At a Lehi City Council meeting (date not specified), council members, staff and outside advisers discussed a proposed “attainable housing overlay” that would allow smaller single‑family lots and limited house footprints in targeted areas and offer density incentives to builders who produce owner‑occupied homes.

City staff presented case studies and a financial analysis showing how 1,000–1,200 square‑foot homes on roughly 6,000‑square‑foot lots could reduce purchase prices compared with current new‑home products in Lehi. Staff described a package of changes under consideration: an overlay mapped in the general plan, a 50% density bonus for qualifying smaller units (subject to engineering review and utility capacity), deed‑restriction requirements to preserve owner occupancy, a sublocal (30‑foot) street cross section, mountable curb/gutter with integral sidewalks, and design rules to discourage “snout houses.”

Mayor Johnson summarized the council’s framing for the discussion: “What we found out for this study, there’s really no — the opportunity for affordable housing does not exist without government assistance,” and said the city was seeking voluntary, market‑friendly tools rather than mandates.

Planning staff walked through a builder’s floor plans and a pricing spreadsheet that included slab homes without basements and optional future garage expansion. Staff and the mayor noted the overlay would be voluntary for developers and would require a developer agreement and pro forma review; it would also be limited to parcels where engineering shows the extra units would not exceed the utility capacity (ERUs) allocated to the area.

Britney (city planning staff) ran mortgage calculations showing how purchase affordability depends heavily on interest rates and down payments; staff emphasized that lower mortgage rates would materially expand who could afford market housing. Cameron Dale Hill, executive director of the Utah League of Cities and Towns, told the council the concept — a density incentive in exchange for owner‑occupied affordable units — is being discussed statewide and several variations are under active consideration at the legislature.

Council members asked detailed questions about parking on 30‑foot streets, the tradeoffs of mountable curb versus traditional curb and gutter (including drainage and ADA interfaces), whether garages should be required at sale or deferred as sweat‑equity carports, and how deed restrictions and owner‑occupancy rules would be enforced. Staff answered that deed restrictions would appear on title and could be checked during resale; enforcement would likely start with complaint investigations, and city code enforcement resources would be involved if needed.

Several council members said they preferred an overlay and general‑plan approach so parcels are vetted in advance rather than rezoning parcel by parcel. Staff said the intent is a targeted program limited to parcels where infrastructure and fixture‑unit analysis support the bonus; larger homes would not automatically qualify for the full bonus because they impose greater fixture‑unit (utility) demand.

No ordinance or rezoning vote was taken. Staff said next steps are to run an engineering (ERU/fixture unit) analysis on candidate parcels, refine overlay text and developer‑agreement language, and return to the council and planning commission with a recommended map and regulations.

Ending: The council signaled support for continuing work on the overlay concept and asked staff to bring parcel‑level analyses and draft overlay language back to the council and planning commission for formal review before any change is adopted.