Developers present 41-lot plan for La Verne Couchville Pike; neighbors press parking, access and materials

Developers presented a conceptual plan for a for‑sale residential subdivision on La Verne Couchville Pike at a community meeting hosted by Council member Deontay Harrell. The team said the project would span two parcels listed in their materials as 4058 and 4070 and total about 10 acres, with roughly 41 lots made available for single‑family homes and duplexes.

"Each combined, it's about 10 acres," said Preston Ayer of Stoneridge Engineering, who walked the council and community through parcel maps, a concept layout and proposed site features. Ayer said the Special Plan (SP) the developers propose would allow single‑ and two‑family lots with a 6,000‑square‑foot minimum, a public road extension looping through the site, internal sidewalks, curb and gutter, and a 20‑foot landscape buffer with a walking trail.

Council member Deontay Harrell said he favored reserving Lot 41—an irregularly shaped parcel at the entrance—for a community amenity such as a playground or park. "I would like for that to be a community space," Harrell said.

The developers described parking and access measures aimed at limiting on‑street parking. "All of our homes are still maintaining at least 2 car garages," said Wendell, the project manager. Preston Ayer said the schematic shows two‑car garages for 40 units (80 garage spaces) and about 108 additional driveway spaces; he estimated front setbacks would allow about 25 to 30 feet from the sidewalk to the garage to reduce the risk of vehicles backing into the sidewalk.

Residents questioned whether the single entrance and the projected driveway depths would be sufficient. "People continue to park on the street," said one community participant, raising concerns that overflow parking and a single entrance could impede emergency access and block sidewalks for pedestrians and wheelchair users. Ayer acknowledged those concerns and said connectivity and traffic impacts would be reviewed as part of any formal planning submission.

On exterior materials, Harrell told the developers he preferred no vinyl siding; the developers said initial budgeting assumed hardy (fiber‑cement) siding for the exterior and that masonry had not yet been explored. Wendell said the team intended to prioritize higher‑quality interior finishes while still producing an exterior that would stand out from competitors.

Roy Dale of Dale and Associates said he was working on nearby properties and asked that project teams coordinate plans; he said he had agreed with Harrell to hold off on submissions until projects were better aligned. On infrastructure questions, a community member asked whether traffic or water‑use studies had been completed; Harrell said a traffic study may not be required depending on final scope but that planning staff would produce recommendations if and when the team submitted an SP application.

No motions or votes were recorded at the meeting. Harrell said he would follow up with the development team and the meeting was closed with the recorder instructed to stop the recording. The next formal steps described were voluntary coordination among developers and a future planning review if the team advances the SP application.