Transmittal - 2/2/2024ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
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
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
________________________ Date Received: _________________
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: _________________
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: February 2, 2024
Victoria Petro, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods
SUBJECT: Petition PLNHLC2023-00044
Yalecrest – Princeton Heights – Local Historic District
STAFF CONTACT: Lex Traughber, Senior Planner
(801)535-6184 or lex.traughber@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: The Historic Landmark Commission and the Planning Commission
both voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for consideration.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Issue Origin: This petition is a request that the City Council designate a new local historic
district that includes 43 homes (45 properties) located at approximately 1323 Princeton Avenue
to 1500 East along Princeton Avenue. The proposed Yalecrest – Princeton Heights Local
Historic District is located within the Yalecrest Neighborhood, which is generally located
between 1300 East, and 1900 East, from 800 South/Sunnyside Avenue to 1300 South. The
Yalecrest Neighborhood was designated as a National Register Historic District in 2007.
rachel otto (Feb 2, 2024 10:07 MST)02/02/2024
02/02/2024
On January 22nd, 2023, Paula Harline submitted a petition to designate a new local historic
district within the Yalecrest neighborhood of the city. The application was submitted with
approximately 60% of property owner’s signatures (representing a majority ownership interest in
a given lot) in the proposed district, which exceeds the required 33% necessary to initiate a
petition of this nature. As required by ordinance, a report regarding the proposed district was
presented to the City Council on May 2, 2023, at which time the Council instructed Planning Staff
to proceed with processing the request.
Protection of Historic Resources: Although the homes within the proposed district have retained
a high degree of architectural integrity, some property owners fear that the existing zoning and
the National Register Designation of the Yalecrest Neighborhood do not provide sufficient
protection of the historic architecture found in the proposed district. They are of the opinion that
local historic district designation is the appropriate tool to ensure historic resource protection and
management.
In 2005, Salt Lake City created the Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay (YCI) district to
establish standards for new construction, additions, and alterations of principal and accessory
residential structures within the Yalecrest community. The goal is to encourage compatibility
between new construction, additions, or alterations and the existing character and scale of the
surrounding neighborhood. The standards allow for flexibility of design, while providing
compatibility with existing development patterns within the Yalecrest community. Some
property owners are concerned that the YCI does not include design standards that address
appropriate exterior alterations in the context of maintaining the historic integrity or structures in
the area.
The H – Historic Preservation Overlay district that would be applied to the proposed district, if
the local historic district were approved, would add an additional layer of regulation that requires
design review for exterior alterations and imposes stringent regulations on demolition of
contributing buildings.
The Yalecrest neighborhood was designated to the National Register of Historic Places in 2007.
Being listed on the National Register is an honorary designation that provides property owners
with the ability to seek state and/or federal tax credits for appropriate repairs or restoration work
on contributing buildings. The National Register designation provides incentives for appropriate
alterations but provides no protection from demolition or additions that may not be compatible
with the historic character of the area.
Adopted Policy: Several Salt Lake City policy documents generally support historic preservation
efforts. The Community Preservation Plan (2012) and the East Bench Master Plan (2017)
specifically address preservation and the protection of architectural and character defining
features found in Yalecrest.
The Community Preservation Plan (2012) places a high priority on providing additional
regulations to control demolitions and teardowns within the Yalecrest neighborhood.
Additionally, the East Bench Master Plan (2017) also acknowledges that the Yalecrest
Neighborhood contains some of the oldest structures on the East Bench within Salt Lake City
and encourages communities to pursue additional overlay zoning, if it is a desire of the
community.
Other adopted Salt Lake City documents contain policies that support historic preservation and
can be found in:
• Plan Salt Lake (2015)
• Creating Tomorrow Together: Final Report of the Salt Lake City Futures Commission (1998)
• City Vision and Strategic Plan (1993)
• Salt Lake City Urban Design Element (1990)
Commission Recommendations: The Historic Landmark Commission reviewed this application
on November 2, 2023, and found that it meets the local historic district designation criteria, and
voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to designate
Yalecrest – Princeton Heights as a local historic district.
The Planning Commission considered this application on November 8, 2023, and found that the
proposed Zoning Map Amendment to add the Historic Preservation Overlay district to this area
also meets the general zoning amendment criteria, and therefore voted (5-3) to forward a positive
recommendation to the City Council to designate Yalecrest – Princeton Heights as a local
historic district.
Property Owner Opinion Ballot Results: On November 22, 2023, the Property Owners Opinion
Ballot (Support Survey) was mailed to property owners within the proposed local historic
district. Property owners were given thirty days to submit a ballot indicating whether they
support or oppose the designation of the Yalecrest – Princeton Heights Local Historic District.
On December 29, 2023, the City Recorder issued the Official Canvass of the Property Owner
Opinion Ballot, which contained the following results:
Ballots in Support…………………………….…28
Ballots Opposed……………….………………...6
Did not Vote……………………………………..8
Undeliverable or Did Not Receive……………....1
Returned but did not Vote……………………….1
Returned After Due Date………………………...0
Total Ballots Returned………………………......35 of 43
Since the Property Owner Opinion Ballots returned equals at least two-thirds (2/3) of the total
number of returned property owner support ballots, and represents more than fifty percent (50%)
of the parcels within the proposed local historic district, the City Council may designate a local
historic district by a simple majority vote. It is noted that the City Council is not bound by the
results of the Property Owner Opinion Ballot.
PUBLIC PROCESS:
• Initial Notification of Affected Property Owners: Section 21A.34.020(C)(4) requires
Staff to notify affected property owners by sending a neutral informational pamphlet to
each property affected by the potential application. The informational pamphlet was
mailed to property owners within the proposed district on December 1, 2023.
The informational pamphlet contained a description of the process to create a local
historic district, as well as a list of the pros and cons of a local historic district. The
pamphlet was mailed after the applicant submitted and finalized the proposed boundary
for the Yalecrest – Princeton Heights Local Historic District.
• Application Notification to Affected Property Owners: The application was submitted
on January 22, 2023, and the subsequent Notice of Designation Application Letter was
mailed to affected property owners within the proposed Yalecrest – Princeton Height
Local Historic District on February 2, 2023. Property owners were sent the notice of
application and “Local Historic District Pros and Cons” informational letter indicating
that the Planning Division had received an application, including the required number of
signatures to initiate the designation, of a new local historic district.
• Planning Director Report to the City Council: Staff prepared and transmitted the
Planning Director Report to the City Council. The Planning Director Report included the
requirements found in 21A.32.020(C)(7)(A-F). The City Council adopted the Planning
Director Report on May 2, 2023, instructing Planning Staff to move forward with the
proposal.
• Property Owner Meeting: On August 30, 2023, the Planning Division met with owners
of property located within the proposed boundaries of the Yalecrest – Princeton Heights
Local Historic District. The purpose of the meeting was to inform the property owners
about the designation process and to discuss how local historic district designation would
impact the property owners. The meeting included discussions regarding the process for
obtaining a Certificate of Appropriateness, the adopted historic preservation standards
and design guidelines. There was also a discussion on common over-the-counter
approvals and the process of applying for approval. Approximately 13 property owners
attended this meeting.
• Open House: On August 31, 2023, the Planning Division established an on-line Open
House to solicit public comment regarding the proposed designation. All property owners
and residents within 300 feet of the proposed local historic district, as well as those
individuals on the Planning Division e-mail listserve were notified of the open house. An
email was also sent out to the Yalecrest Neighborhood Council, East Liberty Park
Community Organization, Wasatch Hollow Community Council, and KEEPYalecrest
with notification of the on-line open house.
• Historic Landmark Commission Meeting: On November 2, 2023, the Historic
Landmark Commission held a public hearing regarding the proposed Yalecrest –
Princeton Heights Local Historic District. Following the public hearing, the Historic
Landmark Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council adopt an
ordinance to create the proposed local historic district. The agenda, minutes, and staff
report of the November 2, 2023, Historic Landmark Commission meeting are
bookmarked below for reference.
• Planning Commission Meeting: On November 8, 2023, the Planning Commission held
a public hearing to consider the proposed Zoning Map Amendment, which would add the
H – Historic Preservation Overlay zoning district to the properties within the proposed
local historic district. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted (5-3)
to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding the designation of
the proposed local historic district. The agenda, minutes, and staff report of the
November 8, 2023, Planning Commission meeting are bookmarked below for reference.
• Property Owner Opinion Ballot: On November 22, 2023, the Property Owners Opinion
Ballot (Support Survey) was mailed to property owners within the proposed local historic
district. Property owners were given thirty days to submit a ballot indicating whether they
support or oppose the designation of the Yalecrest – Princeton Heights Local Historic
District. On December 29, 2023, the City Recorder issued the Official Canvass of the
Property Owner Opinion Ballot (Support Survey) which proved favorable to the proposed
district. Of the 35 ballots returned, 26 were in support of the proposed district, 6 were
opposed, and one ballot was received but contained no vote.
HISTORIC LANDMARK & PLANNING COMMISSION RECORDS:
a) HLC Agenda of November 2, 2023 (Click Here)
b) HLC Minutes of November 2, 2023 (Click Here)
c) HLC Staff Report of November 2, 2023 (Click Here)
d) PC Agenda of November 8, 2023 (Click Here)
e) PC Minutes of November 8, 2023 (Click Here)
f) PC Staff Report of November 8, 2023 (Click Here)
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. _____ of 2024
(Amending the Zoning Map to establish the Yalecrest-Princeton Heights Local Historic District)
An ordinance amending the Zoning Map to establish the Yalecrest-Princeton Heights
Local Historic District pursuant to Petition No. PLNHLC2023-00044.
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission (“Historic Landmark
Commission”) held a public hearing on November 2, 2023 on a petition submitted by Paula
Harline (“Applicant”) to amend the city’s zoning map (Petition No. PLNHLC2023-00044) to
apply the H Historic Preservation Overlay District to properties located on Princeton Avenue
between Laird Avenue and 1500 East Street, along with properties located at 1150 South 1400
East Street and 1136 South 1500 East Street, which area shall be known as the Yalecrest-
Princeton Heights Local Historic District; and
WHEREAS, at its November 2, 2023 public hearing, the Historic Landmark Commission
voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Planning
Commission (“Planning Commission”) and Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said
petition.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 8, 2023 on
said petition; and
WHEREAS, at its November 8, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in
favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the City Council on said petition; 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 Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted
by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and
hereby is amended to apply the H Historic Preservation Overlay District to all buildings,
structures and real property within the boundaries described and depicted on Exhibit “A”. The
areas described and depicted on Exhibit “A” shall be known as the Yalecrest-Princeton Heights
Local Historic District.
SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date
of its first publication.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________,
2024.
______________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________.
Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed.
______________________________
MAYOR
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. ________ of 2024.
Published: ______________.
Ordinance adopting Yalecrest Princeton Heights LHD
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date:__________________________________
By: ___________________________________
Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney
January 12, 2024
Exhibit “A”
YALECREST - PRINCETON HEIGHTS LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT
DESCRIPTION
Beginning at the Southwest Corner of Lot 26, Block 3, Normandie Heights Subdivision, as
recorded in Book 'H', Page 128, Salt Lake County Recorders Office, and running thence
N08°30'00"W 124.64 feet to the Northwest Corner of said Lot 26; thence N68°23'00"E 35.54 feet
to the Southeast Corner of Lot 5, said Block 3; thence N49°12'00"E 245.77 feet to the Southeast
Corner of Lot 9, said Block 3; thence N66°42'00"E 131.53 feet to an angle point on the north line
of Lot 19, said Block 3; thence N53°42'00"E 97.62 feet to the Southwest Corner of Lot 15, said
Block 3; thence N22°14'50"W 15.12 feet to the Northwest Corner of Parcel 16-09-351-019;
thence N77°42'33"E 101.33 feet to the Northeast Corner of said Parcel; thence N82°27'36"E
52.82 feet to the most Westerly Corner of Lot 11, Block 5, said subdivision; thence N61°25'19"E
118.92 feet to the Northwesterly Corner of said Lot 11; thence N89°57'20"E 584.34 feet to the
Southeast Corner of Lot 23, said Block 5; thence N00°02'40"W 62.32 feet to the Northwest Corner
of Parcel 16-09-352-024; thence N87°40'47"E 120.15 feet to the Northeast Corner of said Parcel;
thence S00°01'00"E 316.22 feet to the Southeast Corner of Lot 1, Block 2, said subdivision; thence
S89°57'20"W 110.00 feet; thence S38°26'50"W 15.67 feet; thence N82°22'06"W 91.82 feet to
the Southeast Corner of Lot 3, said Block 2; thence S89°57'20"W 523.06 feet; thence
S22°40'48"W 35.66 feet; thence S30°02'16"W 52.17 feet; thence S00°01'00"E 67.18 feet to the
Southeast Corner of Lot 13, said Block 2; thence S80°00'00"W 253.91 feet; thence S65°08'25"W
50.31 feet; thence N06°15'00"E 13.44 feet to the Northeast Corner of Lot 20, said Block 2; thence
S80°00'00"W 57.80 feet to the Northwest Corner of said Lot 20; thence S13°10'18"W 128.67 feet
to a point on the South Line of Laird Ave; thence along said South Line the following 3 courses:
1) Northwesterly along a 1,056.57 foot radius curve to the right 11.95 feet (chord bears
N84°09'27"W 11.95 feet) to a 1,634.83 foot radius curve to the left; 2) 176.43 feet along said
curve (chord bears N86°55'30"W 176.34 feet); 3) S89°59'00"W 12.52 feet; thence N00°01'00"W
64.78 feet to the point of beginning.
Contains 8.712 Acres, more or less.
EXHIBITS:
1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
3. ORIGINAL PETITION
4. MAILING LIST
5. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT
(RECEIVED AFTER STAFF REPORT PUBLICATION)
6. OFFICIAL CANVASS RESULTS
1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
Yalecrest – Princeton Heights – Local Historic District
Petition PLNHLC2023-00044
December 1, 2022 Property owners were sent a notice and a “Local Historic District Pros
and Cons” informational letter indicating that the Planning Division
had been notified by a property owner of interest in creating a new
local historic district.
January 22, 2023 Application submitted to the City by property owner, Paula Harline.
February 2, 2023 Application Notification - Property owners were sent a notice of
application and “Local Historic District Pros and Cons” informational
letter indicating that the Planning Division had received an
application, including the required number of signatures to initiate the
designation of a new local historic district.
May 2, 2023 Planning Director’s Report to the City Council for a new proposed local
historic district. The City Council directed Planning Staff to move
forward processing the proposed local historic district.
August 8, 2023 Property Owner Meeting Notification – Property owners were sent a
notice for the required “Neighborhood Information” meeting to be
held on August 30, 2023.
August 30, 2023 Property Owner Meeting held at the Anderson Foothill Library.
Owners of approximately 13 properties attended the meeting.
August 31, 2023 Open House Notification to Recognized Organizations – An email was
sent out to the Yalecrest Neighborhood Council, East Liberty Park
Community Organization, Wasatch Hollow Community Council, and
KEEPYalecrest with notification of the on-line open house.
September 1, 2023 Open House Notification – Property owners and residents within 300
feet of the proposed local historic district boundaries were mailed
notification of an on-line open house. The on-line Open House ran
from August 31, 2023 to October 15, 2023.
October 19, 2023 Notice of the Historic Landmark Commission November 2, 2023
Public Hearing mailed to all property owners and residents within 300
feet of the subject property. Listserve notification of the Historic
Lanmark Commission’s agenda emailed. Agenda posted on the
Planning Division and State websites.
October 26, 2023 Notice of the Planning Commission’s November 8, 2023 Public
Hearing mailed to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of
the subject property. Listserve notification of Planning Commission
agenda emailed. Agenda posted on the Planning Division and State
websites.
November 2, 2023 The Historic Landmark Commission heard the proposal in a public
hearing and voted to forward a positive recommendation on to the City
Council for consideration.
November 8, 2023 The Planning Commission heard the proposal in a public hearing and
voted to forward a positive recommendation on to the City Council for
consideration.
November 22, 2023 A “Property Owners Opinion Ballot (Support Survey)” was mailed to
all property owners asking if owners were in support, or if they were
opposed, to the designation. Ballots were required to be submitted to
the City Recorder’s Office or postmarked by December 21, 2023.
December 21, 2023 The “Property Owners Opinion Ballot (Support Survey)” period ended
at 5:00 p.m.
December 29, 2023 The City Recorder’s Office issued the “Official Canvass”, or official
results of the support survey. 28 property owners were in support, 6
opposed, 1 undeliverable, and 8 did not vote.
January 2, 2024 Planning Staff requested an ordinance from the City Attorney’s Office.
January 12, 2024 Ordinance received from the City Attorney.
January 12, 2024 Transmittal was submitted to the Community & Neighborhoods Office.
2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNHLC2023-00044 – Yalecrest –
Princeton Heights – Local Historic District – Paula Harline, a property owner, submitted a
petition to designate a new local historic district within the Yalecrest neighborhood of the City.
The proposed boundaries of the Yalecrest – Princeton Heights Local Historic District are
approximately 1323 Princeton Avenue to 1500 East along Princeton Avenue. The subject
property is located in Council District 6 represented by Dan Dugan.
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 Council may consider
adopting the ordinance on the same night of the public hearing. The hearing will be held:
DATE:
TIME: 7:00 p.m.
PLACE: 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah
** This meeting will be held in-person, to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and
County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more
information, please visit www.slc.gov/council. Comments may also be provided by calling the
24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to
council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the
Council and added to the public record.
If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call
Lex Traughber at (801) 535-6184 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday or via e-mail at lex.traughber@slcgov.com
The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the
“Planning” tab and entering the petition number PLNHLC2023-00044.
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.
3. ORIGINAL PETITION
Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD
Page 1 of 24
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
A. Project Description
1. Written Description of the Proposal 3
Significance of area in local, regional, state or national history
Physical Integrity of houses in the area
Commercial Properties
Notable Developers, Builders, Architects
Properties Recommended for National Register Level Research
Significant persons in the area
Distinctive characteristics of the type/period/method of construction
Importance to Salt Lake City history
2. Physical Integrity 9
Contributing Status of Houses
Building Dates
Architectural Types in the Residential Structures
Exterior Construction Materials
3. Eligibility Listing on the National Register of Historic Places 12
4. Notable examples of elements in Salt Lake City’s History 12
5. Consistent Designation Of Proposed LHD Designation With
Adopted City Planning Policies 13
6. Public Interest in Proposed LHD Designation 16
B. Photographs (attached separately) 17
C. Research Materials 17
D. Landmark Sites 17
E. Boundary Adjustment 17
Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD
Page 2 of 24
Page
APPENDICES
A. Maps
1. Normandie Heights Subdivision within Yalecrest 19
2. Princeton Heights LHD within other establish LHDs in
Yalecrest Neighborhood 20
3. Expanded view of Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD 21
B. Contrary Documentation in 2005 RLS and
Salt Lake County Assessor 22
C. Photographs of houses in Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD
(Original vs.2022) 23
See photos in a separate attached document
1323 -1490 E Princeton Ave
1150 S 1400 E
1136 S 1500 E
D. Research Materials (References) 24
Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD
Page 3 of 24
1. Project Description
Significance of area in local, regional, or state history
In the mid 1800’s, Salt Lake City was platted and developed with public buildings in the
center of Salt Lake City surrounded by residential lots and farmland to the south and west.
The Big Field Survey in 1848 divided the land to the south of the Salt Lake City settlement
(900 South today) into five and ten acre plots to be used for farming for the “mechanics
and artisans” of the city. 1 The Yalecrest survey area is located on the northeastern section of
land that was initially set apart as Five-Acre Plat “C” of the Big Field Survey 1
The land was divided into 100-acre blocks, each of which was again divided into 20 lots of 5
acres each. Yalecrest occupies Blocks 28, 29, and 30. The original blocks are bordered by
the major north-south streets of the survey area: 1300, 1500, 1700 and 1900 East and the
east-west streets of 900 and 1300 South. (The Utah Historic Sites Database). The area
north of 2100 South was a Five-Acre Plat “A” and the area south was a Ten-Acre Plat. The
majority of Yalecrest with the exception of strips along the north and west sides are part of
Five Acre Plat “C”. 1
Property within the area was distributed by the LDS church authorities, by lot, for use in
raising crops and farming. 1 Dividing the plots for land speculation was discouraged: 1875
maps of Salt Lake City show no development in the southeast section of the city beyond
1000 East or 900 South. The earliest identified residents in the Yalecrest area begin to
appear in the 1870s 1 . Yalecrest boundaries are represented by 840 South (Sunnyside Ave)
to 1300 South and 1300 East to 1900 East.
The 1920s were a period of tremendous growth in Yalecrest with 22 subdivisions platted by
a variety of developers. The Bowers Investment Company, a branch of the Bowers Building
Company, filed the subdivision papers for Normandie Heights in 1926 with 140 lots, and its
houses were built primarily from 1926-35. It is distinctive because of its picturesque rolling
topography with landscaped serpentine streets, regular promotions, prominent homeowners,
deep setbacks, and large irregularly shaped lots.
A number of factors contributed to the Yalecrest development in the early twentieth century;
1) the population of Salt Lake City almost doubling from 1900 to 1910, 2) air pollution in the
valley from coal burning furnaces led residents to seek higher elevations East of 1300 East
for cleaner air to breathe for their residences recently developed by in-state and out-of-state
land developers. Transportation options made the Yalecrest area easily accessible to the
downtown area. The primary means of transportation in the early part of this era was the
streetcar line along 1500 East. 1 The streetcars serving the Yalecrest area traveled from
downtown to 1300 East in front of East High, traveling East along 900 South to 1500 East,
then south on 1500 East to the State Prison located at 2100 S. The former State Prison on
Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD
Page 4 of 24
2100 South is the current site of Sugar House Park.
1960’s and Beyond (1960-2005)
The Yalecrest neighborhood, in general, and Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD specifically,
avoided the blight common in many urban residential neighborhoods during this era. There
was no population pressure as the population of Salt Lake City slightly decreased during this
time period. 12 No major roads were built through the neighborhood although traffic increased
on the border streets of 1300 South, 1300 East and Sunnyside Ave. Zoning ordinances
restricted commercial building to a few spots on the major streets. While there are 51
original duplexes in Yalecrest, there are none in the proposed boundaries of
Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD. The original Uintah Elementary School located on 1300 S
(outside the proposed Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD boundaries) was demolished and
replaced by a new structure in 1993. The attractive neighborhoods of Yalecrest have mature
street trees, single-family owner-occupied, well-maintained houses with landscaped yards
and continue to be a desirable residential area. 1
The current practice of razing an existing small historic structure and replacing it with a
residence several times the size of the original house in established neighborhoods
galvanized some residents into action in the years 2000-2005. A zoning overlay ordinance
called the Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay ordinance was passed by the Salt Lake City
Council in 2005. The purpose of the ordinance is:
to encourage compatibility between new construction, additions or alterations and the
existing character and scale of the surrounding neighborhood.
That infill overlay zoning regulated building height, minimum front yard size, and several
aspects of garages or accessory structures. Due to liberal interpretation of the current City
and State demolition ordinances, houses in Yalecrest continue to be demolished above
ground and replaced with out-of-size, mass and architectural incompatibility. The currently
proposed SLC “Affordable Housing Incentive” (AHI) City (2022) aims to increase multifamily
housing within ¼ mile of high frequency (every 15 minutes) transportation corridors. UTA
has recently changed the frequency of bus route #220 on 1300 E to a 15-minute frequency.
All 1300-1500 Blocks of Yalecrest are impacted by this zoning overlay. The AHI zoning
overlay allows demolition of single-family housing to create new multifamily housing
construction thus making historic single-family houses in the proposed Yalecrest-Princeton
Heights LHD endangered to demolition. The listing of Yalecrest on the National Register of
Historic Places does not protect against this local zoning. This application seeking a Local
Historic District designation is the only current legal option to minimize demolition of historic
single-family houses in this established, mature, and historic neighborhood.
The proposed Yalecrest-Princeton Heights Local Historic District (LHD) is located on Block
Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD
Page 5 of 24
30 and encompasses the following properties: 1323 E Princeton Ave on the north side of the
Princeton as the West boundary, 1136 S 1500 East on the west side of 1500 E as the East
boundary and all Princeton Ave properties on the north and south sides of Princeton Ave
street face as the North and South boundaries, respectively. The property located at 1150 S
1400 E lies between Princeton Ave and the Harvard Heights LHD ( see APPENDIX A ).
Thus, 43 single- family houses are contained within the proposed Yalecrest-Princeton
Heights LHD.
Physical Integrity of Houses in the Area
An Architectural and Historic Reconnaissance Level Survey (RLS) of Yalecrest was
conducted in 2005 1 by Beatrice Lufkin of the Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
for Salt Lake City in preparation for the National Register of Historic Places application for
the Yalecrest neighborhood. Much of the information in this document comes from that
survey. The proposed Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD area contains houses constructed
over the time period from 1917(1475 E Princeton Ave) and extending through 1953 (1387 E
Princeton Ave) in the historic era.
There is a very high degree of retained historic integrity in the proposed Yalecrest-Princeton
Heights LHD according to the 2005 RLS. The vast majority of houses (42/43) were
eligible/significant and eligible contributing (97.7%): 69.8% were considered eligible and
significant (A) and 27.9% were considered eligible and contributing (B). Only one house, a
large 1917 Prairie School house located at 1475 East Princeton Ave, and originally built and
owned by JW Phinney, was considered non-contributing (C) or 2.3%. To date, no
residential properties have been demolished with new construction houses in the
Princeton Heights LHD , but the contributory status of each property may have changed
since the last assessment in 2005.
Commercial Properties
There are no commercial properties in the Princeton Heights LHD.
Notable Developers, Builders, Architects
The name “Princeton Ave first appears in 1908 in the Polk directory and is associated with
development of that street in Normandie Heights subdivision (see Significant persons in
the area section below). Normandie Heights subdivision was platted for 140 properties in
1926 by the Bowers Investment Co. Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD contains 43
single-family residences of the 140 platted parcels in the greater Normandie Heights
subdivision. The builder Gaskell Romney was involved in developing Normandie Heights
subdivision. He built 10 houses in the proposed Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD: 1370,
1404, 1410, 1426,1442,1445,1449, 1450 and 1458, 1465 E Princeton Ave. He was active in
Utah, Idaho, California, and worked in Mexico before coming to Utah in 1921. G. Maurice
Romney, his son, also did speculative building. Gaskell Romney and his wife, Amy, lived at
Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD
Page 6 of 24
1442 Yalecrest and later at 1469 E Princeton Avenue. He is father to George Romney,
former Governor of Michigan and presidential candidate and father to current Utah Senator
Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts, former presidential candidate, and current
Senator to Utah. Another building company, Bowers Building Co. built 7 houses in the
Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD: 1333, 1343, 1348, 1353, 1360, 1376 and 1466 E
Princeton Ave.
The proposed boundaries of the Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD are outlined in red
( APPENDIX A-1) . It will join 6 other LHDs created in Yalecrest: Harvard Park, Princeton
Park, Yale Plat A/Upper Harvard, Harvard Heights, Normandie Circle and Douglas Park-I,
outlined in blue.
Properties Recommended for National Register Level Research
1465 E Princeton Ave (built 1926). The bowed roof over French doors on an English
Cottage architecture was suggested in the 2005 RLS for further research investigation.
Significant Persons in the Area
Yalecrest-Princeton Heights has been home to a variety of early residents who shaped the
City’s development and economic base: businesspersons, educators, immigrants, widows,
senators, lawyers, shopkeepers, physicians, architects, and builders , described below by
street address.
1340 E Princeton Ave
State Senator Paul Quayle Callister (1895-1967) and wife Mary Adeline Bramwell
(1899-1984) lived in this English Cottage with their four children for 10 yrs (1939-1948).
After serving in World War I, Paul Q. Callister was President of Associated Oil and Gas,
renamed Premium Oil and Gas. His investors included Jack Vincent, Fred C. Staines, and
the Bamberger Group. The company purchased land throughout Utah, Idaho, and Nevada
to open 48 service stations. The 1940 US census lists his salary at $50,000. He was elected
State Senator (R) from 1940-1944. During WWII, he started a second company, Premoco,
to deal with rationed fuel supplies to maximize fuel allocations.
1345 E Princeton Ave
This 1929 English Tudor and 1349 E Princeton Ave was built by well-known East Bench
contractor Samuel Campbell. The James G. McDonald, Jr. family lived here for 10 yrs from
1929 to 1939. James Jr. was treasurer and vice president of J.G. McDonald’s Chocolate
Company, a wholesale and retail grocery and confectionary business which was founded by
his grandfather, John T. McDonald in 1863. James Jr.’s father, James Sr., took over the
business at the age of 18 and in 1912 began to specialize in boxed chocolates and cocoa.
They innovated the paper-wrapped candy bar. This was the beginning of a new Utah
Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD
Page 7 of 24
industry on a large-scale production level. J.G. McDonald Candy Company became
world-renowned and was the recipient of over forty-four gold medals and awards, including
the highest international award possible, the "Grand Prix for excellence and quality."
1361 E Princeton Ave
LeGrand Pollard Backman and family lived in this 1929 English Tudor for 36 years.
Mr. Backman was a prominent Salt Lake City attorney and a senior partner in Backman,
Clark, and Marsh Law Firm. He was a member of the Salt Lake City Board of Education for
20 years and president from 1945-56. He was also a member and president of the Utah
State Board of Education for 18 years (1952-1970).
1370 E Princeton Ave
Built by Gaskell Romney, this 1926 English Tudor was owned by two notable widowed
women who persevered to become notable businesswomen of their own. First, after living in
the house for three years, Helen Taylor became a 28 year old widow with a four-year-old
daughter. She took over her husband’s (Heber C Taylor) job as part-owner of the
Taylor-Richards Motor Co. Ford automobile/tractor dealership and continued living here until
she remarried, about 14 years later.
