Kaysville council approves limited moderate-income housing overlay after extended debate

KAYSVILLE, Utah — Kaysville City Council voted Dec. 19 to approve a streamlined Moderate Income Housing Overlay (MIHO) ordinance that staff said implements state guidance by creating a pathway—via rezones and development agreements—for projects that include moderately priced housing.

City community development staff presented the draft ordinance and said it is intended to be a simple, flexible tool developers could use to request density or other zoning incentives in exchange for delivering units priced for moderate‑income households. Staff recommended that eligible proposals come forward with a concept plan, materials and construction standards, a mechanism to verify income eligibility, and a development agreement that spells out the incentives and obligations.

The council’s action narrowed the draft in two key ways. Council members asked staff to remove most non‑residential and multifamily zones from the overlay, limit the overlay to new development rather than retroactive application to existing parcels, and leave detailed incentives and compliance tools to be negotiated in development agreements. Council also instructed staff to remove or de‑emphasize land‑lease/land‑trust language in the ordinance.

Why it matters: The state has asked municipalities of Kaysville’s size to include provisions designed to encourage moderate‑income housing. Council members said they wanted to meet that obligation while protecting the character of single‑family neighborhoods. Development agreements were repeatedly identified as the principal mechanism for enforcing promises about unit counts, owner occupancy, deed restrictions or resale limits.

What staff proposed: Melinda (community development staff) told council the overlay would operate like a rezone: applicants would bring a concept package including unit sizes, lot layout, materials, amenities and an income‑qualification approach. The draft suggested a minimum of 10% of units in a qualifying project be offered at moderate‑income pricing, with a density bonus or other regulatory flexibility as the incentive. Staff named deed restrictions, CC&Rs, or third‑party eligibility verification (for example, certified non‑profit administrators) as possible compliance tools; staff did not propose the city run income verification.

Public response: Four members of the public spoke during the hearing. Jason Largie and others warned against deed restrictions that they said could function as permanent price controls or impede property owners’ rights. Speakers repeatedly urged the council not to apply restrictions retroactively and asked for protections against investor ownership of units meant for owner‑occupants.

Council concerns and revisions: Several council members said they support exploring tools to yield smaller, more affordable single‑family homes but opposed blanket, city‑wide overlay application without case‑by‑case review. Council member Blackham and others proposed limiting the overlay to single‑family zones and using development agreements to require owner‑occupancy or deed conditions. Council member Jackson asked for clearer limits on height, setbacks and parking to avoid incongruent development adjacent to long‑established homes.

Outcome and next steps: Council member Adams moved and the council approved the ordinance as amended. Staff was directed to prepare a redlined final ordinance reflecting the council’s changes and return it for formal adoption and publication. Staff also noted the city’s reporting requirement to the state and said it could bring further text amendments if the state changes guidance or if the council wants additional tools.

Quotes: “We want to invite developers to bring creative ideas, but approvals are discretionary and must come through a development agreement,” Melinda said. Council member Blackham said the council should prioritize “detached single‑family dwelling” types and require owner occupancy where appropriate.

Clarifying note: The approved overlay, as directed by council, was limited to new development and narrowed in the zones to which it may be applied; specific incentives, percentages and any deed‑restriction language will be set in individual development agreements and are not automatically imposed by the overlay.

Ending: Staff said the item will return with the redlined ordinance at the council’s next available meeting so the council can place the ordinance in effect and complete the state reporting.