at 5:31. Call the roll. Commissioner Kermies here. Commissioner Fueling here. Commissioner McMood here. Commissioner Bonia here. Chair Lighty
here. Thank you. Um Did everybody have a chance to look at the meeting minutes from the last meeting? Yes. Any substance changes? None here. If not, I'll make a motion. Motion to approve last uh month's minutes.
Got a motion. Can I have a second? I'll second that. We have two motions to approve last meeting's minutes. All those in favor say I. Those opposed. Minutes are approved. Okay. Okay, we'll move on to the line item for this evening's meeting, the public hearing
for summergate concept plan. Thank you, chair. Um, and good evening, chairs, chair, and members of the commission. So, I'm just going to get this PowerPoint going here. You should see it on your screen. So, we've got a concept plan uh for a PUD that was that's been submitted by
Summergate Development, and we're going to talk about that this evening. the public hearing notice that everyone uh may have received surrounding this uh site uh would be about that that project. So the on the screen is the subject property or
properties rather that this project would uh be on. So you'll note that there's a collection of different parcels. Uh some of them have an address and even residences and and some of them are unadressed um properties. A couple of the properties actually go out into
the Mindot U rightway corridor. So that's just kind of a kind of a unique um circumstance here with some old platted lots. So as an overview, I noted that there's a a bunch of or a collection of
different parcels involved. You can see those parcel IDs on the screen. Um, for the most part, the zoning here uh is residential estate and the future land use uh designation from the city's comprehensive plan is mixed residential.
So, we'll talk about what that means here as we move into the review. Uh, the site area for this subject property is roughly 46 acres. Um, you'll note that if you've looked at any aerials or read the report, there's pretty considerable
amount of bluffs on this lot or in this area. And so, uh, not all of that land is developable. We're looking at about 29 developable acres as, um, as calculated by the developer. So, uh, we've got 71 single family residential
units proposed in this project. Um it is noted that there there are some um lots that could be or there's one particular lot that we'll look at that might be retained, but if it were uh subdivided as part of this development, there would be a total of 75 units in the project.
So with with the 71 units using that as our as our number, uh we're looking at about 2.4 units an acre proposed. And we're going to talk about that as well and um how that does or doesn't meet the city's ordinance. Without further ado though, here's the
site plan that was uh submitted by Summergate. And this was in the staff report and provided um online for everyone to take a look at. You'll see those 71 units um are all detached single family units that are along the roadways here. Um within this subject
area, there's two roadway connections we'll talk about. uh one to Sterling Street on the northeast side of the project and one roadway connection proposed down through the bluff uh to Hastings Avenue on the southwest side of the project.
We've got storm water ponds that are envisioned here uh this you know that would manage the required storm water um be a required storm water management feature in addition to uh several culde-sacs that we'll talk about. So what is uh what is the purpose of
this concept plan review? So the city's concept plan process is required by ordinance for PUDS. Um this really is to provide non-binding feedback to developers as the city as you all know. It's really so just important to remember that it's advisory but it's an important part of the process where we
provide good feedback to the developer um in in the form of comments or the staff report. All right. So um first I'll start with talking about the land use guidance that I uh mentioned earlier. So uh there's two things that we're looking at for
land use. The one is the city's comprehensive plan. So we look at the future land use map from that. Uh the city's future land use map as I mentioned has this parcel or property I'll call it property guided for mixed residential which allows for um
residential from single family all the way up to apartment buildings. The city's future land use map uh and comprehensive plan guide the density in this area for between five and 20 units per acre which is significantly higher. It's you know the minimum five is double
what's proposed here in terms of density. So we'd be looking at a requirement for something um over 140 units if that were the case. So that's that's a significant amount of density that's envisioned here. Um, and we'll talk about
actually on the slide here, what what you can see on the top right, that's the map. That's the future land use map from the comp plan. Um, and what would be envisioned here if we were to move forward with a proposal like the one that we're looking at this evening is we probably we we would actually have to
reguide this subject property with a different category, one that allows for lower density such as what's proposed. So we're looking right now the best corresponding category to categorize this area would be low density
residential. U low density residential as a category allows for a minimum of three units per acre. So we're at 2.4 in this proposal. Uh the comp plan requires five.
