Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Master Planned Community topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council tables Orchards master‑plan (MPC) after hours of debate over density, roads and water
Summary
Council tabled consideration of the Orchards master‑planned community (MPC) and the related development agreement after extensive discussion about densities, traffic impacts on 200 West/200 South, water allocation and open‑space maintenance; a planning‑commission/council workshop was scheduled to resolve outstanding issues.
The council tabled action on the Orchards master‑planned community development agreement after a multi‑hour hearing that covered infrastructure, density and long‑term maintenance obligations.
Developer representatives outlined a multi‑phase project originally conceived as a patio‑home development that evolved into a mixed lot plan with smaller lots on the north side and larger lots elsewhere. Staff and council examined several issues: how usable open space is calculated (a UTA easement included in open‑space calculations drew particular scrutiny), whether road access and off‑site improvements (notably completing 200 West to connect to 600 South) should be required of the developer, and how water rights would be transferred and sized to meet fire and domestic flows. The developer said they have roughly 200 acre‑feet of water on the property and the city would need about 50–52 acre‑feet; they proposed transferring water to the city, phased with plat approvals.
Council members and residents repeatedly raised concerns about traffic concentration on narrow local roads (200 South), the adequacy of secondary access, potential increases in truck traffic, and whether lot sizes for several of the smallest proposed parcels would be too small to meet neighborhood expectations. Several members urged that the proposal must not be used to circumvent the city's general plan; others emphasized the need for more affordable housing options and said smaller lots can lower per‑lot infrastructure cost. The conversation included detailed arithmetic around acres, road acreage (about 9.3 acres cited) and resulting average lot size (presentation quoted an average about 0.355–0.366 acres usable, depending on the subtraction method).
Result: Council voted to table the development agreement and asked staff to convene a workshop with the planning commission and the developer (targeted for the next week) to reconcile open space accounting, acceptable densities/lot‑size thresholds (10,000 sq ft was discussed for small lots), and whether off‑site road connections should be completed prior to later phases. The developer agreed to revise plans and return; the council said no final action will be taken until these items are clarified.
What happens next: staff will prepare comparative examples of medium‑density neighborhoods, clarify usable open space calculations excluding UTA easements where appropriate, reconcile water‑transfer language in the development agreement, and present suggested density/lot‑size limits for council guidance at the workshop.
