Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zone Change Development Agreement topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Perry City councilors review proposed 208-unit development; planning commission recommended approval 4-2

Perry City Council · December 12, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Council members reviewed a developer's request for a development-agreement overlay to allow 208 units (133 single-family, 75 townhomes) on Perry's south edge, debated removed amenities (boardwalk, plantings), utility upgrades and UDOT-required realignment on Hargis Hill; staff will relay council feedback and return a revised plan in January.

Perry City staff and councilors spent the bulk of their Dec. 12 meeting reviewing a proposed zone change and development agreement for a site at the city's southern boundary. Bob Barnhill, presenting the plan, said the application would allow a development-agreement overlay and that Planning Commission recommended approval by a 4-2 vote.

The current proposal calls for 208 total units: 133 single-family homes and 75 townhome units, with an overall average of about 3.3 homes per acre. Barnhill noted previous proposals had included as many as 257 units; the current plan reduces that number and sets an average single-family lot at about 10,550 square feet. He read aloud project details and images of open-space amenities, including a 4.3-acre park with four pickleball courts, a pavilion and restrooms, and what the staff report called a dog park.

Council members pressed the applicant and staff on infrastructure and design details. Utilities were a recurring concern: Barnhill said the north portion of the site can gravity-flow to existing sewer but the southern portion cannot; code discourages lift stations, so a gravity solution is expected and will require coordination with private property owners. He said the water main north of the development is currently undersized (six-inch) and will need to be upsized; engineering modeling indicates a 10-inch main will be required from 3200 South to the new development, while the line north of that point is already a 12-inch.

Members also asked about changes between the Planning Commission submittal and the council packet: a previously shown boardwalk through a wet natural area and additional planned plantings were removed in the newer plan. Councilmember Walker said the boardwalk made the natural area accessible and asked that staff press to restore it, while other members cited maintenance concerns and the one-year warranty the developer would provide after installation. Barnhill said the open space and trails would be turned over to the city and acknowledged ongoing operations and maintenance obligations.

Traffic and access were discussed: Barnhill said UDOT reviewed the proposal and required that Hargis Hill be realigned to meet Highway 89 at a safer 90-degree angle; implementing that will require vacating a portion of the road and transferring ownership portions to the developer and adjacent property owners. Councilmembers asked for pedestrian crossing treatments where the proposed trail would tie into the historic Orchard Trail and discussed whether frontage treatment along Highway 89 should include a solid fence or landscaping per city code.

Staff and a planning commissioner explained the 4-2 vote at Planning Commission reflected process concerns; two commissioners wanted to see final drawings with requested changes on paper before forwarding the application. Barnhill said he would pass council feedback to the applicant and requested direction on whether the council felt the project had any "showstoppers," concluding that the major items (boardwalk, highway frontage, crossing details, clarification of private versus public roads, dog-park parking, and multifamily design alternatives) could be negotiated and returned in a revised package in January.

Next steps: staff will coordinate requested changes with the developer and return an updated plan for council review and possible action in January.