Council Provided Information - 4/4/2023CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Brian Fullmer
Policy Analyst
DATE:April 4, 2023
RE: Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance Amendment
PLNPCM2022-00475
APRIL 4, 2023 UPDATE
The Council continued its discussion during the March 21 work session. Council Members voiced
appreciation for the many conversations and willingness to work with each other. They clarified where
potential owner occupancy requirements would be in the FR, R-1, SR-1, and SR-1A zoning districts. A
suggestion was made to revisit the owner occupancy requirement in five years rather than three years so a
larger data set can be collected.
Council Members also discussed whether the proposed ordinance might lead to more demolitions in higher
density zones. Planning staff noted the significant development potential within TSA zones as compared to
single family zones. If the proposed ordinance is adopted, that development potential would remain, and
likely have a negligible impact on a property owner’s decision whether to redevelop their property.
A Council Member suggested including language in the restrictive covenant allowing neighbors the right of
enforcement for short term rentals of ADUs. If a neighbor sued an ADU owner for short term rental
violations and prevailed in court, the ADU owner would be responsible for both parties’ attorney’s fees. The
converse would also apply. If the ADU owner prevailed, the neighbor would be responsible for both parties’
attorney’s fees. The City Attorney’s Office is drafting language to include in a restrictive covenant.
More than twenty people spoke at the March 21, 2023 second public hearing. Most expressed support for
an owner occupancy requirement either citywide or in the proposed zoning districts. Some commenters
favored a data collection period longer than three years before assessing the effectiveness of the proposed
changes.
The Council closed the public hearing and deferred action to a future meeting.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: January 17, 2023,
February 7, 2023, March 7, 2023,
March 14, 2023, March 21, 2023
Set Date: January 17, 2023,
March 7, 2023
Public Hearing: February 7, 2023,
March 21, 2023
Potential Action: April 4, 2023
Page | 2
The following information was provided for previous Council briefings. It is included
again for background purposes.
MARCH 21, 2023 UPDATE
The Council held a follow-up discussion at its March 14, 2023 meeting to narrow options to consider in
preparation for a potential vote at the March 21, 2023 meeting. Most Council Members did not support
completely removing the owner occupancy requirement. Two options for this requirement being
considered are:
•Retaining the owner-occupied requirement for properties with single-family homes and ADUs
in the FR (Foothills), R-1 (Single-Family Residential), and SR-1/SR-1A (Special Development
Pattern Residential) zoning districts. The owner occupancy requirement would be removed in
other zoning districts where ADUs are allowed, where there are existing commercial/rental
and multifamily uses currently.
•Retain the owner occupancy requirement for properties citywide where ADUs are allowed,
with a legislative intent to revisit this requirement in three years. In the interim, data would be
collected and reviewed on ADUs constructed, barriers to their construction, and neighborhood
impacts.
In addition, Council Members requested the following legislative intents that relate to the annual
budget
•It is the intent of the Council to provide $1 million in one-time funding to provide financial
support for ADU construction.
•It is the intent of the Council to fund 2 additional Civil Enforcement employees for ADU
enforcement.
Staff note on logistics: The Council may choose to adopt these legislative intents in conjunction
with action on the ADU ordinance, but no funding will be finalized until the annual budget is
adopted in mid-June. The Mayor could choose to include these in her recommended budget
presented to the Council on May 2, or the Council could choose to add these items subsequent to
receiving the recommendation from the Mayor.
A second public hearing on this topic will be held during the Tuesday, March 21 formal meeting. The
Council could vote that evening.
MARCH 14, 2023 UPDATE
The Council continued its discussion on proposed changes to the Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)
ordinance that include an owner occupancy requirement, concerns related to affordability of constructing
ADUs and other barriers to their creation. Council Members also discussed potential tools to assist with
reducing the cost of ADU construction, challenges with enforcing violations, and potential fees to offset
costs of additional ADU enforcement. The need for additional market rate housing was discussed and the
potential for ADUs to help fill that need.