Second, in 1943 Georgia Papanikolas was already a widow when she moved into this
house. She was born in Greece (1912) and immigrated to the United States, most likely as a
“picture bride,” when she was 18 yrs old and married Emmanuel “Mike” Papinikolas, a
successful businessman in Bingham, Garfield,and Magna with coal, lumber, hardware and
real estate companies. She was widowed at age 39 with 7 children in Magna. Ten years
later she bought 1370 E Princeton Ave with the help of her son, Gus, for $5,000 and raised
5 of her children here. Her son Nick, married Helen Zeese, who later became Utah’s
premier ethnic historian and our country’s expert on Greek immigrants.
1377 E Princeton Ave
This 1927 house built by Samuel Cottam is a beautiful and unusual example of a period
revival Jacobethan French Tudor. In May 1928 he sold the home to William E. and Louise
Day who lived there until William’s death in1947. Mr. Day moved to Salt Lake City from Ohio
to become Superintendent of Physical Education for the Salt Lake City Board of Education.
The entryway of this house has a fanlight transom and terra cotta surrounds in a quoin
pattern (small tabs of cut stone called ‘ashlar‘, projecting into the surrounding brickwork
giving it a ‘quoin’ (pronounced ‘coin’) effect. This house has a “twin” built by a different
builder on 1445 E 900 S.
1404 E Princeton Ave
This 1927 English Tudor was owned by William Cassidy who lived here with his wife
Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD
Page 8 of 24
Florence and daughter Mary Lou for 28 yrs. William Cassidy was initially hired as a traffic
manager by the family-owned Sweet Candy Co in 1915. He became Vice President of the
company in 1941 and President and General Manager in 1947. He holds 2 patents. The
Sweet Candy Co is the world’s largest manufacturer of salt water taffy but also
manufactures 250 different candies, including their innovation, cinnamon bears. Fifteen
million pounds of their products are shipped annually. The original business office and
manufacturer site at 224 South and 200 West is a Salt Lake City tour stop with an historic
bronze plaque .
1405 E Princeton Ave
The Cowan family has lived in this 1938 English Cottage house exhibiting “random course
ashlar masonry’ for 82 years. Drs. Robert Leland Cowan (1894-1976) and his son, Leland
R Cowan (1924-2022) each practiced surgical oncology in SLC. The house is built using
“Ashlar masonry,” the finest type of stone masonry. It uses finely tooled (dressed)
sandstone or limestone in rectangular, cuboid shapes laid in a random course. Leland R.
Cowan founded the Leland R Cowan Cancer Clinic in Salt Lake City.
1429 E Princeton Ave
This 1926 “Cape Dutch Colonial” is a unique architectural style house called “Cape Dutch
Colonial,” a modification of the Amsterdam Cape style and favored in the Western Cape of
South Africa. Hugh Barker, Sr. lived here with his family for 6 yrs (1932-1939). He was one
of the celebrated first airmail pilots (aerial pony express) in the 1920’s servicing
mountainous areas in Idaho, Utah, and Nevada. He later became a lawyer and head of his
own law firm.
1458 E Princeton Ave
The 1926 English Cottage, built by Gaskell Romney, was home to Lorenzo Snow
Young—the grandson of two LDS Presidents, Brigham Young and Lorenzo Snow. He lived
here with his wife Ailene and children for 5 yrs (1927-32). He was a locally famous architect
designing over 700 buildings over his 40 yr practice. Most notable are those listed on the
National Register of Historic Places, including the University of Utah’s Kingsbury Hall on
President’s Circle, and the Granite Stake Tabernacle in Idaho. He also designed the Harold
B. Lee Library and Marriot Center (with Bob Fowler 1968) at Brigham Young University, the
University of Utah Law and Library building, Olympus and Highland High Schools and The
Daughters of the Utah Pioneers Memorial (DUP).
1475 E Princeton Ave
This 1917 Prairie School architecture is a unique architecture style in the
Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD. Built in 1917, it was owned by Eugene W Kelly 10 yrs
from 1932-1942. He was manager of a retail clothing store in SLC.
Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD
Page 9 of 24
Distinctive Characteristics of the Type/Period/Method of Construction
Yalecrest-Princeton Heights contains many notable examples of brick English Cottages and
English Tudors from famous builders in Salt Lake City.
Importance to Salt Lake City History
Yalecrest-Princeton Heights might be the last block in Yalecrest that has not experienced
teardowns, helping it tell the story of Salt Lake City almost a century ago. Historic houses
might lack the convenience of modern homes, but living in one and knowing something of
the residents who lived there before you, connects you to the neighborhood and to the City.
In my house at 1340 E. Princeton, for example, I know that former residents had their
wedding receptions in the living room, served in World Wars I and II, sang for events all over
the neighborhood, served the community as dentist and doctor, died in childbirth, and played
on the back patio with other neighborhood children. I have found their wallpaper and walk on
their hardwood floors.
The block where I live is a beautiful example of residential living close to downtown Salt
Lake City. Every house on the block is unique and draws a constant stream of admiring
dog-walkers, bikers, and runners. Street lights provide safety, and huge mature trees–Ash,
Elm, Sycamore, and Norwegian Maple–create a pleasing shaded tree-lined block. Situated
between 9th-and-9th and 15th-and-15th commercial areas, and with close access to I-15
and I-80, this block showcases the integrated infrastructure necessary for successful
residential living: commercial neighborhood zoning districts that host grocery, pharmacy,
restaurants, library, public parks, and schools within walking distance. The residents are
proud of this successful planned community and wish to preserve it as an example for
generations to come.
Please note that this block was the site of the 6 th Annual KEEPYalecrest Historic Home
Walking Tour (7 October 2022) which witnessed the largest attendance of any prior walking
tour. This widespread interest in and appreciation for historic houses and the persons who
lived in those houses continues to build each year as many historic areas throughout the
City are lost to demolition.
2. Physical Integrity
The proposed Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD is located in a mature tree-lined, rolling-hills
western section of Yalecrest.
Contributing Status of Houses in Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD
The proposed Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD retains a very high degree of historic and
physical integrity. The vast majority of houses (97.7%) are eligible/significant (29/43 =
Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD
Page 10 of 24
69.8%) and eligible contributing (12/43 = 27.9%) 1 . There is only 1 ineligible non-contributing
house, or C (1/42 or 2.3%) listed in the 2005 Reconnaissance Level Survey. The majority of
houses are of architecturally notable English Cottages (37.2%) and English Tudors (30.2%)
built 1920-1930’s. To our knowledge, no houses in the Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD
have been demolished. The number of contributing and non-contributing houses and their
eligibility status on each street in the Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD is tabulated below.
Contributing Structure Status of Single-Family Residential Properties
in Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD a,c
Street A b B b C b D b X b Total
Princeton Ave 28 12 1 0 0 41
1400 East 1 0 0 0 0 1
1500 East 1 0 0 0 0 1
TOTAL
% Total
30
(69.8%)
12
(27.9%
)
1
(2.3%)
0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
43 a
(100%)
a according to the 2005 RLS, there are 43 single family residential structures included in
this analysis.
b A= eligible significant, B= eligible/contributing, C= ineligible/noncontributing, D=out of
period, X=demolished
c 1926 plat of Normandie Heights lists 104 properties. The Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD
contains 43 of those 104 parcels, all used as single-family houses.
The number of currently (2022) eligible significant (A) plus eligible contributing structures
(B) may have changed due to remodeling projects that alter the street face including;
windows, porches, dormers, house heights, roofing materials and/or exterior materials
that have altered their contributing status. The number of contributing structures in 2022
remains to be verified by the City Planning Department / Preservation Office and Historic
Landmarks Commission.
Building Dates
Houses in the proposed Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD were built from 1919 through
1953 in the current historic era. The majority of single-family residences in
Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD were built in the late 1920’s (67.4%) and 1930’s
(25.6%). The distribution of houses built in different decades from 1910 to 1950’s as a
function of streets with the proposed LHD are shown in the table below.
Construction Years a of Original Single-Family Residences in
Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD b
Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD
Page 11 of 24
Street 1910’s 1920’s 1930’s 1940’s 1950’s Total
Princeton Ave 1 29 9 1 1 41
1400 East 0 0 1 0 0 1
1500 East 0 0 1 0 0 1
TOTAL 1 29 11 1 1 43
% Total 2.3% 67.4% 25.6% 2.3% 2.3% ~100%
a according to Salt Lake County Assessor website (www.slco.org/assessor)
b 1428 E Princeton Ave is listed in RLS but no house is associated with the land parcel
Architectural Types
Houses of the Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD contain a variety of architectural style
types including English Cottage (37.2%), English Tudor (30.2%), Colonial Revival
(13.9%), Cape Dutch and Dutch Colonial (4.6%), Jacobethan/French Norman (4.6%),
Period/other (2.3%), Prairie School (2.3%), Minimal Traditional/Ranch (4.6%). Tabulation
of the house styles as a function of street within the Yalecrest-Princeton Height LHD is
shown below.
Architectural Types in Residential Structures a
Type
Princeton
Ave
1400
East
1500
East TOTAL %TOTAL
English Cottage 16 0 0 16 37.2%
English Tudor 13 0 0 13 30.2%
Colonial Revival 5 0 1 6 13.9%
Cape/Dutch Colonial 2 0 0 2 4.6%
Jacobethan/French
Norman
2 0 0 2 4.6%
Period Revival/Other 1 0 0 1 2.3%
Prairie School 1 0 0 1 2.3%
Minimal Traditional 1 1 0 2 4.6%
TOTAL 41 1 1 43 100%
a according to RLS 2005.
Exterior House Materials
Exterior construction materials of houses in Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD are
primarily striated brick (58.1%), regular brick (34.9%), stucco/paster (4.7%) and stone
(2.3%), with various accompanying materials including half timbering, clapboard,
stucco/paster, wood and aluminum/vinyl siding. The distribution of the various exterior
construction materials is tabulated below.
Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD
Page 12 of 24
Exterior Construction Materials of Residential Structures in
Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD a
Type
Princeton
Ave
1400
East
1500
East Total %Total
Striated Brick 7 0 1 8
+Half Timber 13 0 0 3
+
Stucco/plaster
3 0 0 3
+Alum/vinyl/wo
od
1 0 0 1
subtotal 24 0 1 5 58.1%
Regular Brick 6 1 0 7
+Half timber 5 0 0 5
+Clapboard
siding
1 0 0 1
+stucco/stone/
veneer
1 0 0 1
+Terra
cotta/half
timber
1 0 0 1
subtotal 14 1 0 5 34.9%
Stucco/Plaste
r
1 0 0 1
+B other 1 0 0 1
subtotal 2 0 0 2 4.7.%
Stone 0 0 0 0
+clapboard 1 1 1 1 2.3%
TOTAL 41 1 1 43 ~100%
a 2005 RLS assessment
3. Eligibility Listing on the National Register of Historic Places
As previously stated, the proposed Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD is located within the
boundary of the existing Yalecrest National Register Historic District established in 2007
(#07001168) and thus is eligible for Local Historic District designation.
4. Notable examples of elements in Salt Lake City’s History
The proposed area contains a diverse collection of historically contributing architecture
styles: English Cottage, English Tudor, Colonial Revival, Prairie School, Cape and Dutch
Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD
Page 13 of 24
Colonial, Ranch, Jacobethan/ French Norman, and Minimal Traditional. In addition, these
homes were developed, designed, built, and owned by renowned individuals who
contributed to cultural, defense, business, medical, education, and legal aspects of the city,
state, and country. An Intensive Level Survey was completed of Yalecrest by Beatrice
Lufkin, of the Utah State Historic Office (SHPO) in 2005. Exterior and interior photographs, a
title search, genealogical and other information are on file at the Utah State Preservation
Office.
5. Consistent Designation Of The Proposed LHD Designation With Adopted Planning
City Policies
Historic Preservation Overlay
21A.34.020.A (click here for a link to the Historic Preservation Overlay zoning provisions)
A. Purpose Statement : In order to contribute to the welfare, prosperity, and education of
the people of Salt Lake City, the purpose of the Historic preservation overlay district is
to:
1. Provide the means to protect and preserve areas of the city and individual
structures and sites having historic, architectural, or cultural significance;
2. Encourage new development, redevelopment, and the subdivision of lots in historic
districts that is compatible with the character of existing development of historic
districts or individual landmarks;
3. Abate the destruction and demolition of historic structures;
4. Implement adopted plans of the city related to historic preservation;
5. Foster civic pride in the history of Salt Lake City;
6. Protect and enhance the attraction of the city's historic landmarks and districts for
tourists and visitors;
7. Foster economic development consistent with historic preservation; and
8. Encourage social, economic, and environmental sustainability.
Adopted Master Plans and City Policies
Community Preservation Plan : The City Council adopted the Community Preservation
Plan in October 2012. The Plan is the key strategic document that will guide Salt Lake
City’s preservation efforts into the future. The purpose of the plan is to address the
important goals of historic preservation and community character preservation to ensure
the continued preservation of the City’s neighborhoods. The Plan provides vision and
established policies that will help preserve those areas of the City that are uniquely
historic and tell the story of the City’s historic past. ( Click this link to view the Community
Preservation Plan )
Relevant Community Preservation Plan Policies
Policy 3.1a: Identify historic resources in the City through the use of surveys that are
consistent with the adopted State Historic Preservation Office survey criteria.
Policy 3.2a : Local designation of historic resources should occur where the primary
purpose is to protect the historic resources for the public interest and not where the
primary purpose is something other than that such as to stabilize a neighborhood or
preserve neighborhood character.
Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD
Page 14 of 24
Policy 3.2b : The pursuance of new locally designated historic resources should focus on
protecting the best examples of an element of the City’s history, development
patterns and architecture. Local historic districts should have logical boundaries
based on subdivision plats, physical and / or cultural features and significant
character defining features where possible.
Policy 3.2c: Protect exemplary groupings of historic properties as local historic districts.
Policy 3.2d : Local designation should only occur after the City has an understanding of
the degree of property owner and public support for the proposed designation.
Policy 3.2e: Local designation of historic properties should only occur, after the City
expends resources to inform property owners of the reasons for the proposed
designation and what regulations will be included and the incentives offered for local
designation.
Policy 3.2h : Prior to local designation, national designation should be pursued to ensure
financial incentives are in place for those historic resources that are regulated locally.
Policy 3.2i: Professional reconnaissance level survey work should be completed prior to
designating a local historic district because it identifies the number and type of
historic resources in an area and provides the information needed when determining
the appropriateness for change to a specific historic resource.
Other Adopted City Policy documents addressing the role of Historic Preservation
East Bench Community Master Plan (2017) : (click this link to view the East Bench
Master Plan)
The proposed Yalecrest-Princeton Height Local Historic District is located within the area
covered by the East Bench Community Master Plan. A stated goal of the Urban Design
section of the plan is to “enhance the visual and aesthetic qualities and create a sense of
visual unity within the community.”
The Plan identifies the following elements which detract from the residential character:
- Building remodeling or additions that are not compatible with the design of the original
structure or neighboring homes, and
- New structures that are not compatible with the design of surrounding homes.
In the1987 East Bench Master Plan, Yalecrest is specifically identified for preservation.
“The older Harvard-Yale area contains many buildings of architectural and historic
significance. Conditions may warrant creating a conservation or historic district in this
area where the city would review all new buildings, additions, or alterations for
compatibility with established neighborhood character. The city is in the process of
conducting a survey of the community to document sites of architectural and historic
significance and to evaluate the potential for establishing a historic district.” In the 2017
version of the East Bench Master Plan, Yalecrest is noted for being the oldest historically
contributing neighborhood on the East Bench and encourages residents to find a
common voice to preserve it using either Local Historic Districts or Conservation
Districts.
Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD
Page 15 of 24
Urban Design Element (1990 ): The Urban Design Element includes statements that
emphasize preserving the City’s image, neighborhood character, and maintaining
livability while being sensitive to social and economic realities. The Plan includes the
following concepts:
-Allow individual districts to develop in response to their unique characteristics within the
overall urban design scheme for the City.
- Ensure that land uses make a positive contribution to neighborhood improvements and
stability.
- Ensure that building restoration and new construction enhance district character.
- Require private development efforts to be compatible with urban design policies of the
city, regardless of whether city financial assistance is provided.
- Treat building height, scale, and character as significant features of a district’s image.
- Ensure that features of building design such as color, detail, materials, and scale are
responsive to district character, neighboring buildings and the pedestrian.
Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan (2000):
Provide historic preservation education to developers and property owners, including
information on technical and financial assistance and incentives.
City Vision and Strategic Plan (1993)
- Restore and adaptively reuse historic resources.
- Develop programs to enhance and preserve the City’s cultural history and character
as expressed in the built environment.
- Offer strong economic incentives to stop housing unit deterioration.
Together: Final Report of the Salt Lake City Futures Commission (1998)
- Enforce preservation strategies for buildings and neighborhoods.
- Rehabilitate historic buildings for cultural uses wherever possible.
The proposed Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD is also currently zoned under the Yalecrest
Compatible Infill Overlay (YCIO) zoning ordinance adopted by the City in 2007 3 . The
purpose of the ordinance is to “encourage compatibility between new construction,
additions, or alterations and the existing character and scale of the surrounding
neighborhood.” The YCIO regulates building height, minimum front yard size, and
several aspects of garages or accessory structures, but does not protect against
demolitions or out-of-mass, scale and architecture character of additions or new
structures.
The proposed boundaries of Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD ( Appendix A ) represents
the southeast corner in Normandie Heights subdivision and the greater Yalecrest
neighborhood that is nationally recognized for its historic value (National Register of
Historic Places 2007). Recognizing this resource and protecting it via a Local Historic
District designation is consistent with the City's preservation goals.
Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD
Page 16 of 24
6. Public Interest in the Proposed LHD Designation
To date, 31/43 of the single-family homeowners within the proposed area of
Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD have signed an application petition in support of opening
the process to create a Local Historic District. The overall support on the application is 72%,
which greatly exceeds the minimum support of 33% required by the LHD designation
ordinance guidelines. Property owners at 1150 S 1400 East were contacted and do not
support the local historic designation, but were included at the suggestion of the city Historic
Preservation Office.
Residential Support for Local Historic District Designation in
Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD
Street # Property
Parcels
# Signatures
Supporting a % Support
Princeton Ave 41 a 30 73%
1400 East 1 0 0%
1500 East 1 1 100%
TOTAL 43 31 72%
a one signature was collected on the application signature form for property
parcels that have Joint tenants (JT) and the appropriate trustee signature
was obtained for Trusts on associated property parcels.
Designating the Yalecrest-Princeton Heights as Local Historic District (LHD) zoning
overlay would minimize the frequent teardowns and demolitions (56 permit filings over
the past 27 years) that have plagued Yalecrest in recent years. In addition, the recent
Affordable Housing Incentive (AHI) which allows demolition of historic houses for new
multi-family housing installation within ¼ mile of high frequency bus transportation (1300
East) has concerned residents of this quiet street. Designation of Yalecrest-Princeton
Heights LHD would maintain the historic character and mass/scale of the street face
architecture while providing homeowners and district residents the only legal method to
minimize demolition and dismantling of intact historic structures that result in loss of
neighborhood character. These services are not offered from Salt Lake City to the
National Register of Historic Place designation, nor the local City Yalecrest Compatible
Infill Overlay (YCIO) zoning ordinance.
A Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD designation would also provide the citizens of Salt
Lake City and the state of Utah with an additional protected heritage resource for future
generations from which to learn and appreciate the cultural and City history of notable
residents and fine, well-maintained, diverse architectural examples of English Cottage,
English Tudor, Cape Dutch, Dutch Colonial, Prairie, and Jacobethan French Norman
architectural styles. In addition, the area will teach future urban developers/builders the
Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD
Page 17 of 24
value and sustainability of smaller well-built homes with quality materials that have stood
the test of time (100 yrs), the successful layout design of new neighborhoods that include
different housing options for singles, empty-nesters, couples, and families that include
both small- and medium-sized single-family and multi-family duplexes at various prices.
It will aid in the education of designing new successful neighborhoods that include such
elements as sidewalks, green space, streetlights, mature shade trees, and proximity to
infrastructure necessities such as libraries, grocery stores, restaurants, schools, and
child care that encourage walkability and enhance safety from crime. These are the
elements that have made Yalecrest a successful and highly desirable neighborhood.
B. Photographs
Original and current photographs of the individual homes in the proposed
Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD are listed with addresses in APPENDIX C . The original
photographs were downloaded from the Salt Lake County Tax Assessor site. Current
photographs were collected by the Lynn Kennard Pershing, resident in Yalecrest, using an
iPhone 11 camera..
C. Research Material
The Reconnaissance Level Survey was completed by Salt Lake City in 2005 in preparation
for the Yalecrest National Register of Historic Places designation, which was awarded in
2007. Much of the information in this document about the area’s architecture, history,
builders, and building dates comes from that survey and the Salt Lake County Assessor
website. Additional information is on file at the Utah State Historic Preservation Office,
Family Search website, and newspaper archives (Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret News).
Research material used to prepare this application are listed in APPENDIX C . See
(http://utahhistory.sdlhost.com/#/item/000000011019963/view/146
D. Landmark Sites Not applicable
E. Boundary Adjustment:
Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD is located to the immediate south of Yalecrest-Harvard
Heights LHD. The new Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD is parallel to Yalecrest-Harvard
Heights LHD and both traverse the 1300-1500 blocks of their respective streets, while also
including 2 properties; 1150 S 1400 E and 1136 S 1500 E that lie between those streets.
The boundaries of the Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD containing 43 property parcels are
listed below:
West boundary is 1323 E Princeton Ave
Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD
Page 18 of 24
East boundary is demarcated by1136 South 1500 East and 1490 E Princeton Ave
North boundary contains the north side of Princeton Ave containing the odd numbered
houses (1323-1475 E Princeton Ave) and 1150 E 1400 East
South Boundary contains the south side of Princeton Ave with the even numbered houses
of 1340-1490 E Princeton Ave.
APPENDIX A-1
Original plat of Normandie Heights Subdivision
July 1, 1926, Pr. Lots 2-3, Block 28
Bowers Investment Company
Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD
Page 19 of 24
The Normandie Subdivision lies in the southwestern most corner of. The Normandie
subdivision is outlined in purple.
Bottom of Form
APPENDIX A-2
All LHDs in Yalecrest
Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD
Page 20 of 24
Existing Yalecrest LHDs
Douglas Park-I
Normandie Circle
Harvard Heights
Upper Harvard Yale Park Plat A
Harvard Park
Princeton Park
Princeton Heights (proposed) outlined in red
APPENDIX A-3
Expanded street map view of the proposed Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD boundary
adjustment (red outline) within the East Bench Yalecrest Neighborhood
Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD
Page 21 of 24
..
Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD (43 parcels) includes the following property addresses
Princeton Ave (41 parcels): 1323-1490 E Princeton Ave
1500 East: 1 parcel, 1136 S 1500 East
1400 East: 1 parcel, 1150 E 1400 East
APPENDIX B
Contrary Documentation in RLS 2005 and Salt Lake County Assessor
Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD
Page 22 of 24
1. Missing photographs: Original house photographs were not available from the State
Historic Preservation Office, nor the SLCounty Assessor website
(www.slco.org/assessor)
a. 1348 E Princeton Ave
b. 1458 E Princeton Ave
c. 1466 E Princeton Ave
d. 1490 E Princeton Ave
2. Inaccurate original photos on SLCounty Assessor website
a. 1422 E Princeton Ave
b. 1426 E Princeton Ave
c. 1442 E Princeton Ave
d. 1450 E Princeton Ave
APPENDIX C
Photographs of Princeton Heights LHD
Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD
Page 23 of 24
See separate attached document
1323-1490 E Princeton Ave
1150 S 1400 East
1136 S 1500 East
Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD
Page 24 of 24
APPENDIX D
Research Materials (References)
1. Lufkin, Beatrice. Yalecrest Reconnaissance Level Survey 2005 . Utah State Historic
Preservation Office.
2. Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay. Sterling Codifier 21A.34.120. December 2005.
http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/getBookData.php?id=&chapter_id=49078&ke
ywords=#s928586
3. Salt Lake City Community Preservation Plan. October 2012
4. Polk directories 1925-1976, State Historic Preservation Office, www.ushpo.utah.gov
5. Family Search app online
6. Salt Lake County Assessor: House information: parcel number, build date, exterior materials,
original house photos, www.slco.org/assessor .
1
Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD
Yalecrest-Princeton Heights Local Historic District embodies 43 houses total
41 houses: 1323-1490 E Princeton Ave
NOTE: Code for each house: address, (contribu ng status): property parcel number, original date and
style descrip on. 1 NA= original photo not available on SLCounty Assessor nor Salt Lake County Archives
1323 E Princeton Ave (B) 16-09-351-009
1937 English Co age 2022
1333 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-351-010
1930 English Co age 2022
1340 E Princeton (A) 16-09-353-001
2
Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD
1938 English Co age 2022
1343 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-351-011
1926 English Co age 2022
1345 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-351-012
1929 English Tudor 2022
1348 E Princeton Ave (B) 16-09-353-002
1926 English Co age 1 2022
3
Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD
Original photo not available
1349 E Princeton Ave (B) 16-09-351-013
1929 English Tudor 2022
1353 E Princeton Ave (B) 16-09-351-014
1928 French Norman 2022
4
Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD
1360 E Princeton Ave (A): 16-09-353-003
1927 English Tudor 2022
1361 E Princeton Ave (B) 16-09-351-015
1927 English Tudor 2022
1362 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-353-004
1926/ 1928 English Tudor 2022
1369 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-351-016
5
Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD
1929 English Co age 2022
1370 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-353-005
1926 English Tudor 2022
1376 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-353-006
1926 English Co age 2022
6
Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD
1377 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-351-017
1927 Jacobean Revival French Norman 2022
1380 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-353-007
1940 Colonial Revival Neoclassical 2022
1387 E Princeton Ave (B) 16-09-351-018
1951 Minimal Tradi onal 2022
7
Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD
1388 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-353-008
1926 English Co age/Tudor 2022
1400 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-353-009
1937 Colonial Revival 2022
1401 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-352-012
1927 English Tudor 2022
8
Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD
1404 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-353-010
1927 English Tudor 2022
1405 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-352-013
1937 English Co age 2022
9
Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD
1410 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-353-011
1927 English Co age 2022
1411 E Princeton Ave (A). 16-09-352-014
1937 English Co age (RLS 2005)/ Colonial Revival 2022
10
Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD
1418 E Princeton Ave (B) 16-09-353-012
1928 Period Revival; Other 2022
1419 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-352-015
1936 Colonial Revival (RSL 2005)/Cape Cod 2022
1422 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-353-013
1927 English Tudor 2022
11
Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD
incorrect original photo?
1426 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-353-014
1927 English Tudor 2022
Incorrect original photo?
1429 E Princeton Ave (B) 16-09-352-016
1926 Cape Dutch Colonial Period Revival 2022
12
Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD
1439 E Princeton Ave (B) 16-09-352-017
1927 Colonial Revival/English Tudor 2022
1442 E Princeton Ave (B) 16-09-353-015
1926 English Co age 2022
inaccurately original photo
1445 E Princeton Ave (B) 16-09-352-018
1929 English Co age 2022
13
Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD
1449 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-352-019
1929 English Tudor 2022
1450 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-353-017
1928 English Co age 2022
Inaccurate original photo?
1457 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-352-020
1926 Dutch Colonial Revival/Period Co age 2022
14
Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD
1458 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-353-018
1926 English Co age 2022
Original photo unavailable
1465 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-352-021
1926 English Co age/Tudor 2022
15
Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD
1466 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-353-019
1929 Colonial Revival 2022
Original photo not available
1469 E Princeton Ave (B) 16-09-352-022
1929 English Tudor 2022
16
Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD
1475 E Princeton Ave (C) 16-09-352-025
1917 Prairie School 2022
1490 E Princeton Ave (A) 16-09-353-060
1928 English Tudor 2022
Original photo unavailable
17
Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD
1 house from 1500 East
1136 S 1500 East (A) 16-09-352-024
1932 Colonial Revival 2022
4. MAILING LIST
OWN_FULL_NAME OWN_ADDR own_OWN_CITYOWNOWN_ZIP
BRITTNEY NYSTROM; EDWARD P ROG (JT 1323 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105
D'ARCY BENINCOSA 1333 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105
SEAN M RHODES; EMILY R BUCHI (JT)1343 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105
ROBERT B MOODY; B CATHERINE MOODY 1345 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105
EVE H SMITH FAMILY TRUST 03/14/1984 1349 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105
ALEXANDRA OWENS 2540 E CATALINA DR COTTONW UT 84121
RALPH L FINLAYSON 1361 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105
APT REV TR 1369 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105
GERALD STRINGFELLOW; BARBARA STRIN 1377 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105
JULIAN ONTIVEROS 1387 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105
KARLY GREENWOOD NIELSEN REVOCABLE 1401 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105
CFAM REV TR 670 OXFORD AVE VENISE CA 90291
SUSAN P AMOSS 1411 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105
AEM FAM TRUST 1419 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105
DANIEL EASTMAN; ANNE MARIE EASTMA 1429 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105
PERRY A SLOAN III LIVING TRUST 04/19/2 1439 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 1445 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105
KATHLEEN ELAINE VIETORIS; CINDY LOU H 1449 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105
RACHAEL E KIRKWOOD 1457 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105
SARIAH TORONTO; DOUGLAS ROLLINS (JT1465 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105
AMY BRADSHAW YOUNG TRUST 4/29/20 1469 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105
ROBERT K WOLTERS; COLEEN T WOLTERS 1136 S 1500 E SALT LAKE UT 84105
JMG TRUST; JFPG TRUST 1475 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 1340 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105
SYCAMORE ASSET PROTECTION TRUST 081348 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105
MARK ALBERT GLISSMEYER TRUST 09/13/1360 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105
TIMOTHY J ERMISH FAMILY TRUST 6/20/21362 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105
LAURENE G JOSEPH REVOCABLE TRUST 111370 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105
DANIEL JED TORSAK; ALLYSON WHITBY TO 1376 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105
JENNIFER A BOWNE; JOHNNY T BOWNE (J1380 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105
GEORGE & SABRINA FAMILY LIVING TRUS 1388 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105
REBECCA L WILSON; MICHAEL D ROBIS (JT1400 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105
BONNIE L RANDALL 1404 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105
STEFAN C PENNER 1410 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105
STRONG LIVING TRUST 03/27/2023 201 S MAIN ST 1800 SALT LAKE UT 84111
WARREN MICHAEL JENSON; SARAH JAYN 1422 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 1426 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105
1442 PRINCETON AVENUE LLC 201 COSTA MESA ST COSTA ME CA 92627
SUZANNE J WINCHESTER 1450 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105
JAMES R LEE TRUST 12/16/2019 740 PARK VIEW DR PARK CITY UT 84098
BRIAN K MILLER; REBECCA A MILLER (JT)1466 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105
BRIAN K MILLER; REBECCA A MILLER (JT)1466 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 1490 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE UT 84105
5. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT
(RECEIVED AFTER STAFF REPORT PUBLICATION)
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening
attachments.
