Newport City Council — Transcript
Tuesday, June 9, 2026
Eastridge Heights Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment
Votes (1)
Public Hearing for Eastridge Heights Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment
Dissent: None
Moved by Chair Lighty [06:05] · Seconded by Commissioner Bonia [06:07]
Staff presented the request for a PUD amendment to allow flexibility on the 15% front facade window/door opening requirement. The developer, David Weekly Homes, explained that larger homes with 3-4 stall garages make it difficult to meet the 15% on the front facade without compromising buyer preferences for privacy in garage windows. Staff proposed three conditions, which the commission debated: requiring garage door windows (Condition A), using higher-standard building materials on 50% of the front facade (Condition B), and ensuring at least 10% window coverage on all facades (Condition C). The commission sought clarification on the origin and impact of the 15% rule and potential precedents. City staff noted the unique nature of the site and the builder's use of premium materials. The public hearing drew no comments. The commission ultimately decided to strike Condition A, retain Condition B, and modify Condition C to allow a 10% average window coverage across all exterior walls, rather than a strict minimum on the front facade.
Notable Quotes (5)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ordinances & Resolutions (6)
A request to modify the design standards previously approved for the Eastridge Heights project.
Approved by the City Council for the Eastridge Heights project, allowing development to move forward.
Specific development or design standards, including the 15% window/door opening requirement for front facades.
General municipal code containing development standards, including the original 15% window requirement.
Contains proposed findings for approval of the PUD amendment with a conditional recommendation.
Agreement to be worked on for the Eastridge Heights project.