Salt Lake City planners urge R‑1 code consolidation, propose ‘small‑lot dwellings’ to add lower‑cost units

City planners returned to the Salt Lake City Council on Feb. 18 with a proposed rewrite of single‑family (R‑1) zoning intended to simplify standards and create an optional pathway for smaller, lower‑cost housing.

The planning team proposed three main changes: consolidate separate R‑1 code sections into a single chapter with a standards chart; remove front‑yard and height averaging requirements in favor of fixed setbacks and maximum heights; and add a new “small lot dwellings” option that would allow duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes and townhomes capped at four units per lot and limited by unit size.

Why it matters: planners said the changes aim to reduce developer uncertainty and construction costs in neighborhoods with high access to opportunity, and to create naturally lower‑priced “starter” units without rezoning entire blocks.

What planners proposed - Keep the R‑1 map zoning as currently drawn but consolidate and simplify the text so standards are easier to interpret. Planners recommended eliminating the existing front‑setback averaging requirement and similar averaging for building height, and instead use a single numeric setback and maximum height. Proposed height changes included increasing maximum pitched‑roof height from 28 to 30 feet and flat‑roof height from 20 to 24 feet. - Reduce restrictions on flag lots (lots behind an existing lot) by making them a permitted use rather than a conditional use, and reducing minimum lot and access width requirements to make them easier to develop. - Create a “small lot dwelling” optional path that can be used in R‑1, R‑2 and SR zones. Proposed rules in staff’s draft included a minimum of 2,000 square feet per unit when using the option, a maximum exterior footprint of 800 square feet per unit and a gross interior cap of 1,200 square feet per unit. Setbacks would be reduced and allowable lot coverage increased (staff cited 60% for the new option vs. ~40% in many R‑1 zones).

Planners pointed to outside precedents. Staff cited Durham, North Carolina, where a small‑lot program produced homes that sold for substantially less than standard single‑family houses: a 1,200‑square‑foot small home had a median sale price of about $348,000 in 2023 compared with roughly $605,000 for a standard single‑family house, the presentation said.

Council response and next steps Council members spent most of the work session asking detailed clarifying questions rather than taking a final position. Questions focused on how small‑lot rules would interact with the city’s existing affordable‑housing incentives (which require deed restrictions), whether units created under the small‑lot option would be deed‑restricted or market‑priced, parking requirements (staff suggested one off‑street parking space per unit in the draft), impact on historic districts (staff said overlays would remain in place), and how subdivision and frontage rules would work if an owner wanted to split a larger lot into multiple small lots.

Staff and councilors discussed possible bonuses — for example, allowing extra units when one or more units are deed‑restricted — and the importance of testing the standard with “fit tests” before final adoption.

Council members agreed they were generally supportive of continuing work on the concept but wanted more detail. The council directed staff to prepare language for legislative intent (a formal initiation of ordinance work) so planning can return with a draft ordinance, fit tests, and a public process. Several council members emphasized the need for a side‑by‑side comparison (table) showing how the small‑lot option would complement or compete with the city’s affordable‑housing incentives.

What staff will provide next: a draft ordinance, design and subdivision fit tests, an analysis of walkability/amenity impacts, and specific comparisons to the city’s affordable‑housing incentives and existing incentive applications.

Speakers quoted or paraphrased in this article are planning staff and council members at the Feb. 18 Salt Lake City Council work session. Direct staff recommendations and the numeric limits above reflect the city presentation; council members asked for additional analysis before a vote.