Document Millcreek_doc_a6b416c83f

Millcreek City Hall 3330 South 1300 East Millcreek, Utah 84106 millcreek.us Planning & Zoning (801) 214-2700 [EMAIL REDACTED] ZT-23-008/ZT-23-009 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT (1ST Reading) Meeting Date: 11/13/2023 Applicant: Planning Staff Re: Adoption of proposed zoning text amendments within the Millcreek Zoning Code revising: ➔ Chapter 19.14 Residential Single-Family Residential Zones (R-1) ➔ Chapter 19.32 Medium Density Residential Zones (R-2) ➔Chapter 19.71 Residential Compatibility Overlay Zone (RCOZ) File No(s): ZT-23-008 & ZT-23-009 Prepared By: Planning Staff, Robert May Scope of Decision: Discretionary. Discretionary. This is a legislative matter, to be decided by the Millcreek City Council upon receiving a recommendation from the Community Council(s) and the Millcreek Planning Commission. REQUEST AND SYNOPSIS The Planning and Zoning team is proud to present to the Millcreek City Council the proposed drafts of the updated R-1 and R-2/RCOZ code. Currently there is a conflict among those who wish to develop in the R-1 and R-2 zones. Many are unaware the RCOZ exists, which results in costly revisions to their plans, timing issues, and delays finding a contractor. While the situation has improved over time, this conflict also creates unnecessary tension between the property owner and staff reviewing building permit applications. Staff sadly has to convey to the property owner and contractor that their building permit plans are rejected, and there are additional requirements and standards to address. Staff has made many attempts to help resolve this issue with helpful guides and checklists placed on the Millcreek website designed to inform the applicant of all the applicable codes. Staff has also revised the online interactive maps to hopefully inform users searching for information. However, much of the problem stems from each zone being separate chapters within the zoning code. In accordance with the provisions of Utah Code, before the City Council may adopt amendments to the zoning ordinance, any such amendment shall not be made or become effective unless the same shall have been proposed by or be first submitted for the recommendation of the Millcreek Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall review the zoning text amendment request and a recommendation shall be made to the City Council to approve, disapprove, or continue the application. ---PAGE BREAK--- Request: R-1/R-2/RCOZ ZT-23-008_ZT-23-009 Page 2 of 10 o Clear up resident confusion and eliminate application conflicts o Simplify and speed up building permit review times o Enhance clarity with better definitions and images o Incentivize development on smaller lots o Continue to preserve the character of our single-family neighborhoods o Provide alternative development standards for different lot sizes o Encourage a variety of affordable single-family housing options GENERAL PLAN CONSIDERATIONS The Millcreek General Plan lays out goals and strategies that pertain to the proposed ordinance. These goals and strategies are listed below, each with a summary describing how it achieves the goals set out in the General Plan for this area. Strategy 1.5: Ensure that new infill development is compatible with existing neighborhoods by regulating structure sizes and heights; building forms and materials; yard setbacks; streetscape character; height and bulk transitions; buffering; and other factors. o Height is regulated by zone – zones with bigger minimum lot sizes allow taller heights. o Bulk and height transitions regulated by envelope. The new code proposes three different envelopes, depending on zone. o Requirements can be modified based on neighborhood compatibility – this strategy has been a very successful way of making our existing residential standards work in existing neighborhoods. Strategy 1.5: Promote the maintenance and improvement of the existing housing stock and allow for remodeling, expansion, and additions as appropriate in the area to accommodate the changing sizes and varieties of household types. o A steeper more forgiving envelope for R-1-6 and R-2-6.5 lots and the box envelope applying to lots in R-1-5 and below recognizes the many narrow lots in Millcreek that have additional development constraints. Some of these neighborhoods could benefit from additional homeowner investment in the form of 2nd floor additions. o 384 permits for additions and alterations have been approved under RCOZ since January 2018. Goal N-1: Preserve and enhance the physical elements of each neighborhood’s character Goal N-2: Strive for a variety of housing choices in types, styles, and costs of housing throughout Millcreek. What we are trying to achieve with the new R-1/R-2/RCOZ Code ---PAGE BREAK--- Request: R-1/R-2/RCOZ ZT-23-008_ZT-23-009 Page 3 of 10 Strategy 7.2: Protect view corridors by creating visual breaks between buildings. o The building envelope has value to protect view corridors and to expand visual breaks between buildings, by pulling in second stories, particularly on larger lots in R-1-8, R-2-8 zones and above. o Staff proposed establishing an envelope standard by zone, and not by neighborhood, because the strategy to protect viewsheds is not neighborhood-specific. It is a city-wide strategy applicable to any neighborhood. PROPOSED R-1/R-2/RCOZ CODE AMENDMENTS Staff’ views the proposed code update as “adapting” rather than “changing”. The proposed code is a reflection based on what we are hearing from residents and observing development trends over the years. Understanding that there is not a “one size fits all” set of standards, we are proposing some alternative development standards for the small irregular shaped lots that have struggled to develop under the old code. We are trying to add flexibility where it counts, while embracing and preserving the design characteristics that make Millcreek single-family neighborhoods some of the most desirable neighborhoods in the valley. o Front and side yard setbacks will remain the same. o The option to modify the requirements on the basis of neighborhood compatibility is proposed to remain. o The 45-degree building envelope requirement is proposed to remain, for larger lots in the R-1-8, R-2- 8, R-1-10, R-2-10, R-1-15, and R-1-21 zones. o Existing exceptions for gables and dormers will remain, although staff is adding definitions for these terms. o The Option A standards from RCOZ becomes the proposed spatial standards for all R-1 zones. o Option B from the RCOZ remains but is renamed to the Neighborhood Compatibility Modification (NCM). o Proposing to add the rear yard setback as an option in the neighborhood compatibility modification. o Adding a requirement which increases the rear yard setback on sloped lots exceeding 20%. o Option to have uncovered porches up to 10 feet into the front setback line. o The combined side yard setback requirement from RCOZ remains but only applies to lots 50% or larger. o A 60-degree building envelope is proposed for lots in the R-1-6 and R-2-6.5 zones. Goal HE-7: Require that new development protects the treasured views of Mount Olympus, the Oquirrh Mountains, the Great Salt Lake, and other significant viewsheds from roadways, frequented public areas, community gateways, and other public places. What will stay the same What will change ---PAGE BREAK--- Request: R-1/R-2/RCOZ ZT-23-008_ZT-23-009 Page 4 of 10 o A box envelope at the building setback line for the R-1-3, R-1-4, or R-1-5 zone. These changes are intended to allow existing homes on these smaller lots the option to add a second story. o Building height is proposed to increase from 28 feet to 32 feet in all R zones. o Removal of the RCOZ Option C. Option C was discussed as potentially being a legislative process, but after more legal discussion, it is suggested that those wishing to go beyond the standards in the draft, should use a variance process. In such situations where unique circumstances for a particular lot could provide a variance option, the common process for such situations is a variance. State Law would suggest that a variance is the better option. o A few uses were eliminated such as commercial daycares, pigeons, and sportsmen kennels. o New graphics have been provided to show the building envelope options and allowances. o All of the spatial requirements are in tables and diagrams. o Removal of R-1-43 Zone. None exist. o In addition to building height projections, Staff is proposing additional “Setback Projections” into yard areas (applies to both R-1 & R-2 Zones). o Change “Civic and Institutional” Uses back from a “Conditional Use to a “Permitted Use (applies to both R-1 & R-2 Zones) o “Commercial Agricultural” Uses are prohibited (applies to both R-1 & R-2/R-4 Zones). o Added twenty-foot side and rear yard setback for civic and institutional uses when abutting residential uses (applies to both R-1 & R-2 Zones). o Added zero setback between attached units (applies to medium density zone only) o Height envelopes and setbacks within the Medium Density Zone have since been tailored to more towards one- and two-unit dwellings. Other Changes being Proposed ---PAGE BREAK--- Request: R-1/R-2/RCOZ ZT-23-008_ZT-23-009 Page 5 of 10 RESIDENT PARTICIPATION AND FEEDBACK In light of this conflict, staff found value in carving out a little more time examining the administrative conflicts the current R Zones code present. While also focusing on specific design standards required in the R-1, R-2 and the RCOZ that may or may not create unnecessary development constraints. Due to how complicated the subject matter is and its high level of sensitivity among Millcreek residents, staff increased the amount of exposure to the residents with the goal in mind of obtaining additional resident feedback and participation. Building Envelope to Zones R-1-8, R-2-8, R-1-10, R-2-10, and R-1-21 Zones R-1-6 and R-2-6.5 Zones R-1-5, R-1-4, and R-1-3 Zones ---PAGE BREAK--- Request: R-1/R-2/RCOZ ZT-23-008_ZT-23-009 Page 6 of 10 To help spread the word, we published the public notice on two different occasions in the e-newsletter and once in the printed newsletter, which went to every residential address in the city. Millcreek also sent out nearly 18,000 mailed public notices sent to all property owners residing in a Residential Zone (R-1, R-2, and R-4 ) inviting them to attend and participate in the Community Council and Planning Commission meetings. Within the mailed notice, staff carved out three specific dates and times where residents could visit City Hall and chat with a planner regarding the potential changes to the R-1 zone regulations. COMMUNITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATIONS Staff has adopted the policy of bringing complicated and contentious applications to the Community Councils a month in advance (or more) to help flush out any concerns they may have before the application comes before them for their official recommendation. This also helps eliminate the shock factor and provides them with ample review time to digest the application in full. Each Community Council was given the opportunity to comment and make suggestions on the proposed R-1/RCOZ code and the R-2/RCOZ code individually during their regularly scheduled May meeting before being asked to make their official recommendation at their June meeting. While we summarize the discussion and vote each of the Community Chat with a Planner Open House Tuesday May 16th, 6-8pm 8 residents attended Saturday May 20th, 10-12am 6 residents attended Wednesday May 24th, 6-8pm 6 residents attended Over the course of the three meetings, only twenty residents collectively attended the chat with a planner open house. Many who attended the open house had specific building questions pertaining to their property or just needed help understanding how the proposed zone update would affect them. Some saw this open house as an opportunity to voice their frustration about land use in general and their opinion concerning taxes. What staff learned from this open house is that most residents are completely unaware what R-1 and RCOZ even stand for and how zoning fundamentally works. However, after staff took the time to explain zoning and answered their questions, most were aloof and indifferent. ---PAGE BREAK--- Request: R-1/R-2/RCOZ ZT-23-008_ZT-23-009 Page 7 of 10 Council makes at their meeting, we request that a formal letter of their recommendation be submitted to staff. Letters of recommendation received from the Community Councils are included in the supporting documents for your review. R-1/RCOZ East Mill Creek Community Council (EMCC) meeting June 1, 2023 Prior to making a recommendation, a couple members of the EMCC wanted further clarification on what architectural elements could protrude into the building envelope. In addition to explaining how staff calculates the degree gables and dormers can protrude into the envelope, it was also noted that eaves and roof overhangs could already project into the setback up to three feet area per the definition of “yard”. Staff noted that this was an existing function of the code and was not part of the R-1/RCOZ code update. There were several residents in attendance at the meeting that had received the public notice and wanted further clarification from staff. Questions from the residents were about the definition of RCOZ and whether the density of their neighborhood would change and begin to allow multi-family housing. Staff responded by explaining what RCOZ stood for and how it effects development and reassured them that staff was not proposing any changes to density and that multi-family housing would not be allowed in their single-family neighborhoods. The EMCC made a motion to approve the proposed R-1/RCOZ draft as presented by staff with the exception that staff would re-visit the definition of “yard”. Motion passed unanimously 7-0. Mount Olympus Community Council (EMCC) meeting June 5, 2023 The MOCC members were comfortable with the proposed code and only had a few questions of concern. One member wanted clarification regarding the proposed increase of the rear-yard setback. Staff responded by adding that the main intent was to add more quality open space to the rear yards of our single-family neighborhoods. By doing so, it added more privacy and in instances where you have steep slopes, it helps push homes further away from homes directly adjacent and downhill. Staff noted that uphill homes dwarfing over the homes below is a common complaint and the increase in the rear yard setback is an attempt to mitigate this. Staff noted that many of these “dwarfing” homes are compliant with the standards of RCOZ. Another member made it clear that they were opposed to increasing the maximum building height from 28 feet to 30 feet for the R-1-8 Zones. He added that the two additional feet will diminish residents views. This member provided an email to staff explaining his opposition for the two foot height increase. This email is located in the supporting documents. Prior to making a motion, one last comment was made about the removal of commercial daycares from the use category. They explained daycares were a necessity and wanted an explanation from staff why it was being removed. Staff responded by commenting that, only commercial daycares were being removed but that daycares as a home occupation was still permitted. The day to day activities of a commercial daycare imposed too many impacts on a single-family neighborhood in terms of traffic and number of children. The MOCC made a motion to approve the proposed R-1/RCOZ draft as presented by staff with the exception that staff would do more research on commercial daycares being located in residential neighborhoods. Motion passed unanimously 6-0. Millcreek Community Council (MCC) meeting June 6, 2023 The MCCC members and staff discussed the proposed draft in detail. Although most members were comfortable with the proposed code, there were several members who added additional comments. One member commented that they would like to see duplexes and triplexes allowed in R-1 Zones in an effort to help add housing. That same member also added that this proposed code was a step in the right direction but that more should be done to increase affordable housing options. Another member commented that they ---PAGE BREAK--- Request: R-1/R-2/RCOZ ZT-23-008_ZT-23-009 Page 8 of 10 shared the same feeling of allowing duplexes and triplexes allowed in R-1 Zones. Before making their final recommendation, the chair of the community council made it clear that there were items within the proposed R-1/RCOZ code they did not agree with. In summary, the chair commented that staff’s proposed code needed to eliminate the standards of RCOZ from applying to properties west of I-215 or at minimum, apply the alternative envelope option of 60 degrees with a twelve foot wall height. They commented that Millcreek is becoming a “rent city” and that the RCOZ standards are forcing property owners to consider developing in other areas of the valley. The MCCC made a motion to approve the proposed R-1/RCOZ draft as presented by staff with the exception that the alternative envelope option of 60 degrees with a twelve foot wall height would apply to all properties west of I-215. Motion passed 10-1. Canyon Rim Citizens Association (CRCA) meeting June 7, 2023 Members of the CRCA were generally pleased with the proposed R-1/RCOZ code presented by staff. There was very little discussion regarding the code specifically. There were a few comments made from members requiring further explanation about why staff was proposing alternative envelope options and the reasoning behind the increased rear yard setback. Staff responded that there is not a “one size fits all” set of standards. This has been an on-going issue when applying small narrow lots which is why we are proposing some alternative development standards for the small irregular shaped lots that have historically struggled to develop under the old code. Staffs reasoning behind increasing the rear yard setback five additional feet was to add more quality open space to the rear yards of our single-family neighborhoods. By doing so, it added more privacy and in instances where you have steep slopes, it helps push homes further away from homes directly adjacent and downhill. Staff noted that uphill homes dwarfing over the homes below is a common complaint and the increase in the rear yard setback is an attempt to mitigate this. The CRCA made a motion to approve the proposed R-1/RCOZ draft as presented by staff. Motion passed 7-0. R-2/RCOZ Millcreek Community Council (MCC) meeting June 6, 2023 The Millcreek Community Council voted 3 in favor to 6 opposed for the adoption of Title 19 updates to the Medium-Density zones. The Millcreek Community Council did not recommend anything specific to the Medium-Density zone in their motion; Although, many comments against the proposed allowing a box building envelope were part of the discussion during community council meeting. Canyon Rim Citizens Association (CRCA) June 7th, 2023. Voted unanimously in favor of the adoption of the Medium Density Zone. East Mill Creek Community Council (EMCC) June 1, 2023. Voted unanimously in favor of the adoption of the Medium Density Zone with a condition to evaluate the possibility of adopting a 60-degree building envelope, rather than the proposed Box building envelope. Mount Olympus Community Council (MOCC) June 5, 2023. ---PAGE BREAK--- Request: R-1/R-2/RCOZ ZT-23-008_ZT-23-009 Page 9 of 10 Voted unanimously voted in favor of the adoption of the Medium Density Zone with a condition to research the potential effects of making Commercial Daycare/Preschool a prohibited use in the Medium Density Zone. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION (July 19, 2023) R-1 Zone Text Amendment - Planning Commission Recommendations o Support of allowing covered porches to encroach into the front yard setback up to 10’ feet. o Supports increasing maximum building height for R Zones to 32’ feet. o Supports having rear yard setback be based on slope. R-1 Motion from Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. Medium Density (R-2 ) Text Amendment - Planning Commission Recommendation o The Medium Density R-2 and R-4 Zones requirements should generally be harmonized with the R-1 Zones as follows: Porches should be allowed to encroach up to 10 feet into the front yard setback. Increase overall height from 30 feet to 32 feet. − Recommendation to incorporate the “60 degree” building height envelope, with a 12-foot beginning height, as measured at property lines. Add language for rear yard setback to be based on slope. o Renewable Energy Incentives – Does this conflict with height envelopes? ---PAGE BREAK--- Request: R-1/R-2/RCOZ ZT-23-008_ZT-23-009 Page 10 of 10 R-2 Motion from Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. PLANNING STAFF CONCLUSIONS Millcreek Planning staff has been administering the development regulations of the underlying R-1 and R-2 Zones along with the Residential Compatibility Overlay (RCOZ) Zone for nearly 5 years and in that time, we have learned a few things. The RCOZ and its standards was originally adopted by Salt Lake County in 2009 with the intention to balance how are residential neighborhoods build out. The standards required by RCOZ became the tool used by Planning to ensure residential neighborhoods with moderate homes sizes didn’t become engulfed with “Mcmansions”, or otherwise monster homes. The underlying R zones work but are too broad and didn’t do much in terms of maintaining compatibility. These standards were designed to combat massive homes from being constructed next to moderately sized homes by restricting building height, property setbacks, lot coverage percentages and massing, and essentially preserving the character of these neighborhoods by zone. The RCOZ standards such as max building height, allowable lot coverage, and combined side yard setbacks shift depending on zone type and lot sizes of the neighborhood, making development comparative to its surroundings, hence compatible. Depending on who is inquiring, the RCOZ is a tool that “restricts” or a tool that “preserves”. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS - Proposed draft R-1/RCOZ Code - Proposed draft R-2/RCOZ Code - R-1/R-2/RCOZ Code Planning Commission Staff Reports and attachments - July 19, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes ---PAGE BREAK--- Millcreek Together Code Update I Chapter 19.XX Single-Household Residential Zones I 11.6.23 1 19.XX.1.1 Single-Household Residential (R-1) Zones A. Purpose 1. The purpose of the Single-Household Residential R-1 Zones is to establish single- household neighborhoods consistent with the city's general plan for low density residential areas within the city. It is the intent to balance neighborhood compatibility with the private property interests of those who wish to expand, develop, improve, or otherwise make exterior modification to their residential property. This chapter applies to the following residential zones: R-1-3, R-1-4, R-1-5, R-1-6, R-1-8, R-1-10, R-1-15, and R-1-21 zones. B. Permitted Uses and Conditional Uses 1. Uses in the Single-Household Residential (R-1) Zones are allowed, either as permitted or conditional, and may include certain limitations as set forth in Table 19.XX.1 Permitted and Conditional Uses in the Single-Household Residential (R-1) Zones. If a use is not specifically designated in the table, then it is prohibited. Table 19.XX.1 Permitted and Conditional Uses in the Single-Household Residential (R-1) Zones P= Permitted C= Conditional Use Review Required Land Use R-1 (All Zones) Limitations / References Residential Uses Single Household Dwelling P May be subject to the requirements set forth in the Sensitive Lands Chapter 19.XX.XX Residential Facilities for Elderly Persons or Persons with a Disability P As set forth in MKZ 19.87 Residential Facilities for Persons with a Disability Short-term rentals P As set forth in MKC 5.19, Short-term rentals Commercial Uses Agriculture P Commercial Agriculture is Prohibited Civic and Institutional Uses Public Uses P Quasi-Public Use P Religious Assembly P Miscellaneous Uses Accessory Uses, Buildings, and Structures P As set forth in MKZ 19.XX.XX Accessory Uses, Accessory Buildings, and Structures ---PAGE BREAK--- Millcreek Together Code Update I Chapter 19.XX Single-Household Residential Zones I 11.6.23 2 C. Spatial Requirements. 