Mayor Mendenhall addressed the Council during the March 7, 2023 work session discussion to share her
support of the Planning Commission’s recommendation on maintaining owner occupancy requirements.
The mayor also stated the desire for ADUs to be a wealth building tool for individuals and families.
Planning staff clarified the proposed owner occupancy requirement is based on the property use rather
than underlying zoning. Thus, if commercial use is allowed on property that is used for residential
purposes, the owner occupancy requirement would apply for an ADU on that property. If there is
commercial use of the property, owner occupancy is not required.
The Council will hold further discussions during its March 14, 2023 work session meeting. A second public
hearing will be held March 21, 2023 during the 7:00 pm formal meeting, prior to a potential Council vote
that evening.
Page | 3
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
After the public hearing on February 7th, some Council Members expressed interest in having additional
work session discussion time to consider other options, and potentially reconsider some of the straw polls
which were taken at the February 7th work session.
As a reminder, the following straw polls were taken:
•Supported keeping one off-street parking space.
•Supported keeping the following exceptions to required off-street parking:
o If the property is within ½ mile of a designated bicycle lane or path.
o If the property is within ¼ mile of transit.
•Supported removing an exception to the off-street parking requirement if sufficient space for on-
street parking is available in front of the house.
•Supported increasing the maximum size of a detached ADU to 1,000 square feet.
•Did not support the Planning staff’s recommended 1,200 square foot maximum size of a detached
ADU on lots 12,000 square feet or larger.
•Supported retaining the owner occupancy requirement.
•Supported amending corner side yard setbacks to 20% of the lot width or 10 feet, whichever is less.
This would allow an ADUs on corner lots to be located closer to the street than to an adjacent
property.
•Supported removing the conditional use requirement for ADUs.
•Did not support limiting ADU height to the principal structure’s height.
The following is a list of additional ideas that have been raised by Council Members since the last
discussion, grouped by topic area:
1. Ideas relating to the owner occupancy requirement:
a. Option to remove the requirement altogether.
b. Option to require construction of ADUs to be owner occupied for 1 year, with the option to
remove the restriction after one year of no substantiated zoning or civil enforcement
complaints.
c.(could be combined with a or b) Require a business license and institute a fee to offset costs
of enforcement, and require commitment to not use as a short term rental
▪For any landlord using an ADU as a rental. Two different fees have been suggested
(subject to cost justification), $1,000 per year or $2,400 per year ($200 per month)
▪Allow owner occupied properties to have this fee waived
▪The fee cannot be waived by the Good Landlord program
d. Add a sunset clause for the owner occupancy requirement citywide. If there is no additional
Council action, this requirement would sunset in 24 months (or some other period).
e. Potential ideas that may be related to owner-occupancy reconsideration:
▪reconsider straw poll relating to parking requirements for lots within ½ mile of
designated bicycle lane
▪reconsider straw poll to increase the size from 720 to 1000 square feet
2. Enforcement
a. Add 1 or more employees (FTEs) in Civil Enforcement specifically to address ADU related
violations including noise, illegal Short-Term Rentals, etc. Costs could be offset by fees
(idea raised in item 1.c.). Consider allocating funds in Budget Amendment #5 as a Council-
added item.
3. Incentives
a. Use a legislative intent or allocate funds in Budget Amendment #5, or an upcoming RDA
budget amendment, to make creation of affordable ADU programs a higher priority. The
funding could address staffing costs to develop and administer programs as well as direct
program costs such as incentives. Ideas raised include pre-approved development plans,
Page | 4
subsidy for utility connection fees, direct financial support in form of grants or loans,
examine other way’s ADUs have shown to be expensive (fire sprinklers, etc.).
