Pleasant View council rezones roughly 30.6 acres near 540 West 4300 North to A-2

The Pleasant View City Council on March 11 approved Ordinance 2025-10 to rezone about 30.6 acres near 540 West 4300 North from agricultural zone A-5 to agricultural zone A-2.

The council’s decision followed a public hearing that drew multiple residents who raised concerns about groundwater, springs on neighboring properties, wildlife corridors and the need for a new road. The motion to approve the rezoning was made by Marriott and seconded by Arrington; the council recorded a unanimous roll-call vote of members present with one member excused.

Amy, a city planning staff member, told the council the rezoning request reflects earlier general-plan amendments to realign density and a historical designation of a future roadway on the city’s master street plan. Amy said the rezone would allow two-acre lots but would not in itself approve any clustered site plan or development agreement: clustering shown in the applicant’s concept is not guaranteed and would require a development agreement negotiated with the city.

During the public hearing, David Roberts asked councilmembers to consider the land-planning study’s warnings about potential impacts to the city’s water supply, saying, “...it might, potentially adversely affect the source of water for the wells and so forth and replenishing that. So just, please take that into consideration as you vote.” Scott Steiner said the property had been designated A-5 previously for “sensitive land” reasons and that changes to the plan felt like they were happening without full citizen input. Brad Jones, a nearby resident, said new homes above his property have altered springs that appear on his land.

Amy referenced the Pleasant View City Foothill Area Land Planning Study and the city’s 2022 transportation plan, saying the study recommends further site-specific studies before development. She listed studies that would be required at subdivision stage, including professional geologic and hydrologic reports, potential building-code adoption to address seismic risk, and protections for drinking-water recharge areas.

Planning commission review produced a split recommendation: the commission voted 4–3 in favor of approval. According to Amy, those in favor noted consistency with the general plan amendments; those opposed cited the planning study and raised concerns about coherence with the study’s recommendations.

Councilmembers who spoke in support said rezoning would not authorize immediate construction and that developers would need to satisfy the geotechnical and hydrology requirements and negotiate any clustering or open-space protections through a development agreement. Opponents emphasized uncertainty about water impacts and the need to protect open space and wildlife corridors.

The ordinance approved only the zoning change. Any subdivision or site development will require additional studies, regulatory review and, if applicable, a development agreement addressing clustering, open-space dedication and infrastructure improvements.