Developer outlines 107‑lot 'Orchards' master plan; council and planning commission weigh infrastructure, open‑space and water rights

3383045 · January 9, 2025

Loading...

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

Heritage Land Development told the Willard City Council on Jan. 9 that its proposed “Orchards” MPC would create about 107 lots on roughly 52 acres, dedicate about 8 acres of open space, and depend on sewer connections and water‑right adjudication before later phases proceed.

Heritage Land Development representative Barth presented concept plans for The Orchards — a proposed master-planned community (MPC) on approximately 52 acres in south Willard — to the Willard City Council on Jan. 9, 2025. The proposal, reviewed by the planning commission for several months, would create about 107 lots, dedicate roughly 8 acres of open space and include regional stormwater detention and pedestrian trails.

"With the first two phases we've completed 17 lots... the remaining properties down here... the remaining properties are proposed at a mix of smaller lots (7–8,000 sq. ft.) and larger lots averaging ~15,000 sq. ft.," Barth told the council, describing prior phases and the planned lot mix. The planning commission recommended the project move to the council with adjustments.

Key features and open questions raised at the council meeting:

- Size and density: Total lots proposed = 107 on about 52 acres. Barth said the planning commission had reduced earlier density (from roughly 120–122 lots) to better fit local expectations.

- Open space and trails: The developer proposed roughly 8 aggregate acres of open space, with a long linear parcel envisioned to be dedicated to UTA if the transit agency later needs the corridor. The planning commission recommended concrete trail surfaces and debate focused on whether the city or developer will maintain parks and paths.

- Roads, stubs and future connections: Councilmembers pressed the developer on road alignments and requiring stub roads to serve adjacent properties (including the Harding and Randy parcels) so future developments will connect and not create awkward or unsafe intersections. The developer and staff said the project will tie into the city’s master road plan and that subdivision-level review will finalize specific stubs.

- Sewer and sequencing: The developer said sewer for the remainder of the project depends on adjacent property owners (the Youngs) installing upstream infrastructure; additional phases will not proceed until sewer and related infrastructure are available.

- Water rights: Barth said the development team has about 205 acre-feet of agricultural water rights associated with the property and plans to adjudicate and transfer an amount of culinary water rights to the city; he cited a preliminary figure in the range of roughly 50 acre-feet as the amount contemplated for dedication to the city but noted the final number depends on state adjudication and the city’s ordinance calculations.

- Stormwater: The plan calls for neighborhood storm drainage flowing to a proposed regional detention basin (about 2 acres) and for developer-built open spaces to be constructed and stabilized before later phases move forward.

Staff and councilmembers raised process issues and policy tests for an MPC: the council must find that any MPC conforms with the general plan and provides compatibility with surrounding land uses. Mayor Jordan asked the council to review the general plan and be prepared to discuss whether the proposal meets the required findings.

Timing and next steps

Barth told the council he intends to return in February with a formal application and development agreement if staff and the developer can resolve outstanding items. The developer and staff said they are prepared to include construction-schedule language and phasing commitments in a development agreement, including completing core open-space improvements before building further phases.

No formal council approval or vote occurred on Jan. 9; the item was an informational presentation and an opportunity for the council to give direction before the formal application returns.