1. Setback Measurements. The minimum property size, width, setbacks, and maximum property coverage requirements are as determined by Table 19.XX.2 Spatial Requirements for the Single-Household Residential (R-1) Zones. 2. Civic and Institutional. Civic and Institutional Uses, require a minimum twenty- foot (20’) rear and side yard setback when abutting and sharing a property line with a residential use. 3. Rear Setback on Sloped lots. If the average slope of the original ground surface, as measured from the rear property line to the front property line, is more than 20 percent, then the rear setback shall be increased one additional foot for every one degree of slope in excess of 20 percents, up to a maximum of 25 feet 4. Side Yard Setbacks on Lots 50% Larger Than Minimum Lot Width. Lots with a width 50% or more larger than the required minimum lot width shall measure side yard setbacks per the following: a. The combined measurements of the side yard setbacks shall be at least 25% of the lot width. b. No side setback shall be less than the required minimum side yard setback. c. The width of the lot is measured as the diameter of the largest circle that can be inscribed entirely within the lot excluding any streams, floodplains, wetlands, areas of thirty percent slope or greater, or other natural hazard areas shall be excluded from the circle. See Figure 19.XX.1 below Figure 19.XX.1 Combined Side yard Setback Spatial Requirements Diagram ---PAGE BREAK--- Millcreek Together Code Update I Chapter 19.XX Single-Household Residential Zones I 11.6.23 3 Figure 19.XX.2 Spatial Requirements Diagram (letter labels related to Table 19.XX.2) D. Building Height and Building Envelopes. 1. Minimum height. All dwelling structures shall be a minimum of one-story in height. 2. Maximum Height. Maximum building height is as set forth in Table 19.XX.3 Building Height and Building Envelope for R-1 Zones. 3. Building Envelope. The height of structures may be further limited by the building envelope. The building envelope is formed by a box defined by the perimeter of the property line extended vertically perpendicular to the property line to a height Table 19.XX.2 Spatial Requirements for the Single-Household Residential (R-1) Zones Zone Min. lot area Min. lot width Min. Front Setback Residential Use Min. Side Setbacks on interior lots Residential Use Min. Side Setbacks on corner Civic/Institutional and Non- Residential Use Min. Side Setback Min. Rear Setback Max. lot Coverage R-1-3 3,000 sq ft 25’ 20’ 5’ 20’ 20’ 15’ 40% R-1-4 4,000 sq ft 25’ 20’ 5’ 20’ 20’ 15’ 40% R-1-5 5,000 sq ft 25’ 20’ 5’ 20’ 20’ 15’ 35% R-1-6 6, 000 sq ft 60’ 25’ 8’ 20’ 20’ 15’ 35% R-1-8 8,000 sq ft 65’ 25’ 8’ 20’ 20’ 15’ 33% R-1-10 10, 000 sq ft 80’ 30’ 10’ 20’ 20’ 15’ 31% R-1-15 15,000 sq ft 80’ 30’ 10’ 20’ 20’ . 15’ 25% R-1-21 21,000 sq ft 100’ 30’ 10’ 20’ 20’ 15’ 25% ---PAGE BREAK--- Millcreek Together Code Update I Chapter 19.XX Single-Household Residential Zones I 11.6.23 4 and subsequent angle as set forth in Table 19.XX.3. The entire building shall fit under this envelope except as described in the projections section below. (See figures 19.XX.3, 19.XX.4, and 19.XX.5 for building envelope illustrations) 4. Lots or parcels located in the R-1-8 zone determined by staff to be a legal lot of record and are nonconforming due to minimum lot width and minimum lot area can qualify to use the 60° Building Envelope Angle and 12’ Building Envelope Wall Height. Figure 19.XX.3 R-1-3, R-1-4, and R-1-5 Building Envelope Figure 19.XX.4 R-1-6 Building Envelope Figure 19.XX.5 R-1-8, R-1-10, R-1-15, and R-1-21 Building Envelope Table 19.XX.3 Building Height and Building Envelope for R-1 Zones R-1-3 R-1-4 R-1-5 R-1-6 R-1-8 R-1-10 R-1-15 R-1-21 Building Height Maximum 32’ 32’ 32’ 32’ 32’ Building Envelope Wall Height and Angle 32’ 12’ 8’ 8’ 8’ Building Envelope Angle 0° 60° 45° 45° 45° ---PAGE BREAK--- Millcreek Together Code Update I Chapter 19.XX Single-Household Residential Zones I 11.6.23 5 E . Projections. 1. Building Height Envelope Projections. Dormers, Gables, and non-habitable architectural elements may project beyond the building height envelope if they meet the following criteria: a. Dormers: i. The width of the dormer shall not exceed fourteen (14) feet; ii. Multiple dormers shall be spaced such that the distance to the edges of the roof is at least one-half the distance between dormers; and iii. The dormer shall be no higher than the ridge of the roof. b. Gables: i. The height of the gable is less than 1.75 times higher than the point where the graduated building height envelope intersects the gable; ii. The height of the gable is less than the maximum building height; and iii. The length of the gable comprises no more than 25% of the length of the building façade. Figure 19.XX.6 Dormer and Gable illustration with height envelope exception ---PAGE BREAK--- Millcreek Together Code Update I Chapter 19.XX Single-Household Residential Zones I 11.6.23 6 2. Setback Projections. The following may be erected on, or project into the required yard setbacks: a. Fences and walls in conformance with this code. b. Landscape elements, including trees, shrubs and other plants. c. Utility or irrigation equipment or facilities. d. Decks, patios, porches, driveways, sidewalks, stairs, landings, not exceeding two feet above grade. e. Covered porches and balconies porches may project up to ten (10) feet into the front yard or street side yard setback if they meet the following criteria: i. Porches and balconies shall remain unenclosed or “open style” (not no walls, doors, windows, screens, etc.) except for the minimum required handrail. ii. Porches and balconies shall not encroach into any easements or clear vision site areas. iii. Porches, balconies, stairs, landings, eaves which project into the setbacks, shall not be located closer than fifteen feet (15’) from a street property line, or project outside of the building height envelope. 3. Other architectural elements which are not used as habitable space. i. Cornices, eaves, sills, planter boxes, stairways, landings, awnings, window wells, or similar architectural features attached to the building and not enclosed by walls, extending not more than two feet into a side yard or four feet into the front or rear yard. In no case shall a side yard setback be less than six feet ii. Chimneys, fireplace keys, box or bay windows or cantilevered walls attached to the building, no greater than eight feet wide, extending not more than two feet into a side yard, or four feet into a front or rear yard. In no case shall a side yard setback be less than six feet F. Articulation. To avoid a large, continuous building mass of uniform height; no portion of any building shall continue more than forty feet horizontally without a minimum of an eighteen-inch break in the roofline or introduction of a contrasting architectural element such as an overhang, projection, or inset of a minimum depth of two feet from the primary façade plane, to create shadow patterns along the elevation of the building. ---PAGE BREAK--- Millcreek Together Code Update I Chapter 19.XX Single-Household Residential Zones I 11.6.23 7 19.XX.1.2 Neighborhood Compatibility Modification (NCM). A. Recognizing the wide variation of circumstances incident to a residential development application, Millcreek is providing for additional means to modify standards based on neighborhood compatibility. The Neighborhood Compatibility Modification (NCM) allows for modified standards from one or more of the spatial standards based upon the compatibility of the proposed residential development application with other lots/dwellings in the proximate neighborhood. The Planning Director may approve a NCM request at time of site plan submittal provided the following conditions are met: 1. Evidence. Compliance with the corresponding neighborhood conditions must be established by a survey from the proximate neighborhood, defined as a 200’ radial distance from the property boundary. Survey submitted must be completed by a licensed surveyor in the State of Utah. 2. Submittal. NCM requests shall be submitted on a separate form and shall include an additional review fee as set forth in the Millcreek Consolidated Fee Schedule. 3. Permissible Modifications. NCM Standards. Building height, setbacks and lot coverage modifications may be accommodated if the request does not exceed the allowances as set forth in Table 19.XX.4 NCM Standards. 4. Non-Permissible Modifications. Building envelope, mass and scale, and accessory structure modifications do not qualify under the NCM. Table 19.XX.4 NCM Standards Zone Lot Coverage Front Setback Side Setback Rear Setback Max Height R-1-3 33’ 40% * The average of all lots of within the proximate neighborhoo d that fronts to the same street, road, or right-of way. Combined side yard shall be at least twenty- five percent (25%) of the lot width, and no less than six feet on each side. The average rear yard setback that are on six lots of the applicants choice within the proximate neighborhood , and no less than 15’ The maximum building height that may be approved by the Planning Director or designee under the NCM standards is the lesser of: 1. Three feet plus the average maximum ridge height of residential structures that are on six lots of applicants choice that are within the proximate neighborhood; and 2. The max height of the zone specified in column of Table 19.XX.4 NCM Standards. R-1-4 33’ 40% * R-1-5 33’ 40% * R-1-6 33’ 40% * R-1-8 33’ 38% * R-1-10 35’ 36% * R-1-15 37’ 30% * R-1-21 37’ 30% * *Lot coverage for all lots may not exceed more than 1.15 times the average lot coverage of proximate neighborhood lots. B. Related Provisions. For additional information refer to the zoning ordinances and in the particular following sections: ---PAGE BREAK--- Millcreek Together Code Update I Chapter 19.XX Single-Household Residential Zones I 11.6.23 8 Table 19.XX.5 Related Provisions Reference Section Topic MKZ 19.76.020 Occupancy permit MKZ 19.04.560 Yard MKZ 19.76.080 Lots and buildings on private rights-of-ways MKZ 19.76.100 Sale of space needed to meet requirements MKZ 19.76.140 Private garage or carport—Reduced yards MKZ 19.76.190 Height limitations—Exceptions MKZ 19.76.200 Additional height allowed when MKZ 19.76.210 Off-site improvements MKZ 19.76.290 Single-household or two-household dwellings—Standards MKZ 19.80.040 Number of spaces required MKZ 19.89 Accessory Dwelling Units MKZ 19.XX Temporary Uses and Structures MKZ 19.XX Sensitive Lands MKZ 19.XX Accessory Uses and Structures MKZ 19.82 Sign Ordinance MKC Title 18 Subdivisions 19.XX.1.3 Definitions (to be moved to definitions) Single household detached dwelling means a separate building arranged or designed to be occupied by one household unit, the structure having only one primary dwelling unit. Residential Facilities for Persons with a Disability (group home) means a home where a small number of unrelated people in need of care, support, or supervision can live together, such as those who are elderly or mentally ill or protected by federal fair housing laws. Short-term rental means a residential unit or any portion of a residential unit that the owner of record or the lessee of the residential unit offers for occupancy for fewer than 30 consecutive days or a residential unit or any portion of a residential unit or that is actually used for accommodations or lodging of guests for a period of less than thirty consecutive days. Agriculture (non-commercial) means the tilling of the soil, the raising of crops, horticulture and gardening, noncommercial greenhouses associated with residential uses, but not including the keeping or raising of domestic animals, except household pets or fowl, and not including any agricultural industry or business such as fruit-packing plants, fur farms, animal hospitals or similar uses. ---PAGE BREAK--- Millcreek Together Code Update I Chapter 19.XX Single-Household Residential Zones I 11.6.23 9 Public and Quasi-Public Use means a use operated exclusively by a public body, or quasi-public body, such use having the purpose of serving the public health, safety, or general welfare, and including uses such as public schools, parks, playgrounds and other recreational facilities, administrative and service facilities, and public utilities. Religious assembly means any church, synagogue, mosque, temple or building which is used primarily for religious worship and related religious activities. Accessory Uses and buildings/structures means a subordinate use or structure customarily incidental to and located upon the same lot occupied by a main use. Dormer means a roofed structure, often containing a window, that projects vertically beyond the plane of a pitched roof. The peak roof elements of a dormer do not extend above the ridgeline of the pitched roof. Gable means the triangular portion of a wall between the edges of intersecting roof pitches. Habitable Space means any structure containing rooms that are used for living, sleeping, cooking, and eating. Architectural Feature means a minor decorative feature built into the design and construction of the building in addition to the occupiable space of the building. Such features may include but are not limited to overhangs, eaves, railings, bay windows, pelmets, and cupolas. Proximate Neighborhood means the lots within a 200’ radial distance from the subject property boundary. ---PAGE BREAK--- Millcreek Together Code Update I Chapter 19.XX Medium Density Residential Zones 1 19.XX.1.1 Medium Density Residential (R-2) Zones A. Purpose. 1. The purpose of the Medium Density Residential R-2 Zones is to establish middle housing opportunities within Millcreek which are consistent with the city's general plan for medium density residential areas within the city. It is the intent to balance neighborhood compatibility with the private property interests of those who wish to expand, develop, improve, or otherwise make exterior modification to their residential property. This chapter applies to the following residential zones: R-2-6.5, R-2-8, and R-2-10 zones. B. Permitted Uses and Conditional Uses 1. Uses in the Medium Density Residential (R-2) Zones are allowed, either as permitted or conditional, and may include certain limitations as set forth in Table 19.XX.1 Permitted and Conditional Uses in Medium Density Residential Zone. If a use is not specifically designated in the table, then it is prohibited. Table 19.XX.1 Permitted and Conditional Uses in Medium Density Residential (R-2) Zones P = Permitted Use C = Conditional Use Review Required Land use R-2 (All Zones) Limitations/References Residential Uses Single household detached dwellings P May be subject to the requirements set forth in the Sensitive Lands Chapter 19.XX.XX Two household dwelling P Residential Facility for Elderly Persons or Person with a Disability P As set forth in MKZ 19.87 Residential Facilities for Persons with a Disability Short-term rentals P As set forth in MKC 5.19, Short-term rentals Commercial Uses Agriculture P Commercial Agriculture is Prohibited Civic and Institutional Uses Public Use P Quasi-Public Use P Religious Assembly P Miscellaneous Uses Accessory uses, Buildings and Structures P As set forth in MKZ 19.XX.XX Accessory Uses, Accessory Buildings, and Structures ---PAGE BREAK--- Millcreek Together Code Update I Chapter 19.XX Medium Density Residential Zones 2 C. Spatial Requirements 1. The minimum property size, width, setbacks, requirements, and maximum property coverage are as set forth in Table 19.XX.2 Spatial Requirements for the Medium Density Residential (R-2) Zones. 2. Civic and Institutional. Civic and Institutional Uses, require a minimum twenty- foot (20’) rear and side yard setback when abutting and sharing a property line with a residential use. 3. Side Yard Setbacks between attached units. The side yard setback between units within the same building and shared a common wall, may be reduced to zero feet 4. Rear Setback on Sloped lots. If the average slope of the original ground surface, as measured from the rear property line to the front property line, is more than 20 percent, then the rear setback shall be increased one additional foot for every one degree of slope in excess of 20 percents, up to a maximum of 25 feet 5. Side Yard Setbacks on Lots 50% Larger Than Minimum Lot Width. Lots with a width 50% or more larger than the required minimum lot width shall measure side yard setbacks per the following: a. The combined measurements of the side yard setbacks shall be at least 25% of the lot width. b. No side setback shall be less than the required minimum side yard setback. c. The width of the lot is measured as the diameter of the largest circle that can be inscribed entirely within the lot excluding any streams, floodplains, wetlands, areas of thirty percent slope or greater, or other natural hazard areas shall be excluded from the circle. See Figure 19.XX.1 below Figure 19.XX.1 Combined Side yard Setback Spatial Requirements Diagram ---PAGE BREAK--- Millcreek Together Code Update I Chapter 19.XX Medium Density Residential Zones 3 Figure 19.XX.2 Spatial Requirements Diagram (letter labels related to Table 19.XX.2) Table 19.XX.2 Spatial Requirements for the Medium Density Residential (R-2 ) Zones Zone Min. lot area Min. lot width Min. Front Setback Residential Use Min. Side Setbacks on interior lots Residential Use Min. Side Setbacks on corner Civic/Institutional and Non- Residential Use Min. Side Setback Min. Rear Setback Maximum lot Coverage R-2-6.5 6,500 sq ft 8,000 sq ft for non- residential 60’ 25’ 8’ 20’ 20’ 15’ 40% R-2-8 8,000 sq ft 8,000 sq ft for non- residential 65’ 30’ 8’ 20’ 20’ 15’ 38% R-2-10 10,000 square feet 10,000 sq ft for non- residential 65’ 30’ 8’ 20’ 20’ 15’ 35% DUPLEX VERSION OF ILLUSTRATIONS COMING SOON ---PAGE BREAK--- Millcreek Together Code Update I Chapter 19.XX Medium Density Residential Zones 4 D. Building Height and Envelopes. 1. Minimum height. All dwelling structures shall be a minimum of one-story in height. 2. Maximum Height. Maximum building height is as set forth in Table 19.XX.3 Building Height and Building Envelope for R-2 Zones. 3. Building Envelope. The height of structures may be further limited by the building envelope. The building envelope is formed by a box defined by the perimeter of the property line extended vertically perpendicular to the property line to a height and subsequent angle as set forth in Table 19.XX.3. The entire building shall fit under this envelope except as described in the projections section below. (See figures 19.XX.3 and 19.XX.3.5 for building envelope illustrations) Figure 19.XX.3 Building Envelope (R-2-6.5) Figure 19.XX.3.5 Building Envelope (R-2-8 and R-2-10) Table 19.XX.3 Building Height and Building Envelope for R-2 Zones R-2-6.5 R-2-8 R-2-10 Building Height Maximum 32’ 32’ 32’ Building Envelope Wall Height 12’ 12’ 12’ Building Envelope Angle 60° 45° 45° DUPLEX VERSION OF ILLUSTRATIONS COMING SOON ---PAGE BREAK--- Millcreek Together Code Update I Chapter 19.XX Medium Density Residential Zones 5 E. Projections. 1. Building Height Envelope Projections. Dormers, Gables, and non-habitable architectural elements may project beyond the building height envelope if they meet the following criteria: a. Dormers: i. The width of the dormer shall not exceed fourteen (14) feet; ii. Multiple dormers shall be spaced such that the distance to the edges of the roof is at least one-half the distance between dormers; and iii. The dormer shall be no higher than the ridge of the roof. b. Gables: i. The height of the gable is less than 1.75 times higher than the point where the graduated building height envelope intersects the gable; ii. The height of the gable is less than the maximum building height; and iii. The length of the gable comprises no more than 25% of the length of the building façade. Figure 19.XX.6 Dormer and Gable illustration with height envelope exception ---PAGE BREAK--- Millcreek Together Code Update I Chapter 19.XX Medium Density Residential Zones 6 2. Setback Projections. The following may be erected on, or project into the required yard setbacks: a. Fences and walls in conformance with this code. b. Landscape elements, including trees, shrubs and other plants. c. Utility or irrigation equipment or facilities. d. Decks, patios, porches, driveways, sidewalks, stairs, landings, not exceeding two feet above grade. e. Covered porches and balconies may project up to ten feet (10’) into the front yard or street side yard setback if they meet the following criteria: i. Porches or balconies shall remain unenclosed or “open style” (no walls, doors, windows, screened, etc.) except for the minimum required handrail. ii. Porches and balconies shall not encroach into any easements or clear visibility at residential driveways and at street intersections. iii. Porches, balconies, stairs, landings, eaves which project into the setbacks, shall not be located closer than fifteen feet (15’) from a street property line, or project outside of the building height envelope. 3. Other architectural elements which are not used as habitable space. i. Cornices, eaves, sills, planter boxes, stairways, landings, awnings, window wells, or similar architectural features attached to the building and not enclosed by walls, extending not more than two feet into a side yard or four feet into the front or rear yard. In no case shall a side yard setback be less than six feet ii. Chimneys, fireplace keys, box or bay windows or cantilevered walls attached to the building, no greater than eight feet wide, extending not more than two feet into a side yard, or four feet into a front or rear yard. In no case shall a side yard setback be less than six feet F. Articulation. To avoid a large, continuous building mass of uniform height; no portion of any building shall continue more than forty feet horizontally without a minimum of an eighteen-inch break in the roofline or introduction of a contrasting architectural element such as an overhang, projection, or inset of a minimum depth of two feet from the primary façade plane, to create shadow patterns along the elevation of the building. See figures 19.XX.6 and 19.XX.7 below for dormer and gable illustrations. ---PAGE BREAK--- Millcreek Together Code Update I Chapter 19.XX Medium Density Residential Zones 7 19.XX.1.2 Neighborhood Compatibility Modification (NCM). A. Recognizing the wide variation of circumstances incident to a residential development application, Millcreek is providing for additional means to modify standards based on neighborhood compatibility. The Neighborhood Compatibility Modification (NCM) allows for modified standards from one or more of the spatial standards based upon the compatibility of the proposed residential development application with other lots/dwellings in the proximate neighborhood. The Planning Director may approve a NCM request at time of site plan submittal provided the following conditions are met: 1. Evidence. Compliance with the corresponding neighborhood conditions must be established by a survey from the proximate neighborhood, defined as a 200’ radial distance from the property boundary. Survey submitted must be completed by a licensed surveyor in the State of Utah. 2. Submittal. NCM requests shall be submitted on a separate form and shall include an additional review fee as set forth in the Millcreek Consolidated Fee Schedule. 