Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Perry leaders split on development agreement for 1200 West/2250 South site
Summary
City staff and the planning commission discussed a developer’s proposal to rezoning three parcels near 1200 West and 2250 South to R‑1 (third) with a conservation subdivision overlay. Council members voiced concerns about emergency access, groundwater and lot sizes and urged careful use of development agreements.
City staff and planning commissioners pressed council members for broad direction on a proposed housing development near 1200 West and 2250 South during a joint work session Thursday.
Bob, a city planner, opened with site details and the core dilemma: the applicant has requested rezoning from agricultural to R‑1 (third) and wants to use the city’s conservation subdivision overlay. “First, we wanna look at the property that we've got here. So we've got 1200 West and 2250 South Davis Street,” Bob said, then described a mix of lot sizes and eight proposed townhomes.
Council and commissioners repeatedly flagged a secondary issue that pushed the developer toward a development agreement: the project lacks a separate, full‑width secondary street that meets city fire code. Staff said the fire marshal had given preliminary verbal approval for an emergency access that does not meet code, and that a development agreement could be used to negotiate an exception or a phased road strategy.
Commissioners said the application felt “raw” and might require additional sessions. Several commissioners and council members urged caution about lot sizes. One planning commissioner said lots are getting smaller across recent approvals and asked whether Perry should preserve larger lots in some areas; others suggested offering larger lots along the edge of the subdivision while concentrating smaller lots elsewhere.
Council members pressed staff on engineering and hydrology questions. “We would have to look into this and make sure the water is handled and accommodated,” Bob said, noting potential springs, shallow groundwater and irrigation flows across the property. Councilman Nathan Tueller asked whether the conservation subdivision calculation had been met; staff said the proposal meets conservation‑subdivision requirements if R‑1 (third) zoning were in place.
Street improvements were a second practical concern. Staff recommended the applicant complete the north side of the connecting road; council members noted existing deferral agreements for adjacent homes could be triggered when the road work advances. Council member Walker urged assurance that the emergency egress is not a long‑term misfit: “I don't think that works...it seems like a pretty sharp corner going through there,” Walker said, arguing the city should avoid creating a permanent substandard road alignment.
The council also debated policy: several members questioned whether development agreements should be used frequently to achieve outcomes that the city’s code already contemplates. Council member Blake Oster read the code’s principle that the highest residential density generally approvable via zone change is R‑E (one‑half) and said development agreements should respond to unique property constraints and produce demonstrably better outcomes than by‑right development.
No formal zoning or development agreement decision was made; commissioners said they gained useful guidance and will return to refine the application. Planning commission chair Paul White indicated the commission will continue work on the proposal with council input.
Next steps: planning commissioners will take council feedback back to their next meeting for more detailed review, and staff said that engineering, water studies and road alignment checks remain to be completed before any formal zone change or development‑agreement recommendation.