We have something on the books already that would allow for three units per acre. Uh so how do we make up the difference between 2.4 and three? Um the answer is that we can look at having the developer re-evaluate how much of the land is actually
developable within the development. So that's one thing just to see because we can there's it's this it's kind of complicated but effectively if it's an unbuildable area we can net that out. So the areas that are encumbered by bluff and woodlands that are preserved by the
ordinance we can net out. So, we would look at that first. Um, if that doesn't get us all the way up to three units per acre, then we're looking at maybe having to have higher density in this development. What that really means is maybe we have uh some smaller lots
potentially the developer looks at attached units like twin homes or something of that nature. It's really, you know, up to the developer to meet that minimum threshold of three. Uh, but that would be what the city has on the books. The other option uh aside from amending the actual development plan to mean three units per
acre is to consider reducing the floor in the low density category to allow for this level of density. So for example, the city could consider lowering that from three to let's say 2.75
or 2.5. There's implications to that citywide that we would have to talk about, but that would be a second alternative or maybe there's a combination of the two that we can consider. So, that was a lot for me on the comp plan side of things. Um, I'll pause if you have any initial questions
of if not, I'll I'll keep moving. Oops, sorry. Go ahead. Shouldn't we know what the buildable space is if we're going to go as far as to send this to council? I mean, shouldn't we know that? Well, there's there is some review of that in the concept plan and you just have to remember that at this level of at this
stage in the game early on with sight specific data and my concern right is that we would do something like a PUD for a certain amount and then all of a sudden the developer is now going to stick a 100 more units up there because our zoning
says they would have to based on acreage. So that's that's a that's just a thought that I have. Is this premature to not putting that zoning in place and knowing the buildable acres up there? I don't think this is premature. The goal of this process is to just provide feedback. And so this is the developer
can speak to their to what they've done in terms of due diligence on the site. I know they've reviewed a number of different scenarios for development. This is the lowest density one that I've seen from them. Um, we've heard we've heard some conversations with council and commission before about wanting a a
variety of housing types in the community. This is one housing type that uh, frankly, we haven't really seen um, recently in terms of the law areas. They're actually a little bigger than some of those that we've reviewed previously. So, I think it's fair to to have this submitted and talk about uh,
what it would mean to amend the comp plan. There there definitely can be an account plan amendment uh that takes place to allow this and we have already met with the Met Council uh sector rep to really understand um if we do an an amendment like this one. What
implications does that have for us? We're on the same page. Um we would not go um basically below the thresholds that we have to be at as a suburban community in their eyes. So what's the threshold? It's um changing in the next comp plan cycle. it'll be seven units per acre
citywide. So, we will still be meeting that if we do consider something like this, but before we ever, you know, consider this, it was important to get a concept in front of the community's uh planning commission and city council. So, um question,
uh what is residential estate minimum? That's three acres per property. Yeah. So, residential estate, you're you're jumping ahead to zoning. So that that zoning district does have a pretty large minimum. There is an important caveat though uh for lots in the city
that have sewer service. So if a lot has a connection to city sewer or water um public utilities, then the lot area minimums are the same as the R1 district. So they're basically urban. Okay. I don't know if that necessarily answers
your question in the way that you're asking it, but that's what we have on the books. And then I guess I'd like to see a map of uh if we change the density, what else is going to be affected in the city? Yep. And that's a that's a good question
and one that we should um we definitely can can u provide information on if we get to that that stage. I think you know we're pretty early in this development uh very early. It's concept plan stage. So this is the opportunity we have to kind of talk about some of those what
those concerns might look like. So, um, if there's no other questions, I'll keep things moving. So, uh, yeah, just to summarize what we've talked about here, um, the the proposal doesn't necessarily meet what we have on the books in the comp plan, but the city has options should it want
to move forward, we can have the developer meet a minimum of three units per acre when they come forward with their future amendment, or we can consider amending that category, the low density residential. Uh and then there will with this development also be a corresponding zoning that would change
with the comp plan amendment as well. We'll be looking at the R1 single family low lowdensity single family district for the future zoning. To complicate things, we have a um bluffland area overlay. This is part of
our zoning ordinance. So in the areas of Newport that have those bluffs and steep slopes, we have an additional kind of set of protections for the bluff lands. Uh really the idea here is to help preserve these bluffs and make make sure that they remain stable. Uh the primary
way that this is done is through a setback minimum structure setback from the top of bluff. Um on the slide I actually have a setback that's more strict than what we have in the city's ordinance. This is actually from the watershed. So their rule is more strict than us. It's 30 ft. So that is our uh
minimum setback from the top of the bluff. Uh we did a considerable amount of review in the recent cherrywood project that's now um actually into their construction phase. And um with that bluff review, we um did a variety
of different you reviewed it from a variety of different perspectives we can talk about if you have questions. Uh there are also in the bluffland area limits on vegetation removal and veget vegetation management requirements. So we will be looking at those types of things as we get more details in future
submittals. Um we in the staff report provided an analysis of the city's bulk standards. These are the things like minimum lot area and setbacks in the R1 district which would be the zoning for this project. um what the developer is proposing
generally speaking does meet the city's standards for for single family units in the R1. So 7,800 foot lots, 60 foot minimum width, a depth u of 130 ft, but we're estimating that's meeting as well.
