Council reviews proposal to split family farm into six R‑1‑8 lots at 303801 S. 6400 W.

West Valley City staff on Tuesday presented a conceptual rezoning and subdivision proposal for a roughly 2.4‑acre, family‑owned property at 303801 South 6400 West that would convert part of the site from A‑2 (large‑lot agricultural) to a mix of A and R‑1‑8 zoning and create six new residential lots.

Planner comments to the council described the plan as retaining two existing homes on the parcel and adding a new cul‑de‑sac to create six buildable R‑1‑8 lots. Staff said the applicant is requesting a few exceptions from development standards: a reduced lot width in one A‑zone parcel (requesting 90 feet instead of the 100‑foot minimum), a rear yard setback reduction from 20 feet to 15 feet on a couple of narrow lots, and an acknowledgement that certain lots would be slightly under the usual depth standard because of the cul‑de‑sac alignment.

Councilors pressed on design and affordability. Multiple members questioned whether requiring three‑car garages on new homes—currently the code requirement—would worsen affordability, with one councilor saying the third‑car option can add roughly $50,000 at build time and increase monthly mortgage payments by several hundred dollars. Staff replied the three‑car garage is in code and that the planning commission deemed the lots wide enough to meet that requirement; the planner said the exceptions requested are typical for an infill, irregularly shaped parcel and can be refined during the subdivision process.

Jake Hone of Grow Development, the applicant, told the council the site is a third‑generation Burke family farm, that the company averages about 10,000 square feet per new lot and that the northern lot was jogged to preserve a 10‑foot setback for an existing house. Hone said the developer can require a three‑car garage if the council prefers, but suggested making the third bay an optional upgrade to improve buyer access and affordability.

Council discussion also covered lot alignment near an existing barn and the possibility the barn may be removed depending on final lot lines. Staff noted an existing narrow sliver of property already zoned R‑1‑8 would be absorbed into the subdivision. A councilor raised the option of rezoning to larger lot designations (combining lots to create three larger parcels) but staff warned that combining lots would significantly reduce the number of new units compared with the proposal.

The planner said the proposal includes a development agreement in the packet and that any final subdivision would need to meet public‑street and infrastructure requirements, including curb and gutter installation along the frontage. No formal council vote on rezoning or subdivision approval was recorded in the study meeting; the item remains scheduled for future public hearings and formal action.

Next steps: staff will place the item on the Dec. 9 public hearing agenda for deliberation and a formal council decision.