530. Role. Commissioner Family here. Commissioner. Kermes. Here. Commissioner. Fueling here. Commissioner Bonilla here and chair lady here. Thank you. Uh, did everybody get a chance to look at the meeting? Minutes from February 10th, I think everybody was here. Yep. Any changes? Didn't look like much on there because of the trainings, right? Yeah. There wasn't a lot. No. Okay. Entertain a motion to approve. A motion to approve. You second? I'll motion to approve a second. Motion to approve.
Uh, all in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? The minutes are closer to that. Yes. Sorry about that. Chair like Bob Barker all the time. Okay. So we will go to agenda meeting or agenda item number four. Nathan. All right. Great. Thank you, chair, and good evening, chair. Members of the commission. So I'll just start by saying this item still is a public hearing. So I'll give my usual, um, Overview of the topic and then invite you to open that public hearing. Just as a note for everyone. The city's planning commission did open a public hearing at
the last meeting. That was because we noticed for a public hearing at that meeting, but needed a little bit more time with the plans and in our in our review of them. So, um, that we did re notice a hearing for this evening's meeting. So folks should have had the opportunity to receive that and, um, make it make it out if they have comments. So with all that being said, I will jump into my review. I have a PowerPoint prepared for you all. So this will be an overview of the application here in front
of us. All right. So you should be able to see that. There we go. So Eastridge Heights uh, this project has um we've required a number of different applications. With this particular project we'll talk about this is a preliminary plat and planning a development with a comprehensive plan, amendment and rezone request in addition. So we've got a lot to talk about here. And I'm just going to jump right in with an overview of the project. And we'll go from there. So the site if you are unfamiliar with this particular
area, it's at the uh, generally speaking it's south and east of Hastings and Bailey Road. Um, this is a 78 unit, single family detached development, and I'll walk through a number of the different elements that you're seeing on the, on the site. But that is the general location. Uh, a little bit more overview information here. Talked about the applications that the applicant has filed. The applicant is summer gate development. And these are this development site is comprised of a number of different parcels.
Some of them addressed, some of them not. Um, you can see those on the screen and in the staff report. Sorry I spoke wrong. It was 73 homes. The current zoning on this site is rural estate with a bluff land area overlay. But we would note to you that the zoning proposed for this site is R1, which is the city's single family zoning district. The current future land use for this property is mixed residential, and we'll talk about why there is a request to
change and how to review that. But the proposed future land use guidance for this is single family detached. The site area for this property is 58, just over 58 acres, almost 59. The buildable area, however, is significantly less. It's just under 30 acres at 29. So as as you can guess, most of that old buildable area is the bluff, which we will talk about. Um, lastly, it's just a note on the existing conditions. Um, we do have three existing homes and driveways on this
development site, and all of these would be removed for this project. So we looked at an aerial photograph or area of the site. And here you can see this is the city's future land use map. Um, and what you're looking at is the current future land use guidance for this property. And of course, we have that comprehensive plan amendment that's proposed to change the future land use guidance for this site. And so it would become single family detached that light yellow. So you can see currently that mixed residential. And actually a small portion of this development site is
included in that gray which is the transportation category. Um, that area of the site is just um, it's part of private property and it's not needed for MnDOT. But I think that when the city went through this, uh, 2040 comp plan initially and got guided, that area. It was kind of painted in broad brushstrokes with that transportation category. So that's why you're seeing that. Okay. And if you look at the zoning for this property, currently the zoning district is residential estate. I would note that the residential estate zoning
district is sort of a transitional zone that that does allow low density residential to continue, but it also is sort of a transitional zone for future development that's at higher densities or more urban development. Here again, is an aerial of the property. And you can see some pretty unique property boundaries, I'll say. So part of this site, if you can see the cursor on the screen, goes out into MnDOT right of way. There are MnDOT easements. And of course that area is used for 494.
So as a part of a plat we would we would be Anticipating that area to be dedicated as public right of way. So you can see the existing conditions here on the screen that I just talked about. What you can also see in some of the in some of those more faint gray lines are the contours. And so as I noted to you, this is a bluff area. And so you can see those contours get pretty close together as you move to the west of this site in particular, so you can see those existing homes as well.
So this is a good opportunity to remind you that the Planning Commission did have an opportunity to review this project at a concept plan stage. I think that was maybe six months to a year ago at this point. Um, and so there were comments provided to to the applicant through that process that had been worked through for the most part and that have, um, fed into what's being requested now with this preliminary plot. So at this stage of the development process, we're really starting to get into the details.
And that's why you have such a long staff report for me. So thank you for reading it. If you if you read word, word or cover to cover. The Comprehensive Plan amendment, I want to just take a moment to talk about what is being requested. So, um, the city's 2040 comprehensive plan contains that future land use map. As you know, uh, this map is, um, proposed to be changed for the development site to be single family detached. I mentioned that another thing that the developer is requesting through the comprehensive plan process or
amendment process is to reduce the minimum allowable density for that single family category. Right now, the city's single family detached category allows for requires rather a range between 3 to 5 units per acre, Given the challenges with this property and putting more density on it being pretty difficult. Um, the developer has requested a 2.5 minimum units per acre instead of three. So I will talk to you a little bit more detail in the coming
slides on on exactly what that looks like and what that means. But generally speaking, by amending this future land use category for this site and this particular category, it will apply to any, any other site in this city that's guided with that category. That being said, I don't think we anticipate many of the other areas in the city that are guided, uh, single family detached to redevelop um in the near future. Okay. So how does the density break down then?
Um, with density and a review of density, we start with trying to understand what is the net developable area. So the MET Council has guidance and guidelines on how to calculate net density. In short. Net density is the buildable area. So we take the gross area which is again just under 59 acres. We take out the principal and arterial right of way. That would be the interstate corridor. We take away the bluff areas and for us to consider bluff
areas on developable, they're protected by ordinance. And lastly, there are power overhead power line easements as well running through this area. So when we net out all of those different areas, we end up with a net acreage of just over 29 acres. And so when you divide 73 units by that acreage, you get a resulting 2.5 units per acre. So, um, we would have a project that meets our guidance. Should we amend the comp plan?
And I'll actually go back to this slide here. So I'll talk about zoning in a moment. But um, staff have coordinated, um, pretty regularly with the Met Council staff to make sure that we understand what are the implications if the city does approve the Comprehensive Plan amendment. As you know, the city has to meet a minimum of five units per acre in Seward areas. We've looked at the density log that the city has in the MET Council shares. And, um, we're not going below five units per acre by
approving this change and approving this development. So in short, the city will be still be compliant with the requirement that the MET Council has of five units per acre citywide. So the way that that five units per acre works is that it's an average across the entire city. So there are some areas that have developed at a higher density in some areas like this may develop at a lower density. It's not uncommon for communities to guide land at lower densities than their average citywide. Needs to be.
