As part of an ongoing effort to overhaul the city’s single-family zoning code, members of the Salt Lake City Planning Commission got to share their thoughts while shaping the proposal Wednesday. 

Commissioners were given a number of issues to tinker with — maximum floor size, ownership requirements, building heights and other aspects. The commission did not vote on the proposal Wednesday, but it did take a series of informal votes that will help shape the proposal going forward before it reaches City Council.

The proposal, dubbed Expanding Housing Options (EHO), would allow homes to be built on lots as small as 2,000 square feet in single-family zones. The proposal wouldn’t eliminate single-family zoning or hinder the building of larger homes, but it would allow for multiple, smaller homes to be built in areas across the city. 

Initially, maximum gross floor area would be capped at 1,200 square feet for small lot dwellings as part of the proposal. But the city is now considering allowing homes up to 1,700 square feet if the home is at or below 17 feet in height. That square footage would also include space in a basement. If a building would exceed that height and have an upper floor, the home would be capped at 1,200 square feet. The staff report says, “Incentivizing shorter buildings is one way to address privacy concerns.” 

The staff report also notes that while a home between 1,200-1,700 square feet seems small, those sizes are, “still an adequate size for up to three bedrooms.” The report notes that Durham, North Carolina passed a similar zoning ordinance that allowed small homes up to 1,200 square feet, and those homes had three bedrooms and two bathrooms. 

Commissioners discussed Wednesday whether that maximum should be altered in some way, or if it should remain with the 1,200- and 1,700-square foot caps.

Benjamin Buckley, a principal planner for Salt Lake City, told the commission that city staff believes 1,200 square feet is big enough to accommodate three bedrooms. He also showed an example of such a home, which had a 600-square-foot footprint. The home had a kitchen, living room, one bedroom and one bathroom on the first floor, along with two bedrooms and a bathroom upstairs. 

But one of the questions asked Wednesday was whether the commission wanted to keep the two types of square foot caps, or if they wanted to allow for larger homes. The alternative option is to allow 300 extra square feet if the home has three or more bedrooms. 

Commissioner Lilah Rosenfield pointed out that making a slightly larger home would mean the cost of that home goes up, which Buckley acknowledged would be the case. 

Commissioner Jeffrey Barrett said he was inclined to stick with the initial size caps, saying, “This proposal doesn’t have to create a solution that works for every family, it just has to create more housing options that work for the average family, and (for) the average family in Salt Lake City two bedrooms is more than enough.”

In a straw poll, four commissioners voted to keep the 1,200 and 1,700 square foot caps. Two commissioners voted in favor of changing the caps to include the extra 300 square feet for the third bedroom. 

Another aspect of debate among the city is whether it will require homes on smaller lots to be primary dwellings or if rentals would be allowed.

While some members of the Salt Lake City Council want to explore having the small lot dwelling units carry an owner-occupancy requirement, planning commissioners weren’t as enthused.

Buckley said there’s no owner-occupancy requirement in the proposal as of now, and said “adding additional requirements like owner-occupancy could inevitably hamper the production of housing, and that’s not something that this project wants to do.” 

He added that many public commenters worried that investors or large institutional real estate companies would seek to exploit the EHO program to create more rental housing, instead of building homes for sale. Buckley pointed to research that suggests it’s difficult to track large institutional ownership companies, and any targeted action to prevent corporate ownership would likely require state or federal legislation. 

Commissioner Richard Leverett suggested that planning staff explore possible options to add regulations in the hopes of preventing corporate landlords. Rosenfield later said that, while massive investors can come into a market to buy houses and drive up prices, she didn’t believe that’s the primary issue it’s made out to be. Commissioner Aimee Burrows said she also wanted to figure out a way to limit institutional ownership.

In the straw poll, the commission was split in a 3-3 vote between keeping the proposal as-is without owner-occupancy requirements and tinkering with ways to prevent institutional ownership. 

Commissioners also discussed changes to off-street parking for small lot dwellings, which was another topic of conversation in public meetings. The current proposal doesn’t seek changes to base zoning parking requirements, and would require each small lot dwelling to have one parking space per unit. 

Again, commissioners were split between keeping that route or outright eliminating parking minimums for small lot dwellings. In a straw poll, three commissioners voted in favor of keeping the one parking space per unit requirement, while the other three voted in favor of getting rid of any parking minimums. 

“Every day is a good day to abolish parking minimums,” Rosenfield said. “We’re trying to advance towards the future of a city that is more walkable, that is more urban. I think it’s unnecessary to have any parking minimums here.”

The current proposal would also allow for homes to grow slightly taller in size, with an extra two feet allowed for pitched roof homes and an extra four feet for flat roof homes. The commission voted unanimously to approve the added heights. 

City staff also took the time to acknowledge other concerns they heard from the public. Another particular issue was the fear that EHO would incentivize the demolition of existing homes to replace them with multiple small lot dwellings. 

Andy Hulka, a senior planner for the city, said the city believes unnecessary demolition should be avoided. He said that following Durham’s changes, that city found no change in their demolition rates than before. 

The proposal would incentivize the retention of existing buildings by allowing for bonuses if the existing home is preserved. Buckley said if a building is preserved, the lot can get one bonus unit that is not subject to the lot area restrictions, similar to the city’s RMF density bonus. 

City staff will now take the commission’s comments and straw polls into consideration as part of the EHO proposal. Staff will revise the draft ordinance and will take it back to the planning commission in the future, where they will vote on it. The proposal will ultimately go before the Salt Lake City Council, which will have the ultimate say on the changes. 

Email Jacob Scholl