walking distances, shopping and employment is close and
accessible, pedestrian mobility is safe and a priority, the historic neighborhood fabric is
respected and neighborhoods have integrity and identifiable characteristics.
*The amendments promote the Central Community neighborhood definition by providing additional
opportunities for growth, density and compatible development. The amendments provide for flexibility
on lots with existing principal structures, as well as new development. The inclusion of design
standards provides enough creativity for contemporary development, while ensuring compatible
development within the well-established historic area of Salt Lake City. The addition of new units and
development, will create more opportunities for a greater number of individuals.
Central City neighborhood planning area
Residential
Encourage the expansion of the housing stock in ways that are compatible with the historic
character of the neighborhood.
o The integration of design standards, unit bonus and limitation of number of units
promotes this goal.
Discourage demolition or loss of housing and the deterioration in the condition of housing units.
o The preservation incentive incorporated within these amendments, provide for
additional units when the principal structure is preserved. This creates the ability to
incentivize the preservation of housing stock and historic structures.
Provide more three and four bedroom housing units and public recreational
amenities, especially for children.
o This is not part of the RMF-30 amendments.
Ensure that land-use policies reflect a respect for the eclectic architectural character so that this
area does not remain as just an interim zone between Downtown and more desirable
neighborhoods to the east and north.
o The RMF-30 amendments include design standards that reflect the key features of the
eclectic architectural character of the RMF-30 zoning district. Additionally, the design
standards are not prescriptive. The standards provide a framework for architects,
homeowners and developers to integrate features commonly found within the
neighborhood and to incorporate contemporary aspects that reflect their creativity
and design goals. This zoning district will function as an interim between single-family
residential zoning and the higher density zoning. It contains relatively low scale
development opportunity.
Ensure that historic preservation is the priority in this area.
o A majority of this neighborhood planning area is located within the Central City Local
Historic District. This ensures preservation of the contributing structures within the local
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 51
historic district. Additionally, all additions, new development or alterations are subject
to historic overlay requirements found in 21A.34. The remaining area is generally
located within the National Historic District. The creation and addition of the bonus
unit incentive was to offer an additional unit when preserving an existing residential
structure.
Place special emphasis on buffers, transition zones or insulation to minimize negative
impacts from incompatible uses.
o The proposed variety of uses and building forms are compatible and anticipated for
the subject area. The provided setbacks do not vary from the anticipated separation.
East Central North neighborhood planning area
Residential
Reduce excessive density potential, stabilize the neighborhood, and conserve the
neighborhood’s residential character.
o The density is in line with the anticipated number of dwelling units per acre. The
amendments do conserve the neighborhood’s residential character by promoting lower
scale and limitation on density per building form.
Ensure new multi-family development is carefully sited, well designed, and compatible in scale.
o The amendments include design standards that incorporate compatibility of materials,
glazing, entry features and siting.
Provide more affordable housing (owner occupied and rental).
o This is an aspect that is generally left to Housing and Neighborhood Development;
however, with the proposed amendments, planning has decreased the square footage
required for development. The decreased square footage, in theory, should decrease
the cost of the units for rent or purchase. Additionally, with the creation of an
administrative review for units without street frontage and unit bonuses, the land cost
should decrease and the number of units should increase.
The Central Community Master Plan encourages diversity of use, preservation of historic neighborhoods
and buildings, and design excellence to maintain and enhance the quality of living in the Central
Community. Urban design and historic preservation neighborhood character and historical integrity,
especially when dealing with residential land uses in historic districts.
The Central Community Master Plan supports neighborhood and community residential development
as an extension of the Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan (2000). The Community Housing Plan
provides information, policies, and implementation for the following areas:
Housing stock, preservation, rehabilitation and
replacement Housing design
Affordable and transitional housing
The revised housing plan has been adopted and is being implemented. Part of the Five Year Housing
Plan, the Planning Division has been tasked with eliminating zoning barriers to housing
development. The proposed amendments reflect the goals established in the Five Year Housing
Plan.
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 52
The policies also provide an opportunity to mix land uses, thus giving Central Community residents
a broader choice of residential living.
Low-Density Residential: There are two low-density residential land use designations, low-density and
low/medium density.
Low-density residential (1-15 dwelling units/acre)
This land use designation allows moderate sized lots (i.e., 3,000-10,000 square feet) where single-family
detached homes are the dominant land use. Low-density includes single-family attached, and detached
dwellings as permissible on a single residential lot subject to zoning.
Low/Medium-Density Residential (10-20 dwelling units/acre)
This land use designation allows zero lot line subdivision development, single-family detached
residences on small lots (i.e., 2,500-5000 square feet per individual lots), and townhouses.
Low/medium-density residential areas are mainly low-density neighborhoods containing a broad mix
of dwelling units ranging from single family detached to single family attached dwelling units (three or
more units per structure).
Residential land use goals
Encourage the creation and maintenance of a variety of housing opportunities that meet social
needs and income levels of a diverse population.
o The proposed amendments encourage the variety of housing types. With the reduction
of lot area requirements and the introduction of multiple structures on one lot and the
bonus unit allowance, some units should become attainable to a variety of income
levels.
Ensure preservation of low-density residential neighborhoods.
o No amendments are proposed for the R-1 or R-2 districts, as part of this project.
Ensure that new development is compatible with existing neighborhoods in terms of scale,
character, and density.
o The amendments include small scale, no taller than 30 feet, with limited number of
units. This ensures that any new development will be compatible with the existing
neighborhoods.
Discourage any compromise to the livability, charm, and safety of the neighborhoods or to
the sense of a healthy community.
Policy RLU 1.0 Based on the Future Land Use map, use residential zoning to establish and maintain
a variety of housing opportunities that meet social needs and income levels of a diverse population.
RLU-1.1 Preserve low-density residential areas and keep them from being replaced by higher
density residential and commercial uses.
o The RMF-30 amendments are not considered high density and will primarily effect the
parcels already zoned RMF-30.
RLU-1.2 Provide opportunities for medium-density housing in areas between the Central
Business District and lower-density neighborhoods and in areas where small multi-family
dwellings are compatible.
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 53
RLU-1.4 Preserve the character of the inner-block courts.
RLU-1.6 Encourage coordination between the Future Land Use map, zoning ordinances, and the
Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan.
o The proposed amendments relied heavily on the Five Year Housing Plan goals and
policies.
RLU-1.7 Ensure that future amendments to the zoning map or text of the zoning ordinance do
not result in a significant amount of nonconforming land uses.
Policy RLU-3.0 Promote construction of a variety of housing options that are compatible with the
character of the neighborhoods of the Central Community.
RLU-3.1 Encourage residential land developers to build housing that provides residential
opportunities for a range of income levels, age groups, and family size.
RLU-3.2 Encourage a mix of affordable and market-rate housing for owner occupancy
throughout the Central Community. Encourage a mix of rental properties for those who cannot
afford or do not choose home ownership.
o The decrease of the square footage requirement per dwelling unit should decrease the
cost of units. While this does not guarantee the creation of affordable housing units, it
should aid in the number of units added to the market. In theory, adding more
housing stock should help to stabilize the cost and ensure that there are units
available to a variety of income levels.
Community Preservation Plan
Regulations and Incentives
ADOPT A WIDER RANGE OF PRESERVAITON TOOLS
The City’s historic preservation regulations consist primarily of the historic overlay zoning regulations
and the residential district design guidelines, which apply only to locally designated Landmark Sites and
locally designated historic districts. While these are working generally well, there is a need for a broader
range of tools to complement the existing regulations and guidelines. This plan proposed that the City
expand the tools available for preserving history and character in the City. Specific tools suggested are
stricter demolition regulations, more types of guidelines and more incentives in the form of regulatory,
financial and procedural. In addition, the plan identifies the need for additional types of regulatory tools
to preserve and stabilize neighborhood character.
