Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Provided Information - 7/8/2025COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Nick Tarbet, Policy Analyst DATE:July 8, 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 8, 2025 July 1 WORK SESSION AND CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING SUMMARY During the work session the Council supported the straw polls outlined in the table below and held a longer discussion about including a 6-month transitional period. This concept of a transitional period would allow developers to choose whether to complete their projects under the current zoning or under the new MU zoning. The goal is to provide flexibility for projects already underway, enabling them to either secure existing entitlements or use the new regulations once adopted. However, during the briefing the Attorney's Office raised concerns about the legality of this transitional concept and asked to have some time to review the concept. The Attorney's Office reviewed the proposed transitional period concept and has advised against including it in the final ordinance. Their reasoning is that because the consolidation requires extensive text revisions and property rezonings that are inherently conflicting, they cannot be applied simultaneously. As an alternative the The City Council could implement a delayed effective date for the new MU code. This would allow developers with ongoing projects sufficient time to finalize them under the existing regulations. However, some developers have urged the Council to adopt the new regulations quickly so they can proceed with their projects under the new code as soon as possible. Page | 2 The Council will hold a follow-up work session briefing on July 8 to discuss the Attorney's Office's recommendations regarding the transitional period. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance during the formal meeting on the same day. During the public hearing many people spoke in opposition to the ordinance. Many of the comments reflected the same concerns raised at the first public hearing such as the impact to adjacent properties from reduced setbacks, impact to historic properties and the loss of existing manufacturing space. The Council closed the public hearing and deferred action to a future council meeting. Issue Yes 1 Sugar House Setback / Stepbacks Does the Council wish to include any of the potential changes Planning provided pertaining to the Upper Floor Step Back in the Sugar House Business District. Option #1 - Require a 10' step back 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. Yes Include option #1 2 Rezone for Midas and Snelgrove blocks 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? YES Stay with MU-8 3 Transition area / 700 West Does the Council wish to include the additional conditional and permitted uses in the Transitional Overlay in the final ordinance? YES Adding the new permitted/conditional uses 4 Green Street / Strip Mall 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 MU-6 Rezone the parcels on the east side of Green Street MU-3 YES Rezone the parcels on the east side of Green Street MU-3 5 Transition Period Does the Council support including a 3-month transition period for the ordinance? YES Subject to the Attorney’s Office confirming a transitional period is legal Page | 3 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. 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 July 1 work session and continued public hearing. It is provided again for background purposes. 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 | 4 Council is ready to adopt the ordinance on July 1, the Council could close the public hearing and adopt the ordinance that night. Public Hearing Responses – topic list 1.Upper Floor Step backs 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 a.Revise the step back 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' step back 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? Page | 5 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 | 6 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 | 7 Page | 7 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 | 8 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 Yes Page | 9 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. Yes to legislative intent 16 Request from the Public Yes Page | 10 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 Yes to all Page | 11 186'. 