Willard work session reviews developer’s MPZ-style plan, flags utility and annexation issues

Willard planners and elected officials met in a March 13 work session to review a developer’s concept plan and draft development agreement for roughly 46.8 acres that would yield about 61 single-family lots.

City planner Maddie Brown said the concept "seems very similar to a a master plan community zone" but noted it did not include the typical 20% open-space dedication required under an MPZ-style approach. The developer team described how they excluded wetlands and other unusable acreage from the density calculation to keep average lot size near a half-acre while preserving several larger agricultural parcels.

Why it matters: The site’s utilities and addressing are shared concerns. Commissioners spent much of the session debating whether Perry or Willard would own the water and sewer lines, how that ownership would affect local addresses and annexation prospects, and whether an annexation or interlocal agreement would be needed to guarantee the development is built to Willard’s standards.

Developer Pat Burns told the body that the project has made progress on infrastructure: "We've actually applied for and received a crossing permit from Union Pacific," meaning the team has identified a feasible sewer outfall alignment beneath the railroad. But Burns and several commissioners said Perry has indicated a preference to own and operate the proposed line, which prompted questions about long-term governance and the risk of future annexation.

Commissioners discussed tools that could preserve Willard’s land-use expectations if Perry provides utilities. Several participants recommended negotiating an annexation or interlocal agreement that would require the receiving municipality to build the project to the map presented and to limit future density increases. As one commissioner put it during the session, "it's called an annexation agreement"—a contractual mechanism that can lock in development terms prior to annexation.

Technical and service issues drew detailed attention. Staff and developers said the plan includes about 11 acres of larger lots and that Pineview irrigation shares could provide secondary (irrigation) water; the developer said Pineview already holds water shares for parts of the property and is willing to supply a pressurized irrigation connection. Commissioners also flagged a sewer-grade constraint: in some alignment options the pipe would "come up out of the ground," likely requiring a pump station or alternate profile. The group asked staff to have engineers model conveyance and costs.

Addressing and service delivery were another practical concern. Commissioners noted county and Perry addressing practices could force new properties to receive Perry addresses despite being within or annexed to Willard, and that road jurisdiction (who maintains and shoulders costs for road segments) will affect both addresses and long-term service responsibilities. They discussed options such as shared road-maintenance agreements or negotiating right-of-way/road responsibilities as part of an interlocal deal.

Outcome and next steps: No formal action or vote occurred. Commissioners generally said the plan could fit an MPZ-style framework if easements or building envelopes satisfy the 20% open-space requirement. They asked staff and the developer to: (1) obtain engineering analysis for sewer conveyance and pump requirements; (2) engage Perry City on utility-ownership and annexation/annexation-agreement terms; and (3) confirm how Pineview secondary water connections would be implemented. The work session closed with a request for follow-up information before any formal application or council action.