Pleasant Grove Council members on Tuesday reversed a staff proposal, issuing instead a decision that means the city will have to seek permits from itself to build parts of its new Manila Creek Park.

Problem is, parts of the park already under construction have not received the necessary permits, said at least one resident, meaning the city is proceeding as though construction were already approved.

A lake that would be part of the park is necessary to provide irrigation water to more than 2,000 homes. In January, some residents protested construction of the lake, saying it would be a drowning hazard, breed mosquitoes, bring crowds and noise, and cause settling of nearby homes. At that time, the city said safety issues would be addressed later, when the city requested a permit for the beach and fishing at the park.

Residents gathered at Tuesday's Council meeting to protest a proposal to make tot lots, playgrounds, picnic areas, swimming beaches and sport fishing permitted uses in the Rural Residential zone, which includes the park. Had the Council approved that change, it would have meant the city could have constructed the swimming beach and conducted sport fishing at the park without a public hearing.

But the protest never got off the ground because Council members themselves balked, asking city staff why it was necessary for those uses to be permitted, meaning anyone in the zone would have been able to install a swimming beach, for example, without city permission.

Rather, most of the items on the list should be considered for approval on an individual basis, Council members said.

"If anyone was to come forward and make use of this, there would be no staff review," said Mayor Mike Daniels to city staffers.

Robert Schow, a former owner of the land the city is using for the park and lake, gave the Daily Herald documents showing that the city has already begun spending $100,000 to build a sandy beach even though the city has not yet gone through the process of getting a conditional use permit allowing the beach. In addition, the 2009 Division of Wildlife Resources Fishing Guidebook lists Manila Creek Pond as a "new community fishery ... now open to the public" even though the city has not given itself a permit for the fishery to exist.

On Tuesday, Council members specifically listed swimming beaches and recreational fishing in the zone as conditional uses, meaning the city will have to get a permit from itself in order for fishing and swimming to be allowed at the new lake, even though the state is already advertising the lake as a community fishery.

On Tuesday Schow asked the Council whether it was legal for construction of the beach to begin without the permits.

"I think that is a separate discussion, not part and parcel of what we are doing," said Mayor Daniels.

Schow said he has already filed a lawsuit over the city's actions. A year ago, Schow sued to idle bulldozers creating the artificial lake on 15 acres Schow said he sold to the city at a discount. He later asked the court to lift a stop order on the work. Tuesday's meeting was another manifestation of the tension between residents who live near the newly completed artificial lake, and the city as it constructs the project.

Another resident said he was concerned that invasive mussels, which have recently been found in Utah waterways, could infect the irrigation pond and clog residential irrigation systems. Council members thanked the man for his information but said that discussion was outside the scope of whether or not recreation uses of the park should be permitted or conditional.

A spokesman for subdivisions near the pond said they want to be involved in planning what recreational amenities will be built at the Manila Creek Park.

"We have not made progress on that, but we will continue to work with you," Mayor Daniels said.

Giving across-the-board permission for swimming beaches, fishing and other uses could come back to haunt the city in the future by creating "unintended consequences," said Councilman Lee Jensen, who said the city should require conditional use permits instead.

"I agree with Lee," said Councilwoman Cindy Boyd, noting that if the ordinance had passed as staff had suggested, the proposed Murdock Canal trail could one day come through and the city would not have any say over the placement of trailheads and other amenities.

"We are not going to be able to determine if this is good in the future, or have any neighborhood input at that point, if we make it a permitted use," she said.

It was not clear how soon the city could seek permits from itself for the swimming beach and fishery.