Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Vicinity Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pleasant Grove Council denies Vicinity Plan change after neighbors raise safety and equity concerns
Summary
Council denied a requested amendment that would have removed a planned connector road between 900 South and 1000 South after residents argued the change would create an unfair financial and safety burden; staff and the City Attorney said a previously approved subdivision has vested rights to build a two-thirds road and the Bonillas would not be compelled to finish it unless they subdivide.
The Pleasant Grove City Council unanimously denied Ordinance 2025-010, a proposed amendment to the adopted Vicinity Plan that would have eliminated a north–south connector between 900 South and 1000 South. Community Development Director Daniel Cardenas presented the plan history and explained that an amended Vicinity Plan was adopted in early 2024 to reconcile lot lines and topography; a subsequent subdivision approval created vested development rights for the Kelson property to construct about two-thirds of the planned road.
Applicants Ricardo and Abigail Bonilla objected, saying the connector imposes a disproportionate financial burden and a safety risk to their home. Abigail Bonilla told the Council the road would sit about 12 feet from their bedroom and that plans would remove mature trees and require substantial fill; she asked the Council to remove the connector as it pertains to their parcel. Ricardo Bonilla said the cost to construct their portion would exceed the expected value of any lot they might create and warned they would pursue legal remedies if the amendment was denied.
City Attorney Christine Petersen told the Council the Kelson application is vested under the existing Vicinity Plan and that, even if the Council amends the plan, the previously approved subdivision entitles the Kelsons to construct the two-thirds road; she also said the Bonillas would not automatically be required to finish the road unless they subdivide their property. Public Works Director Neal Winterton explained the approved design includes an asphalt roadway, a one-foot asphalt berm for drainage, and a temporary hammerhead turnaround where the road now ends (staff estimated the existing house-line to be 26–28 feet from the two-thirds road). After questions from several council members, Council Member Steve Rogers moved to deny the amendment, citing topographical constraints and the need to preserve coordinated utility corridors; the motion carried unanimously.