4. Other questions Council Members asked staff (this section may be updated prior to the March 7
discussion. It reflects questions as of March 1. Council staff is working on gathering additional
information).
o To what extent has comment from the public and community councils addressed owner
occupancy?
o To what extent did the Planning Commission discuss owner occupancy?
o To the extent that studies are cited in relation to the impacts of owner occupancy
requirements, can Council staff thoroughly review those studies to provide Council
Members specific information about whether any owner occupancy conclusions are
objectively verifiable and applicable to different markets? Is owner occupancy isolated as a
specific variable, or is it grouped with a list of other possible variables?
o Are there stronger enforcement tools such as restrictive covenants that can help mitigate
neighborhood impacts?
Next steps: The Chair and Vice Chair are planning on a work session discussion March 7th, with a
second public hearing and potential considerations for action March 21st, which is the next formal
Council Meeting.
FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING AND PUBLIC HEARING UPDATES
Follow-up Briefing
At the February 7, 2023 follow-up briefing, the Council reviewed five Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) topics
discussed at the previous briefing. These topics were parking requirements, maximum ADU size, owner
occupancy requirement, setback, and a conditional use requirement.
The Council held a series of straw polls indicating their positions on these various topics. The Council Chair
reminded the public that these straw polls are not the final votes and Council Members may feel differently
following the public hearing. (Refer to straw polls above.)
Public Hearing Update
Seventeen people spoke at the February 7, 2023 public hearing expressing support for, or opposition to,
ADUs. Those in favor cited the need for additional quality, affordable housing in the city, ADUs provide a
way to add moderate density to neighborhoods, and potential benefits to property owners. Suggestions
were made to incentivize micro units, review fees and other permitting requirements, and require ADU
compatibility with the lot’s original structure.
Those who expressed opposition to the proposal noted the difficulty enforcing on illegal short-term rentals,
ADUs blocking light from neighbors’ gardens and solar collectors, and potential negative impacts to
neighborhoods.
The Council closed the public hearing and deferred action to a future Council Meeting.
BRIEFING UPDATE
At the January 17, 2023 briefing, Council Members focused their discussion on five topics related to
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs): parking requirements, maximum ADU size, owner occupancy, required
setbacks, and conditional use requirements. A summary of each topic is included below, as well as potential
straw polls for Council consideration.
Potential Straw Polls
Staff is including the following potential straw polls to help clarify the Council’s wishes regarding five main
topics discussed during the briefing.
Page | 5
1. Is the Council supportive of maintaining the existing requirement for a minimum of one off-street
parking space for ADUs where the proposed exceptions do not apply?
If so, does the Council support the following exceptions in the draft ordinance?
a. The property is in a zoning district with no minimum off-street parking requirement.
b. The property already contains at least one accessible stall above the minimum parking
requirement.
c. The property is within one-half mile of a designated bicycle lane or path.
2. Does the Council wish to increase the maximum size of a detached ADU to:
a. 720 square feet as proposed by Planning staff?
b. 1,000 square feet as proposed by the Planning Commission?
c. 1,200 square feet on lots 12,000 square feet or larger?
3. Does the Council wish to maintain the current owner occupancy requirement?
4. Is the Council supportive of the proposed setback requirements shown below?
a. A suggestion was made for corner side yard setbacks of 20% of the lot width or 10 feet,
whichever is less. Is the Council supportive of this?
5. Does the Council wish to remove the conditional use requirement for ADUs?
Parking Requirements
The proposed ordinance maintains the requirement for one on-site parking space for an ADU. Under the
proposal, the following circumstances allow this requirement to be waived:
•The property is in a zoning district with no minimum off-street parking requirement.
•The property already includes at least one accessible stall beyond the minimum parking
requirement.
•The property is within one-half mile of a designated bicycle lane or path.
Council Members discussed advantages and disadvantages of this requirement. It was noted the off-street
parking requirement could be a barrier to some who would like to construct an ADU. Eliminating the
requirement for off-street parking would potentially create additional issues for areas that have limited on-
street parking or are near venues that draw large crowds and attendees often park in the nearby
neighborhoods.