From:cindy cromer
To:Traughber, Lex
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Fw: please forward to the Dropbox for tonight-Princeton Heights
Date:Wednesday, November 8, 2023 2:52:52 PM
Attachments:Scanned_from_a_Lexmark_Multifunction_Product11-08-2023-143743.pdf
The attachment includes the analyses completed by developers who participated in the
Mayor's task force on Affordable Housing. (The complete tables are included in the link below
at Attachment G beginning on p. 92.) The analyses were completed by Chris Zarek for
multiple family developments and by Josh Green for lower density development. This
material was in your packet for the April 26 hearing on the Affordable Housing project. The
conclusion of the Mayor's task force was that the proposed changes would be unlikely to
affect neighborhoods with higher land costs. The discussion by members of the task force
specifically mentioned the Yalecrest neighborhood.
Professional Memo (slcdocs.com)
submitted by cindy cromer
for the hearing on Princeton Hts.
PLNPCM2019-00658 April 26, 2023
PLANNING DIVISION
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
Staff Report
To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission
From: Sara Javoronok, Senior Planner, AICP, sara.javoronok@slcgov.com, 801-535-7625
Brooke Olson, Principal Planner
Date: April 26, 2023
Re: PLNPCM2019-00658
Text Amendment
PROPERTY ADDRESS: City-wide
PARCEL ID: N/A
MASTER PLAN: Plan Salt Lake, Growing SLC: A Five-Year Housing Plan
ZONING DISTRICT: Multiple
REQUEST:
A request by the Mayor to amend zoning requirements to incentivize and reduce barriers for
affordable housing. The proposed amendments include the following if requirements for
affordable units are met:
• Permit administrative design review and additional building height between 1-3 stories,
depending on the zone, in various zoning districts that permit multifamily housing.
• Remove the Planned Development requirement for specific modifications and for
development in the CS zoning districts.
• Permit an additional story in the TSA Transition zoning districts and two stories in the
TSA Core zoning districts.
• Allow additional housing types in the CG (General Commercial), CC (Community
Commercial), and CB (Community Business) zoning districts.
• Allow housing on Institutional zoned land.
• Remove the density requirements in the RMF zoning districts.
• Allow townhouses, 3-4 unit buildings, a second detached dwelling when an existing
dwelling is maintained, and cottage developments on properties that are currently zoned
for single- or two-family homes. Permit twin and two-family homes in the se zoning
districts where they are not currently allowed.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City
Council for the proposed Affordable Housing Incentives Text Amendment, with the ability to
amend the adopted ordinance language as necessary to eliminate potential conflicts with other
pending ordinances and ensure consistency with other code sections and references in the
zoning ordinance. The content and intent of the proposed regulations will not be changed.
1
PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023
ATTACHMENTS:
A. ATTACHMENT A: Proposed 21A.52 Zoning Incentives Text
B. ATTACHMENT B: Single- and Two-Family Zoning District Graphics
C. ATTACHMENT C: Updated Affordable Housing Incentives Document
D. ATTACHMENT D: Updated Affordable Housing Incentives Summary Document
E. ATTACHMENT E: Public Process & Comments
F. ATTACHMENT F: Analysis of Standards
G. ATTACHMENT G: Summary of Proforma and Scenario Analyses
H. ATTACHMENT H: Zoning Maps and Graphics
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
Affordable Housing Incentives (AHI) are proposed for the city’s zoning code to encourage the
development, construction, and preservation of housing in the city. There are two primary goals
of the AHI. First, they are to help public and private dollars that go into building affordable
housing create more housing units. Second, they are to create additional opportunities for
property owners to provide new, affordable housing units. The AHI propose allowing for
additional height, reducing parking requirements, allowing additional housing types, and
providing planning process waivers or modifications.
The project was initiated in 2019 to address increasing concerns regarding housing affordability
and to implement Growing SLC. It was initially envisioned as an overlay district and called
“Affordable Housing Overlay”. Since the proposal applies differently in various zoning districts,
an “overlay” is not applicable, and the “Affordable Housing Incentives” are now the first section
in a new incentives chapter. Initial outreach on the proposal included an online survey in late
2019/early 2020. From the initial survey results, staff developed a draft framework for the AHI
that serves as the basis for the current proposal. This was presented online in a Story Map and
staff requested additional feedback from the community in a survey. Based on this feedback,
developed draft the initial AHI text amendments.
Staff presented these initial draft amendments to the community in the spring of 2022 and to the
Planning Commission and public at a hearing in May 2022. Following the hearing, staff worked
with developers and a focus group convened by the Office of the Mayor to address and revise the
draft based on the issues raised. The revisions also incorporate changes from the now adopted
RMF-30 and pending Downtown Building Heights text amendments. Staff presented a revised
draft to the Planning Commission for discussion on March 22, 2023 and March 29, 2023. The
Historic Landmark Commission held a work session on April 6, 2023.
The incentives are summarized below. Attachment A includes the full text of the draft language.
Many of the incentives refer to area median income (AMI). This is the midpoint of the region's
income distribution. Half of the families in the region earn more than the median and half earn
less than the median. In this case, the Federal government sets the region for the Salt Lake City
Metro Area, which is Salt Lake and Tooele counties. The proposal does not change other city
requirements, including building codes, fire codes, or public utilities requirements.
2
PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS (See attachments for the full text)
Mixed-Use and Multifamily Zoning Districts
Additional height and process modifications
Provisions related to additional height are a key incentive in the proposal. These are specific
incentives for additional height of 1 to 3 stories in zoning districts that allow for additional height
in mixed-use, multifamily and attached units (there are separate incentives for the RMF zoning
districts). See pages 7-8 in Attachment A or pages 14-17 in Attachment D for the specific
allowances in these districts. The proposal does not modify the design standards in 21A.59 but
modifies the review process to administrative design review rather than requiring a Planning
Commission hearing. This would decrease the review time for these projects by approximately
50%.
Planned Development process modifications
The proposal would remove the requirement for a Planned Development for two types of projects.
The first type of project is for buildings in the CS (Community Shopping) zoning district, which is
limited to four areas of the city (see the map in Attachment H.1). Previously, this requirement
was also in place for the GMU (Gateway Mixed Use) zoning district, but it is removed with the
Downtown Building Heights text amendment, which is pending City Council action.
The second type of project is for building lots that do not have public street frontage. This is a
common request with a planned development, often associated with other requests. Removing
the requirement for this process could shorten the review and process for units. Generally,
requests for building lots without street frontage are approved. As properties with long, deep lots
redevelop with more intensive uses, townhouses, or other forms that were not previously as
common, this is a frequent request as the larger size of many lots allows for internal, private drives
to access garages for townhouses, or sites where there are multiple buildings. The removal of this
requirement is intended to decrease the processing time for applications and would not affect base
zoning district standards.
TSA modification
Another component of the proposal is a change from the existing requirements in the TSA or
Transit Station Area zoning districts. There are eight TSA districts, four are “core” districts and
four are “transition” districts (see the map in Attachment H.2 for the location of the TSA zoning
districts). The zoning district has an administrative approval process for projects if they meet a
required number of points per guidelines that apply to the district. If projects meet this required
number of points, they can add an additional story. The proposal would allow one additional story
in the Transition districts and two additional stories in the Core districts, but only if affordable
units are provided.
Additional building types
The proposal would allow single-family and single-family attached dwellings, which include row
houses, sideways row houses, and cottage developments in the CB – Community Business, CC –
Corridor Commercial, CG – General Commercial, and I - Institutional zoning districts. These
districts are located across the city (see the map in Attachment H.3 for the location of the
commercial zoning districts). CB generally has neighborhood-oriented businesses and related
uses, including grocery stores. Concentrations of corridor commercial are located on State Street
and Redwood Road. There are areas of General Commercial west of downtown, on 300 West and
west of I-15. Definitions and design standards are provided for these building types with the
amendments.
The CB, CC, and CG zones permit multifamily development. Buildings that look like townhouses
or row houses are often platted as condos and considered multifamily development. This would
permit them as single-family attached housing that could be developed without a condo plat. This
3
PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023
could allow for additional financing opportunities for homeowners that are not necessarily an
option with condo units.
The institutional zoning district includes land where there are schools, hospitals, and other non-
profit entities. The city’s zoning regulations do not apply to land that is owned by the state.
Multifamily housing is not permitted in this zoning district. At a later date, planning staff may
consider multifamily housing as a permitted use in this zoning district.
Affordability requirements
Projects in the mixed-use and multifamily districts would need to provide units that meet one of
the following seven options listed below. The first three are those presented in May 2022:
• 20% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI;
• 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI; or
• 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI
when the affordable units have two or more bedrooms;
The new options with more deeply affordable and larger units are below:
• 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an average income at or below 60%
AMI and these units shall not be occupied by those with an income greater than 80% AMI;
or
• 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 30% AMI; or
• 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI when
the affordable units have two or more bedrooms; or
• 5% of the units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI
when the affordable units have three or more bedrooms.
See Key Consideration #2 for additional information on the affordability level and number of
units required.
Middle, Single- and Two-Family Zoning Districts
Residential Multifamily Districts
The existing density requirements in the RMF (Residential Multifamily) zoning districts often prevent
the construction of development that is the same density and type as existing surrounding
development. These districts are located in various areas of the city with concentrations of them to the
east of downtown. See the map in Attachment H.4. The proposed amendments incentivize affordable
housing by removing these density limits or qualifying provisions if affordable units are provided. For
example, in the RMF-35 zoning district the density limits require a 9,000 square foot lot for a
multifamily development of 3 or more units. Then, for each additional unit above 3, an additional
3,000 square feet is needed. For example, this would require a half-acre of land for 7 units. This is
often a greater amount of land than would have been required historically. This results in a smaller
number of units constructed on properties. In addition, the units that are constructed are much larger
than those constructed historically, which results in a higher cost per unit.
The proposal would remove these density restrictions and the minimum lot width. It would not
permit additional height or increased building coverage. There are additional design
standards and no more than 25% of the units can be less than 500 sq. ft. The removal of the density
restrictions would enable a greater number of units, likely smaller units, to be built on properties.
Affordability requirement:
Feedback from the surveys and other outreach indicate support for more for sale units that could be
owner occupied and the proposal includes different requirements for rental and for sale units. The
rental units must be at affordable at 50% or 60% AMI and have affordability requirements similar to
those for Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) which is a tax credit program for the acquisition,
4
PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023
rehabilitation, or new construction rental housing for lower-income households. The city’s zoning
requirements generally do not regulate ownership. However, with the more restrictive affordability
requirements proposed, for sale units have an alternative requirement.
For rental housing:
• A minimum of 40% of units shall be affordable to those with incomes at or below 60% AMI;
• A minimum of 20% of units shall be affordable to those with incomes at or below 50% AMI;
or
• A minimum of 40% of units shall be affordable to those with incomes averaging no more than
60% AMI and these units shall not be occupied by those with an income greater than 80%
AMI.
For sale owner occupied units:
50% of units as affordable to those with incomes at or below 80% AMI.
Single- and Two-Family Incentives
The city has six single-family zoning districts, there are three R-1 districts: R-1/5,000, R-1/7,000,
R-1/12,000, and three FR districts: FR-1, FR-2, and FR-3. The city has four districts that generally
allow two-family or duplex homes in addition to single family homes. These are the R-2, SR-1,
SR-1A, and SR-3 zoning districts. The proposed amendments would permit several types of homes
that are not currently permitted in all of these districts:
• Two-family, twin, or duplex homes;
• 3-4 unit buildings – triplexes or fourplexes;
• Townhouses, or single family attached units, as sideways rowhouses or rowhouses in
groups of 3-4;
• A second detached dwelling when an existing dwelling is maintained; and
• Cottage developments, which are single family homes in groups of two to eight that are
generally arranged in a courtyard layout.
One of the primary concerns raised in the public comments and the focus group meetings was
that the AHI would result in the loss of existing dwellings, historic dwellings that are not locally
designated, and naturally occurring affordable housing. This could result in increased
gentrification. The focus group discussed several options to incentivize the preservation of
existing dwellings, while also allowing for additional housing.
The primary incentive recommended by the focus group is to lower the affordable unit
requirement when maintaining an existing dwelling to one unit on the property and allow for a
second, detached dwelling. For example, the owner of a single-family dwelling could maintain the
existing house and use the AHI to construct a second, detached, new dwelling in the rear yard of
the property. For additional units, an ADU could also potentially be added. One of these units
must be designated as an affordable unit and meet the affordability requirements (See
21A.52.050.H.1.c.4 and Table 21A.52.050.G in Attachment A).
The following would apply to properties in the single- and two-family zoning districts:
• Yards: Minimum required yards/setbacks shall apply to the perimeter of the property
and not to the individual principal building(s).
• Parking: One parking space would be required per dwelling unit. If a property has
multiple units, a minimum of one space would be required for each unit. A detached garage
or carport with up to 250 sq. ft. for each unit may be provided in a single structure.
• Subdivision: Lots may contain up to four units. Existing lots may be divided such that
each unit is on its own lot. The new lots are exempt from minimum lot area and lot width
requirements.
5
PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023
• Rowhouse standards: There are specific yard requirements. On street facing facades
buildings cannot exceed 60 ft. in length and garages are not permitted. There is a
maximum length of 15’ for blank walls.
• Cottage standards: There are specific yard requirements. Individual cottages cannot be
more than 850 sq. ft. Open space and personal outdoor space must be provided.
• Accessory Dwelling Unit: An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is considered one unit and
counts toward the number of units permitted.
• No additional height or building coverage is permitted.
The center lot above depicts an existing single-family home with a basement ADU, two surface parking spaces, a
new, detached single-family home to the rear, and a detached two-car garage. This is on a larger, nearly 12,000
sq. ft. lot. The three structures have a total building coverage of 24%. See Attachment B for additional views and
information.
The center lot above depicts an existing single-family home with a second single-family dwelling to the rear. It
includes one parking space per unit located on the driveway. This is on a 7,000 sq. ft. lot. This shows the maximum
building coverage for the property at 40%. See Attachment B for additional information and examples.
Affordability requirement:
In the single- and two-family zoning districts, 50% of the additional dwelling units must be
affordable to those with incomes at or below 80% AMI. If an existing dwelling is maintained, this
is lowered to one of the units as affordable to those with incomes at or below 80% AMI.
6
PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023
APPROVAL PROCESS AND COMMISSION AUTHORITY
The proposal is for a zoning text amendment. The Planning Commission may make a
recommendation to the City Council on this type of proposal per 21A.50.050.A. The Planning
Commission may make modifications to the proposed amendments, direct staff to make changes,
or forward a recommendation to the City Council.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
The key considerations listed below were identified through the analysis of the project:
1. Implementation of city goals and policies identified in adopted plans.
2. Affordability level and percentage of units
3. Neighborhood impacts
4. Administration and enforcement
5. Infrastructure impacts
Consideration 1: How the proposal helps implements city goals and policies identified
in adopted plans.
The city’s adopted plans and policies provide a basis for this proposal. This includes the citywide
plan, Plan Salt Lake (2015) and Growing SLC: A Five-Year Housing Plan 2018-2022 (2017).
These plans were both adopted by the City Council after extensive review by the public and city
boards and commissions. The proposal is consistent with the following principles, objectives, and
policies. See below for the specific items and analysis.
Plan Salt Lake
The proposal is consistent with several items in the Growth, Housing and Transportation &
Mobility Chapters. The Growth chapter Guiding Principle, “Growing responsibly, while providing
people with choices about where they live, how they live, and how they get around” is applicable.
The proposal seeks to enable greater opportunities for people to make these choices by allowing
additional housing throughout the community in different building types and sizes and by
orienting greater development opportunities to areas with increased transit opportunities. It is
consistent with the following initiatives:
• 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.
These initiatives are applicable in that most development proposed using these incentives would
be infill or redevelopment of existing properties that have existing infrastructure and amenities.
The incentives include zoning districts that allow for mixed-use development and it would add
additional building types to other residential districts, which could create a wider mix of housing
types in these zoning districts. Additional housing constructed with the incentives would
accommodate an increase in the city’s population and help to fulfill the existing gap between
households and housing units in the area.
In the Housing chapter, the Guiding Principle, “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” is applicable. The proposal would allow for additional housing types in
7
PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023
several zoning districts and specifically require that a percentage of the units are affordable for
those earning 80% or less than the area median income.
The proposal is also consistent with the following initiatives in the Housing Chapter:
• Ensure access to affordable housing citywide (including rental and very low income).
• Increase the number of medium density housing types and options.
• Encourage housing options that accommodate aging in place.
• Direct new growth toward areas with existing infrastructure and services that have the
potential to be people oriented.
• Enable moderate density increases within existing neighborhoods where appropriate.
• Promote energy efficient housing and rehabilitation of existing housing stock.
• Promote high-density residential in areas served by transit.
The proposal allows for and incentivizes affordable housing units across the city by increasing the
development right. It increases the housing types permitted in many districts, including
commercial, single- and two-family districts. This is designed to facilitate moderate density
increases in these existing neighborhoods. Amendments to the Downtown and TSA districts
further enable and incentivize the development of high density residential in these areas that are
served by high-frequency bus and rail transit. These moderate and high-density areas have
existing infrastructure and services and, particularly in the high-density residential areas, have
the potential to be people oriented. The ability to add units on properties and permit additional
housing types in neighborhoods can accommodate aging in place both in homes and in
neighborhoods. The proposal promotes the rehabilitation of housing stock by allowing additional
units on properties.
In the Transportation chapter, the proposal is consistent with the Guiding Principle, “A
transportation and mobility network that is safe, accessible, reliable, affordable, and sustainable,
providing real choices and connecting people with places.” The proposal incentivizes additional
units in many zoning districts that are in close proximity to transit, consistent with the initiative
to encourage transit-oriented development.
Growing SLC: A Five-Year Housing Plan 2018-2022.
The proposal is consistent with several goals, objectives, and policies in Growing SLC:
• 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.
Develop flexible zoning tools and regulations, with a focus along
significant transportation routes.
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.
Reduce parking requirements for affordable housing developments and
eliminate parking requirements in transit-rich, walkable neighborhoods
or when the specific demographics of a development require less parking,
such as senior populations.
o Objective 2: Remove impediments in City processes to encourage housing
development.
1.2.1 Create an expedited processing system to increase City access for
those developers constructing new affordable units.
The proposal is to modify existing zoning to allow greater flexibility and opportunities for
housing across the city. It encourages diversity in housing stock by allowing for additional
housing types in several commercial districts and in single- and two-family zoning districts. In
8
PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023
single- and two-family zoning districts, this is enhanced by reducing the number of affordable
units required when existing housing is maintained. It also permits the conversion or addition of
units in existing structures. It decreases the parking required for additional units in single- and
two- family zoning districts and for smaller projects.
An element of the proposal is waiving or reducing the required Planning processes for
developments. It removes the requirement for a Planned Development for many projects
including those in the CS (Community Shopping) zoning district and when lots are proposed
without public street frontage. These projects may not require a Planning process. Similarly, it
allows for administrative Design Review for additional height when permitted or incentivized
and meeting the affordability requirements. This administrative process does not modify the
existing 21A.59 Design Standards, but could decrease the processing time for projects.
• Goal 2: Affordable Housing: Increase Housing Opportunities and Stability for Cost-
Burdened Households
2.1.2 Consider an ordinance that would require and incentivize the
inclusion of affordable units in new developments.
The proposal generally incentivizes rather than requires the inclusion of affordable units in
developments. The modification to the TSA zoning district requires affordable units for
additional height, which is not currently required. It increases the allowable height to two stories
in core districts and maintains one story in the transition districts. Otherwise, the proposal
incentivizes affordable units rather than require them through inclusionary provisions. State law
no longer permits new inclusionary requirements. This is further detailed in Key Consideration
2.
• Goal 3: Equitable & Fair Housing: Build a More Equitable City
o Objective 2: Align resources and invest in strategic expansion of opportunity
throughout all neighborhoods of the city and access to existing areas of
opportunity
Make strategic affordable housing investments in high opportunity
neighborhoods.
Support diverse and vibrant neighborhoods by aligning land use policies
that promote a housing market capable of accommodating residents
throughout all stages of life.
The proposal allows for additional housing types in a variety of zoning districts, including
commercial, single- and two-family districts. These include high opportunity neighborhoods and
may increase the opportunity for owner-occupied units in these neighborhoods. The same
provisions may also allow for greater opportunities for residents to remain in the same
neighborhoods or elsewhere in the city throughout all stages of life by providing for additional
housing types and greater opportunities for these types of developments that are often occupied
by recent graduates, young families, and those that may wish to downsize.
Consideration 2: Affordability level and percentage of units
There has been significant comment and discussion on providing for a greater percentage of
affordable units and providing a greater percentage of units that are deeply affordable. Making
significant changes to the percentage of affordable units or the targeted AMI would result in
projects that are not feasible. This would result in “incentives” that would not be used because
they would not provide a benefit. The purpose of the AHI are to allow for a greater number of
units than may otherwise be constructed. The intent of the AHI presented in May 2022 was to
provide a sufficient incentive that developers of market rate housing could include affordable
units in their proposals, and the AHI would allow for developers that were already constructing
affordable units to add more units to their projects.
9
PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023
Posed as a policy question: “Can we increase the affordable housing levels by decreasing the AMI
or requiring a different proportion of units?” it is important to consider that if a “gap” is created,
it must be filled with a grant or subsidy, or the project cannot be built. The lower the average
AMI, the lower the rent collected, and the lower the amount a bank will loan the project to get it
built.
As shown in the example below, as rent decreases from market rate, the cost of the development
does not decrease. However, the maximum loan that a bank is willing to lend decreases, which
creates a gap in financing that must be filled. The “annual cash flow” column assumes this gap is
filled with equity. With the decrease in rent paid, the annual cash flow is lower and produces less
favorable terms for an owner or investor. As AMI decreases, the gap increases and the annual
cash flow decreases. The gap must be filled for a project to be developed and a project must have
sufficient cash flow for operational expenses, maintenance, and other costs.
80 1-Bed
Units
Rent per
Unit
Development
Cost
Financing Annual Cash
Flow Maximum
Loan
35%
Equity
Gap
Market Rate $1,841 $23,200,000 $15,912,404 $8,120,000 No gap $256,264
80% AMI $1,537 $23,200,000 $12,505,567 $8,120,000 -$2,574,433 $201,398
70% AMI $1,345 $23,200,000 $10,232,535 $8,120,000 -$4,847,465 $166,724
60% AMI $1,153 $23,200,000 $8,199,392 $8,120,000 -$6,880,608 $132,048
50% AMI $961 $23,200,000 $6,046,360 $8,120,000 -$9,033,640 $97,375
40% AMI $769 $23,200,000 $3,893,216 $8,120,000 -$11,186,784 $62,699
30% AMI $576 $23,200,000 $1,740,185 $8,120,000 -$13,339,815 $28,025
A second policy question considers the effect of 50% market rate units and 50% affordable units
at 30% AMI and 50% AMI. As with the first example, there is a gap that needs to be filled with
equity, and the project has a much lower cash flow than the market rate development.
80 1-Bed Units Development
Cost
Financing Annual Cash
Flow Maximum
Loan
35%
Equity Gap
40 Market Rate, 40 @ 30% AMI $23,200,000 $8,826,294 $8,120,000 -$6,253,706 $142,144
40 Market Rate, 40 @ 50% AMI $23,200,000 $10,979,382 $8,120,000 -$4,100,618 $177,979
Assumptions for both examples:
• Annual Cash Flow assumes that the "gap" is filled with equity
• Development cost is based on $290,000 per unit
• Considers reserves/operating expenses of $380,000 per year, 23% of effective gross income for Market Rate rents
• Maximum Bank Loan is based on a debt coverage ratio (DCR) of 1.25, 5% interest rate, and a 30-year term
• Vacancy rate is 6%
• Market Rate Rent Source: CBRE 2022 Greater Salt Lake Area Multifamily Market Report, average Downtown SLC rent
• Affordable rents by AMI based on 2022 HUD Income Limits, 1.5 household for a 1-bedroom apartment, 30% of income
Based on the direction from the Commission and in response to public comment, staff reached
out to members of the local development community, particularly those that are experienced with
developing affordable housing and smaller scale developments, and asked them to test the
feasibility of the proposed AHI. Staff and the developers created scenarios and proformas to show
the performance of the AHI, model their feasibility, and assess how they could be modified to
accommodate lower incomes and/or provide for a greater number of affordable units. See
Attachment B for details.
Chris Zarek of Cowboy Partners, who develops market rate and affordable housing, modeled the
existing AHI, and based on the results, additional incentive options for more deeply affordable
units and larger units. A model was created for a scenario in the D-2, Downtown Support, zoning
district to show how the three options for AHI incentives presented in May 2022 could apply with
concrete/steel construction in zoning districts that allow for greater height and steel construction.
These options are as follows:
10
PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023
• 20% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI;
• 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI; or
• 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI
when the affordable units have two or more bedrooms;
Generally, the modeling showed a sufficient return for development. However, with one
additional story, the return decreased. The return increased with additional floors, and, with
some incentives, was greater (See Attachment G.1).
A second model and scenario demonstrate how the AHI could apply in zoning districts that allow
for approximately 50’ in height (ex. FB-UN2 or TSA Transition zone). This building would have
a concrete podium base with parking and wood frame construction and residential units above it.
This shows the potential for a change from a 4-over-1 to a 5-over-1 building. The incentives could
allow for an increase from four wood frame residential floors above the first floor of parking to
five wood frame residential floors above the first floor of parking. This example shows that as
buildings increase in height, there are different building code requirements, like a change from
Type V to Type III construction, which provides additional fire protection, and results in higher
construction costs. Additionally, depending on the type and location of the building, less parking
may be provided (See Attachment G.2).
Based on these scenarios, staff is not recommending an increase in the percentage of units
required as affordable. To address the issue of providing more deeply affordable units, Cowboy
Partners modeled additional scenarios with lower percentage of units at more deeply affordable
levels, and with larger unit options. The model indicated these scenarios provided a sufficient
return for development and four additional incentive options have been added to the three
originally proposed.
The new options are below:
• 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an average income at or below 60%
AMI and these units shall not be occupied by those with an income greater than 80% AMI;
or
• 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 30% AMI; or
• 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI when
the affordable units have two or more bedrooms; or
• 5% of the units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI
when the affordable units have three or more bedrooms.
An important consideration is that the AHI allow new affordable housing developments to
construct more units than are allowed with the existing zoning. Amanda Dillon of GIV Group,
who develops affordable housing, prepared scenarios to show the number of units that could have
been added to existing projects with the proposed AHI. See Attachment G.3 for details. A
summary is as follows:
• Denver Apartments (permanent supportive housing) increase from 22 to 53 units
• Avia (20% of units at 50% AMI, 4% LIHTC*) increase from 286 to 367 units
• Citizens West 2&3 (100% affordable, 25-50% AMI, 9% LIHTC) increase from 80 to 114
units
*LIHTC = Low Income Housing Tax Credit
Josh Green of Alchemy Development developed a proforma to model the additional housing types
in the single- and two-family neighborhoods. The proforma included rental and ownership
options in lower and higher value neighborhoods to assess how the AHI may apply in different
areas of the city. See Attachment G.4 for details.
In summary, for the single- and two-family zoning districts, the original proposal for the AHI may
not provide sufficient profit for new development. For ownership units, the fourplex provides the
11
PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023
greatest return. For rental units, the townhouses or rowhouses provide the highest net operating
income, but, depending on the goals of the owner, may not be sufficient.
The proposed modifications also include focus group recommendations to preserve existing
housing in the single- and two-family zoning districts. This modification, discussed in the
following section, may increase the likelihood for profit for homeowners or developers.
Alternatively, increasing the maximum AMI for ownership housing may make it more likely to be
constructed and does not require a financial incentive on behalf of the city or another entity.
Consideration 3: Neighborhood impacts
The focus group discussed several mitigation options based on the comments from the Planning
Commission and the public and came to a consensus on the following recommendations:
• The removal of the proximity to transit and adjacency to arterial roads
requirement for additional housing types in the single- and two-family zoning
districts. This opens the AHI up to all areas of the single- and two-family zoning districts.
This requirement was the subject of many public comments. The intent of the requirement
was to encourage additional housing units in areas that are served by frequent transit (rail
or bus service with 15-minute headways during peak periods) or are adjacent to arterial
roads, which often have greater intensities of development. However, this requirement
proved difficult because the location and frequency of the non-fixed bus routes has
changed several times in the past few years. Additionally, some areas of the city were
excluded and this raised concerns regarding the equity of the AHI and how they applied
in different neighborhoods.
