June 9th planning commission meeting to order at 5:30. Call the role. >> Uh, Commissioner Commissioner Ramali >> here. >> Commissioner Kermies >> here. >> Commissioner Fueling is absent. Commissioner Benia >> here. >> Chair Lighty
>> here. Thank you very much. Item three on the agenda, the meeting minutes from the May 12th meeting. Any substance changes? I did read it. Thank you very much for that. That was >> I wasn't here. So that was a tough
>> Yeah, it went it went okay. So I I did watch it laying sideways on my couch. Um so no changes. I'd entertain a motion to approve. >> Motion to approve. >> Can I get a second? >> Second. I got a motion from Commissioner
Bonia and a second from Commissioner Ramali. >> All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> All those opposed. Okay. There's I I also I didn't say that out loud, >> but um do you have anything before I go on to number four?
>> Okay. >> See, so we will move to the item number four on our agenda, the public hearing for the Eastridge Heights Planned Unit development PUD amendment. staff wants to walk us through that please. >> All right. Uh good evening uh chair and
members of the commission. So I have as always a short presentation short presentation for you this time. Uh what what uh is being requested this evening from the developer and builder for the East Ridge Heights project is a planned unit development amendment. And so uh as
as you all know the city council has approved a final plat for the project. Uh and so the idea was to allow for the development to move forward and then give the city commission and council time to just really consider this very narrow request to amend the PUD. So that's what we're going to talk about
tonight. I'll get I'll jump into it. So uh here's just the project overview for East Ridge Heights. Um so we've gone over a lot of this detail already. There was a PUD approved and we're looking at an amendment request. The project is 73 single family homes on approximately 58
just a little bit over acres. So there's about 30 of those acres are buildable. Uh just just to give you an indication of where this project is at now in the overall development process, they're nearing the end where uh we're working on uh you know allowing the developer to
start grading and then we'll subsequently be working on that development agreement uh for the project. So, uh, things are are getting very close to actually, uh, having work begin on site. So, uh, we have a pretty straightforward request from the, uh, developer and
builder. The builder is David Weekly Homes. Uh, their facade renderings were were reviewed and and put through the review process, um, up at sort of at kind of the end of the the final plat application process. they identified
that they would like to uh request a little flexibility from the city's standards. Specifically, the one standard that they're requesting uh flexibility to is listed on the screen here. This is in the city's performance standards for single family homes. So, we have specific um you know development
or or or design standards for these homes. They're pretty simple or straightforward. Uh in this case the request is to grant a flexibility to the requirement for abovegrade window and door openings comprising 15% of the
total exterior walls on the front facade. So the uh in in the narrative and the builder will speak to this. They have a short presentation to provide you to give you some context. Um and in their analysis they found that the uh front
facades of the buildings are having a hard time meeting that 15% requirement. The reason for that and you can see some of those example renderings on the screen here. The the primary reason is the number of garage dolls actually. So these buildings these single family
homes are proposed to have um three to four stall garages on these lots. And so, um, because of this, it's kind of throwing the math off. Um, we have been reviewing a number of other single family homes in the city. Uh, Cherrywood is one example of where we're we're looking at, uh, new home permits, and
those those homes are actually able to meet the 15% requirement largely because, um, they have two stall garages for the most part. So, uh, the developer or the builder rather has asked for the flexibility in part due to the size of these buildings.
So, here's an example that was provided in the developers narrative. Um, one of one of the options that builders have is to incorporate windows into garage doors. That's one way that they can add to that, you know, 15% uh requirement.
And so, um, they looked at one example elevation on the screen here and found that they were at 12% um, without including all of those, uh, garage windows. And then I think I think it looks like uh the math is on this one they could in theory meet the 50% if
they had all windows. And so what's been communicated to date is that the all window concept is is not desirable for their potential buyers. People might have privacy concerns with having windows that are covering their entire
garage door. So they are asking for flexibility accordingly. Uh here's a list of the PUD flexibilities that were granted to the development. Um the bold and underlined one would be that new flexibility that's requested which is the front facade
window area. I will note that we have uh a requirement for all building faces to have at least 10% window area and the builder believes that they're going to have no no issues meeting that requirement. So, uh, the city does have to establish
findings for approval of planned unit developments. And when people, uh, seek to amend the PUD, we still have those same findings that need to be met. Um, staff have proposed findings for you in the staff report, uh, that would support approval with a condition uh, that we'll
talk about. So, we have uh, on the screen, this is just a summary of the 11 conditions that were initially required for the final plot. These are still required, of course. Um, and so we would propose to simply use these same conditions of approval from the final plat and then
add what what I'd call condition number 12 that's specific to this issue. Uh, condition 12 would require that all housing plans include the following. Um, every garage door must include a row of windows near the top or approximately
6 ft above grade. Um, all front facades have to have at least 50% of that front facade be of some type of a higher standard type material. So, because this is a design requirement, staff are proposing that, you know, to meet the intent of the of the requirement, u
windows are seen as a very high quality material. So, potentially the facades could include more of those quote unquote premium materials to help kind of meet the intent uh while getting the flexibility from code. The last uh condition that staff are proposing at
this time is to um have just all all of the facads of the homes have at least 10% um window coverage because that's what the code requires. However, uh staff in the staff report are recommending that includes specifically the front facade.
