Spring City’s Planning & Zoning advisory panel voted down a proposed compromise zoning ordinance known in the discussion as Ordinance 2025-05 after an extended debate over accessory dwelling unit (ADU) size and the map that would define a smaller historic core.
The panel considered a compromise that would keep 1-acre lots inside a defined historic boundary while allowing half-acre lots outside it and would permit ADUs as large as 1,200 square feet in some zones. Opponents said those provisions undercut property expectations and would fail to protect homes outside the proposed historic boundary; supporters said ADUs are a state-encouraged tool to add housing and that larger internal ADUs have been built successfully elsewhere.
“The ADU proposal in this ordinance is for 1,200 feet, which I think is very much too big,” said Speaker 3, arguing that national practice often limits ADUs to about 500–850 square feet and that 1,200 sq ft would amount to a second full house on a lot. Speaker 3 also asserted that changing zoning where buyers expected 1-acre lots would violate property rights and that some historic homes would not be protected.
Speaker 1 countered that the state has urged jurisdictions to allow ADUs to address housing shortages and described building internal ADUs in Tooele where a 1,200-square-foot footprint worked in practice. “These are fully rentable, and it’s a good way to provide some additional housing without duplicating,” Speaker 1 said, noting past local experience with rentable internal ADUs.
Other commissioners raised related concerns: Speaker 5 said owners restoring homes outside the new historic zone would be disadvantaged, and Speaker 4 noted prior negotiations over a percentage cap (discussed earlier as 3% and then 4%) and urged careful definition of ADU standards and parking rules.
Panel members discussed three formal options: recommend Ordinance O-5 (the compromise), recommend O-3 (an earlier alternative), or make no recommendation. Several commissioners reported being told that if the panel does not recommend O-5, the City Council might proceed with O-3. The panel ultimately moved to vote on Ordinance 2025-05.
Speaker 3 made the motion to vote on Ordinance 2025-05, seconded by Speaker 2. In a roll call the following votes were recorded: Kaye Vaniera, nay; Sally Scott, nay; Kristen Mortensen, nay; Mike Nelson, nay. The motion to approve Ordinance 2025-05 failed on that recorded vote.
The panel did not adopt the compromise ordinance. Panelists left unresolved several procedural and substantive questions about mapping the historic boundary, the appropriate maximum ADU size, whether ADUs should be rentable, and how percentage caps should be counted. The commission’s recommendation (or lack of one) means the next formal step and timing for city-level action was not specified during the session.