• An emphasis on the preservation of existing housing. Members of the focus group
did not want to see existing housing demolished. Many existing housing units are
naturally more affordable than new housing units. This recommendation is addressed in
the revisions by allowing for a second detached dwelling on a lot if the existing dwelling is
maintained. As with the previous proposal, existing dwellings may be divided into
multiple units provided other development standards are met. It decreases the
affordability requirement when an existing dwelling is preserved from 50% of units to at
least one of the units. More than two detached dwellings on a lot would require a cottage
development. See the single- and two-family section above for additional information and
graphics as to how this could be implemented. The graphics are also in Attachment B.
• Additional design standards for new housing types in single- and two-family
zoning districts. The focus group identified the design of the additional housing types
and open space as potential issues. Through discussions with staff, there is additional
language that requires 50% durable building materials; a building entrance with an entry
porch, canopy, or awning; and an open space requirement for a yard, patio, or other
outdoor area. See pages 13-14 in Attachment A for specific requirements.
Consideration 4: Administration and enforcement
The city anticipates that staff will be needed to administer the AHI program. The amount of staff
time necessary will depend on the number of projects that use the AHI and the specific AHI
adopted. There is additional language added to the AHI to allow the city to contract with a third
party for administration of the incentives. Administration will need to include the following:
• Preparing and recording restrictive covenant agreement.
• Preparing administrative guidelines and providing general support regarding the incentives
and approval process.
• Reviewing of annual reports and auditing for compliance. There is additional language added
detailing the requirements of these reports and allowing submittal of the copy of the report
provided to Utah Housing Corporation, Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund, Housing
12
PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023
Authority of Salt Lake City, Housing Connect or other sources approved by the Department
of Community and Neighborhoods to satisfy this requirement.
• Noncompliance shall be cured or will result in fines or an enforcement action. This may
include a lien placed on the property or revocation of the business license associated with the
property.
• The city may contract with another entity for reporting and compliance review.
The current proposal includes additional language on reporting, compliance, and enforcement.
The properties using the AHI would be required to submit an annual report and a restrictive
covenant would be placed on the property. Key points include the following:
• Annual Reporting and Auditing – There is additional language requiring annual reporting
from the property owner. This can be through reporting for another entity or by meeting
the city’s requirements. These include providing information on the dwelling units, rental
rates, occupancy, and income verification.
• Definitions are added and clarified for affordable housing, affordable rental unit, and
affordable homeownership unit.
• Enforcement – The penalties have been increased. The fine will be set annually in the
Consolidated Fee Schedule and there is an additional fine that is the difference between
the affordable monthly rent and the market rate rent. If fines are not paid, a lien may be
placed on the property. The business license for the property may also be revoked and
there are additional penalties for those whose license has been revoked.
• Affordable Homeownership Unit
o The city will have a first option on future sales to ensure that the housing unit
remains affordable.
o Owners will need to meet income requirements at the time of purchase.
• Affordable Rental Unit
o Through administrative requirements, unless otherwise required for the
development, if a resident’s income increases to market rate, the resident will be
switched to a market rate unit/rate, or, if not available, may remain in the unit.
Consideration 5: Infrastructure impacts
It is the responsibility of developers to provide service to new development. During the review
process, infrastructure needs, like water and sewer are identified, and new or upgraded service
may be required to be installed by the developer. This is typically handled during the building
permit process. If a water, sewer, or storm drain line does not have adequate capacity for new
housing units, a developer is required to increase the capacity. This is similar for other utilities.
The city plans for future growth in various master plan documents. This includes the city’s water
supply. The Public Utilities Department determines the amount of water available for all future
development. Staff discussed this issue with Laura Briefer, the Public Utilities Director. The city’s
most recent water supply and demand plan (2019) projects to the year 2060 and takes into
consideration land use changes associated with densification, as well as land use changes in the
Northwest Quadrant of the City, including the inland port and new correctional facility. The plan
also takes into consideration the city’s best projections for climate change impacts to water supply
and demand. The conclusion of the 2019 plan is that more water conservation is needed to meet
the cumulative projected population and land use driven demands by the year 2060.
Public Utilities will conduct a water supply and demand iteration this year that may explore
demand factors for the needs of the Great Salt Lake and environmental flows. Recent state water
rights policy changes have paved the way for the city to include environmental water needs,
especially for the Great Salt Lake, as part of the long-term water supply and demand planning.
At the request of planning staff, public utilities provided information on single-family residential
water usage as compared with small and large multifamily dwellings for 2018-2022, as available.
13
PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023
The average monthly usage for single-family residential dwellings is between 12,000-15,000
gallons per month. Much of this is for outdoor watering and in the winter water usage is
approximately 6,500-7,000 gallons per month. Large multifamily buildings have a more
consistent year-round water usage per unit and there are greater hardscape impacts.
For the five sample buildings planning staff requested information, a mix of high-rise and wood
frame construction with a total of about 725 units, the monthly water usage averaged
approximately 2,000 gallons per month, per unit. Staff also requested information on two
fourplexes and a cottage court (10 units). These averaged approximately 3,000 gallons per
month, per unit. Multifamily dwellings are likely to have fewer residents per unit and less outdoor
watering. Multifamily dwellings have more consistent year-round usage compared to single-
family properties, but overall, based on the units examined, have much lower water usage per unit
when compared to a single-family home.
ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS
The focus group made the following additional recommendations for future zoning/subdivision
text amendments:
• ADU/condo subdivisions – This would allow for the subdivision of a property with an ADU.
This may be accomplished with a condo unit or otherwise dividing the property. There are
financial benefits to subdividing the property and it would allow for additional ownership
opportunities for ADU residents. There would not be an affordability requirement.
• Modifying unit legalization – Focus group members wanted to see changes to the existing
regulations for unit legalization. Generally, there was a desire to see fewer regulations, an
emphasis on legalizing units that comply with fire/life safety requirements and removal of
the requirement that the unit was in place before 1995.
• Transfer of development rights from existing affordable properties to others – Members of
the focus group wanted to see a program that allowed for the transfer of development rights
from existing properties to other properties. This has the potential to preserve existing
housing units where property owners do not want to make changes and allow for additional
housing units where new development is desired.
ADDITIONAL MODIFICATIONS
There are several other modifications made to the draft. They address the following items:
• Changes related to the Downtown Building Heights Text Amendment
o CG (General Commercial): Permit additional height and change the mapped area to
the Depot District proposed with the Downtown Building Heights text amendment.
o D-1 (Central Business): Clarity when administrative design review would apply.
o D-2 (Downtown Support): Increase in additional height to provide greater benefit.
o D-3 (Downtown Warehouse/Residential): Increase in additional height to be
compatible with the increase in height proposed with the amendments.
o D-4 (Downtown Secondary Central Business): Allow for administrative design review
where mapped additional height is permitted.
o GMU: Increase in additional height to be compatible with the increase in height
proposed with the amendments. Removes the Planned Development requirement in
the GMU zoning district.
• Landscaping in Commercial Zoning Districts – Based on the feedback from the public, staff
modified the landscaping requirement so that it can be met through an open space
requirement that includes patios, courtyards, rooftop gardens, and other options.
• RMU-35 and RMU-45 – Allows for additional height abutting single- and two-family zoning
districts.
14
PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023
• Annual reporting – There is additional language describing the annual reporting
requirements. This can be satisfied with a report as required by another approved entity or
by meeting the city’s requirements, which includes providing information on the dwelling
units, rental rates, occupancy, and income verification.
• Enforcement – Reports of noncompliance and or other violations will be investigated as
necessary. The fines for noncompliance are increased. A lien may be placed on the property
for fines and the business license revoked.
• Removal of modifications to yards/setbacks and building coverage. This simplifies the
proposal and requires development proposals to meet the yards or setbacks and building
coverage of the base zoning district.
• Housekeeping and clarifying language – There are housekeeping modifications and clarifying
language in several sections. These are identified and noted in the draft.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the city
Council for the proposed Affordable Housing Incentives Text Amendment, with the ability to
amend the ordinance language as necessary to ensure consistency with other code sections and
references in the zoning ordinance.
NEXT STEPS
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City
Council. After the recommendation is provided, staff will compile the information and transmit the
proposal to City Council for a briefing, public hearing, and potential adoption.
15
PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023
ATTACHMENT A: Proposed 21A.52 Zoning
Incentives Text
16
1
April 2023 Public Hearing Draft
New Chapter:
21A.52 Zoning Incentives
21A.52.010 Purpose: The purpose of this chapter is to establish zoning incentives to support
achieving adopted goals within the City’s adopted plans and policy documents.
21A.52.020 Applicability: This chapter applies as indicated within each subsection.
21A.52.030 Relationship to base zoning districts and overlay zoning districts:
Unless otherwise indicated in this chapter, all base zoning district or overlay zoning district
standards and requirements take precedence except as indicated in this section.
21A.52.040 Approval Process: Any process required by this title shall apply to this chapter
unless specifically exempt or modified within this chapter.
A. The Planned Development process in 21A.55 may be modified as indicated within
this chapter.
B. The Design Review process in 21A.59 may be modified as indicated within this
chapter.
C. Developments authorized by this chapter are exempt from 21A.10.020.B.1.
21A.52.050 Affordable Housing Incentives:
A. Purpose: The Affordable Housing Incentives encourage the development of
affordable housing. The provisions within this section facilitate the construction of
affordable housing by allowing more inclusive development than would otherwise be
permitted in the base zoning districts. Housing constructed using the incentives is
intended to be compatible in form with the neighborhood and provide for safe and
comfortable places to live and play.
B. Applicability: The provisions in this section provide optional incentives to
development projects that include affordable housing units. Unless specifically
stated below, all other applicable provisions in the base zoning district or
overlay districts shall apply.
C. Uses: Additional housing types are allowed in zones subject to compliance with this
section.
D. Reporting and Auditing: Property owners who use the incentives of this chapter are
required to provide a report that demonstrates compliance with this section and any
additional approvals associated with the use of incentives. The report shall be
submitted annually by April 30th and shall be reflective of the financial status at the
end of the previous calendar year. The report shall be submitted to the Director of
Community and Neighborhoods or successor.
1. Annual Report and Auditing: Each property owner shall submit a report that
demonstrates compliance with this chapter.
a. If applicable, the property owner shall submit a copy of the annual report(s)
provided to Utah Housing Corporation, Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund,
Housing Authority of Salt Lake City, Housing Connect, or similar funding
Underline = New text
Strikethough = Text removed
17
2
source as determined by the Department of Community and Neighborhoods,
or successors, confirming compliance with affordable housing conditions,
including tenant income and rent rates.
b. If an annual report is not submitted as required in 21A.52.050.D.1.a above,
the property owner shall provide a report that includes, but is not limited to
the following:
(1) The property location, tax ID number, and legal description.
(2) Property owner name, mailing address, and email address.
(3) Information on the dwelling units and tenants of the property receiving
the incentives that includes:
(A) The total number of dwelling units
(B) The number of bedrooms of each dwelling unit
(C) The rental rate of each dwelling unit
(D) Identify the dwelling units that comply with the level of
affordability identified in the approval to use the incentives
and a statement that the dwelling units are in compliance with
the approval requirements.
(E) Identify any change in occupancy to the units that are required
to be affordable under this section, including a change in the
number of people residing in each unit and any change in
tenant. Personal data is not required to be submitted.
(F) Confirm that income verification for all tenants was performed
on an annual basis.
(G) Identify any differences in rent between the agreed upon rental
rate in the approval to use the incentives and the actual rent
received for the identified affordable dwelling units.
(H) Identify any instance where an affordable dwelling unit was no
longer rented at the agreed upon level of affordability, the
length of time the dwelling unit was not in compliance with the
agreed upon level of affordability, and any remedy that was
taken to address the noncompliance.
2. Review of Annual Report: The Director of Community and Neighborhoods shall
review the report to determine if the report is complete.
3. Within 30 days of receipt of a complete report, the Director of Community and
Neighborhoods shall provide the property owner with written notice that:
a. Identifies whether the property is in compliance.
b. Identify any deficiency in the information provided by the owner.
c. Assesses any penalty that is due as a result of an identified noncompliance.
4. After receipt of the notice from the Director of Community and Neighborhoods that
indicates noncompliance, the property owner shall:
a. Shall cure the identified noncompliance within 30 days of such notice and
concurrently submit an updated report of then-current operations of the
property that demonstrates compliance; or
b. Property owners can request an extension in writing prior to the expiration of
the 30-day cure period identified above. The request shall include an
explanation of the efforts to correct the non-compliance and the reason the
extension is needed. The Director of Community and Neighborhoods will
review and determine if the timeframe and extension are appropriate and
18
3
whether or not fines shall be stayed during any approved extension. Upon
expiration of the extension granted by the Director the property owner shall
submit an updated report of then-current operations of the property that
demonstrates compliance.
c. Pay any fine or fee that is assessed pursuant to 21A.20.040 due to any
noncompliance within 14 days of achieving compliance. Any fine or fee shall
be assessed from the first identified date that the property is not in
compliance.
d. Violations of this Chapter shall be investigated and prosecuted pursuant to
21A.20, except as set forth below in 21A.52.050.E.
5. The city may contract with another entity for review of the requirements in this
section.
E. Enforcement: Violations of this Chapter, or the restrictive covenant on the property
as set forth in 21A.52.050.F.1, shall be investigated and prosecuted pursuant to
21A.20. The city shall have the additional remedies for violations as set forth below.
1. Lien on Property. If the property owner fails to make payment of the outstanding
fines, then after 90 days or when fines reach $5,000, the division will issue a
statement of outstanding fines. If the property owner fails to make payment within
14 days, then the division may certify the fines set forth in the statement to the
Salt Lake County Treasurer. After entry by the Salt Lake County Treasurer, the
amount entered shall have the force and effect of a valid judgment of the district
court, is a lien on the property, and shall be collected by the treasurer of the
county in which the property is located at the time of the payment of general taxes.
Upon payment of the amount set forth in the statement, the judgment is satisfied,
the lien is released from the property, and receipt shall be acknowledged upon the
general tax receipt issued by the treasurer.
2. Revocation of Business License. Upon a determination of the division that the
property is in violation of this Chapter the city may suspend or revoke the business
license associated with the property. Any suspension or revocation of a license
shall not be imposed until a hearing is first held before the Director of Community
and Neighborhoods or his/her successor. The licensee shall be given at least 14
days’ notice of the time and place of the hearing, together with the nature of the
charges against the licensee. The licensee may appear in person or through an
officer, agent or attorney, to introduce evidence on the licensee’s behalf, and to
confront and cross-examine witnesses. The Director of Community and
Neighborhoods shall make a decision based upon the evidence introduced at the
hearing and issue a written decision. The licensee may appeal to an appeals
hearing officer and thereafter to district court pursuant to 21A.16. If the license is
revoked or suspended it shall thereafter be unlawful for any person to engage in or
use, or permit to be used any property for any business with respect to which the
license has been suspended or revoked until a license shall be granted upon appeal
or due to the property’s compliance with this Chapter. No person whose license
has been revoked, and no person associated or connected with such person in the
conduct of such business, shall be granted a license for the same purpose for a
period of six months after the revocation has occurred. The Director may, for good
cause, waive the prohibition against persons formerly associated or connected
with an individual who has had a license revoked.
19
4
F. Eligibility Standards: Developments shall meet the criteria below to be eligible for
the authorized incentives:
1. Restrictive Covenant Required:
a. Any owner who uses the incentives of this chapter shall enter into a
legally binding restrictive covenant, the form of which shall be
approved by the City Attorney. Prior to the issuance of a building
permit for construction of a building using the incentives, the
restrictive covenant shall be filed with the Salt Lake County Recorder.
The agreement shall provide for the following, without limitation:
acknowledge the use of the incentives, the nature of the approval and
any conditions thereof, the affordability requirements, the terms of
compliance with all applicable regulations, shall guarantee compliance
for a term of 30 years, and the potential enforcement actions for any
violation of the agreement. The agreement shall be recorded on the
property with the Salt Lake County Recorder, guarantees that the
affordability criteria will be met for at least 30 years, and is
transferrable to any future owner.
b. For an affordable homeownership unit, a notice of sale shall be
provided to the city and the city shall have a right of first refusal to any
sale of the property in accordance with a future sales price that is
capped to comply with section 21A.52.050.F.2.b.2 below.
2. The affordable units shall be both income and rent/housing payment
restricted.
a. Income Restriction - The affordable units shall be made available only
to Eligible Households that are qualifying occupants with an annual
income at or below the SLC Area Median Income (“AMI”) as
applicable for the given affordable unit for Salt Lake City Utah, U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) Metro
FMR Area (as periodically determined by the HUD and adjusted for
household size).
b. Rent/Housing Payment Restriction
(1) For an affordable rental unit, the monthly rent, including all
required housing costs per unit, such as utilities and other
charges uniformly assessed to all apartment units other than
charges for optional services, shall be set forth in a written
lease and shall not exceed, for the term of the lease, the
maximum monthly gross rental rate published annually by the
Utah Housing Corporation for affordable units located in Salt
Lake City for the percentage AMI as applicable for the given
affordable unit type.
(2) For an affordable homeownership unit, the annualized housing
payment, including mortgage principal and interest, private
mortgage insurance, property taxes, condominium and/or
homeowner's association fees, insurance, and parking, shall
not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the maximum monthly
income permissible for the AMI as applicable for the given
20
5
affordable unit, assuming a household size equal to the
number of bedrooms in the unit plus one person.
3. Comparable units: Affordable units shall be comparable to market rate units
in the development including entrance location, dispersion throughout the
building or site, number of bedrooms (unless otherwise permitted), access to
all amenities available to the market rate units in the development, or as set
forth in the terms of the restrictive covenant. This section does not apply to
units in single- and two-family zoning districts.
4. The property owner shall be ineligible for affordable housing incentives
pursuant to this Chapter if the property owner or its principals, partners, or
agents are under enforcement for any violation of title 11, 18, 20, or 21.
G. Incentives: Developments are eligible for the incentives identified in this section. Table
21A.52.050.G establishes the affordability requirements based on the zoning district of the
property. Sections 1 through 4 establish the modifications allowed within each zoning
district in order to achieve the affordability incentives. To use the incentives, developments
shall comply with the criteria applicable to the base zoning districts.
Table 21A.52.050.G
Incentive Types
Types Incentive
Type A. Applicable to the single-
and two-family zoning districts: FR-
1, FR-2, FR-3, R-1/12,000, R-
1/7,000, R-1/5,000, R-2, SR-1, SR-
1A, and SR-3.
Dwelling units shall meet the requirements for an
affordable rental or homeownership unit affordable to
those with incomes at or below 80% AMI.
New construction: At least 50% of the provided
dwelling units shall be affordable.
Existing building maintained: A minimum of one of
the dwelling units shall be affordable provided the
existing building is maintained as required in
21A.52.050.H.1.c.
Type B. Applicable to residential
multifamily zoning districts: RMF-
30, RMF-35, RMF-45, and RMF-75
An affordable rental unit shall meet a minimum of at
least one of the following affordability criteria:
1. 40% of units shall be affordable to those with
incomes at or below 60% AMI;
2. 20% of units shall be affordable to those with
incomes at or below 50% AMI; or
3. 40% of units shall be affordable to those with
incomes averaging no more than 60% AMI
and these units shall not be occupied by those
with an income greater than 80% AMI.
For sale owner occupied units: An affordable
homeownership unit shall provide a minimum of 50%
of units affordable to those with incomes at or below
80% AMI.
Type C. Applicable to zoning
districts not otherwise specified.
Affordable rental or homeownership units shall meet
a minimum of at least one of the affordability criteria
identified. Any fractional number of units required
shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number.
21
6
1. 20% of units are restricted as affordable to
those with an income at or below 80% AMI;
2. 10% of units are restricted as affordable to
those with an income at or below 60% AMI;
3. 10% of units are restricted as affordable to
those with an average income at or below 60%
AMI and these units shall not be occupied by
those with an income greater than 80% AMI;
4. 5% of units are restricted as affordable to
those with an income at or below 30% AMI;
5. 10% of units are restricted as affordable to
those with an income at or below 80% AMI
when the affordable units have two or more
bedrooms;
6. 5% of units are restricted as affordable to
those with an income at or below 60% AMI
when the affordable units have two or more
bedrooms; or
7. 5% of the units are restricted as affordable to
those with an income at or below 80% AMI
when the affordable units have three or more
bedrooms.
1. Single- and Two-Family Zoning Districts: The following housing types: twin
home and two-family, three-family dwellings, four-family dwellings, row houses,
sideways row houses, and cottage developments are authorized in the FR-1, FR-2,
FR-3, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, R-2, SR-1, SR-1A, and SR-3 zoning
districts provided the affordability requirements in for Type A in Table
21A.52.050.G are met.
2. RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45 and RMF-75 zoning districts: The qualifying
provisions for density found in the minimum lot area and lot width tables for
the RMF-35, RMF-45, and RMF-75 zoning districts do not apply and in the RMF-
30 zoning district, the minimum lot size per dwelling unit does not apply,
provided the affordability requirements for Type B in Table 21A.52.050.G are
met.
3. Incentives in the CB Community Business, CC Corridor Commercial, CG General
Commercial, and I Institutional Zoning Districts:
a. The following housing types: row houses, sideways row houses, and
cottage developments are authorized in zoning districts provided the
affordability requirements in subsection b. are complied with;
b. To be eligible for the incentives listed in this section, a development
shall meet the affordability requirements for Type C in Table
21A.52.050.G.
4. The following incentives are authorized in zoning districts provided the
affordability requirements for Type C in Table 21A.52.050.G are complied with:
22
7
a. Administrative design review provided the noticing requirements of
21A.10.020.B and the standards in 21A.59 are met. Early engagement
notice requirements to recognized organizations are not applicable.
b. Additional building height as indicated in the following sections:
(1) Residential districts:
Zoning
District
Permitted Maximum Height with Incentive
RMU-35 45’ with administrative Design Review, regardless of abutting use or zone.
RMU-45 55’ with administrative Design Review, regardless of abutting use or zone.
RB May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the
other stories in the building. Density limitations listed in the land use table do
not apply.
RMU May build three additional stories equal to or less than the average height of
the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review.
RO May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the
other stories in the building.
(2) Commercial Districts:
Zoning
District
Permitted Maximum Height with Incentive
SNB May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the
other stories in the building.
CB May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the
other stories in the building.
CN May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the
other stories in the building.
CC 45’ with administrative Design Review; additional landscaping may be met by
meeting requirements in 21A.52.050.H.3.c.5.
CG May build two additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the
other stories in the building with administrative Design Review.
May build three additional stories equal to or less than the average height of
the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review for
properties in the mapped area in Figure 21A.26.070.G.
CSHBD1 105’ and two additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the
other stories in the building with administrative Design Review.
CSHBD2 60’ with administrative Design Review and one additional story equal to or
less than the average height of the other stories in the building with
administrative Design Review.
TSA-
Transition
May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the
other stories in the building with administrative review.
TSA-Core May build two additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the
other stories in the building with administrative review.
(3) Form-based districts:
Zoning
District
Permitted Maximum Height with Incentive
FB-UN3 125’ and three additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the
other stories in the building with administrative Design Review.
23
8
FB-UN2 May build one additional story equal to the average height of the other stories
in the building.
FB-SC May build one additional story equal to the average height of the other stories
in the building.
FB-SE May build one additional story equal to the average height of the other stories
in the building.
FB-UN1 May build up to three stories and 30’ in height.
(4) Downtown districts:
Zoning
District
Permitted Maximum Height with Incentive
D-1 Administrative Design Review is permitted when a Design Review process is
required.
D-2 120’ and two additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the
other stories in the building with administrative Design Review.
D-3 180’ and three additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the
other stories in the building with administrative Design Review.
D-4 120’ and three additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the
stories permitted with administrative Design Review. 375’ and administrative
Design Review in mapped area in 21A.30.045.E.2.b.
(5) Other districts:
Zoning
District
Permitted Maximum Height with Incentive
GMU 180’ and two additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the
other stories in the building with administrative Design Review.
MU 60’ with residential units and administrative Design Review.
c. Administrative Design Review is permitted for the following:
(6) Buildings in the CSHBD1 and CSHBD2 zoning district
that exceed 20,000 square feet in size.
(7) Buildings in the CB zoning district that exceed 7,500
gross square feet of floor area for a first-floor footprint or
in excess of 15,000 gross square feet floor area.
5. Planned Developments: A Planned Development is not required when the
purpose of the planned development is due to the following reasons cited below,
subject to approval by other city departments. If a development proposes any
modification that is not listed below, planned development approval is required.
To be eligible for the incentives in this section, a development shall meet the
affordability requirements for the applicable zoning district in Table 21A.52.040.
a. 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. This allowance supersedes the
restrictions of 21A.36.010.B;
b. Principal buildings with frontage on a paved public alley;
c. Principal buildings with frontage on a private street;
d. Development located in the Community Shopping (CS) “Planned
Development Review” in 21A.26.040.C.
24
9
H. Development Regulations: The following development regulations are intended to
provide supplemental regulations and modify standards of the base zoning district
for the purpose of making the affordable housing incentives more feasible and
compatible with existing development. Base zoning standards apply unless
specifically modified by this section and are in addition to modifications authorized
in subsection 21A.52.050.G. If there are conflicts with design standards, the more
restrictive regulation shall apply and take precedence. These standards are not
allowed to be modified through the planned development process.
1. Modifications in the FR-1, FR-2, FR-3, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, R-2,
SR-1, SR-1A, and SR-3 zoning districts:
a. Parking: Unless there is a lesser parking requirement in 21A.44, only
one off-street parking space per unit is required. One detached garage
or covered parking space, no greater than 250 sq. ft. per unit, may be
provided for each unit and these structure(s) may exceed the yard and
building coverage requirements for accessory structures. When
covered parking is provided, the 250 sq. ft. per unit of covered parking
may be combined into a single structure for each required parking
stall provided.
b. Yards: Minimum required yards shall apply to the perimeter of the
development and not to the individual principal buildings within the
development.
c. Density:
(1) Lots approved through a planned development prior to the
effective date of this chapter are required to go through a
major modification of the planned development to use the
incentives.
(2) Lots may contain up to four units. Existing lots may be
divided such that each unit is on its own lot. The new lots are
exempt from minimum lot area and lot width requirements.
(3) An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is considered one unit and
counts toward the number of units permitted.
(4) Arrangement of dwellings:
(A) New dwelling units may be arranged in any manner
within a building, as a second detached dwelling, as
attached units, or a cottage development with three or
more detached dwellings, within the buildings that are
part of the cottage development.
(B) When an existing building is maintained, new units
may be added internal to the existing structure, as an
addition, or as a second detached dwelling. Any
addition must comply with the standards of the base
zoning district; however, the addition may contain
additional units. 50% of the exterior walls of the
existing dwelling, including the front elevation, shall
remain as exterior walls.
(C) The units shall comply with this section, applicable
requirements of the base zoning district, and any
applicable overlay district.
25
10
2. Within the RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45 and RMF-75 zoning districts the following
provisions shall apply:
a. Unit Mix: No more than 25% of the units in the development shall be
less than 500 square feet to promote a mix of unit sizes.
b. Parking: Unless there is a lesser parking requirement in 21A.44, only
one off-street parking space per unit is required in multifamily
developments with less than 10 units.
c. Yards: The minimum required yards shall apply to the perimeter of
the development and not to the individual principal buildings within
the development.
d. Lot width: Minimum lot width requirements do not apply.
3. In addition to applicable requirements in 1. and 2. above, the following provisions
apply to the specific building types listed:
a. Row house and Sideways row house
(1) Perimeter yard requirements:
(A) Front yards: The front yard and corner side yard of
the base zoning district apply.
(B) Side yards: A minimum of 10 feet on one side of the
building and 6 feet on the other interior side yard
unless a greater yard is required by the base zoning
district
(C) Rear yard: The rear yard of the base zoning district
applies.
(2) Number of Units: To qualify for incentives in the FR-1, FR-2,
FR-3, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, R-2, SR-1, and SR-
1A zoning districts there is a minimum of three and a
maximum of four residential dwelling units per building.
(3) Building length facing street:
(A) The building length shall not exceed 60 feet or the
average of the block face, whichever is less, in FR-1,
FR-2, FR-3, R -1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, R-
2, SR-1, and SR-1A districts;
(B) The building length shall not exceed 100 feet in the
RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45 and RMF-75 districts;
and
(C) The building length shall not exceed 175 feet in other
zoning districts.
(4) Building entry facing street: At least one operable building
entrance on the ground floor is required for each unit facing
the primary street facing façade. All units adjacent to a
public street shall have the primary entrance on the street
facing façade of the building with an unenclosed entry porch,
canopy, or awning feature. The entry feature may encroach
in the front yard setback, but the encroachment shall not be
closer than 5 feet from the front property line.
(5) Building materials: 50% of any street facing facade shall be
clad in durable materials. Durable materials include stone,
brick, masonry, textured or patterned concrete, and fiber
cement board. Other materials may be used for the
remainder of the facade adjacent to a street. Other materials
26
11
proposed to satisfy the durable requirement may be
approved at the discretion of the Planning Director if it is
found that the proposed material is durable and is
appropriate for the structure.
(6) Parking requirement and location: Unless there is a lesser
parking requirement in 21A.44, only one off-street parking
space per unit is required. All provided parking shall be
located to the side of the street facing building façade,
behind a principal structure that has frontage on a street, or
within the principal structure subject to any other applicable
provision.
(7) Garage doors facing street: Garage doors are prohibited on
the façade of the building that is parallel to, or located along,
a public street.
(8) Personal outdoor space: Each unit shall have a minimum
outdoor space of 60 square feet where the minimum
measurement of any side cannot be less than 6 feet.
(9) Glass: The surface area of the façade of each floor facing a
street must contain a minimum of 15% glass.
(10) Blank wall: The maximum length of any blank wall
uninterrupted by windows, doors, or architectural detailing
at the ground floor level along any street facing façade is 15’.