Uh we understand by you know looking at the um PowerPoint that you'll you'll receive from the builder they have certain elevations that'll be at 8% so this particular condition may need to be tweaked. Um so certainly these are just
recommendations from staff. I know that a couple of these might be of some concern to the builder and they're going to be able to speak to that. And um so I just wanted to mention that you know these are a good starting point for this discussion. Uh these don't necessarily have to be the end point but certainly just you know something.
>> Can you quickly explain to me why the city I mean there was probably discussion around but why the city decided 15%. >> Did they just reach out and grab that number or other cities or similar? >> Yeah that's a good question. So the 15% actually was already in the city code. Um, and it's dating back to, you know, a
number of years, at least in my time as the planner. There's been that requirement, but initially, uh, was just for properties that were on the west side of Highway 61. So, that was buried in the city's ordinance. And what we did through the, you know, re uh, the code
update was to say, we're just going to re-evaluate all the development standards for all all new homes. And instead of having this this requirement apply to these specific homes, >> we're gonna have it just apply to everyone because we knew that, you know, new homes are coming in the other side of 61. >> Is that fairly in line with other
cities? >> Um, other cities have different approaches to single family homes. In some cases, they have even more relaxed standards. Um, little to none. >> Yeah. And I don't want we don't have to litigate it. I was just
curious if the number is just something you reach out to the sky, you say. No, I think that's a fair question certainly. And I I think uh what we've seen from most new home permits is that they can meet. Um when we when we updated the code, we specifically made that 15% only
apply to the front facade, right? >> And so because we did have a couple of situations where we had corner lots, >> front meaning like uh address facing. >> Yes. The the the front, you know, where in a classic single family home, it would be the garage that you know. >> Got it. >> You have the driveway, the garage, that that's the kind of the front entry.
That's the front facade. And um in some cases, we had corner lots where that was a challenge for people to meet that on the side, >> especially when you have addresses on streets versus avenues that are messed up, which we've talked about before. So, um the front doesn't always mean the front on those corners on those corners.
Um okay, that that was my only question. I just wanted to know where that if it was how arbitrary that number was, >> right? No, that's a safety thing or something else. It's been in code for a while and I think it kind of the new homes coming in would be then more consistent with the the homes that exist in Newport at least that were built
under that code. >> So I just want to talk really quick. A public hearing was noticed but uh we haven't gotten anything uh from the public. No comments or anything like that. No questions. >> Okay. >> Uh we do have an example motion that would recommend city council approval. Uh but I would recommend that you hear
from the builder before opening that public hearing. >> You can do that. Do you want to come up and speak? Anybody have any questions for the city staff before they speak? No. Okay. >> Name and where you're from, please? >> Of course. Um, thank you, uh, Mr. Chair
and members of the commission. I'm Dean Lauder. I'm the director of entitlement with uh, David Weekly Homes here in Minneapolis. And, um, I'm pleased to be before you tonight. So, a couple of comments that I'd like to make and then
um Nate is going to assist me, I think, in navigating through the PowerPoint presentation for you. But, um I started about two and a half months ago with David Weekly Homes. I I have about uh six years of experience doing entitlement work uh with National Home
Builders, but um I didn't arrive in time to maybe fully uh evaluate the city standard. And so we could have could have probably talked about this when the application was moving forward. So if you're wondering, you know, why are we here now? You know,
how did this go through? Uh and why are we here now? Um you know, we were our office was in the process of actually filling staffing positions that were vacant and and it was just a timing issue more than anything. But one of the things uh Mr. Chair, if you'll allow me
to uh is I'd like to introduce you just to the company, uh David Weekly Homes first. We could talk a little bit about um our homes also and then kind of go into uh the explanation of >> So yeah, I think we'll hear some of
that, but we did already hear quite a bit of that the first time around. So >> Okay. All right. >> Just to keep everybody's time in mind. Yeah, that would be great. >> Yeah, thank you. I appreciate that. Um >> there we go. Sorry. >> That's okay. >> Yeah. So, let's move past the agenda
