Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Provided Information - 12/2/2025CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM:Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:December 2, 2025 RE: Text Amendment – RMF-35 & RMF-45 Multi Family Zoning District Update PLNPCM2024-01388 PUBLIC HEARING UPDATE Several people spoke at the November 18, 2025 public hearing, with those in support and others opposed about equally divided. Those who were supportive expressed a desire for additional housing units, the potential for housing attainable for younger people, and that new housing helps create naturally occurring affordable housing. Commenters opposed to the proposal expressed concerns with possible impact to neighborhood character in historic districts, how condominium buildings will be affected, and market rate housing is not needed in older parts of the city. Two commenters were generally supportive, but shared concerns that the proposal will require redesigning a planned project resulting in additional staffing and development costs. (Staff note: Planning staff talked with these individuals to let them know modifications to the proposed regulations may be requested through the planned development process or by utilizing affordable housing incentives, which would allow their project to proceed as planned. However, they expressed concerns that would take a long time to get approved.) Council Member Mano asked Council staff to work with Planning staff to determine if there are any potential changes that could be made to the ordinance that would address the concerns raised at the public hearing. In response to that request, planning staff provided the following options for the Council to consider and potentially include in the final ordinance. Item Schedule: Page | 2 Retain the 110-foot lot width maximum and remove the 100-foot front façade length maximum. Existing lots with widths that exceed 110 feet would be allowed to construct longer buildings. Modify the maximum number of dwelling units per building for RMF-35 and -45, or Modify the maximum number of dwelling units per building for RMF-45 only. Additionally, Council Member Mano raised the following item as an option to consider. Remove the 100-foot front façade length maximum if utilizing affordable housing incentives. The Council will hold a December 2, 2025 follow-up briefing to discuss potential changes to the proposal and may direct staff to incorporate changes to the final ordinance for adoption. The following information was provided for previous meetings. It is included again for background purposes. BRIEFING UPDATE During the October 7, 2025 briefing Council Members discussed current and proposed setbacks. Current side yard setbacks are four feet on one side and 10 feet on the other. The proposal calls for four-foot side yard setbacks on both sides (unless the property abuts single-family zoned parcels, then a 10-foot setback is proposed). Some Council Members expressed concerns with reduced setbacks in areas with small block sizes, and potential loss of trees. Areas with small block sizes have some of the densest residential development in the city. A question was raised about why the proposed changes are good for those living in these areas. Planning staff noted the large number of homes that were constructed before zoning regulations were adopted and are now nonconforming due to current setbacks. The proposal would help bring many of these into compliance. Additionally, Planning discussed the potential for more affordable housing units in these areas which could provide opportunities for younger people to live there without changing the neighborhood character. It could also provide opportunities for current residents to age in place. Council staff provided some context from when the RMF-35 and -45 zoning was created in 1995. At that time the community wanted larger setbacks which resulted in many nonconforming lots. Housing supply and costs are very different today and the pendulum has shifted to smaller setbacks. Planning staff discussed additional height up to 55 feet if utilizing affordable housing incentives that was in the original proposal. That was not supported by the community, so it was removed. ISSUE AT A GLANCE The Council will be briefed about proposed amendments to the RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multifamily Residential) and RMF-45 (Moderate/High Density Multifamily Residential) zoning ordinance and map. Development of medium- to high-density housing types within the zoning districts has not happened since their creation due to a variety of barriers and limitations. The proposed changes are intended to remove those. Several briefings for both the Historic Landmark and Planning Commission were held on the proposal between February and May 2025, and the Planning Commission held two public hearings. (Planning’s staff reports for the Planning Commission meetings that include changes to the proposal as it progressed can be found at the following links: February 12, 2025, March 12, 2025, and May 14, 2025.) Numerous people spoke at the hearings and were about equally divided in support and opposition to the proposal. Those who spoke in favor noted the ineffectiveness of current regulations, concerns about school Page | 4 closures, low-quality housing, and the need for additional housing in the city. Comments in opposition cited potential increased parking issues, loss of sunlight, and impact to solar power, changes to neighborhood character, and decreased property values. Following the May 14, 2025 public hearing, the Planning Commission voted unanimously forwarded a favorable recommendation to the City Council. Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed text amendment and determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. In recent years the Council has approved a few housing related zoning amendments such as the RMF-30 and Affordable Housing Incentives. The Council may wish to ask the administration how those changes are being received and implemented by developers. a. Some concerns have been raised about the potential for these recent zoning amendments to encourage demolitions of existing housing stock, including naturally occurring affordable housing. The Council may wish to ask the administration if the recently adopted zoning amendments have resulted in more demolitions. 2. How do the proposed changes to RMF-35 and 45 align with the recently adopted RMF-30 zoning district? 3. How do the proposed changes help advance the City’s adopted housing goals? 4. How does the proposal interplay with affordable housing incentives? 5. How do the proposed changes ensure new construction is compatible with the existing development of neighborhoods throughout the city? ADDITIONAL INFORMATION In their current form, the two districts are nearly identical except for maximum building height. The Administration’s initial proposal was to combine both districts into one RMF-45 district. Based on feedback from the public and Planning Commission, the proposal was changed to keep the RMF-35, and RMF-45 zoning districts separate and allow additional building types to be constructed on vacant lots and as infill projects. Some additional recommended changes include reduced minimum lot sizes, eliminating lot width minimums, upzoning approximately two dozen properties RMF-35 to RMF-45 (found in attachment A to this report), and clarification of density bonuses. These are discussed below. RMF-35 and RMF-45 zoning were adopted in 1995 and intended as a transition from low-density neighborhoods to higher intensity areas. Adding multifamily developments to established neighborhoods was also envisioned. However, Planning staff found single-family homes and large apartment buildings have been the primary development patterns for the zones. Only 4% of lots in the districts have had any new development, with a total of eight moderate-density projects in the last 30 years. Planning identified the following complications with the current zoning districts: Minimum lot size requirements are too restrictive. Nearly half of lots in RMF-35 and 45 are smaller than the required 5,000 square feet so new development is not possible. Multi-family buildings cannot be constructed, and single-family homes are the only option. Minimum lot width requirements are too high. Only about one-third of properties in the RMF-35 and 45 zones meet the 50-foot minimum lot width. All others are too narrow. Parking requirements are too high. Planning found that approximately 96% of RMF-35 and 45 properties are within ¼ mile of a transit stop, yet the parking requirements are the same as single- family zones. Affordability, density, and the viability of multifamily projects are impacted by parking requirements that are too high. Page | 5 Planning staff anticipates positive changes if the proposal is adopted, reducing minimum lot sizes and allowing more housing options. These include adding accessory units and small-scale infill projects which can supplement the property owner’s income and facilitate aging in place. An additional potential benefit is reduced per capita water use due to more efficient use in moderate-density developments than single- family building types. The proposal is also intended to align with City plans including the Plan Salt Lake (2015), and Thriving in Place and Housing SLC, both adopted in 2023. PROPOSAL SUMMARY Planning staff identified four key proposal objectives: Align the districts’ purpose with adopted plans and policies Clarify and simplify regulations Encourage moderate density development and infill development Preserve existing buildings and neighborhood character. To achieve these objectives six recommendations are proposed: New “form-based” approach Adjustments to lot requirements Incentives for retention of existing structures Introduction of design standards New landscaping and open space requirements Updates to parking minimums Each recommendation is summarized below. For additional information, please see pages 6-9 of the Administration’s transmittal. New “Form-Based” Approach Rather than the current method of all residential building types being required to comply with the same standards, the proposal calls for varying standards depending on building type. A multifamily building impacts neighboring properties, the street, and neighborhood differently than a cottage development, rowhouses, and other less intense building types. Under the proposal, sideways rowhouses and cottage courts would be added to the current list of building types that includes single-family homes, duplexes, street-facing townhomes, and multi-family buildings. Adjustments to Lot Requirements Lot Widths The proposal recommends eliminating the current