530. Role. Commissioner Family here. Commissioner. Kermes. Here. Commissioner. Fueling here. Commissioner Bonillahere and chair lady here. Thank you. Uh, did everybody get achance to look at the meeting? Minutes from February 10th,I think everybody was here. Yep. Any changes? Didn't look like much on there because of the trainings, right? Yeah. There wasn't a lot. No. Okay. Entertain a motion to approve. A motion to approve. You second? I'll motion to approve a second. Motion to approve. Uh, all in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? The minutes are closer to that. Yes. Sorry about that. Chair like BobBarker all the time. Okay. So we will go to agenda meeting or agendaitem number four. Nathan. All right. Great. Thank you, chair,and good evening, chair. Members of the commission. So I'll just start by saying this item still isa public hearing. So I'll give my usual, um,Overview of the topic and then invite you to openthat public hearing. Just as a note for everyone. The city's planning commissiondid open a public hearing at the last meeting. That was because we noticedfor a public hearing at that meeting, but needed a littlebit more time with the plans and in our in ourreview of them. So, um, that we did re notice a hearing for thisevening's meeting. So folks should have had theopportunity to receive that and, um, make it make itout if they have comments. So with all that being said,I will jump into my review. I have a PowerPointprepared for you all. So this will be an overview ofthe application here in front of us. All right. So you should beable to see that. There we go. So Eastridge Heights uh, thisproject has um we've required a number of differentapplications. With this particular projectwe'll talk about this is a preliminary plat andplanning a development with a comprehensive plan, amendmentand rezone request in addition. So we've got a lotto talk about here. And I'm just going to jumpright in with an overview of the project. And we'll go from there. So the site if you areunfamiliar with this particular area, it's at the uh, generallyspeaking it's south and east of Hastings and Bailey Road. Um, this is a 78 unit, singlefamily detached development, and I'll walk through a numberof the different elements that you're seeing onthe, on the site. But that is thegeneral location. Uh, a little bit moreoverview information here. Talked about the applicationsthat the applicant has filed. The applicant is summergate development. And these are this developmentsite is comprised of a number of different parcels. Some of them addressed,some of them not. Um, you can see those on thescreen and in the staff report. Sorry I spoke wrong. It was 73 homes. The current zoning on this siteis rural estate with a bluff land area overlay. But we would note to you thatthe zoning proposed for this site is R1, which is the city'ssingle family zoning district. The current future land usefor this property is mixed residential, and we'll talkabout why there is a request to change and how to review that. But the proposed future landuse guidance for this is single family detached. The site area for this propertyis 58, just over 58 acres, almost 59. The buildable area, however,is significantly less. It's just under 30 acres at 29. So as as you can guess, most ofthat old buildable area is the bluff, which we will talk about. Um, lastly, it's just a noteon the existing conditions. Um, we do have three existinghomes and driveways on this development site, and all of these would be removedfor this project. So we looked at an aerialphotograph or area of the site. And here you can see this isthe city's future land use map. Um, and what you're looking atis the current future land use guidance for this property. And of course, we have thatcomprehensive plan amendment that's proposed to change thefuture land use guidance for this site. And so it would become single family detachedthat light yellow. So you can see currentlythat mixed residential. And actually a small portionof this development site is included in that gray which isthe transportation category. Um, that area of the site isjust um, it's part of private property and it'snot needed for MnDOT. But I think that when the citywent through this, uh, 2040 comp plan initially andgot guided, that area. It was kind of painted inbroad brushstrokes with that transportation category. So that's whyyou're seeing that. Okay. And if you look at thezoning for this property, currently the zoning districtis residential estate. I would note that theresidential estate zoning district is sort of atransitional zone that that does allow low densityresidential to continue, but it also is sort of a transitionalzone for future development that's at higher densitiesor more urban development. Here again, is anaerial of the property. And you can see some prettyunique property boundaries, I'll say. So part of this site, if youcan see the cursor on the screen, goes out intoMnDOT right of way. There are MnDOT easements. And of course thatarea is used for 494. So as a part of a plat we wouldwe would be Anticipating that area to be dedicatedas public right of way. So you can see the existingconditions here on the screen that I just talked about. What you can also see in someof the in some of those more faint gray linesare the contours. And so as I noted to you,this is a bluff area. And so you can see thosecontours get pretty close together as you move tothe west of this site in particular, so you can seethose existing homes