Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer outlines 30‑home affordable project at 640 Westville Road, asks for narrower street and other concessions
Summary
A developer told the Harrisville Planning Commission staff that a proposed 30‑home project at 640 Westville Road aims to price 50% of units at an affordability target of about $498,000 but requests narrower street and lot concessions to meet that price; staff raised safety, parking and utility concerns.
Randy, a project representative, told the Harrisville Planning Commission staff that he proposes 30 new homes (plus one existing house) on about five acres at 640 Westville Road and is seeking variances to meet an affordability target.
The project would use the city’s housing zone overlay and mix two product types on roughly 4,500‑square‑foot lots. Randy said the team is proposing 46‑foot lot widths, a garage setback of 22 feet (rather than 25) and a reduced street cross section — a 28‑foot asphalt roadway with rollover curb and attached walks — to lower infrastructure costs.
The affordability goal drives the design. “Our goal with $498,000 is to be able to build this,” Randy said, describing a target product of a roughly 1,200–1,220‑square‑foot, three‑bedroom, single‑level house with an option for a detached two‑car garage; buyers could omit the garage to lower price. The price target is based, Randy said, on mortgage assumptions (5% down, 30‑year loan) and an income standard of 120% area median income for Weaver County.
Why it matters: staff and elected officials said the project could expand smaller single‑family product types in Harrisville and help meet the city’s affordability objectives, but they flagged tradeoffs. City engineering staff and the fire district warned that the proposed 28‑foot street departs from the 32–36‑foot sections typically preferred in higher‑density areas and could increase on‑street parking and complicate snow removal and emergency access.
“32 is our standard; sometimes 36 in higher‑density areas,” a public‑works staff member said. Brian Barker of the North Fire District emphasized vehicle and responder access concerns for narrower roads. City technical staff also recommended careful placement of utilities, hydrants and meter boxes so they do not conflict with sidewalks, gas lines or create tripping hazards.
On utilities and stormwater, the developer presented two road/utility options. He said Option B — routing storm and sanitary near inlets and along curb lines instead of centerline manholes — reduces infrastructure cost and aligns with the affordability goal. Staff asked the developer to coordinate county surveyor reviews, sewer‑district capacity checks and to document storm‑water calculations and geotechnical constraints (a high water table was noted in an early geotech report).
Connectivity and process: staff and commissioners discussed future connections to neighboring parcels. Commissioners stressed the importance of providing connections or stub roads for later development even if that reduces initial unit count; the developer said losing units would adversely affect the price cap but is open to design options. The developer requested an expedited review or a targeted work session so he could “lock” material prices; staff cautioned that notice requirements and separate public‑hearing steps constrain how quickly the council can act.
Next steps: staff asked the developer to supply final concept materials and deed‑restriction language for the affordability covenant so the city can prepare public‑hearing notices; staff noted deadline dates for exhibits and advised the developer to submit civil drawings, storm‑water reports and any requested deed‑restriction text before planning‑commission review.