Maximum ADU Size
Planning staff recommended increasing the maximum size of a detached ADU from the current 650 square
feet to 720 square feet. (The proposal allows detached AUDs up to 1,200 square feet on lots 12,000 square
feet or larger.) During the Planning Commission briefing, Commissioners included a recommendation of
increasing the maximum size to 1,000 square feet.
The Council discussed potential neighborhood impacts if the maximum size is increased to 1,000 square
feet. It was noted a compact two-bedroom ADU would be feasible if the maximum size was increased to
720 square feet.
Owner Occupancy
A robust discussion was held about the requirement for a property owner to reside on the property. A
suggestion was made to remove this requirement, noting a reduction of the pool of potential buyers if the
property is listed for sale. Other points raised were removing the owner occupancy requirement could
exacerbate issues with absentee landlords, and requiring owner occupancy may lead to higher quality ADU
materials and construction.
A majority of Council Members expressed support for retaining the owner occupancy requirement.
Required Setbacks
Planning staff reviewed current and proposed setbacks for detached ADUs with the following table:
Page | 6
Council Members discussed whether a 10-foot setback from a corner side yard is appropriate. Planning
staff stated the current ordinance does not specify setback requirements for detached ADUs on corner lots.
Rather, it defers to general accessory building setbacks, which are not allowed less than 20 feet from the
side yard property line on corner lots. They noted moving a detached ADU closer to the street would have
less of an impact on abutting property. On narrower lots, a 20-foot setback in corner side yards may
require an ADU close enough to the opposite property line that it prohibits the abutting property owner
from adding an ADU to their property due to spacing requirements between dwelling units.
A discussion was also held about potential impacts reducing the minimum side or rear yard setback from
four feet to three feet.
Under the proposal balconies would be allowed on the second story of a detached ADU and face any
direction. They may not encroach into the required setback areas, contain HVAC equipment, or be used for
storage.
Conditional Use Requirements
Planning staff reviewed the conditional use requirement origin. They noted the Council’s request for a
process allowing public input on ADU petitions. Making ADUs a conditional use was the only option
identified to meet this request.
Planning said the Planning Commission has not denied any ADU applications. They stated detrimental
neighborhood impacts related to ADUs that are not addressed in City Code are not happening. The
Planning Commission added few conditions to ADU applications in more than three years. Planning staff
calculated the time required to process 25 ADU applications per year equals one full time staff person.
Some Council Members expressed concern about removing the conditional use process. They noted the
public was told this would be part of the ADU process and now that may change.
The Council will be briefed about a proposal to amend the City ordinance related to Accessory Dwelling
Units (ADUs) making external units a permitted rather than conditional use, expand locations in the city
where they can be built, simplify standards, and encourage their construction.
At its February 9, 2022 meeting, the Planning Commission voted to initiate a petition making ADUs a
permitted use in any zoning district where residential units are permitted. This includes ADUs that are
internal, attached to a main structure, or in a detached building. Current code only allows ADUs in owner-
occupied properties in the City that currently have single family homes (as a conditional use in single-
family districts), although internal ADUs are allowed by right due to state code. The Planning Commission
expressed a stated desire to expand opportunities for ADUs. City Council and Administrative staff input
was also provided resulting in proposed changes summarized in the Additional Information section below.
Page | 7
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal during its September 14, 2022 meeting and held a public
hearing at which three people spoke. Comments focused on making ADUs affordable, support for owner
occupancy of the main house, and a suggestion for City funding to assist homeowners to construct ADUs.
Concerns cited include removing the conditional use could impact adjacent neighbor privacy, a lack of
public comments when ADUs are constructed, and neighborhood impacts from additional on-street
parking.
Commissioners discussed increasing the maximum size of a detached ADU from the proposed 720 square
feet to 1,000 square feet. A motion was made to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council
that includes a modification to increase the maximum size of a detached ADU to 1,000 square feet. That
motion passed 6-2. Those voting against the motion were not supportive of the 1,000 square foot
maximum.
