Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Provided Information - 6/4/2025 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 WWW.SLC.GOV PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 TEL 801-535-7757 FAX 801-535-6174 PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS MEMORANDUM To: City Council Members From: Kelsey Lindquist, Planning Manager, kelsey.lindquist@slc.gov Krissy Gilmore, Planning Manager, kristina.gilmore@slc.gov Daniel Echeverria, Senior Planner, daniel.echeverria@slc.gov Date: June 4, 2025 Re: Mixed-Use Zoning Consolidation Public Hearing Responses The City Council held a public hearing for the Mixed-Use Zoning Consolidation on May 6, 2025. During that hearing, several key themes and comments were heard. Several comments were also communicated directly to the Council office outside of the public hearing. This memorandum provides a response to those comments so that the City Council may provide Planning Staff with direction on any changes to the proposed zoning code. The topics covered are listed and linked below for ease of access: 1. Upper Floor Stepbacks from Local Historic Landmark Sites 2. Off-Street Parking Requirement Impacts on Neighborhoods 3. Setbacks Next to Residential Zones 4. Additional Height in Sugar House and Transit Infrastructure Adequacy 5. Upper Floor Step Back in the Sugar House Business District 6. Snelgrove and Midas Blocks Upzone Development Agreement Potential 7. Allowing Pharmacies with Drive-Throughs 8. Existing Business Concerns with 700 West M-1 Rezoning to MU-6 9. Green Street Strip Mall Rezone 1. Upper Floor Stepbacks from Local Historic Landmark Sites A new standard is being proposed for the MU zones that would require an upper floor step-back for properties that abut a local landmark site building. Some concerns have been raised that the proposed step-back only applies next to local landmark sites and not national register sites. The setback is not proposed to apply next to national register sites as they are not protected from demolition, meaning a property owner could potentially demolish or significantly alter those buildings at any time. It would be challenging to apply a restriction on a neighboring property when the historic property itself is not guaranteed to remain. Angled stepback applicable next to local landmark site buildings to soften the visual height impact of new taller buildings. 2 Options to require adjacent properties to provide a buffer next to a specific property include obtaining local landmark designation for the specific property or downzoning the specific property to a lower intensity zone. 2. Off-Street Parking Requirement Impacts on Neighborhoods Public comments regarding off-street parking regulations generally expressed concern about on-street parking spilling over into residential neighborhoods. The number of parking spaces required for a property depends on its specific use (such as single-family homes, apartments, restaurants, etc.) and the parking context, which is determined by the zoning district the property is located within. Salt Lake City has four different parking contexts, listed here in order from the highest to the lowest parking requirement: General, Neighborhood Center, Urban Center, and Transit. As part of this amendment, the MU zones are assigned to one of the four parking contexts. • MU-2 and MU-3: The parking context for districts proposed to merge into MU-2 and MU-3 will remain as Neighborhood Center since all districts proposed for consolidation to MU-2 and MU-3 are already in the Neighborhood Center parking context. • All Other MU Zones: The parking context for the MU-5, MU-6, MU-8, and MU-11 zones will depend on a property’s distance to a fixed rail station. In these zones, developments more than ¾ mile from a rail station will use the “General Context,” from ½ to ¾ mile the “Neighborhood Center Context,” from ½ to ¼ mile the “Urban Center Context”, and within ¼ mile the “Transit Context.” This approach takes into account the diverse parking needs across different areas of the city, recognizing that some areas are well-served by transit while others are not. The new context assignments will result in some properties located closer to transit seeing reduced parking requirements, and some properties further away from transit seeing increased parking requirements. Reducing parking minimums near transit may result in some additional resident parking occurring on public streets, but it is important to note that developers still have the flexibility to provide more parking than the minimum required. By lowering or removing these minimums when a property is within close distance to transit, developers can better tailor the amount of parking to the actual needs of residents or businesses. Over time, this encourages more compact, mixed-use development where walking, biking, and transit become more convenient and attractive options. This table shows parking contexts from the parking ordinance, listed from highest (General) to lowest (Transit) parking requirement. 3 3. Setbacks Next to Residential Zones Concerns have been raised regarding changes to side and rear setbacks in proximity to lower-scale residential zoning districts. The new MU districts will be changing the required setbacks for all the consolidated zones. Generally, setbacks have been reduced, and larger side or rear yards will only be required when abutting a zoning district of lower scale, generally lower than 35' in height. These larger setbacks are proposed to only be required for mixed-use or multi-family structures, which are generally allowed to be taller than 35' in height. Some existing zones have larger rear or side setbacks than Staff believe necessary or appropriate for their contexts. Examples are rear setbacks required in the Community Shopping or Residential Office zones, where up to 30' of rear setback is required in all contexts, including when not next to lower-scale residential and when in urban areas of the city. Staff reduced the default rear setback requirements in the new MU zones and instead implemented a rear setback of 20' with an upper level stepback of 10' that only applies next to zones lower than 35' in height. There is also a universal 10' landscape buffer that applies next to any residential zone. The buffer requires a 6' tall fence, 4' tall shrubs, and a tree every 30 feet. For context, the table below compares the setbacks that apply when properties abut zones that allow less than 35' in height. New MU zone standards are listed on the left, with existing zones on the right. Where setbacks are effectively identical to the proposed MU zones, they are shown in green, with light blue when ~5' greater than proposed, and dark blue when ~10' or greater from the proposed. Cells in orange identify when an existing setback is less than the proposed MU setback/stepback. MU-2/3 Zones MU-5/6/8/11 Zones Standard MU -2/ 3 MU - 5/ 6 / 8 / 1 1 SN B CN RB CB R-MU - 35 FB -SE CC CS R-MU - 45 MU FB U N - 2 FB -SC CS H B D -2 RO MU 8 R-MU CS H B D -1 CG FB - MU 1 1 TS A - AL L Rear Setback 10' 10' + step 10' 10' 10' 10' 10' + step 25% (max 25') + step 10' 10' 10' + step 10' 15' 25% (max 25') + step 10' + step 15' 10' 10' 10' + step 10' 10' 25' + step Rear Stepback (step at height) - 10' at 30' - - - - 1' per 1' over 25' 2' per 1' over 30' - - 1' per 1' over 30' - - 2' per 1' over 30’ 15' at 30’ - - - 15' at 30' - - 1' per 1' over 25' Side Setback 20' 20' + step 15' – 30' 10' 25% (max 30') 10' 25% (max 30') 25% (max 25') 10' 30' 25% (max 25') 25% (max 30') 20' 25% (max 25') 10’ + step 25% (max 30') 20' 25% (max 30') 10' + step 10' 20' 25' + step Side Stepback (step at height) - 10' at 30' - - - - - 2' per 1' over 30' - - - - - 2' per 1' over 30' 15' at 30' - - - 15' at 30' - - 1' per 1' over 25' Table listing the proposed setback and stepback standards compared to existing standards, applicable where properties abut a low scale zone allowing less than 35' of height. A dash indicates there is no requirement for that zone. Proposed MU 20' rear yard setback, including 10' setback/landscape buffer, and 10' upper stepback applicable when next to zones with less than a 35' height limit. Side yards require a 10' setback instead of the 20' setback shown here. 4 4. Additional Height in Sugar House and Transit Infrastructure Adequacy Some concerns were provided regarding increases to allowed heights in the Sugar House Business District-1 zone, as well as concerns regarding the adequacy of transit infrastructure to accommodate related growth. The MU zoning changes will increase the height allowed in the existing Sugar House Business District- 1 zone from 105' to 125', about a two-story increase, with an additional three stories allowed for income- restricted housing. The City Council has also proposed an additional 25' (approximately two to three stories) for properties located between McClelland Street and 1300 East, and 2100 South to I-80. The proposed additional heights better align with realistic development costs and building code limits. Very few residential buildings are financially feasible between ~85' to 105' (the existing height limit) due to building code construction requirements that occur after ~85'. It is essentially a residential building height dead zone. The additional height allowances will help make taller residential buildings feasible. The Sugar House Business District zone areas proposed for additional height are not directly adjacent to any low-scale residential zones. The MU- 6 (65' height) and PL (Public Lands) zones serve as buffer zones between any MU-11 zones and lower- scale residential zones. This area is well served by transit improvements, including an existing UTA S-line station at McClelland Avenue. An additional station is being planned near the intersection of Highland Drive and Simpson Avenue. This would put virtually all the additional height area within a ¼ mile, or approximately a 5-minute walk, of a light rail station, representing a very high level of transit service. The area is also served by bus service, including the 21 (15 min service), 220 (30 min), and 213 (30 min) routes. Map of the Sugar House Business District, showing MU-11 (formerly CSHBD-1) in dark blue. MU-6 (CSHBD-2) areas are shown in green. 