Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Water Conservation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planning commission tables Waterwise Landscaping ordinance after debate over 20% turf rule

Perry City Planning Commission · June 4, 2026
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

The commission opened a public hearing on ordinance 26h (Waterwise Landscaping), discussed Pine View Water allocation cuts and a state rebate requirement that would cap turf at 20% for certain developments, then voted to table the item for staff to analyze multifamily impacts and possible code reorganization.

The Perry City Planning Commission opened a public hearing and debated an ordinance intended to make the city eligible for a state rebate program that incentivizes replacing turf with waterwise landscaping.

Bob described the state rebate and the ordinance's key requirements: for commercial and multifamily developments the draft would limit turf to no more than 20% of landscaped area, with exceptions only for areas designated as active recreation. "So in no case shall one account for more than 20% of landscape areas, except for areas specifically designated for active recreation," Bob said, explaining that the 20% figure comes from the state program's minimum standards.

Staff also summarized changes in Pine View Water allocations over the past two decades (from about 0.75 acre-feet per quarter-acre lot in 2000 to roughly 0.38 acre-feet today) and warned that tighter outside-water allocations could push homeowners to use culinary water for irrigation or produce cross-connections that raise contamination risks.

Commissioners raised practical concerns: how the 20% cap would affect multifamily projects, whether detention ponds (which public-works standards typically require to be grassed) would count against the 20% allowance, and whether the jump from a 70% figure in the older code to 20% was too abrupt. The chair said the ordinance, as written, was "super against it — it's too restrictive" and suggested staff do homework on how existing multifamily developments would be affected.

After discussion commissioners agreed to table the ordinance and asked staff to review multifamily cases, identify developments that already meet the 20% threshold, reorganize language to clarify single-family applicability, and return with a recommendation.