The RMF-30 integrates a broader range of tools to encourage and incentivize preservation of existing
structures within National Historic Districts, as well as Local Historic Districts. The density bonus
does not guarantee the preservation of all residential structures within the National Historic District;
however, it does provide an incentive to preserve an existing residential structure. This creates
preservation tool integrated into the base zoning district.
LISTING IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Listing in the National Register is honorific. Designation in the National Register does not impose any
regulations or restrictions on the owner regarding the maintenance of their property, but does qualify
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 54
the owner to take advantage of federal and state tax incentives as well as Utah Heritage Foundation’s
Revolving Loan Fund, if qualified. See Appendix A for the list of National Register Districts and Sites in
Salt Lake City as of November 2011. With the available tax credits, the National Register program
provides a great opportunity to incentivize property owners to reinvest in their historic homes which
results in increased housing rehabilitation of various eligible neighborhoods and structures throughout
Salt Lake City.
Salt Lake City does not have the authority to review changes, demolitions or modifications within
National Historic Districts to the same degree as those within Local Historic Districts. The language
proposed for the RMF-30 zoning district creates an incentive to preserve structures by adding a density
bonus. The density bonus can be added in a variety of methods, all of which are clarified within the
proposed language, and will ensure that any existing eligible structure will remain as such.
Density Bonuses
This plan discusses TDR
Action 1. Amend the zoning regulations to allow density bonuses, in the form of an additional unit, for
structures in the local historic district or a Landmark Site which are zoned multi-family on lots that
would not otherwise allow additional units due to size.
The RMF-30 integrates a broader range of tools to encourage and incentivize preservation of existing
structures within National Historic Districts, as well as Local Historic Districts. The density bonus
does not guarantee the preservation of all residential structures within the National Historic District;
however, it does provide an incentive to preserve an existing residential structure. This creates
preservation tool integrated into the base zoning district.
Policy 6.1a: Historic Preservation is a primary tool to implement the sustainable goals of Salt Lake City.
Staff is encouraging sustainability through incentivizing the preservation of existing principal structures.
Policy 6.5a: Ensure zoning supports the retention and reuse of existing historic apartment and non-
residential buildings.
The RMF-30 integrates a broader range of tools to encourage and incentivize preservation of existing
structures within National Historic Districts, as well as Local Historic Districts. The density bonus
does not guarantee the preservation of all residential structures within the National Historic District;
however, it does provide an incentive to preserve an existing residential structure. This creates
preservation tool integrated into the base zoning district.
Action 1: Ensure Compatible Zoning
Analyze the underlying zoning of existing designated historic structures and those in designated historic
districts, both local and national, to ensure the zoning supports the preservation of the site.
Currently, the existing RMF-30 zoning district primarily creates single-family development. Staff has been
directed to eliminate zoning barriers within the RMF zoning districts to promote additional housing stock.
The main zoning barrier that staff identified was the minimum lot requirements for development. This
amendment reduces the lot width and lot area required for single-family, single-family attached, duplex and
multi-family development. In addition to reducing lot requirements, Staff has created a
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 55
bonus unit for properties that retain existing structures. The goal of reducing the lot requirements
and incentivizing preservation was to strike a balance between creating additional housing stock and
preserving neighborhood character.
Action 2: Create zoning incentives, including the possible increase in density, for historic structures,
especially in higher intensive zoning districts and/or along arterial roads and transit corridors near
transit stations that would encourage preservation and maintenance of historic structures while
preventing or discouraging their demolition.
The RMF-30 integrates a broader range of tools to encourage and incentivize preservation of existing
structures within National Historic Districts, as well as Local Historic Districts. The density bonus
does not guarantee the preservation of all residential structures within the National Historic District;
however, it does provide an incentive to preserve an existing residential structure. This creates
preservation tool integrated into the base zoning district.
Policy 6.5e: allow the development of additional dwelling units as an incentive for preservation of
historic structures.
The RMF-30 integrates a broader range of tools to encourage and incentivize preservation of existing
structures within National Historic Districts, as well as Local Historic Districts. The density bonus
does not guarantee the preservation of all residential structures within the National Historic District;
however, it does provide an incentive to preserve an existing residential structure. This creates
preservation tool integrated into the base zoning district.
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 56
ATTACHMENT F: PUBLIC PROCESS AND COMMENTS
Notice to Community/Neighborhood Councils:
Recognized community-based organizations that contain land zoned RMF-30 were notified of
the proposed text amendments via email on February 13, 2019. Upon their request, the changes
were presented at the Sugar House Land Use Committee’s March 18th meeting, the East Central
Community Council’s March 21st meeting and the Central City Community Council’s April 3rd
meeting. No other councils requested a presentation. Formal comments received from the
council chairs have been attached.
Open House:
All recognized community-based organizations were also notified of the proposed text
amendments via Open House notices sent on February 14th, 2019. Because these zoning text
amendments impact the different areas of the city and not one specific Community or
Neighborhood Council, an Open House was held on February 26th, 2019 at the Salt Lake City’s
downtown public library. All written comments received have been attached.
Focus Group: A focus group with local professionals who have worked in RMF-30 areas previously
was held on April 2, 2019. Many felt that the proposed design standards would drive up the cost of
units as things like durable building materials and glass drive up the cost of construction. In general,
the more requirements and processes the higher the cost of their units – costs get transferred to the
buyer or renter. They also suggested clarifying some of the design standards. At times they can be
vague and it’s unclear if a certain design or material would qualify.
In terms of the proposed unit bonus, some were enthusiastic about working with existing
structures while others only work with new construction. The restoration of existing units can
also be expensive and drive up costs. It is, however, more profitable to build/restore smaller
units. Most were on board with all of the new proposed building forms, especially tiny homes.
Parking and fire regulations are two things that could stop this kind of infill development. They
suggested reduced parking requirements for preserving a unit and reduced parking in general.
Planning Commission Notice of the public hearing for the proposal included:
Agenda posted on the Planning Division and Utah Public Meeting Notice websites on
June 14th, 2019.
Newspaper notice ran on June 15th, 2019.
Public Input:
Throughout the engagement process, there has been general public input both in favor and
against the proposed text amendments. Community concerns that were heard the most have
been described under the Key Considerations section of this report. Formal comments
submitted by community members have been included as a part of this attachment below.
Commission Briefings:
The following points and recommendations were made during briefings with the Planning
Commission and Historic Landmark Commission where they were asked for their direct
feedback on the proposed changes.
