Perry planners and Link Construction weigh development-agreement options for 16-acre site near 3 Mile Creek Elementary

Chair Paul opened the Perry City Planning Commission work session and invited Bob, a city planning staff member, to summarize the background for a roughly 16‑acre property near 1200 West adjacent to 3 Mile Creek Elementary School and several parks.

Bob said Link Construction approached the city early to seek guidance before filing a formal application, noting the site sits at the intersection of four multifamily grid boxes and is currently zoned R1‑A with 1‑acre minimums. He explained the developer is exploring whether a development agreement could enable a mix of unit types, create better-designed open space, and allow architectural requirements not otherwise permitted under the base code.

Developer representatives, including Pat Burns and Alex, told commissioners they had not produced a final sketch but estimated a build that could include about 44 townhome-style units alongside roughly a dozen single-family lots, depending on road layout. Alex said, “We haven’t done an actual sketch, but we know that we can get 44 towns on roughly acres, and that leaves 12 acres for single family.” Pat Burns added the developer wants variety and said they would balance creativity with cost constraints.

City council and commissioners pressed on several recurring issues: access, traffic and school safety; what counts as a meaningful public benefit; and how to preserve neighborhood character while accommodating additional units. Councilmember Dave Walker said he is not opposed to density if the design fits the neighborhood, and urged creative open-space outcomes rather than “just a grassy field.” He said, “Density doesn’t really scare me at all,” but added the city should get value in return.

Commissioners and councilmembers discussed specific trade-offs staff and developers could negotiate through a development agreement: the city could require elevations, materials and unit types as part of an agreement (subject to state limits on regulating one‑ and two‑family building design), or instead keep the project within existing code and accept less control. Bob noted that the code’s conservation‑subdivision route and the development agreement route each have different limits and opportunities.

Access was a central technical concern. Staff pointed to a northern gravel road with an apparent recorded dedication that could be improved to serve the site, and to a southern access that would require cooperation from an adjacent property owner. Commissioners flagged that 1200 West is likely to be a busier artery as the city grows and urged limiting and aligning access points; staff measured roughly 460 feet between a potential new southern entrance and the existing intersection and said the spacing is within standards but not ideal.

Ideas raised as possible developer concessions included improving the city’s existing retention/stormwater pond (about 2.3 acres) into a trail or low‑maintenance amenity, dedicating land or a conservation easement for orchard use, or paying a fee in lieu of on‑site open space. Councilmember Blake Osler and others encouraged creative, maintainable open‑space concepts — orchards, pump tracks, trails or targeted amenities that match nearby schools — while some commissioners warned that the city should avoid taking on improvements it cannot maintain.

Commissioners also discussed a broader policy question: when applicants request fee‑in‑lieu rather than on‑site open space, how should the city calculate that fee? Staff asked commissioners to consider standardizing the approach (land value, improvement cost per square foot, or per‑door formulas) before a future meeting.

No formal action was taken on the development agreement at the work session. The commission approved the meeting minutes from Feb. 5, 2026 earlier in the evening by voice assent. Bob said staff would return with sketches and options that reflect the commission’s design priorities and access constraints, and the developer said they would produce plan alternatives and cost estimates tied to per‑unit tradeoffs.

The commission closed the session with instructions to workshop development‑agreement priorities and to review maps and options at a subsequent meeting.