The one area that u does not seem to meet the city's ordinance is the sideyard setbacks. Currently the the developer is proposing uh five feet setbacks from the building to the property boundary uh where the city's ordinance has 10 feet. So that would be
the only flexibility that as far as we can see based on the information in the submitt that would be the only flexibility they're requesting. Okay. So uh we looked at a number of other things that I'll kind of go through a little bit more quickly here and get to those questions that you may
have. not not trying to bore you. So, building design uh we have pretty I think limited design standards for this type of unit in the city's code. Uh really the the primary restriction for design is on building materials um where we have allowed materials and materials
that are not allowed. So very wide list of those that are allowed. It includes wood siding, lab siding uh with wood appearance, vinyl, brick, stone. You you kind of get the idea. I will mention to you that right now the city has design standards that are currently under
review. We are we are um ongoing with the ordinance update that the commission is going to be actually at a meeting to discuss tomorrow. So uh we'll be talking about design standards continuing to move forward in into um into the fall.
Uh parking so parking standards are also relatively straightforward. Two parking stalls are required per dwelling unit. I don't see any reason that this project couldn't meet the city's parking standards. We haven't seen any buildings or anything like that on the site, but um they they should be able to meet the
requirements. Landscaping. So again, we'll we'll look at this stuff as we get further into the review. There are landscaping requirements and tree preservation requirements in this area. One thing that we did talk about uh more during the review and I think some of
the maybe the most important comments are on access and circulation. So as I mentioned there's two points of access for this project. Uh that's requirement in in in in the city's ordinance or policy because we need some
duplicative access. If one access were to ever be restricted for whatever reason, you would have another access. So that's an important thing from an emergency standpoint. So, we need two access points. We have an obvious one with Sterling Street, but Bailey Road is a corridor that cannot be accessed by
this development because of county restrictions on access spacing. So, uh with the access on Sterling, uh that requires the developer to look elsewhere for an additional point of access. And so, the nearest one is actually Hastings
Avenue. Um that's complicated. As you can see, there's some bluff area and elevation that would be um maybe challenging to get through, but the city engineering team a while back did take a look at how access could be worked through that bluff area and uh has done
some pretty preliminary review, but it seems like it could be feasible. And so, uh the developer is showing uh the access in that location. That was kind of pre-reviewed by the city's engineer. And that would be that second point of access uh which is important.
Uh, another thing to note here is that, as you can see, there's local roads shown in this development. These would be city streets. There's four different culde-sacs that are shown here. Uh, I think maybe the most important city staff comment is just that we don't recommend whatever, however this gets
revised in the future, we don't recommend that we end up with four culde-sacs. That's a lot. um specifically for the public works team as they you know um plow in the winter having uh four different culde-sacs just creates a maintenance challenge and so
we were able to successfully get a loop road in the Cherrywood development I think something of that nature uh may be reasonable here as well so um I would say that that that's maybe the one area that this concept should really be re-evaluated u for in terms of the
design there is also a shared private drive on the south side of this uh proposed development. The southernmost uh units here on the on the screen and on the project are on what appears to be a private drive. Um those having a a a
single family lot fronting a nonpublic street would be a thing that would require flexibility from code. So that is potentially one concern. But really, the the primary issue is just that um long-term maintenance and access can be a challenge when we've got private
drives where people have private arrangements to get to the public street. So, that's something that should be considered throughout the review and could be a point of uh conversation. So, the city wouldn't maintain that. That would be a private drive, not maintained by the city. So, you you would imagine if this were to be
approved, you you'd need access um easements and agreements between these private property owners. And um sometimes that works fine and sometimes people don't get along and so that that's where the challenges can come up. So I just wanted to share an aerial.
This is the just intended to be a point of reference for us if there's any conversation here. U the Bailey Road corridor has lots of different access points. So uh you can see why the county would restrict access in this area. Also want to mention trails. So the city
recently cons completed its trail master plan and that plan did include a trail search corridor through this area. I think importantly the search corridor was intended to provide access between the Bailey road trail which is a really I think well-liked um trail corridor.