It should be noted the draft ordinance allows detached ADUs up to 1,200 square feet if the lot size exceeds
12,000 square feet, is outside a residential zoning district, or is part of a planned development that includes
a minimum of four dwelling units. In response to a Council Member question, Planning staff clarified there
is no minimum space between a detached ADU and the primary residence other than required fire code
separation.
The draft ordinance includes a requirement that the owner reside on the property. This requirement may
be met by a person related to the property owner or a trustor of a family trust that owns the property living
on the property. Exceptions of up to three years are provided for property owners who are on temporary
work assignments, serve in the military, are on sabbaticals, or participating in voluntary service. An
additional exception is included for property owners who are placed in a hospital, nursing home, assisted
living facility or other similar facility that provides medical care.
Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning and future land use map amendments, determine if
the Council supports moving forward with the proposal.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. The Council may wish to discuss maximum ADU square footage of 720 square feet, 1,000 square
feet, or larger based on lot size.
2. The proposed ordinance includes a requirement that the owner reside on the property as noted
above. The Council may wish to discuss whether to keep this requirement.
3. The Council may wish to discuss incentive options for homeowners constructing ADUs to be rented
at affordable rates, and potential sources of that funding.
a. The Council, acting as the RDA board, allocated funding in the 9 line project area to assist
in funding construction of ADUs, although this funding was limited to that project area.
b. The Council has also directed funds from “Funding Our Future” sales tax revenue towards
incentivizing development of affordable housing units and programs.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
As previously noted, there are several proposed changes to the ADU ordinance. These are summarized
below. For the complete analysis, please see pages 2-10 of the Planning Commission staff report.
Remove Conditional Use Requirement
ADUs are currently permitted in two-family and multi-family zoning districts by-right when associated
with a single-family dwelling. Detached ADUs in a single-family residential district are required to go
through the conditional use process. It is worth noting House Bill 82 went into effect in October 2021
Page | 8
making internal ADUs permitted uses in single-family residential zones. The proposed ordinance aligns
with that legislation.
The proposal removes a conditional use requirement for detached ADUs in single-family residential
districts. This would streamline the process for applicants and reduce staff and Planning Commission time
needed to review ADU applications. Planning staff noted “Potential negative impacts of ADUs would
continue to be managed by the development standards in the ADU Ordinance.”
Expand Where ADUs Can Be Built
One goal of the proposed ADU amendments is to expand where they are allowed. Tables summarizing
impacts to zoning districts under the proposed ADU amendments are included on pages 3-4 of the
Planning Commission staff report. They are replicated in Attachment A to this report for convenience.
Currently ADUs are allowed as a conditional use on properties used for single-family residential in
residential zoning districts. In summary, the proposed changes would allow ADUs as a permitted rather
than conditional use in single-family residential zoning districts, allow them as a permitted use in several
lower intensity commercial zoning districts, transit station districts, form-based, and downtown zoning
districts. ADUs would continue to be prohibited in manufacturing districts, and special purpose districts.
Planning staff included the following maps on page 5 of the Planning Commission staff report showing
current locations where ADUs are allowed and where they would be allowed under the proposal. The maps
are included here for convenience.
Map showing where ADUs are currently allowed
Page | 9
Map showing where ADUs would be allowed under proposed changes
Images Courtesy Salt Lake City Planning Division
Adjust Size, Bulk, and Yard Requirements
The proposed amendment modifies size, bulk, and yard requirements to generally make them less
restrictive. These are summarized in the following tables provided by the Planning Division. (Images
depicting various standards are found on pages 7-8 of the Planning Commission staff report.)
Internal ADUs
Standard Current Requirements Proposed Requirement
Maximum Size 50% of gross square footage of
principal structure.
No maximum. Aligns with HB82.
Detached ADUs
Standard Current Requirement Proposed Requirement
Maximum Size 50% of principal structure’s
footprint or 650 square feet,
whichever is less
In residential zoning districts:
720 square feet maximum.