PC Briefing – December 12, 2018
Second-floor balconies may not an appropriate design requirement in low density
residential zoning districts like RMF-30
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 57
Requiring certain building forms and design standards may counteract the a goal of
facilitating affordable housing – may be too restrictive
The 20% glass requirements on front facades may be too
high Cottage units may be limited further in size
General interest in allowing tiny house building forms on smaller size lots
Should somehow mitigate the impact of long interior walls of side oriented row houses –
interior walls are also very visible from the public way
Not confident in allowing side oriented row houses per more design guidelines and
administrative review alone because design is objective and these forms may need a
closer level Commission review
Re-review minimum lot width requirements
Re-review standards for creating lots without public streets frontage
Access easements for lots without public street frontage should be recorded on the
plat Suggested looking into decreasing lot area requirements for multi-family uses
Suggested having different standards for lots abutting single-family zoning
districts rezone certain areas to be more or less dense
Over time, Central City might all be up-zoned
Other zoning standards could be relaxed when buildings are preserved – amount of
vegetation in the park strip could be relaxed
HLC Briefing – May 2, 2019
Two parking spaces per unit is too high for cottage developments
Parking can drive an entire development – on the cusp of radical change in terms of
living preferences and parking
May utilize a shared parking arrangement in between buildings on a site
EIFS isn’t always a bad material – can be getting into the minutia by regulating
EIFS Stucco, Hardie plank, Hardie lap and any cementitious siding can work well
Existing building envelopes, especially in terms of scale and form, should be
maintained Side oriented row houses can have a negative impact on adjacent neighbors
New driveways too close to property lines can have negative impact on historic homes
Side oriented row houses should have smaller side yard setbacks than 10’ and 10’
Generally in favor of tiny house forms
Unit bonus shouldn’t create an explosion of housing as some might think
Planning Commission Public Hearing – June 26,
2019 Commissioners’ Comments
Introduction of tiny homes may break up the existing building typology in RMF districts
Longer building walls of sideways row houses should be broken up to reduce the impact
on neighbors, but requiring the delineation of each unit is too prescriptive
RMF-30 should be somewhat of a transitional zoning district from single-family
neighborhoods to more urban areas
Inquired about the effects of supply and demand on affordable housing
Asked if proposed lot area requirements are bold enough to significantly increase housing stock
Discussed whether certain RMF-30 areas should be downzoned to project historic properties
Discussed if existing housing is being demolished and replaced with fewer, more expensive
units – what is currently happing in the city?
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 58
Public Comments
Allowing sideways row houses and cottages by right is cutting out community
involvement More should be done to require affordable multi-family units
There should be a penalty for demolishing housing without replacement (housing mitigation) The
RMF-30 lot area and lot width requirements in place are more effective at protecting
historic buildings than the historic overlay
Financial factors are not being taken into consideration with proposed text
amendments It may not be feasible to build behind a unit due to high construction costs
The proposed design standards won’t work to achieve better design
The city does not know what it has in vacant properties
The city has not addressed losing unsubsidized affordable
units Central City Master Plan has not been addressed
The downzone of properties across the city in 1995 has inadvertently protected historic
and affordable units
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 59
Ian Kaplan via email – 2/14/2019
I had time over the break to review the proposed changes to the RMF zone and have some
feedback for you from the architecture/development side. I will be present at the public
hearings to voice these matters, but thought it could be of potential use as the document
changes prior to public comment.
1. Parking Reductions for Bonus Units/Row-houses. There is no mention of this - but in
order to actually accomplish the density you're looking for in the tight lots there needs to
be a 1 Stall/Unit regardless of bed count. Many historic examples of cottage style
development don't have parking at all and it's the only way they work on tight lots. The
proximity to transit helps, but anything outside of transit will be undevelopable.
2. Parking Reductions for preserving existing structures. It's often very difficult to provide
additional parking for increased density if preserving the existing structure is a
priority. This is where most infill projects hit a road block. Especially if they do not
have an Alleyway for access.
3. Tandem Parking Regulations. For lots with access to an alley (and without) - tandem
parking can be a great way to increase density and provide additional parking for 2+
bedroom units. It gives the designer a lot more flexibility in site layout.
4. Side Yard Setbacks for Rowhouses. More than half of the RMF-30 lots are between 31-
50' wide. With a required side yard setback of 10' for rowhouses, that leave's 30' width
for a building. However, take into account a 24' backup for a car coming out of a
garage and add that to the 10' setback, and now you only have room for a 16' deep
garage stall. That makes more than half of these lots un-developable for the rowhouse.
I would suggest a wedding cake setback above 1st story leaving 3' req'd setbacks on the
ground floor and 5-8' above that. It would provide opportunity for more diversified
building designs instead of a second story cantilever over the garage.
5. Rear yard Setbacks for Cottage Style. The historic cottage style developments typically
had two units at the back of the property with front doors turned and oriented to the
street. With a 20' setback, you are essentially losing the potential for 2 units in the rear
of the property. I believe it would be easier to achieve the desired density of these lots if
the rear yard setback was reduced to 10' for cottage style developments.
6. Building Coverage. 50% is very limiting, and will create major difficulty in achieving the
desired density on a majority of these lots. Can you eliminate private garages counting
towards lot coverage? Is there a way to offset the max. building coverage by subtracting
private balconies, or rooftop patio's from the lot coverage? Or can there be an exception
for lots that maintain the existing structure in place?
7. Administrative review of existing non-conforming structures when adding density. Not
sure how this is covered... but it is a concern of mine when trying to maintain existing
structures on a property that may be non-conforming to new setback regulations.
8. Minimum Lot widths - Could there be an exception to the 50' req'd min. lot width for
existing parcels? Per Planning Commission review or something... This is becoming a
huge barrier to me for infill development. I currently have two projects that are exactly
49.5' wide and it is bringing both of them to a grinding halt.
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 60
Lynn K. Pershing via email – 2/27/2019
I wasn’t able to attend the open house on RMF-30 zoning changes last night. I want to express
my deep concern about the RMF-30 zoning change in historic neighborhoods, which
include Local historic districts in our City.
I do NOT support the proposed zoning changes in historic neighborhoods, both LHD, CCD and
those listed on the National Register Of Historic Places.
Obtaining Approval of an LHD is a tortuous, extended process. The main purpose of
obtaining an LHD is the City’s promise to minimize demolitions of contributing structures
and in those areas.
Now The City wants to approve SFD demolitions in historic districts? This will be viewed as City
hypocrisy. Trust in government will be further eroded and will be deserved. LHD and Character
Conservation Districts zoning are in grave danger. They should be considered sacrosanct.
My recent review of demolitions of SFD housing in our City in 2018 shows that the vast majority
of demolitions have occurred in 84102 (Bryant (6) and Bennion-Douglas)8)) and 84108 portion
Yalecrest (8), both neighborhoods listed on the National Register Of Historic Places. I
acknowledge, much to my dismay, that these areas have NO City nor state protections against
demolitions-an oversight of great proportions that will end the existence of the very SOUL of
our City.
Allowing RMF-30-like zoning in historic areas has occurred before that you and others creating
this zoning change are likely probably too young to have witnessed. In the 1960-70s, historically
contributing, architectural significant SFD were demolished to create non compatible apt
buildings in the lower Avenues that destroyed the historic environs, neighborhood identity and
cohesion. Real estate prices in that area have not recovered to date. The current proposed
zoning changes requested will support HISTORY REPEATING ITSELF in our remaining historic
districts
I strongly urge you to reconsider this zoning change in historic neighborhoods. The claim of
“compatible structures” is not viable, as the City has NO definition of “compatibility” in any
ordinance (previous discussion with Planning, CAN, Mayor Office). Further, ONLY LHD and
CCD have design guidelines concerning “compatibility”.
I conclude, therefore, that the claims of ensuring “compatibility” misrepresents and offers false
intent of achieving or enforcing any “compatibility” in future developments.
Please. Stop the destruction of the SOUL of this City. Historic neighborhoods tell the stories and
celebrate the greatness of our City and State. Housing for a diverse City requires a diversity of
housing options. SFD in desirable historic areas offer choices to many families who wish to
locate into the urban environs in safe, desirable neighborhoods with good public schools.
Short term gains to fulfill “affordable housing” needs with long term permanent losses to the
City constitutes a grave irreversible loss to our very identity and viable family housing.