5 5. Upper Floor Step Back in the Sugar House Business District Concerns were expressed about the changes to the front façade stepbacks that would impact the Sugar House Business District. The existing Sugar House Business District zones require a 15' stepback in the building façade after 30 feet of height. The intent of this is to increase pedestrian comfort by lowering the perceived height of buildings along the street. In general, height taller than the width of a street can create a negative pedestrian perception of a street, and a stepback at street width height can help with that. Additionally, lower-level stepbacks, such as in Sugar House, can help ensure taller development doesn’t visually overwhelm existing lower-scale buildings that are expected to remain or simply maintain a certain lower-scale aesthetic. Since the Sugar House Business District zones are being consolidated with other zones that apply elsewhere in the City, where the streets are generally wider than in Sugar House, the stepback has been merged to a 10' stepback that kicks in after 85' of height. The stepback can be implemented anywhere from the base to the 85' height level. The depth of the setback has been reduced to decrease potential conflicts with Fire Code access requirements, as a 15' step can push the building face too far away from on-street fire lanes. Additionally, the increased height of the step better aligns with common street widths and is closer to the 1:1 street width to building height ratio generally found to be comfortable for pedestrians. In addition to not being essential on larger streets, a stepback can also reduce the potential density of a property by several units. The modified stepback is intended to balance the need to accommodate growth with urban design quality goals. Staff is concerned with including a geographically specific stepback requirement, such as one that applies only to Sugar House, as it would both create code complexity and treat properties on similarly sized streets in similar contexts of the City differently. A key intent of the MU consolidation was to increase consistency and equity in the City’s zoning regulations. However, one option is to require a more universal stepback along narrower streets across the City for MU-8 and MU-11 zones where taller heights are allowed. The below is a list of options the Council can consider. The existing Sugar House Business District zone stepback requirement along a street. The proposed MU-8/11 stepback requirement along a street. 6 Stepback Options: 1. Staff Recommendation: Revise the stepback requirement to generally match the existing Sugar House standard but apply only to narrower rights-of-way under 90' in width. o Require a 10' stepback after 30' of height (the first full floor over 30') when along a right-0f-way less than 90' in width for the MU-8 and MU-11 zones. o This would apply the Sugar House stepback on all the CSHBD-1 streets (except along the 2100 South Monument Plaza where the right-of-way is wider) and most mid-block streets in other MU-8/11 zoned areas of the city. 2. Revise the stepback threshold from 85' down to 45'. o Require a 10' stepback after 45' of height (first full floor over 45’) on any width street for the MU-8 and MU-11 zones. o This would increase the height threshold for Sugar House (putting a step at the 5th story instead of the 3rd/4th story) and would apply to all MU-8/11 zoned streets, including the 2100 South Monument Plaza. 3. Implement a geographically specific stepback in the Sugar House additional height area (McClelland to 1300 East, 2100 S to I-80). 6. Snelgrove and Midas Blocks Upzone Development Agreement Potential At the last item briefing, the City Council proposed to upzone the properties located on two blocks adjacent to 2100 South and 900 East, identified as the Snelgrove and Midas blocks. Interest from community members was expressed in requiring a development agreement for these property owners that would restrict rent costs for future businesses, intending to help ensure that existing local businesses could afford to remain in the area in the future. The Council can negotiate such development agreements through a zoning amendment process requested from the property owners but can’t require such an agreement through the current consolidation process. If the Council wishes to require a development agreement from the property owners, the Council should rezone the properties to their MU-5 and MU-6 zoning as originally proposed, maintaining their existing development potential. The property owners could then submit an upzone request through a formal zoning amendment application at a later time, through which the Council could evaluate them against the City’s recently adopted “Community Benefit” zoning amendment standards and negotiate a development agreement with the property owner. 7. Allowing Pharmacies with Drive-Throughs Comments were provided requesting that pharmacies with drive-throughs be allowed in the same areas where banks with drive-throughs are allowed. Pharmacies with drive-throughs are already proposed to be allowed in the same areas as banks with drive-throughs, including the MU-5, 6, 8, and Snelgrove and Midas blocks identified by the Council for upzoning to MU-8, from originally proposed MU- 5 and MU-6 zones. 7 11 zones. The intent is to ensure equitable access to pharmacies for persons who may be disabled or have difficulty walking. 8. Existing Business Concerns with 700 West M-1 Rezoning to MU-6 A few property and business owners along 700 West, between 1300 South and 2100 South, have expressed concerns about changing their zoning from M-1 (Light Manufacturing) to MU-6 (Mixed Use-6). They have expressed concerns regarding their existing uses becoming “nonconforming” or not allowed, difficulty finding new tenants for their spaces, and the introduction of residential traffic into the area, conflicting with semi-truck maneuvering. For context, the Transitional Overlay is proposed to apply to all formerly M-1 properties, including these properties. The overlay zone will allow for higher intensity commercial uses on these properties and provide greater design standard flexibility for these more intensive uses. The intent of the overlay is to continue to allow these uses, while introducing some mitigation measures, such as landscaping and setbacks, which would apply to new uses or large expansions to help limit negative impacts to future lower intensity development in the area. In response to the concerns, Staff is proposing to allow three additional uses in the Transitional Overlay as “Conditional Uses” to accommodate some additional potential uses and ensure that common commercial uses in the area won’t become nonconforming. These include Outdoor Storage, Equipment Rental (Outdoor), and Contractor’s Yard (Outdoor). Contractor’s Yard/Office (Indoor) is also proposed to be revised to “Permitted.” City streets aren’t intended to be used to accommodate large vehicle maneuvering on a regular basis and there are zoning regulations that generally prevent backing into City streets, instead requiring that maneuvering on private property. However, there are a few properties along this corridor with site configurations that result in semi-trucks utilizing the street to maneuver and back into the properties. Despite this, Staff does not believe there will be residential traffic impacts large enough to create significant issues for these properties. The transition of properties in this area to residential could take decades. Further, 700 West is not a major arterial street and Staff believes the level of potential traffic impacts and conflicts, even in the long term, is likely low. The City’s housing demands warrant allowing residential uses to start developing in the area, and the rezoning aligns with the Westside Plan, which calls for transitioning the area toward residential and less intensive commercial uses. However, the Council has the option to remove the rezoning of the M- 1 areas from the MU consolidation if desired. 9. Green Street Strip Mall Rezone The Council requested more information on the Green Street property that was included in the Council straw poll discussions. The property is located at approximately 2100 South and Green Street and is a strip-mall zoned FB-UN1, which is a residential zone. The residential zoning makes the strip mall use Map showing the M-1 areas proposed for MU-6 along 700 West in green. The blue areas are currently zoned CG, where residential is already allowed. 8 nonconforming and noncomplying with current zoning, which results in complications when a business space changes to another business, including with business license reviews and sign changes. The property was rezoned in 2016 as part of the Sugar House Streetcar rezone project. The Council applied the FB-UN1 zone to the property due to concerns with future commercial development on Green Street adjacent to lower scale residential. The Council’s straw poll on April 15, 2025, supported changing the FB-UN1 zone to MU-6, which would allow for commercial and residential development up to six stories in height. However, if the Council is concerned about potential height impacts to the residential properties across the street, the Council could instead rezone the property to MU-3, which would allow commercial and residential development up to three stories in height. Either zone would eliminate the nonconforming and noncomplying issues for the strip mall and limit the impacts to the residential properties on Green Street. The Green Street strip mall property is highlighted in yellow. The property is currently zoned FB-UN1, a residential zone. OVERLAY SUMMARY Large areas zoned General Commercial (CG) and Light Manufacturing (M-1) are proposed to be rezoned to the MU-6 and MU-11 zones. These areas are generally located along the 1-15 corridor, extending from 400 South to 2100 South. They also include areas along 2100 South from 1-15 to Redwood Road, property at Redwood Road and 500 South, property on 600 North near 600 West, and property on 900 North at 400 West. An interactive man of the affected orODerties is available on the oroiect weboaee. The proposed MU-6 and MU-11 zones generally don't allow for the more intense commercial and light industrial uses that are currently allowed in the CG and M-1 zones. Due to this, the City is proposing the 'Transitional Overlay" over these properties to allow a selection of more intensive commercial uses to occur in these areas. Some of the additional uses would be subject to a Conditional Use process. The overlay would require additional landscape buffering standards PROPOSED ADDITIONAL USES to the uses but would also allow for reduced zoning requirements on facade design elements, such as windows, entrances, and ground floor street -facing active uses. Existing Businesses Some businesses may become nonconforming uses if the MU and Transitional Overlay zones are adopted, but could continue operating and change to other similar or lower intensity businesses in the future through the nonconforming use process. New buildings and building expansions over 1,000square feet would generally be subject to the Transitional Overlay and other MU zone standards. Change of Nonconforming Use Process A nonconforming use may change to another nonconforming use, provided it is permitted in the MU-2 zone, or the new use has similar or less adverse impacts than the existing use. The below table lists the proposed additional allowed uses and whether they will be permitted (P) or conditional (C). Those uses listed with a C would be subject to a Conditional Use process. USE Ambulance service C Vehicle, automobile rental agency P Blacksmith shop C I Vehicle, automobile repair (major) C Bus line yard and repair C Vehicle, automobile sales and service P Equipment rental (indoor) P I Warehouse C Industrial Assembly C iI Welding shop C Limousine service P I Wholesale distribution C Sign painting/fabrication C Woodworking mill C Taxicab facility C SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING DIVISION v.2 10/22/2024 ADDITIONAL ZONING AND DESIGN STANDARDS The below diagram illustrates the additional standards proposed to apply to the additional uses in the overlay. All other aspects would be subject to the MU zoning standards applicable to the Storefront building form.. The standards below are condensed for space, see the oroiect weboave for the full draft text. • 0 0 . •. • MAX. SETBACK WAIVERQ Max. front/corner side yard setback waived if landscape yard provided between building and prop. line: 1. 