as well. So this is a good opportunityto remind you that the Planning Commission did have anopportunity to review this project at a concept plan stage. I think that was maybe six months to a yearago at this point. Um, and so there were commentsprovided to to the applicant through that process that hadbeen worked through for the most part and that have, um,fed into what's being requested now with this preliminary plot. So at this stage of thedevelopment process, we're really starting toget into the details. And that's why you have sucha long staff report for me. So thank you for reading it. If you if you read word,word or cover to cover. The Comprehensive Planamendment, I want to just take a moment to talk aboutwhat is being requested. So, um, the city's 2040comprehensive plan contains that future land use map. As you know, uh, this map is,um, proposed to be changed for the development site tobe single family detached. I mentioned that anotherthing that the developer is requesting through thecomprehensive plan process or amendment process is to reducethe minimum allowable density for that single family category. Right now, the city's singlefamily detached category allows for requires rather a rangebetween 3 to 5 units per acre, Given the challenges withthis property and putting more density on it beingpretty difficult. Um, the developerhas requested a 2.5 minimum units peracre instead of three. So I will talk to you a littlebit more detail in the coming slides on on exactly what thatlooks like and what that means. But generally speaking, byamending this future land use category for this site and thisparticular category, it will apply to any, any other sitein this city that's guided with that category. That being said, I don't thinkwe anticipate many of the other areas in the city that areguided, uh, single family detached to redevelopum in the near future. Okay. So how does thedensity break down then? Um, with density and a reviewof density, we start with trying to understand whatis the net developable area. So the MET Council has guidanceand guidelines on how to calculate net density. In short. Net density is thebuildable area. So we take the gross area whichis again just under 59 acres. We take out the principaland arterial right of way. That would be theinterstate corridor. We take away the bluff areasand for us to consider bluff areas on developable, they'reprotected by ordinance. And lastly, there are poweroverhead power line easements as well runningthrough this area. So when we net out all of thosedifferent areas, we end up with a net acreage ofjust over 29 acres. And so when you divide 73 unitsby that acreage, you get a resulting 2.5 units per acre. So, um, we would have a projectthat meets our guidance. Should we amend the comp plan? And I'll actually goback to this slide here. So I'll talk aboutzoning in a moment. But um, staff have coordinated,um, pretty regularly with the Met Council staff to make surethat we understand what are the implications if the city does approve the ComprehensivePlan amendment. As you know, the city has tomeet a minimum of five units per acre in Seward areas. We've looked at the density logthat the city has in the MET Council shares. And, um, we're not goingbelow five units per acre by approving this change andapproving this development. So in short, the city will bestill be compliant with the requirement that the METCouncil has of five units per acre citywide. So the way that that five unitsper acre works is that it's an average across the entire city. So there are some areas thathave developed at a higher density in some areas like thismay develop at a lower density. It's not uncommon forcommunities to guide land at lower densities thantheir average citywide. Needs to be. So I just want toleave you with that. And we can always talk about that more if youdo have questions. Okay. So in terms of thezoning, I like to start with the bulk standards, thelot area setbacks, etc. what we're seeingin the development. And I'll back up so you cansee the the site plan again are lots that are meeting the R-1, the single familydistrict standards. So I'll go back to this table. The minimum arearequired is 7800ft. The development all of thelots would exceed that. They would also then exceedthe minimum lot width of 60ft. The lots also meet the city's standard minimumlot depth at 130ft. So the area the shape ofthese lots is conforming. The developer is requestingflexibility from the city. In some of the setbacks that are provided for forthese properties. So you can see on the leftcolumn the required column what the city standard setbacks areand what the requested setbacks are at a high level. What this means is the building. The building pad within thesite is being requested to be larger than it typically wouldbe permitted by the city, but these setbacks aren't that far away from whatthe city requires. So, um, 25ft instead of 30ft isrequested on the front yard, on the side yards. The city requires ten feet,where the developer is proposing five feet ata minimum between homes. It's not necessarily alwaysgoing to be the case that it would be ten feetbetween structures. There may be some cases where, um, the structuresare further apart and on a corner lot. The city has a 30 foot standardwhere 20ft is requested here in a rear lot basis. 