So I just want to leave you with that. And we can always talk about that more if you do have questions. Okay. So in terms of the zoning, I like to start with the bulk standards, the lot area setbacks, etc. what we're seeing in the development. And I'll back up so you can see the the site plan again are lots that are meeting the R-1, the single family district standards. So I'll go back to this table. The minimum area required is 7800ft. The development all of the lots would exceed that. They would also then exceed the minimum lot width of 60ft.
The lots also meet the city's standard minimum lot depth at 130ft. So the area the shape of these lots is conforming. The developer is requesting flexibility from the city. In some of the setbacks that are provided for for these properties. So you can see on the left column the required column what the city standard setbacks are and what the requested setbacks are at a high level. What this means is the building. The building pad within the site is being requested to be larger than it typically would be permitted by the city,
but these setbacks aren't that far away from what the city requires. So, um, 25ft instead of 30ft is requested on the front yard, on the side yards. The city requires ten feet, where the developer is proposing five feet at a minimum between homes. It's not necessarily always going to be the case that it would be ten feet between structures. There may be some cases where, um, the structures are further apart and on a corner lot. The city has a 30 foot standard where 20ft is requested here in
a rear lot basis. 35ft is required in 25ft is proposed. I will mention that in looking at the plans, it appears that many, many of the lots are able to actually meet these setbacks and likely will. I think what the developer is attempting to take into account by requesting some of this flexibility, particularly like the rear yards, is things like decks to be attached to the home. When a deck gets built behind a home, it's considered to be part of the principal structure. And so when we have flexibility permitted at this stage of the
development process, it is very helpful for those future residents that come in expecting to have those types of things attached to their home. So that is one reason you may consider flexibility. And in particular to the rear rear yard setback. Lot coverage will vary pretty widely through the development based on the lot and the particular type of home that will be built. The developer has identified a builder to work with them on this site, so they'll be happy to talk to you more about what those homes may look like.
And, um, I think David Weekley Homes is the builder. Lot coverage is requested to be allowed up to 50% of the lots. Again, not all of the lots would would have that flexibility requested. Um, but certainly some of them, given the building envelope and the location may. So you can kind of see what all of this starts to look like when you look at the typical single family lot detail, and you can see the, the different setbacks and the pretty large building envelope that they're showing on a kind of a standard
rectangular lot, as you can see on the right side of the slide, uh, there are many lots that are not exactly rectangular or not exactly, um, very small. So just trying to provide a little bit of more insight on that request. I'm going to shift gears and get into more of the site plan review than the individual lots. So when we start looking at the design of the subdivision, we're looking at things like on the single family homes that are proposed, just trying to get an idea of whether they'll comply with building material standards.
And then more importantly for the subdivision, the site design, the bluff area in this development, tree preservation, landscaping, open space and other elements. So just starting with the building materials and facade design, the city does have a requirement for certain types of building materials. The the images that we've seen do appear to be compliant with those. Not exactly sure what they're going to build yet, but, um, they do appear to meet. And then the other standard the city has is 15% of the facade
of the front facade of the home needs to be covered in glass. And again, it appears that most of those proposed units would have these different design elements. Some of them may need to, um, be looked at a little closer for that 15% of window area. Okay. Getting into the bluff protections, this was a really a really big part of this project, and it really wasn't that different of a review from what you'll recall with the Cherrywood development that we have up on century. So the city does have a bluff
land area overlay over this area. Uh, the intent of that overlay district is really to provide some standards that help us protect the bluff areas, and in particular, a couple of those different standards that are, um, applied here include structure placement and setbacks. So specifically, the ordinance defines, um, what is the top of the bluff. It creates a bluff impact zone from the top of the bluff into the buildable area, and there is a setback of 30ft from the
top of the bluff. In addition to that, the ordinance calls for careful vegetation management in the bluff areas and as you will remember from Cherrywood. Excuse me. Um, if we take out a lot of trees on the top of the bluff, that could have a destabilizing effect long term. So just being careful with vegetation management in particular in those top of bluff or bluff bluff impact zones. Um, we have been working closely with our partners at South Washington Watershed District and rooted this application to them for their review.
Um, one of the primary things that they're concerned with is, of course, stormwater management. And so that's been a close conversation between the city engineering department, public Works and the watershed district. Um, the city engineering memo will talk about it in a little bit. Does provide requirements to make sure that those rules of the watershed district are met. Another watershed district standard is a 60 foot bluff setback from the top of bluff, which is different, as you will
remember from our 30 foot standard. And so the developer is complying with the city's standard, but has requested some flexibility from the watershed. And as with Cherrywood, they did the same. They did the same thing. We're looking at trying to go a little bit above and beyond in terms of the landscaping plan at the top of the bluff, making sure that we really understand what is the mix of trees in the area where they'll remain at the top of the bluff, and how can we actually enhance the plantings and landscaping there so that we really help to hold down that area long term?
So that is one thing that the Watershed District was pleased to hear, and I think open for that flexibility. The other thing is just making sure that I the and this is a conversation more between engineering and and watershed, but making sure that there are really good plans for managing stormwater flows through the site to make sure that stormwater doesn't end up destabilizing the bluff in some in some way if we get large rain events. So those are the areas that the city staff is making sure to,
to be very careful about. So I've talked a lot about the bluff. Here's a bunch of squiggly lines. This is kind of hard to look at, but I think what it tells us is this is a pretty complicated site. And that's part of the reason that this development review has taken longer than most, and why we end up moving the, the, the meeting back a month, just that there's a lot of different elements to work through with this property. So you can see that generally speaking, the buildable areas are closer to sterling. And then kind of along the south side of this site.
So that kind of has informed the development plan and what you're seeing proposed. I just want to call out that we have the bluff line identified in this dark blue line that you can see. So that's the areas that are formally considered to be bluff based on the definition within the city's ordinance. There is that green dashed line. So I'll zoom in. There is a green dashed line that is the bluff impact zone. So that's 20ft from the top of the bluff and in and then we've
got that red bluff setback line. So you can see kind of where all those things line up. We asked the developers team to provide a conservation easement boundary, anticipating that we will be requiring a conservation easement over the bluff to make sure that there is protection for this area. Long term, there could be no, um, like physical improvements in that area that would be destabilizing to the bluff. so we asked for them to identify where that boundary would be drawn. In that boundary for the conservation easement also
informs what we're able to net out of the gross acreage to form our net developable area. So these things are all kind of working together. That conservation easement boundary is going to be important moving forward. And I think one of the things that we were paying close attention to, with, with getting to this stage is just making sure that boundary makes sense. Kind of flattening it out where you see the bluff is really going in and out and all of that of the property, making sure that we have more of a consistent boundary that's easier to enforce long term for the city.
So. And then, yeah, looking again at the south side of the property, you can see that, um, all of these boundaries tend to kind of line up here. I do want to point out we do have another part of the bluff in this area. And again, the city engineering team has really paid pretty close attention to this particular part of the development. Understanding that we have to be careful with stormwater. Okay. Tree preservation. You know, I think it's worth noting that there are quite a few mature trees on this site that would be removed for the project.
