Staff outlines proposal to merge RMF‑35 and RMF‑45 into a single form‑based multifamily zone; commissioners raise questions about scale and displacement risks

Salt Lake City planning staff presented a work‑session proposal to consolidate the RMF‑35 and RMF‑45 multifamily zones into a single form‑based residential multifamily (RMF) district and asked the Planning Commission for feedback.

Senior Planner Aaron Barlow and Principal Planner Katie Lynn Warr described the proposal’s goals: simplify the zoning code; promote “missing middle” housing types; introduce clear form‑based design standards for building forms such as urban houses (two‑unit configurations), cottage developments, row houses and multifamily buildings; and provide incentives to preserve existing structures. Staff said the project grew out of a broader effort to align multiple MU (mixed‑use) consolidation efforts and the mayor’s 2025 goal to clarify multifamily rules.

Key staff proposals presented - Consolidate RMF‑35 and RMF‑45 into one RMF district and adopt form‑based regulations. - Recalibrate lot‑area per unit rules to encourage moderate density (staff proposed 750 sq. ft. lot area per unit for most forms, 500 sq. ft. per unit for cottage developments). - Adopt design standards (porches/entries, fenestration, durable materials, building width caps and stepbacks adjacent to designated landmark sites). - Permit lots and buildings without street frontage under defined conditions and provide standards for mid‑block walkways. - Simplify parking to 1 on‑site space per dwelling unit (the same requirement for all unit sizes) to reduce parking as a barrier to family‑sized units. - Create incentives (density bonuses and a limited height bonus) for retaining existing housing and providing affordable units: multifamily buildings could reach 45 feet, with incentives allowing up to 55 feet for projects that meet affordable‑housing or building‑preservation criteria (staff said the 55‑foot allowance would not stack to allow taller podium towers).

Staff presented an analysis showing the likely distribution of impacts under the proposed 750 sq. ft. lot‑area standard: about one third of parcels would see little change, about a third would see a moderate increase in permitted units, and roughly 35% would see a reduction relative to current allowances (largely parcels that already contain larger or taller structures). Staff showed neighborhood examples illustrating how existing buildings would compare to what would be allowed under the proposal and noted many parcels lie within a quarter‑mile of transit.

Commissioner feedback and concerns Commissioners broadly praised several elements of the proposal — clearer standards, stronger design requirements, and simplified parking rules — but several commissioners raised substantial concerns about the blanket consolidation approach.

Concerns recorded in the discussion included: - Risk of losing existing older, smaller multifamily units that currently contribute lower‑cost housing stock; some commissioners said those units might be torn down and replaced by larger, higher‑rent buildings if the new allowances make projects more profitable. - The need to treat scattered RMF‑35 parcels differently rather than applying a single district citywide, because many RMF‑35 sites were mapped historically around older multifamily buildings and are adjacent to single‑family forms. - Whether increasing the lower‑height districts to 45 feet in all places would lead to abrupt scale changes — for example, a new 45‑foot building next to a single‑family house — and whether stepbacks, setbacks or other scale‑transition rules are sufficient to mitigate that risk. - Questions about feasibility and market reality: commissioners observed that development economics might still favor large podium buildings or demolition unless incentives for preservation are attractive enough.

Policy clarifications raised in the session - Commissioners asked how the city’s “thriving in place” and community benefit / housing mitigation policies apply when existing housing is removed. Staff clarified that the housing mitigation fund obligation applies when a zoning map amendment occurs; by‑right development under the new zone would not trigger that zoning‑change mitigation requirement (the “housing mitigation fund” mechanism applies to rezones in which housing is removed or converted). - Staff confirmed exceptions and design‑review pathways (plan development or design review) would remain available if applicants seek departures from standards.

Public engagement and next steps Staff said they had done outreach with community councils (Sugarhouse, East Central, Liberty Wells and others), the Historic Landmarks Commission and neighborhood events. Staff plan to take feedback from the commission and other stakeholders, revise the draft and return with a public hearing version to the Planning Commission on March 12, 2025, then transmit to City Council in April 2025.

Speakers and roles in the discussion - Aaron Barlow — Senior Planner, Salt Lake City (presentation lead) - Katie Lynn Warr — Principal Planner, Salt Lake City (presentation) - Amy Berry — Planning Commissioner (provided feedback and requested maps of parcel impacts) - Several other planning commissioners spoke at length; individual remarks were not consistently identified by full name in the available excerpt. For quotes and attributions this article quotes only speakers identified with full names in the record above.

Authorities, plans and policies referenced - RMF‑35 and RMF‑45 zoning districts (current Salt Lake City zoning labels) - North Temple Boulevard master plan (example master‑plan guidance referenced in presentation) - MU consolidation materials / form‑based code drafts (staff referenced prior MU consolidation work) - “Thriving in Place” / community benefit general plan amendments and housing mitigation fund (city policy instruments discussed in relation to displacement and mitigation)

Why it matters Changing how multifamily zoning is defined across the city would affect where and how the “missing middle” housing is built, what forms of housing are preserved, and neighborhood scale near many historic districts. Commissioners’ concerns about scattered RMF‑35 parcels, potential displacement and scale transitions suggest staff will need to refine the proposal with neighborhood‑specific treatments and clearer mitigation incentives before forwarding a final zoning change to City Council.

Provenance:{"transcript_segments":[{"block_id":"block_1279.7251","local_start":0,"local_end":56,"evidence_excerpt":"The next item on our agenda is a work session of multifamily zoning district merger. So if you'll introduce yourself and give us your presentation.","tc_start":"00:21:19.725","tc_end":"00:21:24.725","reason_code":"topicintro"},{"block_id":"block_2751.61","local_start":0,"local_end":36,"evidence_excerpt":"And that's the end of our proposal, and happy to answer any questions at this point and discuss the proposal further.","tc_start":"00:45:51.61","tc_end":"00:45:58.61","reason_code":"topicfinish"}]}