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. 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 Page | 12 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. Page | 13 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. X Page | 14 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. 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 Page | 15 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. 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 Page | 16 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. 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 Page | 17 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. 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. Page | 18 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. 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. Page | 19 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) 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 Page | 20 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.  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. Page | 21 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 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. Page | 22 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. 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 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 (with the addition of the conditions outlined in the Granary Area sections) 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 Staff proposes removing this in MU-2 and MU-3 6a Standardizing setback for similar zones Urban House/Two-Family/Cottage 1. Open Space: Revise all to 10% open space with 20% vegetation 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. Zoning District Consolidation - Citywide 1 1 ----------' ;-Elm IL In ;. ��fl ■so . � ��- r�r ■111�`1 J It ------------------------------------- MU-2 - MU-11 MU-3 M-1 MU-5 ',, PL MU-8 u 3 75. Sfxl of 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 ■ 1 J�i� a If Salt Laji j0■ 1 City 1.-,• " - 1 1 1 south salt � ` Lake 1„ ' 1 f we , 1-_ n,1 Zoning District Consolidation - Citywide 1 Northwest Quadrant --- `----------- --------------- I M0-2 - MLI-11 _ MU-3 - M-1 MU-5 %//, PL I� MU-6 MU-8 0 3.750 7.500 ©1 mmz= raoi Rose Park i Mg rmalade :Capitol Hill Upper Avenues IM/ i Terhple East Central�, North - University t Downtown t 7 ■! 9th and 9th + Poplar Grove ��park Nord South Central City Mrentral Nint IL ul Ir MK Wasatch Hollow Liberty Park South + Bonneville Hills Glenda Allrk Sou ! Sugar House t Parley ; South of 1-80 , _ Zoning District Consolidation - Liberty Park South L= Illlllfim = M1111, 0—"mmnu�i = — 011111111111, k Y.- t 1 t-T -U-2 M MU-6 M-1 Z-�,'U.3` M MU-8 PL MU-, M MU-" L-J N Oke I-L LU 120- 111 M I m R. 01 M I I I I WAS UJIMMEM. =11111111111111111M v WON= IF 11111111111 MAIN EIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I I ISO MEN Zoning District Consolidation - Ninth and Ninth + Central City South -IIt11 -� �Ir �_ — rillll IIII ililll�lllll ❑11�'III IIL� =1 rt� ---��*1, ill in�li■_ Mill MII111111=� _IIIII 1�I�I= �1 ■ �.IIII IIII ■IIIIIIP �' Ilii��l ` �unn_ �1�11■II _u �111111 n- :IIIIIIIII 'n .1 I1611 =.i iu � 1 c.� � 111 nTlll I lu lilil it aim .iill�liii.=11111wti :Iil : it. 1=1111111111=:'lllllli► =1 a nil mlll 1�1�II ����� !