10' minimum depth 2. 1 tree every 200 sq ft 3. 33% vegetation, with 50% having mature height >3' 4. Vegetation shall include 5 different plants. FRONT YARD PARKING Allowed if min. 25' from front property line. LANDSCAPE BUFFERS© Min. 10' side and rear yards. Shall be landscaped, including shade trees, shrubs, and 6' fence. The additional allowed uses may utilize the below Design Standards if they comply with the maximum setback waiver landscape yard standards noted above. GROUND 20% of ground floor facade must in - FLOOR clude uses other than parking or stor- ACTIVE USES2 age; shall extend min 25' into building. FACADE Min. % of street facing facades shall BUILDING be clad in durable materials, i.e. brick, MATERIALS masonry, textured/patterned concrete or cut stone, etc. Ground Floor: 70% min. Upper Floors: 70% min. GROUND 25% glass, allows 5' of visibility into FLOOR GLASS building; ENTRANCESZ Min 1 entry for each street facing fa- cade. MAXIMUM No blank walls over 30' long; must LENGTH OF be broken up by element with min. 1' BLANK WALLS depth. MAXIMUM LENGTH No street facing building wall OF STREET FACING may be longer than 250'. FACADES' EQUIPMENT & Screened from public view, inte- SERVICE AREAS grated into design, located along SCREENING side/rear yard. PARKING LOT Poles limited to 16' height, LIGHTING shielded. EXTERIOR LIGHTING Shall be shielded, directed down to prevent light trespass. Shall not strobe, flash or flicker. PARKING Regulates external skin, eleva- STRUCTURES for/stair design, ramp location, lighting, signage, and ground level uses. PUBLIC IMPROVE- Sidewalk, curb/gutter, parkstrip MENTS required ifdeficient. Footnotes: 1. Existing retail uses over 100,000 square feet in size are exempt from this standard. 2. For corner buildings, the standard only applies to one facade. Enlargement of Existing Large Scale Retail For existing retail stores over 100,000 square feet in size, the zone allows for additions that extend a street - facing facade to utilize the Design and Zoning standards above. Comments and Questions: please contact us at MUconsolidationCaslcgov.com OVERLAY LOCATION U170" The overlay is proposed to be mapped over the areas shown below. An interactive map of the affected properties is available on the protect webpaee. �m 69 IA G9 ®_ 91 MM MR .,,,@ ® �3 G? E A ti Transitional Overlay 20 1 Comments and Questions: please contact us at MUconsolidationPslcgov com WHAT DETERMINES PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENTS? The number of parking spaces required for a property depends on its specific use (like single- family homes, apartments, restaurants, retail stores, etc.) and the parking context, which is determined by the zoning district the property is located in. There are four different parking contexts; each one is briefly described below: General Context More auto -dependent in scale and parking needs, with very little transit access. Properties in the General Context have the highest minimum parking requirements. Urban Center Dense, pedestrian -oriented development within more intensely developed urban centers, where pedestrian activity is high and there is a moderate level of transit access. The parking demand in this context is higher than in the Neighborhood Center Context, but lower than areas with good transit service. Neighborhood Center Areas with small to moderate -scale shopping, gathering, or activity spaces. These areas are generally located within residential neighborhoods where visitors may be walking from their homes or where there are high frequency (every 15 minutes) bus routes thereby reducing parking demand. Transit Context This category includes those zoning districts that immediately surround mass -transit facilities and/or are in the downtown core. These areas have the best transit service, and the lowest parking demand, and so generally have no minimum parking requirements. New Developments: Must provide at least the minimum and no more than the maximum number of parking spaces listed in Table 21A.44.040-A of the zoning ordinance, "Minimum and Maximum Off -Street Parking." Special Modifications: The minimum and maximum parking requirements may be adjusted for things that can reduce or increase the actual parking needs for a property, like sharing parking stalls among businesses with different peak demand times, affordable and senior housing with lower car ownership, or being close to a TRAX station. Below are some examples of uses and how many parking spaces are required for that use within each parking context: Minimum Parking Required Studio and 1 Studio and 1+ Studio: No Min. bedrooms: bedrooms: 1 space per DU 1 space per DU 1 bedroom: 0.5 space per DU No Minimum 2+ bedrooms: 1.25 space per DU 2+ bedrooms: 1 space per DU 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of seating area No Minimum 3 spaces per 2 spaces per 1 space per No Minimum 1,000 sq. ft. 1,000 sq. ft. 1,000 sq. ft. All Contexts: Studio & 1 Bedroom: 2 spaces per DU 2+ bedrooms: 3 spaces per DU Neighborhood, Urban, and Transit: 5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft seating area General: 7 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. seating area All Contexts - Outdoor Seating Area: 4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. General: 4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Neighborhood: 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Urban & Transit: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. DU= dwelling unit I sq. ft.= square feet WHAT CHANGES ARE PROPOSED TO CHAPTER 21 A.44? Sections to be Removed: Parking Location & Setback Table (21 A.44.060.A): The regulations in this table are duplicative and already regulated with the required yard areas/setback in the base zoning district and by buffer requirements in the Landscaping Chapter. References to specific zoning districts that are being consolidated. Sections to be Moved: Parking Garage Design Standards moved and consolidated in 21A.37 so all regulations are in the same place. Drive -Through Standards moved from 21A.40 (Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures) and consolidated into 21A.44 so all regulations are in the same place. Comments and Questions: please contact us at MUconsolidationC@slceov.com Assigning MU Zones to a Parking Context: The table below lists the current parking and proposed parking context for districts that are being consolidated into MU districts. Parking context for zones not included in the MU zoning consolidation will remain the same and therefore are not included in the table. Developments more than 3/4 mile from a rail station will use the "General Context," from h to 3/4 mile the "Neighborhood Center Context," from �h to 1/4 mile the "Urban Center Context", and within Y4 mile the "Transit Context". Highlights Current • For most MU zones, parking CC, CB, CSHBDI, FB-UN2 CG, CN, CSHBD2, FB-SC, regulations will depend on a CS, FB-SE, MU, MU-8, property's distance to a fixed rail RO RB, TSA-T, MU-11, station, This approach considers R-MU-35, R-MU, the varying parking needs across R-MU-45, TSA-C different areas of the city, some SNB, of which are near transit while SSSC Overlay others are not. • Basing requirements on transit • • • distance avoids excessive MU-5, MU-5, MU-5, MU-5, parking near transit stops and MU-6, MU-6, MU-6, MU-6, insufficient parking in areas MU-8, MU-8, MU-8, MU-8, without transit access. MU-11 MU-11 MU-11 MU-11 Located Located Located Located The zoning requirements for more than between %2 mile between%2 mile within %a mile districts merging into MU-2 N mile from and 1/a mile and''/n mile of fixed -rail and MU-3 zones will stay the fixed -rail from fixed -rail from fixed- rail transit. same. They will remain as transit. transit; transit. Neighborhood Center Context and won't depend on distance MU-2, MU-3 to rail stations, since all these Note: Distance to fixed -rail transit shall be 7neasuredradially in a districts are already in the straight line from the closest point of the subject property line to the neighborhood context. closest point of a fixed -rail transit station platform. Map of Proposed Parking Context The following map highlights only those properties that are impacted by the zoning consolidation and represents approximately where each parking context would apply based on distance to a fixed rail stop. I •� 1lTA Rail Staps General Neighborhood Center Urban Cenler Tr —it l:w 11-•Y g:.J. . s• � ar •ra..m 1 s i{ 1^+rrl�'r �-. •�. •en oi., • .. T. • I T Zoning District Consolidation - Citywide --------- L MU.2 M MU-11 - MU-3 M-1 -5 PL MU MU-6 O - MU-8 U /Sa 1— = Foot __- -= ;,MIN IL ' In s■ 01 ` .116i molls. 1.. _ � _gin �.■: ; .. �■Mar � lr 1_ ;� jijom, ■■1 Salt La ■■1 City 11— a_ Moor 'Mm . _ r , - ' .au1 A ON Ail 'r AMP LIM Southait Lake i .1 Zoning District Consolidation - Citywide ---------- 1 •� Northwest Quadrant 1 I --- L------- ----------------- MU-2 _ Mu.tt MU-3 MA MU-5 %//, PL MU-6 MUA 3,150 rsoo . == r— Rose Park Mg rmalade :Capitol Hill Upper Avenues low �- ,le WE st North Tertrple East Centralt%Yorth !ALE University ill a n 0 .towndIt t j ■r 9th and 9th + , Poplar Grove Central City ,� ��parkNort South Y�e "r., Nint Win, MM Liberty Park South Wasatch Hollow + Bonneville Hills r Glenda ■: ark Sou _ Sugar House to It� th sau' ParleyY r _ South of 1-80 , _ Zoning District Consolidation - Liberty Park South -EF aFm Illlllfilin ••• ■■ ■■ mm IIIIIIIIIIIII �111111111112 0111111111 B1: ■I IQ r =ED 11 1111 111, [OkL II1111=.111 J _IllllnllnlInu _ A4,116I- �11011 111!■IIILU '" i11�111.inn11��11.-uuuure ni�u nm 11111111111111�� �1111111111■■ �IIIIIIIIIII . III-Illllill - �. � �111�1�1111'�i� ulllllilllll_ .=IIIIIIIIIII I\ \I�IIIIIIIII : illlllllllINI 111111111mII a�ilmnui oil � ���== �1� 1111\ 111■ ���� I 1 I tol Hill loll ► +e Ila'., _ ', �Iillill%ICI i 4111 = Zoning District Consolidation - Ninth and Ninth + Central City South ROOM img1111p- "nw-- �p = ' � _ — �� � - ■1 � ' IIIIIIC �_ WIN —� � IIII _ �IIIIIII :' nii��l �iiuii8 �1�11�11 II nil _anal IIII I:IIIIIIIC 'u - �.1 I Ilm =.a lu �1 .—.� � III s'nll 1 lu lilil it - �Tm _ =1n: �Im 1 =11.11 un!n =L IIU�I _n.1 oil ■Ir---=ir�fi11111 w �"— �o � rnru ���: = � � � nnrn • �IIIII =f 1�� 11� Illllllui __ =ram' _ — 111111111111 :11 IIII :.IIIII'll =_!IIII■ti wt:'�I � Ili 1-11 IIIII� :=:1111111► _l a nll ndll II�911 r119111 uln.�I IIII _"111 !III — _ = �! i• -M11 ILMI � �- °' ■■uilLii■I i n �■ i lin nl r 1�11 = I I �unil all E Illl��ul illl6l In = t Il 1 it - ailld !� � FI lIIi1'I' of m 1 11 Iu 1 ill I! =I a illlln .. iinul - lil� !I �slllllllllllll �IIIII 1���II _'III _ _14! m lll5 =111 ttt = n IIII III — - .o _ 0 Zoning District Consolidation - Northwest Quadrant III n, L U r 1 IF I i - I , I I 1 1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _I _ _ MU-5 I/// PL _ MU _ MU-8 Oo a,soo 't,00a� I r—o-1i r v 1 � — � �w,lF•. � I • DIM9• • •. • ' • � �111111111 �� •ulI/� i111111111 �I�� 0il 1� • �� 11 LI pill ••�� i � — �111 1 1111 11■■ US oil � �_ a11• v Vimon[Ave / Way E 281SS ✓, ,.1.• _ MU-2 _ MU-11 MPL•1 ��� CMU-MU-503 MU- - MU- O0 500 1,000 -I —_ J +Me like , 1 " may�a wen vauey r rict Consolidation - Rose Park MU-2 MU-11 _ MU-3 M-1 MU-5 %// PL MU-8 - MU-8 /� n sm 1 oou ����=� _� �11111=_ _ _�_� __ _�1111111111� �� : �� == M= =- IIIIIIIIII� BED �M �11111111� �� ��M !