×

Warning message

The installed version of the browser you are using is outdated and no longer supported by Konveio. Please upgrade your browser to the latest release.

Utah MMH Toolkit

Utah MMH Toolkit
MMH in Utah
MMH in My Community
Download MMH Resources
File name:

-

File size:

-

Title:

-

Author:

-

Subject:

-

Keywords:

-

Creation Date:

-

Modification Date:

-

Creator:

-

PDF Producer:

-

PDF Version:

-

Page Count:

-

Page Size:

-

Fast Web View:

-
Choose an option Alt text (alternative text) helps when people can’t see the image or when it doesn’t load.
Aim for 1-2 sentences that describe the subject, setting, or actions.
This is used for ornamental images, like borders or watermarks.
Preparing document for printing…
0%
Comment Drag

Click anywhere in the document to add a comment. Select a bubble to view comments.
Document is loading Loading Glossary…
Summary Full Document

Summary

All Hide

The Missing Middle Housing (MMH) Toolkit provides resources to help Utah communities enhance their housing options with Missing Middle Housing. 

The Mountainland Association of Governments (MAG) developed the MMH Toolkit in coordination with the Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) and the Land Use Academy of Utah (LUAU). The Toolkit is a free resource for all Utah communities. 

This is a draft of the toolkit that has been provided for internal beta-testing and content review purposes. A full website with finalized context will be available for public use soon.

Expand
Powered by Konveio
View all

Comments

Close

Add comment

Brandon Jun 18 2025 at 11:29AM on page 6

Suggestion
Can Ogden be added to this list?

Brandon Jun 18 2025 at 8:02AM on page 2

Suggestion
I think it is important to use similar building materials that match the neighborhood.
in reply to Cameron Diehl's comment

Brandon Jun 18 2025 at 7:59AM on page 2

Suggestion
We should require all missing middle housing to be condominiumized. This would allow people to own their unit. This would open up the opportunity for more homeownership. I know that we can't restrict people from renting out their home, but by condominiumizing the units, the ability to own a unit is there.

Troy Ribao May 22 2025 at 9:41AM on page 12

Question
There is no included definition of what "open space" is. What is the intended definition of "open space"? The document shows things like walkways, driveways, and tiny strips of grass that some people/communities don't consider to be "open space", who think of it as a patch of grass big enough to play sports.

Cameron Diehl May 19 2025 at 10:18PM on page 12

We need to ensure that the materials focus on the following audiences:

1) elected officials
2) planning commissioners (similar to 1)
3) staff
4) builders
5) general public

They all have different starting points of expertise and the toolkit needs to have the right info for each.

Cameron Diehl May 19 2025 at 10:08PM on page 11

I'm also very concerned about overwhelming local elected officials. How can we simplify this process so that elected officials can set planning policy that their staff can then execute?
in reply to Tim Watkins's comment

Cameron Diehl May 19 2025 at 10:07PM on page 9

Design, design, design! Good design facilitates smart density and bad design dooms density. Does the toolkit provide insight about how to plan for good design?

Cameron Diehl May 19 2025 at 10:05PM on page 9

Building types matter. However, affordability and ownership both matter too. A city council would be much more interested in these types if they saw a path to affordable home ownership and not just more rental units. We are not opposed to rental units, but are focused on affordable home ownership opportunities.

Cameron Diehl May 19 2025 at 10:00PM on page 8

Do we have real pics that we can show and not just vague illustrations? I can think of several good examples--Holladay Village, Daybreak, Sugarhouse, old Murray, downtown Provo, etc.--which would be more compelling than these pics. I also would prefer to see real pics from other comparable places around the nation.

Cameron Diehl May 19 2025 at 9:43PM on page 7

There are two ways to approach this: existing activity nodes (e.g. State Street corridor) and developing activity nodes (greenfield areas that are developing). The toolkit should talk about both and clarify that the implementation will look different in both places.
in reply to Ryan Robinson's comment

Cameron Diehl May 19 2025 at 9:41PM on page 6

I agree with Ryan about the credibility in rural Utah with this description. Population is irrelevant. Characteristics matter more.

Cameron Diehl May 19 2025 at 9:41PM on page 6

Again, I recommend different categories. We have urban hubs and regional/suburban hubs. I thus suggest categories focused on characteristics, such as established midsize, transitioning (ag to suburban), historic centers, etc. I also think the MMH toolkit can apply differently in different parts of town. A MMH project in the center of historic Midway will be different than a MMH on a transitioning farm on the edge of town.
in reply to Cameron Diehl's comment

Cameron Diehl May 19 2025 at 9:37PM on page 6

Additionally, Santaquin does not fit in this category. Santaquin is still primarily a bedroom community while Draper, BC, and Heber are all job centers, retail destinations, and transportation corridors.

Cameron Diehl May 19 2025 at 9:36PM on page 6

Suggestion
I suggest referencing these cities as regional or suburban hubs instead of medium communities. The population numbers are irrelevant. The characteristics matter more.