Um, you know, in order to create all the home sites, there is a what's called mass grading, where you have to kind of make sure that the general landscape works from a grading standpoint for the new lots. And so what that does come. Tree removal. So the city has a tree preservation ordinance that kicks in for development projects removing significant trees. And you can see the tree preservation calculation on the table. So I think it's a little confusing how the calculations work within the city's ordinance.
Um, I took a look at this table pretty closely when we were reviewing the project initially, and I'm comfortable with it. There is a little bit like a couple of the steps maybe not included in this table, but effectively this table is showing us the most conservative, uh, review of our ordinance. Um, the ordinance requires a different amount of replacement trees based on what's being removed. So if it's a, um, just a common tree, it's called it has less of a replacement requirement than an evergreen.
And then evergreen trees have less of a replacement than the kind of the quality hardwood trees. And so, um, hardwood trees is where they're, you know, they're doing that replacement calculation and that's the right way to approach it. Considering the mix of the species. This is a fairly high quality, uh, bluff area in terms of the wood mix woodland mix. So they've used the most conservative approach to that calculation. And it appears to be accurate. They've inventoried all of the trees on the development site. And so I think we have a pretty good understanding of of what's
there and what's being removed. One of the things that we'll talk about moving forward is just ideas of how to review this area at the top of the bluff, as we did with cherry wood, with the tree preservation, um, review, we, we really kind of dug into the details to understand. Are there species at the top of the bluff? In that case? We had a lot of invasive species. We had a lot of buckthorn. We also had ash trees that were dead or dying. And so we did a evaluation of the top of the bluff to really understand what maybe should be removed, actually within the
bluff impact area, because it's dead or it's dying and replaced with the higher quality planting that will be more, more long lasting. So that is a part of the analysis that we would intend to to do on this as plans are revised and resubmitted. But I will say long story short, the equivalent number of trees that would have to be replaced from what's being removed is 1500 trees, and that's 1500, um, like 2.5 caliper inch trees. So those are younger, younger trees.
So tree preservation, the last thing I'll say about that before talking about landscaping here, um, you saw that 3802 caliper inch number. Um, that is the number of caliper inches that kind of are the equivalent of those trees or vice versa. Uh, when we take out the trees that are being proposed to get planted here just for replacement, they're proposing 455 caliper inches. So, um, subtracting that from this total, we would be left with 3347 caliper inches of, um, required replacement.
So the developer is requesting flexibility through the planned unit development process. And one of the things that the city did with the Cherrywood project, understanding that there was a bluff and that the site was rather tight, was to require a an in lieu fee of $150 per caliper inch. That's generally the market price. Probably a low market price, but the market price of a replacement tree. So, um. That the city is able to then take those funds and plant
trees elsewhere in the community. Those dollars are supposed to be reserved for work that would enhance the city's tree canopy. So. Okay. Landscaping. I just want to talk about this really quickly. Um, you're seeing the landscaping plan. This is the preliminary landscaping plan. So, of course, as we move forward, the developer will need to revise and resubmit, as they do with the final plat and plans. Um, you're seeing A fair amount of landscaping here. They've estimated that 357 trees are required based on the
city's landscaping standards. 345 trees are shown on the landscaping plan, which leaves a deficit of 12 trees that would be required for this development. So, um, in addition to identifying maybe where those trees can go. If not, I think the PUD flexibility could be considered for that. And again, considering that, um, we may be able to allow an in lieu fee for tree management elsewhere in the community. So again, just to talk a little bit more about the bluff, I
think this is a good, you know, first pass of a landscaping plan, but certainly can be reviewed. And I believe the developer's team is working on this now. Um, where can some of the, you know, some of the trees may be overlapping with trees that are already existing on site. So I think a little bit more of a closer look at this. Um, particularly at the top of the bluff or bluff impact area. I think we can identify maybe where more trees could be planted or the the species mix could be diverse or other other ways to enhance this area. So with the location on the
bluff definitely comes challenges. One of those challenges is access. So as we talked about when we reviewed the concept plan, the city does have a requirement for two points of access for new developments that exceed a certain number of units. So this is is no different. We do need an access. So if I go back to our landscaping plan, you can see, uh, Sterling up on the northeast corner of the site. Uh, you have one access point on Sterling and then a road
called Street one on the plans that would connect through down to Hastings Avenue. The city's engineering team and public works team have spent a considerable amount of time reviewing this. This proposed street, and actually the city engineering team was the one that identified this potential alignment when this first was a concept plan. So, um, I think staff at this point are comfortable with the development moving forward. You know, uh, generally we tend to avoid steep, steep slopes and roads. But in this case, I think the engineering team's confident
enough that the slope won't be too excessive and that the road can be maintained effectively. And all of those things that we have to think about for, for access. So, um, this will accomplish those two points of access and give the residents in this neighborhood, uh, a quick way to get on to Hastings Avenue and hopefully visit some of the downtown businesses in that one area. Uh, we're also seeing three cul de sacs on the on the site plan. So maybe I have an image here. Yeah, I do so. Um, there are three cul de sacs on the site plan.
We, in our concept plan review, uh, we're really focused on trying to reduce or eliminate some of the extra cul de sacs that you're seeing. Um, and in working through this, this development actually came forward with plans that would loop this long cul de sac here. And I've got a cross section or a profile that I'll show you in a moment. That explains why that didn't happen. But, um, this long cul de sac, it came in as a loop road. And ultimately, considering some of the grading that's in
the topography on this site and the lots that they're trying to, to create, um, that looped road created a lot of challenges specifically, again, from a grading standpoint. So they've worked through with the engineering team many iterations, I would say, of this plan and landed on this particular plan as kind of the best, the best alternative. I will note to you that the city's standard cul de sac length is exceeded by this long, kind of U-shaped cul de sac.
One of the ways that the developer's team is, is hoping to, um, have this approved is that the road is being widened beyond the city's minimum standard to allow for better ability of emergency services vehicles to get around in this area. City maintenance is also benefited from plowing standpoint for the increased width, and there will be a utility looping through this area to make sure that if there is ever an issue with water main, for example a water main break in the future, there is an ability
to have continued service for these lots through the loop. Um, you're seeing on on this kind of close up, uh, trail connection. This connection has been designed to accommodate vehicle traffic and emergency services traffic. Should there be an issue with the cul de sac? Maybe there's a water main break and then we need fire team to get up towards the end of the cul de sac. You know, in that kind of worst case scenario, there should be. There still is two points of access for for these residents. So this cul de sac bulb is at a pretty is also at a
non-standard in a, in a wider in a wider fashion a non-standard widths. So it's bigger than normal. That also will help from a snow storage standpoint too. So we're thinking through a lot of the angles, a lot of the cons potentially that there might be to the the long cul de sac. We think we've worked through some design tweaks to make that acceptable and therefore are comfortable with granting that flexibility through the PUD. I will say that another benefit of this project is just looping the city's water main. That's always something that you want to see.
