Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Plan Mda topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer trims phase 3 plan, proposes MDA amendment to tie into Summit View HOA
Summary
A developer presenting a revised Phase 3 site plan told the Harrisville Planning Commission staff the project has been reduced from roughly 59 lots to 50 units, shifting many units to single‑family patio homes and keeping townhomes only adjacent to commercial property; staff said an MDA amendment and rezoning are required.
Blake, the applicant’s representative, told city planning staff the project team reduced the proposed density from about 59 lots to 50 units and reconfigured many parcels as single‑family patio homes while keeping townhomes nearest the commercial edge as a buffer.
City Administrator Jenny Knight and City Planner Sarah Wicker were at the table for staff review. Cody, the project manager on Summit View phases one and two, said the developer’s intent is to add the new property into the existing master development agreement (MDA) and fold the new homes into the same HOA rather than create a separate community. "Our intent from day one has been to expand our master development agreement," Cody said.
Planning staff flagged several technical and policy points. Sarah Wicker noted the council has expressed a preference for lower density and observed the revised plan is “closer to that six per acre” target staff expects. Staff also raised concerns about front‑facing garages and setback compliance, citing a 25‑foot front setback and 20‑foot corner side setback that must be met in many locations.
Technical review focused on parking and circulation. Building inspector Tyler Sim and city engineer Matt Roberts reviewed proposed garage sizes; developers said most two‑car garages are roughly 20–22 feet wide and several units include single‑car garages. Staff reminded the applicants that the ordinance counts only spaces behind the front setback and requires two on‑site spaces per dwelling, which may make single‑car garages noncompliant without additional on‑site stalls.
Developers and staff also discussed connectivity and amenities. Staff suggested consolidating small pocket parks into a single, more usable open space to avoid overburdening the HOA, and asked the team to show how sidewalks and private roads would join existing phase one and two infrastructure.
Procedurally, staff told the applicant that amending the MDA must precede the zoning change and that legal review is needed before public notice. The MDA amendment and rezoning will both go to the planning commission for public hearings and then to city council review.
The applicant agreed to revise drawings and work with staff to streamline the review schedule. The planning staff recommended a follow‑up submittal and legal review of the proposed MDA amendment as the next step.
