Developer presents two‑option Canyon subdivision; Willard officials debate open space, lot sizes and fees

Kyle Lloyd, a developer with Western Land Development, presented two options for a proposed "Canyon" subdivision on about 24.8 acres near the Deer Run area during a joint meeting of the Willard City Council and the Planning Commission. He said the two plans differ mainly in the amount of dedicated open space: one would yield 62 lots and provide roughly five acres of open space (meeting the city 20% requirement); the other would yield 61 lots and include about 1.5–1.6 acres of on‑site open space with the remainder addressed via a payment in lieu.

The debate focused on whether the city and neighbors should prefer on‑site open space or accept payments in lieu that could fund larger, existing parks elsewhere; where smaller lots should be located relative to existing higher‑density subdivisions; and how lot size affects water use, infrastructure costs and compatibility with adjacent farm operations.

Lloyd said the 62‑lot plan "has the 5 acres of open space as per the 20% requirement in the code. The other 1 does not. It has about 1.5 1.6 acres of open space. Really just kind of minimum needed for stormwater, for this facility. With the rest to be to be done with a payment in lieu." He told the commission and council that a payment in lieu could seed maintenance or expansion of other parks in Willard rather than creating a small, city‑maintained park inside the subdivision.

Council members and commissioners pressed several technical and policy questions. Speakers noted the general plan and the future land use map set expectations for densities in parts of the city; the MPC/MPZ rezone process and the subdivision ordinance require any rezone to be consistent with the general plan. City staff and elected officials asked whether densities of roughly two units per acre (the developer suggested range) are consistent with the MPC standards and the city future land use guidance.

Nearby residents raised operational and compatibility concerns. Farmer and neighbor Randy Lemon said he objects to placing higher density lots immediately adjacent to irrigated farmland, arguing it would "make life difficult" for ongoing farm operations and describing the proposed density as "completely unacceptable." Other neighbors asked that lots next to existing farm fields be larger and urged the commission to preserve agricultural easements where practical.

Water use and infrastructure costs were a recurring theme. Supporters of smaller lots argued that quarter‑ or third‑acre lots can reduce culinary water demand compared with half‑acre lots that require more irrigation, and that smaller lots can offer housing price points more accessible to younger buyers. Opponents noted that half‑acre lots raise per‑lot infrastructure costs (curbs, sidewalks, frontage) and can price many buyers out of the market. Several speakers urged a mix of lot sizes to achieve variety — for example, some larger lots on the outskirts and smaller lots clustered internally — and proposed deed restrictions or owner‑occupancy rules to limit short‑term rentals and preserve neighborhood stability.

Engineering and layout questions came up as well: participants flagged stormwater retention needs in the southwest corner (the developer said much of the low area would serve as detention), the potential need to extend or connect 300 West and 200 West to relieve traffic, and the desirability of placing usable open space within the neighborhood rather than in marginal wet areas near the railroad where mosquitoes may limit usability.

No formal vote or decision was recorded during the session. Members of the council and commission gave the developer direction to revise the plans with community feedback in mind: consider larger lots adjacent to active farm operations, evaluate an agricultural easement versus payment in lieu, show clearer street connections (including the planned diagonal/connector road), and refine stormwater and secondary water plans. Lloyd closed by asking for additional input and said he would return with a revised plan: "We'll be back. Can't get rid of us."