Kirk Huffaker (Executive Director, Preservation Utah) – March 30, 2019
While I provided some comments to you and other staff at the open house, I wanted to follow
that up with a brief message that particularly identifies Allen Park in Sugar House's
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 61
Westminster Heights neighborhood as a sensitive site that should be removed form
consideration of rezoning.
Allen Park is a site or unique are remarkable historic, architectural, and artistic significance
that is located along a designated riparian corridor. I believe the site was zoned RMF-30 prior
to the designation of the riparian corridor, and was not appropriately considered at that time
for rezoning that would allow the riparian protections to take precedence. I believe this is the
opportunity or the Planning Commission to correct this conflict.
Thank you for your consideration.
Esther Hunter via email (East Central City Chair) – April 2, 2019
Thank you for coming out to the meeting. This community is pretty versed in land use and in
between the varied comments I hope you saw the key points we were trying to make.
1. The ECC has zoning on many lots that is incorrect and should have been dealt with years
and years ago that has nothing to do with the changes you are making to the specific zones.
This is not your issue nor can we fix the past. However, this may cause significant damage to
some of this area. This has nothing to do with the changes you are making within the specific
zone and everything to do with the zone on various properties. This is not a new issue. We have
been saying this for years and attempted to make corrections caused by our long ago council
person since this could have all been addressed seamlessly years ago.
Since so many people are new to various commissions and staff we tend to repeat ourselves in
every letter we write and every statement we make. Speaking of, would you please let me
know the names of the two folks who came with you and their positions? I appreciated how
you took the feedback and basically said we will take this feedback back. This is the most
helpful response.
2. The ECC is not opposed to development. We welcome all types of infill and redevelopment but
do feel it needs to be thoughtfully placed so that we do not lose the very precious organically
grown community that has developed. It is a jewel in its charm, types of residential options
available that allow aging in place as well as proximity to so many beneficial features from senior
services, schools, transit to shopping to employment. It is rarity not only in this city/state but
across the county. This is why the bad zoning is so frustrating in that the zoning should be
protecting the right things and informing the development community where they should focus.
3. The point that Jen made related to affordable housing is a key one. While this is not your key
focus, we are hoping you can help carry the message. I know this is beyond the immediate
challenge you have been given and the effort the Planning Division will be doing based on the
recommendations from the housing plan for all the RMF zones. Most people are repeating the
words missing middle. In the ECC we are concerned about the missing middle but also very
concerned about workforce housing and affordable housing. In our area it is the workforce
housing and affordable housing that tends to be targeted by development. The replacements
we have seen shift to market rate housing displacing a great many in our community. It is heart
wrenching to look into the eyes of community members who have lived in our area for 25-30
years, now much more senior, dependent on the services and the transportation offered in our
area that have been literally been given 30 days or less to vacate and now can not find any
housing options in the area.
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 62
Many in the audience last night in their day jobs are expert professionals in their field. Taylor
that spoke up related to the ability to build in the new zone so that it can be either affordable or
workforce housing is not probable is such an expert. This is true certainly not for a family vs
simply a boarding house or small studio more likely for a student population. My suggestion on
this front is that maybe a small working group that could give feedback much like you are
assembling the development/architectural folks like Ian could provide some feedback that could
help.
4. It's all a delicate balance. Way beyond the scope of what you are working on is the viability of
the city financially which is a very complicated issue that includes dependence on building
permit fees. It would be well if that state as a whole would do better to allow support for the
extra wear and tear on everything from our infrastructure to services as our city doubles in size
everyday but barring that while the city survives day to day we need to make sure we don't erode
the wrong things, key areas of neighborhood being part of that concern.
Yda Smith via email – April 19, 2019
I am a resident in Sugar House and am hoping to be involved in the future of Allen Park it terms
of advocating for the preservation of the open space, the trees, some of the historic features of
the space and even the peacocks, if possible. I know that there are legal issues in terms of who
the current owner is but in the meantime there are several of us in the area who are getting
organized to see if we can start to move forward with possible options for preserving the beauty
of the place and not let it turn into a dreadful housing development with the loss of all the trees,
birds, peace and quiet, etc. For example, if the Aviary and/or Preservation Utah were involved
in creating a public space it would greatly enhance the quality of life in the area with walking
space among the trees and along the stream, space for bicycle riders, and information about the
history of the Allen family, and possible exotic birds to enjoy that extend the tradition of the
family. The land has a significant legacy with the history of Dr. Allen and the contributions he
made to this area including to the Aviary and the Zoo.
I can understand the desire to change zoning in the areas on the map for possible rezoning of
RMF-30 to create more affordable, smaller unit housing. I can see that Allen Park is marked as
one of these areas as well. I would like to state my opinion that Allen Park should not be a part
of this process and should be exempt from any changes that would increase the options for
building new homes at this time. If there are any meetings associated with this I would like to
know about them and attend.
Thank you for your time and I look forward to getting more involved in the future plans for this
city and to get my neighbors more involved as well.
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 63
ATTACHMENT G: CITY DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The following comments were received from other City divisions/departments with regard to
the proposed text amendments:
Housing and Neighborhood Development (HAND):
Housing Plan:
Thank you for citing the Housing Plan (you listed the plans dates as 2017-
2021, but is actually 2018-2022), “all residents of SLC, current and
prospective, regardless of race, age, economic status, or physical ability can
find a place to call home.” But I think it would be better to note the following
Goals and Objectives of the plan that align with this proposal:
Goal 1: Reform City practices to promote a responsive, affordable, high-opportunity
housing market.
o Objective 1. Review and modify land-use and zoning regulations to reflect the
affordability needs of a growing, pioneering city.
o Objective 2. Remove impediments in City processes to encourage housing
development.
o Objective 3. Lead in the construction of innovative housing solutions.
Additionally, you can cite the Council’s 20 Guiding Principles on Housing
Development, adopted in 2017. Below are three that align with this proposal:
6. Create a net increase in affordable housing units while: i. Avoiding displacement of
existing affordable housing to the extent possible, and ii. Retaining and expanding
the diversity of AMI and innovative housing types.
8. Create a spectrum of housing options for people of all backgrounds and incomes.
16. Identify tools to increase and diversify the total housing supply including
housing
types that the private market does not sufficiently provide such as family housing in
the downtown area, innovative housing types, missing middle housing and middle- to
low-income apartments.
In summaries and the proposal, I would highlight the standout items/take
aways (which are great):
Missing middle is not a new type of housing, in fact SLC used to do this very well if you
look at the Avenues and Sugarhouse.
Most of RMF-30 is well under density that the master plan calls for.
By updating these standards, the city hopes to remove some of the zoning barriers that
limit new housing developments, while encouraging compatible design and maintain
existing housing stock.
The city’s deeper lots tend to have a significant amount of underutilize land.
Requiring larger lot areas for these types of housing somewhat force developers to
building larger units that are less affordable.
May encourage more affordable units with smaller footprints.
Other thoughts:
Do you have any direct positive feedback or input from developers that you can cite?
When mentioning “affordable,” it’s helpful to clarify that “they would be more affordable
as homeowner or rental units due to a smaller interior square footage and lot size,
and/or shared common spaces and amenities, similar to Naturally Occurring Affordable
Housing.”
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 WWW.SLC.GOV
PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 TEL 801-535-7757 FAX 801-535-6174
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 64
Fire (Ted Itchon): Thanks for the information, I like to give some input on the above
caption. First is thank you for the height requirement. That requirement keeps the
customer from providing aerial apparatus roads for their developments. Looking at the
Cottage Developments and the Side Oriented Row Homes may be a little more tricky.
Because if there are more than 2 residences on a single parcel then there is a Fire Code
requirement that we have to apply which is called access.