minimum lot width, which varies depending on use. Those would be replaced with a maximum lot width of 110 feet, intended to prevent the banking of land for larger developments. As discussed above, only about one-third of RMF-35 and 45 lots meet the 50-foot minimum. Lot Area Current and proposed minimum lot areas for the subject zoning districts are shown in the table below. The proposal would reduce the minimums for all but non-residential buildings. Page | 6 Building Form Current Minimum Lot Area Proposed Minimum Lot Area Urban House & Two-family Single-family: 5,000 square feet Two-family: 8,000 square feet 1,500 square feet (for 1 or 2 units) Cottage Development 5,000 square feet per unit, each as a single-family dwelling 500 square feet per unit Row House 3,000 square feet per unit 750 square feet per unit (minimum of 3 units) Multi-family 3 units: 9,000 square feet RMF-35: +2,000 square feet per unit over 3 RMF-45: +1,000 square feet per unit over 3 750 square feet per unit (minimum of 3 units) Non-residential building 5,000 square feet 5,000 square feet Public Street Frontage Proposed updates to the RMF-35 and 45 zoning districts would permit lots and buildings without frontage on a public street if specific conditions are met. Current code requires street frontage for all buildings unless an exception is approved by the Planning Commission. Incentives for Retention of Existing Structures The proposal calls for allowing bonus units if existing structures are retained. Similar incentives are offered in the RMF-30 zoning district. If one or two dwelling units are kept, two bonus units would be allowed. Retaining three or more units qualifies for four additional units. Note: this would not require the principal building to be more than 50 years old, as is required in the zoning incentives for building preservation, though the proposal allows for that. Design Standards Another proposed change is to add design standards to the RMF-35 and 45 zones. These are summarized below and in the image that follows. Durable Building Materials: a minimum of 50% of a building’s street-facing façade must use durable materials such as stone, brick, wood siding, shingles, glass, etc. Glass: Depending on building form, 15% to 20% of street-facing floors above the ground floor must be glass. Ground Floor Transparency: Again, depending on building form, 15% to 20% of street-facing ground floors must be glass. Entry Features: Under the proposal, entry features such as a porch and fence, terrace and light well, portico, awning, forecourt, or stoop. Building Fenestration: Street-facing walls cannot exceed a length of 15 feet without interruptions that include windows, doors, or a change in the wall plane with an offset of at least 12 inches. Page | 7 Image illustrating design standards in the RMF-35 and RMF-45 proposed text amendment. Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division Landscaping and Open Space Currently, the RMF-35 and 45 zones do not require open space other than yard setbacks. The proposal recommends open space, landscaping, and personal and shared space that vary based on building forms, as shown in the table below. Building Form Open Space Per Unit-Personal Open Space Per Unit-Common Requirements Urban House and Two-family N/A but subject to lot area requirements. * N/A but subject to lot area requirements. * General landscaping standards Cottage Development 200 square feet 150 square feet General landscaping and proposed open space standards Page | 8 Row House 200 square feet 150 square feet General landscaping and proposed open space standards Multi-family Not permitted 50 square feet General landscaping and proposed open space standards Other Building Forms Not permitted 15% of lot area General landscaping and standards for common open space. *Open space for Urban houses and two-family dwellings Urban house and two-family dwelling building forms would not be permitted to exceed 60% of the lot area. Because these are smaller scale, the proposal does not call for personal or common open space. They would still need to meet applicable landscaping requirements. It is worth noting that the above open space requirements would not apply when a property is within 800 feet of a public park or open space. Landscape Buffers The proposal retains landscape buffers for row houses, multi-family, and non-residential building forms currently found in City code. They would not be required for cottage developments, urban houses, or single-family dwellings. Parking RMF-35 and 45 zoning are both currently in the “General” parking context, which has the highest minimum parking requirements, with one to two parking spaces for each unit, depending on unit type or number of bedrooms (more bedrooms require more parking). It is Planning’s opinion that this context is appropriate for lower-density neighborhoods that are more car dependent and have limited transit access. The proposal recommends including RMF-35 and 45 in the “Neighborhood Center” parking context which requires only one parking space for all types and sizes of dwellings. Planning found that 20% of RMF-35 and 45 properties are within a quarter mile of a fixed rail station and, as noted above, 96% are within a quarter mile of a transit stop. Planning staff also recommends this change to encourage more bedrooms within multifamily and rowhouse dwelling units. The current “General” parking context requires two parking spaces for units with two or more bedrooms. The “Neighborhood Center” context would require one space per dwelling unit regardless of the number of bedrooms. ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS Attachments D and E (pages 101-106) of the March 12, 2025 Planning Commission staff report outline zoning text and map amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. The standards and findings from both attachments are combined and summarized below. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for additional information. Factor Finding Whether a proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents. Complies Page | 9 Whether a proposed amendment furthers the applicable purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Complies Whether a proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Complies. The proposal is compatible with the intent of the H Historical Overlay District. The extent to which a proposed text amendment implements best current, professional practices of urban planning and design. Complies The impact that the proposed text amendment may have on city resources necessary to carry out the provisions and processes required by this title. The adequacy of public facilities a services intended to serve the subject property, including, but not limited to, roadways, parks recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and wastewater and refuse collection. Proposed amendments will not change the level of impact that development in the affected districts may have on City resources. The impact that the proposed text amendment may have on other properties that would be subject to the proposal and properties adjacent to subject properties. The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent and nearby properties due to the change in development potential and allowed uses that do not currently apply to the property. Proposed amendments will ensure that affected properties have equitable development rights and protections by ensuring that the City’s multifamily districts function as they were initially intended. The community benefits that would result from the proposed text amendment, as identified in 21A.50.050.C. While a community benefit is not required, the proposal will bring a diversity of housing options to neighborhoods that have typically excluded new development since 1995. The status of existing transportation facilities, any planned changes to the transportation facilities, and the impact that the proposed amendment may have on the city’s ability, need, and timing of future transportation improvements. There are adequate transportation facilities to support the potential additional growth from the proposed amendment. The proximity of necessary amenities such as parks, open space, schools, fresh food, entertainment, cultural facilities, and the ability of current and future residents to access these amenities without having to rely on a personal vehicle. RMF-35 and RMF-45 districts are, for the most part, located within neighborhoods close enough to the listed amenities for access without reliance on personal vehicles. Page | 10 The potential impacts to public safety resources created by the increase in development potential that may result from the proposed amendments. No public safety concerns were reported during the department review process. Developments will be reviewed for compliance with building codes and fire prevention standards. The potential for displacement of people who reside in any housing that is within the boundary of the proposed amendment and the plan offered by the petitioner to mitigate displacement. No more displacement anticipated than current regulations allow. A citywide amendment will help alleviate displacement pressure in vulnerable parts of the city. The potential for displacement of any business that is located within the boundary of the proposed amendments and the plan offered by the petitioner to mitigate displacement. Proposed amendments are not expected to displace businesses or change their status under current zoning regulations. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • December 2, 2024 – Initial study of RMF-35 and 45 districts published. • December 11, 2024 – o Project story map launched. o 45-day notice sent to recognized community organizations. • December 12, 2024 – Focus group with small-scale affordable housing developers. • December 14, 2024 – Petition to merge RMF-35 and 45 districts initiated by Mayor Mendenhall. • December 23, 2024 – Property owners and residents within 300 feet of the affected properties were provided early notification of the proposal and the March 12, 2025 Planning Commission hearing date. • January-March 2025 – Planning presented at community council meetings. • January 8, 2025 – Public notice signs advertising the proposal and the March 12, 2025 Planning Commission public hearing posted at all Salt Lake City Public Library branches. • January 22, 2025 – General community open house at City Hall. • February 12, 2025 – First Planning Commission briefing. • February 28, 2025 – Public notice posted on City and State websites and Planning Division listserv. • March 12, 2025 – o Second Planning Commission briefing. o First public hearing. Page | 11 • May 14, 2025 – o Third Planning Commission briefing. o Second public