Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews Heritage development agreement; questions on acreage, open‑space appraisal and owner‑occupancy raised
Summary
Willard councilmembers on July 10 reviewed a draft development agreement for a proposed Heritage subdivision covering about 48 undeveloped acres and a concept plan showing up to 96 dwelling units; the council discussed open‑space appraisal mechanics, secondary‑water infrastructure and concerns about potential rental concentrations but did not take action.
Councilmembers on July 10 discussed a proposed development agreement for a 48‑acre subdivision presented by representatives for the developer (Heritage). The item was a discussion; council did not vote on approval of the development agreement at the meeting.
Key points explained by the developer’s representative, Greg Day of Hyundai Engineering: the agreement references approximately 48 acres of undeveloped land and a proposed yield of 96 dwelling units in the concept plan; open‑space requirements can be addressed via an appraisal and fee‑in‑lieu mechanism if the dedicated acreage is insufficient; the appraisal method in the draft appears to use a highest‑and‑best‑use approach that would value the land at residential development rates rather than an agricultural easement rate.
Council questions and concerns: Councilmembers asked whether the stated acreage includes already developed lots (answer: the 48 acres refers to the undeveloped portion) and whether the effective densities assumed in the draft could be interpreted to allow changes later in engineering. Staff and the developer said the agreement intentionally contains modest flexibility to adjust minor engineering geometry without reopening the development agreement, but that the 96‑unit cap was written as the maximum permitted density under the current draft. Councilmembers also discussed the proposal’s provision for a developer‑created secondary water company fed by on‑site wells and whether that infrastructure could be integrated with a future city secondary‑water system.
Rental and owner‑occupancy question: Several councilmembers raised concern about long‑term neighborhood character and whether deed‑restricted owner‑occupancy provisions could be incorporated; legal staff and the developer said deed restrictions (CC&Rs) can contain owner‑occupancy clauses but a mandated city restriction limiting private property resale or rental is more legally complicated. The developer indicated willingness to discuss CCR language; council asked staff to request the project map and to forward the written public‑hearing record from planning commission proceedings to the full council.
Outcome and next steps: No vote took place. Council requested the development map and public‑hearing materials from the planning commission be shared with councilmembers before the next meeting. The administration said it would return the complete packet and any requested clarifications at a future meeting, and noted rezone processes associated with the project remain active.