35ft is required in25ft is proposed. I will mention that in lookingat the plans, it appears that many, many of the lots are ableto actually meet these setbacks and likely will. I think what the developer isattempting to take into account by requesting some of thisflexibility, particularly like the rear yards, is things like decks to be attachedto the home. When a deck gets built behinda home, it's considered to be part of the principal structure. And so when we have flexibilitypermitted at this stage of the development process, it isvery helpful for those future residents that come inexpecting to have those types of things attachedto their home. So that is one reason youmay consider flexibility. And in particular to therear rear yard setback. Lot coverage will vary prettywidely through the development based on the lot and theparticular type of home that will be built. The developer has identifieda builder to work with them on this site, so they'll be happyto talk to you more about what those homes may look like. And, um, I think DavidWeekley Homes is the builder. Lot coverage is requested to beallowed up to 50% of the lots. Again, not all of thelots would would have that flexibility requested. Um, but certainly some of them,given the building envelope and the location may. So you can kind of see whatall of this starts to look like when you look at the typicalsingle family lot detail, and you can see the, the differentsetbacks and the pretty large building envelope that they'reshowing on a kind of a standard rectangular lot, as you can seeon the right side of the slide, uh, there are many lots thatare not exactly rectangular or not exactly, um, very small. So just trying to provide alittle bit of more insight on that request. I'm going to shift gears andget into more of the site plan review than the individual lots. So when we start looking atthe design of the subdivision, we're looking at things likeon the single family homes that are proposed, just trying toget an idea of whether they'll comply with buildingmaterial standards. And then more importantlyfor the subdivision, the site design, the bluff area in thisdevelopment, tree preservation, landscaping, open spaceand other elements. So just starting with thebuilding materials and facade design, the city does have arequirement for certain types of building materials. The the images that we've seen do appear to becompliant with those. Not exactly sure what they'regoing to build yet, but, um, they do appear to meet. And then the other standard thecity has is 15% of the facade of the front facade of the homeneeds to be covered in glass. And again, it appears that mostof those proposed units would have these differentdesign elements. Some of them may need to, um,be looked at a little closer for that 15% of window area. Okay. Getting into the bluffprotections, this was a really a really big part of thisproject, and it really wasn't that different of a review fromwhat you'll recall with the Cherrywood developmentthat we have up on century. So the city does have a bluff land area overlayover this area. Uh, the intent of that overlaydistrict is really to provide some standards that help usprotect the bluff areas, and in particular, a couple of thosedifferent standards that are, um, applied here include structure placementand setbacks. So specifically, the ordinancedefines, um, what is the top of the bluff. It creates a bluff impact zonefrom the top of the bluff into the buildable area, and thereis a setback of 30ft from the top of the bluff. In addition to that, theordinance calls for careful vegetation management in thebluff areas and as you will remember from Cherrywood. Excuse me. Um, if we take out a lot oftrees on the top of the bluff, that could have adestabilizing effect long term. So just being careful withvegetation management in particular in those top of bluff or bluffbluff impact zones. Um, we have been workingclosely with our partners at South Washington WatershedDistrict and rooted this application to themfor their review. Um, one of the primary thingsthat they're concerned with is, of course, stormwatermanagement. And so that's been a closeconversation between the city engineering department, public Works and thewatershed district. Um, the city engineering memo will talk about itin a little bit. Does provide requirements tomake sure that those rules of the watershed district are met. Another watershed districtstandard is a 60 foot bluff setback from the top of bluff,which is different, as you will remember from our30 foot standard. And so the developer iscomplying with the city's standard, but has requested some flexibilityfrom the watershed. And as with Cherrywood,they did the same. They did the same thing. We're looking at trying to go alittle bit above and beyond in terms of the landscaping planat the top of the bluff, making sure that we really understandwhat is the mix of trees in the area where they'll remain atthe top of the bluff, and how can we actually enhance theplantings and landscaping there so that we really help tohold down that area long term? So that is one thing that theWatershed District was pleased to hear, and I think openfor that flexibility. The other thing is just makingsure that I the and this is a conversation more betweenengineering and and watershed, but making sure that there arereally good plans for managing stormwater flows throughthe site to make sure that stormwater doesn't end updestabilizing the bluff in some in some way if we getlarge rain events. So those are the areas that thecity staff is making sure to, to be very careful about. So I've talked alot about the bluff. Here's a bunch ofsquiggly lines. This is kind