Good evening and welcome to the Newport City Council meeting. Today is Thursday, March 19th, 2026. We'll begin the meeting with the pledge of allegiance. >> I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Will staff please call the role. >> Council member Schmidt >> here. >> Council member Sumar >> here. >> Council member Angman >> here. >> Council member Taylor >> here. >> Mayor Elliott >> here. Next, uh we have our agenda. Um the adoption of the agenda. Do we have any changes? >> Hearing none. I'll move the agenda. >> Second. I have a motion from council member Sumar and a second from council member Ingamman. Any discussion? >> All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed. >> The agenda is adopted. Next we have public comments. This is where members of the public can address the city council about any local government topic that is not included on our regular agenda this evening. This is limited to concerns that are relevant to the city of Newport affairs policies or practices. We ask that you come to the mic the podium and clearly state your name and address for the record and to limit your comments to about three minutes. Generally, the council will not take action on items discussed at this time, but will refer matters to staff uh if appropriate. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak during public comments? Seeing none, I will move on to the consent agenda. Any changes to the consent agenda? >> I'll move the consent agenda. Second. >> Have a motion from council member Ingamman and a second from council member Sumar. Any discussion? >> All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed. The consent agenda is adopted. Next we have our engineers report. We have engineer Herdigan with us this evening. >> Good evening mayor, members of the council. Uh nothing formal this evening but a couple of upcoming dates to keep in mind. uh on April 1st, that's a Wednesday, from 5 to 7, we are going to hold a uh neighborhood meeting for the 12th Street area improvements project. Uh he'll be here at city hall uh downstairs in the fire training room. Uh so we had sent out mailed notices to anyone that's directly impacted to the project, but would welcome others to attend if they're interested. uh 5 to 7 pm, >> right? >> And so we'll have our our staff, engineering staff on hand to do a short presentation and then answer kind of one-on-one come or one-on-one questions uh from from uh the neighborhood or the residents and then be able to kind of modify our plans with the expectation that we'll be bringing those final plans to council uh at your second meeting in April. I believe that's on the 16th. >> Okay. >> April 1st was the day. >> April 1st. And then we're also planning to hopefully bring our uh construction plans for Third Avenue to the second meeting in April as well. That's uh uh pending a meeting we'll be having with One Oak, our pipeline uh owner, uh for some of the conflicts that we're working through on 17th Street. Uh so fingers crossed we'll be able to bring those plans for approval and then hopefully we'll be awarding those projects in May. >> Great. Anything else? >> All I have. Thank you. Uh, moving on, we have the Superintendent of Public Works report. >> Uh, good evening, Mayor Elliot and council members. I have nothing formal this evening, but happy to stand for any questions. >> Nice job on the plowing. >> It's a lot of snow. We were lucky we didn't get hit with the worst. >> Yeah, we were very lucky. Um, any questions for Matt? Thank you. Um, next we have the administration report. Mayor, members of the council, uh tonight we have uh the Eastridge Heights development and I know there's a number of approvals and we do have a presentation from our city planner, Nathan First. >> All right. Uh good evening, mayor, members of the council. So, Eastridge Heights is uh returning uh to the uh city in in the form of a preliminary plat PUD comprehensive plan amendment and reszone request. And we'll walk through uh this development. the last time that you would have seen this project was at the concept plan stage in August of 2025. So, uh the developer has submitted these uh the these requests and the associated plans uh which we've reviewed. So, I'll walk through all of that uh the staff's review in this presentation and then stand for questions. So, I think everyone's familiar with the location of this development site, but it's uh south and east of the intersection of Hastings Avenue and Bailey Road. And so, you can see um superimposed over the development site is the development plans. And we'll dive into a lot more details on the actual plans. Uh just as an overview for you all, um again, those requests are listed on the screen and in the report. Um the applicant for this project is Summergate Development. They are working with the builder David Weekly Homes on the lots in this development. Uh it's over a number of associated parcels that would be all part of this development. Some of them have addresses, some of them don't. Uh we have a five-page legal description attached to multiple of your um u resolutions and ordinances proposed this evening. The development is 73 single family homes. Uh current zoning for this property is rural estate um with the bluffland area overlay over that. I would note that the rural estate district is generally seen as a kind of transitional district where there is uh urban development that comes in uh expected. So the new zoning district proposed is R1 which is the single family district generally. Uh the future land use category here is mixed residential at present, but the developer has requested an amendment to that to change it to single family detached in order to uh be consistent with their zoning designation for their development. The property is 58 uh just over 58 acres in area. Um but of that, you know, pretty considerable amount is bluff. So we're down to about 30 acres of developable land. Uh we do have some existing homes and driveways on the property that will be removed. So just want to show you kind of what the changes would look like on our maps. So here is the city's future land use map. You can see uh the development sites kind of circled in red there. Uh you've got currently you've got two uh future land use categories on this property. One is actually that dark gray that is transportation. Um so there would be changing the you know property to have one uh future land use category and then uh you've also got uh mixed residential which would also change to single family detached. So on the zoning map uh currently this site is zoned as I mentioned RE or residential estate. Uh that would change to the uh kind of light yellow R1 district with the PUD overlay on that. So, in case we need to come back to it, here's an aerial. You can see uh a number of different property boundaries for those sites in the development. A lot of trees. And this is, as I mentioned, a bluff with a fair amount of topography. And we'll get into kind of what that has meant for the development. And here you can see the kind of existing conditions. These are the homes and associated driveways that would be removed as a result of this project. And so, as mentioned, we're at that preliminary plat stage of the development process where we're starting to really get into the details. Uh, should the city make an approval at this stage, it would uh, this project would come back to the city in the form of a final plat. Um, I want to really quickly just run through the comprehensive plan amendment first and what's being requested. So, there are two requests in front of the city here with this comprehensive plan amendment. First one is as I mentioned to change the future land use map to the single family detached category. The second is actually to reduce the minimum allowable density uh within that category which currently is three units per acre. Revise that down to 2.5 units per acre. Um so that would be the new allowable density range um minimum. So it would be 2.5 to five units per acre in that category. So, um, we we wanted to make sure that they would be able to meet that, right? So, we did the review of the density in this project. Um, looking at the developable area of just about 30 acres with 73 units, they're right at 2.5 units per acre, which was the impetus for that request. I would say that or mention that um staff have been in in contact with the Met Council to make sure that um we're clear on on where we sit in terms of density citywide and we're very comfortable at this point with the request. Um and our understanding is that we will not be below the threshold of five units per acre citywide. >> Um I have a question. I can see um outlot A at the top and B at the bottom and D at the very bottom. Where is outlot C? >> Bottom left. >> I'm going to test my eyes here. >> It's down by the cemetery or the bottom left. I >> think it's down Yeah, it's down here. Thank you. >> Oh, that little one. Oh, I see. Okay. Thank you. >> So, yeah, as you're mentioning, you do have a a series of of different outlots and um those outlots are um for pro proposed for a variety of reasons. those obviously with the storm water ponds would be for storm water management. You get you get the idea. >> Yeah. >> So yeah, I was mentioning that density is something that we at this point do feel comfortable with where we're at given uh the requirements from the Met Council because after the city approves a comprehensive plan amendment, it does need to go to the Met Council for their approval. And so we're pretty comfortable at this point uh that that will be approved. Uh so that's the comprehensive plan amendment. In terms of the zoning uh for this property, the developer is proposing R1. As I mentioned, uh this is the city's lowdensity single family district. Um and so that district does have a number of different standards in the code uh for minimum lot area, width, and depth. Uh the developer is proposing lots that are generally the size that they're supposed to be or or bigger um according to the city code. the developer is requesting flexibility on setbacks uh for those lots and so there is flexibility requested to the front side and rear yard setbacks in addition to imperous surface. Um and I can walk through these and maybe use the lot detail as a reference. So on the screen on the left side of the screen is the standard. This it's what you would see as kind of like the smallest residential lot in this development. So on this lot you would have 25 ft in the front uh for a setback, 25 ft in the rear and 5t as a minimum. Uh one of the things that you'll notice is that obviously is the developer is proposing lots that meet our minimum lot area standard. What effectively they're