You know providing some connection between that and the city's MX1 or the downtown area is is really the purpose there. So that's the reason the trail search corridor was shown in this plan and something that we should be considerate of. Ultimately, uh we might want to see a trail included through
this project maybe just along the road uh to create that connection. Parkland dedication. So um this development is pretty close to an existing park, but you know development developments do create a demand on the city's park system. So,
uh, we'd be looking potentially at cash in lil of parkland dedication, especially considering that a lot of this development is is bluff bluff land. So, the the nearest park to this area is the Bailey School Forest Park, uh, where there could potentially be some pretty
good trail connectivity in the future. I've talked about a lot of the important comments here that we've gotten from the city's engineer team. Um, one of the other comments I just want to voice is that B16, B618 curb, which is just the standard kind of curb that you envision when you think about a city curb. Uh,
that should be provided throughout the development, particularly in the areas where the road is is is in a steep area to help control storm water and prevent um issues with people leaving the road or other things. So, I've talked about the other two. The other two comments here are culde-sacs
and the private drive. Uh the city does have goals that the city code identifies for PUDS. Um generally speaking here they're up on the screen they're in the report. The project has to be um meeting the goals of the city's comp plan. You know
encouraging a creative form of development and things uh things of that nature. So I won't belabor this any further and we can talk about it if you have questions. This development does appear to meet the minimum requirements for PUDS as well. I
just want to mention that uh here again is the concept plan. Um as you remember this is just an advisory conversation just providing feedback to the developer. Uh to that end I do have some prompts for discussion questions if we need any help but I'm sure that
you've got questions and things that you'd like to discuss. So we can use this as a reference. Um, just a note, this is a public hearing. So, we have a public hearing notice that was posted. We'll have to have that this evening. Um, and we also have the developer here to give you a presentation as well. So,
I think we should have the presentation first. Yep. Um, do we have any questions for the developer for the presentation or do we want to wait till after? After. After. Do you have any questions for me before we have the developer? We can wait. I think those can wait. All right. developer
want to come up and introduce yourself, where you're from, and present, please. Thank you. Thank you, chair and commissioners. I was encouraged to be brief, so I will try to do my best to comply with that uh that expectation. So, I'm Brian Tucker
with Summergate. We're a residential land developer out of Lakeville. We've developed many residential projects throughout the Twin Cities over the years. uh most recently in Cottageg Grove, Shakpi, Victoria, and Lakeville among others. Um with me is Ryan Bloom
from Westwood. He's our project engineer on this uh project and has been helping us look at uh how to design something that might make sense on this property. Um we obviously this is a unique site. Um Mr. first has already uh described a
lot of the characteristics. So I won't go into that too much other than to say you know it's a very visible location has a lot of great attributes but those attributes are the same ones that create difficulties in developing just because of steep slopes heavily wooded limited
access points and those type of things. Uh we've been working with the three land owners over the past year. uh they've been very gracious as we've marched around the property doing soil borings and and uh surveying and all the other things we have to do as far as due diligence to get to this point. Uh and I
think a lot of them are in attendance tonight. Um and then as you're aware, the city has an adjacent public works facility to the southeast of this site and um I understand that there's been there's a number of different uses that occur on
that property. Uh, so we do have a few site photos that I'll have Nathan scroll through here. Um, taken from the air, obviously the bluff is the predominant feature of the site. Uh, you've got some really great views and um, it's a highly
desirable area just from a location standpoint. Uh, at the early direction of staff, we started working on that site plan and the first discussion as mentioned earlier was that second access point to Hastings. Uh what you see there
is um from a a quick review technically feasible. I will tell you that the slope that uh would be generated by building that road would be very non-traditional. Probably something that you don't have much of in town. Um so we'd have to certainly have those discussions with
city staff moving forward uh because that's a challenging connection. But we understand the need for two access points and the limitations that the county would have on pulling anything off of uh off of Bailey. Hang on one sec. Nathan, can I ask you a question real quick just so I can center
myself in this map? Is this lower this parking lot in the lower lefthand corner? Is that the Pioneer Cemetery parking lot? Correct. Okay. I just wanted to make sure I knew. Okay. Go ahead. Uh so when we first started looking at this site, we understood what the kind of guiding density was and
we've been marketing it to a a network of builders and developers that we work with as well as posting it on some of the standard sites, commercial sites uh for marketing properties. So we've had a lot of dialogue with a lot of different potential builders. Uh essentially what
we're finding out is that uh while it's in a good location, there are some attributes to the site that make high density like apartments not as desirable. One is limit limiting access. Uh two is uh not a lot of proximity of