�I III■ :!111 !III = = = �! MEN :IIII � _ ■ � �� __ ullllll: :11 ■ � � ■ M Hill MM ��IIII11 =__ j = �_ = RIIIIIII! =11 = _ �- �� ■ i liu 1 illl .nll =11 Haul ■nl ■ Illl��lu :Illln - In= - = t ■. ■ it IQi�iu 1 II IIII nl�l riul�l• ill II iinu� - III ! �IIIIIIIIIIIIII �IIIII t���ll _'III � _14! nt III_ =111 � ■ ttt ■ � It IIII111 -o - - O Zoning District Consolidation - Northwest Quadrants LU I I P I II —--— — — ----`� o j u JA. I ILH —�r v n i MU-2 - MU." - MU-3 - M-1 MU-5 ���/ PL — - - MU-6 _ _ MU-8 U 15G0 J,000� I� �KI I ' 1111111111 � �1111 1 � 1 `■1■ q= un►/ � ■111111111 � �+ Ell Mom OEM Vimonl Avc / W MU-2 _ MU-11 ��� U•3 � PL M-1 CMMU-6 MU-B - MU-B O0 Sf10 t o00 . Faol ` 1 _ IIS� Joke 1 -. --I---- ty r nas�a west vauey SoA. lmm MEMO ■ MU-2 m-11 MU-3 =m-1 PL MU-561 �///, MU-8 0 O f F..f MOE m Ell X'S ONE • • 1Consolidation• • i • _ _ �I11II IIIII ►"r a 41�1 111111111_ `-=ul■nnuTi 1111111a __ g _► II = _ _ - III IIIII ..,.- _ � un=l =■° _ = _ = = - _ _ _r. 1 _ 11: .III IIIII I _I IIIIIi= �11111 =1■ — = = _ _ _ == __' m -I_ \ = �lnnunl =_� - rnull. _n nn n iu a■ in IPA! If1� e� lin ITw nl it-n nn i-n uu nil \► ' e = �1111,1� _j!!!!!nn 11111111� �Illlllll II `, ■11 1111 IIIII III •"II 111 1�111 111 IOI 11• 1�1� III �``'/ ■N pp OR Mi all=� on T= — __o_ =' 'e �__ IM 1 �M _� �= III- —p �111111 C _ _ — _ = 1111111 .Iu1C_ �a� sE711 ullll■ ells mil 11::WI rf1.�11 I<Iluu■ . Garden A.e MU-2 MU -it _ MU•3 _ M-1 MU-5/// PE _ MU-6 - MU-6 o son _"I eel oee Aye .............. 155 5 _ • 1 � 1— a II — I — I (r. — . — � — — — • N 1 1_I el I I- Fake Aa9na r. I ,I.r1i Py �• • - E 3010 S Edward Ave E 3045 S Ilnrne Ave Gregson Ave E E 3000 S E 3115 E 3 E 31505 u E31505 ^ — E ��Ave E 3110 S E 3i10 S =u1'i■ EIS: ���■ IIIII= • • ����� ���+ ► rniul ..-�II'u mime Milli ill III "SIR IIIIIL 1 Iml 1, Iry nnl� IIIII 11�_ 11111.101III_ 11111I '_�lill uul= Ili 111�� 11►�������� /' ��lil� ����IIII illll i :IIIII =��In iilll E�II� II lil`I =1: `Illlllri Il�i� 1���► • p �11==��1::�In. -'� _ =1P= = - - �IJ =�1' W ■ �IIII!1;� ■����.\ �► —r= — _ = =i : —■IIIII IN IIIIIIII Illl�li Illiy: IIIII IIIIIIII III ��III IIIII p ..�.. un■� IIIII IIII I'=° IIIII ��� r� ILI GII�I ii131 IIIII ■ 11 �11 WE ■fill�lii ili�lEl =1111111E 11 ������ = �y 6p F Zoning District Consolidation - Upper Avenues FnY1rN )'� DO Wna P�rlj } 125250 500 750 1000 r- Ity -_ �kSalt�e A/, � IIII �'�■ � 111 11� �� ■ ■ ■ �/11111111■ 11■■ 111■■ ■IIII MIN 11111 '� —III 11111 111 11 r■III 1 111 11�11 111■■ 11■■■ ■ 1■■i■ii 11 Illul nliil -i■i ilillii ulll lili' -11111 11111 ri■ �� !11!: IIII � !��11 111111 111111 11 11 III■ �11�1 1 ■ ■�� ■ 111. 1� ■■ nli: =In1 ul n�i uniii lilli n lii'1 Ili` i I '—li' i 1± 811 ■ ■ =IIII 111�11 `I��� = 11! :1 n -IIII �Ip_ ■ 'III= ■ aiill dlii �iiiu rid ulil I : 1'n1111 �� �� 111 11111 =■ll= �'I =11? �oil liili�= ! III miu iillli' i11`I iiu �illln _IIIII: uiln= ._. �u i illi ■■ illllt'I �dlll..Ilun iuu li■iul nlllil -' lu = m I ■ 5� �I`r �� I �_ _:� �1� `_I� :111= III.. =1118 ■Iu� _uu n,lll ■nl■ mdlll Im I _ n.: .: I ndl :111� ����� ll�i �ill�il I��dm' Illli =11nn `��_ .. — I - ■�u� ��t_ ��II'll niiii =�l � flu■ � � �gllll = ul � g I�i�: 11 11111� flll 1�11��� iill�ll Mil MINE rd 11: IIIIIO lill■I PYrk Zonin District on olidation - Wasatch Hollow + Bonneville Hills 1 1 _ 1 Sunnyside _ �usd t Lake 1 East y a IJ Y•• — agna Wes[Vallcy Ilan rgd-1iFA�mj 11111111111 �1111111111� �n - ■ nnm� p: �unp . V��p.-..... nnnun: = _= —• -::�I'� :r��- ���■ ■ 'EwellIII d ONE _.:. _. �= � �\► �' �i.■ it �1�IIII� ; main. ■■■■ ■■= p-= CCC�,O ,w�Mir,iiu: C�== == = ■iunmu� ... IIn ■I• �s ■�■■■■■1. =umu= MU-2 Eii MU-11 - MU-3 Ege M-1 MU-5 PL - MU-e T - MULIM8 1{ o suu � aou Oa ir.,oi I Zoning District Consolidation - West Downtown L66/ A I" I\ I o9- 1111111 FT 1 I I I I I F�,C] W2005 woos w100s 3 w�on5 Do vntc wn Sa [Lake ° L City a 11111 N� J 0o e�k erg«� t W aDe s W university BIB d W University Sivi W Universi[Y Blvd II I III f r � TFIM� s zce E asa HU 13 o I I I m MU-2 _ MU-11 ~1 - MU-3 M. MU-5 /// PL Z E _ MU-8 �O MU-5 — , oRTM ��IIIIIIIIIIIIIH t r I 'I r:onnor n.e % r ke I — L11111 I aasna west vauey t•r. w roG s w loos �R Central 9th Zoning District Consolidation - Citywide G . (May F-i iatt Lake ; City ' I i i I i I � , r 1 1 1 I 1 1 South Salt Lake 1 ' 1 , 1 1 1 , — _r. Zoning District Consolidation - Citywide 1 Marmalade + Capitol Hill r ® T,—.ho-1 0-fty st Downtown Sal Lake itv I Poplar Grove allpark North Central Ninth GlendaleRVA Dark South of 1300 S I South Salt I Lake I 1 I .I - - - - I - II - I .