requesting is a larger larger buildable area within the lot. And so there are some benefits to that uh for the city long term. Actually, if you think about uh administration for these lots uh the developers kind of building in a buildable envelope for us to be able to review future decks or other improvements against. So in a lot of these cases, specifically for the rear yard, I did kind of do some spot checking and it looks like most of the lots would be able to meet the city standard, but there is some flexibility here requested for the building envelope. Nathan. >> Yep. >> Is the blue line the bluff line? >> Yes. And I have a couple of specific slides and we I'll I'll definitely talk about that, but yes, generally that's the bluff. >> Can you speak more to that? What you just talked about that future? I mean, >> what percentage are you seeing as like an average with the current? Are you seeing like a certain average like are they building up to the the existing proposed homes like 35% on average or 30 or do you getting a sense of obviously there's variations here. >> Yep. >> I'm trying to understand because I don't want you know before we push that envelope out too far. >> Yep. >> That's you know >> so yeah I can see >> the wisdom of war versus having that control in the future. I guess I'm trying to >> understand >> one thing that we understand is um the the five foot setback flexibility is particularly of interest as you get to the actually the the wider the the wider lots those 70 uh 5 foot wide lots that are proposed. They're requesting that five foot uh flexibility so that they can fit it dep it's going to depend on the type of home that the buyer is going to want, but they're looking to add potentially a fourth saw for those garages. So, um that I believe is the reason and and the developer will be able to speak a little bit more articulately to exactly why they're making the request, but uh that is currently my understanding for that five foot setback. Yeah, I'm just okay. I'll just >> I was I was thinking lot coverage more as rather than separate. >> And so you're right. So there is a range in in lot coverage. And if I go back to the map, um you know, a lot of these lots would be well below that 30 35% u maximum. is some of the tighter lots um that may have the challenge of uh if they're having a 30 35 foot um or sorry percent uh maximum for imperous surface um there there may be requests for flexibility in in the future with variety of things but um again that's my understanding of of the developers request and I'm sure they'll be able to speak to you a little bit more um intelligently about Nathan, before you move on on this. >> Yep. >> Sorry. Um adjusting uh setback requirements. We can do that just through the PUD. Correct. >> Correct. Yep. So the PUD ordinance would be the tool that gives you that flexibility. >> Okay. I >> mean just it's kind of a comment more than a question. You know, I just I was trying to make sense of this these setbacks and I you know, I just thinking of my involvement and it's these are the setbacks. These are all would be valid in R2 for single family development R2. So, Bailey Meadows >> Bailey Meadows project >> these are consistent and just I was thinking about this we haven't the largest R1 development we've had in my involvement here has been the the old public works site which was nine homes on you know an existing neighborhood. So we haven't really evaluated these setbacks in terms of modern might say modern development and that's when after that was when we got you know we gave a PUD to allow go 70 actually that led us to reduce a lot with 60. So I think it might >> if we think this is good for R1 my recommendation is that maybe we re-evaluate somewhere down the road. Okay, >> that's what kind of what my lesson from public works site cuz cuz we just haven't done a straight R1 but yet you know Bailey Meadows never >> we kind of did we had R2 zoning but we yet we didn't reach R2 the five we're w at five units per acre I'll say that. >> Got it. >> So we kind of walked we kind of did both. So it's just given that you're trying for consistency we might think that these >> might be something we want to consider because they're not uncommon. They're very you these are very conventional you know >> um but it's more that's why it's more of a comment because it's not really but it's for for people that maybe why why give this flexibility >> we have done this for for single family developments in Newport two times here in the last you know six or seven years so it's but under a different zoning code. >> Yeah, I appreciate that comment and one thing that um kind of goes through my mind when we get flexibility requests is just you know what does the administration of these look like? I think it's typically easier if we can give a blanket percentage for example with impervious so that we don't run into the situations where people are talking to their neighbors and one person's at 40 and one person's at 50 and then we have the conversation. You know some of that can happen. It's not that we can't administer it but it is easier generally when we can do things a little bit more consistently. Um so I'm going to keep us moving here. Um really quickly, we we looked at a lot of other um elements of this of the plans that we'll talk about. So, I'll jump right into building materials and facade design. Of course, the city does have uh I think a little bit more limited, but still has design standards for single family homes. And we've talked to the builder. Uh we feel confident that the builder can uh meet the city's standards for single family homes, including 15% of those front facades having glass or glazing. So, here are some images that the developer uh in coordination with David Weekly Homes has provided. And so, um these are some of the different housings types you might see on on the on the development. Okay. So, uh I know council member had some questions about the bluff and we do have a a pretty good analysis here for for what we've reviewed on on the bluff. So um the city does have a bluff area overlay over this property as you know that comes with a couple of different requirements. One is a restriction on structure placement and setbacks particularly from the top of the bluff area. So what that generally boils down to is a 30foot minimum from the top of the bluff. So the no structure could be placed within 30 ft. Uh the other restriction that is is on vegetation management u particularly on areas of the bluff that would cause you know destabilization. So um we've also got a tree protection or replacement plan that has been provided and we'll get into that. Uh we've also made sure to coordinate with south south Washington wershed district uh to make sure that we're doing due diligence with the storm water management and bluff protections. Um, similar to Cherrywood, they do have a 60-foot structure setback in their rules. Uh, but similar as well to Cherrywood, they're comfortable with relaxing that 60 foot setback considering the mitigations that we're proposing to put in place. So, uh, what that looks like is a storm water plan that's robust, uh, particularly to make sure that storm water doesn't destabilize the bluff somehow. In addition to um similar to Cherrywood, making sure we've got a a preserv preservation plan at the top of the bluff area to really identify how we can put landscaping in there to stabilize. >> Council member, >> I just have a a comment. Now, Cherrywood does not have a cemetery below it bluff line, whereas this one does. >> Yep. Uh, Council Member Ingamman, that's another great observation. We do have a cemetery uh near this development. We've been uh I know the city engineering team has taken that into consideration and so has the developers engineering team. Uh they provided a archaeological literature review on the cemetery to understand what are the boundaries of the cemetery. Um and I'll I'll talk a little bit about that on on another slide after we talk about the bluff. So, uh I appreciate the question. And I've got a slide for it, I promise. >> That's fine. >> Um, as you can see, a lot of squiggles on the contours here. This is a really, uh, busy site from a, you know, topography standpoint. So, uh, quite challenging and unique to develop. >> Can I just touch back on that watershed the question? So is the does the is trying to think you know because obviously this flexibility have the wershed would need further information obviously to reach their evaluation right of whether it's what are we are they what's their status like in in finalizing this agreement you know beyond because obviously this isn't happening today because there's still more storm water details to be worked out so explain to me what's their role y >> if we did approve prelim seminary today. >> Yep. >> And some of these other things. What >> do they still I mean do they have a kind of a bind is it is that kind of a binding or is it is it a more of advisory or is it how does that work for us? Guess we go to like a development agreement and finalize things if between >> so developments with uh the level of disturbance that this one has is are going to be responsible for meeting watershed rules. And I'm going to get over my skis here pretty quick. So we work with the city engineering and planning team work really closely on this particular issue. So, I'll throw it over to John to help answer the >> Yeah, thank you, Nathan. So, the city retains their authority to permit uh storm or to provide storm water permits. Now, we're required to adhere to the South Washington WHED rules, but we ultimately uh we ultimately review and interpret those rules and ensure that they are followed for the development. Now, we we work pretty closely with with watershed staff and we've had um you know, we've shared these preliminary plans with them. We've shared what our comments are and our interpretation of where the um you know, if there are any deficiencies. Um and I believe that the conditions of approval give us the the you know, enough leverage that we can that we can meet those requirements. It's not it's not complete yet. We still need some more information uh particular to the you know the slope stability of of some of the bluff areas and we've received a geotechnical report but there's some some additional things that we'd like to get comments on so that we feel comfortable but uh as with previous projects the the watershed is is is provides a very good advisor advisory role to make sure that we're following their rules correctly. The expectation is we will come to an agreement with them and that's you know okay I just want to make sure that's understood you know understood and even because as people see