Can be increased to 1,200
square feet if lot is 12,000
square feet or larger.
Maximum Height 17 feet.
If principal structure is taller
than 17 feet, ADU can be the
same height as the principal
structure, up to 24 feet.
17 feet.
Can be increased up to 24 feet
with an increased setback.
Page | 10
Minimum Setback New accessory buildings
and additions to existing
accessory buildings: 4 feet
from any side or rear lot line.
Second story additions: 10
feet from any side or rear lot line,
unless abutting an alley, in which
case the setback can be reduced
to 4 feet.
If accessory building is
taller than 17 feet, setback
must be increased to 10 feet,
unless abutting an alley, in which
case setback can be reduced to 4
feet.
3 feet from interior side or rear
lot lines.
10 feet from corner side lot line.
If accessory building is
taller than 17 feet, setback
must be increased by 1 foot for
every additional foot in height
above 17 feet.
Introduce Alley Activation Requirements
Detached ADUs are often constructed adjacent to public alleys, which provides an opportunity to activate
the alleys. The proposed amendment adds requirements for ADUs abutting alleys to include lighting on the
ADU to illuminate the abutting alley segment, and a path between the ADU and alley.
Keep Short-Term Rental Restrictions
The proposed amendment maintains the current ordinance prohibition on short-term rentals. A definition
of “short-term rental” as a dwelling unit offered for rent or lease for less than 3o days would be added.
Adjust Other Requirements
The proposal adjusts and clarifies requirements for decks, patios, and outdoor space. Rooftop patios
continue to be prohibited, but balconies are permitted provided they meet setback requirements.
Parking requirements for ADUs would be maintained much as they are if the proposed amendments are
adopted. Proposed additions to parking requirements include circumstances under which the required off-
street parking stall may be waived. These are:
•The property is in a zoning district with no minimum off-street parking requirement.
•The property already contains at least one accessible stall above the minimum parking
requirement.
•The property is within one-half mile of a designated bicycle lane or path.
KEY CONSIDERATION
Planning staff identified one key consideration related to the proposal which is found on pages 10-12 of the
Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the staff
report.
Consideration 1-How the proposal helps implement city goals and policies identified in
adopted plans
Planning staff reviewed how the proposed amendments align with goals and policies found in Plan Salt
Lake (2015) and Growing SLC: A Five-Year Housing Plan 2018-2022 (2017). They determined the
Page | 11
proposal is consistent with several items found in the Growth, Housing, Transportation & Mobility, and
Preservation chapters of Plan Salt Lake. Among the initiatives proposed changes align with are the
following:
•Locate new development in areas with existing infrastructure and amenities, such as transit and
transportation corridors.
•Encourage a mix of land uses.
•Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land.
•Accommodate and promote an increase in the city’s population.
•Encourage housing options that accommodate aging in place.
•Enable moderate density increases within existing neighborhoods where appropriate.
Planning also found the proposal is consistent with goals and objectives in Growing SLC. These include:
•Review and modify land-use and zoning regulations to reflect the affordability needs of a growing,
pioneering city.
•Develop infill ordinances that promote a diverse housing stock, increase housing options, create
redevelopment opportunities, and allow additional units within existing structures, while
maintaining neighborhood impacts.
•Revise the Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinance to expand its application and develop measures to
promote its use.
•Support diverse and vibrant neighborhoods by aligning land use policies that promote a housing
market capable of accommodating residents throughout all stages of life.
ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS
Attachment C (pages 32-34) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines zoning map amendment
standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. The standards and findings are
summarized below. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for additional information.
Factor Finding
Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the
purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated
through its various adopted planning documents.
Complies
Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific
purpose statements of the zoning ordinance.
Complies
Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the
purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning
districts which may impose additional standards.
Proposed regulations would
take precedence over
overlay zoning districts,
except for the Historic
Preservation Overlay
District. Amendments would
be limited by additional
standards in this district.
