Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council continues controversial Maple Springs rezoning after public objections; requests developer meet neighbors
Summary
Pleasant Grove council continued a proposed rezoning of roughly 7.5 acres from single-family (R-1-8) to professional office (PO) after neighbors raised traffic, access and compatibility concerns.
Pleasant Grove City Council continued action on a developer-led rezoning request to convert about 7.5 acres of property along North County Boulevard and 1100 North from R-1-8 (single-family residential) to PO (professional office).
Director Daniel Cardenas said the applicant, Maple Springs of PG Holdings LLC, seeks the change to allow medical and professional offices; staff noted the city—s general plan future land-use map already designates the parcels for professional office use. Cardenas described regulatory differences between R-1-8 and PO zones, including larger setbacks, masonry walls and different lot-coverage and building standards in the PO zone; he said professional offices in PO would permit physician and dental offices and many other professional services but would exclude hospitals and certain residential-care uses.
Several nearby residents spoke at the public hearing. Carrie Hammond, whose home at 1877 W. 1100 North abuts the site, said the property uses had historically been family-owned and expressed concerns that rezoning would create an island of residences surrounded by commercial development. Hammond said the private access drive to her home is shared and that Maple Springs had not contacted the homeowners. She listed concerns about traffic, odors, dumpster service and maintaining private well access.
Greg Larson, representing Maple Springs, said the developer purchased the property and is proposing medical offices, including a surgical center; he told the council the developer would work to address access and well issues and said: “We have no plan of destroying any of that for you.”
Council members voiced mixed views. Several members said they were sympathetic to residents' expectations when they bought homes in a residential area; others noted private property owners may seek zoning changes and that PO can be less visually intensive than some residential infill. Planning commission had recommended approval 6–1.
Councilmember Anderson moved to continue the item for two weeks (to allow developers and residents to meet); the motion passed. The council asked that the applicant meet with the three affected property owners and report back to staff and the council at the continued hearing. The council scheduled the matter for the next meeting and cautioned that, because the general plan supports PO for the parcels, a denial would require written findings if that is the council's intent.