Is that extra redundancy in the water system that is being looped through this development as well, from the area on Sterling where there's a utility connection down to Hastings. So this is the cross section that kind of shows the difference between what we would have had with the looped road and what we have with the cul de sac. So on the top you're seeing if we had a looped road, the homes would have had to be lower, which would have resulted in a retaining wall actually at the top of the bluff to get them get the home sites down.
Um, that wasn't beneficial from a grading standpoint. We don't want to do grading on the top of the bluff if we can avoid it. It also would have produced lots that are a lot less desirable in a location where the developer is hoping to have them be the most desirable. Right, with that kind of overlook. So that's another reason that they are requesting the flexibility. All right. So getting into parkland dedication and trails, the city has a requirement for parkland dedication of 10% of residential projects. This this project is no different. Creates a demand on the parkland trail system.
And so would have to provide that park dedication. Um, city staff are still recommending and we were at the time of the concept plan as well, the cash in lieu option for for dedication because we are close to a city park. However, we are concerned about making sure that there is a trail connection. And so the city did create a 2025 trail network plan that identified a search corridor in this area. So you can see the development site generally where the cursor is has a trail search corridor running through it.
Those search corridors are really not a specific trail alignment that we need to see more more of. We would like to see a connection generally between these two areas. So this development should be held to that requirement. And I believe the developer and their engineer have some ideas about how to get a trail in this general area. So that will be a condition that I will recommend is that we get a trail. It might be that the easiest way to get a trail. Oops, I have the development site. The easiest way to get a trail
may very well be along this street. And so if that is the case, what you may see moving forward is that we do not need a sidewalk on street one and a trail, so we may allow for the developer to use the trail to satisfy that sidewalk standard, but they would still be required to have sidewalks on their cul de sacs, with the exception of this very short cul de sac here. Okay. As if this weren't complicated enough, we have a cemetery in the area of our Hastings Avenue connection, and
so the developer and their team have completed a literature review at the at the recommendation of city staff to understand what what does this area look like historically in terms of the cemetery's use of the of the cemetery property. And I'll try to back up so I can find a parcel map. I should have prepared a little bit better for this one. You can kind of see down here, um, if you're looking at the bottom of the screen, this is the cemetery property. Um, the city of Newport has a roadway easement. This dashed line is the boundary between the cemetery
and the Newport Commons property. Um, and so the city over the Newport Commons property has a public road easement that should be of sufficient with for this connection so that the roadway improvements do not need to use that cemetery property. And so coming back to that slide, the developer's team has completed that literature review, which is really a document that reviews the history of the property boundaries and the cemeteries use of their property to understand, might we have any
buried remains in the area where we have a construction potentially going on? So, um, the conclusion of that, uh, literature review, which is actually very recently sent. So it's not in your packet, but the conclusion is that that Southern Cemetery property boundary is quite well defined historically, and that there really didn't seem to be any potential or a low likelihood rather of potential of buried remains in that area. That all being said, the memo does recommend an archaeological monitor, uh, during the construction period
where it's in the area of this of the cemetery, so that that will be a city staff recommendation moving forward. Another kind of unique part of this property is that one of the properties is defined with Torrance, which is a different legal description than we normally have, which is called abstract. Long story short, these are like oil and water for legal descriptions. So when we have plats, there are some pretty specific property boundaries that are shown on the plat. And you're going to see a recommendation from staff to to
do things like combine one of the outlets with one of the lots before the building permit can be issued. So long story short, we're going to make the property lines make more sense with those conditions for approval that we're recommending, they'll allow us to combine those properties after the plats created. Okay, so I'm definitely not the only one that's reviewed this. As I as I mentioned, we've had the city engineering memo that was dated December 29th that should read of 2026 at a highlight. It's included in your packet at a highlight. It provides standard conditions for revisions of the plans.
Requires road dedication, stormwater management, all of those things a trail. And I do note that we you know, the engineering memo contains many of the same, same concerns for stormwater management as South Washington Watershed District. Um, we've also been in close coordination with the city's emergency services team. The city fire chief has reviewed that emergency access and informed the design, including the slope of it. Uh, as I mentioned, we've talked to South Washington Watershed District. We've also gotten a review memo from the Washington County.
Uh, really their primary focus on this project is that Bailey Road corridor. I just want to summarize, in case we need to come back to this, the PUD flexibilities that are being requested. Setbacks. Impervious surface on a per lot basis. Tree preservation overall that's required. Um staff are recommending with cash and Luffy total required plantings, flexibility of 12 trees and cul de sac length. So I'm not going to read these slides, but I do want to make sure that we mention them. The city does have findings for preliminary plats.
Um, and and these are actually findings for denial. So the city would have to make these findings to, to support a denial. Uh, staff do not believe that we need to make any of those findings for denial. The city also has findings in its ordinance for when it can issue planned unit developments in your staff, report our proposed findings for you that would allow for an approval of the planned unit development with the considerations. All right. Um, And then findings for the Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan amendment. So rezoning generally should be consistent with the comp plan.
And if the rezoning is not consistent, then a comprehensive plan amendment must be requested. Well, a comprehensive plan amendment has been requested to make sure that the future zoning and future land use category are consistent in its consideration of the Comp plan amendment. Staff recommend considering. Does the change align with the goals of the city's comp plan? Is it consistent with other plans or policies, and will it be consistent with applicable MET Council policies? And I think the answer to that
first question is part is in part. You know, there are a number of land use goals that are contained within the city's comp plan. And one of those is to encourage a more diverse amount of new housing in the community. And I think, as you all know, the community has approved quite a few different types of housing, but nothing actually at this low of a density in the last number of years. And so this would contribute to the different mix of units that are available in Newport. We, with the Comprehensive Plan amendment, did also send an
adjacent and effected review notice to our neighboring communities of Woodbury, Maplewood and Cottage Grove. In particular, those communities could be possibly impacted by the comp plan amendment, and all of them got back to us with a note of no comments. So we understand that they're not particularly concerned with this development. The staff report does contain 15 recommended conditions for approval. Should the Planning Commission and City Council ultimately approve this project? I like to break these down into the standard and more unique
conditions with this project. Of course, the standard conditions should apply. These are things like approval. The approvals are contingent upon the comp plan amendment being approved by the MET Council, uh, being consistent with the engineering memo, paying fees and those things, getting permits. Uh, the unique conditions I noticed I did have one duplicative comment or condition on the requirement for a trail, but running through these, the applicant will need to provide, uh, easement and maintenance agreements for the shared driveway.
So there is one area that I think we're still working through and can definitely continue to work through as I go back to the plan. Apologies for the whiplash here. Um, there are three lots that are proposed on a private drive, and I think this is something that the engineer, the engineering team is, uh, taking care of and the engineering memo. And so we are requiring conformance with that memo. But basically, if this will be a private drive, we're going to need to get easements and things in place for the folks that are on the three, the three families that will be on
that private drive to be able to access it and share it. All right. Going back. I mentioned the trail connection. So that's going to be an important thing to identify in future plan submittals. We do have one condition for out lot B being combined with lot 34 of block two prior to issuance of any building permits for that lot. That's a result of that whole Torrance versus abstract legal description issue. We're satisfied that we can manage that through the condition there.
