North Logan workshop outlines proposed form‑based code for city center: districts, parking, design rules

At a joint Planning Commission and City Council workshop on April 24, 2025, city consultants presented a proposed form‑based code for North Logan’s city center, laying out a core district and two transition districts, suggested parking standards and design rules and asking commissioners and staff for feedback.

The presentation framed the code as “form over function,” prioritizing building siting, facades, transparency and public realm design ahead of specific land‑use lists. The lead presenter said, “Form basically flips it — it prioritizes form, with use coming last,” and described the code as a way to produce predictable street‑facing character and reduce case‑by‑case negotiation over building appearances.

Why it matters: the proposed code would replace much of the current use‑first, Euclidean zoning inside the city center boundary described in the city center master plan. If adopted and applied to redevelopment parcels, it would affect building heights, where buildings must sit on lots, how much storefront glazing is required, parking quantities, and which ground‑floor uses are allowed or excluded — all elements that shape how the corridor will look, how it will function day‑to‑day, and how it buffers existing neighborhoods.

Key elements presented

- District structure: The consultant described three primary form districts within the city center boundary: a central core (civic/commercial mixed‑use) plus two transition districts (east and west) intended to buffer adjacent neighborhoods. The eastern transition would limit height and intensity (presenters repeatedly referenced 2–3 stories as the expected maximum at the eastern edge); the western transition would allow greater density and taller buildings (presenters referenced up to roughly 3–6 stories in core areas depending on location). The team recommended keeping the number of distinct districts small to avoid over‑fragmentation.

- Building form and uses: The code would regulate building types, frontages, and facade composition rather than attempt to micromanage every individual tenant. Ground‑floor retail/restaurant and transparent storefronts were described as priorities along the primary pedestrian frontages; the presenters said the code can be written to permit or prohibit specific uses in particular building types (for example, preventing ground‑floor residential in the core). The consultant noted the code could also ban or limit certain uses (they mentioned vape shops, pawnshops and adult‑oriented businesses as examples) in central frontages.

- Transparency and facade rules: The team recommended strong storefront transparency on primary frontages. The presenter suggested a minimum transparency target (they cited approximately 70% for the first floor as an example) and limits on blank wall runs so facades remain visually active and pedestrian‑oriented.

- Parking approach: Rather than minimum parking requirements, the draft approach favors maximums and shared parking strategies. The presenters suggested guidance pitched at the city’s context: roughly 1.5–1.75 off‑street spaces per residential unit and about 1 space per 500 square feet for nonresidential uses as initial targets (these would exclude on‑street parking). They described shared parking, time‑of‑day split parking, and parking garages as tools to reduce surface parking and preserve walkable frontages. Parking structures were raised as a potential bonding candidate for city investment.

- Building siting and the public realm: Form‑based rules would push buildings up to the street edge rather than orienting lots to front parking lots. The presenters described pedestrian malls, ‘donut’ building configurations (building perimeter with interior parking), dual retail entrances and arcades as ways to maintain permeability and avoid blank, inward‑facing facades.

- Open space and streetscape: The code would set public realm standards (streetscape, light poles, benches, tree lawns) that the city would manage and private standards for building‑level landscaping and amenities. The team emphasized pocket parks, articulated pedestrian corridors and non‑walking service zones for street furniture and bike racks rather than large private yards for individual units.

- Transitional height plane: To protect adjacent single‑family neighborhoods, the consultant proposed a transitional height plan: a setback/taper from the property line (they discussed a 50‑foot zone with a 45‑degree plane as an illustrative tool) that would limit abrupt height changes at the eastern edge.

- Process and approvals: The presenter described a predictable approval flow intended to reduce repetitive negotiation: pre‑application meetings, a checklist demonstrating how a submission meets form‑based standards, planning review, and a design review committee when proposed designs deviate from standards. If a submission meets the code’s checklist, the team said, approvals should follow with less back‑and‑forth than current processes.

Timeline and next steps

City staff and the consultant said they expect to produce a draft form‑based code and graphics within the next 30–45 days for initial review; the consultant characterized a fuller adoption process as likely extending into the summer (they mentioned August as a possible milestone). An eight‑page FAQ handout was distributed. Staff asked the commission and council to provide feedback on the draft materials and indicated they would solicit written comments and scanned markups of the PDFs for those who do not speak at public meetings.

Concerns and discussion raised by commissioners and staff

Commissioners and staff focused on protecting nearby single‑family neighborhoods (especially on the eastern edge), ensuring the code includes clear geographic boundaries (the presenters repeatedly referenced a local feature called “the chicane” as a potential and readily‑mapped boundary), and avoiding unintended low‑density development in the core. Several speakers asked for geographic specificity — for example, measuring transition buffers from a clear geometric centerline — and for explicit limits on ground‑floor residential in core frontages. Commissioners also discussed how to phase or temporarily relax some restrictions (for example, allowing office uses on a temporary basis to avoid long blocks of vacancy) while maintaining long‑term intent for retail and active ground floors.

Ownership, development and funding questions

Attendees discussed whether form‑based code can require condominiums or owner‑occupancy; the presenters clarified the code regulates form, not ownership: controls on owner versus renter would rely on developer agreements or other incentive/contractual tools rather than the zoning text itself. The group discussed potential funding mechanisms for parking structures and asked staff to explore state programs and other incentives to support owner‑occupied units; the presenter encouraged the city to pursue conversations with relevant state agencies and housing programs.

Public materials and participation

Staff said they would leave printed materials and the FAQ at City Hall, circulate PDFs for comments and accept marked‑up feedback. The workshop was recorded; staff said more formal public hearings would follow as the draft code is prepared and circulated.

No formal votes or decisions were taken at the workshop — it was an educational work session to solicit early feedback.

Ending note

City staff and the consultant closed by restating the schedule for a draft code, reminding attendees that the session was an educational workshop and encouraging written comments; the meeting was adjourned without formal action.