3. Permissible Modifications. NCM Standards. Building height, setbacks and lot coverage modifications may be accommodated if the request does not exceed the allowances as set forth in Table 19.XX.4 NCM Standards. 4. Non-Permissible Modifications. Building envelope, mass and scale, and accessory structure modifications do not qualify under the NCM. *Lot coverage for all lots may not exceed more than 1.15 times the average lot coverage of proximate neighborhood lots. Table 19.XX.4 NCM Standards Zone Lot Coverag e Front Setback Side Setback Rear Setback Max Height R-2-6.5 33’ 45% * The average of all lots of within the proximate neighborhoo d that fronts to the same street, road, or right-of way. Combined side yard shall be at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the lot width, and no less than six feet on each side. The average rear yard setback that are on six lots of the applicants choice within the proximate neighborhoo d, and no less than 15’ The maximum building height that may be approved by the Planning Director or designee under the NCM standards is the lesser of: 1. Three feet plus the average maximum ridge height of residential structures that are on six lots of applicants choice that are within the proximate neighborhood; and 2. The max height of the zone specified in column of Table 19.XX.4 NCM Standards. R-2-8 33’ 43% * R-2-10 35’ 40% * ---PAGE BREAK--- Millcreek Together Code Update I Chapter 19.XX Medium Density Residential Zones 8 B. Related Provisions. For additional information refer to the zoning ordinances and in the particular following sections: 19.XX.1.3 Definitions (to be moved) Building Orientation means Oriented in this purpose means the direction a structure’s principal access and primary façade are facing. Any façade that is parallel to or within an oblique angle of 60 degrees of the property frontage along a street as defined in MKZ 19.04.260 is deemed to front the street. Dwelling means any building, or portion thereof, which is designated for use for residential purposes. Transitory facilities like tents, garages, sheds, travel trailers, campers, motels hotels, apartment hotels, boardinghouses, lodging houses or similar are not considered dwellings. Dwelling Unit means one or more rooms physically arranged so as to create an independent housekeeping establishment for occupancy by one household with separate toilets and facilities for cooking and sleeping. Buildings with more than one kitchen or set of cooking facilities are considered to contain more than one dwelling unit unless the additional cooking facilities are clearly accessory to a dwelling unit as determined by the Planning Director. Factors for determining whether cooking facilities are accessory to a dwelling unit may include but are not limited to: Table 19.XX.5 Related Provisions Reference Section Topic MKZ 19.76.020 Occupancy permit MKZ 19.76.070 Division of a two-family dwelling MKZ 19.76.100 Sale of space needed to meet requirements MKZ 19.76.140 Private garage or carport—Reduced yards MKZ 19.76.190 Height limitations—Exceptions MKZ 19.76.200 Additional height allowed when MKZ 19.76.020 Occupancy permit MKZ 19.76.070 Division of a two-family dwelling MKZ 19.76.100 Sale of space needed to meet requirements MKZ 19.76.140 Private garage or carport—Reduced yards MKZ 19.76.190 Height limitations—Exceptions MKZ 19.76.200 Additional height allowed when MKZ 19.76.210 Off-site improvements MKZ 19.80.040 Number of spaces required ---PAGE BREAK--- Millcreek Together Code Update I Chapter 19.XX Medium Density Residential Zones 9 • A building design which allows all occupants ready access to all portions of the building including cooking facilities; • No portion of the building containing cooking facilities can be separated from the remaining rooms to form a separate dwelling unit; • There is only one electric and/or gas meter for the building. Dwelling Unit, Primary means the principal residential dwelling unit on a lot or parcel. A primary dwelling unit is the largest of the two if there is an accessory dwelling unit on the lot or parcel. Dwelling Unit, Accessory (ADU) means a residential dwelling unit occupied as a separate dwelling unit on the same lot as a single-household dwelling unit, either within the same building as the single-household dwelling unit, attached to the single-household dwelling, or in a detached building. An accessory building does not include a mobile home or manufactured home. Dwelling Unit, Accessory - Attached means an accessory dwelling unit that shares a wall and roof with or as an additional story above or below the primary dwelling unit. Dwelling Unit, Accessory - Internal means an accessory dwelling unit created within the primary dwelling or within the footprint of the primary dwelling. Dwelling Unit, Accessory - Detached means an accessory dwelling unit that shares no common walls or roof with the primary dwelling. Dwelling, Single-household - Detached means a building arranged or designed to be occupied by one household, the structure having only one primary dwelling unit, and is not attached to another primary dwelling unit. Dwelling, Single-household - Attached (Townhouse) means a building arranged or designed to be occupied by one household, the structure having only one primary dwelling unit, and is attached to another single-household dwelling via a shared wall on one or both sides by a common wall(s). A common wall(s) may be located within an attached garage. Dwelling, Two-Household (Duplex) means a single building under a continuous roof containing two primary dwelling units completely separated by either: a common interior wall, where the units are side by side; or a common interior floor, where the units are one above the other. A common wall may be located within an attached garage. Dwelling, Three Household (Triplex) means a single building under a continuous roof containing three dwelling units completely separated by either: common interior walls, where the units are side by side; or common interior floors, where the units are one above the other. A common wall(s) may be located within an attached garage. Dwelling, Four Household (Fourplex, Quadplex) means a single building under a continuous roof containing four dwelling units completely separated by either: common interior walls, ---PAGE BREAK--- Millcreek Together Code Update I Chapter 19.XX Medium Density Residential Zones 10 where the units are side by side; or common interior floors, where the units are one above the other. A common wall(s) may be located within an attached garage. Dwelling, Multiple Household (Apartment) means a building arranged or designed to be occupied by more than four households. Façade means the exterior side of a building or structure extending from the ground to top of the roof, parapet, or wall and the entire width of the building elevation. Household means: A. Any number of people living together in a dwelling unit and related by blood, marriage adoption, or approved foster care, and including up to three additional people; or B. a group of not more than four unrelated persons occupying a dwelling unit or a group of persons as defined by state law as elderly or disabled. Property Line, Front means the property line of a lot or parcel which abuts street. If a lot or parcel does not abut a street, then the front property line shall be the property line closest to the nearest street or landscaped common open space area. Each lot or parcel shall only have one front property line. Property Line, Rear means the property line most distant from and generally parallel to the front property line. In the case of an irregularly shaped lot or parcel having no definable rear property line, the rear property line shall be a line ten feet (10') in length which is parallel with the front property line, and which connects two of the other property lines at points most distant from the front property line. Property Line, Side (interior) means the property lines which are generally radial to the front lot line or any lot lines which are not front or rear lot lines. Property Line, Side (corner or street side yard) means, any side property line abutting a street right of way. Setback means the minimum required distance between a property line and a building or structure. ---PAGE BREAK--- See “Supporting Documents” at the end of staff report to review the proposed draft of the R-1/RCOZ Code as well as the current R-1 and RCOZ Codes that are currently in effect. Millcreek City Hall 3330 South 1300 East Millcreek, Utah 84106 millcreek.us Planning & Zoning (801) 214-2700 [EMAIL REDACTED] ZT-23-008 Planning Commission Staff Report Meeting Date: 6/21/2023 Applicant: Millcreek Re: Adoption of the R-1/RCOZ Zoning Code Zone: R-1/RCOZ Prepared By: Robert May & Francis Lilly Scope of Decision: Discretionary. Discretionary. This is a legislative matter, to be decided by the Millcreek City Council upon receiving a recommendation from the Community Council(s) and the Millcreek Planning Commission. REQUEST AND SYNOPSIS The Planning and Zoning team is proud to present to the Millcreek Planning Commission, the proposed draft of the updated R-1/RCOZ code. In accordance with the provisions of Utah Code, before the City Council may adopt amendments to the zoning ordinance, any such amendment shall not be made or become effective unless the same shall have been proposed by or be first submitted for the recommendation of the Millcreek Planning Commission.. The Planning Commission shall review the zoning text amendment request and a recommendation shall be made to the City Council to approve, disapprove or continue the application. In Millcreek, the vast majority of land located within R-1 zoning are subject to an additional layer of standards known as the Residential Compatibility Overlay Zone (RCOZ). The RCOZ enacts special design standards that supersede the standards of the underlying R-1 zone which further restricts development. Currently there is a conflict, among those who wish to develop in the R-1 zone, of not knowing the standards of the RCOZ even apply. This is partly because the standards of the R-1 and RCOZ are separate chapters within the zoning code. Most people seeking to develop, tend to just seek the development standards of the underlying zone where their property is located, and are rarely ever aware that other overlay zones and chapters may exist. o Clear up resident confusion and eliminate application conflicts o Simplify and speed up building permit review times o Enhance clarity with better definitions and images o Incentivize development on smaller lots o Continue to preserve the character of our single-family neighborhoods o Provide alternative development standards for different lot sizes o Encourage a variety of affordable single-family housing options What we are trying to achieve with the new R-1/RCOZ Code ---PAGE BREAK--- Request: R-1/RCOZ ZT-23-008 See “Supporting Documents” at the end of staff report to review the proposed draft of the R-1/RCOZ Code as well as the current R-1 and RCOZ Codes that are currently in effect. Page 2 of 9 GENERAL PLAN CONSIDERATIONS Strategy 1.5: Ensure that new infill development is compatible with existing neighborhoods by regulating structure sizes and heights; building forms and materials; yard setbacks; streetscape character; height and bulk transitions; buffering; and other factors. o Height is regulated by zone – zones with bigger minimum lot sizes allow taller heights. o Bulk and height transitions regulated by envelope. The new code proposes three different envelopes, depending on zone. o Requirements can be modified based on neighborhood compatibility – this strategy has been a very successful way of making our existing residential standards work in existing neighborhoods. Strategy 1.5: Promote the maintenance and improvement of the existing housing stock and allow for remodeling, expansion, and additions as appropriate in the area to accommodate the changing sizes and varieties of household types. o A steeper envelope for R-1-6 lots and the box for lots in R-1-5 and below recognizes that narrow lots have additional constraints. Some of these neighborhoods could benefit from additional homeowner investment in the form of 2nd floor additions. o 384 permits for additions and alterations have been approved under RCOZ since January 2018. Strategy 7.2: Protect view corridors by creating visual breaks between buildings. o The building envelope has value to protect view corridors and to expand visual breaks between buildings, by pulling in second stories, particularly on larger lots in R-1-8 zones and above. o Staff proposed establishing an envelope standard by zone, and not by neighborhood, because the strategy to protect viewsheds is not neighborhood-specific. It is a city-wide strategy applicable to any neighborhood. Goal N-1: Preserve and enhance the physical elements of each neighborhood’s character Goal N-2: Strive for a variety of housing choices in types, styles, and costs of housing throughout Millcreek. Goal HE-7: Require that new development protects the treasured views of Mount Olympus, the Oquirrh Mountains, the Great Salt Lake, and other significant viewsheds from roadways, frequented public areas, community gateways, and other public places. ---PAGE BREAK--- Request: R-1/RCOZ ZT-23-008 See “Supporting Documents” at the end of staff report to review the proposed draft of the R-1/RCOZ Code as well as the current R-1 and RCOZ Codes that are currently in effect. Page 3 of 9 PROPOSED R-1/RCOZ CODE AMENDMENTS Staff’ views the proposed code update as “adapting” rather than “changing”. The proposed code is a reflection based on what we are hearing from residents and observing development trends over the years. Understanding that there is not a “one size fits all” set of standards, we are proposing some alternative development standards for the small irregular shaped lots that have struggled to develop under the old code. We are trying to add flexibility where it counts, while embracing and preserving the design characteristics that make Millcreek single-family neighborhoods some of the most desirable neighborhoods in the valley. o Front and side yard setbacks will remain the same. o The option to modify the requirements on the basis of neighborhood compatibility is proposed to remain. o The 45-degree building envelope requirement is proposed to remain, for larger lots in the R-1-8, R-1- 10, R-1-15, and R-1-21 zones. o Existing exceptions for gables and dormers will remain, although staff is adding definitions for these terms. o The Option A standards from RCOZ becomes the proposed spatial standards for all R-1 zones. o Option B from the RCOZ remains but is renamed to the Neighborhood Compatibility Modification (NCM). o Staff is recommending to increase the rear yard setback from 15 feet to 20 feet. Proposing to add the rear yard setback as an option in the neighborhood compatibility modification. o Option to have uncovered porches up to 10 feet into the front setback line. o The combined side yard setback requirement from RCOZ remains but only applies to lots 50% or larger. o A 60-degree building envelope is proposed for lots in the R-1-6 zone. o A box envelope at the building setback line for the R-1-3, R-1-4, or R-1-5 zone. These changes are intended to allow existing homes on these smaller lots the option to add a second story. o Building height is proposed to increase from 28 feet to 30 feet in the R-1-3, R-1-4, R-1-5, R-1-6, and R-1-8 zones. All other building heights will remain the same. o Removal of the RCOZ Option C. Option C was discussed as potentially being a legislative process, but after more legal discussion, it is suggested that those wishing to go beyond the standards in the draft, should use a variance process. In such situations where unique circumstances for a particular lot could provide a variance option, the common process for such situations is a variance. State Law would suggest that a variance is the better option. o A few uses were eliminated such as commercial daycares, pigeons, and sportsmen kennels. o New graphics have been provided to show the building envelope options and allowances. o All of the spatial requirements are in tables and diagrams. o Removal of R-1-43 Zone. None exist. What will stay the same What will change ---PAGE BREAK--- Request: R-1/RCOZ ZT-23-008 See “Supporting Documents” at the end of staff report to review the proposed draft of the R-1/RCOZ Code as well as the current R-1 and RCOZ Codes that are currently in effect. Page 4 of 9 Building Envelope to Zones R-1-8, R-1-10, and R-1-21 Zones R-1-6 Zones R-1-5, R-1-4, and R-1-3 Zones ---PAGE BREAK--- Request: R-1/RCOZ ZT-23-008 See “Supporting Documents” at the end of staff report to review the proposed draft of the R-1/RCOZ Code as well as the current R-1 and RCOZ Codes that are currently in effect. Page 5 of 9 RESIDENT PARTICIPATION AND FEEDBACK In light of this conflict, staff found value in carving out a little more time examining the administrative conflicts the current R-1 code presents, while also focusing on specific design standards required in the R-1 and the RCOZ that may or may not create unnecessary development constraints. Due to how complicated the subject matter is and its high level of sensitivity among Millcreek residents, staff increased the amount of exposure to the residents with the goal in mind of obtaining additional resident feedback and participation. To help spread the word, we published the public notice on two different occasions in the e-newsletter and once in the printed newsletter, which went to every residential address in the city. Millcreek also sent out nearly 18,000 mailed public notices sent to all property owners residing in a Residential Zone (R-1, R-2, and R-4 ) inviting them to attend and participate in the Community Council and Planning Commission meetings. Within the mailed notice, staff carved out three specific dates and times where residents could visit City Hall and chat with a planner regarding the potential changes to the R-1 zone regulations. Staff also kept a log of all the residents phone calls and emails retrieved regarding the R-1/RCOZ update. The R-1/RCOZ resident log and emails are located in the supporting documents. Chat with a Planner Open House Tuesday May 16th, 6-8pm 8 residents attended Saturday May 20th, 10-12am 6 residents attended Wednesday May 24th, 6-8pm 6 residents attended Over the course of the three meetings, only twenty residents collectively attended the chat with a planner open house. Many who attended the open house had specific building questions pertaining to their property or just needed help understanding how the proposed zone update would affect them. Some saw this open house as an opportunity to voice their frustration about land use in general and their opinion concerning taxes. What staff learned from this open house is that most residents are completely unaware what R-1 and RCOZ even stand for and how zoning fundamentally works. However, after staff took the time to explain zoning and answered their questions, most were aloof and indifferent. ---PAGE BREAK--- Request: R-1/RCOZ ZT-23-008 See “Supporting Documents” at the end of staff report to review the proposed draft of the R-1/RCOZ Code as well as the current R-1 and RCOZ Codes that are currently in effect. Page 6 of 9 COMMUNITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATIONS Staff has adopted the policy of bringing complicated and contentious applications to the Community Councils a month in advance (or more) to help flush out any concerns they may have before the application comes before them for their official recommendation. This also helps eliminate the shock factor and provides them with ample review time to digest the application in full. Each Community Council was given the opportunity to comment and make suggestions on the proposed R-1/RCOZ code during their regularly scheduled May meeting before being asked to make their official recommendation at their June meeting. While we summarize the discussion and vote each of the Community Council makes at their meeting, we request that a formal letter of their recommendation be submitted to staff. Letters of recommendation received from the Community Councils are included in the supporting documents for your review. East Millcreek Community Council (EMCC) meeting June 1, 2023 Prior to making a recommendation, a couple members of the EMCC wanted further clarification on what architectural elements could protrude into the building envelope. In addition to explaining how staff calculates the degree gables and dormers can protrude into the envelope, it was also noted that eaves and roof overhangs could already project into the setback up to three feet area per the definition of “yard”. Staff noted that this was an existing function of the code and was not part of the R-1/RCOZ code update. There were several residents in attendance at the meeting that had received the public notice and wanted further clarification from staff. Questions from the residents were about the definition of RCOZ and whether the density of their neighborhood would change and begin to allow multi-family housing. Staff responded by explaining what RCOZ stood for and how it effects development and reassured them that staff was not proposing any changes to density and that multi-family housing would not be allowed in their single-family neighborhoods. The EMCC made a motion to approve the proposed R-1/RCOZ draft as presented by staff with the exception that staff would re-visit the definition of “yard”. Motion passed unanimously 7-0. Mount Olympus Community Council (EMCC) meeting June 5, 2023 The MOCC members were comfortable with the proposed code and only had a few questions of concern. One member wanted clarification regarding the proposed increase of the rear-yard setback. Staff responded by adding that the main intent was to add more quality open space to the rear yards of our single-family neighborhoods. By doing so, it added more privacy and in instances where you have steep slopes, it helps push homes further away from homes directly adjacent and downhill. Staff noted that uphill homes dwarfing over the homes below is a common complaint and the increase in the rear yard setback is an attempt to mitigate this. Staff noted that many of these “dwarfing” homes are compliant with the standards of RCOZ. Another member made it clear that they were opposed to increasing the maximum building height from 28 feet to 30 feet for the R-1-8 Zones. He added that the two additional feet will diminish residents views. This member provided an email to staff explaining his opposition for the two foot height increase. This email is located in the supporting documents. Prior to making a motion, one last comment was made about the removal of commercial daycares from the use category. They explained daycares were a necessity and wanted an explanation from staff why it was being removed. Staff responded by commenting that, only commercial daycares were being removed but that daycares as a home occupation was still permitted. The day to day activities of a commercial daycare imposed too many impacts on a single-family neighborhood in terms of traffic and number of children. The MOCC made a motion to approve the proposed R-1/RCOZ draft as presented by staff with the exception that staff would do more research on commercial daycares being located in residential neighborhoods. Motion passed unanimously 6-0. ---PAGE BREAK--- Request: R-1/RCOZ ZT-23-008 See “Supporting Documents” at the end of staff report to review the proposed draft of the R-1/RCOZ Code as well as the current R-1 and RCOZ Codes that are currently in effect. Page 7 of 9 Millcreek Community Council (EMCC) meeting June 6, 2023 The MCCC members and staff discussed the proposed draft in detail. Although most members were comfortable with the proposed code, there were several members who added additional