Pleasant Grove City Council unanimously denies proposal to allow sale of recorded open space at Renaissance at Indian Springs

The Pleasant Grove City Council on Tuesday unanimously denied Ordinance 2026‑18, rejecting a proposal to create a new “Springs District” overlay that would have allowed part of the Renaissance at Indian Springs planned-unit development to be parceled off and sold.

Director Daniel Cardennis explained that the site in question is roughly 20.63 acres with steep slopes and hydrological features including springs and wetlands. He told the council the subdivision was approved in 1998 as a clustered development with 42 homes and several parcels recorded as "perpetual open space," and that both the planning commission and city staff recommended denial of the code amendment.

The applicant, represented by Don Eaton, president of the Renaissance HOA, said the HOA is financially strained and proposed carving off about four to four and a half acres for sale to generate reserves to fund long‑deferred maintenance such as repaving private roads and installing street lights. "We're trying to be self‑sustaining," Eaton said, adding that the sale proceeds would be placed into a guarded reserve to maintain the neighborhood.

Opponents, many of whom live adjacent to the open space, urged the council to uphold the recorded 1998 commitments. "When we bought our home over 20 years ago, the parcel was recorded as open space in perpetuity," Heather Dolman said. "That wasn't a marketing phrase." Neighbors also flagged environmental and hydrological concerns, warning of springs and wetlands that could complicate any future development.

Council members said they were torn between sympathy for the HOA's fiscal challenges and the importance of honoring recorded plats and land‑use commitments. Several members explicitly cited the risk of setting a precedent that would allow recorded perpetual open‑space designations to be undone for economic reasons. After discussion, Council Member Anderson moved to deny the ordinance; Council Member Leone seconded. A roll call vote recorded unanimous support for the motion (Anderson — yes; Leone — yes; Rogers — yes; Williams — yes; Phillips — yes).

The council also noted that staff and the planning commission had reviewed the proposal multiple times and that earlier versions of the request had been denied. City staff emphasized that any future subdivision application would require hydrological and environmental review and coordination with regulatory agencies such as the Army Corps of Engineers.

Following the vote, the council took a brief recess and planned to return to the remaining agenda items, including a later discussion on property tax. No change to the recorded perpetual open space was approved; the developer and HOA may return with other proposals, but the council's vote preserves the city's current land‑use status for the parcel.

Votes at a glance: Motion to deny Ordinance 2026‑18 (create Springs District overlay) — Motion by Council Member Anderson; second by Council Member Leone; Vote: unanimous in favor of denial.