of hard to lookat, but I think what it tells us is this is a prettycomplicated site. And that's part of the reasonthat this development review has taken longer than most, andwhy we end up moving the, the, the meeting back a month, justthat there's a lot of different elements to work throughwith this property. So you can see that generallyspeaking, the buildable areas are closer to sterling. And then kind of along thesouth side of this site. So that kind of has informedthe development plan and what you're seeing proposed. I just want to call out that wehave the bluff line identified in this dark blueline that you can see. So that's the areas that areformally considered to be bluff based on the definitionwithin the city's ordinance. There is that green dashed line. So I'll zoom in. There is a green dashed linethat is the bluff impact zone. So that's 20ft from the top ofthe bluff and in and then we've got that red bluff setback line. So you can see kind of whereall those things line up. We asked the developers team toprovide a conservation easement boundary, anticipatingthat we will be requiring a conservation easement over thebluff to make sure that there is protection for this area. Long term, there could be no,um, like physical improvements in that area that would bedestabilizing to the bluff. so we asked for them toidentify where that boundary would be drawn. In that boundary for theconservation easement also informs what we're able to netout of the gross acreage to form our net developable area. So these things are allkind of working together. That conservation easementboundary is going to be important moving forward. And I think one of the thingsthat we were paying close attention to, with, withgetting to this stage is just making sure thatboundary makes sense. Kind of flattening it out whereyou see the bluff is really going in and out and all ofthat of the property, making sure that we have more of aconsistent boundary that's easier to enforce longterm for the city. So. And then, yeah, looking againat the south side of the property, you can see that, um,all of these boundaries tend to kind of line up here. I do want to point out we dohave another part of the bluff in this area. And again, the city engineeringteam has really paid pretty close attention to this particular part ofthe development. Understanding that we have tobe careful with stormwater. Okay. Tree preservation. You know, I think it's worthnoting that there are quite a few mature trees on this site that would be removedfor the project. Um, you know, in order tocreate all the home sites, there is a what's called massgrading, where you have to kind of make sure that the generallandscape works from a grading standpoint for the new lots. And so what that does come. Tree removal. So the city has a treepreservation ordinance that kicks in for development projects removingsignificant trees. And you can see the tree preservation calculationon the table. So I think it's a littleconfusing how the calculations work within thecity's ordinance. Um, I took a look at this tablepretty closely when we were reviewing the projectinitially, and I'm comfortable with it. There is a little bit like acouple of the steps maybe not included in this table, buteffectively this table is showing us the most conservative, uh,review of our ordinance. Um, the ordinance requires adifferent amount of replacement trees based onwhat's being removed. So if it's a, um, just a commontree, it's called it has less of a replacement requirementthan an evergreen. And then evergreen trees haveless of a replacement than the kind of the qualityhardwood trees. And so, um, hardwood treesis where they're, you know, they're doing that replacementcalculation and that's the right way to approach it. Considering themix of the species. This is a fairly high quality,uh, bluff area in terms of the wood mix woodland mix. So they've used the most conservative approachto that calculation. And it appears to be accurate. They've inventoried all of thetrees on the development site. And so I think we have a prettygood understanding of of what's there and what's being removed. One of the things that we'lltalk about moving forward is just ideas of how to reviewthis area at the top of the bluff, as we did withcherry wood, with the tree preservation, um, review, we,we really kind of dug into the details to understand. Are there species atthe top of the bluff? In that case? We had a lot ofinvasive species. We had a lot of buckthorn. We also had ash treesthat were dead or dying. And so we did a evaluation ofthe top of the bluff to really understand what maybe shouldbe removed, actually within the bluff impact area, because it'sdead or it's dying and replaced with the higher qualityplanting that will be more, more long lasting. So that is a part of theanalysis that we would intend to to do on this as plansare revised and resubmitted. But I will say long storyshort, the equivalent number of trees that would have to bereplaced from what's being removed is 1500 trees, andthat's 1500, um, like 2.5 caliper inch trees. So those are younger,younger trees. So tree preservation, thelast thing I'll say about that before talking aboutlandscaping here, um, you saw that 3802 caliper inch number. Um, that is the number ofcaliper inches that kind of are the equivalent of thosetrees or vice versa. Uh, when we take out the treesthat are being proposed to get planted here just forreplacement, they're proposing 455 caliper inches. So, um, subtracting