comments. One member commented that they would like to see duplexes and triplexes allowed in R-1 Zones in an effort to help add housing. That same member also added that this proposed code was a step in the right direction but that more should be done to increase affordable housing options. Another member commented that they shared the same feeling of allowing duplexes and triplexes allowed in R-1 Zones. Before making their final recommendation, the chair of the community council made it clear that there were items within the proposed R-1/RCOZ code they did not agree with. In summary, the chair commented that staff’s proposed code needed to eliminate the standards of RCOZ from applying to properties west of I-215 or at minimum, apply the alternative envelope option of 60 degrees with a twelve foot wall height. They commented that Millcreek is becoming a “rent city” and that the RCOZ standards are forcing property owners to consider developing in other areas of the valley. The MCCC made a motion to approve the proposed R-1/RCOZ draft as presented by staff with the exception that the alternative envelope option of 60 degrees with a twelve foot wall height would apply to all properties west of I-215. Motion passed 10-1. Canyon Rim Citizens Association (CRCA) meeting June 7, 2023 Members of the CRCA were generally pleased with the proposed R-1/RCOZ code presented by staff. There was very little discussion regarding the code specifically. There were a few comments made from members requiring further explanation about why staff was proposing alternative envelope options and the reasoning behind the increased rear yard setback. Staff responded that there is not a “one size fits all” set of standards. This has been an on-going issue when applying small narrow lots which is why we are proposing some alternative development standards for the small irregular shaped lots that have historically struggled to develop under the old code. Staffs reasoning behind increasing the rear yard setback five additional feet was to add more quality open space to the rear yards of our single-family neighborhoods. By doing so, it added more privacy and in instances where you have steep slopes, it helps push homes further away from homes directly adjacent and downhill. Staff noted that uphill homes dwarfing over the homes below is a common complaint and the increase in the rear yard setback is an attempt to mitigate this. The CRCA made a motion to approve the proposed R-1/RCOZ draft as presented by staff. Motion passed 7-0. PLANNING STAFF FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS Millcreek Planning staff has been administering the development regulations of the underlying R-1 Zone and the Residential Compatibility Overlay (RCOZ) Zone for nearly 5 years and in that time, we have learned a few things. The RCOZ and its standards was originally adopted by Salt Lake County in 2009 with the intention to balance how are residential neighborhoods build out. The standards required by RCOZ became the tool used by Planning to ensure residential neighborhoods with moderate homes sizes didn’t become engulfed with “Mcmansions”, or otherwise monster homes. The underlying R zones work but are too broad and didn’t do much in terms of maintaining compatibility. These standards were designed to combat massive homes from being constructed next to moderately sized homes by restricting building height, property setbacks, lot coverage percentages and massing, and essentially preserving the character of these neighborhoods by zone. The RCOZ standards such as max building height, allowable lot coverage, and combined side yard setbacks shift depending on zone type and lot sizes of the neighborhood, making development comparative to its surroundings, hence compatible. Depending on who is inquiring, the RCOZ is a tool that “restricts” or a tool that “preserves”. ---PAGE BREAK--- Request: R-1/RCOZ ZT-23-008 See “Supporting Documents” at the end of staff report to review the proposed draft of the R-1/RCOZ Code as well as the current R-1 and RCOZ Codes that are currently in effect. Page 8 of 9 This is what we learned (Data from 2018 to present) o 198 new permits for single-family homes were issued or closed. 187 of those new permits issued, met the minimum “RCOZ” standards. 384 new permits for residential additions and alterations were issued or closed. The vast majority of these are in RCOZ. o 9 permits for a single-family home were approved for “RCOZ B” variations from the standards on the basis of neighborhood compatibility. 13 permits for additions were approved for “RCOZ B” variations from the standards on the basis of neighborhood compatibility. Most RCOZ B applications are for additions, not new homes. o 2 permits for a single-family home received variances due to existing hardships owing to unique circumstances on these properties. 13 permits for additions were approved for “RCOZ B” variations from the standards on the basis of neighborhood compatibility. Most RCOZ B applications are for additions, not new homes. o 2 “RCOZ C” special exceptions to build a home have been approved. 15 permits received special approval from the Land Use Hearing Officer because they were additions to homes that were already noncompliant in terms of RCOZ rules for setbacks, lot coverage, etc. ➢ 94% of those building a new home in Millcreek were able to build under the current code without need of a deviation or special exception. ➢ 92% of those seeking to do residential additions in Millcreek were able to build under the current code without need of a deviation or special exception. ➢ A large majority of the homes built and residential additions permitted without seeking relief were likely in the R-1-8 and R-1-10 zones. The vast majority of the R-1 zones are R-1-8 and R-1-10 which account for about 40% of the entire city. These zones are typically larger allowing for more flexibility making development easier. The remaining permits issued for new homes and permits issued for residential additions that sought relief were likely due to smaller lot sizes and/or homes recognized as noncomplying due to setbacks, lot coverage, etc. What RCOZ Got Right o Side yard setbacks are wider, particularly on wider lots. This keeps the mass of a home more consistent with the homes in the surrounding area. o For the most part, especially on lots in an R-1-8 zone an above, it is easy to put a second story on a home. Gable and dormer exceptions ensure that these second stories are useful, while reducing the mass of taller homes. o RCOZ considers neighborhood compatibility, by allowing applicants to modify setbacks, heights, and lot coverage based on the characteristics of surrounding homes. This is a rarely used tool but has proven useful. Where RCOZ Could Be Better o Definitions could be better. o Building envelope standards prevent a second story on homes on narrower lots, particularly in an R- 1-6 or R-1-5 zone. This could impact infill opportunities and neighborhood stability. o Maximum heights may be a little low, considering market preferences for taller ceiling heights. o Having two different zoning standards created confusion. ---PAGE BREAK--- Request: R-1/RCOZ ZT-23-008 See “Supporting Documents” at the end of staff report to review the proposed draft of the R-1/RCOZ Code as well as the current R-1 and RCOZ Codes that are currently in effect. Page 9 of 9 Staffs Goals for Revising the R-1/RCOZ Standards based on historical data and feedback from residents. o Provide alternative development standards for different lot sizes o Encourage a variety of affordable single-family housing options o Incentivize development on smaller lots o Continue to preserve the character of our single-family neighborhoods o Clear up resident confusion and eliminate application conflicts o Simplify and speed up building permit review times o Enhance clarity with better definitions and images SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS - Proposed draft R-1/RCOZ Code (Click here for link) - Current R-1 Code (Click here for link) - Current RCOZ Code (Click here for link) - R-1/RCOZ Call List and email correspondences - Received Community Council Letters ---PAGE BREAK--- Millcreek Together Code Update I Chapter 19.X.X Single-Household Residential Zones I 5.24.23 1 19.01.1.1 Single-Household Residential (R-1) Zones A. Purpose 1. The purpose of the R-1 zones is to establish single-household neighborhoods that provide persons who reside therein a comfortable, healthy, safe and pleasant environment. It is the intent to balance neighborhood compatibility with the private property interests of those who wish to expand, develop, improve or otherwise make exterior modification to their residential property. B. Permitted Uses and Conditional Uses 1. Uses in the Single-Household Residential (R-1) Zones are as set forth in Table 19.XX.1 Permitted and Conditional Uses in the Single-Household Residential (R-1) Zones. If a use is not specifically designated in the table, then it is prohibited. Table 19.XX.1 Permitted and Conditional Uses in the Single-Household Residential (R-1) Zones P= Permitted C= Conditional Use Review Required Land Use R-1 (All Zones) Limitations / References Residential Uses Single Household Dwelling P Accessory dwellings permitted as set forth in MKZ 19.XX, Accessory dwellings. May be subject to the requirements set forth in the Sensitive Lands Chapter 19.XX.XX Residential Facilities for Persons with a Disability P As set forth in MKZ 19.87 Residential Facilities for Persons with a Disability Short-term rentals P As set forth in MKC 5.19, Short-term rentals Commercial Uses Agriculture P Non-commercial Civic and Institutional Uses Public Uses P Quasi-Public Use P Religious Assembly P Miscellaneous Uses Accessory Uses, Buildings, and Structures P As set forth in MKZ 19.XX.XX Accessory Uses, Accessory Buildings, and Structures ---PAGE BREAK--- Millcreek Together Code Update I Chapter 19.X.X Single-Household Residential Zones I 5.24.23 2 C. Spatial Requirements. 1. Setback Measurements. The minimum setbacks and lot size requirements are as determined by Table 19.XX.2 Spatial Requirements for the Single-Household Residential (R-1) Zones. 2. Side Yard Setbacks on Lots 50% (Alt. 100% or apply to all lots) Larger Than Minimum Lot Width. Lots with a width 50% or more larger than the required minimum lot width shall measure side yard setbacks per the following: a. The combined measurements of the side yard setbacks shall be at least 25% of the lot width. b. No side setback shall be less than the required minimum side yard setback. c. The width of the lot is measured as the diameter of the largest circle that can be inscribed entirely within the lot excluding any streams, floodplains, wetlands, areas of thirty percent slope or greater, or other natural hazard areas shall be excluded from the circle. See Figure 19.XX.2. Figure 19.XX.1 Spatial Requirements Diagram (letter labels related to Table 19.XX.2) ---PAGE BREAK--- Millcreek Together Code Update I Chapter 19.X.X Single-Household Residential Zones I 5.24.23 3 Figure 19.XX.2 Spatial Requirements Diagram Table 19.XX.2 Spatial Requirements for the Single-Household Residential (R-1) Zones Zone Min. lot area Min. lot width Min. Front Setback Residential Use Min. Side Setbacks on interior lots Residential Use Min. Side Setbacks on corner Non- Residential Use Min. Side Setback Min. Rear Setbacks Maximum Lot Coverage R-1-3 3,000 sq ft 25’ 20’ 5’ 20’ 20’ (15’) 20’ 40% R-1-4 4,000 sq ft 25’ 20’ 5’ 20’ 20’ (15’) 20’ 40% R-1-5 5,000 sq ft 25’ 20’ 5’ 20’ 20’ (15’) 20’ 35% R-1-6 6, 000 sq ft 60’ 25’ 8’ 20’ 20’ 20’ 35% R-1-8 8,000 sq ft 65’ 25’ 8’ 20’ 20’ 20’ 33% R-1-10 10, 000 sq ft 80’ 30’ 10’ 20’ 20’ 20’ 31% R-1-15 15,000 sq ft 80’ 30’ 10’ 20’ 20’ . 20’ 25% R-1-21 21,000 sq ft 100’ 30’ 10’ 20’ 20’ 20’ 25% D. Building Height and Building Envelopes. 1. Minimum height. All dwelling structures shall be a minimum of one story in height. 2. Maximum Height. Maximum building height is as set forth in Table 19.XX.3 Building Height and Building Envelope for R-1 Zones. 3. Building Envelope. The height of structures may be further limited by the building envelope. The building envelope is formed by a box defined by the ---PAGE BREAK--- Millcreek Together Code Update I Chapter 19.X.X Single-Household Residential Zones I 5.24.23 4 perimeter of the property line extended vertically perpendicular to the property line to a height and subsequent angle as set forth in Table 19.XX.3. The entire building shall fit under this envelope except as described in the projections section below. (See figures 19.XX.2, 19.XX.3, and 19.XX.4 for building envelope illustrations) Table 19.XX.3 Building Height and Building Envelope for R-1 Zones R-1-3 R-1-4 R-1-5 R-1-6 R-1-8 R-1-10 R-1-15 R-1-21 Building Envelope Wall Height 30’ 30’ 30’ 30’ 32’ Building Envelope Angle Starting Height None (alt 12’) 12’ 8’ 8’ 8’ Building Envelope Angle None (alt. 60 degree) 60 ° 45° 45° 45° Figure 19.XX.3 R-1-3, R-1-4, and R-1-5 Building Envelope Figure 19.XX.4 R-1-6 Building Envelope (alternative – apply to R-3,4 and 5) ---PAGE BREAK--- Millcreek Together Code Update I Chapter 19.X.X Single-Household Residential Zones I 5.24.23 5 Figure 19.XX.2 R-1-8, R-1-10, R-1-15, and R-1-21 Building Envelope E. Projections. Dormers, Gables, and non-habitable architectural elements may project beyond the building height envelope if they meet the following criteria: 1. Dormers: a. The width of the dormer shall not exceed fourteen (14) feet; b. Multiple dormers shall be spaced such that the distance to the edges of the roof is at least one-half the distance between dormers; and c. The dormer shall be no higher than the ridge of the roof. 2. Gables: a. The height of the gable is less than 1.75 times higher than the point where the graduated building height envelope intersects the gable; b. The height of the gable is less than the maximum building height; and c. The length of the gable comprises no more than 25% of the length of the building façade. 3. Porches. a. Uncovered front porches may project up to ten (10) feet into the front yard setback. b. A porch or section of a porch with a deck above is considered covered 4. Other architectural features such as eaves, railings, or windowsills: a. The architectural feature does not extend beyond the building height envelope more than two feet. b. The architectural feature shall not include habitable space. Articulation. To avoid a large, continuous building mass of uniform height; no portion of any building shall continue more than forty feet horizontally without a minimum of an eighteen-inch break in the roofline or introduction of a contrasting architectural element such as an overhang, projection, or inset of a minimum depth of two feet from the primary façade plane, to create shadow patterns along the elevation of the building. See figures 19.XX.6 and 19.XX.7 below for dormer and gable exception illustration ---PAGE BREAK--- Millcreek Together Code Update I Chapter 19.X.X Single-Household Residential Zones I 5.24.23 6 Figure 19.XX.6 Dormer and Gable illustration Figure 19.XX.7 Gable projecting beyond building height envelope exception ---PAGE BREAK--- Millcreek Together Code Update I Chapter 19.X.X Single-Household Residential Zones I 5.24.23 7 19.01.1.2 Neighborhood Compatibility Modification (NCM). A. Recognizing the wide variation of circumstances incident to a residential development application, Millcreek is providing for additional means to modify standards based on neighborhood compatibility. The Neighborhood Compatibility Modification (NCM) allows for modified standards from one or more of the spatial standards based upon the compatibility of the proposed residential development application with other lots/dwellings in the proximate neighborhood. The Planning Director may approve a NCM request at time of site plan submittal provided the following conditions are met: 1. Evidence. Compliance with the corresponding neighborhood conditions must be established by an engineering survey from the proximate neighborhood, defined as a 200’ radial distance from the property boundary. 2. Submittal. NCM requests shall be submitted on a separate form and shall include an additional review fee as set forth in the Millcreek Consolidated Fee Schedule. 3. Permissible Modifications. NCM Standards. Building height, setbacks and lot coverage modifications may be accommodated if the request does not exceed the allowances as set forth in Table 19.X.X NCM Standards. 4. Non-Permissible Modifications. Rear-yard setbacks, building envelope, mass and scale, and accessory structure modifications do not qualify under the NCM. Table 19.XX.4. NCM Standards Table 19.XX.4 NCM Standards Zone Lot Coverage Front Setback Side Setback Rear Setback Max Height R-1-3 33’ 40% * The average of all lots of within the proximate neighborh ood that fronts to the same street, road, or right-of way. Combined side yard shall be at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the lot width, and no less than six feet on each side. The average rear yard setback that are on six lots of the applicants choice within the proximate neighborhood, and no less than 15’ The maximum building height that may be approved by the Planning Director or designee under the NCM standards is the lesser of: 1. Three feet plus the average maximum ridge height of residential structures that are on six lots of applicants choice that are within the proximate neighborhood; and 2. The max height of the zone specified in column of Table 19.XX.4 NCM Standards. R-1-4 33’ 40% * R-1-5 33’ 40% * R-1-6 33’ 40% * R-1-8 33’ 38% * R-1-10 35’ 36% * R-1-15 37’ 30% * R-1-21 37’ 30% * *Lot coverage for all lots may not exceed more than 1.15 times the average lot coverage of proximate neighborhood lots ---PAGE BREAK--- Millcreek Together Code Update I Chapter 19.X.X Single-Household Residential Zones I 5.24.23 8 B. Related Provisions. For additional information refer to the zoning ordinance and in particular the following sections: Related Provisions Reference Section Topic MKZ 19.76.020 Occupancy permit MKZ 19.04.560 Yard MKZ 19.76.080 Lots and buildings on private rights-of-ways MKZ 19.76.100 Sale of space needed to meet requirements MKZ 19.76.140 Private garage or carport—Reduced yards MKZ 19.76.190 Height limitations—Exceptions MKZ 19.76.200 Additional height allowed when MKZ 19.76.210 Off-site improvements MKZ 19.76.290 Single-household or two-household dwellings—Standards MKZ 19.80.040 Number of spaces required MKZ 19.89 Accessory Dwelling Units MKZ 19.XX Temporary Uses and Structures MKZ 19.XX Sensitive Lands MKZ 19.82 Sign Ordinance MKC Title 18 Subdivisions 19.01.1.3 Definitions (to be moved to definitions) Single household detached dwelling means a separate building arranged or designed to be occupied by one household unit, the structure having only one primary dwelling unit. Residential Facilities for Persons with a Disability (group home) means a home where a small number of unrelated people in need of care, support, or supervision can live together, such as those who are elderly or mentally ill or protected by federal fair housing laws. Short-term rental means a residential unit or any portion of a residential unit that the owner of record or the lessee of the residential unit offers for occupancy for fewer than 30 consecutive days or a residential unit or any portion of a residential unit or that is actually used for accommodations or lodging of guests for a period of less than thirty consecutive days. Agriculture (non-commercial) means the tilling of the soil, the raising of crops, horticulture and gardening, noncommercial greenhouses associated with residential uses, but not including the keeping or raising of domestic animals, except household pets or fowl, and not including any agricultural industry or business such as fruit-packing plants, fur farms, animal hospitals or similar uses. ---PAGE BREAK--- Millcreek Together Code Update I Chapter 19.X.X Single-Household Residential Zones I 5.24.23 9 Public and Quasi-Public Use means a use operated exclusively by a public body, or quasi-public body, such use having the purpose of serving the public health, safety or general welfare, and including uses such as public schools, parks, playgrounds and other recreational facilities, administrative and service facilities, and public utilities. Religious assembly means any church, synagogue, mosque, temple or building which is used primarily for religious worship and related religious activities. Accessory Uses and buildings/structures means a subordinate use or structure customarily incidental to and located upon the same lot occupied by a main use. Dormer means a roofed structure, often containing a window, that projects vertically beyond the plane of a pitched roof. The peak roof elements of a dormer do not extend above the ridgeline of the pitched roof. Gable means the triangular portion of a wall between the edges of intersecting roof pitches. Habitable Space means any structure containing rooms that are used for living, sleeping, cooking, and eating. Architectural Feature means a minor decorative feature built into the design and construction of the building in addition to the occupiable space of the building. Such features may include but are not limited to overhangs, eaves, railings, bay windows, pelmets, and cupolas. Proximate Neighborhood means the lots within a 200’ radial distance from the subject property boundary. ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter 19.14 R-1-3, R-1-4, R-1-5, R-1-6, R-1-7, R-1-8, R-1-10, R-1-15, R-1-21, R-1- 43 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES 19.14.010 Purpose Of Provisions 19.14.020 Permitted Uses 19.14.030 Conditional Uses 19.14.040 Lot Areas And Widths 19.14.050 Yards 19.14.055 Density 19.14.060 Building Height 19.14.070 Accessory Buildings 19.14.080 Informational 19.14.010 Purpose Of Provisions The purpose of the R-1 zones is to establish single-family neighborhoods which provide persons who reside therein a comfortable, health, safe and pleasant environment. 