� �. . /I 1�'/ II ■� �� I ON_ ���/ �� ��� �/ /% �i■ .:III■ - �� �� !�1 # ■�■1■ �IL'll= �,��%�!i/r�l/��i�%T �I�i ii=_ �I�■ ■`7 ■Illllli :� nrl�■ i�116n u u INS LO _ _-_ -_ =-= IN — OEM _ _ Iom IL_ 1 ; �991rW �111 Hill if pm i,= ■1■Ili. ■I'In 1� : �� � n�_ unim S_ ■■�� �'111■—�� � ■. Illllllll JIMINS1 Mill °IIIIIIIIIII! IN III =1111111111�= IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII - IIIIII� 111111111111111111 !�1111 1: CA)' �o — 5 t Lake � ine��a w��s� v.,v.ey •i.�.' District Consolidation - Glendale n------------------------------„--------- _------- - - - - -- tol Hill -MEN - - �I■ IIII�111■ ►��\ ME G��IIII�•� � i i�11111 .I■ � I ���� � :11111111■ �- �� ,� , i � �IIIIIIII� G�=-- �� ��IIIIIII- 111-� � \IIIII►� �� � � 1■ C•i i1111I1i �� 11 Illi Illllli �1� � � �,- 11: 111:■ :111 � I. ITnn unlll CIII 1-- 1111111111" It■ �~ - -= _ =_ �11■IIIIIIIIII ��_ �_� Illll.nril_ u� i11i■ �n�iiili i n� Illlil '-' _= ��_=' =1= III■IIIIIIII: 1�l �- - '— �= =- !IIIIIIIIIIIIIII � III: 111= ii � �Ti 1� ' 111■1!111111111 " Illlllllllllilll District Consolidation o srei i ann O �r�� Zoning District Consolidation - West Downtown o III w ID05 Moos w3005 w1005 �I.1111111= MIM1112 i IML ® �MENHI�r� _ I U.. a� �yl,1f�,.ersity Blvtl Yu UI 4 sitY BIvO . Un�vei sire n.v� 3 3 ss ® Transitional Overlay 0 M75 _ � I I—a11 � I— 1f••_�_+ �_ 1 _ I Stake 1 y _ gna west valley •1•r•• w roos Central 9th 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 1-1 5corridor, 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 mar) of the affected Dronerties is available on the project webpage. 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 1,000squarefeet 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. U Ambulance service C Vehicle, automobile rental agency P Blacksmith shop C I I vehicle, automobile repair (major) C Bus line yard and repair C I vehicle, automobile sales and service P Equipment rental (indoor) P I Warehouse C Industrial Assembly C Welding shop C Limousine service P I I Wholesale distribution C Sign painting/fabrication C I I 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 weboaFe for the full draft text. FAIR.• •. • MAX. SETBACK WAIVERO Max. front/comer 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. FRONTYARD 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 USESZ 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/pattemed concrete or cut stone, etc. Ground Floor: 70%u 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' BLANKWALLS 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 if deficient. 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 o" The overlay is proposed to be mapped over the areas shown below. An interactive mao of the affected oronerties is available on the oroiect weboaee. tV e�q G9 9 9 e „a Mf A 8 Transitional Overlay zpi Comments and Questions: please contact us at MUconsolidationCEbslceov.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: I 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 MUconsolidation(EDslceov.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 Ys to 3/4 mile the "Neighborhood Center Context," from Yz to Y4 mile the "Urban Center Context", and within Y4 mile the "Transit Context". Neighborhood Urban Transit Highlights Current CC, CB, CSHBDI, F13-UN2 For most MU zones, parking 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, ofwhich 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 %z mile between V2 mile within %a mile districts merging into MU-2 mile from and 3/ mile and %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 measured radially in 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. 1 r• e 3 y ■ e� a .emu- o Air e f Arg i I so i t 41 1 ILL • UTA Rad Stops i® e t s a General _ 9' Nelgbbarheod Center Urban een9er -.'.• • - - Transit -