(11) Screening of mechanical equipment: All mechanical
equipment shall be screened from public view and sited to
minimize their visibility and impact. Examples of siting
include on the roof, enclosed or otherwise integrated into the
architectural design of the building, or in a rear or side yard
area subject to yard location restrictions found in section
21A.36.020, table 21A.36.020B, “Obstructions In Required
Yards” of this title.
Illustration for 21A.52.050.E.3.a.1 Required Setbacks for Public Street Facing Row House
27
12
Illustration for 21A.52.050.E.3.b.1 Required Setbacks for Sideways Row House
b. Cottage Development
(1) Perimeter yard requirements:
(A) Front yards: The front yard and corner side yard of the
base zoning district apply.
(B) Side yards: A minimum of 10 feet on one side of the
property line and 6 feet on the other interior side yard,
unless a greater yard is required by the base zoning
district.
(C) Rear yard: The rear yard of the base zoning district
applies.
(2) Setbacks Between Individual Cottages: All cottages shall have a
minimum setback of eight feet from another cottage.
(3) Area: No cottage shall have more than 850 square feet of gross
floor area, excluding basement area. There is no minimum
square foot requirement.
(4) Building Entrance: All building entrances shall face a public
street or a common open space.
(5) Building materials: 50% of any street facing facade shall be
clad in durable materials. Durable materials include stone,
brick, masonry, textured or patterned concrete, and fiber
cement board. Other materials may be used for the remainder
of the facade adjacent to a street. Other materials proposed to
satisfy the durable requirement may be approved at the
discretion of the Planning Director if it is found that the
28
13
proposed material is durable and is appropriate for the
structure.
(6) Open Space: A minimum of 250 square feet of common, open
space is required per cottage. At least 50% of the open space
shall be in a courtyard or other common, usable open space.
The development shall include landscaping, walkways or other
amenities intended to serve the residents of the development.
(7) Personal Outdoor Space: In addition to the open space
requirement in this section, a minimum of 120 square feet of
private open space is required per cottage. The open space
shall provide a private yard area for each cottage and will be
separated with a fence, hedge, or other visual separation to
distinguish the private space.
(8) Parking: Unless there is a lesser parking requirement in
21A.44, one off-street parking space per unit is required. All
provided parking shall be located to the side of a street facing
building façade, behind a principal structure that has frontage
on a street, or within the principal structure subject to any
other applicable provision.
c. In addition to applicable requirements in 21A.52.050.H above, the
following provisions apply to all other buildings containing more than two
residential units. If the base zone has a greater design standard
requirement, that standard applies.
(1) Perimeter yard requirements:
(A) Front yards: The front yard and corner side yard
setback of the base zoning district apply.
(B) Side yards: For housing types not otherwise allowed in
the zoning district, a minimum of 10 feet on each side
property line, unless a greater setback is required for
single-family homes.
(C) Rear yards: The rear yard of the base zoning district
applies.
(2) Building entrances: The ground floor shall have a primary
entrance on the street facing façade of the building with an
unenclosed entry porch, canopy, or awning feature. Stairs to
second floor units are not permitted on street facing
elevations.
(3) Glass: The surface area of the façade of each floor facing a
street must contain a minimum of 15% glass.
(4) Building materials: 50% of any street facing facade shall be
clad in durable materials. Durable materials include stone,
brick, masonry, textured or patterned concrete, and fiber
cement board. Other materials may be used for the remainder
of the facade adjacent to a street. Other materials proposed to
satisfy the durable requirement may be approved at the
discretion of the Planning Director if it is found that the
proposed material is durable and is appropriate for the
structure.
(5) Open space: Open space area may include landscaped yards,
patios, dining areas, and other similar outdoor living spaces.
29
14
All required open space areas shall be accessible to all
residents or users of the building.
(A) Single- and two-family zoning districts: 120 sq. ft. of
open space with a minimum width of 6 ft. shall be
provided for each building with a dwelling.
(B) All other zoning districts: A minimum of 10% of the
land area within the development shall be open space,
up to 5,000 square feet. Open space may include
courtyards, rooftop and terrace gardens and other
similar types of open space amenities. All required
open space areas shall be accessible to all residents or
users of the building.
d. Single- and Two-family Dwellings: No additional design standards except
as identified in 21A.24.
e. Unit Limits: For overall development sites with more than 125 units, no
more than 50% of units shall be designated as affordable units.
f. Lots without public street frontage may be created to accommodate
developments without planned development approval subject to the
following standards:
(1) Required yards shall be applied to the overall development
site not individual lots within the development. The front and
corner yards of the perimeter shall be maintained as
landscaped yards;
(2) Lot coverage shall be calculated for the overall development
not individual lots within the development; and
(3) Required off street parking stalls for a unit within the
development are permitted on any lot within the
development.
(4) The subdivision shall be finalized with a final plat and the final
plat shall document that the new lot(s) has adequate access to
a public street by way of easements or a shared driveway or
private street; and
(5) An entity, such as a homeowner association, must be
established for the operation and maintenance of any common
infrastructure. Documentation establishing that entity must be
recorded with the final plat.
Additional Language:
21A.20.040 Civil Fines
A. If the violations are not corrected by the citation deadline, civil fines shall accrue at
twenty five dollars ($25.00) a day per violation for those properties legally used for
purposes that are solely residential uses, and one hundred dollars ($100.00) a day per
violation for those properties used for purposes that are not residential uses.
B. Affordable housing incentives per 21A.52.050: If the violation(s) are not corrected by the
citation deadline, civil fines shall accrue at the rate set in the Consolidated Fee Schedule
per day per violation. If the violation(s) include renting an affordable rental unit in
excess of the approved rental rate then an additional monthly fine shall accrue that is the
difference between the market rate of the unit and the approved rental rate that is agreed
to by the applicant at the time of approval for a project using the incentives.
30
15
21A.60.020: LIST OF DEFINED TERMS:
(Staff note: The following terms would be added to the list of defined terms.)
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
DWELLING, THREE-FAMILY
DWELLING, FOUR-FAMILY
DWELLING, ROW HOUSE
DWELLING, SIDEWAYS ROW HOUSE
DWELLING, COTTAGE DEVELOPMENT
21A.62.040: DEFINITIONS OF TERMS:
(Staff note: The following definitions would be added to the definitions of terms.)
AFFORDABLE HOUSING: Affordable housing shall be both income and, as applicable, rent-
restricted. The affordable units shall be made available only to individuals and households that
are qualifying occupants at or below the applicable percentage of the area median income for the
Salt Lake City Utah, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) Metro FMR
Area the “SLC Area Median Income” or “AMI”, as periodically determined by HUD and adjusted
for household size) and published by the Utah Housing Corporation, or its successor. Affordable
housing units must accommodate (30% of gross income for housing costs, including utilities) at
least one of the following categories:
a. Extremely Low-Income Affordable Units: Housing units accommodating up to
30% AMI;
b. Very Low-Income Affordable Units: Housing units accommodating up to greater than
30% and up to 50% AMI; or
c. Low-Income Affordable Units: Housing units accommodating greater than 50% and up
to 80% AMI
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT: A housing development that meets the
criteria in 21A.52.050
DWELLING, THREE-FAMILY: A detached building containing three dwelling units.
DWELLING, FOUR-FAMILY: A detached building containing four dwelling units.
DWELLING, ROW HOUSE: A series of attached single-family dwellings that share at least
one common wall with an adjacent dwelling unit and where the entry of each unit faces a public
street. Units may be stacked vertically and/or attached horizontally. Each attached unit may be
on its own lot.
DWELLING, SIDEWAYS ROW HOUSE: A series of attached single-family dwellings that
share at least one common wall with an adjacent dwelling unit and where the entry of each
unit faces a side yard as opposed to the front yard. Units may be stacked vertically and/or
attached horizontally. Each attached unit may be on its own lot.
31
16
DWELLING, COTTAGE DEVELOPMENT: A cottage development is a unified development
that contains a minimum of two and a maximum of eight 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.
21A.24.050: R-1/12,000 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT:
A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the R-1/12,000 Single-Family Residential District is to
provide for conventional single-family residential dwellings and affordable housing
developments with up to four units on residential neighborhoods with lots twelve thousand
(12,000) square feet in size or larger. This district is appropriate in areas of the City as identified
in the applicable community Master Plan. 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.
21A.24.060: R-1/7,000 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT:
A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential District is to
provide for conventional single-family residential dwellings and affordable housing
developments with up to four units on residential neighborhoods with lots not less than seven
thousand (7,000) square feet in size. This district is appropriate in areas of the City as identified
in the applicable community Master Plan. 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.
21A.24.070: R-1/5,000 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT:
A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District is to
provide for conventional single-family residential dwellings and affordable housing
developments with up to four units on residential neighborhoods with lots not less than five
thousand (5,000) square feet in size. This district is appropriate in areas of the City as identified
in the applicable community Master Plan. 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.
21A.24.110: R-2 SINGLE- AND TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT:
A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the R-2 Single- and Two- Family Residential District is
to preserve and protect for single-family dwellings the character of existing neighborhoods
which exhibit a mix of predominantly single- and two-family dwellings by controlling the
concentration of two-family dwelling units. 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 and to promote sustainable and compatible
development patterns.
21A.24.170: R-MU RESIDENTIAL/MIXED USE DISTRICT:
F. Maximum Building Height: The maximum building height shall not exceed seventy five feet
(75'), except that nonresidential buildings and uses shall be limited by subsections F1 and F2 of
this section. Buildings taller than seventy five feet (75'), up to a maximum of one hundred
twenty five feet (125'), may be authorized through the design review process (chapter 21A.59 of
32
17
this title) and provided, that the proposed height is located within the one hundred twenty five
foot (125') height zone indicated in the map located in subsection F3 of this section.
1. Maximum height for nonresidential buildings: Forty five feet (45').
2. Maximum floor area coverage of nonresidential uses in mixed use buildings of residential
and nonresidential uses: Three (3) floors.
3. One hundred twenty five foot (125') height zone map for the R-MU District:
FIGURE 21A.24.170.F.3
(Staff note: The following use would be added to the existing tables.)
21A.33.020: TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS:
33
18
Use Permitted And Conditional Uses By District
FR
-1/
43,
56
0
FR
-2/
21,
78
0
FR
-3/
12,
00
0
R-
1/
12,
00
0
R-
1/
7,
00
0
R-
1/
5,
00
0
S
R
-1
S
R
-
2
S
R
-
3
R
-
2
R
M
F-
30
R
M
F-
35
R
M
F-
45
R
M
F-
75
R
B
R
-
M
U
-
3
5
R
-
M
U
-
4
5
R
-
M
U
R
O
Afforda
ble
Housin
g
Develo
pment
P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P
21A.33.030: TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR
COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS:
Use Permitted and Conditional Uses by District
CBN CG CC
Affordable Housing
Development P P P
21A.33.070: TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR SPECIAL
PURPOSE DISTRICTS:
Use Permitted and Conditional Uses by
District
I
Affordable Housing Development P
21A.26.078
…
E. Development Standards:
…
2. Building Height: The minimum and maximum building heights are found in table
21A.26.078E2, "Building Height Regulations", of this subsection E2. The following exceptions
apply:
a. The minimum building height applies to all structures that are adjacent to a public or
private street. The building shall meet the minimum building height for at least fifty percent
(50%) of the width of the street facing building wall.
b. Projects that achieve a development score that qualifies for administrative review are
eligible for an increase in height. The increase shall be limited to one story of habitable space.
The height of the additional story shall be equal to or less than the average height of the other
stories in the building. This is in addition to the height authorized elsewhere in this title.
Modifications to Existing Affordable Housing References:
34
19
21A.27.040: FB-SC AND FB-SE FORM BASED SPECIAL PURPOSE CORRIDOR
DISTRICT:
C. FB-SC Building Form Standards: Building form standards are listed in table 21A.27.040.C of
this section.
TABLE 21A.27.040.C
FB-SC BUILDING FORM STANDARDS
Permitted Building Forms
Multi-Family And Storefront
H Maximum
building
height
Maximum building height in the FB-SC is 60 ft. An additional 15 ft. in
height (for a total height of 75 ft.) may be permitted for residential uses
if a minimum of 10% of the units are affordable housing.
21A.31.010: GENERAL PROVISIONS:
…
N. Affordable Housing:
1. Notwithstanding the minimum height requirements identified above, any buildings that
have ten (10) or more residential units with at least twenty percent (20%) of the units as
affordable shall be allowed to have a minimum building height of thirty feet (30').
2. Affordable housing units within a market rate development shall be integrated
throughout the project in an architectural manner.
21A.31.020: G-MU GATEWAY-MIXED USE DISTRICT:
…
I.Affordable Housing: Notwithstanding the maximum height requirements identified above,
any buildings that have at least ten (10) or more residential units with at least twenty percent
(20%) of the units as affordable shall be allowed a maximum building height of ninety feet
(90'). The affordable units shall be integrated throughout the project in an architectural
manner.
21A.55.010: PURPOSE STATEMENT:
…
2. Preservation of, or enhancement to, historically significant landscapes that contribute to the
character of the City and contribute to the general welfare of the City's residents.
…
C. Housing: Providing affordable housing or types of housing that helps achieve the City's
housing goals and policies:
1. At least twenty percent (20%) of the housing must be for those with incomes that are at
or below eighty percent (80%) of the area median income. Affordable housing that meets
the requirements of 21A.52.050.
2. The proposal includes housing types that are not commonly found in the existing
neighborhood but are of a scale that is typical to the neighborhood.
35
PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023
ATTACHMENT B: Single- and Two-Family
Zoning District Graphics
36
The City’s Planning Division is considering
zoning amendments to encourage the
construction of additional affordable housing.
This includes adding additional housing types
in many areas of the city.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TYPES
SALT LAKE CITYPLANNING
ADDITIONAL HOUSING TYPES
The proposed amendments would add additional housing
types including single-family attached (rowhouses and
sideways row houses), fourplexes, triplexes, duplexes,
and cottage developments in many areas of the city. This
handout has examples of a sideways row house, fourplex,
duplex, and what can be built by right in an R-1/7,000 zone.
Scaled drawing of sideways row home consistent with proposed regulations.
Scaled drawing of fourplex building consistent with proposed regulations.
Unit #4 (1,840 SF) Units
Lot Size 10,920 SF
Building Height 20 FT
Building Coverage 3,680 SF (34%)
Front Yard Setback 20 FT
Side Yard Setbacks 10 FT , 28 FT
Rear Yard Setback 25 FT
Open Space 7240 SF (66%)
Parking 2 Car Attached Garage Per Unit (8 Stalls Total)
Unit #4 (800 SF) Units
Lot Size 7,000 SF
Building Height 28 FT
Building Coverage 1,600 SF (23%)
Front Yard Setback 20 FT
Side Yard Setbacks 10 FT , 15 FT
Rear Yard Setback 61 FT
Open Space 5,400 SF (77%)
Parking 5 Surface Stalls
Unit #2 (800 SF) Units
Lot Size 8,400 SF
Building Height 16 FT
Building Coverage 1,596 SF (20%)
Front Yard Setback 28 FT
Side Yard Setbacks 5 FT , 18 FT
Rear Yard Setback 74 FT
Open Space 6,804 SF (80%)
Parking 2 Car Garage
4 - Unit Townhome Lot Layout
4 - Plex Lot Layout
Duplex Lot Layout
Unit #4 (1,840 SF) Units
Lot Size 10,920 SF
Building Height 20 FT
Building Coverage 3,680 SF (34%)
Front Yard Setback 20 FT
Side Yard Setbacks 10 FT , 28 FT
Rear Yard Setback 25 FT
Open Space 7240 SF (66%)
Parking 2 Car Attached Garage Per Unit (8 Stalls Total)
Unit #4 (800 SF) Units
Lot Size 7,000 SF
Building Height 28 FT
Building Coverage 1,600 SF (23%)
Front Yard Setback 20 FT
Side Yard Setbacks 10 FT , 15 FT
Rear Yard Setback 61 FT
Open Space 5,400 SF (77%)
Parking 5 Surface Stalls
Unit #2 (800 SF) Units
Lot Size 8,400 SF
Building Height 16 FT
Building Coverage 1,596 SF (20%)
Front Yard Setback 28 FT
Side Yard Setbacks 5 FT , 18 FT
Rear Yard Setback 74 FT
Open Space 6,804 SF (80%)
Parking 2 Car Garage
4 - Unit Townhome Lot Layout
4 - Plex Lot Layout
Duplex Lot Layout
37
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Sara Javoronok, Senior Planner // sara.javoronok@slcgov.com // 801.535.7625
Scaled drawing of duplex consistent with proposed regulations.
Scaled drawing of single-family home consistent with the existing R-1/7,000 zoning regulations.
Unit #4 (1,840 SF) Units
Lot Size 10,920 SF
Building Height 20 FT
Building Coverage 3,680 SF (34%)
Front Yard Setback 20 FT
Side Yard Setbacks 10 FT , 28 FT
Rear Yard Setback 25 FT
Open Space 7240 SF (66%)
Parking 2 Car Attached Garage Per Unit (8 Stalls Total)
Unit #4 (800 SF) Units
Lot Size 7,000 SF
Building Height 28 FT
Building Coverage 1,600 SF (23%)
Front Yard Setback 20 FT
Side Yard Setbacks 10 FT , 15 FT
Rear Yard Setback 61 FT
Open Space 5,400 SF (77%)
Parking 5 Surface Stalls
Unit #2 (800 SF) Units
Lot Size 8,400 SF
Building Height 16 FT
Building Coverage 1,596 SF (20%)
Front Yard Setback 28 FT
Side Yard Setbacks 5 FT , 18 FT
Rear Yard Setback 74 FT
Open Space 6,804 SF (80%)
Parking 2 Car Garage
4 - Unit Townhome Lot Layout
4 - Plex Lot Layout
Duplex Lot Layout
Unit #1 Unit (4632)
Lot Size 7,000
Building Height 28 FT
Building Coverage 2,800 SF (40%) Dwelling (2,316 SF)
Detached Garage (484 SF)
Front Yard Setback 20 FT
Side Yard Setbacks 6 FT , 15 FT
Rear Yard Setback 40 FT
Open Space 3,045 SF (43%)
Parking 2 Car Detached Garage
Single Family Home Developed Under Current R-1-7000 Standards
AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TYPES
SALT LAKE CITYPLANNING
38
LOT DETAILS
Lot Size 11,776 SF (Width 64', Depth 184')
# of Units 3 Units (2 Single-family Detached Dwelling
Units & 1 Internal Basement ADU)
Building Coverage 2,828 SF (24%)
Open Space 6,995 SF (59%)
AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES (AHI)
PRESERVATION OF EXISTING HOUSING
Updated | March 2023
The update to the Affordable Housing Incentives adds
provisions to encourage the preservation of existing
housing. This includes allowing a second, detached dwelling
on a property when the existing dwelling is maintained.
This handout depicts several examples of this type of
development. Development proposed using the affordable
housing incentives must meet all other city regulations,
including building, fire, and public utilities requirements.
SITE PLAN
BUILDING #2
Building#1 facing public street, Building#2 behind Building#1
Building Height 16.5 FT
Building Coverage Dwelling (1,178 SF)
Detached Garage (550 SF)
Front Yard Setback 110 FT from Front Property Line
Side Yard Setbacks 6 FT, 32 FT
Rear Yard Setback 25 FT
Parking 2 Car Detached Garage
BUILDING #1 EXISTING DWELLING
Includes Internal Basement ADU Option
Building Height 16.5 FT
Building Coverage Dwelling (1,100 SF)
Front Yard Setback 36 FT
Side Yard Setbacks 6 FT, 28 FT
Rear Yard Setback 106 FT
Parking 2 Surface Parking Stalls
INTERNAL BASEMENT ADU OPTION
Basement Square
Footage 1,100 SF Basement Unit
Parking 1 Street Parking Stall
39
PRESERVATION OF EXISTING HOUSING
R-1-5000 SCENARIOS
Updated | March 2023
2 Car
Garage
AHI - 2nd
Single Family
Dwelling
P
P
P
P
P
Accessory
Dwelling Unit
2 Car Garage:
440 sf
Lot Coverage: 34%
2nd Single Family
Dwelling: 600 sf
Lot Coverage: 38%
Accessory Dwelling
Unit: 720 sf
Lot Coverage: 40%
SCENARIO #1 SCENARIO #2 SCENARIO #3
Lot Size (Per Scenario): 4,800 sf
Principal Dwelling (Per Scenario): 1,200 sf
Min. Front Yard Setback: 20 ft
Min. Rear Yard Setback: 20 ft
Min. Side Yard Setback: 4 ft, 10 ft
40
PRESERVATION OF EXISTING HOUSING
R-1-7000 SCENARIO
Updated | March 2023
AHI - 2nd
Single Family
Dwelling
P
P
SCENARIO #1
2nd Single Family Dwelling:
1,300 sf
Lot Coverage: 40%
Lot Size: 7,000 sf
Principal Dwelling: 1,500 sf
Min. Front Yard Setback: 20 ft
Min. Rear Yard Setback: 25 ft
Min. Side Yard Setback:
6 ft, 10 ft
41
MAP OF SALT LAKE CITY
SINGLE & TWO-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS
Updated | March 2023
County of Salt Lake, Utah Geospatial Resource Center, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph,GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA
Legend
Single and Two-Family
Zoning Districts
FR-1/43,560
FR-2/21,780
FR-3/12,000
SR-1
SR-1A
SR-3
R-1/12,000
R-1/7,000
R-1/5,000
R-2
±0 0.5 10.25 Miles
SINGLE & TWO-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Sara Javoronok, Senior Planner // sara.javoronok@slcgov.com // 801.535.7625
42
PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023
ATTACHMENT C: Updated Affordable
Housing Incentives Document
43
AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES
SALT LAKE CITY | PLANNING DIVISION
PLANNING DIVISION | SLC.GOV/PLANNING | VERSION 1.1
UPDATED | MARCH 2023
44
[ THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ]
45
CONTENTS
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING
451 S. State Street | Room 406
P.O. Box | 145480
Salt Lake City, UT 84114 - 5480
5 Introduction
6 Project Process
7 Focus Group Recommendations
9 Summary of Changes
10 Program Basics, Administration & Enforcement
12 Multi-family & Mixed-Use Zoning Districts
18 Waive Planned Development Requirement for Specific Developments
20 Allow Housing on Institutional Lands
21 Allow Additional Housing Types
22 Modify Density Limits in Residential Multi-family Zones
24 Single & Two-Family Zoning Districts
30 Next Steps
31 Appendix A: Draft Language
PLANNING DIVISION | UPDATED MARCH 2023 SLC.GOV/PLANNING46
4 47
5
This proposal is for affordable housing incentives. Over time, and particularly in recent years,
housing in Salt Lake City has become less affordable. There are many variables affecting
housing prices, including zoning regulations.
The goal of the proposed amendments are to increase affordable housing throughout Salt
Lake City. Where multifamily housing is permitted, the incentives are designed to encourage
developers to include affordable housing in projects and allow affordable housing developers
to build more housing units. The incentives also allow for small increases in housing units
throughout the city. The proposed amendments would incentivize the construction of
affordable housing through modifications to the zoning requirements.
The following pages describe the project process, the proposed zoning regulations, the
changes to them since presented to the Planning Commission in May 2022, and the next
steps in the project process.
For additional background and historic information on context and housing in Salt Lake City,
see the Affordable Housing Document from 2022: www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Projects/
Affordable%20Housing%20Overlay/affordable_housing_12_28_21_draft_ordinance.pdf.
INTRODUCTION
Introduction 48
6 Project Process
The project was initiated in 2019 to address increasing concerns regarding housing
affordability and to implement the city’s 2018 housing plan, Growing SLC. It was initially
envisioned as an overlay district and called “Affordable Housing Overlay”. Since the
proposal applies differently in various zoning districts, an “overlay” is not applicable, and the
“Affordable Housing Incentives” are now the first section in a new incentives chapter in the
city’s zoning regulations.
Initial outreach on the proposal included an online survey in late 2019/early 2020. From the
initial survey results, staff developed a draft framework for the incentives that serves as the
basis for the current proposal. This was presented online in a StoryMap and staff requested
additional feedback from the community in a survey. Based on this feedback, staff developed
draft affordable housing incentives amendments to the city’s zoning regulations.
Staff presented these draft amendments to the community in the winter and spring of 2022
and to the Planning Commission at a hearing in May 2022. There was a significant amount
of public comment at the meeting and it is included with the staff report. The Planning
Commission provided additional feedback. Staff researched options to respond to the
feedback and worked with developers on scenarios and proformas.
In fall 2022, the Office of the Mayor convened a focus group comprised of community
members, developers, policy advisors, and housing advocates to review the incentives and
respond to feedback. This revised draft addresses these comments and incorporates changes
recommended by the focus group. This document further describes the draft zoning
amendments and the changes that have been made to them. The text for the proposed
zoning amendments that would implement these changes are located in Appendix A.
Additional information is available on the project page:
www.slc.gov/planning/affordable-housing.
PROJECT PROCESS
49
7Focus Group Recommendations
FOCUS GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS
AFFORDABILITY LEVEL
2022 PROPOSAL FOCUS GROUP
RECOMMENDATION UPDATED PROPOSAL
MIXED-USE/MULTI-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS
A project is required to do one of the
following:
• 20% of units are restricted as
affordable to those with an income
at or below 80% AMI; or
• 10% of units are restricted as
affordable to those with an income
at or below 60% AMI; or
• 10% of units are restricted as
affordable to those with an income
at or below 80% AMI when the
affordable units have two or more
bedrooms.
Incentives that require a higher
percentage of affordable units are
unlikely to be feasible for market rate
developers.
Lower number of affordable units are
required to provide for more deeply
affordable and larger units, otherwise
the incentives will not work.
The affordability requirement was
expanded to address size and reduce displacement as household income increases as indicated below:
• 20% of units are restricted as affordable
to those with an income at or below
80% AMI; or
• 10% of units are restricted as affordable
to those with an income at or below
60% AMI; or
• 10% of units are restricted as affordable
to those with an income at or below
80% AMI when the affordable units have
two or more bedrooms.
• 10% of units are restricted as affordable
to those with an average income at or
below 60% AMI and these units shall not
be occupied by those with an income
greater than 80% AMI; or
• 5% of units are restricted as affordable
to those with an income at or below
30% AMI; or
• 5% of units are restricted as affordable
to those with an income at or below
60% AMI when the affordable units have
two or more bedrooms; or
• 5% of the units are restricted as
affordable to those with an income at
or below 80% AMI when the affordable
units have three or more bedrooms.
SINGLE- AND TWO-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS
50% of units need to be affordable to
those with incomes at or below 80%
AMI.
In the single- and two-family zoning
districts the proposed incentives may
not provide sufficient profit for new
development.
Lower the required percentage of
affordable units to one when the
existing dwelling is maintained.
New construction: At least 50% of the
provided dwelling units shall be affordable;
or
Existing building maintained: A minimum
of one of the dwelling units shall be
affordable provided the existing building is
maintained.
50
8
INFRASTRUCTURE
2022 PROPOSAL FOCUS GROUP
RECOMMENDATION UPDATED PROPOSAL
Existing city requirements are for
developers to pay for necessary
infrastructure including water, sewer,
and storm water.
The city has an existing water supply
and demand plan from 2019 that
will be updated in 2023. It takes into
consideration infill and Northwest
Quadrant development.
Existing plans address future water
needs and emphasize system
conservation.
None. Development must provide necessary
upgrades to city services.
City plans and policies will continue
to be updated and assess for adequate
infrastructure.
Focus Group Recommendations
NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACTS
2022 PROPOSAL FOCUS GROUP
RECOMMENDATION UPDATED PROPOSAL
PROXIMITY TO TRANSIT
To be eligible for the incentives
single-family and two-family
residential zoning districts, a property
shall be within a ¼ mile of high
frequency transit or located adjacent
to arterial streets.
Remove proximity to transit
requirements due to frequency of
non-fixed transit route changes and
to improve equitable distribution of
additional housing types.
The proximity to transit and adjacency to
arterial roads requirement for additional
housing types in the single- and two-family
zoning districts has been removed and no
longer applies to the AHI. The incentives
would apply to all areas of single- and two-
family residential districts.
DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
• Building entrances on street facing
façades.
• Glass on 15% of surface area on
street facing facades.
• One off-street parking space
required per unit.
Additional development and design standards needed.
• Determined that a blank wall
standard wasn’t necessary.
• Determined that additional
parking wasn’t necessary.
Additional standards added as indicated below:
• Clarified location requirements for
building entrances.
• Added 50% durable materials
requirement (fiber cement, brick,
concrete, etc.) for street facing facades.
• Added 120 sq. ft. open space
requirement with a minimum width of
6 ft. open space requirement per unit.
ENFORCEMENT
2022 PROPOSAL FOCUS GROUP
RECOMMENDATION UPDATED PROPOSAL
Require a restrictive covenant and
annual reporting for each property.
Increase city capacity to or use third
party to review annual reporting.
Increase city capacity for
enforcement.
Additional language provided on
enforcement, annual reporting, and the
restrictive covenant requirements.
Provision to allow for third party review.
51
9Summary of Changes
SUMMARY OF CHANGES
There are a number of modifications to the draft proposal presented to the Planning
Commission in May 2022. Several of the major modifications are summarized below and
further described in this document.
• The removal of the proximity to transit and adjacency to arterial roads requirement
for additional housing types in the single- and two-family zoning districts. This
opens the incentive up to all areas of the city within single- and two-family zoning districts,
increasing its equity and availability.
• An emphasis on the preservation of existing housing. Members of the community and
focus group did not want to see existing housing demolished. Many existing housing units
are naturally more affordable than new housing units. This recommendation is addressed
in the revisions by allowing for a second detached dwelling on a lot if the existing dwelling
is maintained. It decreases the affordability requirement when an existing dwelling is
preserved from 50% of units to at least one of the units.