Engineering: No comments.
Public Utilities:
Public Utilities has just a few concerns and recommendations for the text
amendment. Water and sewer service is required for each lot. Two buildings on the
same lot will be required to use a single water service and each building with street
frontage should have its own sewer lateral.
Water and sewer services must have 10 feet of horizontal separation. This
should be considered for the lot width reduction and lot size reduction.
Lots without street frontage will require an easement from the neighboring lot for
water and sewer services. This will also be a requirement for cottage developments.
This usually can be identified in the preliminary plat process but will be required in the
subdivision improvement plans or 1st building permit.
One of the other issues that we are seeing with ADUs, secondary building and buildings without
street frontage is the capability for the sewer to drain given the distance to the sewer main from
these buildings. Many will not be able to have basements. Some may need to be raised, and in
some cases, the adu or additional building cannot meet the requirements.
I don’t think we have any problem with any of the language, we want to make sure
that applicants consider the utility concerns and obstacles that may come up with
some of these changes.
The riparian and flood plain ordinances both apply [to Allen Park]. Riparian has
some flexibility if it is replacing an existing structure
Sustainability: No comments.
Transportation: No comments.
Zoning (Greg Mikolash 3/11/2019):
•The ‘proposed standard’ box should be colored orange to indicate a change from the
current ordinance regarding maximum building height. It appears the change for
building height is now being proposed to be measured from ‘established grade’ and not
‘finished grade’ and the height changes from ‘the average elevation at each building
face’ to ’30 feet’ (but measured to where?). We assume it means ‘30 feet measured as
the vertical distance between the top of the roof and the established grade at any given
point of lot coverage’. This should be spelled out clearly, since it is left undefined. This
proposal will also require changing the Illustration B in 21A.62.050.
There is a question of why are we returning to counting the number of building stories
for determination of maximum height when this was previously removed from the
ordinance due to difficulty in determining what is a basement and what is a story on a
sloping lot? Why are we proposing to go back to counting building stories over the
simple measurement of height?
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 65
The Zoning Reviewers are concerned about the addition of front yard setback averaging
(i.e., prevailing setback—the determination of an unknown, ambiguous dimension) into
the RMF zones. Front yard averaging offers no positive benefit to our neighborhoods
beyond what can be achieved by choosing a (known, non-ambiguous) fixed dimension.
Explaining the rationale behind setback averaging is difficult to explain to customers,
and it is even more difficult to obtain adequate information on the plans, showing the
averaging of setbacks. Ostensibly, requiring front yard averaging extends the timeframe
for issuing permits, where also, many new construction projects become contentious if
any entity believes these measurements are incorrect. What is the rationale of adding
front yard setback averaging to the multi-family zoning districts?
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 66
3B. PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 25, 2019
iii. AGENDA AND MINIUTES
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
In Room 326 of the City & County Building
September 25, 2019, at 5:30 p.m.
(The order of the items may change at the Commission’s discretion)
FIELD TRIP - The field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m.
DINNER - Dinner will be served to the Planning Commissioners and Staff at 5:00 p.m. in Room 126
of the City and County Building. During the dinner break, the Planning Commission may receive
training on city planning related topics, including the role and function of the Planning
Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 5:30 PM IN ROOM 326
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 11, 2019
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1.Hopkins Estate Planned Development - On August 8th, 2018, the Planning Commission approved the
Hopkins Estate Planned Development, a proposal to develop five (5) new lots and a private driveway at
1950 & 1960 South 1700 East. The applicant plans to sell each lot individually for the construction of
single-family homes. The design of the structures will ultimately be decided by future buyers, but the
Commission approved a site plan with building envelopes and a landscaping plan. Modifications
approved through the Planned Development process include the creation of four (4) lots without street
frontage, and reduced front and rear yard setbacks for the home to be constructed on lot 1. A condition
of approval was included that requires the applicant to return to the Commission for final review of the
home proposed for lot 1, which has frontage on 1700 East, before a building permit can be issued. The
applicant has provided Staff with a proposal for this structure and is now seeking the Planning
Commission’s final approval. The property is zoned R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential and is located
within Council District 7, represented by Amy Fowler. (Staff contact: Lauren Parisi (801) 535-7226 or
lauren.parisi@slcgov.com). Case number: PLNSUB2018-00033
2. Text Amendments to the RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District - The purpose of
this project is to review the existing zoning requirements in the City’s RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family
Residential Zoning District and make amendments to corresponding sections of Salt Lake City’s Zoning
Ordinance. The intent of the proposed amendments is to implement multiple master plan policies found
in Plan Salt Lake, various community master plans, the recently adopted Growing SLC; A Five-Year
Housing Plan (2018-2022) and remove zoning barriers to housing development. The RMF-30 zoning
district is located throughout the city. Proposed amendments include:
Introducing design standards for all new development;
Allowing the construction of new building types including sideways row houses, cottage
developments, and tiny houses;
Reducing minimum lot area requirements per unit;
Removing lot width minimum requirements and adding a lot width maximum;
Allowing more than one primary structure on a lot;
Granting a density bonus for the retention of an existing structure.
The proposed regulation changes will affect sections 21A.24.120 of the zoning ordinance. Related
provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. (Staff Contact: Lauren
Parisi at (801) 535-7226 or lauren.parisi@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2019-00313
WORK SESSION
1. HAND Consolidated Master Plan briefing - 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. The Planning Commission
will receive a briefing from the staff of the Housing and Neighborhood Development Division on the
2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. The Consolidated Plan is a federally mandated policy document that
establishes the framework for how Salt Lake City uses federal funding for vital services and programs
that support the City’s housing, infrastructure, and economic development needs. The federal programs
that provide funding to the City are administered by the US Department of Housing & Urban
Development include Community Development Block Grant, Emergency Solutions Grant, HOME
Investment Partnership Program, and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS. Over the plan
period, it is anticipated that approximately $25-30M of funding will be available to meet the critical needs
identified in this plan. The 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan impacts how master plans are
implemented and may impact land use decisions. The Planning Commission is required by Utah
Code to make a recommendation on a master plan prior to the plan being adopted by the City
Council. The plan allocates funding citywide. (Staff contact: Jennifer Schuman at (801) 535-7276 or
Jennifer.schuman@slcgov.com)
2.Off-Street Parking Chapter Ordinance Revision - The Planning Commission will receive a
briefing from staff on the update to the parking chapter of the zoning ordinance. The parking
chapter determines how much parking is required for each land use, where the parking can be
located, bicycle parking requirements, and other similar requirements. This will be the second of at
least two briefings and will focus on the proposed key changes to the ordinance. (Staff contact: Eric
Daems at 801-535-7236 or eric.daems@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2017-00753
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 Division’s website at www.slcgov.com /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. The City & County Building is an accessible facility. People with
disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other
auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact
the Planning Office at 801-535-7757, or relay service 711.
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
City & County Building
451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah
Wednesday, September 25, 2019
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to
order at 5:33:09 PM. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained for a period
of time.
Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Chairperson Adrienne Bell; Vice Chairperson
Brenda Scheer; Commissioners Maurine Bachman, Amy Barry, Weston Clark, Carolynn Hoskins, Jon
Lee, Darin Mano, and Andres Paredes. Commissioners Matt Lyon, and Sara Urquhart were excused.
Planning Staff members present at the meeting were John Anderson, Planning Manager; Paul Nielson,
Attorney; Lauren Parisi, Principal Planner; Eric Daems, Principal Planner; and Marlene Rankins,
Administrative Secretary.
Field Trip
The field trip was cancelled.