hearing. • August 6, 2025 – Transmittal received in City Council Office. Page | 10 Attachment A – Properties Proposed to be Rezoned From RMF-35 to RMF-45 Address Council District Land Use Neighborhood Plan 321 S Concord St.2 Located at Neighborhood Node Westside Master Plan 866 West 700 South 870 West 700 South 876 West 700 South 665 South 900 West 2 Nonresidential Use Located at Neighborhood Node Westside Master Plan 1659 West 300 South 1671 West 300 South 1677West 300 South 351 South Concord St. 2 Located at Regional Node and Redwood Road Corridor Westside Master Plan 8 East Hillside Ave.3 High-density Residential Capitol Hill 321 South 600 East 323 South 600 East 602 East 300 South 4 Medium Residential/ Mixed-use Central Community Plan 120 West Mead Ave. 126 West Mead Ave. 130 West Mead Ave. 5 Central 9th Corridor Area Ballpark Station Area Plan 1414 South West Temple 5 Medium Density Transition Area Ballpark Station Area Plan 976 South 200 East 5 Medium High Density Central Community Plan 996 South 200 East 5 Medium High Density Central Community Plan 1418 South 1100 East 5 Low Residential/ Mixed-Use Central Community Plan 2321 East 2100 South 6 Medium High Density Residential Sugar House Neighborhood Plan 2673 South Preston St.7 Medium High Density Residential Sugar House Neighborhood Plan 1945 South 1300 East 1949 South 1300 East 7 Medium High Density Residential Sugar House Neighborhood Plan 1121 East Brickyard Road 7 Medium High Density Residential Sugar House Neighborhood Plan Salt»Lake»City// Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning City Council Briefing –December 2, 2025 RMF-35 & RMF-45 UPDATES Salt»Lake»City//Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning Salt»Lake»City//Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning Salt»Lake»City//Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning 1938 S DOUGLAS ST 116 feet Salt»Lake»City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning 1963 S 1200 E 165 feet Salt»Lake»City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning 1900 S DOUGLAS ST 101 feet Salt»Lake»City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning 1961 S 1200 E 123 feet Salt»Lake»City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning 2665 E PARLEYS WAY 201feet Salt»Lake»City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning 2186 S 800 E 128 feet Salt»Lake»City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning 2015 S 200 E 261 feet Salt»Lake»City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning THANK YOU! Salt»Lake»City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning Aaron Barlow Senior Planner Aaron Barlow@slc.gov 801.535.6182 Krissy Gilmore Planning Manager Kristina.Gilmore@slc.gov 801.535.7780 Salt»Lake»City // Planning Division MULTI-PRONGED APPROACH •Max Lot Width •Max Building Length •Max units per building BUILDING SCALE Salt»Lake»City // Planning Division MULTI-PRONGED APPROACH •Max Lot Width •Max Building Length •Max units per building BUILDING SCALE Still effective at limiting building scale Salt»Lake»City // Planning Division MULTI-PRONGED APPROACH •Max Lot Width •Max Building Length •Longer buildings in RMF-45 •Max units per building •Higher limit for RMF-45 BUILDING SCALE Better differentiates RMF-35 & RMF-45 Household Occupancy Definition Straw Polls 1. Does the Council support removing the occupancy limit and not differentiating between related and unrelated people? (Option 3 below.) or 2. Does the Council support maintaining the current family definition and increasing the number of unrelated people living together to five? (Option i below.) or 3. Does the Council support increasing the number of unrelated people living together and allow a combination of family types? (Option 2 below.) Option 1 Maintain the current family definition but increase the number of unrelated people living together to five. While this is the easiest option, it does not address issues with the current code. These include differentiating between enforcement of related and unrelated residents of a home and limiting enforcement on the number of unrelated people living together to cases where documentation showing residents' relationships is provided. Option 2 Increase the number of unrelated people in a household to five and allow a combination of family types. This is like option 1 but would allow related and as many as five unrelated people to live in a dwelling unit. The issue of determining whether residents are related is again not addressed with this option. Option ,3 This option removes the occupant limit and does not differentiate between related and unrelated people living together. Enforcement would be directed to issues that can be documented rather than attempting to determine the residents' relationships. There is potential for overcrowding with this option if multiple people use each bedroom. RMF-35 and RMF-45 Straw Polls 1. Does the Council support retaining the 110-foot lot width maximum and remove the loo- foot front facade length maximum? (Existing lots wider than 110 feet would be allowed to construct longer buildings.) 2. Does the Council support modifying the maximum number of dwelling units per building to 50: a. In both the RMF-35 and RMF-45 zones, or b. In only the RMF-45 zone? 3. Does the Council support removing the too -foot front fagade length maximum if utilizing affordable housing incentives?