• Additional design standards for new housing types in single- and two-family zoning
districts. The focus group identified the design of the additional housing types and open
space as potential issues. There is additional language that requires durable building
materials, an entry feature, and open space.
• Removal of provisions that allowed for reduction from some development standards.
The yards and setbacks of the base zoning district apply to the perimeter of the development
and may not be reduced. No increase in building coverage is permitted.
• Enforcement penalties clarified. Enforcement of the incentives to ensure that units are
occupied as required was a frequent comment from members of the community. Staff has
detailed the annual reporting and auditing requirements and increased the fines that could
apply. Noncompliance can result in a lien placed on the property for fines and revocation of
the business license associated with the property.
• Additional incentive options for deeply affordable and larger units. Members of
the focus group had concerns regarding the proposed affordability level and percentage
of units required to be affordable. Staff and members of the development community
presented information on the feasibility of the existing incentive proposal and the viability
of requiring more deeply affordable units and/or a greater percentage of affordable units.
Options for a lower percentage of more deeply affordable and larger units are provided.
• Modifications for consistency with the proposed Downtown Building Heights text
amendment. The Planning Commission recommended changes to zoning districts within
the downtown in August 2022 and, while these have not been adopted, staff is proposing
changes to the proposal to be consistent and compatible with the proposed changes to
these zoning districts.
52
10
PROGRAM BASICS, ADMINISTRATION
& ENFORCEMENT
GENERAL STANDARDS
• Except for the single- and two-family zoning districts, there are requirements that the
affordable units are comparable to market rate units. This includes the location of the
entrance, dispersion of the units throughout the building or site, number of bedrooms,
and access to all amenities available to the market rate units in the development.
• For overall development sites with more than 125 units, no more than 50%
of units shall be designated as affordable units.
• The proposal does not change other city requirements, incluidng building codes, fire
codes, or public utilities requirements.
Program Basics, Administration & Enforcement
ADMINISTRATION & ENFORCEMENT
The city anticipates that additional staff time will be needed to administer the incentives
program. The amount of staff time necessary will depend on the number of projects that use
the incentives, and the specific incentives adopted. Administration will include the following:
• Preparing and recording a restrictive covenant agreement.
• Reviewing annual reports for compliance. This will assess whether the dwelling units,
owner, and occupants are in compliance with the requirements.
• Projects that require annual reports to be provided to Utah Housing Corporation, Olene
Walker Housing Loan Fund, Housing Authority of Salt Lake City, Housing Connect, or
others may submit that report in lieu of the city reporting requirements.
• Reports of noncompliance and or other violations will be investigated as necessary. A lien
may be placed on the property for fines and the business license revoked.
53
1154
Multi-family and Mixed-use Zoning12
PROPOSAL
Permit additional height between 1-3 stories (approximately 10’ per story), depending on
the zone, in various zoning districts that permit multifamily housing. Allow for administrative
Design Review when a Design Review process is required.
MULTI-FAMILY & MIXED-USE ZONING DISTRICTS
WHAT IS CHANGING FROM MAY 2022?
There are several zoning districts where the height permitted is changing from what was
previously proposed. The “Proposed Maximum Height with AH Incentives” column identifies
what is now proposed. The changes are identified in a footnote at the bottom of the page.
The changes include the following:
• Consistency with the proposed Downtown Building Heights Amendments.
• Four additional options for more deeply affordable or larger units.
• Modifications to encourage greater flexibility and encourage more affordable units.
The simplified administrative design review process for many zoning districts remains. When
a public hearing is required, the approval process can take approximately 4-6 months and an
administrative design review process could shorten this process by 2-3 months.
55
Multi-family and Mixed-use Zoning 13
Proposals that wanted to use this incentive would require affordable units that meet
the following characteristics: The three initial options for affordable units remain:
• 20% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI; or
• 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI; or
• 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI
when the affordable units have two or more bedrooms.
Staff worked with market rate and affordable housing developers to test these in scenarios
and proformas. Incentives that require a higher percentage of affordable units are unlikely
to be feasible for market rate developers. To provide for more deeply affordable and larger
units, staff, developers, and the focus group prepared the following additional options:
• 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an average income at or below 60%
AMI and these units shall not be occupied by those with an income greater than 80% AMI; or
• 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 30% AMI; or
• 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI
when the affordable units have two or more bedrooms; or
• 5% of the units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below
80% AMI when the affordable units have three or more bedrooms.
WHAT IS THE GOAL?
The goal of this proposal is to encourage affordable housing in projects where it may not be
built otherwise and allow for projects that are already providing affordable units to provide
additional units. This is proposed by permitting additional height to encourage the development
of affordable housing and, in some zoning districts, by decreasing the processing time for
applications without modifying the design standards and requirements. Decreasing the
processing time could allow for projects to proceed that may not have otherwise and to begin
construction sooner with reduced carrying costs and development timelines.
56
Multi-family and Mixed-use Zoning14
The following Residential districts would allow for additional stories by right or with
administrative design review for additional height with affordable units as follows:
DISTRICT PERMITTED MAXIMUM HEIGHT PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT
WITH AH INCENTIVES
RMU-35 35’, 45’ Design Review*45’ with administrative Design Review*
RMU-45 45’, 55’ Design Review*55’ with administrative Design Review*
RB 30’
May build one additional story equal to or less
than the average height of the other stories in the
building. Density limitations listed in the land use
table do not apply.†
RMU 75’ residential
125’ in mapped area
May build three additional stories equal to or less
than the average height of the other stories in the
building with administrative Design Review.**
RO
60’ multifamily
90’ if adjacent to a district with greater
maximum height
One additional story equal to the average height of
the stories permitted.
Footnotes - Changes from May 2022: Residential Districts
* Removes prohibition of additional height for property abutting a Single-Family or Two Family Residential District.
† Provides clarity on permitted units.
** Removes the mapped area and requires affordable units for additional height.
*** Removes SR-3 from table. Limits to incentives for single- and two-family zoning districts.
57
Multi-family and Mixed-use Zoning 15
DISTRICT PERMITTED MAXIMUM HEIGHT PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT
WITH AH INCENTIVES
SNB 25’
May build one additional story equal to or less
than the average height of the other stories in the
building.
CB 30’
May build one additional story equal to or less
than the average height of the other stories in the
building.
CN 25’
May build one additional story equal to or less
than the average height of the other stories in the
building.
CC
30’
45’ Design Review and additional landscaping equal
to 10% of the additional floor
45’ with administrative Design Review*
CG
60’
90’ Design Review and additional landscaping equal
to 10% of the additional floor.
May build two additional stories equal to or less
than the average height of the other stories in the
building with administrative Design Review*†
May build three additional storeis equal to or less
than the average height of the other stories in the
building for properties in the mapped area in the
Downtown Building Heights proposal.†
CSHBD1 105’ for residential with structured parking and
Design Review for buildings over 50’
105’ and two additional stories equal to or less than
the average height of the other stories in the building
with administrative Design Review.
CSHBD2 60’ for residential with Design Review over 30’
60’ with administrative Design Review and one
additional story equal to or less than the average
height of the other stories in the building with
administrative Design Review.
TSA Transition
UC-T: 60’
UN-T: 50’
MUEC-T: 60’
SP-T: 60’
May build one additional story equal to or less
than the average height of the other stories in the
building with administrative review. *only allowed if
affordable units are provided
TSA-Core
UC-C: 90’; 105’ with two sloping planes
UN-C: 75’
MUEC-C: 75’
SP-C: 75’
May build two additional stories equal to or less
than the average height of the other stories in the
building with administrative review. *only allowed if
affordable units are provided
Footnotes: Changes from May 2022: Commercial Districts
* Allows for additional landscaping to be met with open space. This includes courtyards, patios, or other usable areas.
† Proposed Downtown Building Heights for CG allows for 75’ & 105’ with Design Review, 150’ in new Depot District mapped area.
Removes mapped area previously included with incentives and replaces with Depot District mapped area.
The following Commercial districts would allow for additional stories by right or with
administrative design review for additional height with affordable units as follows:
58
Multi-family and Mixed-use Zoning16
The following Form-Based districts would allow for additional stories by right or with
administrative design review with affordable units as follows:
DISTRICT PERMITTED MINIMUM OR
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
PERMITTED MINIMUM OR MAXIMUM
HEIGHT WITH AH INCENTIVES
FB-UN3 *pending
85’
125’ Design Review
125’ and three additional stories equal to or less than
the average height of the stories permitted with
administrative Design Review
FB-UN2 50’
65’ on identified corners and in mapped area
One additional story equal to the average height of
the stories permitted.
FB-SC 60’
75’ with 10% affordable units
One additional story equal to the average height
of the stories permitted. Moves affordable unit
requirement to the incentives chapter.
FB-SE 45’May build one additional story equal to the average
height of the other stories in the building.
FB-UN1 2.5 stories, 30’May build up to three stories and 30’ in height.
The two districts below would allow for additional stories by right or with administrative
design review with affordable units as follows:
DISTRICT PERMITTED MAXIMUM HEIGHT PERMITTED MAXIMUM HEIGHT
WITH AH INCENTIVES
GMU
75’ flat
90’ pitched
120’ Design Review
180’ and two additional stories equal to or less than
the average height of the other stories in the building
with administrative Design Review.*
MU 45’ mixed-use and residential
60’ with residential and Design Review
60’ with residential units and administrative Design
Review
Footnotes - Changes from May 2022: GMU District
* Proposed Downtown Building Heights amendments for GMU allows for a permitted height of 75’ and an increase
to 180’ with Design Review.
59
Multi-family and Mixed-use Zoning 17
DISTRICT PERMITTED MAXIMUM HEIGHT PERMITTED MAXIMUM HEIGHT
WITH AH INCENTIVES
D-1
Min. 100’ corners
Mid-block 100’ or greater with Design Review
Greater than 375’ with Design Review
Administrative Design Review when a Design Review
process is required.
D-2 65’
120’ Design Review
120’ and two additional stories equal to or less than
the average height of the other stories in the building
with administrative Design Review.*
D-3 75’
90’ residential Design Review
180’ and three additional stories equal to or less than
the average height of the other stories in the building
with administrative Design Review.*
D-4 75’
120’ Design Review
120’ and three additional stories equal to or less than
the average height of the stories permitted with
administrative Design Review. 375’ and administrative
review in mapped area.*
Footnotes - Changes from May 2022: Downtown Districts
* The proposed changes are to be consistent and compatible with Downtown Building Heights amendments
that allow the following:
D-1: Minimum height of 100’, with exceptions for utilities, accessory buildings, small parcels & footprints,
and buildings with Design Review. Design review required for buildings greater than 200’.
D-2: Increased additional stories from one to two. Permitted height remains 120’.
D-3: Permitted height remains 75’, up to 180’ permitted with Design Review.
D-4: Additional height permitted with administrative review in mapped area.
The Downtown districts would allow for additional stories by right or with administrative
design review with affordable units as follows:
60
18 Waive Planned Development Requirements
PROPOSAL
Permit affordable housing developments by right that would otherwise require a
Planned Development.
WAIVE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENT
FOR SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENTS
WHAT IS CHANGING FROM MAY 2022?
The proposed changes are to be consistent with the Downtown Building Heights proposal,
which removed the Planned Development requirement for the Gateway Mixed Use zoning
district (GMU).
The waiver would require affordable units as otherwise permitted in the zoning district.
Proposals in the Community Shopping (CS) zoning district:
• These modifications would apply to a small number of properties in the CS zone. There are
20 parcels with a total area of 64 acres. The parcels consist of the Brickyard, Foothill Village,
Trolley Square, the Redwood Rd. shopping center with a Lucky grocery, and a church at the
southwest corner of 400 S and 800 E.
Proposals for buildings and lots that do not have street frontage: This part of the
proposal would allow for the development of housing in the following locations:
• Private streets
• Improved public alleys
• Parcels without adequate street frontage
61
19Waive Planned Development Requirements
This type of development currently requires a planned development, as buildings are
normally required to face a public street. This could apply in various zoning districts.
From 2015-2020, the Planning Commission reviewed approximately 80 Planned
Development requests. Approximately 45% of these requests included a request for lots
without street frontage. The applications also requested other items, such as reduced
yard setbacks or a reduction in landscaping, but for most, it is likely that the requirement
for street frontage was a primary issue. The removal of this requirement for projects that
provide affordable units could potentially decrease the review time and development
costs for the applicant.
WHAT IS THE GOAL?
Planned development proposals often ask for modifications for reduction in the required
yard setback, height, or other regulations. The purpose of the review is to ensure that the
resulting development is one that is enhanced compared to a proposal that would otherwise
be constructed. However, all development proposals the Community Shopping (CS) zoning
districts require Planned Development approval.
This is also a Planned Development requirement for buildings that do not have street frontage,
including those on public alleys or private streets. This planning process takes approximately 4-6
months and requires Planning Commission approval. Similar to the other proposals, this would
decrease the review time for a project with affordable housing, and potentially enable additional
projects that may not choose to proceed when this process is required. Proposals using these
provisions would still need to meet other zoning district standards, including design standards.
62
20 Allow Housing on Institutional Lands
ALLOW HOUSING ON INSTITUTIONAL LANDS
PROPOSAL
Allow affordable housing on institutional lands.
WHAT IS CHANGING FROM MAY 2022?
The previous proposal required that 20% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an
income at or below 80% AMI.
The current proposal allows one of the seven options that apply to zoning districts with
additional height or process waivers. These are as follows:
• 20% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI; or
• 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI; or
• 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI when
the affordable units have two or more bedrooms; or
• 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an average income at or below 60%
AMI and these units shall not be occupied by those with an income greater than 80% AMI; or
• 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 30% AMI; or
• 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI when
the affordable units have two or more bedrooms; or
• 5% of the units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI
when the affordable units have three or more bedrooms.
WHAT IS THE GOAL?
The intent of this is to allow single-family and single-family attached housing on properties
that are in the Institutional zoning district and excludes multifamily development. This
district includes schools, hospitals, and non-profits. However, state owned land, including the
University of Utah, is not subject to city zoning regulations. Future zoning amendments may
be considered to allow multifamily housing.
63
21Allow Additional Housing Types
PROPOSAL
Allow additional single-family dwellings, including single-family attached units (row
houses and sideways row houses), or cottages in commercial zoning districts (CB
Community Business, CC Corridor Commercial, CG General Commercial) to encourage
the redevelopment of underutilized land. These projects would be required to meet the
standards for those housing types. Permitting single-family dwellings would allow for these
dwellings in a cottage development.
ALLOW ADDITIONAL HOUSING TYPES
WHAT IS CHANGING FROM MAY 2022?
The previous proposal required that 20% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an
income at or below 80% AMI.
The current proposal allows one of the seven options that apply to zoning districts with
additional height or process waivers. These are as follows:
• 20% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI; or
• 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI; or
• 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI when
the affordable units have two or more bedrooms; or
• 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an average income at or below 60%
AMI and these units shall not be occupied by those with an income greater than 80% AMI; or
• 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 30% AMI; or
• 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI when
the affordable units have two or more bedrooms; or
• 5% of the units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI
when the affordable units have three or more bedrooms.
WHAT IS THE GOAL?
Allowing additional housing types could provide for more variety in development or
redevelopment opportunity. It would also provide the opportunity to transition additional land
to lower scale residential development.
64
Modify Density Limits22
PROPOSAL
Allow for additional units in RMF zoning districts when affordable housing is provided.
MODIFY DENSITY LIMITS IN RESIDENTIAL
MULTI-FAMILY ZONES
• RMF-30
• RMF-35
• RMF-45
• RMF-75
WHAT IS THE GOAL?
The goal is to encourage the construction of affordable multifamily housing in neighborhoods
that are typically close to services and amenities and have a variety of existing housing
types. Removing the density requirements could increase the number properties that
may accommodate affordable units. This benefit would increase the feasibility of these
developments.
RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY (RMF) ZONING DISTRICTS
The city has four RMF zoning districts. They are located throughout the city with the greatest
concentration to the east of downtown. Properties in these districts have a mix of single and
multifamily uses. Many of the existing multifamily structures have density exceeding what is
currently permitted in the zone.
The four districts, distinguished by their height limits are listed below:
65
Modify Density Limits 23
WHAT IS CHANGING FROM MAY 2022?
There are not changes to the affordability from the May 2022 proposal. There are additions
and changes to the design standards:
• Building materials: 50% of any street facing facade shall be clad in durable
materials.
• Building entrances: The ground floor shall have a primary entrance on the street
facing façade of the building with an unenclosed entry porch, canopy, or awning
feature. Stairs to second floor units are not permitted on street facing elevations.
WHAT AFFORDABILITY IS PROPOSED?
The existing proposal removed the existing qualifying provisions for density in the individual
RMF zoning districts provided rental housing shall be income-restricted and rent-restricted and
meet a minimum of at least one of the following affordability criteria if the following are met:
• 40% of units shall be affordable to those with incomes at or below 60% AMI;
• 20% of units shall be affordable to those with incomes at or below 50% AMI; or
• 40% of units shall be affordable to those with incomes averaging no more than 60% AMI
and these units shall not be occupied by those with an income greater than 80% AMI.
For sale owner occupied units shall provide a minimum of 50% of units affordable to those
with incomes at or below 80% AMI. This is intended to allow for a greater number of smaller
and more affordable units than what is currently permitted.
WHAT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WOULD APPLY?
The following standards would also apply:
• Unit Mix: No more than 25% of the units in the development shall be less than 500 square
feet to promote a mix of unit sizes.
• Parking: Unless there is a lesser parking requirement in 21A.44, only one off-street parking
space per unit is required in multifamily developments with less than 10 units.
• Yards: The minimum required yards shall apply to the perimeter of the development and
not to the individual principal buildings within the development.
• Lot width: Minimum lot width requirements do not apply.
• Sideways row house and row house standards: Specific yard requirements. On street
facing facades buildings cannot exceed 100 feet in length and garages are not permitted.
There is a maximum length of 15’ for blank walls.
• No additional building coverage or height is permitted.
66
24 Single & Two-Family Zoning Districts
PROPOSAL
Allow additional building types in single and two-family zoning districts with an affordable
component. Affordable units need to be affordable to those with incomes at or below 80%
AMI. The proposal is to allow townhouses in groups of up to four units, 3-4 unit buildings, and
cottage developments on parcels that are currently zoned for single- or two-family homes.
Twin and two-family homes would also be permitted in the zoning districts where they are not
currently allowed.
The units could be renter or owner-occupied. The appreciation on owner-occupied units
would be limited and, if sold, would require the unit to remain affordable for the remainder
of the required time period.
The proposal does not change other city requirements, including requirements for building
codes, fire codes, or public utilities requirements.
SINGLE & TWO-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS
SINGLE-FAMILY AND TWO-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS
The city has six single-family zoning districts. These are divided into Foothills and R-1 districts.
The Foothills districts are generally located on the periphery of the city and close to the Foothills.
The R-1 districts are located closer to the center of the city. Most of these areas developed in the
early to mid-20th century.
67
25Single & Two-Family Zoning Districts
• FR-1/43,560
• FR-2/21,780
• FR-3/12,000
• R-1/12,000
• R-1/7,000
• R-1/5,000
• R-2
• SR-1
• SR-1A
• SR-3
NEW DWELLING TYPES
The proposal would allow these types of dwellings, provided the units met the affordability
requirement:
• Twin and Two-family Dwellings: Twin, two-family, and duplex dwellings are not currently
permitted in the single-family zoning districts (FR and R-1 zones). This proposal would
permit them and require them to meet the existing standards for dwellings in the single-
and two-family zoning districts.
• Townhouses and Row houses: These would be defined as row houses and
sideways row houses similar to the recently adopted RMF-30 zoning district changes. In the
single- and two-family districts, the number of attached units would be limited to four and
design standards would provide greater compatibility with the existing development.
• Three- and Four-family Dwellings: Small, multi-unit dwellings with up to four units
would be permitted with additional design standards. These modifications are to ensure
greater compatibility with the existing development.
• Cottage Development: The proposal would allow cottage developments with similar
design and standards to the recently adopted RMF-30 zoning district changes. Cottages are
designed to look like single-family homes and would be permitted in groups of two to eight
with a common green or open space.
These zoning districts allow two-family units in addition to single-family homes. This would
allow for the additional housing types in these zoning districts.
The districts and minimum lot sizes are as follows:
Many properties in the R-1 districts were previously zoned to allow for additional uses
including two, three-, and four- family buildings.
There are four additional two-family districts where the current proposal applies:
68
26
WHAT IS CHANGING FROM MAY 2022?
The focus group spent a significant amount of their discussion on the proposed incentives for
the single- and two-family zoning districts. There are several changes proposed:
• The removal of the proximity to transit and adjacency to arterial roads requirement
for additional housing types in the single- and two-family zoning districts. This opens
the incentive up to all areas in single- and two-family zoning districts. This increases its
equity and availability. The intent of the requirement was to encourage additional housing
units in areas that are served by frequent transit (rail or bus service with 15-minute
headways during peak periods) or are adjacent to arterial roads, which often have greater
intensities of development. However, this requirement proved difficult because the location
and frequency of the non-fixed bus routes has changed several times in the past few years.
Additionally, some areas of the city were excluded and this raised concerns regarding the
equity of the incentives and how they applied in different neighborhoods.
• Addition of an incentive to preserve existing housing. This incentive allows for the
construction of a second detached dwelling on the property when an existing dwelling is
maintained. When a dwelling is retained, the affordability requirement is lowered to one
of the units on the property. When an existing unit is not maintained, 50% would be
required to meet the affordability requirement. The proposed incentives may not provide
a sufficient profit for development. This provides an alternative with a lower percentage of
units required to be affordable.
Example of a 4-unit townhouse (sideways row house) on a nearly
11,000 square foot lot. Each unit is 1,840 sq. ft. with a two-car garage.
Single & Two-Family Zoning Districts69
27
• Additional design standards requiring durable building materials, entry features,
and open space. There is an existing requirement for 15% glass on street facing
facades.
• Building materials: 50% of any street facing facade shall be clad in durable
materials.
• Building entrances: The ground floor shall have a primary entrance on the street
facing façade of the building with an unenclosed entry porch, canopy, or awning
feature. Stairs to second floor units are not permitted on street facing elevations.
There are separate requirements for cottage developments for entries to face the
street or common open space.
• Open space: Open space area may include landscaped yards, patios, dining
areas, and other similar outdoor living spaces. All required open space areas shall
be accessible to all residents or users of the building. 120 sq. ft. of open space
with a minimum width of 6 ft. shall be provided for each building with a dwelling.
There are separate open space requirements for row house and cottage
developments.
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
There are changes to the previous requirements. The following are new requirements:
• Arrangement of Dwellings: Dwelling units may be arranged in any manner within a
building, as a second detached dwelling, as attached units, or if a cottage development
with three or more detached dwellings, within the buildings that are part of the cottage
development.
• Existing Building: When an existing building is maintained, new units may be added
internal to the existing structure, as an addition, or as a second detached dwelling.
There are clarifications and modifications for the following:
• Yards: Minimum required yards shall apply to the perimeter of the property and not to the
individual principal building(s).
• Parking: One parking space would be required per dwelling unit. If a property has multiple
units, a minimum of one space would be required for each unit. A detached garage or
carport with up to 250 sq. ft. for each unit may be provided in a single structure.
• Subdivision: Lots may contain up to four units. Existing lots may be divided such that
each unit is on its own lot. The new lots are exempt from minimum lot area and lot width
requirements.
• Rowhouse standards: There are specific yard requirements. On street facing facades
buildings cannot exceed 60 ft. in length and garages are not permitted. There is a
maximum length of 15’ for blank walls.
• Cottage standards: There are specific yard requirements. Individual cottages cannot be
more than 850 sq. ft. Open space and personal outdoor space must be provided.
• Accessory Dwelling Unit: An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is considered one unit and
counts toward the number of units permitted.
• No additional building coverage or building height is permitted.
Single & Two-Family Zoning Districts 70
28
HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSIDERATIONS
Planning staff understands that there are concerns regarding the potential demolition of
historic resources. The process for construction and demolition, including review by the
Historic Landmark Commission, would not change for properties that are in local historic
districts or are local landmark sites. It would be difficult for a contributing, locally designated
building to be demolished for construction using the affordable housing incentives. Additions
and any new structures on the property would require historic review. Demolition of a
non-contributing structure and new construction would need to meet historic preservation
standards and guidelines.
The city’s regulations do not apply to districts or individual properties that are listed on the
National Register of Historic Places, but are not locally designated. The existing demolition
process for these buildings would not change. Whether to redevelop a property would be up to
individual property owners. Additionally, some properties that are not currently designated as
local historic districts could be designated. Any new local historic district would need to meet the
requirements in the city’s Historic Preservation Overlay District.
Preservation of Existing Structure: Center lot depicts an existing single-family home
with a basement ADU, two surface parking spaces, detached two-car garage, and new,
detached single-family home to the rear. This is on a larger nearly 12,000 sq. ft. lot. The
three structures have a total building coverage of 27%.
Single & Two-Family Zoning Districts71
29
WHAT IS THE GOAL?
The proposal would allow for some gentle increases in density in areas of the city that are
predominantly occupied by single-family homes. Removal of the proximity to transit and
arterial requirements open the option to all areas of the city zoned for single- and two-
family dwellings and make this more equitable. The gentle increase in density that would
be permitted is compatible with the historic development patterns of the city, where a mix
of housing types, including duplexes and the division of a dwelling into multiple residences,
previously occurred.
County of Salt Lake, Utah Geospatial Resource Center, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph,GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA
Legend
Single and Two-Family
Zoning Districts
FR-1/43,560
FR-2/21,780
FR-3/12,000
SR-1
SR-1A
SR-3
R-1/12,000
R-1/7,000
R-1/5,000
R-2
±0 0.5 10.25 Miles
SINGLE & TWO-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS
72
30
ADOPTION PROCESS & IMPLEMENTATION
STEP 1: Planning staff is seeking additional feedback on the proposal. Public comments
were included with the May 2022 staff report. Comments received after the May 2022
public hearing are included in 2023 memos and reports. Based on the feedback, in fall
2022, the Office of the Mayor convened a focus group to review the proposal and make
recommendations.
Based on these discussions staff revised the proposal, and is presenting this revised
document to detail the changes to the proposal. Additional comments will be included with
subsequent memos and reports.
STEP 2: Review revised draft zoning ordinance text amendment language. This will be
reviewed by the community, the Planning Commission at a briefing, and a subsequent
public hearing. The Planning Commission provides a recommendation to the City Council
who will hold an additional public hearing prior to action. Language implementing the
proposal will be adopted in the Zoning Ordinance.
STEP 3: After adoption, interested parties consult with planning and other city staff to
determine during the planning stages if the project meets the zoning and other applicable
requirements. A planning process may be required.
STEP 4: Development plans are reviewed to make sure they comply with the incentives
and applicable regulations. This would require the typical review process as well as an
additional review to ensure compliance with the incentives and a restrictive covenant
placed on the property. This would be required prior to the issuance of a building permit.
STEP 5: Building is constructed and after completion, a report is submitted annually to verify
compliance with the requirements of affordability.
NEXT STEPS
Next Steps73
31
DRAFT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE
APPENDIX A: DRAFT LANGUAGE
Appendix A: Draft Language 74
75
PLNPCM2019-00658 April 26, 2023
ATTACHMENT D: Updated Affordable
Housing Incentives Summary Document
76
PROJECT OBJECTIVE
The proposed amendments would incentivize the
construction of affordable housing through modifications to
the zoning requirements.
Over time, and particularly in recent years, housing in Salt Lake
City has become less affordable. There are many variables
affecting housing prices, including zoning regulations.
The goal of the proposed amendments are to increase
affordable housing throughout Salt Lake City. Where
multifamily housing is permitted, the incentives are designed
to encourage developers to include affordable housing in
projects and allow affordable housing developers to build
more housing units. The incentives also allow for small
increases in housing units throughout the city.
Other recent and upcoming zoning changes further
enable the construction of more housing. However, there
are issues and concerns that zoning cannot address,
including job wages, home prices, and, outside of these
proposed amendments, the types of units constructed, and
the rents charged.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES
ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT
Proposal Summary | March 2023
PROPOSAL
The proposed zoning amendments would incentivize the
construction of designated affordable units, lessening the
burden for those that would qualify and live in these units.
Residential units that wanted to use the incentives would be
required to place a restrictive covenant on the property for
the units to be made available to qualifying households. The
proposal could apply to rental housing units and for sale units.
This document summarizes the proposal. See more
information at: www.slc.gov/planning/affordable-housing
The City’s Planning Division is considering zoning
amendments to encourage the construction of
additional affordable housing. This includes
affordable housing incentives that would modify
zoning requirements in some areas of the city. This
document provides a summary of the changes and
updates from the May 2022 proposal.
77
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION | Sara Javoronok, Senior Planner | sara.javoronok@slcgov.com | 801.535.7625
SUMMARY OF INCENTIVES
Multi-family and Mixed-Use Zoning Districts
• Permit additional height, between 1-3 stories (approximately
10’ per story), depending on the zone in various zoning districts
that permit multifamily housing.
Residential Multifamily Zoning Districts
• Remove the density requirements in the RMF zoning districts,
if the proposal meets the affordability requirements.
• No additional height permitted.
• Only 25% of the units could be 500 square feet or smaller.
• Add development and design standards for rowhouse,
sideways rowhouse, cottage, and other building forms.
Single- and Two-family Zoning Districts
• Allow additional building types in single- and two-family zoning
districts provided 1-2 of the units would be affordable.
• Allow townhouses in groups of up to four, 3-4 unit buildings,
and cottage developments on parcels that are currently zoned
for single- or two-family homes. Twin and two-family homes
would also be permitted in the zoning districts where they are
not currently allowed.
• Add development and design standards for these dwellings.
Other Incentives
• Waive the Planned Development process for some proposals
when affordability requirements are met.
• Allow single-family and single-family attached housing on
Institutional zoned land. Future zoning amendments may be
considered to allow multifamily housing.