commercial and service uses at least right in the neighborhood. Granted, that's coming at some point a little further uh west on or east on Bailey as we understand. Uh this is also property that given its location and its
designation is fairly expensive. So um town homes while we can ramp the density up with that kind of project, it also requires that we sell lots for town homes at a higher rate than really what the market could sustain. So that's haven't made a lot of headway with folks
that build those kind of units because it's just not has doesn't appear to be the right site. Um, so to this point, the most interest we've had and the traction that we've been able to gain is from single family home builders who like the amenities of the site. They like the location and
they see it as a an area for maybe some higherend homes uh with, you know, the the notable views and good access to the regional roadway system. Um the so the combination of the AC limited
access, the steep slope configuration of the property and the fact that we may be uh retaining that existing home in the middle of the site depending on the type of use uh that ends up moving forward. Uh it really limits kind of what we can lay out on this property from a general
road layout standpoint. So if you imagine that road connecting from Sterling down to Hastings, that road is more or less fixed in terms of, you know, where that would be. Uh if you envision other types of uses on this
site, just imagine um you know, an apartment or or town homes or something like that branching off of that roadway because yeah, again, not a lot of not a lot of flexibility in terms of of how we we put together a road network here. Um, from a
timing perspective, it's it would be our desire to try to proceed to preliminary plat design uh yet this year. Uh, looking for entitlements and city review sometime over the winter and ideally uh beginning uh construction in the spring. It's a small enough site where we could
do the infrastructure in one one phase and that would be our our expectation. Um, otherwise I think uh your planner did a good job of talking about all the mechanics of what's involved in terms of city review and approval processes and and requirements. So I won't uh belabor
those points. So that yeah real quick what's going on with that house in the middle there. If you if if you demolish it, you're going to put four across through the road, right? Yes. Our conversations with that property owner is that uh they would
stay given the right circumstances, namely if it was single family around there, they'd have more incentive to try to stay. Uh they've not ruled out, you know, going ahead and just having us uh take the house out. If the house is demolished, then we would it looks like
we could get four lots in its place. Um, but if we look at a a scenario like this, there is a potential that that home might stay there uh and be configured within that non-shaded area. Matt, quickly, would that property owner
be forced into city water that or no? Uh, maybe Joe can speak to the city's requirements for public utility connections. Yeah, once um water and sewer hypothetically are ran down that road, then the uh homeowner would be required to connect with two years.
So, so that's something for them to consider. I don't know who they are, but um Okay. I just I couldn't It's really hard to read that white print there, and I didn't know what the arrow was pointing to. So, when you said the house is staying, I figured that's what it meant, but Okay. Yes. Okay. I don't have any other questions.
Where will the water be brought in from? city water. Uh chair, commissioners, um there is a hub for water on Sterling and Bailey. Okay. Okay. There's a stub there. Also sewer.
Additionally, there's uh connections off of Hastings. Yeah. So, okay. I don't think I have any more questions for you. you guys.
Where's the power line located? Is that going up along that little Thanks for the power line? That's a great question, chair and commissioners. The power line easement runs along the southern extent of the project. So, you can see there's a dashed line. I I think that's part of the power power line ement in that area.
Yeah. And I think it shows up on one of those photos that I that I had. I took I took one from that Yeah. from that location. That's it. That's it. Yeah. So the lower right is taken from that parking lot and roughly shows where that road would have to connect up the slope and kind of
parallel or or cut under the the power lines. So how far away is the closest house to the power lines? Could scale that out, but it looks like it's probably 300 ft at least. Well, 300
feet to the property line and then whatever the separation is from the property line to the power lines. Do you have a target price for these houses? Um, not necessarily. The again the builders that have expressed interest are looking at what would be higher end.
So I would guess probably you know 650 700 and up. uh you guys know the market as as well as I do and you know that might be underelling it even but um again we haven't selected anyone in particular. We wanted to have this conversation with you all just to gauge
the temperature for a use of this type before we um get too much further in those negotiations. How would you limit culde-sacs? You would almost have to remove a bunch of units and have one straight road running through the middle of it. Um, appreciate
you commenting on that, chair. Uh, we, you know, I've I worked as a city planner for 20 plus years and I know that that's a typical desire from public works is to limit it to sex and I understand that on this site it kind of works against us in terms of, you know, if we're trying to keep the density and
the unit count up. It's hard to keep all those units and tie those together. But we will certainly investigate that because I understand the desire for that and there may be some potential. Um, but again, you're kind of constrained as you move through the site and it gets narrow
with this the bluff as it, you know, kind of undulates back and forth. But we will look at it because we understand staff's concerns. I don't have anything good. Mhm. Maybe.