19.14.020 Permitted Uses Permitted uses in the R-1 zones are as follows: ZONE PERMITTED USES All R-1 Zones Accessory uses and buildings Agriculture Home business, subject to MKZ 19.85; Home daycare/preschool, subject to MKZ 19.04 Household pets Residential facility for persons with a disability Short-term rentals provided a valid Millcreek business license has been issued and in good standing with respect to the property; Accessory Dwelling Unit, subject to MKZ 19.89 R-1-6, R-1-7, R-1-8, R-1-10, R-1-15 Single-family dwelling R-1-21, R-1-43 Guesthouse, the square footage must be less than one thousand two hundred square feet Maximum of four horses for private use only, not for rental Single-family dwelling HISTORY Amended by Ord. 18-28 on 5/14/2018 Amended by Ord. 18-35 on 6/11/2018 Amended by Ord. 21-39 on 9/27/2021 Amended by Ord. 23-12 on 4/10/2023 19.14.030 Conditional Uses Conditional uses in the R-1 zones are as follows: ZONE CONDITIONAL USES All R-1 zones Cemetery Day care/preschool center, subject to MKZ 19.76.260 Golf course Home day care/preschool, subject to MKZ 19.04 Planned unit development Private educational institutions having an academic curriculum similar to that ordinarily given in public schools Private nonprofit recreational grounds and facilities Public and quasi-public uses Residential facility for elderly persons Temporary buildings for uses incidental to construction work, which building must be removed upon the completion of the construction work. If such buildings are not removed within ninety days upon completion of construction work or thirty days after notice, the building will be removed by the City at the expense of the owner. R-1-3, R-1-4 Single-family dwelling R-1-5 Single-family project developments The planning commission may approve a detailed development plan for the entire single- family project in Page 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- an R-1-3, R-1-4, R-1-5 zone, pursuant to MKZ 19.84. Thereafter, the development services division director may, as authorized by the planning commission, approve use permits for individual residential uses, provided that the plans comply with all requirements and conditions of the approved development plan. R-1-6, R-1-7, R-1-8, R-1-10 Nursery and greenhouse, provided that there is no retail sales R-1-15 Pigeons, subject to health department regulations Sportsman's kennel with a minimum lot area of one acre R-1-21, R-1-43 Animals and fowl for family food production Bed and breakfast homestay Nursery and greenhouse; provided, that there is no retail sales Pigeons, subject to health department regulations Sportsman's kennel with a minimum lot area of one acre HISTORY Amended by Ord. 18-35 on 6/11/2018 Amended by Ord. 19-19 on 5/28/2019 Amended by Ord. 23-12 on 4/10/2023 19.14.040 Lot Areas And Widths The minimum lot area and width requirements are as follows: ZONE MINIMUM LOT AREA MINIMUM LOT WIDTH R-1-3 3,000 square feet 25 feet at a distance 20 feet from the front lot line R-1-4 4,000 square feet Same as above R-1-5 5,000 square feet Same as above R-1-6 6,000 square feet 60 feet at a distance 25 feet from the front lot line R-1-7 7,000 square feet 65 feet at a distance 25 feet from the front lot line R-1-8 8,000 square feet Same as above R-1-10 10,000 square feet 80 feet at a distance 30 feet from the front lot line R-1-15 15,000 square feet Same as above R-1-21 21,780 square feet (1/2 acre) 100 feet at a distance 30 feet from the front lot line R-1-43 43,560 square feet (1 acre) Same as above 19.14.050 Yards A. Dwellings: The minimum yard requirements for a private garage or dwelling are as follows: ZONE FRONT YARD SIDE YARD (Interior) SIDE YARD (Facing a public street) REAR YARD WITHOUT GARAGE REAR YARD WITH GARAGE R-1-3, R-1-4, R-1-5 20 feet 5 feet unless attached to a dwelling on an adjacent lot 20 feet 20 feet 15 feet R-1-6, R-1-7, R-1-8 25 feet 5 feet one side and 11 feet on the garage or driveway side or 8 feet on each side 20 feet 30 feet 15 feet R-1-10, R-1- 15, R-1-21 30 feet 10 feet on each side 20 feet Same as above Same as above R-1-43 30 feet 15 feet on each side 20 feet Same as above Same as above B. The minimum yard requirements for a main building other than residential are as follows: ZONE MINIMUM FRONT YARD MINIMUM SIDE YARDS MINIMUM REAR YARD R-1-3, R-1-4, R-1-5 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet R-1-6, R-1-7, R-1-8 25 feet 20 feet 30 feet R-1-10, R-1-15, R-1-21, R-1-43 30 feet 20 feet 30 feet HISTORY Amended by Ord. 18-35 on 6/11/2018 Page 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- 19.14.055 Density The allowable density for planned unit developments shall be determined by the planning commission on a case by case basis, taking into account the following factors: recommendations of non- City agencies; site constraints; compatibility with nearby land uses; and the provisions of the applicable general plan. Notwithstanding the above, the planning commission shall not approve a planned unit development with density higher than the following: R-1-3 11.0 units per acre R-1-4 9.0 units per acre R-1-5 7.0 units per acre R-1-6 6.0 units per acre R-1-7 5.0 units per acre R-1-8 4.5 units per acre R-1-10 4.0 units per acre R-1-15 2.5 units per acre R-1-21 2.0 units per acre R-1-43 1.0 units per acre 19.14.060 Building Height Except as otherwise specifically provided in this title no building or structure shall exceed the following height (see MKZ 19.04 for definition of "height"): A. Main Buildings. 1. Thirty feet on property where the slope of the original ground surface exceeds fifteen percent or the property is located in the hillside protection zone. The slope shall be determined using a line drawn from the highest point of elevation to the lowest point of elevation on the perimeter of a box which encircles the foundation line of the building or structure. Said box shall extend for a distance of fifteen feet or to the property line, whichever is less, around the foundation line of the building or structure. The elevation shall be determined using a certified topographic survey with a maximum contour interval of two feet. 2. Thirty-five feet on properties other than those listed in number one of this subsection. 3. No dwelling shall contain less than one story. HISTORY Amended by Ord. 18-35 on 6/11/2018 Amended by Ord. 23-12 on 4/10/2023 19.14.070 Accessory Buildings A. Location Requirements: 1. Accessory buildings shall only be allowed in a rear yard, or within the side or rear setbacks of the main building of the lot, provided the accessory building meets the separation requirement in section MKZ 19.14.070 2. Accessory buildings must be located at least six feet from the main building on the lot. B. Height: 1. For residential lots in a R-1 zone with rear yards that share a boundary with a commercial or multifamily zone or an institutional building or structure, accessory buildings may exceed the height of the main structure, up to a maximum height of 24 feet, provided it is in the rear yard. 2. Accessory buildings on all other residential lots shall not exceed 10 percent greater than the height of the main building, but are allowed to be at least 14 feet in height. 3. In no case shall an accessory building exceed 24 feet in height. 4. Accessory buildings in zones that are subject to the Residential Compatibility Overlay Zone standards must be constructed entirely within the building envelope described in MKZ 19.71.030 C. Setback Requirements. 1. Heights Up to Fourteen Feet: Accessory buildings must be located at least thirty inches from the side and rear property lines. 2. Heights Greater than Fourteen feet. For each inch in height over fourteen feet, accessory buildings shall be set back from the side and rear property lines an additional inch, up to twelve feet six inches from the side and rear property line. 3. On lots where the rear yard abuts a public right-of-way, the minimum setback requirement for an accessory building is 20 feet from the side and rear property lines, unless a noise barrier authorized and constructed by the Utah Department of Transportation or the City separates the right-of-way from the accessory building. 4. On lots where the rear yard abuts a side yard of another residential dwelling, the minimum setback for an accessory building is 10 feet from the abutting side yard. 5. Accessory buildings shall not encroach on any required easement. Page 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- D. Area Requirements. 1. For residential lots in a R-1 zone with rear yards that share a boundary with a commercial or multifamily zone, or an institutional building or structure, the total footprint of all accessory buildings on a lot shall not exceed the maximum coverage requirements established in Section E below, or 1,200 square feet. 2. The total footprint of all accessory buildings on lots except as described in section 1 above shall not exceed 60 percent of the footprint of the main building, or 600 square feet, whichever is greater. The total footprint of all accessory buildings shall not exceed the maximum coverage requirements. E. Coverage Requirements. Coverage Requirements. The maximum lot coverage for accessory buildings is described in Table 19.14-1 below. F. Design Standards. Accessory buildings shall incorporate at least one of exterior materials used in the main building for 20 percent of all facades of the structure, or shall be clad in wood, vinyl, or cementitious fiberboard siding. Accessory buildings must have a pitched roof unless the main building has a flat roof, in which case an accessory building may have a flat roof or a pitched roof. G. Drainage. Runoff drainage from accessory buildings and structures may not be directed onto adjacent property. H. Illumination. Illumination of accessory buildings and structures shall be directed down and away from adjoining residences. I. Accessory Buildings shall only be used for vehicles or non-commercial uses generated within the property, unless those items are used as part of a licensed home business, pursuant to the standards in MKZ 19.85. Accessory buildings shall not be used as a dwelling. J. Shipping containers, semi trailers, box cars, or relocatable storage containers, shall not be permanently installed or maintained on a residential lot, unless they are modified to meet all the design requirements in MKZ 19.14.070 K. Accessory buildings used for accessory dwelling units are subject to the standards of this chapter, and of the Accessory Dwelling Unit standards in MKZ 19.89. Table 19.14-1 Lot Size in Square Feet Maximum Accessory Building Coverage 6,000 or less 40 percent 6,000 to 6,999 35 percent 7,000 to 7,999 30 percent 8,000 or more 25 percent Accessory buildings in lots subject to the Residential Compatibility Overlay Zone shall not exceed the maximum coverage requirements established in MKZ 19.71.030 HISTORY Amended by Ord. 18-35 on 6/11/2018 Amended by Ord. 19-19 on 5/28/2019 Amended by Ord. 21-39 on 9/27/2021 19.14.080 Informational For additional information refer to the zoning ordinance and in particular the following sections: MKZ 19.76.020 Occupancy permit MKZ 19.04 Yard MKZ 19.76.080 Lots and buildings on private rights-of-ways MKZ 19.76.100 Sale of space needed to meet requirements MKZ 19.76.140 Private garage or carport—Reduced yards MKZ 19.76.190 Height limitations—Exceptions MKZ 19.76.200 Additional height allowed when MKZ 19.76.210 Off-site improvements MKZ 19.76.290 Single-family or two-family dwellings—Standards MKZ 19.80.030 Number of spaces required MKZ 19.89 Accessory Dwelling Units HISTORY Amended by Ord. 21-39 on 9/27/2021 Amended by Ord. 23-12 on 4/10/2023 Amended by Ord. 23-13 on 4/10/2023 Page 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter 19.71 RESIDENTIAL COMPATIBILITY OVERLAY ZONE 19.71.010 Purpose Of Provisions 19.71.020 Overlay Zone, Scope And Application 19.71.030 Option A General Standards; Planning And Development Services Review 19.71.040 Option B Deviations From General Standards Based On Neighborhood Compatibility 19.71.050 Option C Special Exception; Planning Commission Review 19.71.060 Definitions 19.71.010 Purpose Of Provisions A. The general purpose of the residential compatibility overlay zone ("RCOZ") is to promote public welfare and to balance neighborhood compatibility with the private property interests of those who wish to expand, develop, improve or otherwise make exterior modification to their residential property. B. Recognizing the wide variation of circumstances incident to a residential application and the need for architectural freedom, the City is adopting a three-tiered approach: 1. Option A provides for strict standards of height, area, and setback with permits issued by the City (the "division"). 2. Option B allows the City to consider deviations from one or more of the standards provided in Option A based upon the compatibility of the proposed residential application with other houses in the immediate neighborhood. 3. Option C allows a planning commission to consider at a public hearing a special exception for unusual or extraordinary circumstances that justify deviations from one or more of the limitations under Options A and B. HISTORY Amended by Ord. 19-19 on 5/28/2019 19.71.020 Overlay Zone, Scope And Application A. Geographic Area of Application. Maps delineating the boundaries of the RCOZ are attached to the ordinance from which this chapter derived as Appendix A and will remain on file with the division. Such maps, as amended, are a part of this title as if fully described and detailed herein. Additional areas may be approved by the council. B. Development Activities Covered. The standards and regulations contained in this chapter shall apply to all residential development, exterior remodeling and new construction projects commenced after the effective date of this chapter in the RCOZ, according to the zones listed in Table I below. C. Applicability to Lots of Record. The standards and regulations contained in this chapter shall apply to all legally subdivided lots, including those that were recorded prior to the enactment of this chapter. D. Exemption for Previous Residential Development. Noncomplying additions or expansions of buildings or structures commenced or completed prior to the enactment of this chapter are exempt from the requirements of this chapter. E. Inconsistent Provisions. When the provisions of this chapter are inconsistent with provisions found in any other chapters of City ordinances, the most restrictive provisions shall apply. 19.71.030 Option A General Standards; Planning And Development Services Review A. Application. Any person seeking to build a new residential structure or to significantly reconstruct, renovate or rebuild an existing structure in any zone listed in Table I shall obtain land-use approval from the division. An applicant may seek a determination of the applicable limits under Option A from the division prior to the submission of any building plans. B. Standards. Unless applying for approval under Option B or Option C, all applications shall comply with the following minimum standards: 1. Maximum Building Height. Each point on the highest ridge of the structure shall be no more than that specified in Table I, column for the zone in which the property is situated. Maximum building height shall be measured in feet from that point on the original grade vertically below the referenced ridge height (not including chimneys and vent stacks). 2. Maximum Lot Coverage. The lot coverage of all structures on the lot shall be not more than the percentages given in Table I, column 3. Front Yard. The minimum front yard setback shall be as specified in the applicable City code. 4. Side Yard. The combined side yard setbacks for any main structure shall be at least twenty-five percent of the lot width with no side setback less than eight feet. For purposes of this provision, "lot width" is the diameter of the largest circle that can be inscribed entirely within the lot, not including streams, fioodplains, wetlands, areas of thirty percent slope or greater or other natural hazard areas. No extensions, bay windows or similar building elements may encroach into the required setbacks under Option A, except for attached air conditioning units, electrical boxes, utility meters and the like and roof overhangs or eaves that extend no more than two feet into the area of the minimum side setback. 5. Rear Yard. The minimum rear setback of the primary residence and any accessory building shall be as specified in the applicable City code. 6. Building Envelope. The height of all structures is further limited by the building envelope created by starting at a point eight feet above ground at each point on the property line of the lot and extending on a line at a forty-five degree angle from the vertical toward the interior of the lot, the projection of such line on the horizontal plane of the lot to be perpendicular to the property line. The entire building must fit under this envelope except for dormers and gables that satisfy the following limitations: a. A dormer may exceed the graduated height envelope, provided: Page 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- The width of the dormer is no more than fourteen feet; With multiple dormers, the distance to the front, or side edges of the roof is at least one-half the distance between dormers; and The dormer is no higher than the ridge of the roof. b. A gable may exceed the graduated height envelope, provided: The height of the gable is no more than 1.75 times higher than the point where the graduated height envelope intersects the gable; and The height of the gable is less than the maximum building height. 7. Mass and Scale. To avoid a large, continuous building mass of uniform height; no portion of any building shall continue more than forty feet horizontally without a minimum of an eighteen-inch break in the roofline or an architectural element such as an overhang, projection, inset, material and textural change to create shadow patterns along the elevation of the building. The elements required by this section are in addition to all other requirements under this Part. 8. Accessory Building. Accessory buildings shall meet all of the requirements established in MKZ 19.14.070 and the building envelope and lot coverage requirements of this chapter. 9. The following figure depicts selected building limitations as described above and is for illustrative purposes only: HISTORY Amended by Ord. 18-35 on 6/11/2018 19.71.040 Option B Deviations From General Standards Based On Neighborhood Compatibility A. Application. To obtain division approval of deviations from one or more of the requirements of MKZ 19.71.030.B.1, B.2, B.3 or B.4, an applicant must file a separate application in compliance with the corresponding conditions of Subsections D.1, D.2, D.3 or D.4. An applicant may seek a pre- determination of the allowable deviations for proposed construction under Option B from the division prior to submitting building plans. B. Evidence. Compliance with the corresponding conditions of Option B must be established by reliable photographic, engineering, architectural or other evidence from the proximate neighborhood. C. Deviations from Other Option A Requirements. No deviations from the Option A requirements of MKZ 19.71.030.B.5 through B.8 may be approved by the division. D. Permissible deviations from maximum building height, maximum lot coverage and minimum front and side setbacks under Option B are: 1. Maximum Building Height. The maximum building height that may be approved by the division under Option B is the lesser of: a. Three feet plus the average maximum ridge height of residential structures that are on six lots of applicant's choice that: Are within the proximate neighborhood of the subject property, as defined in MKZ 19.71.060.B; and For which the applicant provides adequate evidence of the maximum building height, as defined in this chapter; or b. The heights specified in column of Table I for the applicable zone. 2. Maximum Lot Coverage. The maximum lot coverage is 1.15 times the average of the lot coverage percentages of residential structures that are on six lots of applicant's choice that are within the proximate neighborhood of the subject property, such coverage not to exceed the percentages specified in Table I, column for the applicable zone. 3. Minimum Front Setback. The minimum front setback is the average of the front setbacks of residential structures that are on six lots of applicant's choice that are within the proximate neighborhood of the subject property. 4. Minimum Side Setbacks. Subject to the twenty-five percent requirement of MKZ 19.71.030.B.4, the minimum side setback is the average of the shorter side setback of residential structures that are on six lots of applicant's choice that are within the proximate neighborhood of the subject property, but in no event may it be less than six feet. Page 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Approval of more than one deviation from subsections D.1 through .4 must use the same six lots from the proximate neighborhood to support the requested deviations, whether or not requests for multiple deviations are in one or separate applications. E. Table I below summarizes and further defines lot coverage and distance in the various zones under Options A and B: ZONE OPTION A MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT(1) OPTION B MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT(1) OPTION A MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE(2) OPTION B MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE(2) OPTION B PROXIMATE NEIGHBORHOOD(3) R-1-5 28 ft. 33 ft. 35% 40% 100 ft. R-1-6 28 ft. 33 ft. 35% 40% 100 ft. R-1-8 28 ft. 33 ft. 33% 38% 150 ft. R-1-10 30 ft. 35 ft. 31% 36% 175 ft. R-1-21 32 ft. 37 ft. 25% 30% 200 ft. R-1-43 35 ft. 40 ft. 23% 28% 300 ft. R-2-6.5 28 ft. 33 ft. 40% 45% 100 ft. R-2-8 28 ft. 33 ft. 38% 43% 150 ft. R-2-10 30 ft. 35 ft. 35% 40% 175 ft. A-1 30 ft. 35 ft. 31% 36% 175 ft. Main dwelling All structures Radial distance from property boundaries 19.71.050 Option C Special Exception; Planning Commission Review A. An applicant whose proposed residential structure meets neither the requirements of Option A nor of Option B may seek extraordinary relief and exceptions to the limitations of MKZ 19.71.030.B.5, B.6, or B.7 or MKZ 19.71.040.D.1, D,2, D.3 or D.4 by submitting an original and seven copies of an application to the applicable planning commission setting forth in detail: 1. The specific provisions from which the applicant seeks exceptions and the requested relief; 2. Detailed information and explanation establishing that: a. The proposed residence will be in harmony with the purpose of this chapter, the general plan and any other land use document applicable to the area. b. The proposed residence will be compatible with existing residential development within a reasonable distance in terms of height, mass and lot coverage, with particular focus on the proximate neighborhood. c. The proposed residence will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of persons residing within a reasonable distance, with particular focus on the proximate neighborhood. d. Each point on the highest ridge of the structure will be no more than forty feet above the point on the original grade vertically below it (with allowances for chimneys and vent stacks). e. The front yard setback will be at least eighteen feet. 3. Additional factors that the planning commission may consider in deciding whether to grant an exception under this Part include: a. Unusual lot shape; b. Unusual or difficult terrain; c. Drainage problems; d. Situations that appear not to be clearly addressed by the provisions of Options A or B. 4. An application for an exception under this Option C will be subject to a public evidentiary hearing before the planning commission, for which notice of no less than ten days prior to the hearing will be given to: a. All property owners appearing on the latest plat in the Salt Lake County recorder's office who own property within three hundred feet of the boundary of the subject lot; and b. The chair of the community council for the area in which the subject lot is located. B. A decision on the application shall be based on the evidence presented at the hearing. The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant. The planning commission may impose such conditions and limitations upon the approval of an exception to the requirements of this chapter necessary to prevent or mitigate adverse effects on other properties in the neighborhood of the subject properties, consistent with the standards of this chapter. Page 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- 19.71.060 Definitions For the purposes of this chapter, the following terms shall have the following meanings: A. "Residential lot" means a legal lot included in one of the zones listed in Table I, column B. "Proximate neighborhood" of a subject lot means every residential lot, excluding the subject lot, which is within the distance from the subject lot specified in Table I, column For the purpose of calculating maximum building height only, an immediately adjacent multi-resident structure such as an apartment or condominium building may be considered part of the proximate neighborhood. C. "Lot coverage" means the measurement of land use intensity that represents the portion of the site occupied by the principal building and all accessory buildings, but excluding all other impervious improvements such as sidewalks, driveways, patios, decks and open porches. Page 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- Residents Name Residents Address & Zone Concern or Question Planner Date Bob Lay Olympus Cove Wanted to know if it would affect zip codes or addresses. Francis 5/4/2023 Jay Bingham Somewhere in Millcreek. I don't want to tell you. Will it change my neighborhood? Will there be apartments? Francis 5/4/2023 Elaine ~3900 S & 2700 E Whats is this all about!? Sean 5/5/2023 Lady Canyon Rim No more tall apt buildings KD 5/5/2023 Tam ~900 E & 4500 S Whats is this all about!? Brad 5/5/2023 William 2077 E ATKIN AVE This isnt allowing ADUs is it? Told him they were already allowed. Complained about developers and said we should line them up against a wall and "do a ukraine on them" Sean 5/5/2023 Rodney 3456 S EL SERRITO DR Does this allow for duplexes now? Sean 5/8/2023 Pete Taylor Millbrook Dr Limitations to building envelope, new development on Millbrook KD 5/8/2023 R-1 & RCOZ Call Log ---PAGE BREAK--- ? 