• Allow additional housing types in the CG (General Commercial),
CC (Community Commercial), and CB (Community Business)
zoning districts to encourage the redevelopment of
underutilized land. These districts permit multifamily housing,
but not single-family dwellings, including single-family attached
units, or cottages.
SUMMARY OF CHANGES
There are a number of modifications to the draft proposal
presented to the Planning Commission in May 2022:
• The removal of the proximity to transit and adjacency to
arterial roads requirement for additional housing types in the
single- and two-family zoning districts. This opens the incentive
up to all areas of the city within single- and two-family zoning
districts, increasing its equity and availability.
• An emphasis on the preservation of existing housing. The
revisions incentivize retaining an existing dwelling. The
affordability requirement when an existing dwelling is preserved
decreases from 50% of units to at least one of the units.
• Additional design standards for new housing types in single-
and two-family zoning districts. There is additional language
that requires durable building materials, an entry feature, and
an open space.
• Enforcement penalties detailed. There are additional annual
reporting requirements and an increase in the fines that
could apply. Noncompliance can result in a lien placed on
the property for fines and revocation of the business license
associated with the property.
• There are additional incentive options for more deeply
affordable and larger units. These allow for a lower percentage
of units to be set aside, ranging from 5-10% of units.
• Modifications for consistency with the proposed Downtown
Building Heights text amendment. The Planning Commission
recommended changes to zoning districts within the downtown
in August 2022. Pending adoption, staff is proposing changes
to the proposal to be consistent and compatible with the
proposed changes to these zoning districts.
PROJECT TIMELINE
Spring 2023
Spring/Summer 2023
Fall 2023
Briefing and
Public Hearing
Public Hearing and
Tentative Adoption
Implementation
78
PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023
ATTACHMENT E: Public Process &
Comments
SEE SEPARATE ATTACHMENT E FOR ALL SUB-ATTACHMENTS
Public Notice, Meetings, Comments
The following is a list of public meetings that have been held, and other public input opportunities,
related to the proposed project since the application was initiated:
Online Surveys and Comment Form
• December-January 2020 – Planning staff posted an initial survey seeking feedback on
housing issues. Over 2,100 people responded. See complete responses in Attachment E.1.
• July 2020 – Planning staff presented a draft proposal in a Story Map and sought feedback
on the proposal. Nearly 300 people responded. See complete responses in Attachment
E.2.
• February 2022 – Planning staff posted the draft amendments and sought feedback
through a comment form. Approximately 130 people responded. See complete responses
in Attachment E.3.
• March 2023 – Planning staff posted an updated draft of the proposed amendments and
sought feedback through the comment form. Two people responded for a total of
approximately 175 since February 2022. See complete responses from May 11, 2022-April
19, 2023 in Attachment E.4.
Developer Discussions
Planning staff met with several affordable housing developers in 2019 to discuss issues and
obstacles to building affordable housing in the community and how zoning may be able to address
them. Developers generally indicated that by right processes were best, there should be parking
reductions especially for lowest incomes, density limits made development difficult in the RMF
districts, additional height was needed in many zoning districts, and there was a preference for
form-based zoning districts.
Staff requested feedback from developers on the draft proposal and generally heard that the
incentives would allow them to construct more units and that the incentives in the single-family
zoning districts may encourage smaller developers to construct units.
Recognized Community Organization Notice and Meetings
• June 25, 2020 – The 45-day required notice for recognized community organizations was
sent citywide.
o July 20, 2020 – Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Sugar House Land
Use and Zoning meeting (Zoom).
o August 6, 2020 – Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Ball Park Community
Council meeting (Zoom).
• March 3, 2022 – The 45-day required notice for recognized community organizations was
sent citywide.
o March 16, 2022 – Planning staff discussed the proposal at the East Bench
Community Council meeting (Zoom). Members expressed concerns with loss of
views, view easements, and wanted to be notified of potential projects in the
neighborhood.
o March 21, 2022 - Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Sugar House Land
Use Committee meeting (Zoom). Members expressed concerns with additional
79
PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023
housing types proposed, especially in the Highland Park neighborhood, lack of
parking, lack of utility capacity, loss of neighborhood character, increase in rental
housing, and desire for the proposal to be implemented as a smaller, pilot program.
o April 7, 2022 – Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Ball Park Community
Council meeting (Zoom). Community members want to see more owner-occupied
housing in the neighborhood, expressed concerns with additional height in the FB
districts, have concerns with existing parking requirements in the FB zones, and
have general parking and safety concerns.
o April 13, 2022 – Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Jordan
Meadows/Westpointe Community Council meeting (Zoom). Community members
asked questions about parking and how the increased number of students and
increased park usage would be addressed.
o April 14, 2022 – Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Yalecrest Community
Council meeting (Zoom). Community members asked questions about historic
districts and how the proposal would affect them, required parking, accessory
dwelling units, rental units, and neighborhood character.
o May 4, 2022 – Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Greater Avenues
Community Council meeting (Zoom). Community member questions included
affordability levels, the Planning Commission meeting and how to submit
comments if not able to attend, and the monitoring of the deed restricted
properties.
o March 16, 2023 – Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Salt Lake City
Community Network meeting (Zoom).
Open Houses and Virtual Events
• July 9, 2020 – Facebook Live Q&A – Planning staff hosted an AMA/Q&A discussion on
Facebook. It reached 4,365 people with 1,423 3-second video views and 52 comments. See
Attachment E.4.
• February 16, 2022 – Facebook Live Q&A – Planning staff hosted an AMA/Q&A discussion
on Facebook. It reached 772 people with 401 3-second video views and 71 reactions,
shares, and comments. See Attachment E.5.
• April 5, 2022 – Virtual Office Hours (Zoom) – Planning staff hosted an open Zoom
meeting to answer questions. There were no attendees.
• April 5, 2022 – Open House (Sugar House Fire Station #3) – Planning staff hosted an
open house to provide information and answer questions on the proposal. Seven people
attended.
• April 12, 2022 – Open House (Unity Center) – Planning staff hosted an open house to
provide information and answer questions on the proposal. Three people attended.
• April 14, 2022 – Virtual Office Hours (Zoom) – Planning staff hosted an open Zoom
meeting to answer questions. No one attended.
• April 19, 2022 – Open House (Riverside Park) – Planning staff hosted an open house to
provide information and answer questions on the proposal. No one attended.
• April 21, 2022 – Open House (Lindsey Gardens Park) – Planning staff hosted an open
house to provide information and answer questions on the proposal. One person
attended.
Sign-in sheets for open houses are included in Attachment E.7.
Additional Comments
The Glendale Community Council submitted a letter in 2020. See Attachment E.6. The Sugar
House Community Council submitted a letter on May 3, 2022. See Attachment E.7.
Community members provided additional written comments that are attached to this report. For
comments through May 11, 2022, see Attachment E.7 for emails and E.8 for social media
80
PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023
comments. Additional emails and phone calls with general questions were received and
responded to by staff.
For comments received through July 2022, see below for a summary of the comment themes and
tenor. See Attachment E.9 for a table of the comments received through July 2022.
See Attachment E.10 for all comments received May 12, 2022-April 19, 2023.
Community Notification
The City Council office sent a flyer to commercial and residential addresses in the city and owners
that live outside of Salt Lake City. It identified housing initiatives in the city and highlighted this
proposal. A total of 99,832 were sent. See Attachment E.11 for flyer and comments submitted to
the Council office.
Development Scenarios
Staff contacted and worked with local developers in the summer and fall of 2022 to provide
information on the feasibility and impact of incentives. See scenarios and proformas in
Attachment G.
Focus Group
The Office of the Mayor convened a focus group that included 15-20 members. It was comprised
of neighborhood leaders, developers, policy advisors, and housing advocates. The group reviewed
and discussed topics with the most community concerns over four meetings in the fall and winter
of 2022. They made several recommended changes to proposal detailed in this report.
Department Comments
Debbie Lyons, Sustainability
I do not have comments specific to the zoning modifications noted in the most current version, however
I do want to provide a couple of resources on energy efficiency as it relates to affordable housing, just
as an FYI.
For background, the City has adopted a goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2040 through
Mayor-Council joint resolution 22 of 2016. More than 75% of our carbon footprint is attributable to
electricity and natural gas use in homes and businesses, so looking for all opportunities to incentivize
energy efficiency is important. It’s especially important in affordable housing because utility costs can
pose significant hardship for low-income residents.
In case you’re not aware or familiar with them:
EPA’s Energy Efficiency in Affordable Housing Guide
EPA – Energy Star Program – Residential Resources for Affordable Housing
The RDA’s Sustainable Development Policy should serve as a great complement for developers looking
into applying for RDA funds for new housing projects.
Erik Fronberg, Housing Stability
Please see my comments below for the draft language of the City’s Affordable Housing Incentives
ordinance.
21A.52.050.F.2.a – The language addressing household incomes at a given percentage AMI is not
consistent throughout the ordinance. I recommend replacing the following from 21A.52.050.F.2.a:
“Eligible Households that are qualifying occupants with an annual income at or below the
SLC Area Median Income (“AMI”) as applicable for the given affordable unit for Salt Lake
City Utah, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) Metro FMR Area
(as periodically determined by the HUD and adjusted for household size).”
81
PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023
with the clearer language from 21A.62:
“households that are qualifying occupants at or below the applicable percentage of the Area
Median Income (AMI) area median income for the Salt Lake City Utah, U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) Metro FMR Area Salt Lake Metro Area, (the “SLC
Area Median Income” or “AMI”, as periodically determined by HUD and adjusted for
household size) and published by the Utah Housing Corporation, or its successor.”
21A.52.050.F.2.b – I recommend replacing “AMI” with “percentage AMI.”
21A.52.050.H.3.e – I recommend removing this provision. I’m assuming that limiting the number of
units designated as affordable in large developments is intended to promote mixed-income
developments or geographic equity (not concentrate deed-restricted units in one place); however, in
light of the current affordable housing crisis, the City should maximize, not limit, the number of
affordable units in any development.
Overall, the draft looks great! It’s clear you and your team have worked hard on incorporating the
feedback you’ve received.
82
PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023
Summary of Public Comment Themes
Since the petition was initiated in 2019, staff has received over 1,100 public comments from individual
members of the public through email, the online comment form, the City Council office, Planning
Commission public hearing comment cards, surveys, and social media platforms etc. This attachment
outlines a summary of the Affordable Housing Incentive (AHI) public comments received since the
project started in 2019 through July 2022.
Staff analyzed the comments and identified 14 common themes regarding the AHI proposal which are
listed in the section below. It should be noted this analysis primarily includes digitally received
comments which could be easily compiled for a digital analysis.
Staff reviewed each comment, documented the themes each comment referred to, and identified
whether the comment voiced opposition, support, questions, recommendations, or a combination. The
following sections provide a summary of the public comment analysis:
Theme: Affordability Requirements
This theme consists of comments related to the proposed AHI affordability requirements such as the
Area Medium Income requirements and the for rent/ownership options.
•Staff received a total of 146 comments regarding affordability requirements. 97 of the
comments suggested recommendations, 47 voiced opposition, 3 voiced support, and 31
included questions.
Theme: Lack of Infrastructure/utilities
This theme consists of comments related to the City’s infrastructure, and utilities such as water supply,
street capacity, and utility lines.
•Staff received a total of 58 comments regarding City infrastructure and utilities. 16 of the
comments suggested recommendations, 48 voiced opposition, and 5 included questions.
Theme: Transportation Infrastructure
This theme consists of comments related to the proposed AHI parking requirements, transportation
regulations, and the City’s transportation infrastructure.
•Staff received a total of 242 comments regarding transportation infrastructure. 127
comments suggested recommendations, 141 voiced opposition, 18 voiced support and 16
included questions.
Theme: Density, unit type, and size
This theme consists of comments related to housing typologies, densities, unit type, size, and mix.
•Staff received a total of 318 comments regarding density, and unit type and size. 138
comments suggested recommendations, 121 voiced opposition, 81 voiced support and 13
included questions.
Theme: Enforcement
This theme consists of comments related to the AHI proposed enforcement regulations such as deed
restrictions, monitoring, and enforcement methods.
•Staff received 64 comments regarding enforcement. 19 of the comments suggested
recommendations, 42 voiced opposition, 1 voiced support and 15 included questions.
83
PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023
Theme: Design and Compatibility
This theme consists of comments regarding proposed AHI design standards, open space requirements,
and architectural compatibility considerations.
•Staff received 122 comments regarding design and compatibility. 89 of the comments
suggested recommendations, 35 voiced opposition, 4 voiced support and 3 included
questions.
Theme: Neighborhood Impacts
This theme consists of comments regarding the potential impacts the AHI could have on the City’s
neighborhoods.
•Staff received 308 comments regarding neighborhood impacts. 96 of the comments
suggested recommendations, 215 voiced opposition, 36 voiced support and 10 included
questions.
Theme: Historic District
This theme consists of comments regarding the AHI could have on Historic Districts and properties.
•Staff received 56 comments regarding historic districts and properties. 17 of the
comments suggested recommendations, 40 voiced opposition, and 10 included questions.
Theme: Zoning
This theme consists of comments regarding zoning regulation such as land use, and development
standards.
•Staff received 220 comments regarding zoning. 93 of the comments suggested
recommendations, 68 voiced opposition, 63 voiced support and 27 included questions.
Theme: Housing Policies
This theme consists of comments regarding housing policies such as homelessness, pilot programs,
ADU regulations etc.
•Staff received 78 comments regarding housing policies. 34 of the comments suggested
recommendations, 26 voiced opposition, 19 voiced support and 6 included questions.
Theme: Outside of Project Scope
This theme consists of comments related to topics outside of the scope of the AHI such as rent caps,
wages, and the mandate of affordable housing construction.
•Staff received 206 comments regarding topics outside of the scope of the AHI. 194 of the
comments suggested recommendations, 21 voiced opposition, 2 voiced support, and 8
included questions.
Theme: Public Outreach
This theme consists of comments related to the AHI public outreach process and methods.
•Staff received 48 comments regarding public outreach. 24 of the comments suggested
recommendations, 14 voiced opposition, 3 voiced support and 15 included questions.
Theme: Climate Impacts
This theme consists of comments related to climate change and climate events such as wildfires and
precipitation.
84
PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023
• Staff received 17 comments regarding climate change. 4 of the comments suggested
recommendations, 9 voiced opposition, 2 voiced support and 4 included questions.
Theme: General Comments
This theme includes comments that generally stated opposition, support and general statements
related to affordable housing.
• Staff received 195 comments regarding general comments. 79 of the comments suggested
recommendations, 40 voiced opposition, 24 voiced support, 22 included questions, and
46 included general statements.
Theme: Multiple Themes
This theme notes the number of comments that addressed multiple themes.
• Staff received a total of 518 comments which addressed multiple comment themes.
85
Summary of Themes and Tenor
Comment Themes 1‐ Opposed 2‐ Support 3‐Questions 4‐ Recommendations X ‐ General Comments Total Comments within Theme
Affordability Requirements 47 3 31 97 146
Lack of Infrastructure/utilities 48 0 5 16 58
Transportation Infrastructure 141 18 16 127 242
Density, unit type and size 121 81 13 138 318
Enforcement 42 1 15 19 64
Design and Compatibility 35 4 3 89 122
Neighborhood Impacts 215 36 10 96 308
Historic District 40 0 10 17 56
Zoning 68 63 27 93 220
Housing Policies 26 19 6 34 78
Outside of Project Scope 21 2 8 194 206
Public Outreach 14 3 15 24 48
Climate Impacts 90 2 4 17
General Comments 40 24 22 79 46 195
Multiple Themes 518 518
TOTAL OF 1100 COMMENTS
Counts and Tenor
Affordable Housing Overlay Comments ‐ Through July 2022
86
PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023
ATTACHMENT F: Analysis of Standards
ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS
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. In making a decision to amend the zoning map, the City Council should consider the
following:
1.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;
Plan Salt Lake
Plan Salt Lake is the adopted City vision document. It establishes citywide values, principles,
and initiatives that are intended to guide the decision-making process for a number of
different topics, including the manner in which the City addresses growth. The following
guiding principles and initiatives are related to and consistent with the proposed zoning
amendments:
Growth:
Guiding Principle: Growing responsibly, while providing people with choices about where
they live, how they live, and how they get around.
Initiatives:
•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.
•Work with regional partners and stakeholders to address growth collaboratively.
Housing
Guiding Principle: 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
•Ensure access to affordable housing citywide (including rental and very low
income).
•Increase the number of medium density housing types and options.
•Encourage housing options that accommodate aging in place.
•Direct new growth toward areas with existing infrastructure and services that have
the potential to be people oriented.
•Enable moderate density increases within existing neighborhoods where
appropriate.
•Promote energy efficient housing and rehabilitation of existing housing stock.
•Promote high-density residential in areas served by transit.
Transportation and Mobility
Guiding Principle: A transportation and mobility network that is safe, accessible, reliable,
affordable, and sustainable, providing real choices and connecting people with places.
87
PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023
Initiatives
•Create a complete circulation network and ensure convenient equitable access to a
variety of transportation options by:
o Having a public transit stop within 1/4 mile of all residents.
•Encourage transit-oriented development (TOD).
Growing SLC
Growing SLC is the city’s housing plan. It outlines strategies for long-term affordability
and preservation that continues to enhance neighborhoods while balancing their unique
needs. It includes policies to address the city’s need for affordable housing.
This proposal is consistent with several goals, objectives, and policies 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 Develop flexible zoning tools and regulations, with a focus along
significant transportation routes.
o 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.
o Reduce parking requirements for affordable housing developments and
eliminate parking requirements in transit-rich, walkable neighborhoods
or when the specific demographics of a development require less parking,
such as senior populations.
•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.
Goal 2: Affordable Housing: Increase Housing Opportunities and Stability for Cost-
Burdened Households
o 2.1.2 Consider an ordinance that would require and incentivize the
inclusion of affordable units in new developments.
Goal 3: Equitable & Fair Housing: Build a More Equitable City
•Objective 2: Align resources and invest in strategic expansion of opportunity
throughout all neighborhoods of the city and access to existing areas of
opportunity
o Make strategic affordable housing investments in high opportunity
neighborhoods.
o Support diverse and vibrant neighborhoods by aligning land use policies
that promote a housing market capable of accommodating residents
throughout all stages of life.
The proposed changes are consistent with City purposes, goals, and policies. See detailed responses
in Key Consideration 1.
2.Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the specific purpose statements
of the zoning ordinance.
21A.02.030 Purpose and Intent
88
PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023
The purpose of the zoning ordinance “is 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, and to carry out the purposes of the municipal land
use development and management act, title 10, chapter 9, of the Utah Code Annotated or its
successor, and other relevant statutes.”
The purposes of the zoning ordinance also states the title is intended to:
• Lessen congestion in the streets or roads
• Classify land uses and distribute land development and utilization
• Foster the City's industrial, business and residential development
The proposed amendments to incentivize affordable housing meet the purpose and
intent of the zoning ordinance as excerpted.
The proposed amendments implement the adopted master plans listed above in 1, which
furthers a purpose of the zoning ordinance.
3. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes and
provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional
standards;
The proposed text amendment creates a Zoning Incentives chapter. The Affordable
Housing Incentives are proposed for this chapter and additional incentives may be
added. Many overlay districts apply in zoning districts affected by this proposal. This
includes the following overlay districts:
• 21A.34.020: H Historic Preservation Overlay District
• 21A.34.030: T Transitional Overlay District
• 21A.34.040: AFPP Airport Flight Path Protection Overlay District (primarily Zones
C and H)
• 21A.34.060: Groundwater Source Protection Overlay District
• 21A.34.080: CHPA Capitol Hill Protective Area Overlay District
• 21A.34.090: SSSC South State Street Corridor Overlay District
• 21A.34.110: DMSC Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District
• 21A.34.120: YCI Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay District
• 21A.34.130: RCO Riparian Corridor Overlay District
• 21A.34.150: IP Inland Port Overlay District (limited to CG properties on 5600 W)
The proposed amendments would be limited by additional standards in many of these
overlay zoning districts. The base and overlay districts may provide additional standards
and restrictions than provided for in these incentives.
Specifically, there has been discussion regarding the Historic Preservation Overlay
District, Historic Landmarks, and the impact of the proposed AHI. The AHI would not
change the historic standards, guidelines, or processes applicable to properties that are
in local historic districts or are local landmark sites. Properties that are in National
Register Historic Districts or are individually listed on the National Register are not
subject to the city’s historic regulations. Units could be added to existing properties with
additions or new construction.
4. The extent to which a proposed text amendment implements best current,
professional practices of urban planning and design.
The proposed text amendments support Sustainability, Equity, Growth, and
Opportunity. In recent years, lack of affordable housing and increasing housing prices
have become an issue in Salt Lake City, throughout the Wasatch Front and across the
country. Increasing prices for rental and ownership housing, historically low number of
89
PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023
days on market in for sale housing, and historically low vacancy rates in rental housing
indicate that additional housing is needed in Salt Lake City and beyond. This was
discussed on pages 6-7 in the original Affordable Housing document from 2022.
There have been changes in the market over the past year. For ownership units, prices
have not continued to increase at the same rate as in previous years. However, interest
rates have increased, and the monthly payment for a property of a similar value is
greater than early 2022. See the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute Policy Brief: Housing
Prices and Affordability from February 2023 for more information. For renters, a
February 2023 fact sheet from the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute on Utah’s Rental
Market indicates the average apartment rent for Salt Lake County increased 37.1% from
2016-2021 while incomes increased by 18.5%. In Salt Lake County, 46% of renters are
cost burdened, spending more than 30% of their income on housing, which is higher
than the national average of 40%.
In October 2021 Salt Lake County and partners hosted a Regional Solutions Event with
Daniel Parolek, of Opticos Design, who created the concept of “Missing Middle Housing”
to discuss the concept and how it could address Utah’s housing needs. “Missing Middle
Housing” is “is a range of house-scale buildings with multiple units—compatible in scale
and form with detached single-family homes—located in a walkable neighborhood.”
(MissingMiddleHousing.com) Many aspects of the proposed text amendments permit and
incentivize middle housing types and options. The County also prepared reports on
housing highlighting the gap between new households and new homes, suggesting middle
housing as an opportunity to fill the gap.
The Kem C. Gardner Institute issued a paper in December 2020 entitled, “Housing
Affordability: What Are Best Practices and Why Are They Important?” that included
making changes to zoning as a best practice. It identified that zoning can “Provide a
Powerful Policy Tool to Increase the Supply of Housing” and that through higher density
housing or upzoning communities could add more housing and respond to changing
market preferences for housing types other than single-family homes. This could also
reduce spatial concentrations of moderate- and low-income households of color and
provide greater economic efficiencies for households and government. It also references
the initial “Affordable Housing Overlay” approach initiated with this project. The name
change reflects the location of the proposed provisions in the city’s zoning code, but the
substance of the proposal is similar. The differences have been outlined in the staff report
and are further detailed in the specific language in Attachment A and the narrative
document (Attachment D).
Of the five recommendations in the March 2022 article in Planning, the magazine for the
American Planning Association, entitled “5 Practical Zoning Hacks for Missing Middle
Housing”, the affordable housing incentives proposal includes aspects of all five, plus
includes requirements for affordable units. The five recommendations are as follows:
•Reduce minimum lot size
•Allow for more housing types and revisit structure sizes
•Level the playing field for smaller units (more density doesn’t always mean bigger
buildings)
•Reduce or eliminate parking minimums
•Allow missing middle housing everywhere (if possible)
90
PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023
ATTACHMENT G: Summary of Proforma and
Scenario Analyses
91
Development Scenarios
D‐2 ‐ Using New Downtown Building Heights standards
Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR
LIHTC project 225
$8M / $196psf / $35.5k/door 36 96 48 9 24 12 1.14/$577,668 4.29%4% Tax Credits, $3M in subsidized gap debt assumed from State, County and City Sources
20% units @ 50% AMI, with 1 floors above max height 255
$8M / $196psf / $31,3k/door 40 109 54 11 27 14 1.14/$664,864 4.32%4% Tax Credits, $3M in subsidized gap debt assumed from State, County and City Sources
20% units @ 50% AMI, with 2 floors above max height 285
$8M / $196psf / $28k/door 45 122 60 12 30 16 1.15/$753,879 4.44%4% Tax Credits, $3M in subsidized gap debt assumed from State, County and City Sources
20% units @ 50% AMI, with 3 floors above max height 315
$8M / $196psf / $25.4k/door 50 135 66 13 33 18 1.15/$842,894 4.51%4% Tax Credits, $3M in subsidized gap debt assumed from State, County and City Sources
20% units @ 50% AMI, with 3 floors above max height 300 $8M / $196psf / $26.6k/door 48 128 64 12 32 16 1.15/$800,763 4.40%4% Tax Credits, $3M in subsidized gap debt assumed from State, County and City Sources
Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR
Market Rate Project, by right to zoning 225 0.9375 D‐2 $8M / $196psf / $35.5k/door 45 120 60 1.35/$1.452M 5.04%Low Leverage (45%)/High Equity Raise, parked 1:1, LifeCo loan
Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR
Market Rate Project, same project as above 225
$8M / $196psf / $35.5k/door 45 120 60 1.35/$1.452M 5.04%Low Leverage (45%)/High Equity Raise, parked 1:1, LifeCo loan
5% units @ 30% AMI, with 1 floor above max height 255 $8M / $196psf / $31,3k/door 48 129 64 3 7 4 1.35/$1.570M 4.86%Same basic leverage and loan, parked ..88 stalls/unit
5% units @ 30% AMI, with 2 floor above max height 285
$8M / $196psf / $28k/door 54 144 72 3 8 4 1.35/$1.749M 4.96%Same basic leverage and loan, parked .79 stalls/unit
5% units @ 30% AMI, with 3 floors above max height 315
$8M / $196psf / $25.4k/door 59 160 79 4 8 5 1.35/$1.923M 5.02%Same basic leverage and loan, parked .71 stalls/unit
5% units @ 30% AMI, with 3 floors above max height, add'l park 300 $8M / $196psf / $26.6k/door 57 152 76 3 8 4 1.35/$1.841M 4.91%Same basic leverage and loan, parked 1:1 (third added level is a parking level with units at street
Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR
Market Rate Project, same project as above 225
$8M / $196psf / $35.5k/door 45 120 60 1.35/$1.452M 5.04%Low Leverage (45%)/High Equity Raise, parked 1:1, LifeCo loan
5% units @ 60% AMI, All 2s, with 1 floor above max height 255
$8M / $196psf / $31,3k/door 51 136 55 13 1.35/$1.592M 4.93%Same basic leverage and loan, parked ..88 stalls/unit
5% units @ 60% AMI, All 2s, with 2 floors above max height 285
$8M / $196psf / $28k/door 57 152 61 15 1.35/$1.769M 5.01%Same basic leverage and loan, parked .79 stalls/unit
5% units @ 60% AMI, All 2s, with 3 floors above max height 315
$8M / $196psf / $25.4k/door 63 168 68 16 1.35/$1.949M 5.09%Same basic leverage and loan, parked .71 stalls/unit
5% units @ 60% AMI, All 2s, with 3 floors above max, add'l park 300 $8M / $196psf / $26.6k/door 60 160 65 15 1.35/$1.860M 4.96%Same basic leverage and loan, parked 1:1 (third added level is a parking level with units at street
Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR
Market Rate Project, same project as above 225
$8M / $196psf / $35.5k/door 45 120 60 1.35/$1.452M 5.04%Low Leverage (45%)/High Equity Raise, parked 1:1, LifeCo loan
20% units @ 80% AMI, with 1 floor above max height 255 $8M / $196psf / $31,3k/door 40 109 54 11 27 14 1.35/$1.563M 4.81%Same basic leverage and loan, parked ..88 stalls/unit
20% units @ 80% AMI, with 2 floor above max height 285
$8M / $196psf / $28k/door 45 122 60 12 30 16 1.35/$1.738M 4.89%Same basic leverage and loan, parked .79 stalls/unit
20% units @ 80% AMI, with 3 floors above max height 315
$8M / $196psf / $25.4k/door 48 128 64 12 32 16 1.35/$1.912M 4.96%Same basic leverage and loan, parked .71 stalls/unit
20% units @ 80% AMI, with 3 floors above max height, add'l park 300 $8M / $196psf / $26.6k/door 48 128 64 12 32 16 1.35/$1.827M 4.84%Same basic leverage and loan, parked 1:1 (third added level is a parking level with units at street
Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR
Market Rate Project, same project as above 225
$8M / $196psf / $35.5k/door 45 120 60 1.35/$1.452M 5.04%Low Leverage (45%)/High Equity Raise, parked 1:1, LifeCo loan
10% units @ 60% AMI, with 1 floor above max height 255
$8M / $196psf / $31,3k/door 46 122 61 5 14 7 1.35/$1.565M 4.84%Same basic leverage and loan, parked ..88 stalls/unit
10% units @ 60% AMI, with 2 floors above max height 285
$8M / $196psf / $28k/door 51 137 68 6 15 8 1.35/$1.741M 4.92%Same basic leverage and loan, parked .79 stalls/unit
10% units @ 60% AMI, with 3 floors above max height 315
$8M / $196psf / $25.4k/door 56 152 75 7 16 9 1.35/$1.916M 4.99%Same basic leverage and loan, parked .71 stalls/unit
10% units @ 60% AMI, with 3 floors above max height, add'l park 300 $8M / $196psf / $26.6k/door 54 144 72 6 16 8 1.35/$1.830M 4.87%Same basic leverage and loan, parked 1:1 (third added level is a parking level with units at street
Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR
Market Rate Project, same project as above 225
$8M / $196psf / $35.5k/door 45 120 60 1.35/$1.452M 5.04%Low Leverage (45%)/High Equity Raise, parked 1:1, LifeCo loan
10% units @ 80% AMI. All 2s, with 1 floor above max height 255 $8M / $196psf / $31,3k/door 51 136 42 26 1.35/$1.588M 4.91%Same basic leverage and loan, parked ..88 stalls/unit
10% units @ 80% AMI. All 2s, with 2 floors above max height 285 $8M / $196psf / $28k/door 57 152 47 29 1.35/$1.766M 4.99%Same basic leverage and loan, parked .79 stalls/unit
10% units @ 80% AMI. All 2s, with 3 floors above max height 315 $8M / $196psf / $25.4k/door 63 168 52 32 1.35/$1.945M 5.07%Same basic leverage and loan, parked .71 stalls/unit
10% units @ 80% AMI. All 2s, with 3 floors above max, add'l park 300 $8M / $196psf / $26.6k/door 60 160 50 30 1.35/$1.856M 4.94%Same basic leverage and loan, parked 1:1 (third added level is a parking level with units at street
Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR
Market Rate Project, same project as above 225
$8M / $196psf / $35.5k/door 45 120 60 1.35/$1.452M 5.04%Low Leverage (45%)/High Equity Raise, parked 1:1, LifeCo loan
5% units @ 80% AMI. All 3s, with 1 floor above max height 255 $8M / $196psf / $31,3k/door 51 123 42 13 1.35/$1.640M 4.99%Same basic leverage and loan, parked ..88 stalls/unit
5% units @ 80% AMI. All 3s, with 2 floors above max height 285 $8M / $196psf / $28k/door 57 137 76 15 1.35/$1.825M 5.07%Same basic leverage and loan, parked .79 stalls/unit
5% units @ 80% AMI. All 3s, with 3 floors above max height 315 $8M / $196psf / $25.4k/door 63 152 84 16 1.35/$2.008M 5.15%Same basic leverage and loan, parked .71 stalls/unit
5% units @ 80% AMI. All 3s, with 3 floors above max, add'l park 300 $8M / $196psf / $26.6k/door 60 145 80 15 1.35/$1.916M 5.02%Same basic leverage and loan, parked 1:1 (third added level is a parking level with units at street
*120' is max height permitted
*Assume current land values
*Assume current market rents for the neighborhood * I had to push the rents for this site/neighborhood to make it make sense; the rents might be appropriate given the greater height and quality inherent with a tall tower.