Um, making sure we're getting resubmitted landscaping plans that detail the bluff restoration for long term stabilization and making sure that if there are, if there is going to be flexibility granted for tree removal through the planned unit development, that a cash in lieu fee be required. And that in in in the event that there is potentially incidental loss through construction that those trees you know, definitely try to avoid that number one. Number two, if it does happen of being able to require a cash in lieu fee because some of those trees are really close together.
And if they're trying to save one and they accidentally damage another, that's next to it, that might be a problem. And then, um, if grading is going to begin on this site before a final plat and development agreement are executed or entered into that, we will have a requirement for a grading agreement. And so one of the things we've seen with developments in tree removal is just that. The timing is very important for that, in particular with some of the um species in the area that we're trying to manage for. Okay. So what the next steps look like the first.
The first step here after the Planning Commission, would be that city Council review and decision on the project. After that, the developer would take the take the decision of the city council. And if that's approval, they would probably be resubmitting a revised plans and a final plat application. So with that, I will be very happy to take your questions. I will note that the developer and their team are here this evening to answer any questions you have for them. I do have an example motion that I've put together for you, but again, happy to take questions you have for me.
I'll remind you, you have a public hearing. Can you go back to the slide where it shows the bluff easement? There's a red line that intersected it, actual piece of the bluff, and it looks to conveniently not hit homes. And I'm just wondering is why does that line. Number 22 and 21 homes. Number 22 and 21 and go up this one. Nope. These. Nope I think it's yep. This one. So right there you see where the red line oh intersects with
the blue one. Are you talking about this. Yes. So why does that happen. That is a yes. I also had that same question effectively with the topography in this area. That's the bottom of a bluff. So this blue area, this blue is a bluff. The top of this bluff is here. And it starts to actually this is the it comes down on the property here. The topography is kind of funny in this area, but that is the bottom. And the bottom of a bluff area does not have the same
protections that the top of bluff has, because we're trying to have that stability at the top So that is. That is a good. A good, good observation. Because it's the only place I mean, it intersects one other place, but it's a corner. Yeah. And this is actually called out. We've had a number of meetings. The city engineer, myself and the development engineers team and, um, that that particular site was identified as something to work through on the grading plan. So one thing that will want to make sure that we continue to
review for is, um, we don't want these lots to have issues with, with drainage, particularly drainage coming down the slope. And that would drop the number right to 77, which would potentially change buildable square footage that could have a waterfall effect. Yeah. So the developer is currently barely, barely meeting that two and a half unit per acre standard. And so we are trying to work with them to make sure that we
have a development that will meet our comp plan. We we need. We need to have that. So, um, you'll you'll notice that between the bluff and the southern property boundary, it's, it's it's about as compressed as it can get in terms of a development. Any other questions for me? Here. Any questions for the developer before we open the public hearing? No. Yeah. Sorry. This has been a really big review, so I apologize. There's a lot of information to give you. Oh it's good. It was. It was an interesting read. The other thing that I read was are we, uh, as part of the plan
with the road that comes down to Hastings, would we be forfeiting the cemetery parking lot? I don't think that there will be changes to that parking lot. I think the access to it me may change it. I think actually, the developer's engineer can speak to that question better than I can. Okay. This is the developer. Engineer. Want to come up? Yeah, I'd love to. At least that one specifically. And I am interested about these two other homes because like I said, if you can't put two homes in there, it changes a lot. It does? Yes. Thank you.
Chair. Members of the Commission. Members of the audience and staff. My name is Brian Tucker with Summer Gate Homes, and we were here last August to visit with you guys about our concept plan. And I think at the end of the day, it looks pretty similar to the product that we're bringing before you this evening. As your planner indicated, this has been a complex site to work with, and it took us a little longer to get to this point, but there were a number of challenges to work through, and staff has been very, very good in working with us through those issues.
Tonight I do have Ryan Bloom with Westwood. He's our project engineer and he can speak to the questions about those two lots at the bottom of the at the toe of the bluff, as well as the relationship with the cemetery property. And then I have two folks from David Weekley Homes that would like to come up after me and just introduce themselves. They'll be the home builder for this project, and we look forward to working with them as well. Um, our plan would be, uh, assuming that this gets through City Council approval to do a final plat for the entire area
and begin construction as early in the summer, as we as we possibly can with the idea of having roads and infrastructure in. And yet this year. So hopefully we have better conditions than last June and July, uh, because that was a difficult time to try to get get projects graded. But, uh, all four of us will be happy to answer any questions, whether you know, technical or more of the marketing end of things. And with that, I'll have the weekly folks come up. Or actually Ryan. And then. Yeah, I'm going to ask you real
quick, real quick before we get started. I got a question for him, but just hang tight. So to your point, I mean, if you're if you're doing a lot of grading and weird deforestation, certain areas of this, I mean, rain's going to tell us what's going to happen, um, unfortunately one way or the other, whether, you know, hopefully it's done well. But right when we start pulling, I'm my main concern and I'll get to the public hearing is the the lack of roots, mature roots holding down the soil to what's otherwise rock.
Um, and so to your point, you know, but June might not be a bad time to find out what the water is going to do to all that newly fresh soil that now doesn't have mature roots in it. Right. And so that's I'll be honest, that's one of my main concerns when I see, you know, that because that area has just not been touched overall. Right. And that's one of the reasons why we always do soil reports with, you know, a geotechnical engineers to understand what's taking place there. Those inform our stormwater plans that Ryan can can refer
to here. Another reason why we have to do quite a bit of erosion control on site. Because anytime you're moving, moving Earth around, you have to make sure and protect so that we don't have issues downstream. So. Right. Okay. Thanks, Brian. Yeah. I'm Ryan Bloom with Westwood Civil Engineering for the project. And yeah, I'll just start with the the soil characteristics. So we did have Brian and Hurtak do a geotechnical report and borings of the property. What we found was silty sand throughout the majority of the site.
We did hit bedrock and our one of our deeper borings in the south part of the property, it was 12ft below the surface. And we've scheduled to do some additional test pits to just confirm the location of the bedrock. It was found in that southernmost pond at an elevation deeper than our pond elevation. We want to make sure that there's no variation in terms of its location. Um, but we do plan to do more test pits around both basins to, you know, get a better handle on where where bedrock
might be located. Uh, going back to a couple of your previous questions. Cemetery parking lot will stay as as is, uh, where our new road will come out to Hastings. There's a probably a good chance that we're actually going to match where the current cemetery entrance to the parking lot is, but that. Then the road will curve down and stay off the cemetery property. So, um, we'll coordinate with the cemetery in terms of their access to their parking lot will probably come off of the new road versus directly out to Hastings.