APPROVAL OF THE SEPTEMBER 11, 2019, MEETING MINUTES. 5:33:16 PM
MOTION 5:33:22 PM
Commissioner Bachman moved to approve the September 11, 2019 minutes. Commissioner
Clark seconded the motion. Commissioners Clark, Lee, Barry, and Hoskins voted “Aye”.
Commissioners Mano, Bachman and Paredes abstained from voting. The motion passed.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 5:34:07
PM Chairperson Bell stated she had nothing to report.
Vice Chairperson Scheer stated she had nothing to report.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 5:34:12 PM
John Anderson, Planning Manager, welcomed Commissioner Darin Mano to the Planning Commission.
5:35:02 PM
Hopkins Estate Planned Development - On August 8th, 2018, the Planning Commission approved
the Hopkins Estate Planned Development, a proposal to develop five (5) new lots and a private
driveway at 1950 & 1960 South 1700 East. The applicant plans to sell each lot individually for the
construction of single-family homes. The design of the structures will ultimately be decided by future
buyers, but the Commission approved a site plan with building envelopes and a landscaping plan.
Modifications approved through the Planned Development process include the creation of four (4) lots
without street frontage, and reduced front and rear yard setbacks for the home to be constructed on lot
1. A condition of approval was included that requires the applicant to return to the Commission for final
review of the home proposed for lot 1, which has frontage on 1700 East, before a building permit can
be issued. The applicant has provided Staff with a proposal for this structure and is now seeking the
Planning Commission’s final approval. The property is zoned R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential and
is located within Council District 7, represented by Amy Fowler. (Staff contact: Lauren Parisi (801) 535-
7226 or lauren.parisi@slcgov.com). Case number: PLNSUB2018-00033
Salt Lake City Planning Commission September 25, 2019 Page 1
Lauren Parisi, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the
case file). She stated Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the request.
The applicant elected not to provide further presentation.
PUBLIC HEARING 5:40:12 PM
Chairperson Bell opened the Public Hearing; seeing no one wished to speak; Chairperson Bell closed
the Public Hearing.
MOTION 5:40:53 PM
Commissioner Barry stated, based on the information contained in the memo dated September 25,
2019, the staff report dated August 8, 2018, the information presented, and the input received during
the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission approve the proposed design of the single-
family home to be built on lot 1 of the Hopkins Estate Subdivision. This approval is associated with
the larger Planned Development PLNSUB2018-00033, which was approved by the Planning
Commission on August 8, 2018. All conditions associated with that approval still apply.
Commissioner Clark seconded the motion. Commissioners Paredes, Bachman, Hoskins, Barry,
Lee, Scheer, Mano, and Clark voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously.
5:42:10 PM
Text Amendments to the RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District - The purpose of
this project is to review the existing zoning requirements in the City’s RMF-30 Low Density Multi -Family
Residential Zoning District and make amendments to corresponding sections of Salt Lake City’s Zoning
Ordinance. The intent of the proposed amendments is to implement multiple master plan policies found
in Plan Salt Lake, various community master plans, the recently adopted Growing SLC; A Five-Year
Housing Plan (2018-2022) and remove zoning barriers to housing development. The RMF-30 zoning
district is located throughout the city. Proposed amendments include:
Introducing design standards for all new development;
Allowing the construction of new building types including sideways row houses, cottage
developments, and tiny houses;
Reducing minimum lot area requirements per unit;
Removing lot width minimum requirements and adding a lot width maximum;
Allowing more than one primary structure on a lot;
Granting a density bonus for the retention of an existing structure.
The proposed regulation changes will affect sections 21A.24.120 of the zoning ordinance. Related
provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. (Staff Contact: Lauren
Parisi at (801) 535-7226 or lauren.parisi@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2019-00313
Lauren Parisi, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the
case file). She stated Staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward a favorable
recommendation to the City Council.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission September 25, 2019 Page 2
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
The Decision to remove delineation design standards for sideways row houses as the Planning
Commission had mentioned at the June public hearing that these standards might be too
prescriptive in terms of design
Concern that removing the delineation design standards as well as the Planning Commission’s
review of sideways row houses as a planned development could lead to poor design
Clarification that sideways row house building types where some of the lots do not have direct
public street frontage would no longer need planned development review per the proposed
changes
Proposed lot requirements for cottage developments and tiny houses
Hypothetically if a home can be demolished or preserved and a collection of tiny homes can be
added
Clarification regarding the height standards for cottage building types
Clarification on whether the Commission should be considering access to public utilities, police,
and fire
Whether tiny houses are allowed in other areas of the City
Concern that the tiny house building type may be out of scale with other types in the district
PUBLIC HEARING 6:16:28 PM
Chairperson Bell opened the Public Hearing;
Judy Short, Land Use Chair Sugar House Community Council- Stated, for most of the specific places
that Lauren named, there generally wasn’t a lot of objection. There’s places along 7th East and 9th East
that have big deep lots that seem to be underutilized, the houses don’t look in terrific condition and
perhaps some renovation in that area seems appropriate except for Allen Park.
Mark Bunce – Provided history information of the surrounding neighborhood and stated his opposition
of the proposal.
Cindy Cromer – Stated that planners do not have access to information, which drives decision about
the redevelopment of income properties including cost basis per unit, taxable gain, depreciation, and
the number of units allowed on a lot. Reviewed market value of purchased land and County
assessments of properties in the RMF-30 district
Nathan Florence – Spoke about experience where his neighborhood was rezoned from RMF-30 to R-2,
which promoted the renovation of existing homes. Suggested that this rezone in the Bennion
Neighborhood could be used as a case study.
Lynn Pershing – Provided a history of historic neighborhoods in the city and stated her opposition in the
proposal. Suggested promoting the rehabilitation of existing homes.
Monica Hilding – Stated there is a sideways row house development proposed to be constructed next
to her property and that she is opposed of the proposal. Is concerned that planners don’t understand
the investment that residents have made in their properties and that the proposal would encourage
deterioration of existing structures instead of rehabilitation.
Paul Svendsen – Explained that demolishing an existing structure in a local historic district is difficult to
achieve. Stated that he is in support of the proposal as it promotes the development of missing middle
housing. He also clarified that the removal of delineation design standards for sideways row houses
would not mean that the front unit wouldn’t face the street.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission September 25, 2019 Page 3
Janet Warburton – Stated she’s opposed of the proposal and read a letter from Historic Preservation
Utah representatives.
Tim Funk – Raised concern regarding housing affordability. Suggested that the proposal should not be
applied city wide and instead look at zoning regulations in smaller areas.
Jarod Hall – Stated his support of the proposal. The city is growing and should increase density. The
unit bonus is a good incentive to encourage preservation of existing houses.
Brandon Dayton – Stated his support of the amendment and feel amendments like this are crucial. He
also stated that the proposal would allow regular people to invest and make changes in their own
community.
Seeing no one else wished to speak; Chairperson Bell closed the Public Hearing.
The Commission and Staff further discussed the following:
Clarification as to how this amendment will affect Allen Park
Whether there is a particular reason that makes more sense to adjust an entire zone rather than
rezoning an area
The importance of having zoning districts that work for their intended use and that multi-family
zones should allow multi-family housing. Also, important to preserve character of
neighborhoods, but densify at the same time
Clarification on delineation design standards for sideways row houses
The difference between cottage developments and tiny house developments
Concern that tiny house building types are not consistent with existing street typology in the city
and that the proposed tiny house building type should be removed
MOTION 7:04:38 PM
Commissioner Barry stated, based on the findings and analysis in the staff report dated June
26th, 2019, the memo dated September 25th, 2019, and testimony provided, I move that the
Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation for PLNPCM2019-00313 to the City
Council to adopt the proposed zoning ordinance text amendments related to updates to the
RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential zoning district with the following provisions:
1. That the reference of tiny homes be removed until there is further clarification/ definition
of what that looks like and functions
2. That sideways developments do come before the Planning Commission for final approval.
Further discussion was made to clarify the motion.