that fromthis total, we would be left with 3347 caliper inches of,um, required replacement. So the developer is requestingflexibility through the planned unit development process. And one of the things that thecity did with the Cherrywood project, understanding thatthere was a bluff and that the site was rather tight, was torequire a an in lieu fee of $150 per caliper inch. That's generallythe market price. Probably a low market price,but the market price of a replacement tree. So, um. That the city is able to thentake those funds and plant trees elsewherein the community. Those dollars are supposed tobe reserved for work that would enhance the city's tree canopy. So. Okay. Landscaping. I just want to talk aboutthis really quickly. Um, you're seeingthe landscaping plan. This is the preliminarylandscaping plan. So, of course, as we moveforward, the developer will need to revise and resubmit, as they do with thefinal plat and plans. Um, you're seeing A fairamount of landscaping here. They've estimated that 357trees are required based on the city's landscaping standards. 345 trees are shown on thelandscaping plan, which leaves a deficit of 12 trees that would be requiredfor this development. So, um, in addition toidentifying maybe where those trees can go. If not, I think the PUDflexibility could be considered for that. And again, considering that,um, we may be able to allow an in lieu fee for tree managementelsewhere in the community. So again, just to talk a littlebit more about the bluff, I think this is a good, you know,first pass of a landscaping plan, but certainlycan be reviewed. And I believe the developer'steam is working on this now. Um, where can some of the, youknow, some of the trees may be overlapping with trees thatare already existing on site. So I think a little bit moreof a closer look at this. Um, particularly at the top ofthe bluff or bluff impact area. I think we can identify maybewhere more trees could be planted or the the species mixcould be diverse or other other ways to enhance this area. So with the location on the bluff definitelycomes challenges. One of thosechallenges is access. So as we talked about when wereviewed the concept plan, the city does have a requirementfor two points of access for new developments that exceeda certain number of units. So this is is no different. We do need an access. So if I go back to ourlandscaping plan, you can see, uh, Sterling up on thenortheast corner of the site. Uh, you have one access pointon Sterling and then a road called Street one on the plansthat would connect through down to Hastings Avenue. The city's engineering team andpublic works team have spent a considerable amount oftime reviewing this. This proposed street, andactually the city engineering team was the one thatidentified this potential alignment when thisfirst was a concept plan. So, um, I think staff at thispoint are comfortable with the development moving forward. You know, uh, generally we tendto avoid steep, steep slopes and roads. But in this case, I think theengineering team's confident enough that the slope won't betoo excessive and that the road can be maintained effectively. And all of those things that we have to think aboutfor, for access. So, um, this will accomplishthose two points of access and give the residents in thisneighborhood, uh, a quick way to get on to Hastings Avenueand hopefully visit some of the downtown businessesin that one area. Uh, we're also seeing three cul de sacs on the on the site plan. So maybe I have an image here. Yeah, I do so. Um, there are three culde sacs on the site plan. We, in our concept plan review,uh, we're really focused on trying to reduce or eliminatesome of the extra cul de sacs that you're seeing. Um, and in working throughthis, this development actually came forward with plans that would loop this longcul de sac here. And I've got a cross section or a profilethat I'll show you in a moment. That explains whythat didn't happen. But, um, this long cul de sac,it came in as a loop road. And ultimately, consideringsome of the grading that's in the topography on this site andthe lots that they're trying to, to create, um, thatlooped road created a lot of challenges specifically, again,from a grading standpoint. So they've worked throughwith the engineering team many iterations, I would say, ofthis plan and landed on this particular plan as kind of thebest, the best alternative. I will note to you that thecity's standard cul de sac length is exceeded by this long, kind ofU-shaped cul de sac. One of the ways that thedeveloper's team is, is hoping to, um, have this approved isthat the road is being widened beyond the city's minimumstandard to allow for better ability of emergency services vehicles to getaround in this area. City maintenance is alsobenefited from plowing standpoint for theincreased width, and there will be a utilitylooping through this area to make sure that if there is everan issue with water main, for example a water main break inthe future, there is an ability to have continued service forthese lots through the loop. Um, you're seeing on on this kind of close up,uh, trail connection. This connection has beendesigned to accommodate vehicle traffic and emergencyservices traffic. Should there be an issuewith the cul de sac? Maybe there's a water mainbreak and then we need fire team to get up towardsthe end of the cul de sac. You know, in that kind of worstcase scenario, there should be. There still is two points ofaccess for for these