� 111: 111:�mmi uuIIIIIP III_ - --�pl__ III 1111�1 - - - - E -==111111111_ ' =uuuml iHIM�i . �- "111 = E n= _Idual = � _■ _ _ -■ - _ _ :. eul.' :III IIIIII ..�._ _—'►..,_ un_I _nn = - _ _ _ _ = . =1 _; 5 .III 1116 ■ — � _ — — — — = = ==' —" 1.. _. mil. 111111111=�IIIIII_ •11111�=1:0 — — — p — — =p = 0� ^` Hour. _u un n m nu in Isar 1�„�a -e ea ITn ITI-n m n-u nn m uu m ,� , .I a = : _ -mull _�Illlle �U► mill) �I� .:..IIII 11111111�=11111111 11 �� ■11 1111 Illll" III iCl 1111 11111 111 1111 Ip :1 111 III NI■_ _ __ _ _ q��ll�l_- -ullll __ - _ _ - - - - -- • llll��� flll� II Ili III Illil HIS Cllll I li 111 I<�uuu CIIIP? IIII rr� ?IIIII 111� Ill�i =111fl u C � �i i�l 1. �. C =u =. on� b4 _ �■Ili:l€lIl; �� �I III VIIIIIIII :A Garden Ave w Lj 5945E �n -:1 411_ 1 III•—•—• —_• m .. 1 1 a :__ - - I - - _.a}■ Fake � E 3010 5 Ed—d Ave I I E -- E 3045 s 1io,m nve E 3o3s s N E 3060 5 Gunn Ave ......n Ave 4 E30805 31155 1 Mille, Ave _ m — E31505 v E31505 '^ EN t,00dl—qve E31705 — � wooalaoo Ave E 3110 5 o, 171 334o s '1hawi 1 _91.'�' �Ir �a ��= =�_ =qn =1�: ��� IIIII_ ■1�11111� �� �, 1��+ � IIIII .T.IIII 111111111 IIIII■ illllll 11111111 IIIIIP 'nlllllt �IIII'� �11��1�: 111►� .�11j1: =� !� nn1� �11111 11'_ ��� �I11_ IIII�I�I '-���II�,J■^ °OI= =11i �111�■�■ 111\�������� /' IMON Mil: �Tnllll illllli :IIIII =1�111 iilllll 1�11�111 111`I � 1: �Illlllri 11■i� 1���� • O :i ..■ _.�!_ -Ira =p1_ I ■ _� ■ _■=1111!1�I IIIII■ 11111111 Illl�li Ill�ti: IIIII IIIIIIII III 1�III1 IIIiC p� ..��. ■flit hill III III ■ 11 �11 111� m �I■ III �����;� :mil!' IIIIIIII� '� uii'�p'%:�1 ili�lil .�■�l l ■�l�l I alp ."-.' JL0 Zoning District Consolidation Upper Avenues ZoninL, District Consolidation - Wasatch Hollow + Bonneville Hills Sunnyside _ +ftS t Lake i East — — — — _ --ity agna West valley •��r�" mmMU-2 MU-r1 UJ M-1 MU-5 PL - MU-6 - MU-8 0 h11U l (I�1� O JLL� 11111111111 �1111111111� ��I = ■ 111111�1 pp ■u■■p ■ /�1�� �■ �■■■ ■ ONE 1111111111:►=_=_��:■��,:--:���-� �:�'��■ IIIIIIIIIIi �►�JIIII�- .:_ _. �- :: •= � �\► �' � .■ it �1�1111� 1111111■ -_� �� � 11111111111= �� -IQ� : � ;Illy �� �11��r■■■�� :IIII�� 111111111= �� =� = ���I�IIl11P n1�..11111 ■1� ��► � ■1■■■■■1. C111n11= Zoning District Consolidation - West Downtown e m H I\ I I o IIIIII W 2005 W2005 wzoo s W tn5 3 1 00 0 m f ININIM1 woos Dc..wntt 411 tLaCity� W B,oaaway A B W University BI: d W University BIw W Unlverzi[y Blvd 89 II I III F1 �N ZT] F 'r 3 zav a I MU-2 MU-11 1~ - MU-3 _ M-1 MU-5 PL _ MU-5 - MU-5 © o I -not 20 I r .I ke I I ty N 1 dagna Wes[Valley w ]o0 5 w rnos Central 9th �� II "_ Zoning District Consolidation - Citywide ® D-day Foa� MOA r r ;alt Lake ' City ' r r South sail ; Lake ' i r i Zoning District Consolidation - Citywide -------- {/I Poplar Grove kGlendale ® Tr—di—1 Ovorlay © O J/50 /!/U f cel O Marmalade + Capitol Hill Downtown 7-2 Sal Lake allpark North Central Ninth South of 1300 S South Salt I Lake 1' t i �1 District Consolidation - Ballpark North + Central Ninth �T7T7/ T7/iT�777Tt w 5 20 -- 11�1� �I�11111111 1 M111111` T�I ■ �b� �I■111 1111. ..1.■11ji a �illl�i . �—11111111111111 � � ■ 11111111111111 _— :111111111111111 ■� . �mmmmn iiiiiiiiiiiiii ■��'=unnmmm =nmemmm =uuii�iiiim� � ■1111111111111 liil 'uil � pllllllllllllll ■ �� � �11111111111111 i �11111111111111 !u .� IIII1111 �111111111111■ °IIIIIIIIIII� 11111111111111°°=IIIIIIIIIII? IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII — 111111111111111111 !11111111111��: _Ilunum_ _illlllllllll■ District Consolidation - Glendale m----------------------------- ------------------ N -_�-- �1■ 1111�111■ ��� 1����\�1111►� �1� oil , 1 �111111■-�- �� 11 111� �IIIIII�'�: I�IIb ■111111■ �It � �,` 11, L'°° N N_M'121�111111 orb IN IIIw itol Hill =._.Iffil District Consolidation - Poplar Grove Zoning District Consolidation - WeI West Downtown � MI / - A l l -�I I I lU o9 1111111 wzoos W]o05 ' wzoos w—I Oil ■11111112 ■ i ■fit :: �����: ■_ r eroaa.ay w wa�xe B WUnlversity 9lvd W University Blvd +J Lrn versi[y Blvd ' 3 r v F 3 3 za+ ® Transitional Overlay *AII "5 775 Faal I _ •I I St,Lake t ' ty '+ f.+ N agna West Valley w roos Centra. ✓' � �� rn�� Straw Polls MU Zoning Consolidation Discussion 4.15.2025 The Council considered and supported the first 11 items during the 4.8.2025 Work Session Briefing Issue Yes No 1 Allow drive through facilities for financial intuitions in Sugar House districts. X 2 Allow up to 150’ in Sugar House area (south of 2100 south, 1300 E McClelland to freeway). MU11 type height (with the addition of the conditions outlined in the Granary Area sections) X 3 Change max height for row house in MU-5 and above to 45 feet X 4 Clarify language to allow for “vertical stacking” in row houses. Request to include the change below DWELLING, ROW HOUSE: A series of attached single-family dwellings that share at least one common wall with an adjacent dwelling unit and where the entry of each unit faces a public street. Units may be stacked vertically and/or attached horizontally. Each attached unit may be on its own lot. Proposed Chage: “DWELLING, ROW HOUSE: A series of attached single-family dwellings residential units that share… X 5 Remove language that requires roof pitch / height be similar to adjacent properties in MU-3. Proposed removing this in MU-3 • Staff proposes removing this in MU-2 and MU-3 X 6a Standardizing setback for similar zones Urban House/Two-Family/Cottage 1. Open Space: Revise all to 10% open space with 20% vegetation X 6b Row House 1. Front/corner side yard (min.) ▪ MU-2/3: Maintain 5 ft in both, merge additional language about landscaping and hardscape. 2. Front/corner side yard (max.) ▪ MU-2/3: Eliminate maximum for MU-3 to match MU-2 3. Rear Yard ▪ MU-11: Make consistent with MU-5/6/8, by increasing MU-11 to 10' 4. Open Space Area (min) ▪ ALL 10% OS / 20% vegetation X 6c Vertical Mixed Use, Storefront and Multi-family 1. Front/corner Side Yard min ▪ MU2, MU3: Make both consistent, apply the 5' min. MU-2 standard to MU-3. ▪ MU5, MU-6-MU- 8: Make all consistent, apply the variable use based 0' to 10' setback in MU-5/6 to MU-8. 2. Front /Corner Side Yard (max) ▪ MU-2/3: No Max ▪ MU-5/6/8: Apply MU-5/6 setback to MU-8. 3. Rear Yard: Merge rear yard language for MU-2/3. 4. Open Space Area (min) ▪ ALL 10% OS / 20% vegetation X 7 Add “Contractor’s Yard/Office (Indoor)” use to the Transitional Overlay as a Conditional Use. o Staff recommends including this use. X 8 Areas unintentionally included as requiring activity use due to a code provision in the recently adopted MU-8 code. o Staff recommends removing “Richard Street, from Harvard Avenue to Kelsey Avenue” as an area requiring an “Enhanced Active Ground Floor Use.” o 400 South, located between 500 West (start of rail overpass) and the I-15 interchange (~800 West), was unintentionally included in the requirement for a high activity use. Staff recommends excluding this area from the use requirement due to poor viability X 9 Delete the requirement for a 6' walkway between multiple buildings that are over 75' in façade length. o Staff recommends deleting this requirement X 10 Add a prohibition on mature coverage counting toward the required park strip vegetation coverage of 33% in MU-8 and MU-11. o Staff recommends applying the requirement to other high- intensity MU zones, the MU-8 and MU-11 X 11 Add a transition period to the MU zone adoption. o Staff recommends that the City Council include a transition period of 3-6 months where developers could still utilize the prior regulations. X The Council will review items 12- 18b during the April 15 work session briefing 12 Modify the height limit for "private directional signs" from 4' to 8'. o Staff recommends increasing the height so that private parking related signs can be at eye level. 13 Include the proposed mapping changes o Staff recommends including the following changes in the final draft. o FB-UN2 Corners to MU-6 in Central 9th o Residential/Office (RO) Zone to MU-8 East Downtown and West Temple o Green Street/2100 South o Federal Property at 2100 S/Redwood Road 14 Modifications to 21A.10 public hearing notices to better match changes to State code that were adopted this legislative session. Planning staff included some changes to 21A.10 in the consolidation to address what the state code referred to as geographic areas and that cities could define what that meant. This year, the state introduced “ministerial” code changes that do not have to include mailed notices that the city would want to include in that section. 15 Parking options from Planning Staff a. Any multi-family project over a certain number of dwellings could be required to include a mix of dwelling sizes.  An example could include requiring any development with over 20 units to provide at least 25% of the units with 2 or more bedrooms. This would limit a concentration of micro-units in any given area and promote more family sized housing. It would require a text amendment and consideration for applying it to any zone that allows larger apartment buildings and buildings four stories or greater.   b. Mico-unit projects over a certain number of dwellings could be required to have a parking minimum to help alleviate on-street parking pressures. An example could include a micro-unit project with over 25 dwellings be required to have a .5 parking ratio. This would require a text amendment and consideration for applying it to any zone that allows larger apartment buildings and buildings four stories or greater.   c. A requirement could be added that buildings be limited to 30' in height if the existing ROW does not satisfy aerial fire access requirements and no modifications to park strips, on street parking, etc. are allowed. Or, the City’s consideration of removing on-street parking would only be allowed for projects that meet certain policy objectives such as affordable housing or family-sized housing. This could help reduce the expectation that property owners have about what can be built on their property and can address the perception that modifying the right of way by removing on street parking, narrowing a park strip, or removing street trees is essentially a public asset that is being “given” to a developer. d. If a project is required to remove on-street parking to comply with fire code, the project could be required to provide the same number of parking stalls on-site, with the City recording a public easement to ensure that the parking stalls are available to the public and posted accordingly. Consideration should be given to the impact providing parking has on affordable housing, with possible exceptions for certain types of residential uses. This would require resources for enforcement. 16 Request from the Public o Request to rezone property MU-8 instead of MU-5 for some parcels on North Temple. The constituent feels the MU-8 is better aligned with the project they would like to do. o Located at approximately 69, 59, 53, and 51 N Chicago, 955, 963, 973 North Temple and 62 North 1000 West. 17 Request from the Public Add kennel as permitted use o Current zoning allows a veterinary clinic which they plan to include. The constituent feels adding "animal kennel" to the zone would provide additional clarity so they can operate seamlessly without regulatory concerns. o Planning Staff recommends adding as Conditional to MU2/3/5 to match MU-6/8/11 if the Council would like to make the use allowed 18a Legislative Actions Request the administration review interior blocks that were studied as part of the zoning consolidation, with narrow streets and have single family structures, and consider proposing a downzone for these properties. 