Yeah, this guy. Oh, yeah. Not to not Okay. Thank you very much, Sarah, for your presentation. Thank you. Appreciate your appreciate your input. Anything else we want to discuss? Do we do you want to Yeah. So, uh, chair, members of the
commission, um, if you don't have any more questions for us as staff, we're happy to answer them whenever you have them, but I suggest you have a public hearing now. So, you have to make a motion for that. I I do have some questions for you just real quick. Um so we're dealing with the Met Council on
on how many units per acre we need and right now the minimum is five, but you said they're going to go up to seven. So yeah, and this is a separate conversation from this particular development. So the city has to update its comprehensive plan every 10 years.
We're looking at beginning that process relatively soon. Um the it's called it's going to be called Imagine 2050. So that's if you hear hear what it is, imagine 2050 is the name of this new planning process from the Met Council. Um the Met Council every time we have a
10-year update will update the policies that um inform these plans. The land use policy that the Met Council approved in February of this year increased the minimum citywide sewer density in Newport. The
whole city is generally sewered. So the citywide density in Newport is going from five to seven units per acre. So now h how Newport accomplishes that high level requirement is up to Newport. Uh generally speaking, communities can have
density located in in some certain areas of redevelopment and have lower density elsewhere. Um, and so I think Newport's in a really good place with how the how we've moved forward with previous developments. Looks like we're generally
in that eight units per acre already with some of the projects that have been approved. So, you know, in in reviewing this and talking with the Met Council, we're pretty comfortable that even if this were to be approved by the city in terms of lowering the density here, we still feel very confident that we can
still meet the requirements in the next planning cycle. So with excuse me so with all the apartments and things that we've been building correct that brings our upre throughout the whole city. Yep. And you're saying with these, what
was it? How many units going? 71. 71 units. That would not lower us below the seven. That if you want to look at the order of magnitude, I I did some rough back of napkin calculations. So take that with a grain of salt. But I was looking at, you know, 8.11 right now. If we do this,
it's like 8.0. So order of magnitude. It's not a huge change for the city looking at the existing density table that we've got. Okay. That's what I that's where my concern was that we weren't going to meet the seven if we're go ahead and start doing projects like this.
But we have enough of a buffer. Yes. To be able to do something like this. Yep. And so in the next planning cycle, of course, that's when we kind of like reset a little bit and, you know, look at it again. But right now, we're in good shape and we're still working under
the 2040 plan right now. Yeah, that was absolutely a concern that we had when we were looking at this. You know, it's always going to be a thing that we look at. So, in in in converting the zoning and changing the zoning, do any current then or future existing properties zone the
same get heartburn? Uh this changing the zoning would be only for the subject property. So, we would not be impacting touching the zoning itself. You're just moving its classification to a different zoning. So, we're just looking at this property. Yeah. With this development project, we're just
looking at the subject property and not um looking at changes for any any other property owner in the city. Okay. So, I understand the the reason of not wanting so many culde-sacs, but like the
builder said, with this, if you want some type of a loop road, you're going to lose a lot of houses. Yeah. chair and members of the commission. I think just to answer that, you know, it's definitely understood that topography is a challenge on this site. You know, uh it's it's really
unique that way. And so I think would like to have them explore reducing the culde-sac because it is a long-term maintenance issue for the city just being real. Uh but you know, I think that it's something that they should explore and let us know what they Heated concrete. I'm just kidding. Then
go plowing. That would be really expensive for the whole city. Um, okay. You good? Yes. Okay. We're going to open Oh, sorry. Go ahead. Three owners, three property owners right now are involved.
Well, if it's not in yellow, are they going to continue to own from Hastings up to the yellow and etc. Oh, if Okay. So, I think if I understand your question like what's who would own the land other than the yellow? Yep. So, in in a similar case with the Cherrywood development, very similar. we
had a development that had a lot of bluff land that was not, you know, part of the units. And so in that case, and I would think that we do the same thing here, the developer creates an outlot that remains owned by typically you'll
have an HOA that is for the development and they would be the entity that continues to own that outlaw. That's how it worked for. would be technically private property if it not yellow and a guy wanted to walk up there mushroom hunt, he would be offending something.
Is that you? Uh there might be mushrooms back there. Yeah. U so the fun. I'm just kidding. That's a fun question. That's a fun question. Um, so I think in the Cherrywood project, we have an HOA owned outlot and in that particular case, the
city did also require a um the a conservation easement that allowed public access in certain areas if okay, they were identified. There had to be a public trail in in whatever area that would be. So that's that's pretty detailed oriented kind of down the road
type discussion I would say. But um that's how we handled it in Cherrywood. Interesting. Good. I I guess open hearing and All right. My biggest concern I see right now is
traffic again. Yeah. With That's going to be tough. No doubt. Yeah. So, I'm going to go ahead and open up the public hearing. If you guys do have anything you'd like to say, please come up to the podium. Need a motion. Oh, sorry. A motion to open it. Oh, yes.