RESTATED MOTION 7:14:36 PM with the following
conditions:
1. Provisions for tiny homes is removed from the text amendment until further study and to
clarify what that means; what it would look like, and how it would function
2. That Staff does further review of design standards for the sideways row house
developments to identify how the front relates to the street and pedestrian and how the
sides relate to the street view as a particular lot warrants.
Commissioner Scheer seconded the motion. Commissioners Clark, Mano, Scheer, Lee, Barry,
Hoskins, Bachman, and Paredes voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission September 25, 2019 Page 4
WORK SESSION
7:17:30 PM
HAND Consolidated Master Plan briefing - 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. The Planning Commission will
receive a briefing from the staff of the Housing and Neighborhood Development Division on the 2020-2024
Consolidated Plan. The Consolidated Plan is a federally mandated policy document that establishes the
framework for how Salt Lake City uses federal funding for vital services and programs that support the City’s
housing, infrastructure, and economic development needs. The federal programs that provide funding to the
City are administered by the US Department of Housing & Urban Development include Community
Development Block Grant, Emergency Solutions Grant, HOME Investment Partnership Program, and
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS. Over the plan period, it is anticipated that approximately $25-
30M of funding will be available to meet the critical needs identified in this plan. The 2020-2024
Consolidated Plan impacts how master plans are implemented and may impact land use decisions. The
Planning Commission is required by Utah Code to make a recommendation on a master plan prior to the
plan being adopted by the City Council. The plan allocates funding citywide. (Staff contact: Jennifer
Schuman at (801) 535-7276 or Jennifer.schuman@slcgov.com)
Jennifer Schuman, Housing and Neighborhood Development Deputy Director; Susan Becker, Zions
Public Financing; Muriel Xochimitl, Strategic Communications, briefed the Planning Commission
regarding the Consolidated Master Plan and provided a brief presentation.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
Whether there has been a community assessment done
How HAND did on the last five-year plan and whether they met their goals
Clarification on where housing mitigation fund goes
How notices will be provided to the public
7:39:59 PM
Off-Street Parking Chapter Ordinance Revision - The Planning Commission received a briefing from
staff on the update to the parking chapter of the zoning ordinance. The parking chapter determines how
much parking is required for each land use, where the parking can be located, bicycle parking
requirements, and other similar requirements. This was the second of at least two briefings and focused
on a few outstanding questions of the ordinance, regarding parking requirements for cottage style
developments, multi -family projects, and how a reduction of parking near bus transit stops might be
administered. (Staff contact: Eric Daems at 801-535-7236 or eric.daems@slcgov.com) Case number
PLNPCM2017-00753
Eric Daems, Principal Planner; and Casey Stewart, Senior Planner, provided the Planning Commission
with information regarding the proposed off-street parking chapter ordinance revision.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
Minimum parking for single family cottage style developments
Minimum parking for multi-family developments
If and how to implement a reduction of parking stalls requirements when projects are near bus
stops that are serviced frequently (15 min daytime intervals)
Public transportation
The meeting adjourned at 8:25:10 PM
Salt Lake City Planning Commission September 25, 2019 Page 5
3B. PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 25, 2019
iv. Public Comments Received After Staff Report Published
Jordan Atkin – 9/19/2019
I will generalize a point of discussion until I hear next steps.
Section 2 pertaining to cottage lots and the height of the structures.
I would challenge that 18 foot flat roof height limit will not accommodate 2 story dwelling units.
I'm doing a project with a height limit of 20 ft in an R-1-5 zone and we can only get 8'6" foot ceilings
after accounting for a foot of structure floor to floor, then the roof structure is a foot, and you need a
parapet to help with water control and thats at least 6 inches. (ive attached a screen shot from our
construction drawings)
If the city approves 18 ft we will be stuck building houses with 7'6" foot ceilings if you want to build
with a flat roof, yuck.
If the city reaches out to a few builders/architects/engineers this should be really easy to verify.
Hope this gets considered.
Marty Shannon – 9/22/2019
My name is Marty (Martha) Shannon and my property at 1366 Downington Avenue backs onto Allen
Park. My husband and I purchased the property because it backed onto the beautiful wooded Allen
Park. I am distressed to know it may be developed and especially distressed that it is zoned for
multi-family units.
I am sorry that I will miss the Planning Commission meeting this Wednesday, September 25th.
Please record my position: I am opposed to any zoning changes that increase density of RMF-30. Our,
once quiet, neighborhood has been inundated with Westminster College students and all the noise,
parties, beer cans, cars and lack of consideration they bring. Thus, higher density housing in Allen
Park will only increase those kinds of concerns.
I support any changes that maintain the open space and preserve the creek, trees and natural growth. I
have been to the City Recorders office and found that Allen Park is now owned by Parker Chase Allen
and am writing him a letter today. I, personally, hope he will want to honor his ancestors love of nature
and the land, but he may want to develop all or part of his inherited property. I am writing him to let
him know, if he is not aware, of a way to petition Salt Lake City to keep part of the park a “riparian
corridor".
Please feel free to contact me it you would like clarity on my position or anything else related to Allen
Park.
Thank you for your time.
Ian Kaplan – 9/24/2019
Looks like there have been some positive improvements to the plan! Nice work! I can't attend the
planning commission meeting, but I'd like to submit my comment to you directly if that's okay.
The 10' side yard requirement on Multi-family and sideways Rowhouses is going to seriously prohibit
any sort of this type of development in this zone. A land developer will need to find a lot that is at
minimum 62' wide to do side oriented Rowhouses (22' garage, 24' backup, plus 10' and 6' setbacks), and
probably similar or greater for multifamily if there will be a double loaded parking arrangement. I don't
know of a single lot I've looked at in the last 2 years that is over 50' for the infill stuff. I understand you
want to provide a good setback buffer if an RMF-30 lot is neighboring a low density lot - so I would
suggest that the setback is based on the adjacent zoning. If it is single family - then the setback remains
10', but if it is adjacent to commercial or multi-family, there should be an option to reduce to 5' on one
side, and 3' on the other. There are lots of cities with this style code - and the resulting urban impact is
minimal to single family properties and places the density where it belongs in groupings of multi-family
properties.
Jim Dalrymple II – 9/23/2019
I'm a homeowner in the Avenues neighborhood and strongly support these amendments and any others
that will make housing development easier and more streamlined in Salt Lake City. If anything, these the
policies are still too conservative; I'd love to see it become even easier to add housing to existing
neighborhoods like my own (Minneapolis' approach seems promising). In any case, these changes are a
good step in the right direction and I believe would help make our city more welcoming and affordable
to the families who want to live here.
It's also worth noting that earlier this year I explored the possibility of building an ADU in my backyard.
There's enough land for a dwelling, and I even had the financial resources to take on this project. But I
was thwarted by a variety of policy details in the city's needlessly onerous ADU regulations. As a result,
there is one less home for someone, in a relatively walkable neighborhood no less. I realize that the
policies being discussed right now span a variety of housing types and development scenarios, but the
point here is simply that it makes no sense to block small-scale would-be developers from adding to the
city's housing supply — in whatever forms they can. There are plenty of people who share this view,
and it literally costs the city nothing to just get out of the way; in fact, making infill development easier
would actually generate more revenue for the city, both in the form of new permit fees and higher
property tax revenue.