18b Legislative Actions Request the Administration to analyze review and update parts of the Central City Master plan related to the State Street corridor with the goal of rezoning parcels to a higher density MU zoning district. 19 MU-11 Additional Height Options a. Planning Staff would like to clarify two of the options allowed for 25' of additional height in the MU-11 zone in the Granary and Sugar House: o Revise the language from “100% ground floor commercial use” to the zoning term “100% ground floor Enhanced Active Use” o Revise the term “affordable housing” to “affordable housing in compliance with the Affordable Housing Incentives (21A.52.050)” b. Planning Staff would like to verify whether the Council prefers to allow those developments to get a total of 61' of additional height using only the “Affordable Housing Incentives,” going from 125' to 186'. Or whether the Council would prefer those developments reaching that height also include one of the other options as well – a 20' midblock walkway or 100% ground floor enhanced active uses. COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO: City Council Members FROM: Nick Tarbet, Policy Analyst DATE: July 1, 2025 RE: Mixed-Use Zoning Consolidation PLNPCM2024-00707 PROJECT TIMELINE: Briefing 1: February 4, 2025 Briefing 2: April 8, 2025 Briefing 3: April 15, 2025 Briefing 4: July 1, 2025 Set Date: April 1, 2025 Public Hearing: May 6, 2025 Public Hearing Continued: July 1, 2025 Potential Action: July 1, 2025 MAY 6 PUBLIC HEARING SUMMARY During the May 6 public hearing many residents spoke about the proposed zoning amendments. Some expressed concerns about taller buildings, the possible displacement of current residents or businesses, lack of enforcement, smaller rear yard spaces, lower property values, and the potential loss of manufacturing space. Others supported the proposal because it could allow for taller buildings and more housing options. Due to questions raised at the public hearing, the Council continued it to a future date so the Council could receive additional information. Since the hearing, Council Members have met with planning staff to discuss the questions and comments raised. Based on those discussions, Planning staff sent an updated memo, Attachment A - Mixed-Use Zoning Consolidation Public Hearing Responses, which responds to many of the questions raised and provides recommendations for some potential changes to the ordinance . Not all of the questions required potential changes to the final ordinance. The questions which require direction from the Council are noted in the section below titled, Question for Council Direction. During the July 1 briefing, the Council will review the responses from Planning and may direct staff to make changes to the final ordinance. The continued public hearing will also be on July 1st. If the Page | 2 Council is ready to adopt the ordinance on July 1, the Council could close the public hearing and adopt the ordinance that night. If there are any changes to the final ordinance resulting from the work session discussion, they could be incorporated into the final draft via the adopting motion. However, if the changes are too complicated, final action could be pushed to July 8 to give staff time to update the ordinance. Public Hearing Responses – topic list 1. Upper Floor Stepbacks from Local Historic Landmark Sites 2. Off-Street Parking Requirement Impacts on Neighborhoods 3. Setbacks Next to Residential Zones 4. Additional Height in Sugar House and Transit Infrastructure Adequacy 5. Upper Floor Step Back in the Sugar House Business District 6. Snelgrove and Midas Blocks Upzone Development Agreement Potential 7. Allowing Pharmacies with Drive-Throughs 8. Existing Business Concerns with 700 West M-1 Rezoning to MU-6 9. Green Street Strip Mall Rezone Question for Council Direction 1. Upper Floor Step Back in the Sugar House Business District – Planning Staff Recommendation: a. Revise the stepback requirement to generally match the existing Sugar House standard but apply only to narrower rights-of-way under 90' in width. i. Require a 10' stepback after 30' of height (the first full floor over 30') when along a right-0f-way less than 90' in width for the MU-8 and MU-11 zones. ii. This would apply the Sugar House stepback on all the CSHBD-1 streets (except along the 2100 South Monument Plaza where the right-of-way is wider) and most mid-block streets in other MU-8/11 zoned areas of the city. b. Revise the stepback threshold from 85' down to 45'. o Require a 10' stepback after 45' of height (first full floor over 45’) on any width street for the MU -8 and MU-11 zones. o This would increase the height threshold for Sugar House (putting a step at the 5th story instead of the 3rd/4th story) and would apply to all MU-8/11 zoned streets, including the 2100 South Monument Plaza. c. Implement a geographically specific stepback in the Sugar House additional height area (McClelland to 1300 East, 2100 S to I-80). Does the Council wish to make any changes based on the options provided by Planning Staff? 2. Zoning Changes in Sugar House a. Requests were made to change the zoning designation for the Snelgrove and Midas blocks to MU-8. Planning’s original recommendation was Mu-5 and MU-6. However, community members have raised concerns and suggested the Council enter into a development agreement with the property owners. If the Council wishes to enter into a development agreement from the property owners, the Council should rezone the properties to their MU-5 and MU-6 zoning as originally proposed. Then, the property Page | 3 owners could submit a petition to rezone their properties to MU-8, at during which, the Council could seek a development agreement with the developers. Does the Council still wish to rezone the properties to MU-8 or to go with Planning’s original proposal of MU5 and MU-6? 3. Existing Business Concerns with 700 West M-1 Rezoning to MU-6 a. Staff is proposing to allow three additional uses in the Transitional Overlay as “Conditional Uses” to accommodate some additional potential uses and ensure that common commercial uses in the area won’t become nonconforming. These include Outdoor Storage, Equipment Rental (Outdoor), and Contractor’s Yard (Outdoor). Contractor’s Yard/Office (Indoor) is also proposed to be revised to “Permitted.” Does the Council wish to include the additional conditional and permitted uses in the Transitional Overlay in the final ordinance? 4. Green Street Strip Mall Rezone a. The Council’s straw poll on April 15, 2025, supported changing the FB-UN1 zone to MU-6, which would allow for commercial and residential development up to six stories in height. However, if the Council is concerned about potential height impacts to the residential properties across the street, the Council could instead rezone the property to MU-3, which would allow commercial and residential development up to three stories in height. Either zone would eliminate the nonconforming and noncomplying issues for the strip mall and limit the impacts to the residential properties on Green Street. Does the Council wish to include the any of the following options in the final ordinance? • Rezone the parcels on the east side of Green Street to MU-6 • Rezone the parcels on the east side of Green Street MU-3 5. The Council supported establishing a transition period for the ordinance that allows developers to finish their permit with either the old standards or to go with the new once. The Council was fine with 3-6 months. Planning staff recommends the transition period be 3 months. Does the Council support including a 3-month transition period for the ordinance? Legislative Actions During the straw poll process, the Council approved including the following Legislative Actions at the time of adoption of the ordinance. One of the motions references these for potential adoption. • Interior Block Study o Request the administration review interior blocks that were studied as part of the zoning consolidation, with narrow streets and have single family structures, and consider proposing a downzone for these properties. Page | 4 • Update the Central Community Master Plan. o Request the Administration to analyze review and update parts of the Central City Master plan related to the State Street corridor with the goal of rezoning parcels to a higher density MU zoning district. • On-street Parking Concerns o Review the City’s parking policies and ordinances regarding on-street parking pressure caused by new developments. Provide recommendations that address the impact on neighborhoods, aligning with the administration's options and the Council's support as outlined in Straw Poll #15 The following information was provided for the May 6 public hearing. It is provided again for background purposes. APRIL 15 WORK SESSION SUMMARY The Council reviewed the remaining straw polls (#12-21) during the April 15 briefing. The responses are capture in the table below. The public hearing is scheduled for May 6. Straw Polls results from the April 8 and 15, work session discussions. Issue Yes No 1 Allow drive through facilities for financial intuitions in Sugar House districts. Yes 2 Allow up to 150’ in Sugar House area (south of 2100 south, 1300 E McClelland to freeway). MU11 type height (with the addition of the conditions outlined in the Granary Area sections) Yes 3 Change max height for row house in MU-5 and above to 45 feet Yes 4 Clarify language to allow for “vertical stacking” in row houses. Request to include the change below DWELLING, ROW HOUSE: A series of attached single-family dwellings that share at least one common wall with an adjacent dwelling unit and where the entry of each unit faces a public street. Units may be stacked vertically and/or attached horizontally. Each attached unit may be on its own lot. Yes Page | 5 Proposed Chage: “DWELLING, ROW HOUSE: A series of attached single- family dwellings residential units that share… 5 Remove language that requires roof pitch / height be similar to adjacent properties in MU-3. Proposed removing this in MU-3 • Staff proposes removing this in MU-2 and MU-3 Yes 6a Standardizing setback for similar zones Urban House/Two-Family/Cottage 1. Open Space: Revise all to 10% open space with 20% vegetation Yes 6b Row House 1. Front/corner side yard (min.) ▪ MU-2/3: Maintain 5 ft in both, merge additional language about landscaping and hardscape. 2. Front/corner side yard (max.) ▪ MU-2/3: Eliminate maximum for MU-3 to match MU-2 3. Rear Yard ▪ MU-11: Make consistent with MU-5/6/8, by increasing MU-11 to 10' 4. Open Space Area (min) ▪ ALL 10% OS / 20% vegetation Yes to all 6c Vertical Mixed Use, Storefront and Multi-family 1. Front/corner Side Yard min ▪ MU2, MU3: Make both consistent, apply the 5' min. MU-2 standard to MU-3. ▪ MU5, MU-6-MU- 8: Make all consistent, apply the variable use based 0' to 10' setback in MU-5/6 to MU-8. 2. Front /Corner Side Yard (max) ▪ MU-2/3: No Max ▪ MU-5/6/8: Apply MU-5/6 setback to MU-8. 3. Rear Yard: Merge rear yard language for MU-2/3. 