That I was just going to do that first and then open it. But we'll open the We'll open the public hearing at 610. If you guys do have anything to say, please come. Chair, we need a motion and a second. I move open. I second public hearing. We have We have two motions to open the public hearing.
Let's get out of here. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed. So, we will open the public hearing at 611. Um, if you have anything to say, please come up to the podium, state your name for the record, and make any comments
you would like. And your address and your address. Nope. Go ahead. Pauline shot Miller, 9710th Street here in Newport. I came with two comments and now after this I've I've got a few of
them. Um, the first one is just preaching to the choir because you've heard it all before and that's the traffic on Bailey and and I read the comments in the public hearing and and what I'm not seeing is that there's an acknowledgment that
all those cars coming down Bailey, the vast majority of them wind up at the bridge. And so in the morning, people on the west side of Newport when we want to make that lefthand turn onto the bridge,
we're waiting. Um there are the stop lightss up on the overpass, but uh it is pretty typical that there are so many cars lined up from the first group coming down that
uh the last car coming across is it's the first car in the second group is already there. So there isn't big breaks for Newport residents to get on the bridge. I know the county's working on a plan. I just wanted in the public
record that the plan has to encompass the bridge and and that issue. Um my second uh concern is that uh road coming down
to Hastings. um that road was proposed when there was the townhouse uh proposal before the the city. And I know that John Herdigan, our city engineer, kind of did a little bit
better than a back of the envelope uh estimate of what it would cost. Um, if I'm remembering correctly, on the north side of that road, there has there's going to be pretty extensive
uh retaining wall because of the um the grade. And at that time, which was what about eight years ago, nine years ago, it was comfortably up into the seven figures.
So my question is this, who's going to pay for it? Now, historically, developers have paid for new roads in their developments, but I'm seeing nothing in the paperwork here that addresses
uh when will the cost of the road be figured and when will there be a determination as to who's paying it for it? Is it going to be a developer? 100%.
Then I'm good. But if the city's going to get involved, then that's my property tax dollars. And I can I can guarantee you that there isn't anyone in Newport that's going to say, "Oh, sure. I'm willing, you know,
to have a raise in my property taxes so that a developer of luxury homes gets a break on building a road. And I don't know how much I have to underscore that,
but I just want you to know I am 100% opposed to the city paying any dollars for that road. Okay. And then I have a question on where on Hastings Avenue does it actually come down because
there's a cemetery in there, the apartment buildings in there. Where where does it touch down on Hastings? It looks right between the two. Right. Did didn't there used to be a road right there? There were houses in that area. Chair and commissioners, I'll just
remind you that public hearings aren't really a back and forth. If you would like to for me to answer that question. Go ahead. So, the Hastings corridor you can kind of see on the left side of the screen. Um, this this Hastings connection would
be on the very on the north side of the Wings site. on the north side of where the wings the Newport Commons property. Well, yeah, but that's a cemetery. There's a there's a city easement on that property. Looks like underneath the power lines kind of but Okay. So, we
Okay, so the underneath that's that's a really but that's really steep grade right now. Yep. Okay. Um, and then piggybacking on Mr. Ker's uh
question cuz back there I didn't hear a total answer. Is is this development going to be an HOA? So, do we're we're not going to go back and forth, but if you have anything you want to say about it, then go ahead
because is it going to be an HOA? We don't have that information. We don't have that. We have the information that you have and doesn't clearly say yes or no. Okay. So, let's So, I think I said I I heard Mike's question. I didn't really hear the complete answer. So, I'm going to ask it
again. the property that's not in yellow. I mean right now the 49 acres property taxes are being paid on and and now there's a development where you know some of the 40 you know 20 some
of those acres is going to be individually owned which leaves you know chair and some acres that aren't owned by an individual who pays the property taxes
on those on in the Brown who pays the property taxes on the Brown areas. We're hearing we're hearing concern for for stuff like that. Um we're just to answer this question and keep us moving. This is a detail that's not something that we really
um dis like we're really we're really not there yet in terms of how far we are in the development process. So I answer the question in terms of what the city's done before. We don't have information for the public right now on that. again very very early on. Um I would encourage
you to just take comments if there are comments. Um and we can always as staff be available for questions if there are any. And I would Pauline suffice it to say somebody will own all of that land and they will pay their taxes. So just to be clear.
