Salt Lake City Council members continue to tweak the city’s proposed overhaul of its mixed-use zoning code, and they appear poised to vote on the ordinance in the coming days.
Council members approved a handful of straw polls during a work session Tuesday afternoon, which included changes to parking requirements near transit and timelines for transitioning between zoning codes, among other issues.
While it didn’t take a final vote on Tuesday, the council did tinker with the mixed-use zoning ordinance during its work session meeting.
The council approved a straw poll to have a six-month window for developers to apply for permits under both the current zoning code and the new, consolidated mixed-use (MU) zoning code. The window would begin when the council approves the updates.
In previous meetings, council members approved a three-month window where both zoning codes could be used. But the council unanimously voted to double that window.
Council Members Sarah Young and Darin Mano both said they wanted that timeline to be longer. Mano said the additional time would allow developers to factor in the still-shifting ordinance to ensure projects are done in accordance with the new zoning parameters.
Young, who represents Sugar House, said she wanted to avoid a scenario where a project is created in accordance with existing zoning, but is sent back to the drawing board because it missed the transition period.
“I’m very familiar with the existing efforts, in terms of time and planning, to be able to draw designs and things along those lines,” Young said Tuesday afternoon. “And yet, people may still be lining up financing and things like that and not be ready to submit, but have already done all the legwork.”
Daniel Echeverria, a senior planner for Salt Lake City, explained the MU zoning changes would also impact parking around the city. He said the closer a mixed-use property would be to transit, the fewer parking spaces would be required. However, the farther away a property is from transit, the greater its parking requirements.
“So there will be an increase in parking requirements for a small number of properties — some examples of that are east Downtown,” Echeverria said. “But there are other examples where parking requirements will go down. Some examples are Granary and along 300 West where properties are actually close to existing transit stations.”
Echeverria added that parking requirements in MU-2 and MU-3 zones, which are typically found near low-scale residential neighborhoods, would stay the same and not be subject to the changes.
Earlier this year, the council voted in a straw poll to approve additional height in the Sugar House core. On Tuesday, the council continued to make changes to zones in the neighborhood. One proposal was to upzone Snelgrove and Midas blocks from MU-5/6 to MU-8. Young, who represents Sugar House, said approving this upzone could help speed up development on the two blocks. For the Snelgrove block, Young said the upzone would help with form-based zoning requirements.
“I know everyone looks at it through the lens of, ‘what’s the absolute tallest it could go at any given time?’” Young said. “But that is form based, and there are certainly forms that are being considered for these properties that may be less than what that looks like.”
The council ultimately approved a straw poll to upzone the Snelgrove and Midas blocks from MU-5/6 to MU-8. The Snelgrove site has long been vacant and ripe for redevelopment while its iconic ice cream cone has remained.
The zoning overhaul is years in the making, as city officials have long considered consolidating its mixed-use zoning efforts. In February, council members first gave a preview of the consolidation, which would take 26 mixed-use and commercial zones and shrink it into six.
Though it approved some changes, the council opted not to vote on the massive zoning ordinance itself on Tuesday. Nick Tarbet, the council’s Legislative and Policy Deputy Director, told the council it should instead wait until next week to vote.
“Based off of recommendations from the attorney’s office, we do not think that would be appropriate to (vote) at this time, since there are changes that would have to be made to the ordinance,” Tarbet said. He added that the changed ordinance would not be available to the public if the council voted that day, but it would if it held off on voting for at least a week.
After hearing public comments on the matter during its formal meeting Tuesday night, the council deferred voting on the ordinance to a later date, setting the stage for a potential vote on July 8.
0 Comments