Spring City council debates zoning changes, annexation rules and water-share approach as growth pressure builds

Spring City council members spent an extended portion of the meeting discussing land-use controls, growth management and utility policy, and directed staff to draft ordinance changes and a proposed R-1 buffer plan for submission to county planning.

Council members reviewed several related land-use items: whether to keep or remove a zoning allowance for mobile home parks, how to limit multifamily density (duplexes and multi-unit buildings), whether to increase the allowed size for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and how to define and apply a so-called R-1 ring or buffer outside city limits that would allow smaller lots and guide future annexation.

One recurring proposal discussed was replacing lot-size-only controls with a cap on the number of multifamily units permitted in the city. A council member framed the idea as a percentage-cap mechanism: "If you're only going to have a certain percentage of multifamily to single-family products... if you put the percentage and you can't have more than 5% multifamily to single-family... you can't have more than 20." The percentage-cap approach would limit citywide multifamily growth regardless of where units are built.

Council members also discussed reducing the current allowable density of four duplexes per acre to a lower number (for example, two duplexes per acre) and debated minimum lot sizes. Several speakers noted the city's long-standing one-point-zero-six-acre minimum lot size (1.06 acres) and compared it to neighboring jurisdictions, where minimums commonly reach one-half acre or smaller.

The council considered a coordinated approach with the county: create an R-1 buffer ring, initially one block wide, where half-acre lots would be permitted but only if property owners agreed to annex into the city to receive culinary water and sewer. Council members emphasized that city services would not be extended into the county beyond planned areas unless annexation and required infrastructure (roads, rights-of-way, utility easements) were part of the agreement.

Water availability and rights factored heavily into the annexation discussion. Staff and council members discussed requiring property owners who seek city culinary water connections as part of annexation to surrender or contribute shares of secondary (irrigation) water to the city. The meeting record includes a proposal that, for example, property owners with secondary water access would surrender one share for culinary conversion; those without secondary access might surrender two shares. Staff described that compiling shares over time would allow the city to file water-right change applications to convert secondary water to culinary use when necessary.

Accessory dwelling units were another topic. The council noted the current ADU size cap (referenced in the discussion as 625 square feet) is considered too small by some members. Several council members said increasing the allowable ADU footprint could offer a lower-cost rental option while protecting the historic district through zoning overlays.

Council members asked staff and planning commissioners to draft specific ordinance language and alternatives for public review, including: (1) a percentage cap on multifamily units, (2) a reduction in duplex density per acre, (3) increasing ADU size limits, (4) a one-block R-1 ring plan to submit to county planning and (5) annexation rules tying city utilities to easements, road-rights, and water-share exactions. Staff were asked to prepare educational materials and to structure a public survey with background so residents can provide informed input.