Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Spring City Council adopts Title 10 changes setting 1.06-acre minimum, tighter multifamily and ADU limits
Loading...
Summary
After extended public comment and debate about fairness under state land-use law, the Spring City Council voted 3-2 to adopt Ordinance 2026-03, setting a 1.06-acre minimum buildable lot size, lowering multifamily allowance from 4% to 3%, and capping guest-house footprints.
The Spring City Council voted 3-2 on March 5 to adopt Ordinance 2026-03, amending Title 10 to require a 1.06-acre minimum buildable lot size, reduce the permitted share of multifamily housing from 4% to 3%, and allow guest houses with a single-floor footprint of up to 650 square feet (1,000 square feet total). Council Member Michael Broadbent moved for adoption; the motion passed with Council Members Chris Anderson, Michael Broadbent and Laurel Workman voting yes and Marty McCain and Courtney Syme voting no.
The ordinance followeda lengthy public-comment period in which residents debated the city's character, housing needs and legal obligations. Dan Rasmussen, a local planning commenter, and resident Randy Strate urged the council to ensure compliance with the state Municipal Land Use, Development, and Management Act (LUDMA), warning that substantive procedural or fairness gaps could invite legal challenge. James Baker urged that decisions be tied to the General Plan and existing Master Plans so actions align with long-range goals.
Council supporters said the ordinance returns the city to longer-standing lot-size norms and preserves what they described as the town's heritage and character. Opponents, including Council Member Courtney Syme and several residents, argued the change risks stagnation and could reduce opportunities for smaller, more affordable housing. Kristen Mortensen asked the council to pause so Planning & Zoning could reconcile cross-references and definitions — in particular, how accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and the city's definitions would align with new state ADU rules.
The council's debate also touched on local process questions raised by Dan Rasmussen and others about whether Planning & Zoning members who voted had all attended the public hearing. The commission's chair submitted a letter noting the hearing and the commission's subsequent tie-breaking vote; the letter was entered into the record.
The ordinance does not itself reallocate funding or direct immediate subdivisions. The record reflects the council's intent to maintain neighborhood character while acknowledging state-level housing concerns raised by commenters. The council did not set a new procedural timeline for appeal or refer the ordinance to another body; next steps would be those required by local code for implementation and publication.
Vote tally: Yes ' Chris Anderson, Michael Broadbent, Laurel Workman; No ' Marty McCain, Courtney Syme. The ordinance was adopted at the March 5 meeting.