4. Open Space Area (min) ▪ ALL 10% OS / 20% vegetation Yes to all 7 Add “Contractor’s Yard/Office (Indoor)” use to the Transitional Overlay as a Conditional Use. o Staff recommends including this use. Yes 8 Areas unintentionally included as requiring activity use due to a code provision in the recently adopted MU-8 code. Yes Page | 6 o Staff recommends removing “Richard Street, from Harvard Avenue to Kelsey Avenue” as an area requiring an “Enhanced Active Ground Floor Use.” o 400 South, located between 500 West (start of rail overpass) and the I-15 interchange (~800 West), was unintentionally included in the requirement for a high activity use. Staff recommends excluding this area from the use requirement due to poor viability 9 Delete the requirement for a 6' walkway between multiple buildings that are over 75' in façade length. o Staff recommends deleting this requirement Yes 10 Add a prohibition on mature coverage counting toward the required park strip vegetation coverage of 33% in MU-8 and MU-11. o Staff recommends applying the requirement to other high-intensity MU zones, the MU-8 and MU-11 Yes 11 Add a transition period to the MU zone adoption. o Staff recommends that the City Council include a transition period of 3-6 months where developers could still utilize the prior regulations. Yes The Council reviewed items 12- 21 during the April 15 work session briefing 12 Modify the height limit for "private directional signs" from 4' to 8'. o Staff recommends increasing the height so that private parking related signs can be at eye level. Yes 13 Include the proposed mapping changes o Staff recommends including the following changes in the final draft. o FB-UN2 Corners to MU-6 in Central 9th o Residential/Office (RO) Zone to MU-8 East Downtown and West Temple o Green Street/2100 South o Federal Property at 2100 S/Redwood Road Yes to all 14 Modifications to 21A.10 public hearing notices to better match changes to State code that were adopted this legislative session. Planning staff included some changes to 21A.10 in the consolidation to address what the state code referred to as geographic areas and that cities could define what that meant. Yes Page | 7 This year, the state introduced “ministerial” code changes that do not have to include mailed notices that the city would want to include in that section. 15 Parking options from Planning Staff a. Any multi-family project over a certain number of dwellings could be required to include a mix of dwelling sizes. An example could include requiring any development with over 20 units to provide at least 25% of the units with 2 or more bedrooms. This would limit a concentration of micro-units in any given area and promote more family sized housing. It would require a text amendment and consideration for applying it to any zone that allows larger apartment buildings and buildings four stories or greater. b. Mico-unit projects over a certain number of dwellings could be required to have a parking minimum to help alleviate on-street parking pressures. An example could include a micro-unit project with over 25 dwellings be required to have a .5 parking ratio. This would require a text amendment and consideration for applying it to any zone that allows larger apartment buildings and buildings four stories or greater. c. A requirement could be added that buildings be limited to 30' in height if the existing ROW does not satisfy aerial fire access requirements and no modifications to park strips, on street parking, etc. are allowed. Or, the City’s consideration of removing on-street parking would only be allowed for projects that meet certain policy objectives such as affordable housing or family-sized housing. This could help reduce the expectation that property owners have about what can be built on their property and can address the perception that modifying the right of way by removing on street parking, narrowing a park strip, or removing street trees is essentially a public asset that is being “given” to a developer. d. If a project is required to remove on-street parking to comply with fire code, the project could be required to provide the same number of parking stalls on-site, with the City recording a public easement to ensure that the parking stalls are available to the public and posted accordingly. Consideration should be given to the impact providing parking has on affordable housing, with possible exceptions for certain types of residential uses. This would require resources for enforcement. Yes to legislative intent 16 Request from the Public Yes Page | 8 o Request to rezone property MU-8 instead of MU-5 for some parcels on North Temple. The constituent feels the MU-8 is better aligned with the project they would like to do. o Located at approximately 69, 59, 53, and 51 N Chicago, 955, 963, 973 North Temple and 62 North 1000 West. o Addition: supported extending the MU-6 designation to 1000 West. 17 Request from the Public Add kennel as permitted use o Current zoning allows a veterinary clinic which they plan to include. The constituent feels adding "animal kennel" to the zone would provide additional clarity so they can operate seamlessly without regulatory concerns. o Planning Staff recommends adding as Conditional to MU2/3/5 to match MU-6/8/11 if the Council would like to make the use allowed Yes, as conditional use 18a Legislative Actions Request the administration review interior blocks that were studied as part of the zoning consolidation, with narrow streets and have single family structures, and consider proposing a downzone for these properties. Yes 18b Legislative Actions Request the Administration to analyze review and update parts of the Central City Master plan related to the State Street corridor with the goal of rezoning parcels to a higher density MU zoning district. Yes Items 19-21 added after 4.8.2025 Briefing 19 MU-11 Additional Height Options – Planning Staff Request a. Planning Staff would like to clarify two of the options allowed for 25' of additional height in the MU-11 zone in the Granary and Sugar House: o Revise the language from “100% ground floor commercial use” to the zoning term “100% ground floor Enhanced Active Use” o Revise the term “affordable housing” to “affordable housing in compliance with the Affordable Housing Incentives (21A.52.050)” b. Planning Staff would like to verify whether the Council prefers to allow those developments to get a total of 61' of additional height using only the “Affordable Housing Incentives,” going from 125' to 186'. Or whether the Council would prefer those developments Yes to all Page | 9 reaching that height also include one of the other options as well – a 20' midblock walkway or 100% ground floor enhanced active uses. 20 Constituent request for the following parcels be considered for zoning to the MU-8 (Mixed-Use, High-Density) designation. Approximately 1435 S State Street, Parcels: 103-015 / 103-011 / 103-014 / 103-006 totaling 1.54 acres located Yes 21 Council Member Young Addition from April 15. Rezone properties along 2100 south to MU-8. • Midas Block: 2100 S to Redondo Ave 900 E to Windsor (next to IHC Clinic) • Snelgrove Properties - 2100 South 900/800 East to Commonwealth Ave Yes The following information was provided for the April 15, 2025, work session briefing. APRIL 8 WORK SESSION SUMMARY During the Council’s April 8 briefing, the Council went over the first eleven straw polls, which indicated support for each of those recommendations. The Council will have a follow-up briefing on April 15 at which time the rest of the straw polls will be considered. The public hearing is set for May 6. Straw Poll Results from 4.8.2025 Briefing Issue Yes No 1 Allow drive through facilities for financial intuitions in Sugar House districts. X 2 Allow up to 150’ in Sugar House area (south of 2100 south, 1300 E McClelland to freeway). MU11 type height (with the addition of the conditions outlined in the Granary Area sections) X 3 Change max height for row house in MU-5 and above to 45 feet X 4 Clarify language to allow for “vertical stacking” in row houses. Request to include the change below X Page | 10 DWELLING, ROW HOUSE: A series of attached single-family dwellings that share at least one common wall with an adjacent dwelling unit and where the entry of each unit faces a public street. Units may be stacked vertically and/or attached horizontally. Each attached unit may be on its own lot. Proposed Chage: “DWELLING, ROW HOUSE: A series of attached single-family dwellings residential units that share… 5 Remove language that requires roof pitch / height be similar to adjacent properties in MU-3. Proposed removing this in MU-3 • Staff proposes removing this in MU-2 and MU-3 X 6a Standardizing setback for similar zones Urban House/Two-Family/Cottage 1. Open Space: Revise all to 10% open space with 20% vegetation X 6b Row House 1. Front/corner side yard (min.) ▪ MU-2/3: Maintain 5 ft in both, merge additional language about landscaping and hardscape. 2. Front/corner side yard (max.) ▪ MU-2/3: Eliminate maximum for MU-3 to match MU-2 3. Rear Yard ▪ MU-11: Make consistent with MU-5/6/8, by increasing MU-11 to 10' 4. Open Space Area (min) ▪ ALL 10% OS / 20% vegetation X 6c Vertical Mixed Use, Storefront and Multi-family 1. Front/corner Side Yard min ▪ MU2, MU3: Make both consistent, apply the 5' min. MU-2 standard to MU-3. ▪ MU5, MU-6-MU- 8: Make all consistent, apply the variable use based 0' to 10' setback in MU-5/6 to MU-8. 2. Front /Corner Side Yard (max) X Page | 11 ▪ MU-2/3: No Max ▪ MU-5/6/8: Apply MU-5/6 setback to MU-8. 3. Rear Yard: Merge rear yard language for MU-2/3. 4. Open Space Area (min) ▪ ALL 10% OS / 20% vegetation 7 Add “Contractor’s Yard/Office (Indoor)” use to the Transitional Overlay as a Conditional Use. o Staff recommends including this use. X 8 Areas unintentionally included as requiring activity use due to a code provision in the recently adopted MU-8 code. o Staff recommends removing “Richard Street, from Harvard Avenue to Kelsey Avenue” as an area requiring an “Enhanced Active Ground Floor Use.” o 400 South, located between 500 West (start of rail overpass) and the I-15 interchange (~800 West), was unintentionally included in the requirement for a high activity use. Staff recommends excluding this area from the use requirement due to poor viability X 9 Delete the requirement for a 6' walkway between multiple buildings that are over 75' in façade length. o Staff recommends deleting this requirement X 10 Add a prohibition on mature coverage counting toward the required park strip vegetation coverage of 33% in MU-8 and MU-11. o Staff recommends applying the requirement to other high- intensity MU zones, the MU-8 and MU-11 X 11 Add a transition period to the MU zone adoption. o Staff recommends that the City Council include a transition period of 3-6 months where developers could still utilize the prior regulations. The Council expressed support for a 3 month flex period where developers could use either zone. X Page | 12 The following information was provided for the April 8, 2025, work session briefing. FEBRUARY 4 WORK SESSION SUMMARY During the Council’s February 4 briefing, Planning provided an overview of the zoning amendments. Council Members asked a variety of questions about building height, setbacks, parking, design standards, open space and potential changes to the proposed zoning map amendments. At the briefing, some Council Members asked to meet with Planning staff to discuss details of the zoning amendments. Based on the briefing and follow-up meetings, the straw polls below have been prepared for the Council to review and provide direction to staff on which to incorporate into the final draft ordinance. The public hearing will be held on May 6. Straw Polls Items from Transmittal and Council Discussions 1. Allow drive through facilities for financial intuitions in Sugar House districts. 