that 60 and I want to I if I if we are deviating from I want confidence that their their views are >> heard you know and and it sounds like you're definitely taking them into account and they're they're obviously that's beyond our discussion here today but >> and and what you're seeing tonight is is several iterations of a of a design plan that we've gone back and forth with and at this point you We haven't checked all the boxes, but we're we're fairly comfortable from from that standpoint that we can reach a you know a development um a final development that that meets those requirements. Okay. >> So, um yeah, with all that said, the the preliminary plat shown on the screen here has a lot of different colored lines on it. So, just want to um provide a little bit more detail. So, the blue line you see is the bluff line. I'll zoom in. the bluff area that's been calculated based on the definition in code. Um there is also a bluff impact zone line that's a green line. Uh there is a bluff setback that 30-foot line. And lastly, we have required the developer to include a conservation easement boundary that kind of flattens this whole situation out a little bit and jogs in and out less. It's just a little bit more of a consistent straight line for the ease of administration. So um this is uh definitely like like John said been a result of a couple of iterations of review and work together with the developer. So uh the we're pretty confident about the location both of the um structures in relation to this to the top of the bluff and that uh conservation easement boundary itself. So here's the uh kind of southern part of the plan and uh I'll jump right into tree preservation. So we do have a fair amount of tree removals going on on the bluff here. Um you're seeing that on the tree preservation plan. Um the developer has inventoried all of the trees on on the bluff and identified which ones are significant. There is a tree preservation calculation table that's provided in in the report and I will say that um this is basically the most um conservative interpretation of the city code. So we have different standards for replacement when we're looking at um significant common tree significant trees common trees coniferous and then hardwood. So we have the highest standard of standard of replacement for hardwood trees and they are providing um the calculation that there will be a requirement of 3,800 caliber inches of replacement required. So I just want to go back here and um I did write a couple things in the report. So uh given that there is that level of caliper wrench in we're also proposing 455 replacement caliper wrench in. So that brings us to a a total replacement of 3,347 caliber in. Uh so there is still a fair amount of trees that would have to be planted. In other words, to meet the requirements for mitigation. Um as with the Cherrywood development, uh staff do propose or recommend consideration of an inloo fee of $150 per caliber per inch that's not planted on the development. Of course, uh the developer will likely be looking to um supplement their landscaping and put more landscaping in in order to reduce that number a little bit. So, I just wanted to point that out as it will be a condition for approval that's recommended to you. Um in addition to that, the landscaping requirements are also supposed to be added to the mitigation standard. So, the developer is proposing 357 trees or sorry, 345. Um they're required to have 357. So they're short 12 trees. So we propose that um th that inluff fee apply to those 12 trees as well. Sometimes we get into a situation where there's so many trees required that it's just tough to squeeze them into a development site. So certainly future landscaping plans will have more trees um and we'll look at how they can be implemented. >> So on that you know they because it's all based on caliber inches can they larger if they replanted with larger trees. Yeah, >> that would count towards reducing that. So, the size of >> the number of trees. Yeah. >> Yep. I think I think >> Yeah, we can work with that idea certainly. I think it's a pretty good one. Um, one thing to consider is just that when we plant larger trees, there there are going to be more um generally speaking, there might be a higher likelihood that the tree will die or it'll have higher mortality. So, we just want to understand the conditions of soil and make sure that there's good watering and all that stuff long term. But it certainly can be a workable strategy. >> So those replacement trees that you've identif identified are ones that are kind of going on people's lots right now. Is that pretty much the extent of you haven't gone? So you anticipate further ones is >> maybe along the bluffs or maybe you but you're not sure yet? >> Yeah. So, I think uh ultimately what we're going to what we're recommending here this evening as staff is that we uh get a a revised landscaping plan that takes a little bit of a harder look at the top of Bluff area and um specifically from the top of Bluff and in what existing trees are there that might actually not be doing very well. Maybe they're an ash tree and they could be, you know, diseased or are likely to become diseased. And so what trees can be removed and replaced with something a diverse mix of new plantings that will have good long-term, you know, ability to stabilize the bluff. >> Um, and I imagine there's quite a bit of buckthornne up there. So >> I think we well, we haven't walked this one yet like we did with the other one, but it was very clear on the other project, the Cherrywood project, that it was full of buckthornne. So I think the expectation could be that we understand if there's invasives. >> So replacing with better trees. And I think um hardier trees knowing that can are can handle the more temperature extremes that we're seeing as well. >> Yep. And trees that are, you know, going to be hardy for years to come, right, in this climate zone. So, yeah, for sure. >> Thank you. >> Yep. >> Mayor, Council Member Sumar, >> what do we expect the longevity of these trees to be? >> So, the existing trees, >> how long do we demand that they live? Um, we have sometimes not a lot of control over mother nature, but we do have a warranty period for new landscaping that we can require. And so staff are proposing a 2-year warranty period after the landscaping is installed and accepted. City the city staff will have the ability to make sure that it's in good shape at the end of that warranty period. >> And who will determine that the trees are in good shape? >> That's city staff. >> City staff. >> I have an arborist on my team that I work with. >> Your staff? >> Yep. >> Okay. Okay. >> So, that's what that looks like. Um, >> and this the uh diameter breast height is the caliper inches. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> So, I think we have a pretty good feel for um you know, to be consistent with the Cherrywood project and how we worked through that review. I think we're pretty comfortable with that same approach here generally speaking. So, and you're what you're looking at now on the screen is the landscaping plan. And you're seeing, you know, a pretty good number of trees coming back in with the development. These are going to be trees that are in the front side or rear yards of these new lots in addition to a number of trees along this uh street that's going to be built through the development. So, here's just a zoomedin view of what that planting plan looks like. Um, and now I'm going to switch gears to access in circulation. So, um, we have a street proposed with this development that connects Sterling Avenue and Hastings Avenue, and that was previously discussed as a condition for this development because we need two points of access. Um, the city does have an existing easement uh just south of that cemetery property on the Newport Common site that will be used for the road. So, the road should not need to go through the cemetery, which is definitely good. Um, when the city council last reviewed this project, it had three culde-sacs and it has three culde-sacs. Now, we talked about trying to reduce the number of culde-sacs, but uh and I'll get into that a little bit here. It was really challenging given the topography on this property and uh the developer has provided a number of iterations. They actually started uh by applying for a project that had a connection and just been working through the grading, kind of worked their way back to the culde-sac. So, we'll talk a little bit more about that here. Um that culde-sac though, that third culde-sac does exceed the city's maximum length for a culde-sac. So, there are some mitigation um kind of measures that staff are are have worked with the developer to make sure are included in the plans. Uh I would also add that uh from a access and circulation standpoint a trail uh should be included through this development project consistent with the 2025 Newport Trail or Newport Trail network plan. Um and lastly uh there is a shared access for three of the lots uh proposed due to grading. So there are some engineering memo comments relating to that access and there may be some minor changes in the plans moving forward because uh to address the shared access. So I'll I'll I'll jump in here. So you're seeing um the street and utility plan. You're seeing the three culde-sacs on the screen. And if you look on the bottom right hand of the screen, that is that third culde-sac that's exceeding the the maximum length and therefore the request for flexibility. Um what the city's staff has uh worked on with the developer is, you know, understanding the constraints in this area for grading and the the height of the street. Um it it was important to have a couple of things still kept in this plan. One of that one of them is just to loop the water man. So that was one of the benefits of looping the street. So the developer has shown plans that would loop the city's water mane provide redundant water supply in this area to the hydrant. Um there there's also shown a kind of I'll call it a enhanced trail connection. Uh that trail connection between the um southern bulb of the culde-sac and the proposed street um would be useful or usable as a as an secondary access point should there be a need for that at some point in the future. Let's say there's a water main break or something and you need firet truck to get up there. Um the engineering, public works and fire team have worked together to make sure that is a workable secondary access point. So the other the last thing that I would mention is that the uh street that this this culde-sac is served by this whole this whole culde-sac street uh would be wider than the city's minimum in order to