[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6639467,"mediaKeyId","3663039-7db892722e87e9d8e152328efb6a333c","parentId",3663039,"title","Planning commission recommends updated moderate‑income housing report required by Utah law","audioSeconds",1013,"startMs",1016000,"endMs",2876,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3663039-7db892722e87e9d8e152328efb6a333c&start=1016&end=2","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3663039-7db892722e87e9d8e152328efb6a333c/thumbnail_1016000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6639467/Utah/Planning-commission-recommends-updated-moderateincome-housing-report-required-by-Utah-law","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6639467-42432bdfcac351934ded56bfc7c3e55f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771174536&Signature=aNFgL5j1UHQZAScTAmxz9GOY41rZnI60WEi-W5dorfbXpxE1dxDNv-mAyXlXwcHy8~L39Ity31R~fxbrhFGeEyjFjfIwthIbHm0ccsnDnYB8Q2Exdhu39uwQCDq9VMy-gXnLkQ03xCa9neoQ83ufVm99Iv9YP4cIKn7q~dpm3HV5vavfwgTt72uK~cw8c2GCQ5bNQQmvv8q4pvyXYko2TRk89khW0FxrM~dsdXCUnOGssrv2TAnLgO~zYQRl3Olt2mQXIIr3E3-NDOjgR-quTukMRibiwexLJDccXI2jahjQ~ON~DUp6Jki2T-SsKuFgibCoN8tCTZm2GR0fqC04uA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Cottonwood Heights","date","2025-06-05T00:01:58Z","article","The Cottonwood Heights Planning Commission on June 4 voted to forward the city’s updated Moderate Income Housing Report (GPA‑25‑002) to the City Council. The report is a statutory requirement under Utah state code and must be submitted annually (staff said submissions are due by August 1).

City planning staff summarized the requirement: every Utah municipality must adopt a moderate‑income housing plan and choose from a defined list of options (26 enumerated strategies in state code) describing how the city intends to encourage opportunities for moderate‑income housing. Staff recommended five strategies for Cottonwood Heights to pursue: 1) create or reduce regulatory barriers for internal and detached accessory dwelling units (ADUs), 2) zone or rezone for higher density or moderate‑income residential development in commercial or mixed‑use zones near transit or employment centers, 3) implement zoning incentives for moderate‑income units (for example through the city’s Plan Development District/PDD tools), 4) demonstrate use of a moderate‑income housing set‑aside within community reinvestment areas (CRAs) or similar redevelopment tools, and 5) consider reducing or waiving impact fees for qualifying moderate‑income units.

Staff outlined implementation measures in the packet and work sessions. For ADUs the plan recommends continued public information and review of detached ADU standards to better balance privacy and feasibility; staff also proposed creating a card‑file of pre‑engineered ADU plans to reduce design costs for owners. The staff presentation noted existing tools: the city’s PDD process has previously yielded more than 600 entitled residential units across two projects, with roughly 80 units deed‑restricted for affordability, and the city’s mixed‑use zoning already allows up to 35 units per acre in some commercial areas.

Public comment: Mike Carey, a resident and local general contractor, urged caution. Carey said ADUs alone do not solve affordability and warned of potential negative effects if standards are loosened (for example, conversion toward boarding‑house occupancy or short‑term rentals). Carey also cautioned against relying on impact‑fee waivers as a primary tool, noting that modest fee reductions do not necessarily move market prices and that impact fee policy is complex and constrained by statute and required studies.

Commission discussion covered deed‑restricted affordability levels, PDD incentives, the potential for impact‑fee studies and when and how fees could be reinstated or modified. Staff clarified: the state‑code options do not themselves mandate deed restrictions; deed restrictions come from local PDD agreements and vary (the PDD in use establishes affordability tiers that can require 10%–15% of units be deed‑restricted depending on whether units target 50% AMI or 80% AMI). Staff also noted the city currently charges only transportation and stormwater impact fees and that adding other impact fees would require a formal impact‑fee study and public approval.

Motion and vote: Commissioner Mills moved to forward GPA‑25‑002 and the updated Moderate Income Housing Report to the City Council; Commissioner Smith seconded. The roll call recorded affirmative votes from Commissioners Smith, Shelton, Barnes, Paulson, Simon, Mills and Anderson; the motion carried.

