Council tables zone‑change request for Highway‑side development overlay after access, density and orchard questions

Perry — Perry City Council on May 22 took no final action on a developer’s request to adopt a development‑overlay zoning district for roughly 23 acres on the east side of Highway 89, instead tabling the request and asking the applicant to refine the proposal and return to planning commission for further review.

Staff presentation: City planning staff described the site and existing zoning mix — neighborhood commercial, half‑acre residential and environmentally sensitive land that extends upslope past a canal. The staff presentation described utilities and access constraints: “we do have a water line to the property; however, it’s undersized at 6 inches,” a planning staffer said, and the sewer main is across the highway so any connection would require a bore under the road.

Initial and revised concepts: The applicant’s initial concept showed 44 single‑family lots and 24 multifamily units. After planning‑commission review and neighbor conversations, the developer submitted a revised concept that reduces single‑family lots to 34 and increases townhome units to 31 while proposing to preserve about 10.25 acres of orchard along the highway in perpetuity. Staff noted planning commission recommended denial of the original application, calling that submittal “raw” and not demonstrating sufficient public benefit to justify higher density.

Concerns raised by the council and commission: Council members and planning commissioners flagged several issues: (1) access and fire‑code compliance — the city code allows no more than 30 units on a single access street and generally requires full city street construction rather than partial “half‑street” improvements; (2) utility upgrades — the east‑side water main would need upsizing and associated off‑site investment; (3) the long‑term maintenance and ownership of the proposed orchard — councilors repeatedly asked whether the city, a conservation easement or a private farmer would be responsible for upkeep; and (4) the small spring/pond and environmentally sensitive slopes above the canal, which will require additional study.

Developer response: Pat Burns, the applicant, said the team has met several times with the adjacent property owner and that neighbor’s family may join the development, which could allow more complete access and roadwork. Burns said the orchard concept is already attractive to local farmers and that the team could negotiate a permanent easement, city ownership with lease, or other arrangements so the orchard is farmed and preserved.

Council action: After extended discussion the council decided to table the application so the developer can refine the concept to address access, fire‑code and infrastructure issues and so planning commission can review the updated submittal. One council member noted the planning commission had seen only the initial submittal and not the developer’s revised concept; staff confirmed that the revised plan arrived after the commission’s hearing. Planning staff emphasized that approval of a development agreement would be a legislative action and that council is not obligated to approve the overlay if the public benefit is not demonstrated.

Why it matters: The parcel sits adjacent to a previously approved 60‑acre development on the west side of Highway 89. Council members said the new concept could provide a mix of housing types and preserved orchard open space if infrastructure and access can be resolved. If reworked to match city standards, the development could add needed housing; if left unresolved, it risks setting a precedent for density increases without clear community benefit.

Ending: The item is tabled; staff will work with the applicant to revise plans and, if appropriate, re‑notice the land and return the revised application to planning commission and then, if warranted, to council for a legislative decision.