Council approves rezoning of 7.53 acres near 1100 North for professional office

Pleasant Grove City Council voted April 8 to approve Ordinance 2025‑04, changing roughly 7.53 acres along North County Boulevard/1100 North from R‑1‑8 single‑family residential to the city’s PO (professional office) zone.

City planning staff said the proposed rezoning aligns with Pleasant Grove’s General Plan and the area designated for future professional office development. Daniel Cardenas, Director, told the council the General Plan’s future‑land‑use map designates the parcel and adjacent property for professional office, and that the Planning Commission recommended approval with one dissenting vote.

Supporters of the rezoning, including the applicant’s representative, said a professional office designation would limit density compared with a 28‑lot single‑family subdivision and is likely to bring medical and other office services to the neighborhood. Opponents — mainly nearby homeowners — said they worry about traffic, nighttime lighting, dumpster placement, fencing and the prospect of a surgical center next to residences.

Cardenas said the rezone request is only for the zoning designation and does not include a site plan. "The item that we have in front of us is for a rezone; I don't have a site plan," he told the council. He also noted that parts of the area are already shown as professional office in the General Plan and that several adjacent parcels are already zoned or used commercially.

The applicant told the council it had met with several neighbors and that some who initially opposed the change told the developer they supported the rezone after a meeting. The applicant said the likely development would include office buildings, potentially with medical uses and a same‑day surgery facility, and that such buildings would likely produce more open space than the alternative subdivision layout.

During the public hearing, neighbors described a mixture of positions. Carrie Hammond said she favors the professional office zoning over higher‑density small lots but asked that future site plan reviews strictly enforce rules on dumpsters, lighting, landscaping, noise and parking. Neighbor Mike McClellan said he opposed rezoning because he purchased his home when the area was residential. Others, including Gordon Jarvis and Mike Adamson, said medical uses already in the corridor had not created the disruptions they feared and urged attention to landscaping and buffering.

Council members discussed the legal standards for zone changes and the council’s discretion under the General Plan. One council member emphasized that approval of a zone change permits uses allowed in the PO zone and does not, by itself, control future site design; site design, setbacks, fencing and lighting are reviewed later under code requirements.

Councilmember Jansen moved to approve Ordinance 2025‑04 (rezoning approximately 7.53 acres from R‑1‑8 to PO); Councilmember Lamone seconded. On roll call, Councilmember Anderson voted yes; Councilmember Rogers voted no; Councilmember Jansen voted yes; Councilmember Lamone voted yes; and Councilmember Williams voted yes. The motion passed 4–1.

Next steps: the zoning change permits uses allowed in the PO zone; any proposed development will require separate site plan review and technical approvals where neighbors will have further opportunity to comment.