After hours of public comment, commission recommends Heritage Country PUD overlay with conditions

The planning commission recommended to city council that the Heritage Country PUD overlay (application 26.017) move forward with conditions intended to protect public infrastructure and nearby residents.

Planning staff described the project as a master‑planned PUD covering roughly 73.67 acres with 496 units across 11 phases, a mix of single‑family and townhome products, and two parks (about 9.83 acres and 3.67 acres). Staff also noted the application was submitted before repeal of certain code chapters and therefore is being considered under chapter 1.33 provisions. The staff presentation identified required submittals already included in the packet and a draft development agreement attached but unsigned.

Residents who live along Iowa Stream and in Fremont Farms addressed commissioners during a lengthy public‑comment period. Cindy Shipley said heavy truck traffic on Iowa Street from nearby industry concerns her safety expectations: "Since Procter and Gamble has come in, we've had so many big semis coming up that road…" Jamie Crowler asked the commission to reject the PUD overlay and keep existing R1A/R1A10 zoning, specifically citing fire access and the remoteness of the site. Multiple speakers also raised septic‑to‑sewer conversion costs, the timing for detention and park construction, and uncertainty over who would pay for road and sewer upgrades.

Commissioners pressed staff and the applicant about sewer capacity, lift‑station and outfall plans, impact‑fee reimbursement mechanics, timing for converting detention to park use, visitor parking ratios and bonds to secure park construction. Planning staff and the applicant said the development agreement will define reimbursement, phasing and responsibilities, but emphasized the draft agreement in the packet remains under negotiation.

After extended discussion, a commissioner moved to recommend a positive recommendation to city council with the list of amendments and clarifications commissioners had requested — including a traffic study, quantified unit and product counts, exact park acreages in the agreement, lift‑station easement locations, a guest‑parking allowance (0.25 per unit recommendation), traffic/fire access review and a bond mechanism to guarantee park delivery. The motion passed; the record shows several yes votes and at least two opposed votes. Staff will incorporate the commission’s recommended conditions into the development agreement before transmittal to council.