Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council denies overlay that would have let HOA sell perpetual open space in Renaissance at Indian Springs
Summary
Pleasant Grove City Council unanimously denied Ordinance 2026-018, which would have created a Springs District Overlay to allow subdivision of four acres recorded as perpetual open space in the Renaissance at Indian Springs PUD. Neighbors, Planning staff and commissioners cited wetlands, springs, habitat and precedent as reasons to deny.
Pleasant Grove City Council voted unanimously June 2 to deny Ordinance 2026-018, a proposed code amendment that would have created a Springs District Overlay (SDO) to permit subdivision of four acres within the Renaissance at Indian Springs planned unit development.
Community Development Director Daniel Cardenas presented the amendment and said the applicant sought the overlay so an HOA could sell four acres to build or otherwise monetize land to shore up HOA reserves. Applicant representatives Don Eaton and Julie Smith told council the sale would fund road repaving (estimated at more than $150,000), streetlights and long-term reserves. Smith quoted state law, saying the legislature allows that “the legislative body may provide for (a) the establishment, restoration, reconstruction, extension, alteration, expansion, or substitution of nonconforming uses.”
Neighbors and the Planning Commission opposed the change. Speakers argued the four acres were recorded as perpetual open space in 1998, contain springs and wetlands, and provide wildlife habitat. “When my home was purchased, the parcel being discussed was recorded as perpetual open space,” said resident Heather Doman, urging denial. Planning Commission member James Martineau and multiple neighbors warned that approval would set a land-use precedent and could lead to similar requests for other PUDs.
Council members acknowledged sympathy for the HOA’s financial concerns but said land-use policy and existing perpetual-open-space commitments weigh heavily. Council Member Steve Rogers said land-use policy should not be rewritten for an individual economic fix. Council Member Dianna Andersen moved to deny the ordinance; Council Member Cyd LeMone seconded. The motion carried unanimously (Andersen, LeMone, Phillips, Rogers, Williams voting Yes). The council followed the decision with a brief recess.
The council record shows the Planning Commission forwarded a unanimous recommendation of denial and staff recommended keeping the recorded open space. No subdivision or development application for the four acres was before the council; the ordinance would have created a tailored zone to allow such a subdivision in the future.