there. Um, so that if we could go back to that first slide maybe, uh, building dreams, enhancing lives is what David Weekley's motto is. That's a shot of the courtyard at our headquarters in Houston, Texas. The priorities of the company are the team, our customers, and our community that we live in. Uh, David
Weekley formed the company 50 years ago and uh, quickly got involved with uh, charitable giving. So there's a charitable giving element to our company that uh very much distinguishes us from other uh home builders. Next slide please. We are in 19 markets in 13
states. So we are national uh and and we are growing um but we are definitely one of the uh smaller volume builders for homes in in the nation at this time. So, this is a little bit of dated
information, but um you know, in 24 we closed 6,000 homes. When you compare that to other national home builders, that is they're larger by a factor of 10. uh you know, our our uh focus, if you will, is building
really good quality homes so that people have a great place to experience their lives, but also uh do it in a way that's more relational than transactional. Um, one of the things that may seem a little uh unique and uh hopefully not too
braggadocious is when you when you close with a David Weekly home, 30 days after that, you're going to get a survey. The the question that we really focus on is would you definitely recommend us to a family or friend? And it's on a scale of one to five. A five is five. Four 3 2 1
are all considered zero. So if you don't get a five, we got a zero. And so to say that 94% of our customers in 24 ranked basically us a five is uh I think saying a lot with regards to the experience
that we try to um make sure our customers experience. And we also as I mentioned are a charitable company. In 24 we gave $51 million alone through our Dovetail Foundation. And I'll just talk about that in the next slide a little bit.
David Weekly Homes ownership is structured in thirds. So the Weekly family still owns a third of the company. Um a third of the company is owned by the employees and a third of the company is owned by charitable uh trusts called the Dovetail
Foundation. And uh we make donations to Habitat for Humanity, to local food shelves. Uh Mr. Weekly himself has gone to Africa to dig drinking wells and villages and things of that nature. So, it's local, statewide, national, as well
as international. And we give a third of every dollar we make every year away. We also do a lot of great things locally. Here's a couple pictures of my team, my new team, uh, donating their time and efforts. I've already got three
different dates on my calendar where uh we'll be packing backpacks for kids that need school supplies or helping out with food shelves, uh things of that nature. Um, next slide, please. And of course, the Dovetail Impact
Foundation. This is what I was talking about as far as having an international footprint. When you look at the map of the globe, everything kind of in that lighter blue represents areas that have received uh donations from our comp company.
So, let's talk about the homes briefly. So, here's an overview slide and then uh Mr. Chair, just in keeping with uh your respect for time, I'll probably move through the other slides a little quickly because they draw down on each individual home. But what I'd
really like to kind of get to is the PUD amendment. So the homes will range in size from 2155 square feet to 45 over 4500 square feet, 3 to six bedrooms, 2 to five bathrooms there. A lot of the floor
plans even have a half bath option. Um 3 to four garage stall homes and uh base price will range from 640 to about 800,000. The home that you're looking at there, that's what we call the Lotus. uh
obviously the four stall garage version of that home. There's uh various options on that house that make it unique and very interesting. One is uh having a half court basketball court in the basement of the house. If we want to move through. So here is
the Bramley. Uh all of these homes can be built as three or four garage stall homes. This one of course is without a second level to it. Um then you have the Lotus as we talked about. the cane
the acryerly putman >> and one thing that I'll even draw you towards if we could go back a slide your eye towards um when our architectural group is looking at our home designs um
they want things they want interesting features to the homes you'll notice the gabling which are the the triangular points uh there's multiple gables throughout the facade. You have uh you know louvered um design features and you
also have a combination of three different design elements. You have stone uh on the one that's in the lower left. You've got lap and you've got shake siding. And uh we will be um doing stone and
hardy border LP on the full facades of all these homes. So, we'll be meeting staff's recommendation in that respect. The gates, we can keep moving through these. And we will have about 19 different color packages that buyers can choose
from. Uh we have a pretty stringent monotony code. Uh so that you're not seeing, you know, the same house, same coloration, same siding all built next to each other. There will be a lot of diversification um throughout the neighborhood.
