Perry council tables 28‑acre rezone after lengthy debate over density, access and fee‑in‑lieu

The Perry City Council on Feb. 26 held an extended discussion of a zone‑change request affecting roughly 28 acres west of town and ultimately tabled the item for further work. The proposal would rezone three parcels from agricultural to R‑1 (third acre) to allow single‑family lots; staff said existing constraints would limit initial build‑out to about 30 residential units because of a single access point.

City planner Bob Barnhill described the parcels and noted the Planning Commission recommended approval of an exception to the city’s default spacing/density policy by a 5–1 vote. “Planning commission did talk about those things of, hey. We have issues with the access. They did talk about half acre versus third acre,” Barnhill said as he reviewed the code and the commission’s recommendation.

Developer Brett Jones of Basin Development described why his team pivoted from a conservation‑subdivision approach to seeking R‑1 third zoning for the whole area. “We could develop those 30 lots on the western acreage at the moment, on 1 access,” Jones said. He said the western parcels have no wetland concerns and that the eastern parcel needs a wetland delineation before development could proceed there.

Council members pushed back on granting an outright density change without public benefit. One council member urged using a conservation subdivision or a development agreement that would preserve open space or provide fee‑in‑lieu funding for parks. “We don’t feel comfortable just giving you a third acre because now we’ve given up the thing that we were hoping to get, which is either money for our parks or open space,” one council member said.

Multiple council members, the planning commissioner who attended the Planning Commission review, and the developer explored options including:

• Rezone to R‑1 half with a conservation overlay and a fee‑in‑lieu that could permit smaller average lot sizes while delivering open‑space improvements;

• A development agreement that would specify a plan for the 30 units and outline either set‑aside open space or a per‑lot fee to fund nearby parks; and

• Tabling the current R‑1 third application and returning with a clearer development agreement or a combined rezone/overlay application.

After discussion the council agreed to table the matter and directed staff and the developer to return with a clearer plan that shows how the initial 30 lots would be developed and what the city would receive in return if additional density is granted.