3959 E Viewcrest How does this change R-1-10 zones? Sean 5/8/2023 Hans Ahen Mt. Aire Acres Does not like RCOZ standards Robert 6/8/2023 ---PAGE BREAK--- RE: [Ext] R1/RCOZ changes Tom Stephens <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Tue 6/6/2023 9:42 AM To:[EMAIL REDACTED] <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc:Francis Lilly <[EMAIL REDACTED]>;Robert May <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Hi Richard, Your points are well taken. I suggest you send your email to Francis Lilly and Robert May, as I don’t see their email addresses on your email. [EMAIL REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED] Tom From: R Williamson <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Sent: Monday, June 5, 2023 11:48 PM To: david baird <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; John Knoblock Britt McPartland Kumar Shah <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; JOLENE CROASMUN <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Brian Jorgensen <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Kate Johnson <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Chuck Pruitt <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Heather May <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Kyle Taft <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Naziol Scott ; Cabot Jennings <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; tom stephens <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; R Williamson <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Jeff Silvestrini <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Bev Uipi <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: R1/RCOZ changes Hi David, My only concern about the R1/RCOZ changes is the increased building height moving from 28' to 30' in the R1-8 zone. With modernization and progressive development increasing the size and height of remodels and rebuilds in our neighborhoods, I would propose that Millcreek City Planners carefully consider the impact that increasing the building height for R1-8 from 28' to 30' would partially block the view of the existing neighbor who does not (or cannot) remodel or rebuild their home. The explanation that was given during our MOCC meeting this evening to increase the height maximum of R1-8 to have 30' was to allow for taller ceilings; however, I propose that builders who remodel or rebuild and who want taller ceilings should then dig the extra space into the basement level (below ground) and keep the height maximum at 28', which is the same height maximum for R1-8 in Salt Lake County (Title 19 Zoning, Chapter 19.71 RESIDENTIAL COMPATIBILITY OVERLAY ZONE, Table From a sketch perspective, the additional two feet (from 28' to 30') would minimize the lateral views of existing homeowners by approximately 6 degrees, and in my opinion, that would be unwelcoming to neighbors to block the beautiful scenery of Millcreek. When my R1-8 neighborhood was originally organized in 1959, the owners of Park Terrace No. 4 established Building Restrictions and covenants for the residential lots, to protect the subdivision and allow neighbors to freely enjoy the view within the set building restrictions (SLCo Record, April 1, 1959, M. Kenneth White et. al.). I would kindly ask that Millcreek City Planners and the Millcreek City Council keep the building height maximum for the R1-8 zone at 28'. Thank you for your consideration. Richard Williamson MT. Olympus Community Council 3549 E Warr Rd From: david baird <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Sent: Monday, June 5, 2023 12:13 PM To: John Knoblock Britt McPartland Kumar Shah <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; JOLENE CROASMUN <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Brian Jorgensen <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Kate Johnson <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Chuck Pruitt <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Heather May <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Kyle Taft <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Naziol Scott ; R. Williamson ---PAGE BREAK--- <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Cabot Jennings <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; tom stephens <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Francis Lilly <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Jeff Silvestrini <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Bev Uipi <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Rita Lund <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Doug Owens <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; [EMAIL REDACTED] <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: Tonight's MOCC agenda attached Good afternoon everyone, Tonight's MOCC agenda is attached for your review. We'll start at 6 pm. We'll be meeting outside near the main entrance doors on the north side since the school will be closed. Please bring a lawn chair. Thanks! ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- From: Canyon Rim Communications <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2023, 8:38 PM To: Francis Lilly <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: [Ext] Canyon Rim Citizens Association Recommendation Hi Francis, Please accept this email as CRCA's approval for the proposed R-1 zoning change. Matt Gardner moved to accept as presented Noel Koons seconded The proposal was accepted unanimously. Let me know if you have any questions, Matt Gardner Secretary, CRCA CRCA MEETING JUNE 7, 2023 8 MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE THREE RESIDENTS ATTENDED ---PAGE BREAK--- June 1, 2023 To: Millcreek Planning and Zoning Millcreek Planning Commission Subject Application: Ordinance Recommendations: ZT-23-008 R-1/RCOZ Code Update Applicant: Millcreek City Robert May, Long Range Planning Manager At the June 1st meeting of the East Mill Creek Community Council (EMCCC), the subject application was presented by Robert May, Long Range Planning Manager. The application makes changes to Options A and B of RCOZ and possible changes to Option C. The proposed change to Option C would allow for a variance process. The council had a discussion which included public feedback from residents attending the meeting. 1. The council recommends a review of current standards related to cantilevers and pop outs such as fireplaces and bay windows that may encroach into side yard setbacks. The current standards allow for 3’ encroachment. A recommendation of keeping these items within the footprint is more desirable. Newer homes being built near existing homes with older standards may not always be compatible. The application was open for discussion prior to a motion. Including the noted recommendation, the Council forwards a positive recommendation for proposed changes. Lee Ann Hansen Vice Chair Land Use Cc: Francis Lilly ---PAGE BREAK--- June 13, 2023 Millcreek City Planning Commission Members Robert May, Long Range Planner, Millcreek City Francis Lilly, Assistant City Manager, Millcreek City RE: consideration of ZT-23-008, proposed Millcreek code text amendments altering the R-1 zones and Residential Compatibility Overlay Zone (RCOZ) Dear Millcreek Planning Commission Members, Mr. May and Mr. Lilly, As part of its June 5, 2023 agenda, the Mt. Olympus Community Council (MOCC) discussed the draft amendments to the R-1 and RCOZ city codes. We support staff’s suggested amendments as we believe the modifications successfully consolidate all development and design elements into one location within the code. This streamlining of the ordinances will hopefully ensure property owners, architects and contractors will efficiently anticipate all requirements for the residential zones in this great city. We hope we would all like to avoid unexpected surprises, and we believe this consolidation helps everyone avoid this horrible outcome. Parallel to the MOCC’s support of the draft amendments, we also want to convey some concerns from a MOCC council member living in a R-1-8 zone that does not support raising the allowable building height from 28 to 30 feet. This council member believes this modification creates a negative impact on views from surrounding properties as a result of this increased 2 feet in height. Instead, new development should focus on ways to achieve desired heights by creating an offsetting lowering of the entry level of the home. We endorse the draft Millcreek code text amendments and support each critical tenet of the previous RCOZ now being reflected in the updated R-1 zones as drafted. We would also like to thank staff for undertaking this effort of modifying one of the most complicated parts of the zoning code while still maintaining the character of our wonderful community. Sincerely, David Baird Chair, Mt. Olympus Community Council ---PAGE BREAK--- Millcreek City Hall 3330 South 1300 East Millcreek, Utah 84106 millcreek.us Planning & Zoning (801) 214-2700 [EMAIL REDACTED] ZT-23-009 Planning Commission Staff Report Meeting Date: 6/21/2023 Applicant: Millcreek Re: Adoption of the Medium-Density Zone Zone: Medium Density Zone Prepared By: Carlos Estudillo, Brad Sanderson, Planners Scope of Decision: Discretionary. This is a legislative matter, to be decided by the Millcreek City Council upon receiving a recommendation from the Community Council(s) and the Millcreek Planning Commission. Your recommendation can be broad in scope, but should consider prior adopted policies, especially the Millcreek General Plan. REQUEST AND SYNOPSIS The Planning and Zoning team is proud to present to the Millcreek Planning Commission the proposed draft of the updated Medium Density Zone Ordinance (R-2/R-4). In accordance with the provisions of Utah Code, before the City Council may adopt amendments to the zoning ordinance, any such amendment shall not be made or become effective unless the same shall have been proposed by or be first submitted for the recommendation of the Millcreek Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall review the zoning text amendment request and a recommendation shall be made to the City Council to approve, disapprove or continue the application. o Consolidate the contents of MKZ 19.32 (R-2) and MKZ 19.40 (R-4) into one ordinance named “Medium-Density zone.” o Clear up resident confusion and eliminate application conflicts. o Simplify and speed up building permit review times. o Enhance clarity with better definitions and images. o Incentivize development on smaller lots. o Continue to preserve the character of our single-family neighborhoods. o Encourage a variety of affordable medium-density housing options (duplex, triplex, fourplex.) What we are trying to achieve with the new Medium-Density Code ---PAGE BREAK--- Request: Adoption of the new “Medium-Density Zone” ZT-23-009 Page 2 of 5 GENERAL PLAN CONSIDERATIONS The Millcreek General Plan lays out goals and strategies that pertain to the proposed ordinance. These goals and strategies are listed below, each with a summary describing how it achieves the goals set out in the General Plan for this area. Strategy 1.5: Ensure that new infill development is compatible with existing neighborhoods by regulating structure sizes and heights; building forms and materials; yard setbacks; streetscape character; height and bulk transitions; buffering; and other factors. o Height is regulated by zone – zones with bigger minimum lot sizes allow taller heights. o Bulk and height transitions regulated by envelope. The new code proposes a new 90- degree building envelope in the entire of the R-2 and R-4 zones. Strategy 1.5: Promote the maintenance and improvement of the existing housing stock and allow for remodeling, expansion, and additions as appropriate in the area to accommodate the changing sizes and varieties of household types. o A 90-degree (box) building envelope for R-2 lots and R-4 lots recognizes that narrow lots have additional constraints. Some of these neighborhoods could benefit from additional homeowner investment in the form of 2nd floor additions. PROPOSED MEDIUM-DENSITY ZONE CODE AMENDMENTS Staff’ views the proposed code update as “adapting” rather than “changing”. The proposed code is a reflection based on what we are hearing from residents and observing development trends over the years. Understanding that there is not a “one size fits all” set of standards, we are proposing some alternative development standards for the small irregular shaped lots that have struggled to develop under the old code. We are trying to add flexibility where it counts, while embracing and preserving the design characteristics that make Millcreek’s neighborhoods some of the most desirable neighborhoods in the valley. o Minimum lot areas will remain the same. o Minimum lot width will remain the same. o Front and side yard setbacks will remain the same. o Underlying zones will not change, only the ordinance name and content will change as staff is proposing a consolidation of ordinances 19.32 (R-2) and 19.40 Goal N-1: Preserve and enhance the physical elements of each neighborhood’s character. Goal N-2: Strive for a variety of housing choices in types, styles, and costs of housing throughout Millcreek. What will stay the same ---PAGE BREAK--- Request: Adoption of the new “Medium-Density Zone” ZT-23-009 Page 3 of 5 o Items highlighted in yellow are proposed to change from the old ordinances. (See summary below) o There no longer be any design standards, except standards that impact site design (spatial requirements). State Legislature has prohibited communities from establishing building design standards for two-unit and four-unit dwellings. o Staff recommends increasing the rear yard setback from 15 feet to 20 feet. o A box envelope at the building setback line for the medium-density zone. These changes are intended to allow existing homes on these smaller lots the option to add a second story. o Building height is proposed to increase from 28 feet to 30 feet in the medium-density zone. o A few uses were eliminated such as airports, golf courses, commercial daycares, pigeons, and sportsmen kennels. o New graphics have been provided to show the building envelope options and allowances. o All the spatial requirements are in tables and diagrams. o Creation of the R-4 legacy zone. While it will continue to exist, staff will stop taking in applications to rezone any properties into the R-4 zone. o Most uses were amended from conditional uses to permitted uses. Some uses, such as public vs quasi-public were clarified. Some other uses were eliminated (see uses table) What will change ---PAGE BREAK--- Request: Adoption of the new “Medium-Density Zone” ZT-23-009 Page 4 of 5 o COMMUNITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Millcreek Community Council. The Millcreek Community Council met on 06/06/2023. They voted 3 in favor to 6 opposed for the adoption of Title 19 updates to the Medium-Density zones. The Millcreek Community Council did not recommend anything specific to the Medium-Density zone in their motion; Although, many comments against the proposed allowing a box building envelope were part of the discussion during community council meeting. 2. Canyon Rim Citizens Association. The Canyon Rim Citizens Association met on 06/07/2023. They voted unanimously in favor of the adoption of the Medium Density Zone. 3. East Mill Creek Community Council. The East Mill Creek Community Council met on 06/01/2023. They voted unanimously in favor of the adoption of the Medium Density Zone with a condition to evaluate the possibility of adopting a 60-degree building envelope, rather than the proposed Box building envelope. ---PAGE BREAK--- Request: Adoption of the new “Medium-Density Zone” ZT-23-009 Page 5 of 5 4. Mount Olympus Community Council. The Mount Olympus Community Council met on 06/05/2023. They unanimously voted in favor of the adoption of the Medium Density Zone with a condition to research the potential effects of making Commercial Daycare/Preschool a prohibited use in the Medium Density Zone. PLANNING STAFF FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS 1. The new “Medium-Density Zone” will consolidate the contents of MKZ 19.32 (R-2) and MKZ 19.40 containing the requirements of the R-2-6.5, R-2-8. R-2-10 and R-4-8.5 zones, into a single ordinance. 2. Minimum lot areas will remain the same. 3. Minimum lot width will remain the same. 4. Front and side yard setbacks will remain the same. 5. There no longer be any design standards, except standards that impact site design (spatial requirements). State Legislature has prohibited communities from establishing building design standards for two-unit and four-unit dwellings. 6. Most uses were amended from conditional uses to permitted uses. Some uses, such as public vs quasi-public were clarified. Some other uses were eliminated (see uses table) 7. Staff recommends increasing the rear yard setback from 15 feet to 20 feet. 8. A box envelope at the building setback line for the medium-density zone. These changes are intended to allow existing homes on these smaller lots the option to add a second story. 9. Building height is proposed to increase from 28 feet to 30 feet in the medium-density zone. 10. A few uses were eliminated such as airports, golf courses, commercial daycares, pigeons, and sportsmen kennels. 11. New graphics have been provided to show the building envelope options and allowances. 12. All the spatial requirements are in tables and diagrams. 13. Creation of the R-4 legacy zone. While it will continue to exist, staff will stop taking in applications to rezone any properties into the R-4 zone. 14. Text Amendments and Ordinance approvals are legislative items, to be decided by the Millcreek City Council upon receiving a recommendation from the Community Council(s) and the Millcreek Planning Commission. MODEL MOTION I move to recommend the adoption of an ordinance amending Title 19 updating definitions, amending, and consolidating the R-2-6.5, R-2-8, R-2-10, R-4-8.5 into a new Medium-Density Residential 2/4) Zone, based on the finding and conclusions as presented by staff. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS 1. URL: Medium-Density Zone Draft Proposal 2. URL: General Plan 3. Proposed Ordinance Amendments ---PAGE BREAK--- Minutes of the Millcreek Planning Commission July 19, 2023 5:00 p.m. Regular Meeting The Planning Coininission of Millcreek, Utah, met in a regular public meeting on Wednesday, July 19, 2023, at City Hall, located at 3330 S. 1300 Millcreek, UT 84106. The meeting was conducted electronically and live streamed via the City's website with an option for online public comment. PRESENT: Commissioners Shawn LaMar, Chair Victoria Reid, Vice Chair Steven Anderson David Hulsberg (absent) Christian Larsen Nils Per Lofgren Diane Soule Dwayne Vance Ian Wright City Staff Elyse Sullivan, City Recorder John Brems, City Attorney Francis Lilly, Planning & Zoning Director Robert May, Long Range Planning Manager Brad Sanderson, Current Planning Manager Carlos Estudillo, Planner Sean Murray, Planner Jake Green, Planning Engineer Attendees: Matt Strong, Jamie Walker, Steve Moore REGULAR MEETING - 5:00 p.m. TIME COMMENCED - 5:02 p.m. Chair LaMar called the meeting to order and read a statement describing the duties of the Planning Commission. 1. Commission Business 1.1 0aths of Office - Victoria Reid, Dwayne Vance, Steve Anderson, & Diane Soule Elyse Sullivan administered the oath of office to the new commissioners. 2. Public Hearings 2.1 Consideration of CU-22-013, Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Mixed-Use Development Including 20 Townhomes and Live/Work Units in the C-2 Zone Location: 4372 S. 900 E. Applicant: Jarod Han Planner: Carlos Estudillo Carlos Estudillo said the proposed 20-unit mixed-use complex would be composed of townhomes with two different models (units) differing in rooms and overall space, as well as 1,500 square feet of commercial frontage adjacent to 900 East. The vicinity is composed primarily of commercial properties to the north and south of the property, as well as residential multi-family and medium-density residential across the street. In December 2022, the Planning Coinmission granted a preliminary approval for a 31-unit mixed-use ---PAGE BREAK--- Millcreek Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 19 July 2023 Page 2 of 10 development on 4346-4350 S 900 E. The property on 4356-4358 S 900 E is working on a development of similar nature. The future project would consist of 16 townhome units that would measure to be approximately 32 feet in height, below the maximum required height in the C-2 zone (35 feet). The project would include four live/work units, composing 1,500 square feet of office space. The proposed project's building footprint would be approximately 32% of the lot, below the maximum required lot coverage of 70% of total lot size. The proposed open space area would be approximately 22% of the lot, above the maximum required open space area of 20% of the total lot size. A 26-foot private lane would be used for resident access, with a firetruck turnaround located at the north end of the property. Seven guest parking stalls would be provided, meeting the required 6.6 stalls, which would be located near the south property line, as well as in between buildings 2 and 4. Four stalls would be provided to serve the 1,500 square foot office space, included in the live/work units, meeting the required 1 stall per 400 square feet of office space. All architectural requirements have been met, including frontage requirements. Estudillo presented tables of site coverages, parking, property size, and zoning analysis. He presented the proposed site plan, building renderings, elevations, floor plans, and landscaping plan. There would be two types of units with the same bedroom count, but size would differ to accornrnodate the work units. He summarized his findings and conclusions for the proposal, which included the following: * The Developer is proposing a mixed-use residential development, including sixteen (16) standalone units located in the interior of the lot. Additionally, the complex will include four live/work units that will be facing 900 E. * The development will include 1,500 square feet of cornrnercial space, dedicated to Iive/work units with a ten (10) footstep back. * The developer is proposing to subdivide and record each unit for future owner occupancy. * The proposed Quincy Townhomes development is expected to generate 224 vehicle trips per day with 33 trips during the AM peak hour and 33 trips during the PM peak hour. The proposed development is anticipated to have little to no impact on the traffic conditions in the area and no mitigation improvements are recommended. * The site circulation was reviewed, and the site plan design includes an egress throat length of 50 feet, which is anticipated to provide sufficient storage for the proposed development. The anticipated parking demand is 33 parking stalls, and the current plan includes an excess of parking stalls (55) to provide sufficient parking for the site. * As the four parallel parking stalls on 900 