So, as uh city staff mentioned, the 15% minimum glazing requirement is uh a little bit difficult to meet with the surface area that we have on the uh front-facing facades of these homes. Smaller square footage homes, as city staff stated, would probably have an
easier time uh meeting that 15% requirement. Uh we are building these homes currently in a neighborhood called Rush Hollow in Maple Grove. And uh what we're experiencing there is that uh buyers of those homes are choosing to
put glass in that upper row of the garage door about a third of the time. Twothirds of our buyers prefer their privacy and prefer not to put glazing in the garage. And um I'm not going to suggest to you that it's an issue of
cost because it it isn't. It's an issue of preference of the buyer and an issue of privacy. Next slide, please. Uh so this was one of the uh designs that I believe city staff uh well maybe it was the other one that was shown but
um here you have couple of uh different elevations that would be at 9 to 10% uh glazing on the front and another reason here you have more surface area with the garage doors but you also don't have a second level on this particular design
you would have a full basement on this home Um, and it can be a three or four uh style garage, but you know, really what we're looking for is all of our homes can meet the 10% average glazing if you consider all sides of the home.
Uh but if if you were to impose a minimum of 10% on the just the front elevation itself, that will eliminate some of our floor floor plans, which we would prefer not happen also because we want to make sure we keep that housing diversity of different home plans. And
the more plans available, the better off we are. Um and here's the Degan, um which again ranges from 12 to 13% glazing. So it's very close actually to the city's
requirement. Um but again it's challenged to meet it. And even here with with both photos maybe just the architectural uh facade in the upper right hand corner you get a be better feel of like the architectural treatments that are already existing
there. Uh whether there's um enough glazing or not. uh window placement is actually extremely important to David Weekley and our architectural team. So, there's a lot of thought that's put in to placement of the windows, doors, and
um the views, especially when you walk in the entrance of our homes and what you're able to see as you leave the foyer and look through the windows, say in the living room, there may be a sitting room off to the side and the open uh concept designs that we experience with our homes.
We're a reputable builder. Uh Newport will be our first east metro location. So we're mostly in the northwest and uh the south southwest. Um we're excited to be here. Uh we think
this is a great project site. We we work with Summergate Development and we will continue to work with them in the future as we um buy finished lots which is what this project would be called from our perspective. We compete with regional more customized home builders uh but we
distinguish ourselves from the publicly traded home builders. Keep in mind we're a privately held company by virtue of our designs and how we treat our customers. There is a a strong emphasis on that relational aspect to the home
building process. Our sales staff are even taught that after visiting with a prospective customer, if one of our homes isn't going to meet their needs, they can they're supposed to point out other developments that
would meet their needs. The focus is the customer and making sure the customer is happy. So the PUB amendment uh that's requested again is that um we we have grace on that 15% requirement on the front facade. Depending on our floor plan,
we're between 8 to 14% glazing on just the front, but we do meet a 10% averaging around all sides. And it's just challenging with that larger facade. Um, I would also ask that should the the commission find
themselves in a position to recommend approval that they would also consider alleviating us from the requirement to put windows in the top portion of the garage. Um, we would prefer to keep that as a buyer option. There will be, you
know, like I said, probably about a third that will choose to do that. Um, but twothirds will probably choose not to. So having said that, I would stand for questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Any questions?
>> I have questions for staff. So go ahead and ask >> question. You said that um that some of the floor plans would be eliminated um by how how many floor plans would would be eliminated by um having to meet this requirement?
>> 10%. >> It would be Yeah, it would be Um, for sure one for stall garage plan uh with all of its elevations would be
eliminated. A second one, so I would lose two floor plans with their two two homes altogether with their elevations. >> Okay, thank you. >> I'm sorry, three. I'm sorry, three. Okay.
>> And my question folds into that for staff. But thank you for all your information very much. Thanks for coming and talking with us. >> Staff, >> I have another question. >> Oh, go ahead. Sorry. I'm so sorry. You put your hand up. I'm so sorry. >> Um, you said that the the garage windows
are an option for buyers. Do you have other options available that would include more glazing on the front of the house? >> No, we we wouldn't. It would be the garage door. That would be the option. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Sorry about that everybody. Thank you.
