The Springville Planning Commission on Tuesday continued consideration of proposed amendments to the Lakeside Landing Special District overlay after a multi-hour exchange between staff, the applicant’s design team and the commission.

Staff told commissioners the applicant’s requested rezoning of the southern regulating plan from transect T6 to T5 would reduce the maximum number of units and the minimum required commercial floor area in that southern area. Staff said the change would lower the southern-part maximum from roughly 516 units to about 331 and reduce the required nonresidential (commercial) minimum by roughly 30,000 square feet (from ~69,000 to ~39,000). Staff framed four core concerns: the loss of minimum commercial that supports walkability and daily needs, the risk of a homogeneous housing product if a single lot type dominates, potential gaps in an active Main Street street wall, and context-appropriateness of certain lot types along 400 South.

Josh (staff planner, S1) presented the background and recommended either denial of the change or, as an alternative, a continuance with refinements. Staff’s refined recommendation proposed the southern part include at least 10 lot types (6 residential and 4 mixed-use) and no single lot type to exceed 35% of the total lots; staff also recommended inserting nonbinding language encouraging active ground-floor uses along Main Street and ensuring appropriate lot types on 400 South.

Applicant representatives said market conditions have shifted since the original code adoption and argued the downzone would better match present demand. Consultant Korqet Onaran (S8) and UBA president Ed Axelley (S6) said apartments are currently overbuilt in the region and that buyers increasingly demand fee-simple, small-lot ownership products; they presented analyses that showed the proposed plan would increase green/open space, reduce estimated vehicle ownership, shift household types, and still provide tens of thousands of square feet of walkable commercial.

“You can put an apartment there, but the geometry of this plan makes it difficult to do a large apartment building,” the consultant said, explaining how the regulating plan’s alleys and shallow lot geometry make certain building forms unlikely. The applicant argued the proposed mix is more likely to produce owner‑occupied households, greater local disposable income and a larger supportive customer base for neighborhood retail.

Commissioners asked about how commercial square footage is defined (aggregate minimum vs. individual storefront sizes), whether alley and service access will work for deliveries and commercial servicing, how the city can preserve future adaptability, and whether price or product diversity could be assured through regulation. Staff and applicant acknowledged some elements were recommendations rather than mandatory code, so the commission asked both parties to return with clearer, regulatory language if they seek an adoption.

After a public‑hearing period, commissioners voted to continue the item so staff and the applicant could refine the proposed language and address the four staff concerns (commercial minimum, lot-type diversity and limits, active ground-floor guidance on Main Street, and appropriate lot types on 400 South). The commission’s motion to continue passed by voice vote.

What happens next: Staff and the applicant will meet to draft clearer regulatory language and numeric targets (staff suggested the 35% single-lot-type cap as a working figure). The item will return to the commission for further deliberation and a future vote.