I realize that sometimes apprehensive homeowners — some of whom are often very vocal — worry that
by making development easier we'll sacrifice the best parts of our neighborhoods. But I'd like to point
out that there are also many of us who embrace neighborhoods that evolve to accommodate a growing
community.
Hannah Raasch – 9/23/2019
Sorry to not be able to attend the 9/25 meeting, but I object to any changes in the RMF-30 Low Density
Multi-Family Residential District that allow for smaller lots per unit and more than one primary
structure on a lot. I am a co-owner of 1374 E Downington Ave, which backs up to Allen Park. We have
enjoyed the density of trees and the preservation of the area around the creek that serves as a refuge
for wildlife. I would hate to see RMF-30s rules be changed and have the once wildlife refuge and natural
habitat of Allen Park be turned into another series of higher density homes in one of the few remaining
green areas in central Salt Lake City.
Carissa Monroy – 9/25/2019
I am a house owner on Blaine Avenue and I am concerned about the future development at Allen Park.
Unfortunately I cannot attend the meeting tonight, but wanted to submit my comments.
I have read through the amendments and I don't understand all of the details, but appreciate the efforts
to fill a need for housing in the community. My desires for this development:
--Find a way to preserve some of the history of Allen Park and the natural habitat that has existed for
so long. These are rare to find in a city and add so much character and benefit to the communities. I
have heard of the idea of designating a "riparian corridor" to help preserve this and this is very
important. I would love a public space, even if small, to be able to access as a neighbor of the property.
--Avoid high rise developments, avoid "mcmansions"/very large houses - which it sounds like this
amendment is trying to do.
--If there is any way to avoid developments that will primarily be used for short term/temporary
housing (thinking about how to avoid airbnb, how to avoid rental properties that are poorly
maintained.).
--Avoid significant density to the point where there will be excessive traffic, including traffic coming
in and out and affecting pedestrians on the sidewalk.
thanks for listening and being open to comments!!
Cindy Cromer – 9/25/19
Comment to the SLC Planning Commission 9/25/19
My name is Cindy Cromer. I spoke to you in June about the House of Cards supporting affordable
housing in the City's RMF zones which occur in establish neighborhoods. I have spent over 40
years managing rental properties in the established neighborhoods of Bryant and Central City.
In the next two minutes, I have to be more effective than I have ever been in that time frame. I have
spent a year and a half talking with the planners without success about the damages that this proposal
would cause to existing affordable housing.
First and most importantly, the planners do not have access to the information which drives decisions
about the redevelopment of income properties. They cannot anticipate the consequences because
they do not have the data, and they cannot reasonably obtain it. They are like so many other people in
this City, speculating with our neighborhoods. They are speculating with planning tools; other people
speculate with financial tools. Our supply of affordable housing suffers either way.
After being ineffective for so long, I gathered the information that the planners do not have, the
variables that drive the decision making of developers and existing owners of investment property. For
a developer or investment property owner, the relevant variables cost basis per unit, taxable gain,
depreciation, and the all important number of units allowed.
Three years ago the price for a buildable lot was between $100,000 and $150,000 per unit. I paid
$100,000 but found a comparable for $150,000. The County's 2019 assessed values in the spreadsheet
range from $113,000 to $149,897 per unit in 4- and 6-plexes. We are at the point in this housing crisis
where the market value of ground exceeds the County's assessed value of the area with a housing unit,
a well-maintained housing unit.
The amount of land required has been reduced since your hearing in May, creating even more negative
consequences for existing affordable units. As I reviewed the information on the spreadsheet, I found 3
buildings which would be demolished by an investor driven by financial gain. They contain 11 affordable
units, 10 of the units have new wiring and plumbing. Yes, the owner could add units as indicated but
they will have to be market rate, and nothing replaces the code-compliant, affordable units which an
investor would choose to demolish.
I can respond to any questions about the costs of demolition. I've done that, too.
Preservation
Utah
September 25, 2019
Salt Lake City Planning Commission
C/O Ms. Lauren Parisi
Salt Lake City Planning Division
451 State Street
Salt Lake City, UT 8411
Dear Members of the Salt Lake City Planning Commission,
Preservation Utah's trustees and staff have examined the proposed text amendments to
the RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District/ Section 21A.24.120 of Salt
Lake City's Zoning Ordinance. We recognize that these amendments will be highly
detrimental to historic neighborhoods throughout the city and will ultimately diminish the
unique character of these same neighborhoods. We additionally recognize that these
amendments are likely to reduce, not increase, the amount of low-income housing in
Salt Lake City. Much of the best low-income housing in Salt Lake City is found in the
very sort of older residential buildings that will be targeted by these amendments.
Despite assertions made in the RMF-30 memorandum, our experience is that
developers, when given the opportunity, will prioritize economic return over historic
preservation or other public benefits. For these reasons, we strongly encourage
members of the planning commission to recommend against incorporating these text
amendments into Salt Lake City's zoning ordinances.
Sincerely,
David Amott, Ph.D.
375 N Canyon Rd, Salt Lake C .Ur 84103 (801 533 0858 preservat1on-.,tah.org
4. ORIGINAL PETITION
Petition Initiation
Request
Community & Neighborhoods Department
To:Mayor Jackie Biskupski
From:Nick Norris, Planning Director
Date:April 9, 2019
CC:.Je nnifer Mcgrath, Department of Community & Neighborhood s Directo r; Michaela Oktay,
Deputy Planning Director; file
Re:RMF-30: Low Density Multi -Family Residential zoning district text amendments
The purpose of this memo is to request that you initiate a p etition for the Planning Division to begin the process of
amending the zoning regulations for the RMF-30: Low Density Multi-Family Residential zoning district . This request
has come about due to the research, an alysis, a nd public input associated with another text amendment that the
Division has been working on related to modifying lot width requirements (initiated in 2018). Barriers to housing
development in the RMF zoning d is tricts was an issu e identified by the Rose Center for Public Leadership on their
visit to Salt Lake City in 2018.
The goal of the initial p etition was to modify the lot width requirements as they tend to restrict n ew housing
development in the Multi-Family Resid ential zones because the lot width requirement is larger than most existing lots
are wide. As the project progressed, the Division identified other city goals that could be accomplished if there were
additional changes made to the RMF zoning regulations. These changes include:
• I ncentivizing the construction of additional housing uni ts when existing, historic buildings are
preserved; and
• Encouraging the construction of certain building configurations including row houses, cottage
developments and tiny homes that can accommodate more housing units, while remaining compatible
with small er-scale development; and
• Ensuring neighborhood character and quality housing by adding design standards that help new
developments be more compatible with the scale, character, and nature of the surrounding neighborhood.
Proposing addition al changes will help the city implement other master plan goals including the goals identified in
Plan Salt Lake and Growing SLC related to increasing housing supply as well as the Salt Lake City Preservation Plan
by promoting the preservation of our historic structures while allowing appropriate scaled and designed modifications
to historic properties. These changes also align with the City Council's 20 Guiding Pri nciples on Housing
Development related to creating innovative housing and missing-middle housing types for people of a ll backgrounds
and incomes.
•Page 1
The original petition had a narrow scope that was limited to the review of lot width regulations. This
updated petition initiation Yvould allow the Planning Division to broaden the scope and take a more
comprehensive look at all of the zoning regulations within the RMF-30 zoning district. Ifyou have any
questions, please contact me.
Concurrence to initiating the zoning map amendment petition as noted above .
;,;
Jackie Biskupski, Mayor Date
•Page 2