So there'll be some rework near their entrance. So that's the plan. And then the two lots you mentioned. Yes. The bluffs are shown in, in in big areas and where that what's shown is an impact. It's actually not an impact. It's at the bottom of a bluff. So what we're proposing to do is fill alongside the delineated area, which is called bluff. And as Nathan had mentioned, it's not at the top of a bluff. It's at the bottom.
So we're working it with engineering to show how that grading will work. I think we'll do a better job to on future plans to delineate just the top of the bluff, you know, and then the protected areas of it. It's my mind. I saw those lines and I was like, they should not intersect. They should not be touching. Right. And so because it's the bottom, there isn't also an easement, although we are keeping a lot of that area is untouched. Um, but yeah, that's that's that's the reason for that. And that's why it looks kind of funny.
But I appreciate you coming up. Yeah. Good evening everyone. Thank you for having us. My name is Matt McCarthy. I'm with David Weekley Homes. I just want to talk a little bit about who we are as a company. So David Weekley Homes has been in the business for 50 years. We've been in Minnesota, in the Twin Cities for about 11. And so what makes us different, and it just makes us a little unique and differentiates us is that we're a privately held company. So we're one of the largest privately held builders in the US. We actually our purpose is to build dreams and enhance lives. So we're excited to enhance the lives of yours in Newport.
Um, you know, we really give back to our team. We've been named fortune Magazine's top 19 companies to work for for 19 years now. But we're excited to give back to our team, our community, and just the culture that you guys have put in place. So we really appreciate allowing us to be here. Thank you. Appreciate it. Have you more than happy to answer any questions you may have as well? I got a lot of answers out of the pictures and whatnot. For right now, I don't think there is any mic you got. No, I think I'm good right now. Okay. Appreciate it. Thank you.
Anything else you guys want to talk about before we open the public hearing? I think we. Um. Nothing done. Doodle. Um. We good? Yeah, I think I have just a couple questions. Yeah. Um, one, I was thinking about the the setbacks and making them smaller. Um, and especially on a corner with a smaller setback. Are we worried about that inhibiting any sort of view for driving when going around the corners? That is a really good question. So I think if we look at this zoomed in image here, um, it's kind of easier.
It's a little easier to tell the the standard that the city has for what you're calling. It's kind of conventionally called the view triangle or the, you know, the safety triangle, if you will, near the intersection. So we measure 30ft from the intersection on either side and then draw a triangle. And these, these sites with that 20 foot setback should generally still be able to comply with that requirement. So that is that is definitely a very valid, um, question. And then I was just wondering if that new road is going to be
we talked about being a bit steeper than, than typical. Do we know what percent grade that's expected to be. At its highest? I imagine that's steepest grade. Um, if memory serves me correctly. And I think, again, the developer's engineer will be more familiar with what they're proposing. I think I think we're in the neighborhood of around 12% at the very, very steepest. Um, I will tell you that that has been definitely a concern of engineering. And although, you know, um, it's not preferred to have steep roads, you know, in the community, I think having that
second point of access is, is a more important thing for, for emergency services and water main looping and all of those things. So, um, the engineering and public works team have looked at this pretty hard, and they're comfortable with where we're at right now with what's proposed. Thank you. Yeah. And that now I just want to ask because I think about winter. Yeah for sure. So so if in the middle of winter it's snowing, technically that community only has one access point. If you're concerned about the slope, I will say that we have
the good benefit of having a public works garage, literally a budding site. I won't be first to get my my road plowed. I get it though, but they'll be first. Okay. So there are. Just. It is a valid it is a valid government. Yeah we have all kinds of it here. So yeah. Or I think if they. Can't get up that hill, they're going to have to take the other way, which could take longer. Yeah. And so you are right. They do. This neighborhood does have the benefit of that secondary sterling. So if there are concerns from the residents about how to get through this area, um, they will have that opportunity.
And I will also add this is I'll call it a south facing road. So you should have a little bit less issues with ice buildup during the winter. Not to say it can't get slippery. And that the sun is always facing that. Right. So direction, at least from the standpoint of getting and getting the sun to burn off. Some of the. Thinking about the problem since 65th during our last. Slide and backwards. I will also add just what's on staff's mind as we work through planning revisions and requiring that trail in particular is thinking about, you know, the city maintains trails, making sure that that's going to be maintainable and
not have ice build up as well with how it's designed. Okay. Go ahead and get to the public hearing. So we'll open our will reopen the public hearing that was tabled during the last meeting at 630. So anybody has anything they want to say? Please come to the podium. Speak clearly into the mic and state your name and your address. Certainly. Here. Anybody that came. Pauline Miller, 97 10th Street in Newport. Um, I have four, uh, questions, and you've already addressed my concerns here.
I apologize, but even though I sit in the front row seat, I can't hear your conversation. Can't hear it. So the first one has to do with the setbacks. Um, requested those would be considered variances, would they not? If the if a setback is 30ft and they are asking for a setback of 25ft, that's a variance. Chair. Members of the Commission. To answer the question, the developers requesting a planned unit development. And so this tool is not the same as the variance.
This is a flexibility though that that is being requested. It's a PUD. I can't hear. So it's a pud. So it's built into that. It's not a variance. Okay. Because my thought with it is, you know, if it's a variance they're granted based on the fact that there is something with the land that can't be altered and, and there's nothing up there that can't be altered. It seems like those variances, the differences that they're
asking for is based on the size house they want to build. Not anything to do with the land. Does that make sense to you? You know they're not trying to preserve a stand of oaks. There aren't some hills they want to preserve or a pawn they want to keep intact. They simply want a house that's, uh, 60ft wide. And they want to put it on a 70 foot wide lot. And it's like, well, build fewer models, and then you don't have to have those
changes in our setback rules. That's my comment. Okay. Uh, my second question is the conservation area. It looks like, you know, if I were to buy a house up there, I would really have a very large lot. I mean, lot lines look like they go that the lot includes the conservation area. Am I reading that right? That if I bought a lot up there, part of my lot would be in a conservation area? Could answer.
That. So I think to prevent this from being a back and forth, what we can do is I'll write down the questions and then after the public hearings over, I can begin to answer some. Does that work for you, Pauline? Okay. I mean, that's fine because I'm just wondering how that that impacts taxes. And also there must be a set of rules then, as if, if it privately owned, like if I owned a lot up there and it's got a conservation area, there would be rules that I would have to follow. Like, I couldn't do this and I couldn't do that, and I would have to do this and I'd have to do that.
Um, and, and if there are rules, I didn't see that in the packet. And I would think the city would have an interest in what the conservation area actually means. Just like when I live on the river. I know what the bluff line. You know, I know that I can't cut down trees on. On the river. And the city knows that. And we don't know what that conservation area means in terms of actions. And I, we it's not in the packet, but I do trust that they have thought about it. But yeah I was just give they'll provide you anything
that you need. But I do trust that the city looked into it, especially with this. This is new to me. No, I get it. I'm not. We don't I don't think we have another area where there's a conservation area like this. Not like. This. Um, I agree. My third is the three cul de sacs and the road that connects Hastings with Sterling. Those are going to be public roads. Correct. And and built to city standards because I'm looking at going, well, now I know which way I'm going to go to the compost. I'm going to take that road. I'm going to avoid. Bailey. Um, particularly on my return trip.
