[{"_1":2,"_85":-5,"_86":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":59,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":65,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6648219,"mediaKeyId","3382163-9196cb8c1cfa88c4e816049ad346c5ab","parentId",3382163,"title","Perry City tables Olsen Orchard development agreement after council seeks design and access clarifications","audioSeconds",215,"startMs",737000,"endMs",522000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3382163-9196cb8c1cfa88c4e816049ad346c5ab&start=737&end=522","thumbnailUrl","https://d352y6ypj4mjo3.cloudfront.net/AudioPlaceholder.png","articleUrl","/articles/6648219/Utah/Perry-City-tables-Olsen-Orchard-development-agreement-after-council-seeks-design-and-access-clarifications","mediaUrl","author","Perry City Council","date","2025-01-09T19:00:00Z","article","Perry City Council on Jan. 9 tabled consideration of a development agreement and zone-change for the Olsen Orchard Subdivision, directing staff and the applicant to return with clearer design commitments for multifamily buildings, a firmer tree-planting plan for natural areas, and clarification on a proposed Highway 89 access point.

City Administrator Barnhill introduced the updated plan and development agreement, saying the council had not received the latest drawing until the morning of the meeting and that planning commission had recommended approval of the current submittal. He described several changes that planning commission had identified, including: clarifying that roads through the townhome portion are private; showing plant symbols interpreted as proposed plantings in the natural area; and notes requiring a boardwalk where the trail would cross wetlands, with construction materials and details subject to city engineer approval.

Barnhill also told council staff had clarified utility commitments and landscaping standards: the developer would provide Utopia (the city-owned data provider) and the plan proposes hydroseeding for natural areas and sod for the park. Staff and Public Works reviewed expected ongoing operations and maintenance (O&M) costs for the park amenities — including court resurfacing, sprinkler maintenance, mowing and fertilizing — and estimated roughly $25,000 per year for routine O&M, not including long‑lived capital replacements such as playground equipment later in the century.

Alex Owens, representing Link Construction and Development, told the council the firm was open to architectural adjustments and confirmed the engineering team’s intent to preserve many existing trees in the southern natural area while adding additional plantings in key locations. “We would be open to planting extra trees just to make it look a little more attractive,” Owens said, while noting some pink symbols on the plan represent existing trees that engineers drew rather than new plantings.

Council members questioned the overall increase in density that the development agreement would authorize compared with a by‑right buildout. Barnhill and staff explained the draft agreement would allow about 208 total dwelling units compared with roughly 147 under existing zoning shown in the alternate plat — a difference of about 61 units — and raised illustrative metrics: the current plan averages about 3.3 homes per acre compared with about 2.58 homes per acre for the lower-density layout. Staff also summarized public‑space tradeoffs the city would gain in exchange for the additional units: roughly 15 acres of open space overall, including about 4.3 acres of formal park improvements and roughly 10 acres of natural open space with trails.

Council discussion focused on three recurring concerns: the scale and form of the planned townhomes at the edge of single‑family areas; the size and design of the proposed dog park; and the alignment and number of accesses onto Highway 89. Multiple council members said they preferred multifamily buildings that provide visual transition to adjacent single‑family neighborhoods — for example through varied roof lines, front‑facing entrances and smaller massing at the street — rather than long, continuous three‑story blocks. Council member comments referenced “mansion‑style” fourplex examples shown by staff as alternatives that can deliver multifamily density while appearing more like large single‑family houses from the street.

On the dog-park design and scale, staff said the proposed fenced dog area is approximately 8,000 square feet, will include a double-gate entry and a dog/human water fountain, and that the park would be maintained as part of the annual O&M estimate. Several council members expressed concern that 8,000 square feet could be small for heavy use and recommended adding benches, shade trees or design elements to reduce heavy wear on grass or to allow future expansion.

Council and staff also discussed a proposed realignment of Hargis Hill Road where it meets Highway 89. Barnhill summarized prior conversations with the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT), saying UDOT favored realigning the road to meet the highway at a safer angle; staff said realigning would entail vacating a short stretch of road and reallocating frontage to adjacent owners. Council asked staff to seek UDOT’s formal input on the access options and to report the developer’s preference. Staff supplied a rough distance estimate between existing access points (about 780 feet) and the alternative spacing (about 550 feet) but noted UDOT standards vary and that the agency generally prefers fewer accesses to a state highway.

Council members said they were generally satisfied with many aspects of the revised agreement — notably the additional open space, trail connections and the planned boardwalk across wetlands — but asked the developer to return with more detail on architectural variety for townhomes and single‑family homes, an explicit tree‑planting commitment (or a tree count), a clearer dog‑park design or sizing options, and a formal response from UDOT about the Highway 89 access. After that discussion the council voted to table the item until its next meeting to give staff and the applicant time to provide the requested clarifications.

The meeting record shows the item will be returned for council consideration after the applicant and city staff address the architectural and landscaping specifics and provide UDOT’s input on access. The council also asked staff to present clear language in the development agreement that would lock in any architectural or landscaping commitments the council requires as conditions of approval.

