Residents raise safety, traffic and noise concerns as developer seeks PIC rezone near Treeside Charter School

A Provo City planner told attendees at a March neighborhood meeting that an applicant is seeking to rezone a vacant field near Treeside Charter School from agricultural to PIC (Planned Industrial Commercial) to allow a mix of commercial and light-industrial uses.

Mary Barnes, a city planner, said the application is still in the first review stage and that “this is a preliminary plan.” She told the neighborhood the rezone would align with the Provo City General Plan future land‑use map, and that uses allowed in PIC could include “restaurants, retail, services… light industrial, office.” Barnes said a traffic study will be required if the rezone advances and that the developer is already in talks with UDOT and city engineering about access.

Neighbors, the developer and a teacher from Treeside Charter School described concerns and potential mitigations. A teacher who identified herself as Duaa said her classroom is adjacent to the site and noted the proximity of “kindergarteners, first, second, third graders,” asking how large trucks and construction activity would affect student safety and daily classroom operations.

The property owner, speaking at the meeting, described plans to concentrate traffic around the new building and shared access with the adjacent Remington Commons development. “We’re trying to get all this traffic to circulate around our building,” the owner said, adding that the design intends to keep through traffic out of school parking areas and that deliveries would occur at the rear of the building. The owner also said the access and final details depend on engineering and UDOT approvals.

Planners acknowledged the concept plan on display is illustrative and may change. Barnes said concept plans accompany rezones to show what could be built but that precise site plans come later, after civil, architectural and landscaping plans are prepared and reviewed by planning staff, engineering and the planning commission. She emphasized the application remains in an early (first-review) stage and will later proceed to the planning commission and city council, where there will be formal public hearings and opportunities for comment.

Residents pressed specific issues: the likely location and alignment of driveways near the school, whether a signal or additional traffic control will be installed at the school access, noise during construction and after buildout, the effects of semitrailer turning radii shown on the concept drawing, and whether a landscape buffer would be required between the development and the school. Barnes said transitional landscaping and buffering are required by code when commercial uses abut residential or institutional properties and that the property owner will need to meet code requirements for buffers; she said engineering will advise final access locations and UDOT must permit any access onto State Street.

Neighbors also asked whether the revised general plan (2023) supports commercial or mixed use here; Barnes said the updated general plan shows the corner as a commercial future land use and staff believes PIC is an appropriate zoning category for the location because it allows commercial uses while accommodating light‑industrial or office-style tenants that fit nearby development patterns.

The meeting included a nonbinding hand-raise poll of District 2 attendees to capture local sentiment; organizers emphasized the straw poll is advisory only and not binding on the planning commission or city council. Attendees were advised that the next formal steps are continued staff review, planning‑commission public hearings (with public comment), and final decisions by the city council (also with public comment).

Neighbors were directed to Mary Barnes’s contact information on the meeting agenda for follow-up questions, and staff encouraged those with concerns about access, truck routing and noise to raise them again at the planning commission and city council hearings.

Provo staff noted dependencies for the project that must be resolved before final approvals: engineering review on access alignment, a traffic study required for the rezone and future site plan, and coordination with UDOT because State Street is a state route. They also noted the concept plan’s shown uses and drive aisles are illustrative and subject to change during subsequent reviews.

The city planner closed by reiterating the procedural sequence: first review → planning commission recommendation (public hearing) → city council decision (public hearing), and reminded residents that the concept plan may not look the same if and when a final site plan returns for review.