Developer, commissioners continue Taylor Landing rezone talks over park donation, roads and water rights

Weber County planning commissioners met during a work session to continue review of the Taylor Landing rezone and associated general plan amendment, taking public and developer comments but taking no final action.

The discussion centered on a park-donation offer from Heritage Land Development, the cost of a required road extension on 3900 West, and an unclear legal status for water rights attached to two wells on the property. Aaron Robinson, vice president of Heritage Land Development, summarized the developer’s approach: “we stand here ready and willing to hear ideas and figure things out and play with numbers.” He told commissioners he has run spreadsheets to test which county requests can be paid for while still leaving the project profitable and said, “If I’m not making a profit today, I’m incentivized to leave horses on it for another 10 years.”

Why it matters: Commissioners must weigh public benefits — park acreage, trail and street connections, affordable housing — against the developer’s cost estimates and the reality that some project inputs (water rights, construction fees, connection costs) are uncertain and could raise final prices for buyers.

Key details

- Park donation and water: Heritage offered to donate 9.8 acres already described as parkland and said there is potential to deliver another roughly 22–24 acres. County staff and the park district confirmed they are “eager to pick the land up.” But Robinson and staff warned that ownership of two wells on the parcel remains unclear; county staff said the wells appear still tied to a prior owner and may need adjudication or a formal transfer. Charlie (county staff) drafted language for a development agreement that would direct any water rights the seller legally holds to the park district, but staff cautioned the transfer is not guaranteed.

- Road and infrastructure costs: Robinson said the cost to extend the key connector on 3900 West would be “just under a million dollars.” He also reported other line items that factor into the deal: additional fencing (~$150,000 estimated), HVAC or furnace upgrades the county has requested (Robinson described $260,000 across homes as a planning-level estimate), and possible solar-panel requests (which Robinson said would add roughly $12,000–$20,000 per home).

- Density, lot sizes and attainable housing: Commissioners and the developer discussed changes to lot sizes and housing product mixes to deliver more affordable homes. Robinson said smaller detached homes on 2,500–4,000-square-foot lots could be built and, in other projects, have resulted in detached homes under $350,000 depending on connection fees and other costs. Commissioners expressed interest in a mix of smaller and larger lots, and in deed-restricted, “obtainable” homes for an initial period. Robinson said he would run numbers and bring proposals back.

- Private open-space parcels and connectivity: Staff and commissioners described multiple one-acre open-space parcels platted behind single-family lots in earlier phases; some owners asked why they could not use or replat those parcels. Commissioners discussed negotiating connectivity by encouraging property owners to stub roads and pathways so the subdivisions link rather than producing cul-de-sacs.

What was decided and next steps

- No final decision: Commissioners did not adopt or deny the rezone at the work session. Staff and the developer agreed Heritage will return with a formal proposal that includes the developer’s cost/benefit calculations and any revisions (smaller lots, deed restrictions, trade-offs for park acreage and road construction).

- County-commission engagement: Commissioners and staff recommended the developer meet with the county commission (staff said they would arrange a meeting with Steve Waldrop and county commissioners) before the item returns to the planning commission so the developer can test whether the commission will “buy off” on the proposed trades (lots versus park acreage, infrastructure commitments).

Ending

Staff asked Heritage to prepare a written proposal that clarifies which concessions the developer can afford, documents costs for road extensions and required connections, confirms what it can commit to in a development agreement (park acreage to deed and any reasonable transfer of water rights), and, if applicable, proposes deed-restricted “obtainable” product and the length of any restriction. The planning commission signaled willingness to continue negotiations but emphasized that any concession must be explicit in a future development agreement.