allow for vehicles to maneuver around a little bit more easily again in the in the event that they need to. >> So how wide are we looking at? It's going to be 32 feet. >> Okay. Are we thinking we're allowing parking? >> Typically, that's a width that would permit parking probably on both sides. So, it would depend though on the location of uh driveways. >> Okay. I mean, I'm just thinking if you've got cars parked on both sides and you need a fire truck to get through, can they still get through? >> So, yeah. I think we'll have to review the plans as we move forward to understand if there's going to be any like no parking areas. And that's something the city can sign for for sure. >> And how long is this culde-sac? >> I think it's in the area of 900 ft. >> Oh, okay. >> I mean, the new Second Avenue, I think, is 28 feet. So, for perspective, >> Council Member Sumar, >> what is this width compared to Bailey Meadows width? >> Uh, the street width. Yes. I actually don't know that one off the top of my head. I'd look to John. >> Yeah, it's it's approximately 4T wider >> up up here >> on just this culde-sac. The Bailey Meadow streets were exclusively 28 ft wide. That's our city standard. Okay. >> And then this uh one culde-sac area is uh is 32 feet wide from the face of the curb to the across the street to the other face. >> And that's to accommodate the additional length of the culde-sac. Well, it it to accommodate if there are cars parked or if there say there's a water main break and and uh public works crews have opened up the street and cut open the street. Giving enough room for a car or an emergency vehicle to get around that area. The extra four feet is uh is, you know, could be could be very useful in that situation. Okay. So, you know, collectively the the different mitigation measures I think help the staff feel more comfortable with this culde-sac being, you know, there and exceeding the the the minimum or sorry, maximum length. Um here's a here's another uh figure that the developers engineering team provided. Um this shows what the home sites would be um subject to if the street connection were made through this the the top. This is that's the scenario on the top with that through connection. It would require a significant amount of grading at the top of the bluff area and ultimately a pretty tall retaining wall um in the bluff or around the top of the bluff to make the elevations work. And so I think this helps to illustrate just what the benefit is for these particular home sites in um having that be a culde-sac instead of a through connection. So there are some grading challenges that would be uh there if they were to connect through. So really quickly just want to talk uh through parkland dedication and trail requirements. Um this new development as with uh new new residential everywhere will create the you know increased demand on the city's parks and trails system. Um the developer will be required to provide parkland dedication. Um and in this case, staff are recommending uh cash inlue consideration given the close proximity to Bailey School Forest Park. Um the again the 2025 trail network plan does show a trail connection in this area and so we would be expecting um plans in the future to show a trail connection possibly along the street alignment. But um I think there can be some exploration given how the grading in this area works and the topography of the property. I think we can be open to um how that trail can be put into this development. Um and then I think the the importance of that trail is just illustrated by this kind of being almost a regional connection bringing people down from Bailey Road to downtown. So, here is that uh trail network plan and you can kind of see gen the general search corridor for a trail in this area. Okay. A couple of other uh considerations. Again, as council member Ingamman mentioned, the the cemetery being close to this property does create some concerns. We sure s uh sure wouldn't want to um have anything that would uh disrupt any burial sites. So um the literature review that the developer um submitted does um have you know a fair amount of analysis in it basically has concluded that the cemetery property boundary is well defined. Um but though being that is the case and there is probably a low likelihood for issues uh there is still a recommendation for an archaeological monitor during the construction period near the cemetery. So, um that should be something that's um implemented moving forward >> with the um cemetery because I don't know that Tom's question was really about are you stepping over the boundary. I think it was more >> is there going to be water runoff that's going to disturb the top soil? Yep. Or maybe that's not your question, but I would say it's one of mine. Is there um with all this construction, is the bluff land going to start moving and shifting? And I live at the very outlying edge of the bluff land. >> And when I had my deck replaced, it um >> the area the far end from the house had shifted 2 and a half inches. So there's just natural shifting that happens with a bluff land. And so I think it's it's more about making sure we're not disturbing um remains or things that are there or exposing remain. I don't know how deep they buried bodies in the 1800s, but um that's for a literature review for another day. >> They've been there for a long time. >> Yeah. Yeah. So I And but there are a lot of mature trees there that I think, you know, are on the east side that probably are pretty stable. >> Um >> Yeah. There's a couple of things here. I mean, number one is that, you know, John John and the city engineering team will be continuing to review the geotechnical report that the developer submitted and we'll be able to make sure that uh there's confidence moving forward with the stability of the bluff. Again, primarily, you know, relating to the storm water management in in this project. Um, another thing is just making sure that the, you know, that the top of the bluff is really secured by continuing to have landscaping there and really trying to be careful about the grading and disturbance limits. So, I think we're in a pretty good spot with how that can be uh reviewed moving forward. And um, what was the last thing that I wanted to mention? It'll come back to me at some point, but I think Yeah. >> Well, I'll let you think about that because I um saw the road design too. It kind of it it curves through the development and then it kind of goes east west and then it kind of curves a little. Is that around the tree line for the cemetery? >> Oh, the alignment of the road. Let's go back to a a plan that shows that. So, um >> yeah, you can kind of see, you know, from the top of the bluff area where the cursor is kind of hovering >> down to Hastings Avenue. The alignment is um it's it's been carefully planned. >> Yeah. It's not really quite where your cursor is now. Oh, can you go more towards the bottom of the page where it curves? >> Is that curve um to the south side of the existing trees that line the >> parking lot >> aerial? I might have to page around quite a bit to find an aerial. >> And I can jump in, Nathan. I I believe that it is. I think it's uh uh twofold. One is they need to uh the the easement that we have from the neighboring property to the south >> is it overlaps that uh uh that that parcel that's labeled 102 on the very south edge of that there's probably three two to 300 foot overlap area >> that where the where the property that's proposed for development overlaps with that easement. So they do have to start to curve that road into that easement um at that point because they they don't own property on either side. So it's the the easement itself or is is south of that tree line um getting into that easement in that overlap space. I I believe they are missing or avoiding those uh mature trees. Um but something that we can confirm. >> Okay. But I'm thinking this cemetery is just to the right of 808. >> Yep. >> And so >> it's coming in south of the cemetery, the road. >> Okay. So that we're protecting that just as I like that as a natural barrier and I like that for just the privacy >> of anyone who goes there. Um, and I just I've been doing some historical research, but we have Civil War veterans buried there. The first settler in Newport is buried there. Um there are some pretty prominent people uh for in our within our history that are buried in that cemetery. So >> yeah, I I think it'll avoid that, but can we jump for a sec for a question? >> Yes. Um Council Member Schmidt, >> so I just want to double check. So you're saying the tree line to the south of the parking lot of the cemetery >> and north of >> this tree line. Yeah. >> So you're saying that you want the road here? >> Yeah. Okay. There's power lines that are right above this. Is that of concern at all? They're they're quite high, I'm assuming. But >> yeah, you can cross a you can cross an easement like that. Um there there is a power overhead power line easement running through that area. You can cross. Typically, you're supposed to be crossing like perpendicular. >> This runs with the power line. So, there's no issue with that. >> I'm going to look to John and Matt if they've got any knowledge about that. So, Excel has an easement that uh we have an easement over the or the city acquired an easement over the top of that. So, it would be subject to uh Excel's approval to occupy their easement. U typically we are not the their concern is more with their structures, the towers that uh carry those power lines. Uh so, as long as we are not interfering with those, we're fairly confident that Excel won't take exception. Uh but it's it's a step in the process that we'll need to take. >> And then sorry to add one more thing. There was a depiction of like the landscaping and it showed trees lining this road all the way out to Hastings. Is that actually going to occur with power lines overhead? >> Um that is a good question. I think we'll have to understand uh the location of the power lines and the applicable planting distances. Of course, if they're limited from planting in that area, we wouldn't have them plant trees there, >> right? And then that affects the math from the thing. >> Yep. Yep. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> Okay. That's more of a statement, I guess. >> Okay. >> Well, those are council >> member I'm sorry, council member Sumar. >> I know they've had to remove trees that were underneath the power lines based on some previous concerns about fires under power lines, damaging the power lines. So there used to be a lot more trees near and under the power lines and they were forced to take out a tremendous number of very beautiful trees several years ago. So I don't think that they'll be allowed to plant anything that's underneath of an overhead power line. >> Yeah, I think we'll want to understand because we can potentially have them do shorter um ornamental plantings as a replacement and just it's still the math can still work in the same manner that it is now, but you'll still get some greenery. I think there's a benefit to that. So, we'll definitely take a look at that. It's a good comment. >> Okay, cool. >> All right. In the interest of time, I'll keep us rolling here. So, landscaping, uh, we've talked about that. Uh, the roadway, we've talked about that. Trail connection. Other considerations. So, we talked about the cemetery. The other thing here is there is a um there is a difference in the legal description of one of these properties, which has caused us to add an additional condition. basically that um one of the outlots would be combined with one of the future residential lots. They're the the basic issue here is we have an abstract description on some properties and a torren description on one. You can't really they're like oil and water. You can't really combine them, but we could uh when the plat moves forward, we could combine them after that. So, it's kind of a long story to why you're seeing one of those conditions included. >> Yep. >> Back to the cemetery road. Um I think that where that ends up coming through does not um Newport Commons have a dog park there. It's like that 20 by 30 foot fenced area. >> We've worked with the property owner and he's aware that the dog park may need to be relocated. >> Okay. >> Yep. Great. No, that is a good observation. Yeah, >> we weren't >> I don't know if Joey if you had anything to add. >> Just mayor and council when Wings was developed the city did negotiate this easement. >> Yeah. So, that owner um uh agreed at that time to allow this potential future road. >> Yep. >> Thank you. >> And they've been good to work with. Just for the record, they've been nice. They they granted the city that easement. We got it across the finish line. So, >> um so, as you as you could see here this evening, we've got lots of different review comments um in coordination that's been um ongoing. So, the city engineering team provided a memo dated February 27th with a number of considerations in it that most of which we've discussed here. Uh, the city's fire chief was able to review uh the plans and coordinate on the emergency access. As you know, we got comments from South Washington Watershed District and we also did get comments from Washington County. Most of their concern relates to the Bailey Road area. Uh, just summarizing the PUD flexibilities we've discussed already. Uh again uh those front side and rear yard setbacks, impervious surface maximum per lot. Uh total required tree preservation and number of plantings and culde-sac length. Um I've got a lot of findings here in the report and in this uh slide deck. So I'll just quickly go through these and we can always come back should you uh have any questions for me. So you have findings for prelim preliminary plat. The project does not meet findings for denial that are found in the ordinance. There are findings for approval of a planned unit development. So, criteria for review and findings for approval. Uh there are findings to approve a reasonzoning uh which is that it has to comply with the city's comprehensive plan. And so, uh being that they're making that comp plan amendment, um that would be the way to um consider that resoning to be approved or make findings to support that. And then the the comp plan amendment the planning commission had discussion about this. Um generally should you know just the question is does this align with the goals of the community and I think the one of the things here is the you know mix of housing units that this adds to the supply in the city is is generally positive. Uh with the comprehensive plan amendment we are required to send the uh project around to our adjacent communities for comment. We did that. We did not uh we actually got a note of no comment from Woodbury, Maplewood, and Cottage Grove. So, we uh don't have comments from them. We're able to move forward to our our next steps. >> St. Paul Park. >> No, I didn't. I I sent it to him and did not hear back. So, >> uh All right. So, the planning commission discussed this at their meeting last uh week on March 10th. Um they did hold a public hearing on the project and uh we did have one resident that was uh uh here for for public comment. Their concerns were relating to setback flexibility uh protections for the conservation easement or the bluff area and the culde-sac uh length and access. Uh the planning commission had a a number of questions for staff as well that we worked through. They asked questions about road access again density and and bluff stability. Um ultimately the planning commission provided a unanimous recommendation for approval of the project with conditions. So um staff are proposing 15 recommended conditions. Uh these break down into what are standard and more unique conditions for this type of development. So some of those standard conditions are just making sure that the Met Council approves the comp plan amendment. Uh they pay their fees, get permits they need they need to have um comply with the city engineering memo. that's important and get a developer agreement. Uh some of the unique conditions here for this particular project include um that the um lots that have that shared driveway access are approved or have the required easements that they need to have for for shared access. Um that one of the outlots is combined with one of the future residential lots uh before permits issued. Uh, importantly, a trail connection be made between Sterling and Hastings Avenue consistent with our trail network plan. Um, and then I would propose that we have actually conditions four and five are duplicative. They're both about the trail. I think um I didn't have an opportunity to work this into the um recommended condition before uh the meeting here, but I am proposing here that we change condition number five in the resolution uh approving the preliminary plat to read that prior to recording the final plat and easement over the bluff areas will be required for long-term bluff area protection or preservation. So that's uh one thing that I amum hoping you can swap in. Uh moving down the list here, um the landscaping and bluff restoration plan will need to be resubmitted for uh us to allow for to allow us to review the long-term stabilization through enhanced tree plantings in the bluff area. Um flexibility for tree plantings will be subject to a cash and luffy. Incidental loss of trees will also be subject to a cash and luffy or replacement. And uh in order to begin grading or tree removal before a final plat approval, a grading agreement would be required with the city. So that would allow for potentially allow for grading and tree removal before a final plat is uh reviewed or or approved. There would need to be final grading plans and a financial security and a grading agreement in place. So with all of that said, a couple of example motions for you. They're on the screen here. Generally, we have uh we have three two resolutions approving entitlements and an ordinance for the PUB and then a resolution for summary publication. So, with that, I'm happy to stand for questions. I would note the developer and their team are here if you have questions for them. Okay. >> I think um we'll just see what other questions uh council members have. Uh council member Taylor, did you have other questions? >> Yes. Uh one is just relates to storm water pond maintenance. Is there is there an HOA or not on this? The developer is proposing not to have an HOA. >> Then then so how does that work with does the city how does that work like outlot I think is a that's >> Yep. >> using some existing storm water I mean just explain to me how the storm water is working on this. >> It's a good question. So the storm water ponds are are in their own outlots. Those outlots um are in in many cases owned by the city. In some cases in Newport they're owned by an HOA. Um, and I think we're going to work through the ownership of those outlots as we move through the process. So, that would be the expectation here is that we continue to work on that. I think, um, we've had some preliminary conversations about having the city own those, but I guess I don't I can't really speak beyond beyond that. I think we'll be able to get that res resolved before our final plat's approved. >> I don't know if John or Matt have anything else to add there. I I think the expectation will be that the city would own and maintain those uh maintain the storm water ponds and you know there's there's in the developers agreement uh there's there's opportunity to pro you know to have the participants or the people that are directly impacted or contributing to those ponds uh you know shoulder some of that cost uh when that maintenance when that m maintenance is due. But um I know Matt isn't uh thrilled, but the city probably has the the best resources to maintain those regional ponds like we have um in the in the newer developments. >> I think too then you get consistent maintenance and it doesn't get left to where it just really is a very expensive pond maintenance. Did you have any other questions at this time? >> Um I guess the only other one is going to be more when the probably the developer gets up here. I just would like to hear more with our staff here with the their technical team here too just on the on the construction phase the erosion control during the construction phase. I think that's until things are established. What because this is a unique >> highly susceptible. I know this was something that came up in the planning commission, but I'd like to hear more about how how you anticipate this project being different than others and what kind of preced you know, what kind of control measures would you anticipate needed beyond your typical >> Yeah, I I agree. Uh and and we had we have a taste of this in in uh Cherrywood as well. Uh I would argue to in some cases to a lesser extent, but there in Cherrywood there's a a ravine that is very steep >> and maybe a little less of the bluff. This is a a bluff going around, you know, virtually half of the the project. Um so I would envision, you know, several levels of redundancy at that um at that bluff edge. Obviously, we have the the bluff setback where we want, you know, aside from any buckthornne or invasive species removal that we wouldn't have any land disturbance. And then, you know, butting up to that, we would have redundant consistent erosion control, not on a lot by lot