>> Um staff. So my question is is so to Maria's question about the if it eliminates certain trims, right? Trim levels of homes models, right? Does that then change how many lots can be used due to them not having or they're too
large or there there's too many large homes up there because they can't have the smaller ones because they can't meet the windows? That kind of thing. I just want to make sure there's not some cascading effect by this because what I heard when we talked earlier was it was 10%. That's what we were setting. What he's looking for is 10% average around
the whole house. >> Correct. >> So that not just the front whereas my understanding of what staff's recommendation was is 10% on the front. >> Yeah. >> So that I don't know how those two things can be true at the same time. So yes, to answer your question, um all of
the lots would remain buildable, but as the builder indicated, they would have fewer options for customers to to to use uh within with the floor plans that are available. >> I just thought if they were all the biggest home, could you still fit that many homes? That's that was my question was. But >> so it looks like the and there is also
one of the units that they indicated having a hard time even meeting the 10% of the front was the smaller one and it was a ramper, >> which is what I was thinking. if they're all big and we still fit the same amount of, >> you know, lots. >> So, does that make sense? >> Yeah. So, I think yeah, that that's kind
of up up for the planning commission to really just consider and staff wanted to kind of start with one set of recommendations, but you know, certainly. >> So, 10 for explain this to us just because I'm trying to grasp my put my head around it. 10% on all surfaces average. >> Yep. >> Versus 10% on the front.
>> Correct. >> What is the biggest difference with that? So often um new homes, especially new homes, will have fewer windows on the sides. >> Correct. So >> because they are usually close, >> more windows are typically concentrated on the front or the back of the home.
>> Okay. >> Um well, while we don't necessarily see the the ones on back of most homes, right? >> Um that is one area where they can, you know, basically comply with that requirement >> if we're using an average. >> If we're using an average. And so what David Weekley has communicated is that
they can meet the the 10% average. It will still definitely involve windows on the front facades, but in some cases in probably a limited set of their models, they wouldn't be at 10%. >> And does the city see any adverse side effects from granting this for this
development for future developments that come and ask us the exact same question? that that is a very a very good question. I think uh what the builders also communicated is that they're using what we would consider to be like a higher standard of building material on the homes. And so um that's I I kind of
see that as a little bit of this give and take in in this process of you know they're they're proposing materials that are traditionally longerlasting, a little bit more durable. Uh that could be seen as sort of a a way to kind of meet the intent of meeting some sort of
design. Um I think if we go back to the reason that we have a window requirement, it's a little bit um it's a little bit simpler to apply across the whole city. >> Well, and this is a PUD, right? So each one needs to be needs to be
>> it has its own circumstances. So it's not casting a shadow. I just am saying >> once you give somebody an option, >> others then can put that in their toolbox. And I just want to make sure we don't put ourselves in a hard spot >> by granting something like that. So, just to just to give you a hypothetical scenario, if someone were to come in to
build a new home on a different lot elsewhere in the city, um you know, and and they were saying, "Hey, up in East Ridge, they they get 8% on this one on this one home." >> Somebody's going to do that. Let's be quite honest. Somebody's going to walk in and say that to Joe. So, that's why
I'm asking the question. >> Staff would uh staff would communicate to them that, you know, East Ridge went through a whole planned unit development process. there was definitely you know that the PUD review was was definitely a part of that uh particular development. So >> okay >> that would be the I don't know if Joe
>> yeah chair and commissioners I think additionally if you look at the site um this is one of our last >> uh you know undeveloped portions I mean there were I think >> three properties there so uh it's very it's a very unique setting. So, I think,
you know, circumstantially it's very different. It's nuanced. We want uh frankly the highest value homes we can get on this site because it's so nice. And I think, you know, frankly, having maybe more windows, if you look at the average, I think it's maybe going to encourage some things cuz maybe more
windows will be to the back and then they'll have the beautiful views, which is really going to be uh, you know, a selling point for this site. It's it's quite unique. So, I think there's big differences. I mean, and if you look at, you know, what's potentially coming down the pipeline, there's really only I
mean, there are some potential, but it would be a complete redevelopment uh where we have some very large parcels that are uh single family homes, but it would be very different to this. So, >> okay, sounds good.
>> Again, some foreshadowing there. Just don't want us to put ourselves in a bad spot. Um, any other questions? Otherwise, we'll open the public hearing if you guys are good with that. Okay. So, we'll open the public hearing at 6:02.
