Planning staff propose consolidating 26 mixed‑use zones into six new MU districts; council asks for clarifications on design, setbacks and parking

Planning staff presented a comprehensive zoning consolidation package to the Salt Lake City Council describing proposed changes to the zoning ordinance and map that would merge 26 commercial mixed‑use and form‑based districts into six new mixed‑use districts (MU2, MU3, MU5, MU6, MU8 and MU11) and update standards for building forms, heights, setbacks, design review, open space and parking.

Why it matters: The proposal would reshape how mixed‑use corridors are regulated across the city, affecting building height allowances, frontage design requirements, required open space, design review thresholds, where by‑right development is allowed and how land currently mapped for industrial or general commercial uses (including some M1 and CG parcels) could be rezoned to MU districts.

Staff framed the effort as code simplification and predictability: the package aims to reduce 26 zones to six, make form‑based rules consistent by scale, and retain existing property rights where possible. Public engagement included multiple briefings, eight walking tours, two open houses (plus a youth open house), extensive mailed notice to property owners and office hours; planning staff also briefed the planning commission ten times and held multiple public hearings.

Key specifics reported by staff: - Consolidation and scale: MU2–MU3 are lower‑intensity (roughly 2–4 story scale); MU5–MU6 are mid‑scale (around 55–65 feet) and MU8–MU11 are the highest intensity outside the downtown core (heights up to about 90 feet in MU8 and higher allowances noted for carved‑out areas). Some existing zones see modest increases (e.g., MU2 allowing 30 feet where previous limits were 25–30 feet). - Form‑based rules: The code regulates building form by categories (cottage/urban house/2‑family; rowhouse; storefront/vertical mixed‑use and multifamily) rather than applying a single set of setbacks and heights across all lots. - Design review triggers and facade standards: Design review thresholds were described (for example, MU3 triggers review at roughly 35 ft; MU8 at 75 ft; MU11 at 85 ft). Proposed facade standards include minimum glazing, active ground‑floor uses, doorway spacing, durable exterior material percentages, maximum facade lengths and equipment/service screening. - Open space and landscaping: A 10% minimum open space standard would apply broadly across MU zones, with some building forms requiring 20–25%; at least one usable open space dimension would need to be at least 15 by 15 feet. Park strip vegetation rules were discussed, and staff proposed that in the highest‑intensity zones (MU8 and MU11) tree canopy should not substitute for required ground‑level vegetation to preserve pedestrian separation from traffic. - Setbacks and buffering: Lower intensity zones have larger side and rear setbacks; higher intensity zones have smaller setbacks but include step‑back requirements where a tall MU zone abuts lower‑scale zones (e.g., a rear 20‑foot setback and stepbacks after 30 feet of height). A 10‑foot landscape buffer with trees every 30 feet and a 6‑foot solid fence along rear property lines was described for rear yard buffer areas. - Parking and sign standards: Parking requirements would be tied to use and to the district’s transit proximity (contexts from transit to general); staff described using distance to rail stations to determine parking context. A new sign type (pylon sign) was added to definitions. - Map amendments and rezones: Staff proposed rezoning some M1 parcels to MU6 in the West Side plan area (including parcels between 800–900 South and along Redwood Road near Indiana Avenue) to align with the future land use map and to allow residential uses consistent with the West Side plan. Several mapping corrections and corner‑height allowances were also proposed.

Council questions and concerns focused on: whether the code would address outdoor smoking areas adjacent to single‑family residences; the treatment of rooftop structures and allowed protrusions (parapets, elevator overruns and rooftop furniture were said to be allowed); thresholds for enhanced active ground‑floor uses and where retail would be required; drive‑through uses (some MU districts would allow drive‑throughs as conditional uses); consistency of setback and open space rules across zones; the application of recent landscape ordinance changes and fence heights; and plan‑review impacts on streets where on‑street parking may be removed for fire access.

Staff said several technical refinements remain under consideration (including adding contractor yards into a transitional overlay, removing an enhanced active ground‑floor requirement from a specific street after further analysis, raising private directional sign height to 8 feet, clarifying implementation timing and addressing design standards that created nonfunctional walkways). Staff also indicated the implementation timing could be shortened from an earlier nine‑to‑12‑month transition recommendation to three‑to‑six months but said they would return with options for the council to consider.

Several council members asked staff for follow‑up briefings on: the interplay between required active ground‑floor uses and residential typologies; the stepped setbacks and alley/parcel impacts; parking impacts on neighborhoods when on‑street parking is removed for fire access; and options to add more MU2/MU3 neighborhood‑serving pockets in residential areas. Planning staff said they would meet with council members in small groups to answer technical questions and bring straw polls or amendments back before the planning commission and council as appropriate.

No final council action was taken at the briefing; staff will return with ordinance language, proposed implementation timing and follow‑up briefings requested by council members.