Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning General Plan Amendment topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council adopts General Plan amendment to allow medium‑density homes near 2084 N 4500 W

West Point City Council · February 17, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The West Point City Council approved Ordinance No. 02-17-2026A to reclassify roughly 4.4 acres at 2084 N 4500 W from R‑1 to R‑4, enabling small‑lot detached single‑family homes on private lanes. The motion passed 3–1 on Feb. 17, 2026.

The West Point City Council voted 3–1 on Feb. 17 to adopt Ordinance No. 02-17-2026A, amending the General Plan designation for approximately 4.4 acres at 2084 N 4500 W from R‑1 (low‑density) to R‑4 (medium‑density residential). Bryn MacDonald, the City’s Community Development Director, presented a concept showing detached single‑family homes on private lanes with lot sizes generally between about 3,500 and 4,500 square feet and an anticipated density of roughly six units per acre.

Council discussion focused on access and connectivity to adjacent parcels, infrastructure requirements, and how the product fits the City’s moderate‑income housing obligations. Staff noted that homes in the development were expected to be smaller than typical West Point stock — McDonald said anticipated home sizes ranged roughly from 1,200 to 1,800 square feet and that basements may be infeasible in some lots — and that the units would be required to remain owner‑occupied under the proposed R‑4 zoning. City staff also compared price expectations to local affordability targets: staff reported an area moderate‑income benchmark near $390,000 while the City’s market average was described in the meeting material at about $650,000; the applicant expected pricing in the upper $400,000 range, which staff described as more attainable relative to existing stock though not meeting the State’s target.

The Planning Commission had recommended denial, citing concerns about compatibility with surrounding lower‑density character and public benefit. After a public hearing with no public comment, the Council approved the ordinance. Council Member Jeremy Strong voted against the ordinance; Council Member Jerry Chatterton was absent for the final vote.