basis, but on a development basis that's put in at the um at the start of mass grading and then, you know, persists through the um you know, through the duration of the project. um with any with any land disturbance activities that you know the developer as well as the city is required to perform you know routine inspections on those um at least weekly and then after any or after I think a quarter inch of rain uh or more. uh they have to go out and inspect the complete perimeter of the of the site, identify any kind of weaknesses within the uh erosion control uh system and then address those within a short period of time, usually you know 3 to seven days. So I I I think that the erosion control plan will be ever changing on this. I think we will likely learn some uh learn some lessons as to what what worked effectively in Cherrywood and where we we struggled there that we can continue to implement here. Um and I guess it's it's hard to be it's hard to be overly confident, you know, until we until that construction uh takes place. But I know that'll be a point of emphasis throughout the uh throughout the construction um uh throughout the duration of construction activities extending into when they actually start building homes. >> I think since you kind of have the floor, John, can you talk a little bit about how steep this new road would be and just give people of an idea um compared to other steep roads we have in the community? Yeah. So, the the proposed street is about 12.4% grade. Um, and we we found two different road streets that were similar in grade. And that uh with the um image that that Nathan is sharing here, that would be right about at where the road turns um as you're coming from Hastings Avenue as it turns to the to the northeast all the way up to where that trail is to go to the that culde-sac bulb. So that's about a little over 1,000 ft about 1100 ft and that's about a 12 and a half. grade. Uh in comparison, uh County Road 74, 65th Street, uh that has a grade of about 11.4%. Um but the the difference there is that's about 320 ft long. So we're talking about a much longer street. Uh similarly on 12th Street on the on the um east side of 61 between 11th and 12th Avenue, uh that is actually a little steeper. that's almost 13% and again it's roughly about 350 ft. Um so it's it's certainly a steep road. Um it is I I I think and we've talked about this during the uh initial stages of the development that ideally that we don't create streets that that steep, but it's following kind of the natural ravine that leads to this uh property. I I think that it's limiting or minimizing the amount of tree cover that that we have to remove. Uh you know, we we could zigzag up the up the road and make a make certainly a uh a less steep uh access, but at the sacrifice of grading within the Bluff area, which I think is a is is a is a would be a drawback that would that we would regret. Um, and I think secondly, just having that second outlet and the ability to loop our water man and have an and and have our uh sanitary sewer uh extend down to Hastings is is a pretty big benefit that I think would offset that that steep um steep road. I know that, you know, Matt and his group will have to there'll be a different experience plowing this and it's, you know, ideally we have a lot of trees in the area, but that means there's going to be a lot of shade there. So, keeping it um, you know, keeping ice off this road and it it will be it will be a challenge, but I think the the benefits for this particular development um, I personally think outweigh that uh outweigh those disadvantages. >> Thank you. Um, other questions? Um, Council Member Schmidt. >> Yeah, I had a couple. I hope these are rather quick. Um, could you go back to the the conditions slide real quick? >> And I'm going to zoom in first on the item three trail connection. >> Yep. >> So, the language here says connecting Sterling to Hastings and it's it just means that through this development that must occur. Could you go to the trail 2025 trail plan? >> Yeah. So, you're going to say that the search area is not connecting from Sterling. >> Well, I think the language allows us to maybe use that southern dotted line as a way to achieve this. >> What I'm going to say there is if there's a way for us to say that the the southern dotted line is the one that we want to be connected from Hastings to Sterling and the neighborhood can connect to that. is that so I think that alignment that you're suggesting is not precluded from this condition. It's we've looked at how do you poke a trail through here? Um and it's it's not easy. >> And so I wanted to be careful in wording this this requirement to allow for a little bit more evaluation as we move forward about how that connection is made. Ultimately, the intent of this search corridor was to pull folks down from the Bailey Road uh trail trail area or trail corridor down to, you know, downtown Newport. And so, um I think this development can provide that connectivity, but it's just a matter of working through how are they going to do it? Are they going to align it along the street? Will that be the most logical way? Or is there maybe a way to bring a connection uh south from Sterling? maybe across the public works parcel down to the Bailey uh school forest corridor. >> That's exactly what I would want. >> Yep. >> And the reason for that is it truly does connect our city and people get access then to the Bailey school forest, right? And that's the step towards that direction is by tying it in with this drawing and having that trail corridor go on the very south side of all this. That would be what I would want. But that's just me. So, um, so anyway, maybe not for here, but I just want to highlight that one piece. Um, the other one was the outlot B with lot 34 block two. I am so sorry. I just could not. >> That's the abstract versus torren problem. I could not follow that property on here and I >> Okay, >> I might be the only one. >> Abstract and Torrance. These are different ways to describe a property legally. Um, basically Torrren is um there's like a golden record book at the county property records office that Torren's property exists on. And so um outlot B is I'm going to find an easier image. Sorry. >> I I was tracking it's those two right there and we're just saying that >> so outlot B and lot 34. >> You are going to open the development that these are Yep. >> You're not developing 34. uh 34 cannot be built on until it's combined without lobby. And and I should add some clarification here. You should expect probably a a boundary that's going to separate this trail connection so to remain a city outlot, but then the rest of outlot B because this project does not have an HOA would be owned and maintained by that lot 34 property owner. >> Oh, interesting. Okay. Okay. Okay. So, that I think that clarifies that. And then the last thing I had is while we're on this picture, what is at the dead end of the very bottom three homes that that road that goes down? Is that a holding pond or a >> Oh, are you talking about this >> that one on the bottom? >> Yeah. So, this is the three lots that are on what are what is currently proposed as a private drive. >> This road would terminate in that property or that um outlot that has a storm water pond in it. >> So, snow removal, how does this work in that portion? >> Private road. It's a private road. Yeah. >> Okay. I have no further questions. Thank you. >> So, there there may be some there may be some minor modifications moving forward as particularly as conditions in this area are addressed. So, there could be minor changes, but I don't expect the lot layout to change significantly. So, >> thank you. >> There's going to be a lot of Subarus up there. Just >> council member Sumar. Just an observation that this area is these slopes are facing toward the south and these are mostly deciduous trees. So there should be some assistance from mother nature with the sun helping to to burn the snow off of that that roadway. >> I think the concern was they're going to line the roadway with trees and as the trees mature they will shade the road and then we won't get the as much sun. >> We need to put deciduous trees in there. >> Yeah, I don't disagree. that drop their dropped their >> but I think the early years >> yes this younger trees won't be shading over the road like >> it will 20 years from now >> when there's a lot of snow you don't want to go up that road >> you want to go down >> you don't want to use it >> then you want to just go >> and it'll only >> it'll only be an emergency road in general isn't it >> no no this is uh this is a pedestri this not a pedestrian This is a typical road like you see like you live on. >> Okay. >> Yep. And so um and listening to the planning commission meeting um I suspect it's going to be get a lot more use than just these 73 homes. Um because it's the shortcut to the compost site and you don't have to get up on Bailey Road and you don't have to try to turn left on Sterling to get or left on Yeah, left on Sterling and turn left onto Bailey Road with all that cross traffic going on. I don't think the county is planning to put a roundabout in that location when they do rebuild this. So, we may see a lot of more traffic through that April to October, November time frame than I know I was initially thinking. Um, and I think you know the question about the trail whether you try to do that Bailey Meadows east west connection. I do like the idea of as you come out of these culde-sacs you can be on a trail to get to Hastings and not on this steep of a road. um with automobile traffic uh that I do think it needs there needs to be something separate just from a safety perspective um because of the steepness. That's that's just my thinking on it. But I think that Bailey Road to Hastings, I mean, I see that as sort of our next priority to figure out funding for a trail connection is, you know, we've got Cedar Lane and that trail project and we've got 65th Street and that trail project and I kind of see this as the next one to go and try to find uh pursue funding for is that that more parallel east west uh one on that diagram. So to me that's a fairly high priority um to make that connection uh of all the options that we saw within that trail plan. I thought that was a an important one and and I think you advocated as well just kind of kind of out there and getting them better connected into the city is I thought very good. >> Anything else uh Mr. Sumar at this time? >> Okay. Council member Ingamman, did you have any questions? I was just curious on the um we just updated the zoning code. How but this was purchased I think prior to that or is the purchase agreement I mean so they're