2. Allow up to 150’ in Sugar House area (south of 2100 south, 1300 E McClelland to freeway). MU11 type height 3. Change max height for row house in MU-5 and above to 45 feet. 4. Clarify language to allow for “vertical stacking” in row houses. Request to include the change below DWELLING, ROW HOUSE: A series of attached single-family dwellings that share at least one common wall with an adjacent dwelling unit and where the entry of each unit faces a public street. Units may be stacked vertically and/or attached horizontally. Each attached unit may be on its own lot. Proposed Chage: “DWELLING, ROW HOUSE: A series of attached single-family dwellings residential units that share… 5. Remove language that requires roof pitch / height be similar to adjacent properties in MU-3. Proposed removing this in MU-3 o Staff proposes removing this in MU-2 and MU-3 6. Standardizing setback for similar zones Proposed Changes a. A. Urban House/Two-Family/Cottage Open Space: Revise all to 10% open space with 20% vegetation b. Row House 1. Front/corner side yard (min.): MU-2/3: Maintain 5 ft in both, merge additional language about landscaping and hardscape. Page | 13 2. Front/corner side yard (max.): MU-2/3: Eliminate maximum for MU-3 to match MU-2 3. Rear Yard: MU-11: Make consistent with MU-5/6/8, by increasing MU-11 to 10'. 4. Open Space Area (min): ALL 10% OS / 20% vegetation c. Vertical Mixed Use, Storefront and Multi-family 1. Front/corner Side Yard min ▪ MU2, MU3: Make both consistent, apply the 5' min. MU-2 standard to MU-3. ▪ MU5, MU-6-MU- 8: Make all consistent, apply the variable use based 0' to 10' setback in MU-5/6 to MU-8. 2. Front /Corner Side Yard (max) ▪ MU-2/3: No Max ▪ MU-5/6/8: Apply MU-5/6 setback to MU-8. 3. Rear Yard: Merge rear yard language for MU-2/3. 4. Open Space Area (min) ALL 10% OS / 20% vegetation. 7. Add “Contractor’s Yard/Office (Indoor)” use to the Transitional Overlay as a Conditional Use. 1. Staff recommends including this use. 8. Areas unintentionally included as an requiring activity use due to a code provision in the recently adopted MU-8 code. a. Staff recommends removing “Richard Street, from Harvard Avenue to Kelsey Avenue” as an area requiring an “Enhanced Active Ground Floor Use.” b. 400 South, located between 500 West (start of rail overpass) and the I-15 interchange (~800 West), was unintentionally included in the requirement for a high activity use. Staff recommends excluding this area from the use requirement due to poor viability 9. Delete the requirement for a 6' walkway between multiple buildings that are over 75' in façade length. 1. Staff recommends deleting this requirement 10. Add a prohibition on mature coverage counting toward the required park strip vegetation coverage of 33% in MU-8 and MU-11. 1. Staff recommends applying the requirement to other high-intensity MU zones, the MU-8 and MU-11 11. Add a transition period to the MU zone adoption. 1. Staff recommends that the City Council include a transition period of 3-6 months where developers could still utilize the prior regulations. Page | 14 12. Modify the height limit for "private directional signs" from 4' to 8'. 1. Staff recommends increasing the height so that private parking-related signs can be at eye level. 13. Include the proposed mapping changes 1. Staff recommends including the following changes in the final draft. ▪ FB-UN2 Corners to MU-6 in Central 9th ▪ Residential/Office (RO) Zone to MU-8 East Downtown and West Temple ▪ Green Street/2100 South ▪ Federal Property at 2100 S/Redwood Road 14. Modifications to 21A.10 public hearing notices to better match changes to State code that were adopted this legislative session. Planning staff included some changes to 21A.10 in the consolidation to address what the state code referred to as geographic areas and that cities could define what that meant. This year, the state introduced “ministerial” code changes that do not have to include mailed notices that the city would want to include in that section. 15. Parking options from Planning Staff A few Council Members met with Community and Neighborhoods (CAN) staff to discuss how some developments create the necessity to remove some off-street parking stalls, thus impacting the neighborhoods where they are located. Planning staff provided the following options for the Council to consider that could address those concerns. a. Any multi-family project over a certain number of dwellings could be required to include a mix of dwelling sizes.  An example could include requiring any development with over 20 units to provide at least 25% of the units with 2 or more bedrooms. This would limit a concentration of micro-units in any given area and promote more family sized housing. It would require a text amendment and consideration for applying it to any zone that allows larger apartment buildings and buildings four stories or greater.   b. Mico-unit projects over a certain number of dwellings could be required to have a parking minimum to help alleviate on-street parking pressures. An example could include a micro-unit project with over 25 dwellings be required to have a .5 parking ratio. This would require a text amendment and consideration for applying it to any zone that allows larger apartment buildings and buildings four stories or greater.   c. A requirement could be added that buildings be limited to 30' in height if the existing ROW does not satisfy aerial fire access requirements and no modifications to park strips, on street parking, etc. are allowed. Or, the City’s consideration of removing on- street parking would only be allowed for projects that meet certain policy objectives such as affordable housing or family-sized housing. This could help reduce the expectation that property owners have about what can be built on their property and can address the perception that modifying the right of way by removing on street parking, narrowing a park strip, or removing street trees is essentially a public asset that is being “given” to a developer. Page | 15 d. If a project is required to remove on-street parking to comply with fire code, the project could be required to provide the same number of parking stalls on-site, with the City recording a public easement to ensure that the parking stalls are available to the public and posted accordingly. Consideration should be given to the impact providing parking has on affordable housing, with possible exceptions for certain types of residential uses. This would require resources for enforcement. Requests From the Public 16. Request to rezone property MU-8 instead of MU-5 for some parcels on North Temple. The constituent feels the MU-8 is better aligned with the project they would like to do. 1. Located at approximately 69, 59, 53, and 51 N Chicago, 955 North Temple. 17. Add kennel as permitted use 1. Current zoning allows a veterinary clinic which they plan to include. The constituent feels adding "animal kennel" to the zone would provide additional clarity so they can operate seamlessly without regulatory concerns. 1. Planning Staff recommends adding as Conditional to MU2/3/5 to match MU- 6/8/11 if the Council would like to make the use allowed 18. Legislative Actions pertaining to zoning a. Request the administration review interior blocks that were studied as part of the zoning consolidation, with narrow streets and have single family structures, and consider proposing a downzone for these properties. b. Request the Administration to analyze review and update parts of the Central City Master plan related to the State Street corridor with the goal of rezoning parcels to a higher density MU zoning district. The following information was provided for the February 4, 2025, work session briefing. ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council will receive a briefing on a proposal to update the City's zoning ordinance and zoning map by consolidating up to 27 existing commercial, form-based, and mixed-use zoning districts into six new mixed-use (MU) districts. The goal of these amendments is to simplify zoning regulations, improve clarity of language, and incorporate missing design standards. The new mixed-use districts will be similar to the current districts but will have changes to setbacks, building height, lot coverage, and permitted land uses. Goal of the briefing: Review the proposal, including Policy Questions (p. 4), and information provided following the planning commission discussion. Evaluate whether additional feedback needs to be provided prior to the Council’s public hearing on March 4. Page | 16 OVERVIEW OF CHANGES The Planning transmittal includes many attachments that succinctly summarize and visualize the draft ordinance. Council staff included them as an attachment to this memo for quick access. • Attachment A – Zoning Standards / Illustrations for the MU Zones • Attachment B – Overlay Summary for CG M1 • Attachment C – Parking Regulations for MU zones • Attachment D – Neighborhood Level Maps of MU Zones Planning staff also developed a project page that provides extensive information on the project. It is a helpful tool for anyone looking to get a deeper understanding of the proposed zoning amendments. Additionally, they developed an interactive map showing the new MU zones' locations throughout the city. The Planning Commission held ten briefings on the MU consolidation project. Two public hearings were held, and a positive recommendation was ultimately forwarded to the City Council. Since this item was forwarded to the Council, some unrelated zoning petitions that impact a few of the properties identified in this zoning petition were approved. The planning staff is updating the ordinance and zoning maps to reflect those changes. Policy question #3 below provides additional background. MORE DETAILED VIEW OF KEY CHANGES According to the transmittal letter (page 3), “consolidating these zoning districts will change the regulations that apply to thousands of properties within the city (approximately 6,300 directly affected properties).” Pages 6-11 of the Transmittal Letter include a summary of each zone, Their purpose, and general zoning regulations. Below is a general outline of the key changes. See the Transmittal Letter and attachments for more in-depth information on the various zones. 