Pleasant Grove council rejects developer'led rezoning and development agreement for Valley Grove flex-space project

Pleasant Grove City Council voted down a package of land'use changes proposed by St. John Properties on Tuesday, rejecting two rezoning ordinances and the developer'drafted development agreement by 3'to'2 margins.

The package would have removed a Valley Grove mixed'use overlay (which allowed retail and residential) from a roughly 4.5'acre triangle near North County Boulevard and applied a Grove Business Park overlay permitting flex and light'manufacturing uses. In return, the developer proposed building design enhancements, extra landscaping and accelerating completion of a planned pedestrian promenade before occupancy of the second residential building rather than waiting for a later phase.

Why it mattered: Staff recommended denial, arguing the site is a gateway into Pleasant Grove and that a development agreement is not an immutable guarantee (it can be amended by future owners), leaving the city exposed if subsequent owners seek changes. Opponents warned the change would set a precedent allowing flex space along a primary corridor and reduce sales-tax generating commercial uses near the freeway off'ramp.

Staff and applicant. Planning Director Daniel Cardennis told the council the prior development agreement had allowed up to about 1,155 residential units across the broader area; the applicant proposed limiting the triangle to a maximum of 140 units and substituting flex space, with a number of voluntary design commitments. "The applicant proposed the development agreement," Cardennis said, adding that staff had reviewed it and supplied edits but that the application came from the developer.

Marty Bomont of St. John Properties told the council his company would deliver upgraded facades, a berm, larger-caliper trees and no truck'loading docks on the flex building. "We would commit to do the full promenade with the second residential building occupancy permit," Bomont said, urging that the changes would "enhance the area and not make it look out of place." He also asked for flexibility on how a required 15,000 square feet of retail would be allocated across three small lots.

Council debate and outcome. Several council members expressed concern that the flex zone would cross the city'planned buffer and create a precedent that could encourage similar rezones elsewhere along 1300 West. Staff told the council that development agreements often change with new ownership, and that the city could find itself enforcing a different outcome later.

Council Member Anderson moved to approve Ordinance 2026'16 (the smaller parcel); after roll call the motion failed (Anderson and Council Member Phillips voting yes; Leone, Williams and Rogers voting no). A subsequent motion to deny passed 3'to'2. The council then denied Ordinance 2026'17 for the second parcel by the same margin and rejected the resolution authorizing the mayor to sign the development agreement (Resolution 2026'17) 3'to'2.

What this means. The denials leave the existing Valley Grove mixed'use overlay and the 2024 development-agreement framework intact for now. If the applicant wants to pursue the flex uses, it would need to return with a revised package that addresses staff and council concerns, or seek amendments to the existing agreement that the council finds enforceable.

Next steps. Staff indicated it will continue to work with the applicant if the developer chooses to revise its proposal. No further hearing dates were set during the meeting.