under the old zoning code. Is there anything really different between what they're proposing and what the new zoning code has? >> That's a that's a good question. Um the short answer is pretty much no. There's really not any real u major standards and those that were changed like for example the single family home design requirements uh to be made consistent citywide. They're meeting the the the standard that we have. So, >> great. >> Yep. >> Great. Um, you're good. Anybody else have questions? Well, um, I think it would be great if we can have the, uh, project management, funding, building come on up and just talk a little bit about this project. You've heard some of our concerns, so feel free to talk to any of those if you choose. >> Thank you, mayor, council members, staff. Uh, I'm Brian Tucker with Summergate Development. and we're out of Lakeville and I visited with you guys last end of last summer about this property. So, we've been working hard since then to try to get this to fruition. Um, obviously the staff report uh covers some of the complexities of of this site, but we think it's a great site for the type of product that is being proposed here and we're looking forward to trying to move this forward. Uh, with me I have Ryan from Westwood. He's the project engineer that can help with those uh nitty-gritty questions on on u drainage and design and all that. And then we have Tana with David Weekly Homes. Uh they're going to be the builder at the site. Uh we've been working with them over the last couple of months on this project. Uh and she can certainly answer any questions you might have in terms of, you know, the home building that's going to be taking place there. Uh couple of things I would uh chime in on. Uh there was discussion about the impervious area. Um that one's tricky. I I've been in the planning profession on the public side for many many years before this role >> and it used to be that 3540% was pretty standard and it worked all the time because we were building quarteracre lots. Well, now that the the market has started to move toward these smaller lots, uh 40% doesn't work very well with, you know, the typical homes that are still being built. So, we're seeing 50% as a threshold more and more in some of the cities that we're working with. I would point out a couple things. The uh the building envelope you see on these plans, you know, that's that's a maximum pad side pad size and we put that there because we based our storm water storm water calculations on that entire pad area. Uh but rarely are the homes built to fill that whole pad. I mean, that's almost never happens, but to uh your planner's point, it does provide accommodation for decks, sun porches, folks that come in and want to add a big patio. That way, they're already covered. Um I I've had to pro process way too many conditional use permits for people that came in for a deck permit, and they're like, "What do we have to do to add onto our house?" So, so again, it is a worst case scenario because it's trying to plan for the ultimate build out of the lots and make sure that the storm water is accommodating, you know, a worst case scenario. Um the uh we have to deal with erosion control at every site, but we do recognize that this one is particularly unique. Uh, one of the one of our first tasks as soon as the conditions permit is to get out and stake the um bluff buffer area and get a good delineation of where that's at. At that point, then we can visit with with staff and probably get out there and walk the site to look at what are the actual conditions in terms of of landscaping. Um, it's tough to walk back walk back there at uh especially in the summer and fall. Uh, but I think we'd be able to get get out there and have a real good feel for what that looks like on the ground and make some better determinations as far as is there opportunities for more landscaping. Um, and obviously getting protective silt fence along that line as soon as we can is very important and that it be maintained throughout the construction process because uh that's ultimately where you run into issues is if that's not not in place. Um, we do see some type of uh pedestrian connection through this neighborhood as a benefit to the residents of this project as well. So, we certainly want to work on that. Uh, we did evaluate a couple of options where maybe we could peel it off and take it through the city ravine property. Um, those proved to be really difficult because you have a lot of topography and you don't have enough horizontal area to make switchbacks that make sense. So, uh, really the the excuse the pun, but the path of least resistance is to follow the roadway, um, and make that connection through there and, uh, you know, obviously there's some ongoing discussion that's needed in terms of what are the designs of that connection through there and and maintenance and those kind of things. So, we'll certainly work with staff to uh to evaluate that moving forward, but we're not surprised about that condition and we want to want to satisfy that. That's our intent. So, um, otherwise I think that's at least the questions I noted. I'm happy to answer any others that you might have. >> Did you have questions for the building? >> I guess I guess I guess maybe that adds a just to clarify my head then if we're approving a 50% lot coverage, then the storm water is designed for that 50% assumption. So we we do almost get versus designing a 30 having 35 and then you know then you're not really designing storm. So it's I guess that re provides some reassurance that you're getting that storm water up to a little higher standard than you might otherwise too. So all right appreciate that. >> And I felt a little more comfortable with the impervious surface being greater on some of the lots simply because half of this acreage is unbuildable. So, we're getting a lot of surface that is pvious um per just you know the natural the runoff there. Um any questions? Any questions? Did anybody else in your group want to speak or are you >> you want to >> happy observers? Hello, I'm Ryan Bloom with Westwood Civil Engineer and I had a chance to speak at the planning commission. Um, yeah, I'm just here to answer any questions that you might have. I think Brian summarized it. So, and John and Nathan have been great to work with and we continue to look forward to do so as we go into final drawings. >> Great. >> Thank you. >> Well, I feel like I Tana hasn't gotten Is it Tana? You haven't got you haven't you haven't gotten up here in either meeting. So, >> we do care about the homes, too. So, I mean, I guess can you just speak to the the I mean, bedroom size, square footage sizes. I mean, I think I did I see somewhere that there was going to be like a certain number of lots reserved for custom homes or not. Is that not >> That was worked through. I think we haveed on uh at least for custom grading. No. Um potent. I don't know how the arrangement work. >> Just Yeah. Speak to the the mix and how I guess that's as we try to understand how this is going to fit our community. >> You know, it's a little bit obviously similar but different from what we have. So, I guess >> good evening, Tana Wata, David Weekly Homes. Um, yeah, we have we anticipate um there being uh three and four bed, three and four car garage options. Um it's going to be three to four to five bedrooms depending on how people choose to finish out their homes. They're um they're 2500 to over I don't know the full range. This is my first week at David Weekly Homes, so I apologize for not having all of the exact >> square footage memorized for you. >> There you go. >> Um >> well, David Weekly remember the representative was last week, wasn't it? >> Matt McCarthy did a great job last week. Um, so yeah, they we're excited to be here. Um, we envision this. I don't know if any of you have been to our Rush Hollow over in Maple Grove. I know it's way on the other side of town, but we're going to be using very similar um floor plans to their offering them here in this community. We're finding that a lot of home buyers are very interested in having that fourth car option for all their toys and things that they have. So, that's why having that flexibility is really um helpful here. And we do anticipate quite a few few people probably taking advantage of that option. >> Do you have just a sort of a price ranging? >> Not really. Not yet. >> Well, and I >> I honestly don't recall. So, I apologize. I don't have that for you, but it's something we can provide to staff to share with you. Just a more curiosity question, but this is the kind of, you know, I think council member Taylor mentioned, you know, it's a it's a type of housing that we don't really have in Newport, and we're trying to fill in and create spaces where we can accommodate all kinds of families and all kinds of life uh life cycle living. And so >> we do anticipate this being more like a move up buyer type of neighborhood. this is not going to be entrylevel first-time home buyer for the most part. >> Um we also see a lot of um even empty me nesters moving into these neighborhoods. Um so it's probably I really hate to give you a number but my guess is five to six 700,000 range. >> Um I might be completely I might be out of it >> and you don't know what building materials are going to cost you know a year from now. Um, so I understand the kind of reticence to give any sort of a a real number. So, >> yeah, but they're definitely I believe the smallest might be 2,000, but the majority will have finished basement. So, that'll get us well over 3,000 to 4,000 square feet. >> Great. Council member Sumar, >> what what will we see in the back of these uh homesteads? Will there be patios? Will there be porches? Will there be decks? decks >> all options or is will it come >> the deck come with those >> decks are usually at the homeowners after those are done after which is why the 50% flexibility is really um helpful because it allows those homeowners who've just moved in now they can go put the deck on the home that they want. >> Maybe a maybe a related question and if you don't know this it's okay. Um >> sorry. >> No no no it's it's all good. Um, we know if there are like a mix of walkouts, lookouts, all of that. And then it probably is just based on where within the >> Yeah, you you land >> I know that answer. Yes, there's a mix of finished full basement lookout walkouts. >> Okay. >> Great. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Um and I think I just a comment on the conservation area and I mentioned this to the administrator earlier um today just we seem to I think every city struggles with this but people are building things in rightway areas whether it's uh sheds or outdoor fireplaces or playhouses or those kinds of things gardens fences And I just think if we can try to make a concerted effort to make sure the people that live here know there's a conservation area. You can't go in and cut down trees. You can't decide you're going to put an out building or a extended pavilion out in that area because it is a conservation area. And I think whether it's a annual mailing to the homes or a newsletter article or even just some posted signs that delineate conservation area or something just to kind of remind people of that because I know it is not a great task as a staff member to have to go to a homeowner and explain that their shed is in the way or their fence needs to be moved. Um, and it's I'm going to say it's a common error because when John was very new to working with Newport, we had done um decorative rock all the way to the street and a big rock. And you know, John had to tell me when we're done fixing this road, the decorative rock has to be this far back and we're going to move that big boulder, you know, onto your actual property. So even and I worked for a city. My husband was an engineer and worked for many cities and between the two of us we didn't even figure it out. So I think it's a very common mistake to make. You just don't really think about it. But I think if we can help people understand lessen problems in the future and headaches for both staff and homeowners. So to just try to >> mayor I think just to add in add into this the one of the expectations with that bluff plan will be that the developer identifies locations for signage along the boundary of the conservation ement. That's one of the reasons we made sure to flatten that line out so that it was a >> little bit more common sense a little easier to enforce. And then we'll have a sign plan number one with an approved sign that we, you know, have the ability to approve the language on and we know where the signs will be uh installed and potentially where they may need to be relocated. >> Well, I'm glad to hear that and you're like five steps ahead of me. So, thank you to to both of you. And I just want to comment too um this is such an unusual topography and it has required so many little adjustments and tweaks and it feels like you know our our consultants are working to give a little bit to make things work and the builder is giving a little bit to try to help sort out how to how to put this all together and make it a real doable project and a real nice project. And I just I want to thank everybody on on all sides of this equation um for really creative thinking and you know kind of give a little get a little and try to figure out how to really make the best the best out of uh what's available to us. I mean the longer culde-sac I get it. The impervious service thing you know I get it. Putting a wider road in there so that we've got a little better access should we need it. you know, all of these little tweaks that, you know, you're willing to do and staff is, you know, people are coming up with ideas on solutions. It's that kind of creative problem solving is really important for a small city and and I just appreciate it very much. Anything else for this group? Okay, I think Joe, did you have anything else? And then I will talk about moving that close session to after mayor and council comments. Uh, I do. I think uh I'm not sure who wants to make it, but we're going to need some motions here. >> Mayor, council members. I'd be happy to make that first motion, but I don't think that's legal. >> Okay. Um, well, thanks for your everyone's time tonight, too. So, um, do I have a motion for resolution 2026-21? >> I'll make that one. >> Approving comprehensive plan and future land use map amendment. Do you want to read the one on the screen there because it's it's a little more it's a little more comprehensive for the listener, >> right? >> Yep. >> Move to adopt resolutions 2026-21 approving the comprehensive plan amendments requested by Summergate Development for the East Ridge Heights project with findings and conditions therein. >> Thank you. >> I'll second. Okay, I have a motion from council member Sumar and a second from council member Schmidt. Any discussion? All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed. The resolution is adopted. >> I'll make the next one. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Uh move to adopt resolution 202622 approving the preliminary plat and PUD for the East Ridge Heights project with the findings and conditions therein. >> I'll second. >> Thank you. We have a motion from council member Schmidt and a second from council member Ingamman. Any discussion? >> Mayor, if I may clarify, does that include the changed condition that we talked about on >> the one you over you over >> five as staff presented? >> It certainly does. >> Okay. Okay. Just >> as amended conditions as amended. >> Okay. So, I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? >> All those in favor say I. >> I. Those opposed the resolution is adopted. I'll move to adopt ordinance 2026-03 establishing the PUB flexibilities and reszone for the East Ridge Heights project as with the findings and conditions therein. >> I'll second >> as conditions as amended. >> That was uh that one does not have the same condition. So I no issues here. Council member Schmid got the hard one. >> Okay. Thank you. So I have a motion from council member Taylor and a second from council member Ingamman. Any discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. Those opposed. The ordinance is adopted. >> I'll move to adopt resolution 26-23 authorizing summary publication of ordinance 26-03. >> I'll second. So >> have a motion from council member Ingamman and a second from council member Sumar. Any discussion? All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed the resolution is adopted. Thanks everyone. Very good discussion. Um, anything else uh before Okay, so we have on our agenda this evening a close session. Um, I'm going to move that after council comments, we'll go into close session. After we come out of close session, we will um adjourn for the evening. I don't believe we have anything. It's just a discussion item in close session. No action is going to be asked for of the council. Um, so it's justformational. Uh, so with that, I'll move on to just council reports. Again, I just great job with the snow plowing and, uh, getting the, uh, calcium chloride out on the road, so it was all ready for the nice sunny weather. Um, also earlier this week I was at the um League of Minnesota Cities uh City Day on the Hill uh to advocate with both our representative Rick Hansen and our senator Matt Klene for funding for both um our INI uh projects that we have going on as well as funding for our uh new wells that or the new well that we are um anticipating putting in. And so it was a good day. They both had just gotten out of chairing meetings. So it had been a long day for them and uh but they made accommodations as needed uh to have some time with me and they were meeting with a lot of cities that day. So um I just appreciated that and and a chance to connect with them. Um council member Ingamman, did you have anything? >> I have nothing. >> Council member Taylor, >> I just want to besides thanking our staff, but also thank the planning commission for their work on this. This is a challenging one. And just reminder that we is Bailey Farm still mave time frameish. >> I mean just mayor members of the council we're expecting applications Monday. >> Monday. >> Uh but you'll have to wait until my weekly update next week. >> Um so >> just kind of try to tip the public off there by your phones waiting for my email >> knowing that >> all day next Friday >> knowing that there's more coming too. But I I appreciate the public too for showing up at the public hearing too. So, thank you. >> Yep. Council member Schmidt, >> nothing for me. >> Um, council member Sar, >> there is a handout we get called staying in touch and in it, it is packed with information about events that are happening that Newport residents can enjoy. And for instance, on April 7th at 3:30, the Ro family singers are going to be at the Park Road Library. On May 5th, the Clay City event is going to happen. These events are planned for the first Tuesdays of the month when entrance to Washington County Parks is free. No vehicle permit is required. There's also mentioned about the Newport and St. Paul Park circulator. It's going to be a new bus service that will be available to take people to multiple apartment buildings and grocery stores, medical appointments. More details to come. Council member Taylor, I think, has been updating us on this. Uh there's also Spring Park events and programs. Free Tuesdays, April 7th, May 5th, all day at county parks. They're free entry on the first Tuesdays of the months. There's monthly bird hikes coming up. the spring equinox forest bathing event that's going to be happening this coming Saturday and it's corresponding with the honoring of the spring equinox and the international day of trees spring makers market on April 11th cottage grove ravine regional park going to be featuring local craft vendors, hands-on nature crafts, food trucks, in time to explore trails, and fresh spring growth. There's also a notification that the county is going to be hiring a number of positions for people in the lifeguard, beast coordinator, outdoor recreation instructors, guest service attendants, maintenance assistants, and parks and outdoor recreation events. So, if you have teenagers that are looking for jobs, the county is going to be hiring a number of people. So, I suggest that you take a look at the options that are available here. And those are things that are coming up in Newport and the surrounding community. >> Great. Thank you so much. Uh with that, we will uh the next agenda item is labor negotiation strategy. Um this is under Minnesota statute section 13D.03. 03 subdivision 1 clause B and this portion of the meeting will be closed pursuant to such statute uh upon duly duly approved motion of the city council. So I will now entertain a motion to close this portion of the meeting. >> Are we going to have a workshop after >> after this? Yes. >> After this. >> Is this anticipated to be long? Should we take a break first? We could take a break and then >> we go into close session. >> Okay. So, um >> I would make a motion that we go into uh 10-minute recess. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> So, have a motion from Mayor Elliot and a second from Council Member Sumar to go into recess. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed, we are in recess. When we return, we'll go into close session. Thanks, Bill.