East fall within the clear sight triangle for the egress of the development, we recommend removing these parallel parking stalls, installing no parking signs, and painting red curb along the frontage of this development on 900 East to keep this area clear for drivers to be able to safely exit from this property. * and the property directly north, located at 4356-4358 S 900 E, to provide access for future development in the latter-mentioned lot. * Staff has found that the proposed conditional use can meet the requirements of Title 19 Regulations, such as 19.60 (Cornrnercial Zones), 19.77 (Landscape Standards), and 19.84 (Conditional Uses). ---PAGE BREAK--- Millcreek Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 19 July 2023 Page 3 of 10 Estudillo said tlie Millcreek Community Council did not meet in July, so they provided an approval recorni'nendation letter. He noted that there was also a neighborhood meeting held. He recoinrnended the commission grant preliminary conditional use approval of the application as presented. Coxui'nissioner Vance asked about the front yard setback being 15 feet when the code dictated 20 feet. Estudillo said the developer was allowed a reduced setback per code due to enhanced features, like a stepback and landscaping. Commissioner Vance asked about 55 parking stalls including the 4 stalls on 900 E. Estudillo said the street parking was not included in the total. Commissioner Vance asked about the easement agreement for the hami'nerhead turnaround. Estudillo requested the applicant answer that question. Coinmissioner Soule pointed out that there was off street parking currently on 900 E. and asked why this section would be painted red. Estudillo said it was based on the traffic engineer's recorni'nendation. Commissioner Larsen said the R-1-5 neighborhood to the west of the property was identified as sensitive land. Francis Lilly said it was due to liquefaction. Commissioner Larsen asked what barrier would be on the west property line. Estudillo said code required certain fencing, he thought the neighboring property at 4356 S. was doing a concrete wall on the western side, so he would request something consistent with that. Lilly said the new landscaping code (2023) required a buffer type A with trees, ornamental shnibs, and a combination of shrubs and fencing. Estudillo noted the application was filed under the old landscaping code (2022). Chair LaMar said the site plan presented 51 parking stalls, not 54. He asked about shared parking since the development was 3 stalls short. Estudillo would work with the applicant on that. Jarod Hall, architect and applicant, said 900 E. was a UDOT road that was being redesigned and rebuilt and there would be no parking on 900 E. when it was completed. Lilly pointed out 900 E. was a city road. Jake Green, Planning Engineer, said the ASHTO sight triangles were determined by the speeds of the road, the width of the road, the type of road, and the height of obstacles cars could not see over. He said the recommendation was made that cars could not park in the sight triangle because of the traffic study. He noted cars could park on the public road except in the red painted curb but counting the stalls as part of the project was not recommended. Hall said the cross property access was only at the entry, not the hammerhead turnaround, which was for emergency response. Chair LaMar asked about the irrigation schedule. Hall did not know the details of the landscaping plan. Estudillo said the new landscape ordinance had hydrozones which dictated species and watering, but the old code did not, and that requirement may not be enforceable. He asked the commission to consider a condition of approval on waterwise landscaping. Jamie Walker, Millcreek Community Council, said the letter reflected the council's opinion. Chair LaMar opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Chair LaMar closed the public hearing. ---PAGE BREAK--- Millcreek Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 19 July 2023 Page 4 of 10 Chair LaMar asked about the parking ratios. Estudillo said it was O.25 per unit for guest parking and 400 square feet for commercial space. Chair LaMar said 13 parking stalls were needed and there were 10 on the proposed site plan. Lilly said required guest parking could not be in a garage and it was not appropriately accounted for in this analysis. Chair LaMar expressed opposition to a sod park strip. Commissioner Reid wondered about the commission suggesting conditions that did not mitigate detrimental effects. Brems said only mitigating detrimental effects could be conditioned. Commissioner Reid felt enhancirig the western barrier could be a detrimental effect to mitigate. She would like the fence to be compatible with the neighboring developing lot. Brad Sanderson recommended the applicant reapply under the new code since the parking did not meet the old code or that staff work with them on the site plan before bringing it back to the cornrnission for approval. Lilly said parking may be reduced through shared parking or through the developments' proximity to transit. Commissioner Reid reiterated the need for discussion on landscaping be included when revisiting the site plan. Hall said the developers would review the parking and felt a continuance was the best course of action. Commissioner Larsen, regarding CU-22-013, moved to continue to the next Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Lofgren seconded. Chair LaMar called for the vote. Chair LaMar voted yes, Commissioner Reid voted yes, Commissioner Anderson voted yes, Commissioner Larsen voted yes, Commissioner Lofgren voted yes, Commissioner Soule voted yes, Commissioner Vance voted yes, and Commissioner Wright voted yes. The motion passed unanimously 2.2 Consideration of ZT-23-008, Proposed Code Text Amendments Altering the R-1 Zones and Residential Compatibility Overlay Zone (RCOZ) Planning Staff Brad Sanderson said there were two applications and file numbers, but he would make one presentation for items 2.2 and 2.3. He said the primary focus with R-1 and RCOZ was to integrate R-1 and RCOZ zoning standards into a single user-friendly code and make smaller lots more attractive to homeowners by adding development alternatives while preserving the character of single-family neighborhoods. The primary focus for the R-2 and R-4 zones was to make the R-4 Zone a "Legacy Zone" and consolidate and create better standards and opportunities for medium density ("missing middle") housing in Millcreek. He explained that the R-1 zones were based on lot square footage. RCOZ was adopted in 2009 as an overlay zone covering the majority of residential zones in Millcreek. It was meant to balance neighborhood compatibility for those who wished to expand, develop, improve, or otherwise make exterior modifications to single family dwellings. The zone further restricted residential development in terms of height, setbacks, lot coverage, and massing. He showed a map to the commission highlighting the locations of the R-1-8, R-I-10, R-1-15, and R-1-21 zones. Sanderson said the code currently required a 45 degree building envelope 8 feet above the original ground surface as measured at the property line, and it would remain in the R-1-8, R- 1-10, R-1-15, and R-1-21 zones. The proposed code would allow for a 60 degree building envelope 12 feet above the original ground surface as measured at the property line in the R- 1-6 zone, R-2 zones, and R-4 zones. Existing exceptions for gables and dormers would remain with added definitions for these terms. The proposed code would allow for a box envelope 30 feet above the original ground surface at a 90 degree angle at the building setback line for the R-1-3, R-1-4, and R-1-5 zones. ---PAGE BREAK--- Millcreek Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 19 July 2023 Page 5 of 10 Sanderson reviewed the commission's discussion from the June 21, 2023 commission meeting when these applications were discussed. The discussion was to integrate the RCOZ standards with R-1 Zones as presented with the following additions/changes: 1) allow covered porches to encroach into the front yard setback - up to 10 feet; 2) increase the maximum building height from 28 feet to 32 feet; and 3) have staff propose additional criteria for the proposed 20 foot rear yard setback based on slope. The discussion to harmonize the medium density (R-2 and R-4) standards with low density single family l's) standards, where applicable, had the same three recoini'nendations as the R-1 zones with the addition to incorporate the 60 degree building height envelope, with a 12-foot beginning height off the original ground surface, as measured at property lines. Staff additionally recommended to the commission for all zones to: * change "Civic and Institutionar' uses back from a "Conditional Use" to a "Permitted Use" (applies to both R-1 and R-2/R-4 Zones) * that "Commercial Agricultural" uses be prohibited (applies to both R-I & R-2/R-4 Zones) * add a twenty-foot side and rear yard setback for civic and institutional uses when abutting residential uses (applies to both R-1 and R-2/R-4 Zones) * add a zero setback between attached units (applies to medium density zone only) * add additional "Setback Projections" into yard areas (applies to both R-1 and R-2/R-4 Zones) * and integrate R-4 Zone with the RM Zone (still as a legacy zone) He asked the commission to consider the following: * The RM already allows for three- and four-unit dwellings @ Three- and four-unit dwellings/buildings can often look and operate differently than a typical duplex or twin home. * The current proposal is to incorporate design criteria from the RM Zone into the medium density zones, however, many of these design standards cannot be applied to one- and two-unit dwellings, which presents a challenge. * A recommendation to implement 60-degree building envelope vs. standard "box" type envelope. Sanderson showed the commission and reviewed the proposed revised code changes. Robert May said there had been a lot of discussion about the heights in the R-1-8 zone. Staff recommended that dwellings on lots located in the R-1-8 zone that have been determined by staff to be a legal lot of record and are nonconforming due to minimum lot width and minimum lot area could qualify to use the 60 degree building envelope angle and 12 foot building envelope wall height. Chair LaMar asked for definitions of a nonconforming lot. May said any lot or parcel that does not meet the current zoning requirements and standards. The difference is a nonconforining due to lot width or area, which would need the relief. Commissioner Reid asked if the building itself could be nonconforming. May said that would be a noncompliant structure. Commissioner Reid wondered how many lots in the city met that definition. May said it was hard to measure all the properties in the city, he anticipated not many. Commissioner Larsen recorni'nended the height limit be a 32 foot maximum for all the proposed zones and not 30 feet in the R-1-3, R-1-4, R-1-5, and R-1-6 zones. ---PAGE BREAK--- Millcreek Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 19 July 2023 Page 6 of 10 Sanderson showed the coininission the proposed language for porches and other features encroaching in the front yard setback. Chair LaMar asked about porches being less than 2 feet in height above grade. Sanderson said that would be considered a patio, not a porch, and it could be allowed to the property line. Coinmissioner Soule noted the language between 2. Setback Projections and were inconsistent. Lilly recoinmended "uncovered" be used for decks, patios, etc. under sub Coinmissioner Reid asked about the term "handrail" meaning a railing around the porch. Sanderson confirmed, he said there was a minimum height required by the building code. Chair LaMar asked about sloping lots' rear yard setbacks and building envelopes. Sanderson said the building envelope would follow tlie topography. May said the neighborhood compatibility component would provide relief for sloping lots. Comi'nissioner Reid noted the commission had previously recoini'nended a 15 foot rear yard setback in all zones and a 20 foot setback on sloping properties. The cornrnission discussed rear yard setbacks. The proposed code said, "If the average slope of the original ground surface, as measured from the rear property line to the front property line, is more than 20 percent, then the rear setback shall be increased one additional foot for every one percent of slope in excess of 20 percent." Coi'nrnissioner Reid did not feel a rear yard setback needed to be greater than 20 feet based on the slope degree. Lilly said the intent was to have a maximum setback of 20-25 feet. If there was a building envelope relief of a 60 degree envelope from a 45 degree envelope, then it might be appropriate to make a wider rear yard setback for steep lots. It is, from his experience, the rear yard setbacks on hills that cause neighborhood frustration. Commissioner Soule asked if the roof had to be within the building envelope. Sanderson said the code allowed for projections from the envelope, but there was a formula to help calculate it. Chair LaMar wondered if there was a maximum projection limit. Sanderson said yes and highlighted that section of the code. He proceeded to review the proposed code found in the staff report. He showed the corninission pictures of types of front porches or projections that would be allowed to encroach on the front yard setback. Jamie Walker, Millcreek Community Council, said the council recommended approval and made recommendations on the applications in a letter, which included a 32 foot height increase across all zones and having a 60 degree slope in the R-1 zones west of I-215. ChairLaMar opened the public hearing for items 2.1 and 2.2. Jamie Walker, resident at 4620 said most cities around the state had easy plan revievvs, quicker build/remodel times, and had homeowner/buyer interest in staying or moving to those cities because of it. He said in Millcreek, Salt Lake County, Summit County, and Holladay, there were difficult plan reviews with slower build/remodel times that caused frustration with homeowners and staff. Homeowners are required to measure and average neighbor setbacks and roof heights, calculate lot coverage ofneighbors and then compare to their own, and staff has to verify that information. He pointed out that all properties were not equal, particularly with sloped lots, corner lots, narrow lots, and large lots. He showed pictures of properties to illustrate his points. He proposed the following solutions: * Allow max height to be 30'-32' in all R- zones (review the percentage of these lots in Millcreek and see how it helps in more areas) ---PAGE BREAK--- Millcreek Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 19 July 2023 Page 7 of 10 * Only count max height from front yards and eliminate envelopes and rear yard envelopes (helps especially on sloped lots or eliminate on lots witli 5% slope or more) * Standardize side yard setbacks: 10', 12' depending on zone * Standardize front yard setbacks: 20', 25', 30' depending on zone * Standardize rear yard setbacks: 15', 20', 25', 30' depending on zone * Eliminate lot coverage requirements in R zones where homeowners ask for less than...square footage additions. Walker felt the city was making progress in the right direction with the proposed code. He said 30 inches was the patio height in wich a railing was required per building code. He pointed out roof overhangs should be considered. He said a lot of people liked the prairie style on homes that have 3-4 foot overhangs. He offered to take the commission on a tour of the city to illustrate these points. Steve Moore, Jepson Avenue, was in the process of applying for demolition and complete rebuild on an R-1-6 zoned lot. He said the front porch encroachment could increase the property value. He said the space under the porch would have to be cold storage. He appreciated the greater height recornrnendation. Chair LaMar closed the public hearing. Commissioner Vance appreciated the harmonization between the R-1 and R-2 zones. He would like the 32 foot maximum height in all zones. He liked the R-1-8 proposal of a 60 degree building envelope for the nonconforming lots. He liked the front porch encroachi'nent and 2 foot height. If the covered unenclosed front porch balcony fit within the envelope, he was okay with it. He asked about restrictions for having cold storage underneath the front porch. Sanderson said the setback only applied to above ground structures. Cornrnissioner Vance would like a maximum lot coverage. Commissioner Larsen agreed with Corni'nissioner Vance's coininents. He said the 60 degree envelope in the R-1-8 zones was to encourage greater compatibility when next to lower neighboring zones. He wanted to increase the maximum height to 32 feet in all R-1 zones. Lilly asked about the box envelope in the R-1-3, 4, and 5 zones with encroaching porches. He said zones with envelopes starting at the building line, not the property line, for the encroaching front porches would need to be revisited. Commissioner Vance suggested a limit on one covered balcony. Lilly wanted consistency across the zones. Commissioner Lofgren wanted to encourage covered porches and cap the sloped rear yard setback. Cominissioner Soule asked about the future buildability of covered front porches turning into balconies. Lilly said that was a building code problem, not a zoning problem. Sanderson recommended limiting encroaching covered front porches to two stories. Commissioner Anderson asked about the garage setback with the encroached front yard setback. Sanderson said there was a requirement regardless of an encroachment. Commissioner Reid did not like the 60 degree envelope for the R-1-8 zone but the alternative for nonconforming lots was okay. She wondered about a simpler solution for rear yard setbacks for sloping lots. She asked if there should be overhang exceptions for house styles. Sanderson reiterated the proposed code on eaves. Lilly said the term "overhang" could also ---PAGE BREAK--- Millcreek Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 19 July 2023 Page 8 of 10 be used. Corni'nissioner Wright agreed with the maximum lot coverage limit. Chair LaMar felt the rear yard setback with slopes having a cap of 25 feet was appropriate. He appreciated Jamie Walker's coi'i'u'nents. He reviewed the coini'nission's discussion of the box envelope for zones R-1-3 through R-1-5, the R-1-6 with a 60 degree slope, and tlie R-1-8 with a 45 degree slope except for nonconforming lots due to lot area and width. Chair LaMar, considering ZT-23-008, Proposed Millcreek Code Text Amendments Altering the R-1 Zones and Residential Compatibility Overlay Zone, moved to recommend to the city council to approve the draft as presented by staff with clarification on allowing a 32 foot height in all R-1 zones, with the presented building envelopes R-1-3 through R-1-5 as a box from the setback line, R-1-6 from the property line with a 12 foot height and 60 degree slope, R-1-8 with an 8 foot height and 45 degree slope with the exception of nonconforming due to lot area and width would change from a 45 degree to 60 degree pitch; on balconies, decks, porches, etc. in the front yard, rely on staff to craft language for second floors for clarification; a 15 foot rear year setback with the addition to allow for additional setback of 1 foot per 1 percent slope over 20 percent slopes up to a certain cap of 25 feet. Commissioner Larsen seconded. Chair LaMar called for the vote. Chair LaMar voted yes, Commissioner Reid voted yes, Commissioner Anderson voted yes, Commissioner Larsen voted yes, Commissioner Lofgren voted yes, Commiqqirincr Soule voted yes, Commissioner Vance voted yes, and Commissioner Wright voted yes. The motion passed unanimously. 2.3 Consideration of ZT-23-009, Proposed Millcreek Code Text Amendment Altering the R-2 and R-4 Zones Planning Staff Commissioner Soule moved that all of the things discussed in ZT-23-008 be applied to ZT- 23-009 and move the R-4 into the RM zone, as a recommendation to the city council. Commissioner Wright seconded. Chair LaMar called for the vote. Chair LaMar voted yes, Commissioner Reid voted yes, Commissioner Anderson voted yes, Commissioner Larsen voted yes, Commissioner Lofgren voted yes, Commissioner Soule voted yes, Commissioner Vance voted yes, and Commissioner Wright voted yes. The motion passed unanimously. Lilly thanked the planning staff, particularly Robert May and Brad Sanderson, for their work on the code amendments. The commission took a break from 7:34-7:47pm. 1. Commission Business Continued 1.2 Approval of June 21, 2023 Regular Meeting Minutes Commissioner Reid moved to approve the June 21s' planning commission meeting minutes. Commissioner Larsen seconded. Chair LaMar called for the vote. Chair LaMar voted yes, Commissioner Reid voted yes, Commissioner Anderson abstained, Commissioner Larsen voted yes, Commissioner Lofgren abstained, ('nmmissioncr Soule abstained, Commissioner Vance voted yes, and Commissioner Wright abstained. The motion passed. 1.3 Updates from the Planning and Zoning Director R-1 MOTION R-2 MOTION ---PAGE BREAK--- Millcreek Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 19 July 2023 Page 9 of 10 Lilly said there would be joint meetings with the city council on July 25f'l and August 16I]1. He reported the city would soon be selecting a consultant to help work on the trail masterplan. The Historic Preservation Commission commissioned a recoru'iaissance survey for the Mountair Acres neighborhood, and it was presented during their last meeting. Corni'nissioners Soule and Anderson introduced themselves to the commission. 1.4 Discussion on Village Center Districts Lilly asked the commission how to approach unique development proposals. He said exceptions to standards should be treated as rezones and not through a conditional use or administrative process. There was an idea to create an incentive based plaru'ied district zone, or village center district zone. There was previously a concern about guardrails around that type of proposal. A special district zone with appropriate limits might give the city the ability to review that through a public process. The process would be a neighborhood meeting, joint planning commission/city council meeting, development review meeting, comi'nunity council meeting, planning commission meeting, and city council meeting. There would be an advantage in five opportunities for public comment. If the city limits the special district zoning to village centers, the city might miss out on creative opportunities for infill development. Chair LaMar asked about the size of the village district center zone. Lilly said a district could be large or done in phases and did not have to be limited to village centers. He relayed a zone example that was used in Draper. He said this would not be an overlay zone, but its own zone. Chair LaMar asked what the advantage would be. Lilly said there was guidance in the General Plan about what each village center should be and include. There were also issues with state billboard rights where a blanket commercial zone along arterials would not be a good idea. Under state law, a nonconfonning billboard can be relocated into any commercial/manufacturing zone within 1 mile of the original location, and if it is along an interstate highway, it can be digitized. Rezoning the property west of Wasatch Boulevard to cornunercial would not be wise. He wanted to activate the types of spaces addressed in the General Plan. Chair LaMar asked if there would be different village district zones. Lilly said yes, that would help create the distinction between the centers. Lilly noted that development agreements expired, and zones lasted forever. Brems said there was a rule against perpetuities in development agreements. Commissioner Anderson said zones could be established through development agreements with conditions on billboards. Lilly said that it could be limited with the sale or lease to a third party entity that constructs a sign. He felt coming at the issue from multiple directions would be beneficial. Chair LaMar said the number of signs allowed on the site could be limited. Coinrnissioner Reid asked how to make a city walkable with standards, make it more community-oriented and not economic-oriented. Lilly said a special district zone was appropriate when a developer approached the city with an idea that did not meet the current zone standards, it would give the city an opportunity to explore tradeoffs. Commissioner Soule said she loved small districts that maintained neighborhood feel. Lilly said this could apply to that, an industrial development on the west side, a development that supported housing goals, or any other goal the General Plan identified. ---PAGE BREAK--- Millcreek Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 19 July 2023 Page 10 of 10 3. Calendar of Upcoming Meetings * City Council Mtg. 7/25/23, 7:00 p.m. * Millcreek Coinmunity Council Mtg., 8/1/23, 6:30 p.m. * Canyon Rim Citizens Association Mtg., 8/2/23, 7:00 p.m. @ East Mill Creek Community Council Mtg., 8/5/23, 6:30 p.m. * Mt. Olyinpus Community Council Mtg., 8/7/23, 6:00 p.m. * Historic Preservation Commission Mtg., 8/10/23, 6:00 p.m. * City Council Mtg. 8/14/23 7:00 p.m. * Planning Commission Mtg., 8/16/23, 5:00 p.m. ADJOURNED: Commissioner Reid moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:12 p.m. Commissioner Larsen seconded. Chair LaMar called for the vote. Chair LaMar voted yes, Commissioner Reid voted yes, Commissioner Anderson voted yes, Commissioner Larsen voted yes, Commissioner Lofgren voted yes, Commissioner Soule voted yes, Commissioner Vance voted yes, and Commissioner Wright voted yes. The motion passed unanimously APPROVED: < (isi Shawn LaMar, Chair Date s/iciz.