But another question I have, and I'm sure that, you know, Public Works has looked at it. I'm sure you got the answer to it. The largest, that U-shaped cul de sac on the southwest part of the property there, and then has that little trail. Why the cul de sac? Why not just extend that street, extend the street down to the new one? Because that's a lot of homes with only one way to get out. And I was thinking about that today on my way on Concorde,
because there was some police action going on and Concorde was blocked off. So there's all that traffic. And we're trying to, you know, make U-turns around and find another way out of that area. So that's my question. Why not just I mean, the cul de sac already impacts lot size. Just make it a road. But anyway, so that was number three. And then number four. And I think what little I could hear Brandon, I think you were addressing it and I call it my alarmist question here.
I don't know how many of you here were in Newport when there were two homes, new homes built up on 12th Avenue and the bluff between 12th Avenue and 11th Avenue fell away and damaged at least one house down on 11th Avenue. What I heard was that it actually moved the basement about a foot, the soil coming down the hill. And that was a small area that was a small bluff and.
And only two houses. So. My question is, I mean, no one can foresee They could probably build the whole thing and not anything move up there. But what if something does? I want to know who pays for it. If we've got half the hillside coming down on Hastings Avenue, who pays for it? Because I don't want to. So with that, I'll sit down and understand. Thanks, Pauline. Appreciate those comments. Anybody else have any questions or want to make any comments.
All right. Go ahead and close the public hearing at 637. Okay. So she brought up some points that I want to talk about because the one for me that I really just can't get over is once we touch that, there's really no going back. There's there's probably hundreds of years of sediment up there with trees that have roots going very far, at least to the bedrock, at least to the base of the the rock, right where the soil meets the rock at the bottom. Um, I, I'm not opposed to it, but I just don't.
To Pauline's point, we don't know what we're getting into. And who then would be liable for state stable site stabilization? And to what end? So, chair and members of the Commission, uh, do you mind if I just kind of walk through the different questions that we were asked and then, you know, kind of provide some initial responses? So I think we kind of clarified the question about setbacks. This is a planned unit development. The developer is asking for some of that flexibility from the city, you know, but providing a different type of
housing unit trail and various design elements that are positive in terms of protecting the bluff. Um, and we'll talk about the bluff question here in a minute. The conservation area. Um, I think that is a good observation that these are individual homeowner lots that would, uh, go all the way back to the, uh, the boundaries of the site. And so you're seeing those lots that are along the bluff have. And I should ask, can the audience hear me? Okay. Okay.
So I'm going to talk like this so the audience can hear me, um, when the, um, lots are so deep, they do contain, um, parts of the bluff. And so the alternative way to arrange the lots for this development would be for smaller residential lots in some type of an out lot that contains the bluff. That's a different way to do it. In this case, the developer is not proposing a homeowners association that would own that out lot. And so the way that this is being managed is to have the
private homeowners own all the way back to the back of the site. However, definitely in consideration of the unique characteristics of this bluff, um, the city will be requiring a conservation easement or similar easement that, uh, protects the bluff area long term. So, um, one of the things that we're considering, of course, is where is that easement drawn? And so we have required the developer on these plans to show us where they're proposing that easement.
And, um, part of the consideration for how we review that is is this enforceable? Uh, the bluff line, one of the things that I anticipate us having a conversation about with the developer is the location of bluff sign like signage to indicate there is a bluff and that homeowners don't actually have the right to go mow their yard all the way down the bluff. That would be not good. And I don't think people would want to do that. But we need to make sure that there's signage clearly indicating, um, those areas that are protected.
Um, and we need a plan that we can refer back to if those signs are ever removed. So those are things that we're considering. Um, but certainly an easement over the bluff area will be that mechanism that the city has to ensure that it's not touched, it's protected. It's kept wild long term. So that's that's one thing about the conservation area. And that is definitely a unique element of this project. Um, so with the homeowners owning back to the bluff, they, they would be responsible for, um, the cost of maintaining the
bluff area. Should they should they disturb it? Um, I think just to kind of go into the bluff question, um, a little further, uh, there are different ways that the city is able to protect the bluff area through development review. Uh, first and foremost, the city has, um, long term standards, such as setbacks from the top of the bluff. Uh, the landscaping plan with enhanced landscaping around the top of the bluff, and in that impact zone to make sure that we've got some good hardwood plantings that are, um,
protecting that long term. And then in the short term, when there's construction happening on a property, the city requires what's called a sweep, which is a stormwater pollution prevention plan. The slip is a construction activity document that, um, basically regulates the construction on site and make sure that it prevents the erosion and controls sediment on the property. So you have those June rainstorms that may happen, and the swamp shows us where that silt fence is going to go.
And it describes what actions the developer will take if there are issues identified with erosion. One of the parts of the of the city's construction observation activities. You have your public works team and your engineering team that are routinely going out to review the site and make sure that we're preventing erosion and taking immediate action when there are issues. So that is what happens while that construction is is ongoing. And then another kind of long term consideration just for the understanding of the bluff area is that geotechnical report.
And I know that the developer mentioned that they had Braun Inner Tech, which is a company that routinely and regularly does that type of a review. It's in the developer's best interest to make sure this is a working development and certainly in the cities. And so we'll make sure that we ask for any geotechnical review documents that have been produced. So that's just a little bit about how the bluff at least can be stabilized both during and long term after construction. Um, in order to address the question on cul de sac, we did
talk about that a little bit during my presentation. Um, first of all, the developer, the the city's engineering and public works team have asked, and the developer has provided a wider road on that longer cul de sac that is now going to be 34, I believe, 34ft wide as opposed to 28ft. So that's an additional six feet, which does help in emergency situations where we have vehicles trying to maneuver around. In addition to that, we have worked with the city's fire chief and public works superintendent to identify an
emergency, a trail connection here that both the residents can use and will benefit from regularly, but which can be used in order to make sure that vehicles can come and go in a situation where the road is otherwise blocked. So that is one one area that we've made sure to review for. And under that trail or in that area, is a water main loop that will allow for redundancy of water in the cul de sac, so that if there is a water main break of some kind in the future, that there is redundant service to these parcels.
So those are some of the different ways that the cul de sac has been kind of designed or tweaked to be made more, more acceptable. Um, the lots on on the cul de sac would have required a ton of grading if the road were to be looped. So the developer initially did come in with a looped road, but considering the engineering challenges, they actually were able to demonstrate how that could couldn't work to the city engineer, which is why we ended up back at the cul de sac as an option.
