Salt Lake City council debates step‑backs, parking and timing for mixed‑use zoning consolidation

Salt Lake City Council members and planning staff on July 8 discussed revisions to a proposed mixed‑use (MU) zoning consolidation ordinance, focusing on upper‑level step‑backs, parking requirements and the timing of implementation.

The discussion matters because the ordinance would replace multiple MU and residential designations across the city; changes to setback and parking rules affect where and how much new development can occur and which existing permit applicants can complete projects under the current code.

Planning staff said the city considered a transitional overlap during which applicants could choose to complete projects under the existing code or the new MU rules. Staff reported the city attorney’s office advised against a 6‑month overlap as not legal. As one staff summary put it, the attorney’s office “advised against it, stating that it would not be legal for the council to do that.” Council members then discussed narrower alternatives, including a shorter, three‑month delayed implementation and development agreements for individual property owners who want to complete projects under the current code.

Planning and transportation staff also outlined administrative options that may reduce the need for development agreements. Nick Norris, planning staff, described parking alternatives already in the code: affordable housing projects may qualify for large reductions — “between a 35, I think, all the way actually up to 65% of a reduction for the very, low AMI types of housing,” he said — and projects near high‑frequency transit can get up to an additional 15% reduction. Staff noted applicants can also submit a parking study for administrative approval and that building‑preservation incentives include an administrative plan development process that can reduce parking requirements at staff level.

Council debate centered on the step‑back rule that would require upper‑level setbacks where a taller MU zone abuts lower‑scale residential zones. One option the council previously considered (option 1) would apply step‑backs citywide where the abutting street is narrower than 90 feet. Council member Mano said that approach affects many properties in her district and asked to reconsider. Council member Romano proposed adopting option 3 — a geographically targeted approach that would require step‑backs only inside the area that is eligible for additional height (the boundary described by staff as McClellan to 13th East and 2100 South to I‑80). Romano said, “we would go with the proposed option 3, which is to do the geographic boundary.” Several council members signaled support for that narrower approach.

Council members also debated transition timing. With the attorney’s advice that a 6‑month overlap would not be legal, some members said a three‑month delayed effective date combined with allowing applicants to start review now would provide most of the intended relief without violating legal limits. Others said parking is the predominant concern raised to them and that existing administrative remedies might solve many cases. No formal vote was taken; staff agreed to include the geographic boundary language as an option on the motion sheet for the council’s upcoming formal meeting.

What’s next: staff will update the motion sheet to reflect the geographic boundary option and will bring the ordinance back for formal action. The council’s formal meeting that evening will be the next opportunity for public comment on the item.