Spring City council discusses settlement proposals on zoning lawsuit, considers smaller preservation zone and ADU increase

Spring City councilmembers spent the bulk of a work meeting discussing proposals that plaintiffs in a pending lawsuit brought forward as potential terms for dismissing litigation challenging a draft zoning ordinance.

Council members described a range of possible compromises discussed with plaintiffs and their representatives on Zoom, including: pausing certain zoning decisions until a new general plan is completed; narrowing the geographic area subject to a new minimum-lot-size requirement so the 'historic core' would remain protected; increasing permitted accessory dwelling unit (ADU) size; and lowering the share of multifamily units contemplated in the draft ordinance. The plaintiffs' representatives said they would dismiss the lawsuit if the parties agreed to specified changes and work cooperatively on public communications.

Specific changes discussed included reducing a proposed citywide minimum-lot-size requirement from the draft's 1.06 acres to one-half acre in many areas, while preserving a smaller protected zone for the historic core. Councilmember Chris (first name only in transcript) described a candidate protected area that would "go from Second West to Fifth East and from 6 South to 750 North," and other councilmembers proposed alternative, smaller boundaries intended to retain a higher share of historic homes inside the protected zone.

Councilmembers debated whether shrinking the protected zone would actually preserve the city's National Register historic-district designation. Several participants said they had asked the National Park Service about a '50% rule of thumb' (the idea that losing more than 50% historic homes could jeopardize a listing) and were told that 50% is an informal rule of thumb rather than a binding documented threshold.

On development controls, councilmembers discussed increasing ADU size limits from the current 650 square feet to between 1,200 and 1,300 square feet in the proposed ordinance language. They also debated cutting the multifamily allotment in the draft ordinance from 5% to either 3% (what some plaintiffs sought) or a compromise of 4% (favored by some councilmembers). Several participants noted that any multifamily development would still require a formal zone-change and public hearing process; raising or lowering the percentage is not itself authorization to build without a zone change.

Councilmembers raised procedural and trust concerns. Several said the plaintiffs were served a lawsuit shortly after meeting privately with some council representatives, which undermined trust. One councilmember described an instance where outreach tied to the lawsuit caused an outside watershed partner to pause its participation in an unrelated flood-prevention project. Those trust issues shaped reluctance among some councilmembers to count on any settlement offers without written commitments and legal review.

Councilmembers said they will continue negotiations, ask the plaintiffs to review a draft set of proposed boundary and ordinance changes, and get advice from the city attorney. They proposed a closed session with the city attorney in the coming week if necessary, and scheduled follow-up discussions to attempt to reach a settlement that could be presented to the full council. No binding agreement or ordinance vote occurred during the work meeting.

The council also discussed moving forward with a new general plan and asked planning staff to estimate timeline and costs; one planning presenter gave a rough cost range of $15,000 to $50,000 for the general-plan work discussed during the meeting. Several councilmembers said they supported revisiting the draft ordinance language, and some asked staff to prepare a redlined proposal that incorporated the ADU and protected-area adjustments for further review.