So I know it's not the preference. Staff never want to start there with a lot of cul de sacs, but in this particular development, with the challenges created by topography, that's that's kind of where we landed. So I hope this helps to answer. Questions that you may have had and hopefully those that some of the residents may have also had. Those are all my questions. You have questions for Nathan. Not really. I was curious about that. Yeah. Let's look at 24. They don't own ten acres, do they? Are they taxed on that? If that goes that way or.
I mean, that's pretty good. They own the property. They're taxed on it. Yep. So could you archery hunt that 24 property. So these are going to be subject to the cities. Um I think we do have regulations surrounding hunting and I just don't have them top of mind. Okay. Um, well, I would have to take a look at that. You can't be friends with them. It doesn't matter. I would have concerned. I would have concern. Yeah. Our conservation easement may have something to say about that as well. Geez. Other property owners might also. Yeah. That's a fun. Are you looking at one of these lots? Apparently. Apparently, I'm gonna go higher up now.
Um, yeah. There's a I mean, there's been a ton of work on this, obviously. My other question was about the little the little trail connecting the new extension and the cul de sac. I mean, that comes right on the line, but I just if you're going to make it so people can drive on it, what's going to stop people from just driving on it? I mean, I don't, but a road, due to the size and the requirements of the road, would then require them to do a whole other ball game of grading in that area. Yep. To make it legal.
To make the road legal. Yeah. Informed chair, chair and commission members that there is a question in there. It's like, what can we do about that trail potentially being used when it's not an emergency? And I think we can. Wait. On the. Creative solutions with bollards and things of that nature could be could be implemented if there are issues. Okay. Any questions or concerns we want to talk about before anything you guys are seeing making you the the. I will admit that the soil is my biggest concern. But again, we aren't going to nobody's. We can do our due diligence, but nobody's going to know
until you know what, what's going to take place. I don't know if they're doing their due diligence and sandy, silty soil. I've got it in my yard and it doesn't hold together. We're worth crap when it rains. Um, but, you know, um, I again just don't want it to come back on the city and have this become a not working thing. And then all of a sudden, the city's out a bunch of money because we have to re stabilize the bluff for whatever comes next. So that's my biggest concern. Can we see at some point that report, have you been given
that report. Uh, which like the geotechnical. Yeah. Yeah. Um, I looked at the submittals package today and didn't notice it, but I know that, you know, in conversations with the engineering staff that they've gotten soils information. So I think we'll have more dialogue with them in the coming days before planning for the city Council meeting. And so, um, we'll look at what we have and what we might need before. And I imagine you guys are interested in thinking a bunch of money into a quicksand pit. So. So I know you guys are doing your due diligence, and I
hope you can understand the concern with taking very old trees out of the ground in a place that doesn't isn't connected to soil. It's connected to rock. So that's my concern. But you want to bring up the yep. The thing. Suggested motion. We read it. So with the rezoning, that means that every one would be 2.5, then to 2.5. Instead of. Three. The comp plan. Yep. The comp plan amendment. And how far out of gauge does that go for what the MET Council expects us to be at currently.
So the city has a requirement right now of five units per acre. Um, the city as an average citywide in areas that are developing or redeveloping. And so the, the, the city and MET Council after the adoption of the comp plan in the 2040 comp plan, um, there's a what's called a density log that the MET Council creates. That is kind of a it basically reiterates what the city showed in the comp plan, and then it's tracked over time with the amendments. And so I looked at the current density log of what we have on,
um, that the MET Council had the latest data that they have and then used that, uh, to enter in this development information. And we still are above five units per acre somewhere in the area, I think, of 5.5 units per acre. Um, with, with this particular development included. And so, um, that's adding 30 acres of low density. So if you're looking back at some of the recent developments that have been permitted in the city. You're seeing a pretty high average density. And so that's one thing. If they do push back and say, um, the 2050 policy is you have
to have seven units per acre, why are you going down? The answer that I will have for them is look at the developments that we've approved lately. We have a proven track record of being above our required density. This is an important part of the housing mix for Newport. And I just want to be clear. Right. If we make that change, we are putting them right at the cusp of not meeting it again. If something happens to one of these houses to one of these lots, they will not meet that. Oh, sure. It will go down. But you're saying we. Have to have another discussion about this. So at what point?
At one end. Right. Is that a discussion that the city is going to have with the developer and say, if we can't hit 2.5, it can't be done? Yeah. So I think we we definitely need to see the development at two, 2.5. I would be reluctant to say we should go any lower than that, Considering that we do have that five units per acre for the 2040 plan, and then it goes up, you know, in the 2050 plan, we're looking at seven units per acre. So we're trying to be really careful about making sure we're we're mindful. Of I'm. Saying we're. We're we're they're already not going to hit that mark, but now
we're going to bring them right to that mark, which means if anything changes, it then falls again. All because of that. Right. And so again, think if we think about that, we're just getting them to passing with the potential of not. So just something to keep in mind, especially when we're going to seven units an acre right in 2050. So I would agree with your suggestions and the findings. I would like to see the the dirt.
I'm a dirt guy. I'm in construction. So I want to see those reports. Um, and so I would like to see that. But For what we have and what we're doing now. I'm comfortable moving this. I agree. Um, if somebody do you all feel comfortable moving this at the stage we're at? This has to come back at least once. Correct. Well, actually, the final plat will actually not. Go just to. The planning Commission. It just goes straight to council. So this this would be the last time that you would see this.
Okay. Um, so, yeah, if. You know. Goes to council, then twice. Yes, it goes to council twice. There is a second submittal process, review process after the preliminary plat concludes, to make sure that we're meeting the conditions for approval and dotting our eyes and crossing our T's in other ways. Okay. Does anybody want a motion. And read. That whole. Thing? I know, that's what I was just thinking. Go for. It. New person. You get to read it. New person. All right. No names. Yeah, I can do it, I got this. I moved to recommend City Council approval of the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment, rezone preliminary plat and planned unit development requests by Summer Gate Development for the Eastridge Heights Project with the findings of facts and conditions proposed by staff. Yay! Good job. I have a second. I'll second. That. All right. I have one from Council Member Rommel and a second from Council member Khamis. All those in favor say aye. Aye, aye. All those opposed? All right. So that takes care of that. So next is council.
They go through do it. Developers get another crack at it. Yep. Then bring it back. Okay. I just. Want to make sure potentially. You know, one of the conditions is, um, it's possible to get a grading agreement that would allow tree removal in some grading activity before the final plat process is concluded. So it's possible that that might happen considering the preferred timeline here, but we'll make sure that we get final grading plans, final tree removal plans before that stuff can take place. So if you see activities before you're aware the city has approved a final plat. There's one other question I want to ask you put up.
You put up some property properties numbers, and I think they were property IDs. And also owner names. Are all the owners of these properties willing and contributing. To this. Purchase agreement that the developer has in place with all the property owners. Saw Brian's name on there. So I kind of was like, whoa, okay, things have changed. Um, but okay, so if there's nothing else, a motion to adjourn, I'll do that motion. A motion to adjourn. I will second. All right. We've got two. Everybody that agrees. AI. We are adjourned at 655.