Pleasant Grove council keeps existing vicinity plan, denies amendment to remove proposed connecting road

PLEASANT GROVE, Utah — The Pleasant Grove City Council voted unanimously on July 2, 2025, to deny a proposed vicinity-plan amendment that would have removed a planned connecting road between 900 South and 1000 South, keeping the existing plan that the council and staff say better addresses steep slopes, future utilities and pedestrian and vehicle connectivity.

The decision preserves the city’s February 2024 vicinity plan for the area bounded by Locust Avenue, 900 South, 1150 East and 1000 South. Councilmember Rogers moved to deny the amendment; Councilmember Jensen seconded. The motion passed on a roll-call vote with Councilmembers Rogers, Janssen, Lamone and Williams voting yes.

Why it matters: The connectivity shown in the current vicinity plan underpins future subdivision layouts, shared utility corridors with neighboring Lindon City and a future extension of 1000 South. City staff and the planning commission recommended keeping the existing plan, saying the adopted layout better manages the site’s topography and offers a more workable option for drainage and utility coordination than the applicant’s proposed change.

City staff described the adopted vicinity plan as a guide used when developers submit subdivision plats. Daniel Cardenas, identified in the meeting as the community development director, told the council the adopted plan had been approved by the planning commission and city council in 2024 and is the baseline the city uses when reviewing development proposals. Cardenas said a previously approved subdivision in the area already provides roughly two-thirds of the planned north–south road and a hammerhead turnaround; those applicants are vested in the approvals they received under the existing plan.

Public-works director Neil (last name in record as Winderton/Winterton) told the council the current plan provides “a lot of advantages from a drainage perspective” and creates a utility corridor and storm-drain outlet that will be important if the area develops. He said the road network in the existing plan also provides better pedestrian and vehicular connectivity than the proposed amendment.

Property owners who oppose the road told the council it would impose an unfair, unfunded burden on non-developing neighbors. Ricardo Bonilla, the applicant and owner of 1040 East 900 South, asked the council to remove the road as it applies to his lot and said the plan “imposes an immediate and unfunded mandate placing the city's long-term infrastructure goals on the backs of private property owners who will not benefit.” He said the proposed half-street would require removal of mature trees, sit about 12 feet from his bedroom and involve “substantial amount of fill” because of the elevation difference between lots.

Abigail Bonilla, also a resident of 1040 East 900 South, raised safety concerns and questioned staff statements about mitigation. She said an email from a city staffer that suggested “an asphalt berm will discourage traffic” did not address her concern that a berm would not prevent a vehicle from leaving the road and falling onto her property. She warned the council the family would consider legal action if the city approved a design that she believes creates safety and financial risks.

Neighbors and other residents also spoke. Joe Filon and Steven Filon urged the council to consider flag-lot development as an alternative; another nearby resident, Jonathan Garlic, raised parking, traffic and maintenance concerns if additional local roads are built.

The applicant and several speakers questioned whether the Kelson property—whose proposed subdivision provided two-thirds of the planned road—was being treated fairly. City staff and legal counsel told the council that the Kelsons are vested under the approved subdivision and could proceed with the portion of the road that already conforms to the adopted plan; the city would not require non-developing neighbors to complete the remaining half of the road just to permit an accessory building.

Council discussion emphasized the legal and practical limits of changing a plan when a conforming subdivision approval already exists. One councilmember said the issue was difficult because private property rights allow owners who follow current ordinances and submit conforming plats to proceed with their development. Another urged staff and legal to review process and communications with the Bonilla family to ensure no procedural errors occurred.

Action taken: The council adopted the planning commission’s findings that the current vicinity plan is better suited to the area’s unique topography and the coordination of utilities with Lindon City, and that the previously approved Kelson subdivision would otherwise result in a half-street and hammerhead turnaround in perpetuity. On that basis Councilmember Rogers moved to deny the ordinance amending the vicinity plan; Councilmember Jensen seconded. The motion passed (Yes: Rogers, Janssen, Lamone, Williams).

The council did not adopt any alternative map or change the flag-lot ordinance as part of this vote. Staff said any future requests to rezone, subdivide or seek variances would follow the city’s established permitting and approval process.

A brief unrelated public comment during open session asked the council to consider stronger protections for local historic homes and to explore programs such as Utah Main Street; the council did not take action on that request at the meeting.

The council recessed for five minutes after the vote and moved on to other business.

Votes at a glance: - Motion: Deny Ordinance to amend vicinity plan for area bounded by Locust Ave., 900 S., 1150 E. and 1000 S.; mover: Councilmember Rogers; seconder: Councilmember Jensen; outcome: motion carried (Yes: Rogers, Janssen, Lamone, Williams).