Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the General Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning administrator urges targeted update to Spring City general plan, commission agrees to pursue review
Summary
Zoning administrator Greg Paulson told the Planning and Zoning Commission the city’s general plan contains inconsistencies that have caused recent land-use disputes and recommended a focused review and limited updates using existing resources such as the Utah League of Cities and Towns and local engineering firms.
SPRING CITY — Greg Paulson, Spring City’s zoning administrator, asked the Planning and Zoning Commission on July 30 to lead a targeted review of the city’s general plan, saying some language and inconsistencies have contributed to recent disputes over land use.
Paulson told the commission that state law requires municipalities to have a general plan and that small towns may prepare the plan without hiring a licensed planner. "The general plan must be adopted by the city council," Paulson said, adding that the planning commission had held the required hearing on Feb. 28, 2024.
Paulson walked commissioners through specific parts of the document he said need clarification, including phrases that encourage both preservation of "1.06 acre homesteads" and separate references that suggest areas suitable for multifamily and "modern income" housing. He said the plan’s language on "affordable housing" and "multifamily" zones is not sufficiently specific and can be read in conflicting ways. "If it's a bunch of legal jargon, nobody's gonna read it or understand it," Paulson said, urging simple, readable language.
He recommended the commission pursue a low-cost review process: revise the existing plan in-house, then ask the Utah League of Cities and Towns or similar regional technical resources to review the revisions rather than commissioning a full new master plan from scratch. Paulson suggested the city also consider engineering and planning consultants when grant funding is available; he named a local engineering firm contact who has offered to assist with a public-engagement process of town meetings followed by draft revisions.
Commissioners agreed there are inconsistencies that should be clarified to avoid future conflict and asked that the commission take responsibility for gathering more information and potential resources to present a formal recommendation later. No formal vote was recorded; the action taken was a direction by the commission to investigate options and approach the Utah League and potential consultants.
Paulson also highlighted that the general plan is a recommendation that must be adopted by City Council and that the planning commission’s role is to draft and recommend updates for council approval.
The commission scheduled follow-up work to assemble more information and consider grant options or resources for a streamlined update process.
