Commission debates small‑lot dwelling rules: 1,200 ft² floor limit, setbacks, parking and ownership options

Salt Lake City planning staff presented a work session on the Expanding Housing Options project — a zoning package intended to allow small‑lot dwellings (single‑family small houses, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes and townhomes up to four units) as an option in many base residential zones. Ben (principal planner) and Andy (senior planner) reviewed the proposal, public engagement results and six core policy choices that staff seeks direction on.

Key proposals and discussion

- Floor area limits: staff proposed a baseline gross internal floor area of 1,200 ft² for two‑story small‑lot buildings taller than 17 ft and up to 1,700 ft² where basements are allowed (under 17 ft). The package includes an optional alternative to allow up to 1,500 ft² if a three‑bedroom requirement is met. Staff cited precedent from Durham, North Carolina, and said Durham saw smaller units priced significantly below median single‑family values.

- Front yards and block‑face averaging: the draft would remove the block‑face averaging rule and replace it with a straightforward 20‑ft front yard in base zoning districts, with a 10‑ft front yard for proposed small‑lot dwellings (and the option to match adjoining properties). Commissioners noted that larger front yards disproportionately reduce buildable area on small lots and discussed preserving streetscape uniformity vs enabling housing production.

- Height and sideyards: staff proposed small increases in allowable height (minor increases to enable two‑story construction) and reduced sideyard setbacks (for small lots, 4 ft on one side and 10 ft on the other in some zones) to make narrow lots feasible for new units. Fire and ladder access concerns were raised; staff noted fire review is required for permits.

- Parking: for small‑lot dwellings staff proposed one off‑street parking space per unit (aligning with the city’s affordable housing incentives and ADU code exceptions), with the option to increase fractions (1.25–1.5) if the commission prefers. Commissioners debated requiring any parking minimums vs eliminating them; a straw poll favored keeping one space per unit.

- Ownership and occupancy: the draft does not require owner occupancy for small‑lot dwelling units. Commissioners expressed mixed views — concerns about investor purchases and demolitions were raised versus legal and enforcement challenges of restricting ownership. Staff noted owner‑occupancy rules are administratively difficult and sometimes out of scope without higher‑level legislation; commissioners asked staff to consider additional regulatory options or incentives (an optional “get weird” option was discussed to explore cooperative or limited‑investor models).

- Demolition and affordability concerns: the draft includes bonuses for retaining existing homes (a bonus unit if an existing dwelling is preserved) to reduce demolition pressure. Commissioners and staff discussed evidence from other cities (Durham, Houston) showing mixed outcomes on demolition after reform.

Straw polls and direction

Commissioners conducted informal straw polls on several items: a majority supported the staff‑proposed baseline floor area and keeping option one (1,200 ft²) rather than expanding gross floor area for three‑bedroom incentives; commissioners favored the proposed front‑yard approach (20‑ft base / 10‑ft small lot) in a straw poll; and a majority supported one parking space per small‑lot unit rather than eliminating minimums. On owner‑occupancy, commissioners were divided and asked staff to return with more options and legal analysis.

Why it matters: the package would change development options across roughly 36% of the city’s land (and 77% of residential land), affecting how many small, potentially more attainable homes can be built on existing lots. Commissioners emphasized tradeoffs: increasing housing supply versus potential impacts on neighborhood character, parking stress, demolition pressure and long‑term affordability.

Next steps: staff will revise the draft ordinance using tonight’s feedback, prepare a staff report and schedule a formal public hearing before the commission and subsequent briefings to city council. No formal vote was taken; staff requested direction on which options to carry forward to the draft ordinance.

Speakers quoted: Ben (principal planner); Andy (senior planner); multiple commissioners (attribution uses commissioners’ names where stated).