Spring City hearing draws residents urging pause, transparency and compromise on ordinance 20-26-06

Spring City held a public hearing on proposed ordinance 20-26-06 that would restore a 1.06-acre minimum lot size, update accessory dwelling unit (ADU) rules and carry forward some provisions from earlier ordinances. The chair opened the hearing to public comment and staff read a summary of the city’s letter explaining the proposal.

Andrew Skousen, summarizing the city’s written notice, said the ordinance would repeal ordinances 20-26-03 and 20-25-05, restore a 1.06-acre minimum lot size across much of Spring City except for grandfathered lots, carry forward certain RMF (residential multifamily) provisions and make technical corrections. He also said the ordinance would change ADU limits — permitting up to 1,000 square feet but capping any single floor at 700 square feet (up from a prior 650-per-floor limit) — and reduce the allowed multifamily percentage to 3% from 4%.

Why it matters: speakers said the changes affect the town’s historic character, tourism-driven sales tax revenue and residents’ property options, and several urged a more deliberate planning process rather than quick ordinance shifts. Many speakers asked that proposed changes be slowed while Planning and Zoning or an independent general-plan process completes review.

Public commenters voiced a mix of preservation and process concerns. Resident David Figgott opened remarks by quoting civic leaders on the economic importance of protecting historic character, saying such preservation supports tourism revenue. “Difference of opinion leads to inquiry and inquiry to truth,” Figgott said, urging respectful debate and attention to the long-term value of the town’s historic assets.

Several longtime and recent residents said they support pausing changes to give Planning and Zoning time to develop a broader plan. “This ordinance would slow things down,” said Liz Rudman, urging the city to pay for and adopt an independent general plan that would spell out costs for sewer hookups and infrastructure tied to growth.

Council member James Baker asked for transparency about the status of ordinance 20-25-05 and the referendum process. “I’m not making accusations or conclusions,” Baker said. “Rather, I am asking whether these circumstances raise any procedural, ethical, or legal concerns under Utah law that should be reviewed by appropriate authorities.” Baker said he had asked the mayor and city recorder for written clarification and had not yet received a response.

Several speakers described concerns about petition circulation. One resident said a friend repeatedly solicited an elderly relative to sign a petition and characterized some solicitations as inappropriate; the speaker said that, in their view, it can be unethical for Planning and Zoning members to collect petition signatures.

Not all commenters sought the same result. Randy Strait, who identified himself as born and raised in Spring City, urged a regulatory compromise to preserve a historical mix of lot sizes, proposing an ordinance cap that would prevent a sudden predominance of smaller lots (for example, limiting smaller lots to no more than 50% of parcels) so both large- and smaller-lot preferences could coexist.

Other residents urged accurate public information before a referendum proceeds and encouraged expanded public engagement, including surveys and expert consultation, to forge a durable solution. Multiple speakers stressed the importance of balancing historic preservation, affordability and who gets to live in the community.

What was not decided: there was no vote on ordinance 20-26-06 at the public hearing. The chair closed the hearing after comments and indicated the body would proceed to a Planning and Zoning meeting; the city recorder offered to explain petition procedures but that explanation was not presented during the hearing.

Next steps: Planning and Zoning is expected to continue deliberations; a formal council decision or any vote on the ordinance was not recorded at the hearing.