Just give it a minute. I know there's tons of people. All right, we're going to close the public hearing since nobody's got anything to say at 603. Okay, any other discussion? I think I'm
overall okay with the 10% average due to the uniqueness of the site. And to Joe's point, we do not have any other places that we're going to be building 10 homes at a time. I can be honest, I don't know of any other spots unless some some North Pole sells or something crazy else
happens. Um I don't know with staff's recommendation of 10%. I don't know if that that locks them in so that they would lose three models uh or three versions trim platforms. Now, I do know I wouldn't want to be the person that
owns the Acurly next to a Deacon or a Putin, right? Because I'm going to feel very tiny. Um but uh I I can kind of see where I wouldn't want windows on the top of my I do have windows on the top of my garage, but
it's purely a light thing. And when it shuts, curtains drop. They're weighted. And so I only open them when I'm in there and I need the door shut. So like the winter. Um but if it wasn't like that and I had to use lights, there's a certain amount of privacy with that. I
don't want people, you know, peeking in at night. That would be terrifying at night to have a head popping into that window. Um so I don't know. Uh thoughts. I think I'm okay with the 10% average. I'm also okay with allowing the homeowner to be the
the judge and jury on whether they want to have the glass on the top of their garage, you know, purchase option versus the city saying it has to be that way. Uh I wouldn't like that if I was a purchaser. Um you're buying a home, you should get
to have what kind of garage door you want. Um, and the 50% that is something it are they already meeting that? Okay. So, the 50% is not technically something we would have to put in here, but we could put it in here as a stipulation. >> Well, they're proposing right now the
homes are there. They they're saying that the homes are are going to meet that, and I trust that that they will, but I think it will this. >> Yes. Okay. So, I say we strike A and C and we go to an average of 10%. So make a you know a a c essentially
changes above grade must comprise at least of an average of 10%. >> So but we strike I believe we strike a >> um just a clarifying question um the the glazing requirement it's strictly like for uniformity right of the neighborhood
or is there another >> reason why? It's it's kind of a the reason that it's really one of the primary standards for single family homes is that it it does a lot as one particular standard. So, and it's a little bit more easy to apply across the
board. And so, if you some communities choose to require certain building materials, I don't think Newport's probably interested in in that or at least we didn't hear that there was any interest when we were talking about design standards. But the the window area um kind of helps create kind of
engaging and interesting building fronts. And I think that's probably the main reason you would include the the window requirement, not necessarily to you know give people a certain product, but really to create, you know, a nice neighborhood feel. And so the East Ridge
Heights PUB has been planned that way already. There it is a you know more uniform neighborhood. So, um, that might be, you know, justification that the the planning commission could could reasonably find. >> Only place that has a 0% is Transylvania.
>> Um, so if that's all the discussion, I think we all agree. So, we will take away A, we'll include B, and we'll change C to be an average instead of just the at least 10.
Um do you do you want to put up the um >> Yep. >> So you'll >> So So we'll do this and then switch back. >> Yep. So yeah. So the commission if you're going to make a motion, I would recommend that you make that based on the modified conditions. >> Yep. So did do you want me to go through
the modified or you guys got them? I can we can go we can go through them. It's fine. >> Yep. So, I'd look for a mo. Well, let's just I'll move to recommend the city council approval of Does that work for you guys or no? Yes. Or does it need to be somebody? Okay. I'll move
>> chair. You may manage your meeting how you see fit. Chair, >> I just I'll move to recommend the city council approve the amendment to the POD request subject to the findings and conditions of approval recommended by staff with the planning commission's adjustments. >> You want to go back to the other screen
quick? >> Yep. Our adjustments are we're going to strike A. We no longer ask them to require a row of windows near the top of the garage door. We're going to include B in its entirety. At least 50% of the front facade of the
building consists of brick, stone, and engineered wood of fiber cement siding materials similar as LP smart side and Hardy board and or window glazing. I'm going to manage it however I want, you said. and C, we're going to adjust and make
sure that that says an average of 10% of the total area of all exterior walls, including the front facade. >> I've made the motion. Does somebody want to second my motion? >> I second that motion. >> Okay, we have a motion and a second. All
those that that agree or approve say I >> I. All those opposed, motion carries. Do you need anything else from us on that? >> Nope. So the next step here is to bring this uh amendment through to the city council for their for their review. So thanks for the recommendations.
>> And to be very clear, these are the only things that we're changing. This is an amendment to a PUD that was already discussed already on I want to make it very clear. >> Correct. >> Uh that it was already discussed and it was already litigated. So we are just changing a brief portion of it. >> Correct. Yep. So this is a very narrow
correct >> very narrow review. the project uh conditions will be modified very quickly >> for audience members at home to understand that. >> Oh, six of them. >> So, we uh do you guys have anything else you want to talk about? Otherwise, I'll close it down. All right, we will we will close the planning commission meet.
Oh, yes. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Thank you. >> Can I get a second? >> Second that. >> I have two motions to adjurnn. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed. Mo uh adjourned at 608.