Well, yeah. I mean you can't just not pay taxes on the property. So I just I thought Mike's question there was very valid and interesting. All right. Thank you. Thanks, Paul. Appreciate it. Anybody else want to come up and say
what's on their mind about this, please? Not Yeah, please just state your name and your address for me. My name is Chris Anen. I uh own the property just to the south of this one, Newport Commons. And I see that the the
entrance road onto Hastings Avenue looks like it's coming onto the easement, which is basically a reclaim of of our property and it's uh going right over our dog park. Um, so just was wondering if there's any
other options to access Hastings Avenue other than coming down that easement and cuz that loop right below there, that's our nice walking path that we have for all of our residents to walk around. It's kind of a park-like setting and
that road is going to screw that up pretty badly. Yeah. Chair and Commission, I'm going to be available after the meeting and happy to talk about that question. Absolutely. Okay. Yep. That sounds good. And the only other question that I had was uh um are there going to be any protections to assure
that the development won't turn into a some sort of a subsidized housing that uh may be different than a luxury housing kind of a development. Um I think staff can be around after the meeting for the question, but we we hear your comment for sure.
I don't I don't have anything in front of me that says no. Yes, this is super preliminary. So, I don't have anything that would point me in the direction, but they'll be around after to answer that for you. Sounds good. Thank you. Thank you. It open for a minute if anybody gets
courage. All right. Not seeing anybody come up. We'll go ahead and close the public hearing at 6:21. I have more questions. What do we got want to discuss? I just don't think that road is feasible.
I mean, that's a steep hill and Yeah. Yeah. Would it help on the Bailey traffic? Probably. Yeah. Something needs, but it's not going to because they're going to funnel right up Hastings right into Bailey. Well, they might go down and put more traffic in front of our businesses on Hastings, too.
But then they got to do the Yep. that nightmare of a clover leaf on there. I I think the road is one of those things that's really going to be a problem. I think it needs certainly two accesses, but that road
that's that that might be a killer if it was seven figures back when we looked at it before and now we're talking today's prices got to be more than seven. Yeah, that's what I mean. So, I think that that's going to cause quite the problem. I think they're also going to have a problem with the culde-sacs. It sounds like the property owners are
overall okay with what is being discussed which is a good thing. Um and Nathan you're saying that we couldn't have 30 or 20 3 to 5 acre estate houses up there in our
comprehensive plan. Yeah. So the current guidance under the comp plan is for mixed residential 5 to 20 units per acre. So when you look at that from that perspective, it precludes, you know, sewer development from having that density.
Yeah. You got to make the money back to pay for those homes would have to be 50 million bucks a piece. Well, that view up there is pretty cool. Oh, it is. You can see downtown St. Paul. You can see it all. Um, an untapped spot. I'm not saying that people wouldn't spend it, but you know, I understand as a developer, you need to get the return
on investment on it. So, well, it's going to be exciting to see what happens because want to go to the next one. Yeah. I can't uh I can't see it. So, I think we've talked about a lot of the questions that I had kind of posed in my report which are mirrored on the
screen here. Um, so all right. The guess for you, the only thing the the the one we didn't really hit on hard when we questioned was the private drive. So what I mean, do they just shift those houses onto the actual road? I think just looking at at at those
lots, I I I'm sure there's a reason the private drive was proposed from a grading standpoint. So, you know, I suspect that was why, but I I think just mentioning that the private drive is proposed here is just important to to make that known. Got it. Okay,
I'm good. Thank you all. Yeah, thank you. Anything else you guys? Well, there was one question on that list there that kind of interest. What is the What is the public interest? What What How does this
benefit the public is what the What are the public benefits of this project? My taxes will go down. I'm not gonna well I'm not going to speak for the developer, but there's certainly a benefit to the city and getting a mix in its housing stock. So, introducing new lots um that are not the same as those
lots we already have in the community is is probably good from a housing diversity standpoint. We also look at that trail plan and have identified a connection that would be really nice to make to the city's downtown. And if this development can bring a trail connection from the Bailey corridor that's
comfortable down to the Hastings corridor, that would be really nice. Is this the last space at at this acreage that we have in Newport? No. No. Okay. There may be other There may be others. There's not many is I think maybe a good I mean with three property owners I can
imagine we have that space but many more property owners involved. But yeah, so I just it's an interesting spot. Very untouched. Okay. Well, I don't have anything else, so I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn, unless you guys have questions or more for the No, a motion to adjurnn. Okay. Can I get a second?
I second it. We got two motions to adjourn. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed. At 6:30 6:25.