Planning commission continues vote on zone text amendment for Sunpro site at I‑15/1600 South interchange

The Springville City Planning Commission on March 25 voted to continue consideration of a proposed zone text amendment that would allow a retail‑commercial‑manufacturing use for a city‑owned property commonly called the Santana Property at the I‑15/1600 South interchange.

The item was continued so staff and the applicant could return with more visuals, clearer landscaping specifications and additional development‑agreement detail before the commission forwards a recommendation to the City Council.

The change under consideration would add a specific “retail commercial manufacturing” use to the city’s regional retail commercial zone. City staff said the proposed use is intended to preserve point‑of‑sale tax revenue in Springville by allowing Sunpro/Clyde Companies to perform final assembly, retail transactions and storage on site; the company has proposed consolidating three existing operations onto the new parcel and building a private rail spur for bulk lumber deliveries.

John Penrod, Esquire, told commissioners the question before them was not the terms of the city’s development agreement but whether the proposed zone text amendment is appropriate for the district. “The decision is whether this is a good zone change, a good zone amendment to this property or to this zoning district,” Penrod said.

Bill Gammel, representing Sunpro and Clyde Companies, described the project as a consolidation of several established operations and said the proposal includes corporate offices, millwork/manufacturing areas, a large lay‑down yard and a private rail spur. “This will be the corporate headquarter for Sunpro Corporation,” Gammel said, adding the company considered rail access and freeway proximity critical to its business plan.

City staff explained the proposed use includes a requirement that the point of sale for finished, tangible products be at the Springville site so that sales tax revenue will be collected within the city. Staff also pointed out a footnote on the land‑use matrix that would prohibit the retail‑manufacturing use within 300 feet of 1600 South, limiting how far north on the property that use could extend. Future Lot A and Future Lot B on the parcel would remain city owned and would not be eligible for the retail‑manufacturing use under that restriction.

Several commissioners raised concerns about gateway aesthetics, the adequacy of the landscaping plan and whether the frontage the city will continue to own would remain attractive to other retail tenants. Commissioners asked the applicant and staff for more detailed renderings, a strengthened landscaping standard (including tree spacing and species guidance), and clarification of construction timing; staff noted the target completion schedule in the development agreement had been extended from 18 to 30 months during negotiations.

Gammel said the company plans to construct a dual “drop‑and‑pull” private rail spur to allow efficient unloading of bulk lumber and other materials, and that the site will combine operations now located in Provo, Linden and Pleasant Grove. He also said the applicant had coordinated a landscape plan with staff and intends masonry walls, trees and shrubs along property borders.

After discussion, a commissioner moved to continue the item so the applicant and staff could return with additional visuals and firmer landscaping language; the motion carried. Staff said the development agreement was pulled from the current agenda and would be re‑noticed and presented at a later meeting because of a posting address error.

The commission’s action was procedural: the zone text amendment remains under consideration and the application will return with requested materials. The commission did not approve the zone text amendment or the development agreement at the March 25 meeting.

Votes at a glance from the same meeting: The commission approved routine minutes and a consent agenda item and elected new leadership earlier in the session; those procedural votes were recorded on the public record. The commission’s formal recommendation on the Sunpro zone text amendment was continued, not approved.

The planning commission and staff expect the item to return with renderings, a revised landscaping standard and the development agreement for further review before any recommendation is forwarded to the City Council.