The extent to which a proposed text amendment implements
best current, professional practices of urban planning and
design.
Complies
Page | 12
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
• February 9, 2022-Petition initiated by Planning Commission.
• May 12, 2022-Petition assigned to Michael McNamee, Principal Planner.
• May 17, 2022-Application posted for online open house.
• May 18, 2022-Notice mailed to all community councils.
• March 30, 2o22-45-day public comment period for recognized organizations ended.
• September 2, 2022-Planning Commission agenda posted to the website and emailed to the
listserv.
• September 8, 2022-Staff report posted to Planning’s website.
• September 14, 2022- Planning Commission meeting and public hearing. Positive recommendation
forwarded to the City Council.
• September 29, 2022-Ordinance requested from Attorney’s Office.
• November 28, 2022-Planning received signed ordinance from the Attorney’s Office.
• December 12, 2022-Transmittal received in City Council Office.
Page | 13
ATTACHMENT A:
Proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit Use
Change from Conditional to Permitted Use
in Residential Zoning Districts
Zoning District District Name
FR-1 Foothills Estate Residential
FR-2 Foothills Residential
FR-3 Foothills Residential
R-1/12,000 Single-Family Residential
R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential
R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential
Continue to Be Permitted
Residential Zoning Districts
Zoning District Name of District
SR-1 & SR-1A Special Development Pattern Residential
SR-3 Special Development Pattern Residential
R-2 Single- and Two-Family Residential
RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential
RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential
RMF-45 Moderate/High-Density Multi-Family Residential
RMF-75 High-Density Multi-Family Residential
RB Residential/Business
R-MU-35 Residential/Mixed Use
R-MU-45 Residential/Mixed Use
R-MU Residential/Mixed Use
RO Residential/Office
Special Purpose Districts
Zoning District Name of District
FP Foothills Protection
AG Agricultural
AG-2 Agricultural
AG-5 Agricultural
AG-20 Agricultural
MU Mixed Use
Page | 14
Change From Prohibited to Permitted Use
Commercial Zoning Districts
Zoning District Name of District
CN Neighborhood Commercial
SNB Small Neighborhood Business
CB Commercial Business
CS Community Shopping
CC Corridor Commercial
CSHBD Sugar House Business District
CG General Commercial
Transit Station Zoning Districts
Zoning District Name of District
TSA-UC Urban Core
TSA-UN Urban Neighborhood
TSA-MUEC Mixed Use Employment Center
TSA-SP Special Purpose
Form-Based Zoning Districts
Zoning District Name of District
FB-SC Special Purpose Corridor Core Subdistrict
FB-SE Special Purpose Corridor Edge Subdistrict
FB-UN1*Urban Neighborhood
FB-UN2*Urban Neighborhood
*Detached dwelling units currently permitted
and will be removed from code
Downtown Zoning Districts
Zoning District Name of District
D-1 Central Business District
D-2 Downtown Support District
D-3 Downtown Warehouse/Residential District
D-4 Downtown Secondary Central Business District
Gateway Zoning Districts
Zoning District Name of District
G-MU Gateway Mixed-Use
Page | 15
Continue to be Prohibited
Manufacturing Zoning Districts
Zoning District Name of District
M-1 Light Manufacturing
M-2 Heavy Manufacturing
Residential Zoning Districts
Zoning District Name of District
SR-2 (Reserved)
Special Purpose Zoning Districts
Zoning District Name of District
RP Research Park
BP Business Park
A Airport
PL Public Lands
PL-2 Public Lands
I Institutional
UI Urban Institutional
OS Open Space
NOS Natural Open Space
MH Mobile Home Park
EI Extractive Industries
ADUs - Single-Family Residential Zoning Districts in Salt Lake City, UT
±0 3 61.5 Miles
Salt Lake City boundary
Salt Lake City Council districts
SR-1A
SR-1
R-1-7000
R-1-5000
R-1-12000
FR-3
FR-2
FR-1
Residential Zoning Districts