Photo credit: Building Salt Lake
After a multi-year process with the public and city-hall decision-makers, it looks like Salt Lake City’s dysfunctional missing-middle zones, RMF-35 and -45, are set for a major refresh.
At its mid-May meeting the Planning Commission voted unanimously, 5-0, to forward a positive recommendation to the city council for the revised “Multi-family Merger” proposal.
The zoning rewrite essentially applies the city’s new template for allowing increased density and housing types to RMF-35 and -45, which includes density bonuses for maintaining existing structures.
While the original proposal may have had a catchy branding ring to it, the Multi-family Merger ran into some heavy friction on maximum height allowances from members of the public and several planning commissioners.
In the wake of the commission’s latest decision, neighborhood preservationists, who largely decried the changes, were able to claim a measure of victory. The “merger” was dropped, and heights will stay at 35 and 45 maximum, with no possibility of additional height through design review.
Housing advocates also had reasons to applaud the commission’s decision.
Let’s look at some of the details of the changes advanced by the planning commission to the city council for a final decision.
The shape of the revision
The original RMF-35 and -45 requirements, dating to 1995, were seemingly written to intentionally limit development. Not surprisingly, planners found that “over the past 30 years, only 4% of lots within these districts have seen any development, with just eight projects resulting in moderate-density housing.”
The new rules reduce setbacks, minimum lot size, off-street parking mandates, and land square footage required per dwelling unit.
The rewrite also eliminates the requirement for all dwellings to have street frontage, and allows for more than one primary dwelling per parcel.
In response to the fear of creating strong incentives for developers to demolish existing housing, planners have added density bonuses for keeping existing buildings. Maintaining a single-family or two-family home awards two bonus units beyond the minimum lot area requirement, while keeping a multi-family building allows for four additional units.
The off-street parking requirement is set at one space per unit.
Multi-family buildings will be limited to 20 units in both zones.
The latest version, headed to the city council
Senior Planner Aaron Barlow, summarizing the latest revision, told the commission, “keeping both the RMF 35 and RMF 45 zoning districts under this proposal, most of those regulations actually will remain the same with lot area, lot width requirements, design standards, open space requirements, all those things that don’t have to do with height.”
The main difference between the two un-merged zones? The maximum heights allowed by housing type. The latest version proposes, according to the staff report:
“Urban Houses, Two-Family Dwellings, and Rowhouses all have a maximum height of 35 feet in both proposed districts. The maximum height for Cottage Developments is also the same in both districts, capped at 23 feet. On the other hand, multi-family and non-residential building forms do not have the same maximum height in both districts. They are permitted to be as tall as 45 feet in the RMF-45 district, and limited to 35 in RMF-35.”
Public response
Representatives from neighborhood organizations and other interested individuals spoke during the commission’s public comment period.
Esther Hunter, from the East Central Community Council, presented the results of the organization’s inventory of all properties zoned RMF-35 and -45 in the neighborhood. She praised her neighborhood’s “unique” “patchwork quilt of zoning” that has historically brought a mix of housing types and -uses to the area between Downtown and the University of Utah.
But, she warned, “A blanket change to an RMF 45 for all the 35s would actually potentially destroy the very thing that’s organically developed.”
Cindy Cromer, a historical preservationist, landlord, and former planning commissioner was willing to admit that some progress had been made to protect existing neighborhood fabric.
She observed, “The proposal now bears little resemblance to the one presented to community organizations. That’s a good thing.”
“The monster height, the 55 feet is gone. The ill conceived concept of merging the two zones is gone. It is definitely less bad.”
But the fixes that she and other critics requested, like increasing setbacks, were sidelined by the commission.
Meanwhile, the city’s leading pro-housing advocacy organization, Salt Lake City Neighbors for More Neighbors, praised the city’s pro-housing progression.
Board Member Mohith Reppale lauded the city’s efforts during the meeting’s public comment: “These changes reflect years of community feedback and a clear commitment to solving Salt Lake City’s housing crisis with smart, balanced tools,” he noted.
SLC Neighbors for More Neighbors’ Executive Director Turner Bitton stated in a news release, “These updates are a powerful step toward the kind of Salt Lake City we all believe in—a city where families, seniors, and essential workers can afford to live near jobs, schools, and opportunity.”
The commission’s conclusion
Veteran commissioner and former chair Amy Barry, who was one of the most vocal opponents to the height allowances in the original merger, concluded that she had made her peace with the changes, given the revision in heights.
Prefacing her Aye vote, Barry stated, “I think it is a much better proposal now than it was before. And I am very happy to look at the fact that the stated goal, which I have now said multiple times tonight, was to promote a variety of housing types and that we also need to preserve the variety of housing types that we have existing.”
“I think we’ve gotten to the point where we do that better than the initial view of consolidation. So I just want to point those out as I give you my support and I vote yes to moving this on to the city council.”
Her fellow commissioners agreed, sending a 5-0 unanimous endorsement to the city council.