What’s next: Staff will work with the developer to document the requested clarifications and to bring an adjusted development agreement back at the council’s next regular meeting. The council directed staff to: (1) request UDOT feedback on the Highway 89 access options; (2) provide a specific number or measurable standard for new trees in the southern open space; (3) present options or language the council could use to require front‑facing facades or varied rooflines along perimeter townhomes; and (4) confirm O&M responsibilities and the city’s financial exposure for long‑term capital replacements.","mediaType","Audio","parentTitle","Perry City Council Meeting - GMT20250110-015358_Recording","oneSentenceSummary","Perry City Council on Jan. 9 tabled consideration of a development agreement and zone‑change for the Olsen Orchard Subdivision after council members requested clearer architectural, landscaping and Highway 89 access details from the developer.","taxTitle","Perry, Box Elder County, Utah","taxId",68994,"location","Utah","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":50,"_51":82,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":83,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":84,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6648214,"Perry City Council approves short‑term rental rules and fee schedule; tables Olsen Orchard; adopts multifamily density amendment",6456,561000,7017000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3382163-9196cb8c1cfa88c4e816049ad346c5ab&start=561&end=7017","/articles/6648214/Utah/Perry-City-Council-approves-shortterm-rental-rules-and-fee-schedule-tables-Olsen-Orchard-adopts-multifamily-density-amendment","Perry City Council on Jan. 9 recorded several formal actions: the council appointed planning commission leadership, adopted an amendment affecting multifamily density and mapping (Ordinance 24H), approved new short‑term rental regulations (Ordinance 24K), adopted a comprehensive fee‑schedule update (Ordinance 24L), approved routine consent items, and tabled the Olsen Orchard development agreement pending additional information.

Votes at a glance

- Planning commission leadership (item 3A): Council approved the 2025 planning commission chair and vice‑chair appointments by roll call; the motion carried unanimously. The planning commission will have Ryan Vaughn as chair and Paul White as vice chair for 2025. Council recorded an affirmative roll call and indicated the motion carried without opposition.

- Ordinance 24H (multifamily density map / subdivision code amendment): Council adopted ordinance 24H, which clarifies height measurement and limits multifamily dwellings outside commercial zones to 30 feet and adjusts how height is measured for structures within the neighborhood commercial zone adjacent to Highway 89. The council’s roll call produced recorded yes and no votes; the motion passed and the ordinance was approved.

- Ordinance 24K (short‑term rentals): The council unanimously adopted short‑term rental regulations establishing a short‑term rental definition (rental term under 30 days), prohibiting rentals in campers, trailers or tents, limiting one short‑term rental per property, and requiring a business license for short‑term rentals. The ordinance also clarified that accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are not permitted to be used as short‑term rentals.

- Ordinance 24L (fee schedule update): The council unanimously approved updates to the city fee schedule. Key changes include charging per‑square‑foot fees for cutting newer asphalt, a fee and deposit framework for hydrant meters, updates to field/reservation fees (including a $5/hr practice fee and a $20/game day fee for athletic fields), and administrative clarifications for digital records and USB provision. Council also approved minor adjustments to facility reservation deposit handling.

- Consent items: The council approved routine consent‑agenda minutes and items as presented, with only minor typographical corrections requested during the meeting.

What the ordinances change

Ordinance 24H revises the municipal code’s height‑measurement language and narrows where taller multifamily can be sited in proximity to the highway. City staff said the measure is intended to reduce the visual impact of continuous three‑story walls next to single‑family neighborhoods and to create clearer measurement rules near Highway 89.

Ordinance 24K establishes a local permitting and licensing approach for short‑term rentals: rentals under 30 days are allowed in approved residences but not in recreational vehicles, tents or accessory dwelling units, one short‑term rental per property is allowed, and operators must hold a business license. Council members asked staff to add clarifying language to ensure single‑home, multi‑room short‑term sublets are covered by the one‑rental limit.

Ordinance 24L updates fee language across departments to reflect contemporary practice (digital copies, USB handling, policing fees, public‑works inspection fees) and to add or refine a handful of operational charges; staff said the schedule is intended to better recover routine costs and to provide clearer processes for deposits, facility rentals, and field maintenance charges.

Meeting context and next steps

Several measures passed unanimously; the multifamily density amendment produced recorded dissenting votes from some council members but was adopted. The Olsen Orchard development agreement and zone‑change — a substantial, project‑level decision — was tabled after council members requested further architectural, landscaping and access clarifications. Staff will return the Olsen Orchard item at the next regular council meeting after the developer provides the requested details and staff obtains UDOT input on Highway 89 access options.

The council also scheduled a council retreat for January 25 to discuss longer‑range planning items; staff will solicit agenda topics from council members by email.","On Jan. 9 the council unanimously approved a short‑term rental ordinance and an updated fee schedule, approved appointments for the planning commission leadership, adopted an amendment affecting multifamily density mapping, and tabled the Olsen Orchard development agreement for further clarifications.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Perry City tables Olsen Orchard development agreement after council seeks design and access clarifications

Perry City Council approves short‑term rental rules and fee schedule; tables Olsen Orchard; adopts multifamily density amendment