>za Attest: J'€Lityheco-a-- ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1 of 4 Millcreek City Hall 3330 South 1300 East Millcreek, Utah 84106 millcreek.us Planning & Zoning (801) 214-2700 [EMAIL REDACTED] CITY COUNCIL STAFF MEMO To: City Council Meeting Date: August 12, 2024 RE: Amend Chapter 19.71 Residential Compatibility Overlay Zone (RCOZ) to include updated regulations affecting applicable Residential Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zones, Medium Density Residential (R-2) Zones & the (A-1) Agricultural Zone. File No(s): ZT-24-016 Applicant: Staff Brief background. Staff has identified some procedural inconsistencies underlining how the current Residential Compatibility Overlay Zone (RCOZ) poses significant challenges for those attempting to align their development plans with city ordinances. This complexity not only creates hurdles in the initial stages of project planning but also results in delays and additional costs as developers work to ensure compliance. Consequently, the challenge of interpreting and applying these regulations has underscored the need for clearer, more streamlined guidelines. As part of the Planning Departments zoning code update endeavor, staff aims to integrate standards from the (RCOZ) into the existing R-1, R-2, and Agricultural (AG) zones. These changes are intended to create a clearer and streamlined set of codes while embracing neighborhood compatibility, community character, and sustainable development practices. The amendments reflect years of community feedback and align with the city’s long-term planning goals. Recently, at the request of staff, the City Council adopted amendments to the (RCOZ) to update the R-1 development standards, facilitating residents’ construction plans for the summer¹. This effort inadvertently revealed inconsistencies in the development standards, specifically concerning setbacks in the R-1 zone and building envelope issues in the R-2 and A-1 zones. These inconsistencies could potentially impact orderly development and community expectations. Proposal. Due to these inconsistencies, staff is proposing a more thorough follow-up amendment to Chapter 19.71 Residential Compatibility Overlay Zone (RCOZ) to include updated spatial requirements, building height and building envelope requirements affecting applicable Residential Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zones, Medium Density Residential (R-2) Zones & the (A-1) Agricultural Zone. ¹ In an attempt to help residents take advantage of future R-1 Zone code amendments, staff requested that the City Council adopt a temporary amendment to the RCOZ Chapter. This was adopted on May 28, 2024. See Ordinance 24-25 or click here. ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2 of 4 Millcreek City Hall 3330 South 1300 East Millcreek, Utah 84106 millcreek.us Planning & Zoning (801) 214-2700 [EMAIL REDACTED] Summary of Proposed Changes. 1. Adding clarifying language to the (RCOZ) Scope that includes which updated development activities are covered in the (R-2) and (A-1) Zones. 2. Adding clarifying language to the (RCOZ) Standards that includes which updated development standards apply in the (R-2) and (A-1) Zones. ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 3 of 4 Millcreek City Hall 3330 South 1300 East Millcreek, Utah 84106 millcreek.us Planning & Zoning (801) 214-2700 [EMAIL REDACTED] 3. Adding additional tables and figures to the (RCOZ) Standards that help further clarify and demonstrate how the updated development standards apply in the (R-2) and (A-1) Zones. Enhanced Tables Updated Figures ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 4 of 4 Millcreek City Hall 3330 South 1300 East Millcreek, Utah 84106 millcreek.us Planning & Zoning (801) 214-2700 [EMAIL REDACTED] STAFF RECOMMENDATION While temporary until permanent adoption of updated R-1, R-2, and A-1 Zones, staff finds the proposed (RCOZ) amendments provides a balanced approach to how updated development standards apply in the previous overlay zone. Staff finds the proposed (RCOZ) amendments ensure that identified inconsistencies in spatial requirements and building height and envelopes requirements are enforced and preserved as intended. Staff is recommending that the City Council adopt these updated changes to help preserve the intended development standards of the (RCOZ) while still helping residents take advantage of the summer building season. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS 1. Link to the previous May 28, 2024, (RCOZ) Amendment Ordinance 24-25 2. Redlines to newly proposed Draft (RCOZ) Amendment Ordinance (attached) ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter 19.71 RESIDENTIAL COMPATIBILITY OVERLAY ZONE 19.71.010 Purpose Of Provisions 19.71.020 Overlay Zone, Scope And Application 19.71.030 Option A General Standards; Planning And Development Services Review 19.71.040 Option B Deviations From General Standards Based On Neighborhood Compatibility 19.71.060 Definitions 19.71.010 Purpose Of Provisions A. The general purpose of the residential compatibility overlay zone ("RCOZ") is to promote public welfare and to balance neighborhood compatibility with the private property interests of those who wish to expand, develop, improve or otherwise make exterior modification to their residential property. B. Recognizing the wide variation of circumstances incident to a residential application and the need for architectural freedom, the City is adopting a three two-tiered approach: 1. Option A provides for strict standards of height, area, and setback with permits issued by the City. (the "division"). 2. Option B allows the City to consider deviations from one or more of the standards provided in Option A based upon the compatibility of the proposed residential application with other houses in the immediate neighborhood. 19.71.020 Overlay Zone, Scope And Application A. Geographic Area of Application. Maps delineating the boundaries of the RCOZ are attached to the ordinance from which this chapter derived as Appendix A and will remain on file with the division. Such maps, as amended, are a part of this title as if fully described and detailed herein. Additional areas may be approved by the council. B. Development Activities Covered. The standards and regulations contained in this chapter shall apply to all residential development, exterior remodeling and new construction projects commenced after the effective date of this chapter in the RCOZ, according to the zones listed in Table I Table 19.71.1 R-1 Zones, Table 19.71.2 R-2 Zones and Table 19.71.3 A-1 Zones below. C. Applicability to Lots of Record. The standards and regulations contained in this chapter shall apply to all legally subdivided lots, including those that were recorded prior to the enactment of this chapter. D. Exemption for Previous Residential Development. Noncomplying additions or expansions of buildings or structures commenced or completed prior to the enactment of this chapter are exempt from the requirements of this chapter. E. Inconsistent Provisions. When the provisions of this chapter are inconsistent with provisions found in any other chapters of City ordinances, the most restrictive provisions shall apply. DRAFT ---PAGE BREAK--- 19.71.030 Option A General Standards; Planning And Development Services Review A. Application. Any person seeking to build a new residential structure or to significantly reconstruct, renovate or rebuild an existing structure in any zone listed in Table I Table 19.71.1 R-1 Zones, Table 19.71.2 R-2 Zones and Table 19.71.3 A-1 Zones shall obtain land-use approval from the division. An applicant may seek a determination of the applicable limits under Option A from the division prior to the submission of any building plans. B. Standards. Unless applying for approval under Option B, all applications shall comply with the following minimum standards: 1. Maximum Building Height. Each point on the highest ridge of the structure shall be no more than that specified in Table I Table 19.71.1 R-1 Zones, Table 19.71.2 R-2 Zones and Table 19.71.3 A-1 Zones, column below for the zone in which the property is situated. Maximum building height shall be measured in feet from that point on the original grade vertically below the referenced ridge height (not including chimneys and vent stacks). 2. Maximum Lot Coverage. The lot coverage of all structures on the lot shall be not more than the percentages given in Table I Table 19.71.1 R-1 Zones, Table 19.71.2 R-2 Zones and Table 19.71.3 A-1 Zones below. column 3. Front Yard. The minimum front yard setback shall be as specified in the applicable City code given Table 19.71.1 R-1 Zones, Table 19.71.2 R-2 Zones and Table 19.71.3 A-1 Zones below. 4. Side Yard. The side yard setbacks for any main structure shall be as specified in the given Table 19.71.1 R-1 Zones, Table 19.71.2 R-2 Zones and Table 19.71.3 A-1 Zones below. 5. Side Yard Setbacks on Lots 50% Larger Than Minimum Lot Width. Lots with a width 50% or more larger than the required minimum lot width shall measure side yard setbacks per the following: a. The combined measurements of the side yard setbacks shall be at least 25% of the lot width. b. No side setback shall be less than the required minimum side yard setback. c. The width of the lot is measured as the diameter of the largest circle that can be inscribed entirely within the lot excluding any streams, floodplains, wetlands, areas of thirty percent slope or greater, or other natural hazard areas shall be excluded from the circle. 6. Rear Yard. The minimum rear setback of the primary residence and any accessory building shall be as specified in the applicable City code given Table 19.71.1 R-1 Zones, Table 19.71.2 R-2 Zones and Table 19.71.3 A-1 Zones below. 7. Rear Yard. The minimum rear setback of the primary residence and any accessory building shall be as specified in the applicable City code. 8. Building Envelope. a. Building Envelope. The height of structures may be further limited by the building envelope. The building envelope is formed by a box defined by the perimeter of the property line extended vertically perpendicular to the property line to a height and subsequent angle as set forth in Table 19.71.1. the given Table 19.71.1 R-1 Zones, Table 19.71.2 R-2 Zones and Table 19.71.3 A-1 Zones below. The entire building shall fit under this envelope except as described in the Projections section below. See figures 19.71.1, 19.71.2, and 19.71.3 below for building envelope illustrations. DRAFT ---PAGE BREAK--- Combined Side Setback Calculation Figure Table 19.71.1 Building Envelope for R-1 Zones R-1-3 R-1-4 R-1-5 R-1-6 R-1-8 R-1-10 R-1-15 R-1-21 Building Height Maximum 30’ 30’ 30’ 32’ 32’ Building Envelope Wall Height and Angle 30’ 12’ 8’ 8’ 8’ Building Envelope Angle 0° 60° 45° 45° 45° Minimum Lot Area R-1-3 - 3,000 sf R-1-4 - 4,000 sf R-1-5 - 5,000 sf 6,000 sf 8,000 sf R-1-10 – 10,000 sf R-1-15 - 15,000 sf 21,000 sf Minimum Lot Width 25’ 60’ 65’ 80’ 100’ Minimum Front Yard Setback 20’ 25’ 25’ 30’ 30’ Min. Side Setbacks on interior lots 5’ (unless attached to a dwelling on an adjacent lot) 8’ 8’ 10’ 10’ Min. Side Setbacks on corner 20’ 20’ 20’ 20’ 20’ Non- Residential Use Min. Side Setback 20’ 20’ 20’ 20’ 20’ Minimum Rear Setback 15’ 15’ 15’ 15’ 15’ Maximum Lot Coverage R-1-3 – 40% R-1-4 – 40% R-1-5 – 35% 35% 33% R-1-10 – 31% R-1-15 – 25% 25% DRAFT ---PAGE BREAK--- Figure 19.71.1 R-1-3, R-1-4, and R-1-5 Building Envelope Figure Figure 19.71.2 R-1-6 Building Envelope Figure Figure 19.71.3 R-1-8, R-1-10, R-1-15, and R-1-21 Building Envelope Figure DRAFT ---PAGE BREAK--- Building Envelope Figure (R-2-6.5) Table 19.71.2 R-2 Zones R-2-6.5 R-2-8 R-2-10 Building Height Maximum 30’ 30’ 30’ Building Envelope Wall Height 12’ 8’ 8’ Building Envelope Angle 60° 45° 45° Minimum Lot Area 6,500 sq ft (8,000 sq ft for non- residential) 8,000 sq ft (8,000 sq ft for non- residential) 10,000 square feet (10,000 sq ft for non- residential) Minimum Lot Width 60’ 65’ 65’ Minimum Front Yard Setback 25’ 30’ 30’ Min. Side Setbacks on interior lots 8’ 8’ 8’ Min. Side Setbacks on corner 20’ 20’ 20’ Non- Residential Use Min. Side Setback 20’ 20’ 20’ Minimum Rear Setback 15’ 15’ 15’ Maximum Lot Coverage 40% 38% 35% DRAFT ---PAGE BREAK--- Building Envelope Figure (R-2-8 and R-2-10) Table 19.71.3 A-1 Zone A-1 Zone Building Height Maximum 30’ Building Envelope Wall Height and Angle 12’ Building Envelope Angle 45° Minimum Lot Area 10,000 sf Minimum Lot Width 75’ Minimum Front Yard Setback 30’ Minimum Side Yard Setback Interior 10’ Minimum Side Yard Setback on corner 20’ Minimum Rear Yard Setback 30’ Maximum Lot Coverage 31% DRAFT ---PAGE BREAK--- Building Envelope Figure (A-1 Zone) b. Projections. Building Height Envelope Projections. Dormers, Gables, and non-habitable architectural elements may project beyond the building height envelope if they meet the following criteria: Dormers: a. The width of the dormer shall not exceed fourteen (14) feet; b. Multiple dormers shall be spaced such that the distance to the edges of the roof is at least one-half the distance between dormers; and c. The dormer shall be no higher than the ridge of the roof Gables: a. The height of the gable is less than 1.75 times higher than the point where the graduated building height envelope intersects the gable; b. The height of the gable is less than the maximum building height; and c. The length of the gable comprises no more than 25% of the length of the building façade. DRAFT ---PAGE BREAK--- Figure 19.71.4 Dormer and Gable illustration with height envelope exception Figure. 9. Mass and Scale. To avoid a large, continuous building mass of uniform height; no portion of any building shall continue more than forty feet horizontally without a minimum of an eighteen-inch break in the roofline or an architectural element such as an overhang, projection, inset, material, and textural change to create shadow patterns along the elevation of the building. The elements required by this section are in addition to all other requirements under this Part. 10. Accessory Building. Accessory buildings shall meet all of the requirements established in MKZ 19.14.070 and the building envelope and lot coverage requirements of this chapter. 19.71.040 Option B Deviations From General Standards Based On Neighborhood Compatibility A. Application. To obtain division approval of deviations from one or more of the requirements of MKZ 19.71.030.B.1, B.2, B.3 or B.4, an applicant must file a separate application in compliance with the corresponding conditions of Subsections D.1, D.2, D.3 or D.4. An applicant may seek a pre- determination of the allowable deviations for proposed construction under Option B from the division prior to submitting building plans. B. Evidence. Compliance with the corresponding conditions of Option B must be established by reliable photographic, engineering, architectural or other evidence from the proximate neighborhood. C. Deviations from Other Option A Requirements. No deviations from the Option A requirements of MKZ 19.71.030.B.5 through B.8 may be approved by the division. D. Permissible deviations from maximum building height, maximum lot coverage and minimum front and side setbacks under Option B are: 1. Maximum Building Height. The maximum building height that may be approved by the division under Option B is the lesser of: a. Three feet plus the average maximum ridge height of residential structures that are on six lots of applicant's choice that: Are within the proximate neighborhood of the subject property, as defined in MKZ 19.71.060.B; and DRAFT ---PAGE BREAK--- For which the applicant provides adequate evidence of the maximum building height, as defined in this chapter; or The heights specified in column of Table I for the applicable zone. 2. Maximum Lot Coverage. The maximum lot coverage is 1.15 times the average of the lot coverage percentages of residential structures that are on six lots of applicant's choice that are within the proximate neighborhood of the subject property, such coverage not to exceed the percentages specified in Table I, column for the applicable zone. 3. Minimum Front Setback. The minimum front setback is the average of the front setbacks of residential structures that are on six lots of applicant's choice that are within the proximate neighborhood of the subject property. 4. Minimum Side Setbacks. The minimum side setback is the average of the shorter side setback of residential structures that are on six lots of applicant's choice that are within the proximate neighborhood of the subject property, but in no event may it be less than six feet. 5. Approval of more than one deviation from subsections D.1 through .4 must use the same six lots from the proximate neighborhood to support the requested deviations, whether or not requests for multiple deviations are in one or separate applications. E. Table I below summarizes and further defines lot coverage and distance in the various zones under Options A and B: ZONE OPTION A MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT(1) OPTION B MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT(1) OPTION A MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE(2) OPTION B MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE(2) OPTION B PROXIMATE NEIGHBORHOOD(3) R-1-3 30 ft 33 ft 35 % 40% 100 ft. R-1-4 30 ft 33 ft. 35% 40% 100 ft. R-1-5 30 ft. 33 ft. 35% 40% 100 ft. R-1-6 30 ft. 33 ft. 35% 40% 100 ft. R-1-8 30 ft. 33 ft. 33% 38% 150 ft. R-1-10 30 ft. 35 ft. 31% 36% 175 ft. R-1-21 32 ft. 37 ft. 25% 30% 200 ft. R-1-43 35 ft. 40 ft. 23% 28% 300 ft. R-2-6.5 28 ft. 33 ft. 40% 45% 100 ft. R-2-8 28 ft. 33 ft. 38% 43% 150 ft. R-2-10 30 ft. 35 ft. 35% 40% 175 ft. A-1 30 ft. 35 ft. 31% 36% 175 ft. Main dwelling DRAFT ---PAGE BREAK--- All structures Radial distance from property boundaries 19.71.040 Option B Deviations From General Standards Based On Neighborhood Compatibility A. Recognizing the wide variation of circumstances incident to a residential development application, Millcreek is providing for additional means to modify standards based on neighborhood compatibility. The Neighborhood Compatibility Modification (NCM) allows for modified standards from one or more of the spatial standards based upon the compatibility of the proposed residential development application with other lots/dwellings in the proximate neighborhood. The Planning Director may approve a NCM request at time of site plan submittal provided the following conditions are met: 1. Evidence. Compliance with the corresponding neighborhood conditions must be established by a survey from the proximate neighborhood, defined as a 200’ radial distance from the property boundary. Survey submitted must be completed by a licensed surveyor in the State of Utah. 2. Submittal. NCM requests shall be submitted on a separate form and shall include an additional review fee as set forth in the Millcreek Consolidated Fee Schedule. 3. Permissible Modifications. NCM Standards. Building height, setbacks and lot coverage modifications may be accommodated if the request does not exceed the allowances as set forth in Table 19.71.4 NCM Standards. 4. Non-Permissible Modifications. Building envelope, mass and scale, and accessory structure modifications do not qualify under the NCM. Table 19.71.4 NCM Standards Zone Maxi mum Height Lot Cover age Front Setback Side Setback Rear Setback Max Height R-1-3 33’ 40% * The average of all lots of within the proximate neighborhood that fronts to the same street, road, or right-of way. Combined side yard shall be at least twenty- five percent (25%) of the lot width, and no less than six feet on each side. The average rear yard setback that are on six lots of the applicant’s choice within the proximate neighborhood, and no less than 15’ The maximum building height that may be approved by the Planning Director or designee under the NCM standards is the lesser of: 1. Three feet plus the average maximum ridge height of residential structures that are on six lots of applicant’s choice that are within the proximate neighborhood; and 2. The max height of the zone specified in column of Table 18.37.4 NCM Standards. R-1-4 33’ 40% * R-1-5 33’ 40% * R-1-6 33’ 40% * R-1-8 33’ 38% * R-1-10 35’ 36% * R-1-15 37’ 30% * R-1-21 37’ 30% * R-2-6.5 33’ 45%* DRAFT ---PAGE BREAK--- Table 19.71.4 NCM Standards Zone Maxi mum Height Lot Cover age Front Setback Side Setback Rear Setback Max Height R-2-8 33’ 43%* R-2-10 35’ 40%* A-1 33’ 36% * Lot coverage for all lots may not exceed more than 1.15 times the average lot coverage of proximate neighborhood lots. 19.71.060 Definitions For the purposes of this chapter, the following terms shall have the following meanings: A. "Residential lot" means a legal lot included in one of the zones listed in Table I, column the given Table 19.71.1 R-1 Zones, Table 19.71.2 R-2 Zones and Table 19.71.3 A-1 Zones above. B. "Proximate neighborhood" of a subject lot means every residential lot, excluding the subject lot, which is within the distance from the subject lot specified in Table 1, column the given Table 19.71.1 R-1 Zones, Table 19.71.2 R-2 Zones and Table 19.71.3 A-1 Zones above. For the purpose of calculating maximum building height only, an immediately adjacent multi- resident structure such as an apartment or condominium building may be considered part of the proximate neighborhood. C. "Lot coverage" means the measurement of land use intensity that represents the portion of the site occupied by the principal building and all accessory buildings, but excluding all other impervious improvements such as sidewalks, driveways, patios, decks and open porches. D. “Gable” means the triangular portion of a wall between the edges of intersecting roof pitches. E. “Dormer” means a roofed structure, often containing a window, that projects vertically beyond the plane of a pitched roof. The peak roof elements of a dormer do not extend above the ridgeline of the pitched roof, nor may they exceed 14’ in width. DRAFT