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

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.