1. Land Use Tables ▪ Several amendments will be made to the Land Use tables. Many of the minor amendments to the existing tables include consolidated definitions, the removal of zoning districts being consolidated into the new land use table, and the removal of some land uses. 2. Creates 6 new zoning districts and rezones properties to the new zoning districts. Attachment A is a fact sheet outlining the zoning standards for each new district, such as height, setbacks, building size, and design standards. The interactive map also shows the new MU zones' locations throughout the city. MU-2 MU-3 MU-5 Consolidated Zones o Residential Business (RB), o Small Neighborhood Business (SNB) o Neighborhood Commercial (CN) Consolidated Zones o Community Business (CB) o R-MU-35 (Residential Mixed Use - 35) Consolidated Zones o Form-Based Urban Neighborhood 2 (FB-UN2), o Corridor Commercial (CC), o Community Shopping (CS), o Form-Based Special Purpose Corridor Edge (FB- SE), o Residential Mixed Use 45 (R-MU-45) o Transit Station Area Transitional (TSA-UN-T) o Mixed Use (MU) o South State Street Corridor Overlay (SSSC) Page | 17 MU-6 MU-8 MU-11 Consolidated Zones o Form-Based Urban Neighborhood 2 (FB-UN2) o Form Based Special Purpose Corridor (FB-SE) o Sugar House Business District 2 (CSHBD-2) o Residential Office (RO) o Transit Station Area - Urban Core Transition (TSA-UC-T) o Special Purpose Transition (TSA-SP-T) o Mixed Use Employment Center Transition (TSA- MUEC-T) Consolidated Zones o Residential Mixed Use (RMU) o Transit Station Area - Mixed Use Employment Center Core (TSA-MUEC-C) o Special Purpose Core (TSA- SP-C) o Urban Neighborhood Core (TSA-UN-C) Consolidated Zones o CG (General Commercial), o FBMU-11 (Form-Based Mixed-Use 11) o TSAUC- C (Transit Station Area Urban Center Core) o CSHBD-1 (Sugar House Business District) 3. Establishes the general provisions that apply to all MU zones See Attachment A ▪ MU Building Types ▪ Cottage, Urban House, Two-Family ▪ Row House ▪ Storefront, Vertical Mixed-Use, Multi Family Residential ▪ Heights ▪ The number in the title of each district generally identifies the number of building stories allowed by that zone. (some flexibility is granted for enhanced ground floor uses) ▪ Setbacks ▪ Make consistent across the various zoning designations, ▪ Require larger buffers and setbacks when next to a low-scale single-family/two- family ▪ Landscape buffers ▪ A 10-foot landscape buffer is required when any of the MU zones abut single- family, two-family zones, and multifamily zones ▪ step-back requirements between higher-scale MU zones and zones under 35 feet in height, including MU-2 and MU-3 zones, ▪ Lots/Buildings Without Public Street Frontage ▪ Allow lots without public street frontage. Helps with deep lot configuration ▪ Open Space ▪ In addition to the basic yard setback requirement, a general standard of 10% of the lot area will be required for open space ▪ Minimum dimension of 15’ x 15’ to ensure useability ▪ Mid-block Walkways ▪ All zones are proposed to require the implementation of a mid-block walkway on a property if one has been identified in an adopted City plan. 4. Create a Transitional Overlay for M-1 and CG properties See Attachment B for details ▪ The zoning amendments would create a significant number of nonconforming uses. Page | 18 ▪ A proposed “Transitional Overlay” would generally allow a selection of more intensive commercial and light industrial uses in these areas, allowing for reduced design standards while including buffer and landscaping requirements. (Click on the interactive map link to see the transitional overlay boundaries) POLICY QUESTIONS 1. Effective Date—In the past, when the Council adopted significant zoning amendments that impacted many different zones and properties, a delayed effective date was included so that projects that may be caught up in the amendments, could either finish under the current zoning standards or use the new ordinance. Council staff received one request for the Council to consider delayed implementation for this petition. Does the Council support including a delayed effective date for the MU zoning consolidation? 2. Drive-through concerns – a constituent reached out to the City about the impacts the proposed amendment would have on a project they are working on that includes an existing drive - through. Planning staff provided the following options to address the request for consideration: a. Modify the land use table language to allow for financial institutions to have drive- throughs in the MU11 zone. b. Allow the drive-through use at that location as approved through a development agreement o It would have to go to the Planning Commission and the City Council for approval. The Council may wish to discuss these options with Planning staff and, if either option is supported, request that staff make the change in the final ordinance. 3. Post Planning Commission updates. After the planning commission forwarded a positive recommendation, staff noted some technical and substantive changes that needed to be made to the draft ordinance . The planning staff is seeking Council direction on the following items, outlined on pages 15- 16 of the Transmittal Letter. The Council will be asked to conduct straw polls to determine if these changes are included in the final ordinance. a. Add “Contractor’s Yard/Office (Indoor)” use to the Transitional Overlay as a Conditional Use. i. Staff recommends including this use. b. Richard Street was unintentionally included as an area requiring a high activity use due to a code provision in the recently adopted MU-8 code. i. Staff recommends removing “Richard Street, from Harvard Avenue to Kelsey Avenue” as an area requiring an “Enhanced Active Ground Floor Use.” c. Delete the requirement for a 6' walkway between multiple buildings that are over 75' in façade length. i. Staff recommends deleting this requirement Page | 19 d. Add a prohibition on mature coverage counting toward the required park strip vegetation coverage of 33% in MU-8 and MU-11. i. Staff recommends applying the requirement to other high-intensity MU zones, the MU-8 and MU-11 e. Add a transition period to the MU zone adoption (see policy question #2 above) i. Staff recommends that the City Council include a transition period of 9 to 12 months where developers could still utilize the prior regulations. f. Modify the height limit for "private directional signs" from 4' to 8'. i. Staff recommends increasing the height so that private parking related signs can be at eye level. g. Include the proposed mapping changes on pages 16-20 Staff recommends including the following changes in the final draft. i. FB-UN2 Corners to MU-6 in Central 9th. ii. Residential/Office (RO) Zone to MU-8 East Downtown and West Temple. iii. Green Street/2100 South - maintain the FB-UN1 zoning on the west part of the property. Federal Property at 2100 S/Redwood Road – leave as PL. PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT 1. Pages 20-23 of the Transmittal Letter outlines the public process. Starting in April 2024, the public outreach included eight walking tours in various neighborhoods around the city, open houses, various community events such as town halls, presentations to recognized community organizations, and 10 briefings before the planning commission, along with 2 public hearings. Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning City Council –July 1, 2025 MU ZONING DISTRICT CONSOLIDATION Salt Lake City //Planning Division LANDMARK SITE STEPBACK PROPOSING STEPBACK NEXT TO LOCAL LANDMARK BUILDINGS •Local landmarks are protected from demolition, and might remain forever •Upper stepback proposed to soften the impacts of taller new buildings •Stepback not proposed next to national landmarks •Not protected from demolition and could go away at any time •Council could downzone properties where a ground level setback or stepback is desired Local Landmark Building New Building Salt Lake City //Planning Division OFF STREET PARKING CHANGES PROPOSED DISTANCE FROM TRANSIT BASED SYSTEM •MU properties near transit -> lower requirement •Increase for some properties further from transit (ex: East DT) •Decrease for some areas close to transit (ex: Granary/300 W) •MU-2/3 –generally next to or within low scale neighborhoods – requirements will remain the same (“Neighborhood context”) Transit Urban Neighborhood All other areas General Salt Lake City //Planning Division RESIDENTIAL ZONE SETBACKS SETBACK AND SETBACK NEXT TO <35' HEIGHT ZONES •10' landscape setback next to all <35' zones (R-1, R-2, SR, etc.) •Includes 4' shrubs, trees every 30', 6' solid fence •Increases to 20' setback for rear yard •Upper stepback of 10' also applies after 30' of height •Matches or exceeds current buffer setbacks for most zones •Some reduced –ex: TSA, RO zones (15' to 25' changes to universal 10') Salt Lake City //Planning Division SUGAR HOUSE HEIGHT HEIGHT INCREASE •Sugar House zone proposed for a 2-story (20') increase in height to 125', with an extra 25' allowed south of 2100 South •Height intended to better align with building code requirement costs (steel/timber) •Current 105' allowance isn’t feasible for residential –residential starts to pencil at 125'+ TRANSIT ACCESS •5-minute walk to future S-line station, 5 to 10 mins. from current station •High level of transit access Salt Lake City //Planning Division SUGAR HOUSE STEPBACK •Sugar House zone requires 15' step after 30' of height (2-3 stories) on the front facade •MU changes the stepback to 10' step after 85' of height (7-8 stories) citywide •Why? Conflicts with fire code, not visually necessary on wide streets, not equitable across city •Potential options to retain the SH stepback: 1.Require 10' step after 30' on streets <90’ in width 2.Adjust to 10' step after 45' of height 3.Apply 10' step after 30' only in the Sugar House extra height area (2100 S to I-80, McClelland to 1300 E) Q: Does the Council support any changes based on these options?Existing Sugar House Stepback Proposed MU Stepback Salt Lake City //Planning Division SNELGROVE/MIDAS BLOCKS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS •Community input requesting development agreements to restrict rent costs as a condition of upzoning from MU-5/6 to MU-8 •Council can’t require agreements through MU consolidation •Alternatively, Council can leave properties MU- 5/6 and let property owners submit their own rezone petitions •Council could apply community benefit standards and require a development agreement through rezone petitions Q: Does the Council wish to rezone the properties to MU-8 or go with the original MU-5/6? Salt Lake City //Planning Division •Transitional Overlay intended to avoid most uses becoming nonconforming/allow for businesses to continue and properties to find new tenants •Proposing to add 3 additional “conditional uses” to accommodate concerns: outdoor storage, equipment rental (outdoor), contractor’s yard (outdoor) •And allow contractor’s yard/office (indoor)as “permitted use” •Q: Does the Council wish to include the additional uses in the ordinance? 700 WEST M-1 TO MU-6 Salt Lake City //Planning Division GREEN STREET STRIPMALL ZONING MAP CHANGES •Previous straw poll indicated support for changing from residential (FB-UN1) to MU-6 •MU-6 allows 6 stories of height •Council could choose MU-3 (3 to 4 story) to reduce the potential height along Green Street •Both MU-3 or MU-6 would eliminate the current nonconforming issues that businesses face in the FB-UN1 zone (signs, etc.) Q: Does Council support rezoning the property on the east side of Green Street to MU-3 or MU-6? Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning For additional information on the MU consolidation project, please visit: www.bit.ly/MUconsolidation Krissy Gilmore Kelsey Lindquist Daniel Echeverria Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning MU-3MU-2 MU-6MU-5 MU-11MU-8 Interactive Webmap Link Salt Lake City //Planning Division MU-3MU-2 Design Review Thresholds MU-2: >5k 1st floor, 10k overall MU-3: >7.5k 1st floor, 15k overall >35’ in height Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning MU-6MU-5 Design Review Thresholds N/A M-1 Height: 65' Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning MU-11MU-8 Design Review Thresholds MU-8: >75' in Height MU-11: >85' in Height