Council workshop frames "missing middle" push: staff to test‑fit zoning after council conditions

Sandy City Council held its fourth housing workshop on Nov. 4 to reconcile a draft housing vision with the city’s general plan and to identify which "missing middle" housing types elected officials would accept in different locations.

City attorney Lynn Pace opened the session and turned the presentation to Jake Warner, project manager for the general plan, who outlined six housing typologies — detached accessory dwelling units (ADUs), small‑lot single family, twin homes/duplexes, mansion‑style multi‑unit homes, townhomes and small mid‑rise buildings — and mapped where the general plan anticipates different densities. "We're looking at the what and the where tonight," Warner said, asking councilmembers to weigh in on acceptable locations and the conditions under which they would permit change.

Staff then ran an anonymous poll of the eight elected officials to match housing types with five location categories (Cairns/station areas, neighborhood activity centers, corridors, medium‑ and low‑density neighborhoods). Dustin (staff) summarized the results and noted clear patterns: townhomes and small mid‑rise attracted broad support in centers and corridors; ADUs and small‑lot single family scored higher inside existing neighborhoods as transition tools.

Council discussion focused on the conditions — "the ifs" — that would be required before permitting changes in single‑family areas. Members repeatedly returned to buffering and transition approaches (placing higher‑density products along corridors or at edges), incentives and concessions to secure owner occupancy and starter‑home affordability, and the administrative tools required to protect deed restrictions or other contractual guarantees.

Lynn Pace and staff reminded the council that some state action already shapes local options: internal ADUs are already allowed under state law and detached ADUs are the subject of ongoing legislative negotiation. Warner said staff will use the council’s directional input to run test‑fit site analyses and return with specific zoning amendments and incentive packages, and the group tentatively scheduled a final workshop for Nov. 18.

The meeting moved into routine city business after the workshop portion; the consent calendar (approval of draft minutes) was approved by voice vote, and council later voted to enter a closed session for personnel, litigation and real‑property matters.