The report will be transmitted to City Council for their review and possible adoption and will be submitted to the state as required. Staff and commissioners said the measures are not a singular solution to housing affordability but are incremental steps that create eligibility for certain state funding priorities and enable the city to use local tools (PDDs, CRA set‑asides, targeted fee reductions) if council and future developers pursue them.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","2025-06-04 Planning Commission Business Session","oneSentenceSummary","The Cottonwood Heights Planning Commission on June 4 voted to forward the city’s updated Moderate Income Housing Report (GPA‑25‑002) to the City Council; the report fulfills a Utah state code requirement and recommends five strategies including ADU adjustments, zoning for residential density in commercial zones, PDD incentives, CRA set‑asides, and impact‑fee reductions.","taxTitle","Cottonwood Heights Planning and Building, Cottonwood Heights, Salt Lake County, Utah","taxId",21242,"location","Utah","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6639472,"Planning commission backs rewrite of neighborhood commercial rules to replace \"live‑work\" with \"neighborhood mixed use\"",946,134000,1080000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3663039-7db892722e87e9d8e152328efb6a333c&start=134&end=1080","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3663039-7db892722e87e9d8e152328efb6a333c/thumbnail_134000.jpg","/articles/6639472/Utah/Planning-commission-backs-rewrite-of-neighborhood-commercial-rules-to-replace-livework-with-neighborhood-mixed-use","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6639472-a420f1dc59bc8b12a4efdbce59f1c12d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771174536&Signature=L9KowKLZrKk6HwbPj5UNtaWhOXsCknfk2CRx5jRQ3hudL8pnaB85uVlZ2E5ZiauyA~2EXNf2YpdHnRwTvtfRxl9HAiuBCc0EuVTjTKNnZ~n~ez8xUV6Ab3c4LmoTqSmnZ5~9tshFPpsK3d7ve-nPTOAR3KApIv7OpgvmguccT2BqDnNSe~YkUFsUSs6bhAIvFeNw4hJlVPElpVsMPKDzZRIJULEe9IPvqlPTmYHJqipXLyjjmKznq2TCeEgqFsZ9-YajPviUOuBD73lu6~lSwxhnbiT~q~0W8Xn3CcFg59zDmSN4YdPMNjgSVwuzElGiWX5zHmtS2breK-QbBAs4kQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Cottonwood Heights Planning Commission recommended approval on June 4 of a city‑initiated zoning text amendment (ZTA‑25‑001) that replaces existing live‑work references in Chapter 19.37 (Neighborhood Commercial) with a new \"neighborhood mixed use\" category and adds specific development standards.

The revision was introduced by city planning staff as a response to a City Council moratorium on live‑work uses imposed in February and is intended to better define how residential uses may be incorporated into neighborhood commercial (NC) properties. Staff said the city has up to 180 days following the moratorium to provide clearer code language.

Under the proposed text amendment, several codified conditional uses in the NC zone would be removed (bed and breakfast, home occupations, home preschools, planned unit developments, residential facilities for elderly persons and live‑work spaces) and replaced or consolidated under the new \"neighborhood mixed use\" use type. Neighborhood mixed use projects would be permitted to include a residential component only as part of a mixed‑use development and must meet new standards spelled out in the draft ordinance.

Key standards in the draft include: at least 25% of total gross floor area of a neighborhood mixed use project must be nonresidential; at least 50% of the project or unit frontage at ground level along a public right of way must be nonresidential to ensure a public‑facing commercial presence; and existing development standards (height, setbacks, landscaping, parking, buffers and screening) would continue to apply. Staff also proposes removing minimum lot size/width/depth requirements and clarifying height limits by setting a maximum of 35 feet rather than the prior language of \"two stories or 35 feet, whichever is less.\"

During the public comment period, property owner Nathan Anderson said the amendment could diminish development rights for owners who purchased parcels under older expectations. Anderson asked the commission to consider grandfathering, tabling, or offering a variable nonresidential percentage for \"off‑prime\" sites (for example, lower than 25%) so smaller or less prominent properties could remain viable for small owner‑user commercial uses. He said he has a prospective hairstylist tenant who would rely on the proposed commercial component.

Commissioners discussed staff research and several prior work sessions. Several commissioners praised staff for multiple revisions and research into adjacent communities' approaches; one commissioner expressed sympathy to Anderson for purchasing under unclear expectations and acknowledged potential financial harm from the clarification. The commission did not adopt any special grandfathering language during the hearing; the motion forwarded the staff draft as a recommendation to the City Council.

Motion and vote: Commissioner Simon moved to recommend approval of ZTA‑25‑001; Commissioner Mills seconded. The roll call recorded affirmative votes from Commissioners Mills, Steinman, Paulson, Barnes, Shelton, Smith and Anderson. The motion passed and the item will next go to the City Council for its legislative review and decision.

As a legislative recommendation, the planning commission's action does not change zoning until (and unless) the City Council approves an ordinance adopting the amendment. The council will hold its own hearings before any zoning text is adopted.","Cottonwood Heights Planning Commission recommended approval on June 4 of a city‑initiated zoning text amendment (ZTA‑25‑001) that replaces existing live‑work references in Chapter 19.37 (Neighborhood Commercial) with a new \"neighborhood mixed use\" category and adds specific development standards.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning commission recommends updated moderate‑income housing report required by Utah law

Planning commission backs rewrite of neighborhood commercial rules to replace "live‑work" with "neighborhood mixed use"