*Fill or modify headers as applicable
ROC Notes
0.9375 D‐2
D‐2 Sc
e
n
a
r
i
o
s
20
%
@ 80
%
10
%
@ 60
%
10
%
@ 80
%
2s
LI
H
T
C
5%
@ 30
%
M
a
r
k
e
t
Notes
Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate 80% AMI 60% AMI DCR/ Stabilized
Cash Flow ROC Notes
Scenarios
ROC
# of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate Notes
0.9375 D‐2
ROC
Land Value Market Rate 80% AMI 60% AMI DCR/ Stabilized
Cash Flow ROC
Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value
80% AMI 60% AMI DCR/ Stabilized
Cash Flow
Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate 80% AMI 60% AMI DCR/ Stabilized
Cash Flow
0.9375
DCR/ Stabilized
Cash Flow
Market Rate
D‐2
D‐2
80% AMI 50% AMI
Market Rate 80% AMI 30% AMI DCR/ Stabilized
Cash Flow
0.9375 D‐2
Market Rate 80% AMI
Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value
0.9375
Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate 80% AMI 60% AMI DCR/ Stabilized
Cash Flow ROC Notes
Notes
0.9375 D‐2
5%
@ 80
%
3s
Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning
30% AMI DCR/ Stabilized
Cash Flow ROC NotesScenarios# of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value
ROC Notes
0.9375 D‐2
5%
@ 60
%
2b
d
s
Scenarios # of Units
92
Development Scenarios
Wood Frame (Type III/V Construction) 4 over 1 to 5 over 1 in various zones allowing approximately 50 feet in height
Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR
Mixed Income 4% LIHTC project, 20% of units @ 50% AMI 135
$6.3M / $154psf / $46.6k/door 22 57 29 5 15 7 1.11/$281,153 5.07%4% Tax Credits, $3M in subsidized gap debt assumed from State, County and City Sources
4% LIHTC 20% units @ 50% AMI, with 1 floor above max height 165 $6.3M / $154psf / $38.1k/door 26 70 35 7 18 9 1.12/$362,344 4.90%4% Tax Credits, $3M in subsidized gap debt assumed from State, County and City Sources
Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR
Market Rate Project, by right to zoning 135 0.9375 Various
$6.3M / $154psf / $46.6k/door 27 72 36 1.35/$847,545 5.87%Low Leverage (53%)/High Equity Raise, parked .55:1, LifeCo loan
Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR
Market Rate Project, same project as above 135 $6.3M / $154psf / $46.6k/door 27 72 36 1.35/$847,545 5.87%Low Leverage (53%)/High Equity Raise, parked .55:1, LifeCo loan
5% units @ 30% AMI, with 1 floor above max height 165 $6.3M / $154psf / $38.1k/door 31 83 42 2 5 2 1.35/$917,421 5.48%Same basic leverage and loan, parked ..45 stalls/unit
Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR
Market Rate Project, same project as above 135 $6.3M / $154psf / $46.6k/door 27 72 36 1.35/$847,545 5.87%Low Leverage (53%)/High Equity Raise, parked .55:1, LifeCo loan
5% units @ 60% AMI, All 2s, with 1 floor above max height 165 $6.3M / $154psf / $38.1k/door 33 88 35 9 1.35/$1.015M 5.68%Same basic leverage and loan, parked ..45 stalls/unit
Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR
Market Rate Project, same project as above 135 $6.3M / $154psf / $46.6k/door 27 72 36 1.35/$847,545 5.87%Low Leverage (53%)/High Equity Raise, parked .55:1, LifeCo loan
20% units @ 80% AMI, with 1 floor above max height 165 $6.3M / $154psf / $38.1k/door 27 70 35 6 18 9 1.35/$913,021 5.42%Same basic leverage and loan, parked ..45 stalls/unit
Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR
Market Rate Project, same project as above 135 $6.3M / $154psf / $46.6k/door 27 72 36 1.35/$847,545 5.87%Low Leverage (53%)/High Equity Raise, parked .55:1, LifeCo loan
10% units @ 60% AMI, with 1 floor above max height 165 $6.3M / $154psf / $38.1k/door 30 79 39 3 9 5 1.35/$1.005M 5.61%Same basic leverage and loan, parked ..45 stalls/unit
Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR
Market Rate Project, same project as above 135 $6.3M / $154psf / $46.6k/door 27 72 36 1.35/$847,545 5.87%Low Leverage (53%)/High Equity Raise, parked .55:1, LifeCo loan
10% units @ 80% AMI. All 2s, with 1 floor above max height 165 $6.3M / $154psf / $38.1k/door 33 88 27 17 1.35/$1.010M 5.82%Same basic leverage and loan, parked ..45 stalls/unit
Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR
Market Rate Project, same project as above 135 $6.3M / $154psf / $46.6k/door 27 72 36 1.35/$847,545 5.87%Low Leverage (53%)/High Equity Raise, parked .55:1, LifeCo loan
5% units @ 80% AMI. All 3s, with 1 floor above max height 165 $6.3M / $154psf / $38.1k/door 51 123 42 13 1.35/$917,421 5.48%Same basic leverage and loan, parked ..45 stalls/unit
*Assume current land values
*Assume current market rents for the neighborhood
*Fill or modify headers as applicable
ROC NotesScenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value
ROC Notes
ROC Notes
Notes
0.9375 Various
5%
@ 80
%
3s
Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning
5%
@ 60
%
2b
d
Scenarios # of Units
Market Rate 80% AMI 30% AMI DCR/ Stabilized
Cash Flow
0.9375 Various
Market Rate 80% AMI
Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value
Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate 80% AMI 60% AMI DCR/ Stabilized
Cash Flow
30% AMI DCR/ Stabilized
Cash Flow
0.9375 Various
# of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value
80% AMI 60% AMI DCR/ Stabilized
Cash Flow
Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate 80% AMI 60% AMI DCR/ Stabilized
Cash Flow
0.9375
DCR/ Stabilized
Cash Flow
Market Rate
Various
Various
80% AMI 50% AMI
Scenarios # of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate 80% AMI 60% AMI DCR/ Stabilized
Cash Flow ROC Notes
Land Value Market Rate 80% AMI 60% AMI DCR/ Stabilized
Cash Flow ROC
0.9375
ROC Notes
0.9375 Various
Wo
o
d
Fr
a
m
e
Sc
e
n
a
r
i
o
s
‐
4 ov
e
r
1 Ty
p
e
V (5
5
Fe
e
t
)
to
5 ov
e
r
1 Ty
p
e
II
I
(6
5
Fe
e
t
)
20
%
@ 80
%
10
%
@ 60
%
10
%
@ 80
%
2s
LI
H
T
C
5%
@ 30
%
Ma
r
k
e
t
Notes
Scenarios
ROC
# of Units Lot Size (acres) Zoning Land Value Market Rate Notes
0.9375 Various
ROC
Scenarios
93
Development Scenarios
RMF-35 and TSA Apartment Buildings
Citizens West
Citizens West 2 & 3 are 100% affordable units, 25-50% AMI for all units. *Building this many units might be limited by LIHTC Equity available per cycle. Increasing the height
from the existing 5 floors of residential/2 floors of parking would require change of construction type to steel, would affect DCR.
Scenarios # of
Units
Lot Size
(acres) Zoning Land
Value
Average 43% AMI DCR/ Stabilized Cash Flow Studio 3 BR 4 BR
LIHTC project (9%) 80
1 TSA-UN-T $1.8M
45 25 10 1.15
Same project as above, with 1 floor above max height (AHI) 97 55 30 12 *
Same project as above, with 2 floors above max height (AHI) 114* 65 35 14 *
Denver Apartments
This is a permanent supportive housing development. It is zoned RMF-35. The scenarios below show what was built based on the existing regulations and what could be built with the
existing incentives. The incentives have a requirement of no more than 25% of units less than 500 sq. ft. Some units had to be enlarged and if there was not this requirement, 66 units
would have fit on the site.
Scenarios # of
Units
Lot Size
(acres) Zoning Land Value
Permanent Supportive Housing
DCR/ Stabilized Cash Flow Studio = 39%
AMI
1 BR = 50%
AMI
Project with existing zoning requirements 22 0.9 RMF-35
We don't have a current appraisal for
this parcel. When the project was
done, we paid $1M for land
10 12 1.25
LIHTC project (9%) - with allowances by incentives 53 13 40 1.25
Avia (The Exchange, Phase I)
The Avia is 80% market rate units and 20% of units are at 50% AMI
Scenarios # of
Units
Lot Size
(acres) Zoning Market Rate Units Affordable Units (50% AMI)
Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR
Avia (The Exchange)
LIHTC project (4%) 286
1 TSA-UN-C
25 138 51 15 6 34 13 4
Same project as above, with 1 floor above max height (AHI) 326 28 158 58 18 7 39 14 4
Same project as above, with 2 floors above max height (AHI) 367 31 178 65 20 8 44 16 5
94
Development Scenarios Summary
Single- and Two-family zoning districts
2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR
Single-family Detached without AHI 1 0.15 R-1/7,000 $185,000 2,800 sq ft + 2 car garage 1 (109,043)$ $500,000 NA 1 $20,850 $463,333 $2,500 NA
Duplex with AHI 2 0.15 R-1/7,000 $185,000 1,500 sq ft each 1 1 (35,693)$ $450,000 $350,000 1 1 $37,852 $841,151 $2,300 $2,130
Fourplex with AHI 4 0.15 R-1/7,000 $185,000 1,000 sq ft each 2 2 118,558$ $350,000 (x2)$325,000 (x2)2 2 $48,808 $1,084,622 $1,450 (x2)$1,450 (x2)
Townhouses with AHI 4 0.25 R-1/7,000 $300,000 1,730 sq ft + 2 car garage 2 2 (75,150)$ $450,000 (x2)$300,000 (x2)2 2 $79,704 $1,771,191 $2,300 $2,130
Single-family Detached without AHI 1 0.15 R-1/7,000 $300,000 2,800 sq ft + 2 car garage 1 $134,800 $1,050,000 NA 1 $27,532 $611,822 $3,200 NA
Duplex with AHI 2 0.15 R-1/7,000 $300,000 1,500 sq ft each 1 1 ($61,150)$600,000 $350,000 1 1 $40,956 $910,129 $2,700 $2,130
Fourplex with AHI 4 0.15 R-1/7,000 $300,000 1,000 sq ft each 2 2 $81,350 $450,000 (x2)$325,000 (x2)2 2 $63,172 $1,403,822 $1,800 (x2)$1,800 (x2)
Townhouses with AHI 4 0.25 R-1/7,000 $500,000 1,730 sq ft + 2 car garage 2 2 ($7,610)$660,000 (x2)$350,000 (x2)2 2 $85,964 $1,910,302 $2,800 (x2)$2,130 (x2)
Assumptions:
80% AMI max. for sale price for a 3 bed unit assumes 4-person household, $81,900 annual income, 5% interest rate, 7% down payment
80% AMI max. for sale price for a 2 bed unit assumes 3-person household, $73,750 annual income, 5% interest rate, 7% down payment
80% AMI rental rates: 1 br = $1,537, 2 br = $1,844, 3 br = $2,130, 4 br = $2,136
NOI = net operating income = annual income - annual expenses
4.5% Cap rate for all
Scenario #1: Lower land value/Sales price neighborhood
Scenario #2 Higher land value/Sales price neighborhood
80% AMI PriceMarket PriceProfit# of Units Lot Size
(acres)Zoning Land Value Unit Size
For Sale Product, 80% AMI For Rent Product
Market Rate 80% AMI Market Rate 80% AMI NOI Value Monthly Rent
Market
Monthly Rent
80% AMI
95
PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023
ATTACHMENT H: Zoning Maps and
Graphics
Attachment H.1 CS Zoning Districts
CS (Community Shopping) – Trolley Square area
96
PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023
CS (Community Shopping) – Brickyard
97
PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023
CS (Community Shopping) – Foothill Village
CS (Community Shopping) – Lucky Grocery area
98
PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023
Attachment H.2 Locations of TSA Zoning Districts
TSA (Transit Station Area) Zoning Districts – North Temple
TSA (Transit Station Area) Zoning Districts – 400 South
99
PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023
Attachment H.3 Selected Commercial Districts
100
PLNPCM2019-00522 April 26, 2023
Attachment H.4 Locations of RMF Zoning Districts
101
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening
attachments.
From:cindy cromer
To:Traughber, Lex
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Fw: comment on Princeton Heights 11/8/23
Date:Thursday, November 9, 2023 6:12:06 AM
Lex-In my comments at the meeting, I omitted the paragraphs on Housing Salt Lake and Plan
Salt Lake because other people had spoken about those policies. Please include these written
comments in the record as you forward the transmittal. My references to the data from the
Mayor's task force will continue.
Sincerely, cindy c.
At your meeting on September 13, you voted to send a negative
recommendation to the City Council regarding the proposed historic district for
Laird Heights, citing the need for more housing based on Housing SLC, Thriving
in Place, and Plan Salt Lake. This afternoon I sent to your Dropbox the data
generated by the Mayor's task force on Affordable Housing. The finding was
that additional density was unlikely in high value, low density neighborhoods
such as Yalecrest. You had those data for the April 26 hearing on Affordable
Housing.
It is clear to me as a small-scale investor that allowing demolitions in a
neighborhood such as Yalecrest will result in even larger, more expensive
single-family residences which exclude even more of Salt Lake City's residents.
My own view is consistent with the data generated by developers on the task
force and with the demolitions which have already occurred in the Yalecrest
neighborhood.
In addition to the data generated by the task force, I see shortcomings of citing
the planning documents used in the motion on Laird Heights.
Thriving in Place (2023)is an anti-displacement plan focusing on renters. It
certainly should not be used to justify the replacement of expensive housing
with even more expensive housing.
Housing Salt Lake (2023) in C 3 addresses needs for family housing which both
Laird and Princeton Heights provide and C 4 talks about geographic equity. We
have data specific to Salt Lake City indicating that the proposed changes to
increase density are unlikely to work in low density, high value neighborhoods.
Plan Salt Lake (2015)contains a chapter on preservation and calls for a balanced
approach to preservation and redevelopment.
I am hoping that the City Council will consider both the Laird and Princeton
Heights proposals at the same time. That would mean that both achieved the
number of favorable votes required by the State and that I wouldn't have to
repeat myself regarding the relevant adopted plans and the available data on
affordable housing.
From:GEORGE SABRINA THEODORE
To:Planning Public Comments
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Leave Princeton Harvard historical district zoning alone do not change it
Date:Wednesday, November 8, 2023 12:05:38 PM
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments.
Our city is not a one size fits all zoning. This decision to change the zoning is to benefit developers not the
neighborhood. As it is there are too many cars on our narrow Princeton street. Duplexes, fourplexs will not work in
our neighborhood. We do not want to live next to one either. The neighborhood would deteriorate and lose its’
historical charm. Our neighborhood with the rules and current zoning works. As a taxpayer, we feel frustrated that
our petitions, our voices are not being heard.
Sent from my iPhone
From:Mark Glissmeyer
To:Planning Public Comments; Paula Harline; Ann AA Glissmeyer
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Princeton Heights LHD
Date:Wednesday, November 8, 2023 4:48:26 PM
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments.
We respectfully request approval of the Princeton Heights Local Historic District.
We are 41-year residents on Princeton Avenue. We came to house sit for the summer of 1982 to return to the
University and have chosen to stay since that time due to the beautiful architecture and tree lined streets, and
especially we have stayed because of the people drawn to such an area Communities such as this one need to be
preserved to continue to strengthen our city.
It was a stretch for us to afford our home at the beginning but our experience living in our single family home in a
stable neighborhood with many long time residents was a wonderful help while raising our four boys. Our
neighbors have been the village that helped us raise our children, and they are a large reason why we stay though our
sons have all launched to their own single family home communities.
We love the homes on these beautiful lighted and tree-lined streets. It has been a safe neighborhood for walking to
nearby excellent public schools and shops.
We are the third owners of our nearly 100 year old home and our hope is to continue to enjoy and care for the one-
of-a-kind unique structures found in the Princeton Local Historic District.
Mark and Ann Glissmeyer
Sent from my iPhone
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening
attachments.
From:Jan Hemming
To:Traughber, Lex
Cc:KEEPYalecrest; Paula Harline
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Statement of support for Princeton Heights LHD
Date:Thursday, November 2, 2023 5:15:14 PM
Lex: I hope you can add my letter of support to petition PLNHLC2023-00044 — the
Princeton Heights LHD — that will be heard tonight at the Historic Landmark Commission.
November 2, 2023
Historic Landmark Commission
and Lex Traughber:
I am unable to attend the public hearing this evening for petition PLNHLC2023-00044 before
the Historic Landmark Commission but wanted to declare support for designating Princeton
Avenue between 1300 East and 1500 East a Local Historic District.
This petition exceeds Salt Lake City’s fundamental requirements for an LHD. But is also a
superior example of why cities protect and preserve unique historic properties. From every
criterion, Princeton Heights belongs in an LHD. Many of these homes have stood the test of
time for over 100 years, representing a rare collection of Salt Lake’s heralded past that can’t
be found elsewhere.
Salt Lake outlined a clear vision in Plan SLC (2015) that “preservation is an important
component of community character and sense of place.” Adding that “we value neighborhood
character and the defining elements that make up our neighborhoods and City. The historic
development patterns, including building composition and landscaping, details, and elements
all play important roles in defining the character of our places.”
Historic preservation was such an essential part of this 40-year vision of Salt Lake, outlined in
Plan SLC, that an entire chapter was devoted to it.
Designating Princeton Heights an LHD would fulfill Plan SLC’s intent to safeguard “the best
examples of the City’s historic architecture.”
Generations of homeowners who have lived in Princeton Heights have nurtured these one-of-
a-kind domiciles with immense respect, conservation, maintenance, honor and even a sense
of awe and reverence. It is only fitting that those who hold positions of power in Salt Lake
would exercise their authority to protect and preserve them.
Please approve Princeton Heights as an LHD.
Respectfully,
Janet (Jan) Hemming
Yalecrest Neighborhood Council Chair
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
774 East 2100 South Salt Lake City UT 84106
(801) 949-4040 | kirk@kirkhuffaker.com
MEMO
November 7, 2023
TO: Salt Lake City Planning Commission; Lex Traughber, SLC Planning Division
FROM: Kirk Huffaker, Principal
Subject: PLNHLC2023-00044 Princeton Heights Local Historic District, Salt Lake City
Before you this week is the application for Princeton Heights in Yalecrest to become a
local historic district. As a preservation planner in Salt Lake City for over 25 years, I
unequivocally support this application and encourage the Planning Commission to give
it a favorable recommendation.
Princeton Heights meets all the criteria to be locally designated, given its deep historic
and architectural significance. This is one of the most intact historic districts I’ve ever
seen in my professional career and a local historic district designation, which is strongly
supported by the owners, will keep that character intact. To that end, this proposal is
supported by statement nine of Plan Salt Lake: “As our City grows, finding the right
places to preserve the character is as important as finding the right places for growth
to occur."
As a preservationist and city resident, I am as concerned about affordable housing as I
am about preservation. However, historic preservation should not be considered an
impediment to achieving historic preservation. Having directly discussed this issue
today with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and numerous organizations
across the country, there are creative and untried methods to integrate deeper
affordability into any historic district that do not require demolition, thus preserving
their historic character. Yes, Salt Lake City can have both. It’s not an either/or
circumstance.
The Salt Lake City historic preservation program has had more than 45 years of
success, making the city’s historic neighborhoods the jewels of the city, telling its
stories while providing a range of housing choices. The Princeton Heights LHD
application is the next important step in that line of success that deserves the Planning
Commission’s support.
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
774 East 2100 South Salt Lake City UT 84106
(801) 949-4040 | kirk@kirkhuffaker.com
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening
attachments.
From:Emoli Kearns
To:Planning Public Comments
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Nov 8 meeting participation.
Date:Wednesday, November 8, 2023 1:15:06 AM
I will be speaking to the Planning Commission as a landmark commissioner to support the
creation of the Princeton Heights Historic Overlay district.
The Planning Commission cited
Thriving in Place, an Anti-Displacement and Gentrification Mitigation Plan and Plan SaltLake
in their recent denial of the Laid Heights National Historic District application.
I hoped to show the guiding principles from page 14 of Plan Salt Lake.
Can you suggest how to best accomplish this?
-Emoli Kearns
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
1/ Neighborhoods that provide a safe environment, opportunity for social interaction, and
services
needed for the well-being of the community therein.
2/ Growing responsibly while providing people with choices about where they live, how they
live,
and how they get around.
3/ 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.
4/ A transportation and mobility network that is safe, accessible, reliable, affordable, and
sustainable, providing real choices and connecting people with places.
5/ Air that is healthy and clean.
6/ Minimize our impact on the natural environment.
7/ Protecting the natural environment while providing access and opportunities to recreate and
enjoy nature.
8/ A beautiful city that is people focused.
9/ Maintaining places that provide a foundation for the City to affirm our past.
10/ Vibrant, diverse, and accessible artistic and cultural resources that showcase the
community’s
long-standing commitment to a strong creative culture.
11/ Ensure access to all City amenities for all citizens while treating everyone equitably with
fairness, justice, and respect.
12/ A balanced economy that produces quality jobs and fosters an environment for commerce,
local
business, and industry to thrive.
13/ A local government that is collaborative, responsive, and transparent.
14 SALT LAKE CITY | PLAN SALT LAKE
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening
attachments.
From:LYNN Pershing
To:Traughber, Lex; Lillie, Aiden
Cc:Dugan, Dan
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Princeton Heights LHD PLNHLC2023-00044 online open house comments
Date:Sunday, September 3, 2023 5:41:31 PM
Hi Mr Traughber
I went to the SLCgov website and it directed me to you for my online open house comments
concerning posting my comments regarding
PLNHLC2023-00044, Princeton Heights LHD
My comment
I strongly support local historic district designation for the proposed Yalecrest-
Princeton Heights LHD, PLNHLC2023-00044. It is listed on the National Register of
Historic Places since 2007.
It’s exquisite building structures of mainly English Cottages, English Tudors and
and an unusual Cape Dutch Colonial, along with Jacobethan French Norman
architecture are highly intact, having 97.7% historically contributing houses. This
proposed LHD has a rich culture of property owners representing many
professional areas of commerce that have shaped the City’s, state and regional
development and notoriety. Designation of Yalecrest-Princeton Heights as a local
historic district is consistent with the East Bench Master Plan (1987, 2017), the
Community Preservation Plan (2012) and other City Historic Preservation codes
aim at "preserving the historic and cultural aspects of our City to encourage
social, economic and environmental sustainability and create a sense of visual
unity within the community”.
Lynn K. Pershing
Yalecrest
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening
attachments.
From:Rebecca Wilson
To:Planning Public Comments
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Princeton Heights Local Historic District
Date:Wednesday, November 8, 2023 10:31:17 AM
Commssioners:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Princeton Heights Local Historic District Proposal.
I believe the Planning Commission should consider that land use that preserves the integrity of
neighborhoods is important to SLC residents and measures should be taken to insure that the basic
character of SLC remains.
Multi- unit buildings in single family neighborhoods favor developers at the expense of home buyers by :
1. increasing the price of single family homes
2. increases congestion and pollution with more density
3. destroys the original and historical architectural character of neighborhoods that will never be
replaced.....lost forever
4. destroys incentives to improve and preserve existing structures
5. adds to land fill and replaced by cheaper and more expendable building materials
6. creates a never ending cycle of destruction and construction in quiet and livable neighborhoods
7. detracts from a standard of living that values open spaces for walking and playing (children)
8. may resemble California in architecture that is jumbled and confused, definitely a place that is
disturbing
Please recommend the Salt Lake City Council approve the proposal to create the Princeton Heights Local
Historic District. Help to keep SLC unique and livable.
Michael Robis 1400 Princeton Ave
From:Eve Smith
To:Traughber, Lex
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Princeton Avenue
Date:Friday, September 22, 2023 5:18:00 PM
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments.
This is a public comment for the Salt Lake City Planning Commission. We are opposed to our street being zoned
historic. One reason why is that we are finding window restoration to be completely unaffordable, and the few
craftsmen that work on the old leaded windows don’t even e mail or call back with estimates. The historic zoning
rules are way too restrictive. As much as we love our home we are strongly opposed to being forced into a historic
zone. Thank you, Eve Smith
1349 Princeton Avenue.
Sent from my iPhone
From:Jim & Eve Smith
To:Planning Public Comments
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Princeton historic proposal
Date:Wednesday, November 8, 2023 12:44:35 PM
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments.
We live at 1349 Princeton Avenue and are opposed to becoming historic zoned. We love our old home but fear the
restrictions that will come as our leaded glass windows continue to age and we won’t be able to afford the hand
craftsmanship that repairs cost. This is just one example. Eve Smith
Sent from my iPhone
From:GEORGE SABRINA THEODORE
To:Planning Public Comments
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Leave Princeton Harvard historical district zoning alone do not change it
Date:Wednesday, November 8, 2023 12:05:38 PM
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments.
Our city is not a one size fits all zoning. This decision to change the zoning is to benefit developers not the
neighborhood. As it is there are too many cars on our narrow Princeton street. Duplexes, fourplexs will not work in
our neighborhood. We do not want to live next to one either. The neighborhood would deteriorate and lose its’
historical charm. Our neighborhood with the rules and current zoning works. As a taxpayer, we feel frustrated that
our petitions, our voices are not being heard.
Sent from my iPhone
Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening
attachments.
From:Rebecca Wilson
To:Planning Public Comments
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Princeton Heights Local Historic District
Date:Wednesday, November 8, 2023 10:31:17 AM
Commssioners:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Princeton Heights Local Historic District Proposal.
I believe the Planning Commission should consider that land use that preserves the integrity of
neighborhoods is important to SLC residents and measures should be taken to insure that the basic
character of SLC remains.
Multi- unit buildings in single family neighborhoods favor developers at the expense of home buyers by :
1. increasing the price of single family homes
2. increases congestion and pollution with more density
3. destroys the original and historical architectural character of neighborhoods that will never be
replaced.....lost forever
4. destroys incentives to improve and preserve existing structures
5. adds to land fill and replaced by cheaper and more expendable building materials
6. creates a never ending cycle of destruction and construction in quiet and livable neighborhoods
7. detracts from a standard of living that values open spaces for walking and playing (children)
8. may resemble California in architecture that is jumbled and confused, definitely a place that is
disturbing
Please recommend the Salt Lake City Council approve the proposal to create the Princeton Heights Local
Historic District. Help to keep SLC unique and livable.
Michael Robis 1400 Princeton Ave
6. OFFICIAL CANVASS RESULTS
Official Canvass
PROPERTY OWNER PUBLIC SUPPORT SURVEY
Proposed Yalecrest - Princeton Heights Local Historic
District
WHEREAS, a mailing was provided t o all forty-three (43) area property owners on
November 22, 2023 regarding the proposed Princet on Height s Local H istoric District ; and
WHEREAS, the property owners were asked as to whether they should support or oppose
designation of this area as the Princeton Heights Local Historic District, voting was allowed
following November 22, 2023, thru December 22, 2023, with mail in ballots must being
postmarked by December 21, 2023,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE I T RESOLVED, all valid ballots accounted f or, returned, and
postmarked as of December 21, 2023, have now been tabulated with the f ollowing results:
SUPPORT: 28
OPPOSED: 6
UNDELIVERABLE: 1
DELIVERED or POSTMARKED
AFTER DEADLINE: 0
RETURNED BUT DID NOT VOTE: 1
VERIFIED and DULY CERTIFIED by the City Recorder of Salt Lake City as of the 29th day of
December 2023.
ATTEST:
______________________________
Cindy Lou Trishman
Salt Lake City Recorder