Cameron Diehl May 19 2025 at 9:24PM on page 6

Suggestion
FWIW, Logan does not have 60,000 residents. I also would categorize these cities differently and frame them as urban hubs (or something similar).

Cameron Diehl May 19 2025 at 9:22PM on page 5

These pics illustrate the challenges between local planning and a developer's desired outcome. I know of many examples of where the city wants a connected street but the builder doesn't want to connect the street. A house on a cul-de-sac sells for more.

Cameron Diehl May 19 2025 at 9:18PM on page 2

Question
How do we address the home ownership issue when there are multiple units per building?

Cameron Diehl May 19 2025 at 9:17PM on page 1

Question
Can we have a reference herein to ULCT somehow? Could we reference that we introduced the concept at our Annual Convention?

Cameron Diehl May 19 2025 at 9:15PM on page 3

Question
By "community-supported," are you referencing the Guiding our Growth data or something else?

Cameron Diehl May 19 2025 at 9:10PM on page 3

Question
How does a city tap into expertise for implementation, particularly a small city without much staff?

Cameron Diehl May 19 2025 at 9:08PM on page 1

Strengthen local economy and enhance economic opportunities are redundant. I also don't think you should mention climate impacts with our audience.

Cameron Diehl May 19 2025 at 9:08PM on page 1

Suggestion
Let's lean into how it promotes home ownership. That is a huge issue for our folks so let's articulate how.

Dan Wayne May 8 2025 at 12:15PM on page 11

Suggestion
I'm thinking it would be more logical to rearrange the filters/lenses in Section II as noted in my earlier comment and then mirror that pattern and logic here - i.e., start with Community Type (size), then WCV center designation, then activity node, and finally MMH Friendly Neighborhoods. There are more steps in this section, but the general idea of macro to micro.

Dan Wayne May 8 2025 at 11:52AM on page 6

Suggestion
These filters/lenses in Section II (MMH in Utah) seem to be more logically organized as: 1) Community Types (size); 2) WCV Center Type; 3) Nodes; and then 4) MMH Friendly Neighborhoods. They're not meant to be a sequential step-down analysis per se, but this is more logical in term of macro to micro level granularity.

Dan Wayne May 8 2025 at 7:29AM on page 5

Suggestion
I guess it's a combination of neighborhood type and the scale of the community that combine to reduce or expand the options. Instead of best, better, good, maybe it's 'expanded MMH options' and 'reduced MMH options'.

Cody May 1 2025 at 12:40PM on page 12

Suggestion
Fields need more explanation. For example, what is IRR feasibility %?

Cody May 1 2025 at 12:30PM on page 11

Suggestion
I think there are pros and cons of providing so many different ways to think about neighborhood context. On one hand, communities can pick and choose which way of thinking works best for them, on the other hand users might get bogged down by city type vs. development nodes vs. WC Centers vs. neighborhood block patterns vs. neighborhood types.

If there's a way to simplify without loosing too much meaningful context it may be worthwhile. For example- community types aren't mentioned in this flow chart. Do users of the resource need to understand how you've classified community types, or can we skip that info?

Cody May 1 2025 at 9:14AM on page 2

Suggestion
missing bullet
in reply to Cody's comment

Cody May 1 2025 at 9:07AM on page 1

and/or water use

Cody May 1 2025 at 9:07AM on page 1

Suggestion
may want to mention air quality

Cody May 1 2025 at 9:05AM on page 1

Suggestion
The last part of this sentence may not be needed.

Ryan Robinson May 1 2025 at 8:36AM on page 6

Suggestion
I apologize for not catching this sooner; it may be too late. The rural communities section says the population is less than 1,000. Parowan and Beaver at least have populations over 3,000 and Coalville is probably closer to 1,500. It might be helpful to have have a characteristic that they are not along the Wasatch Front or base in on their classification of County. It may not matter but we may lose a little credibility with the rural communities.

Tim Watkins Apr 30 2025 at 10:41AM on page 9

Suggestion
Or, possibly add a 3 story w 2 story step and pitched roofs building type prior to full 3 story (more urban) with flat roofs.

Tim Watkins Apr 30 2025 at 10:40AM on page 8

Suggestion
Pitched roofs with 2 story step down, and breaking up horizontal runs adds to the appeal / public acceptance of taller townhomes near or within mixed-residential areas. I suggest emulating this in the building type diagram townhouse large.

Tim Watkins Apr 30 2025 at 10:33AM on page 9

Suggestion
I still suggest showing a 2 story stepdown on one end to reduce the blocky scale, pitched roofs would be more compatible in residential settings. As presently shown, this building type reads as urban, when in fact it could be compatible in mixed residential contexts.

Tim Watkins Apr 30 2025 at 10:30AM on page 9

Suggestion
Could say 3 -5 in a run

Tim Watkins Apr 30 2025 at 10:29AM on page 9

Suggestion
Most townhomes are in runs of 4-6, especially in a missing middle residential neighborhood context. Perhaps say 4 to 8 in a run to reduce the potential negative reaction to continuous urban buildings?

Meg Apr 30 2025 at 10:15AM on page 4

Suggestion
OR Wasatch Choice Center?
View all