Farr West City Council voted 4‑1 on Nov. 6 to approve a development agreement for the Park Plaza Court project and to rezone the property at 2500 West 4000 North from C‑2 to Mixed Use after an extended public‑comment period and council discussion.

Residents mobilized ahead of the council meeting. “I did bring with me the petition. There’s over 450 signatures on this petition,” resident Chris Johns told the council during the public comment portion, summarizing neighbors’ concerns about the introduction of multiunit housing, possible rental conversions, traffic near bus stops and a nearby park, and drainage along the south side of the parcel.

The applicant’s representative, identified in the record as Amy (the project applicant), said the proposal is not apartments and stressed limits written into the development agreement. “We were not doing apartments here. We never planned on putting apartments,” she told the council, and described the project as a mix of 14 single‑family detached homes, alley‑loaded townhomes and a small commercial component intended for modest retail or services rather than industrial or heavy commercial uses.

The development agreement sets the project’s land uses, building types and exterior standards and requires the developer to attach the project concept and development plans as binding exhibits. City staff and the applicant told the council the agreement adds public protections by fixing design standards and limiting future changes without another public hearing.

Drainage was a recurring concern at the meeting. The applicant said engineering reviews and submitted improvement plans address many stormwater issues, and acknowledged that some backyard low spots cannot be fully gravity‑drained to the existing storm system because the installed storm drain is at a higher elevation than the rear of the current lots; the applicant said yard drains and other collecting measures are proposed to mitigate remaining standing water.

Council members debated broader procedural issues before voting, including whether a site‑specific development agreement that deviates from the general plan and zoning is appropriate for a parcel that the city’s general plan maps as commercial/residential rather than Mixed Use. City attorney/planner Liam explained that Utah state law authorizes development agreements as a tool to address unique circumstances and that the agreement can be applied to create site‑specific obligations even where the parcel’s general‑plan designation differs.

Councilmember David (mover) made the motion to approve the development agreement, with Councilmember Bob seconding; the motion passed by a 4‑1 vote. The council later approved the related rezoning from C‑2 to Mixed Use (motion by Councilmember Tim, second by Councilmember David), again by a 4‑1 vote. The planning commission had recommended approval of the development agreement and held a public hearing on the project earlier.

What the approvals mean: the development agreement and attached exhibits will limit the number, type and configuration of units and the exterior design of buildings; any substantive change to the plan as presented would require a new public hearing and council action. The council and applicant also discussed potential deed‑restrictions and HOA covenants to limit short‑term rentals or investor occupancy, but both council and applicant acknowledged enforcement challenges once units are sold to private owners.

Next steps: the development agreement requires the developer to complete the engineering and site‑plan approvals (including any stormwater improvements) before construction permits are issued. The council recommended the developer and residents consider a working group to address outstanding neighborhood concerns, and staff said the developer must complete listed engineering and drainage items before final platting.

Speakers quoted in this article are those who appeared on the record during the Nov. 6 meeting. The council’s motions and the text of the development agreement and rezoning ordinance will be posted with the city minutes.

Ending: The council majority said the agreement is a site‑specific compromise that locks many project details into enforceable obligations; opponents warned the project will change the neighborhood character and urged stronger rental controls. The record now moves to engineering and final plan review under the conditions spelled out in the development agreement.