Hurricane council pauses mixed-use zoning changes to refine commercial/residential rules

Hurricane City Council members debated proposed mixed‑use zoning language Wednesday, focusing on how to calculate commercial versus residential floor area, how shared parking should be credited, and whether commercial space must be built before—or at the same time as—residential units. Councilmember Preet moved to continue the item so staff could draft revised language; the motion passed unanimously.

The discussion centered on the ordinance's metric for determining the commercial/residential split. Several council members said they prefer a square‑footage‑based approach rather than a strict floor‑by‑floor rule. “If you go vertical ... if the First Floor is commercial, Second Floor is residential, then that footprint is 50/50,” said Dayton, a city staff member explaining how the draft counts vertical mixed uses. Dayton added that common areas and parking raised calculation questions and that several amendments in the draft were his attempts to address those edge cases.

Some council members said the current draft reduces required commercial space because it allows shared parking and other shared uses to be counted toward commercial area. “The way it's written today, it's skewed to minimize commercial and allow more residential,” said a councilmember during the discussion. Council members proposed alternatives: computing parking credit proportionally by square footage of each use; counting shared common areas 50/50 between residential and commercial; and basing required parking on the applicable use standards rather than assigning all shared stalls to commercial.

Members also discussed using a minimum commercial‑first requirement or concurrent build‑out triggers. “Can we include in the ordinance a requirement that commercial be built out first?” one councilmember asked Dayton. Dayton said the city can include such a requirement in specific cases and that the city already requires certain amenities to be built in first phases of large developments. Council members noted practical limits: in some locations developers delay commercial because customers are not yet local, which can make a strict commercial‑first rule infeasible for small infill projects.

Councilmembers debated numeric thresholds. Several favored roughly two‑thirds commercial (about 66–67 percent) in certain contexts; others suggested a 70/30 split or a performance‑based approach in development agreements. The council also discussed using the city's previously adopted affordable housing ordinance as an incentive option; staff confirmed the affordable‑housing density bonus option is referenced in the current proposal and remains available to developers.

After extended discussion and requests for clearer computation rules (particularly for parking and shared spaces), Councilmember Preet moved to continue the matter to the next meeting so staff could incorporate agreed revisions. Councilmember Fawcett seconded the motion. The council voted “aye,” and the item was continued.

Council and staff members asked staff to return with a revised draft that: (1) clarifies how floor area and shared areas are allocated between uses; (2) proposes a percentage approach (two‑thirds/one‑third was discussed) and concurrent build‑out language; and (3) identifies how parking credits will be calculated relative to residential and commercial square footage. The council did not adopt changes during the meeting and took no final regulatory vote on the zoning language.