Planning commission backs split RMF‑35/RMF‑45 zoning approach; staff to send revised maps to City Council

The Salt Lake City Planning Commission on May 14 voted to recommend city council adoption of updated text and map amendments for the RMF‑35 and RMF‑45 multifamily residential districts, endorsing a split approach rather than consolidating the two zones.

Senior planner Aaron Barlow told the commission staff’s revised proposal preserves both RMF‑35 and RMF‑45, clarifies lot and unit bonus rules, and limits up‑zoning to properties already designated for higher intensity in adopted future‑land‑use maps. “This proposal is to update, the RMF 35 and RMF 45 multifamily residential districts,” Barlow said during his presentation.

Why it matters: the RMF‑35/45 update affects how the city regulates building form, lot sizes, open‑space requirements and building height for large parts of Salt Lake City. The changes aim to allow a wider range of “missing middle” housing types while protecting neighborhood character in areas where lower heights or local overlays apply.

Staff said the revised proposal came after commission direction to keep both the RMF‑35 and RMF‑45 districts and to focus up‑zoning only where future‑land‑use maps support it; staff also reported it assessed transit proximity, block character and historic designations in deciding whether specific parcels merit rezoning. Barlow said staff identified roughly 23 properties that match adopted future‑land‑use guidance for rezoning to RMF‑45.

Public testimony was substantial and split. East Central and neighborhood groups urged surgical, parcel‑level review and protections for existing community services and historic resources. Esther Hunter representing East Central told the commission, “our area needs to be surgical,” arguing a blanket change could remove neighborhood elements that already provide the city’s walkable, mixed form. SugarHouse Community Council, Liberty Wells and other area groups raised concerns about narrow setbacks, “slot home” infill forms and the potential for displacement.

Supporters, including some housing advocates and residents, urged the commission to move the proposal forward as a tool to increase housing supply near transit. Mohit Rapale, a resident who spoke in favor, said the changes “go a long way in fixing that” and praised incentives for cottage courts and other smaller building types. Several commenters urged stronger guarantees that bonus‑unit incentives would not accelerate displacement; staff reiterated the proposal itself does not require affordable units but that bonuses would be tied to restrictive covenants where appropriate.

Commission discussion acknowledged tradeoffs. Commissioners noted older future‑land‑use maps in some neighborhoods and asked staff to rely on neighborhood planning updates when practical. Commissioners also discussed setbacks, stepbacks, privacy buffers and whether specific design standards — for example, minimum usable open‑space dimensions and façade articulation for long facades — needed further refinement in later code updates.

Outcome: Commissioner Mike Christensen moved that the commission recommend the zoning text and map amendments to City Council as revised by staff; Commissioner Scheer seconded. The motion carried and the commission’s positive recommendation will be transmitted to the City Council for formal review; staff said council consideration is likely to begin in July given the council docket and budget schedule.

What the draft ordinance would change and next steps: staff said the draft clarifies lot width and lot area requirements, separates the two RMF districts (keeping height limited to 35 feet in RMF‑35 and 45 feet in RMF‑45 for most building forms), adds design standards to support missing‑middle building types (cottage courts, sideways row houses), revises open‑space rules and clarifies bonus unit calculations and restrictive covenant requirements for preserved units. The commission authorized staff to make clerical or minor technical map adjustments before transmission to council.

Community groups asked for additional protections: stronger setback rules where tall buildings meet very low‑scale historic or single‑family fabric, minimum usable open‑space dimensions, clearer daylight and privacy protections where a tall new façade could abut a very old narrow house, and explicit language safeguarding local historic overlays. Staff responded that many protections exist through overlays and building codes, but commissioners asked staff to keep refining guidance and to coordinate neighborhood‑level planning where rezoning might have significant effects.

The commission’s recommendation sends the revised RMF text and map changes to City Council with a positive recommendation and with an expectation staff will continue to consult neighborhood councils and make technical adjustments before the council hearing period.