Murray planning commission reviews draft city-center form-based code; staff to refine language before public hearing

MURRAY, Utah — The Murray City Planning Commission on March 6, 2025 held an extended discussion of a draft Murray City Center form‑based code intended to replace the existing MCCD zoning for the city center, but took no final vote on the code itself.

Consultant Mark Morris summarized the draft, saying it was developed over the past year: “The form based code we’ve been working on drafting began last summer,” and staff told commissioners they expect to schedule a public hearing in mid‑April to consider a recommendation to the council.

Why it matters: The form‑based code would guide building form, permitted uses, street design and public‑realm standards in Murray’s city center and is written to shape both private development (including the RDA’s Block 1 project) and future requests to Utah Department of Transportation for State Street improvements.

Major matters discussed

• Vending and food vehicles — The draft trims earlier, lengthy vending-cart rules and refers permittees to the city’s existing food‑truck ordinance (Chapter 17.44). The draft retains three substantive distance restrictions for vending carts: a minimum 100‑foot separation between vending carts; carts no closer than 30 feet from a single‑family zone; and any food‑selling cart must be at least 100 feet from the primary entrance of an existing restaurant. Commissioners asked staff to add an explicit cross‑reference to the Salt Lake County Health Department review that business licensing already requires.

• Signage — The code draft defines sign types and explicitly prohibits electronic message centers (digital displays that change message content). Mark Morris said, “Electronic message centers are not permitted.” Neon signs and marquees are permitted but would require staff review; commissioners discussed whether review should instead go to the architectural review committee or the planning commission and asked staff to propose clarified review/appeal language.

• Drive‑throughs and street design — Drive‑through facilities are prohibited across the form districts to protect walkability in the city center. The draft also shows a revised street map (including Poplar Street as a pedestrian street), standardizes street‑tree species after removing hawthorn from the preferred list, and notes furnishing zones and a “built‑to zone” option that lets buildings set back slightly in exchange for improved pedestrian amenities.

• Bicycles, scooters and ADA — Commission members asked for clearer bicycle and e‑scooter guidance. Staff explained that off‑curb street design and bike‑lane decisions are largely the engineering division’s domain, and that scooters or e‑bikes would be treated as users of bike lanes unless the city negotiates a franchise/docking agreement with a private operator.

• Building form and residential transition — Commissioners debated the residential transition district that abuts single‑family neighborhoods. The draft sets a 2‑story minimum and 3‑story maximum in that transition area but allows taller buildings (up to five stories) in the boulevard district where setbacks are provided. Staff said the 3‑story maximum reflects townhouse product types that typically require three levels.

• Parking and shared public parking credit — The draft maintains most existing MCCD parking ratios but adds a shared public parking credit for off‑street public parking; staff explained the credit radius was based on a typical downtown block (previous draft used 660 feet) and commissioners suggested reducing the radius to limit overlapping claims and asked staff to refine that metric.

• Open space and parks funding — The code defines open‑space types (pocket parks, BTZ pedestrian spaces, town squares) but does not impose a fixed percentage of open space. Commissioners discussed a fee‑in‑lieu model (cited from other cities) and existing citywide park impact fees that could be directed to downtown improvements if council so chooses.

• Other technical items — Commissioners flagged a number of technical conflicts and clarifications to fix before a public hearing: inconsistent tree spacing language (25 vs. 30 feet), unclear cross‑references on where medical cannabis businesses are permitted, and a few typographical or table alignment issues.

Process and next steps

Planning staff and the consultant will draft revisions addressing the commission’s clarifications (trees, vending/county health cross‑reference, neon sign review pathway, parking proximity metric and the cannabis table inconsistency) and aim to post a revised draft for the commission. Staff indicated the commission’s recommendation to the council would follow the public hearing; the consultant said he expects a public hearing could be scheduled on or around April 17, 2025.

Votes at a glance

- Approval of minutes (initially recorded with the wrong date, then corrected): Motion to approve minutes (Commissioner Pearson moved; Commissioner Rogers seconded); outcome: approved (voice vote). The commission subsequently corrected the minutes to read March 6, 2025 and approved again.

- Approval of findings of fact and conclusions for More Than Mysteries conditional use permit and the Burger Station/Burger Place subdivision extension: Motion to approve findings and conclusions (mover: Commissioner Ned Hacker; second: Commissioner Peter Aristo); outcome: approved (voice vote).

No formal action was taken on adoption of the form‑based code at the March 6 meeting; commissioners directed staff to return a revised draft and to set a public hearing for commission recommendation to the city council.

Quotes

• Mark Morris, consultant: “The form based code we’ve been working on drafting began last summer.”

• Mark Morris, consultant, on signage: “Electronic message centers are not permitted.”

Ending

Staff and the consultant will circulate a revised draft that addresses the commission’s clarifications and post materials in advance of the next commission packet. The commission reserved final recommendation and adoption action for future meetings after the public hearing process and further edits.

(Reporting based on an audio transcript of the Murray City Planning Commission meeting of March 6, 2025.)