residents. So this cul de sac bulb isat a pretty is also at a non-standard in a, in awider in a wider fashion a non-standard widths. So it's bigger than normal. That also will help from asnow storage standpoint too. So we're thinking through alot of the angles, a lot of the cons potentially that there might be to the thelong cul de sac. We think we've worked throughsome design tweaks to make that acceptable and therefore arecomfortable with granting that flexibility through the PUD. I will say that another benefitof this project is just looping the city's water main. That's always somethingthat you want to see. Is that extra redundancy inthe water system that is being looped through this developmentas well, from the area on Sterling where there's a utility connectiondown to Hastings. So this is the cross sectionthat kind of shows the difference between what wewould have had with the looped road and what we havewith the cul de sac. So on the top you're seeing ifwe had a looped road, the homes would have had to be lower,which would have resulted in a retaining wall actually at thetop of the bluff to get them get the home sites down. Um, that wasn't beneficialfrom a grading standpoint. We don't want to do grading onthe top of the bluff if we can avoid it. It also would have producedlots that are a lot less desirable in a location wherethe developer is hoping to have them be the most desirable. Right, with thatkind of overlook. So that's another reason that they are requestingthe flexibility. All right. So getting into parklanddedication and trails, the city has a requirement forparkland dedication of 10% of residential projects. This this projectis no different. Creates a demand on theparkland trail system. And so would have to providethat park dedication. Um, city staff are stillrecommending and we were at the time of the concept plan aswell, the cash in lieu option for for dedication becausewe are close to a city park. However, we are concerned aboutmaking sure that there is a trail connection. And so the city did create a2025 trail network plan that identified a searchcorridor in this area. So you can see the developmentsite generally where the cursor is has a trail searchcorridor running through it. Those search corridors arereally not a specific trail alignment that we needto see more more of. We would like to see aconnection generally between these two areas. So this development shouldbe held to that requirement. And I believe the developer andtheir engineer have some ideas about how to get a trailin this general area. So that will be a conditionthat I will recommend is that we get a trail. It might be that theeasiest way to get a trail. Oops, I have thedevelopment site. The easiest way to get a trail may very well bealong this street. And so if that is the case,what you may see moving forward is that we do not need asidewalk on street one and a trail, so we may allow for thedeveloper to use the trail to satisfy that sidewalk standard,but they would still be required to have sidewalks ontheir cul de sacs, with the exception of this veryshort cul de sac here. Okay. As if this weren'tcomplicated enough, we have a cemetery in the area of ourHastings Avenue connection, and so the developer and their teamhave completed a literature review at the at the recommendation of citystaff to understand what what does this area looklike historically in terms of the cemetery's use of theof the cemetery property. And I'll try to back up soI can find a parcel map. I should have prepared alittle bit better for this one. You can kind of see down here,um, if you're looking at the bottom of the screen, thisis the cemetery property. Um, the city of Newporthas a roadway easement. This dashed line is theboundary between the cemetery and the NewportCommons property. Um, and so the city over theNewport Commons property has a public road easement thatshould be of sufficient with for this connection so thatthe roadway improvements do not need to use thatcemetery property. And so coming backto that slide, the developer's team hascompleted that literature review, which is really adocument that reviews the history of the propertyboundaries and the cemeteries use of their property tounderstand, might we have any buried remains in the areawhere we have a construction potentially going on? So, um, the conclusion of that,uh, literature review, which is actually very recently sent. So it's not in your packet,but the conclusion is that that Southern Cemetery propertyboundary is quite well defined historically, and that therereally didn't seem to be any potential or a low likelihoodrather of potential of buried remains in that area. That all being said, thememo does recommend an archaeological monitor, uh,during the construction period where it's in the area of thisof the cemetery, so that that will be a city staffrecommendation moving forward. Another kind of unique part ofthis property is that one of the properties is defined withTorrance, which is a different legal description than we normally have, whichis called abstract. Long story short, these are like oil and water forlegal descriptions. So when we have plats, thereare some pretty specific property boundaries thatare shown on the plat. And you're going to see arecommendation from staff to to do things like combine one ofthe outlets with one of the lots before the buildingpermit can be issued. So long story short, we'regoing to make the property lines make more sense withthose conditions for approval that we're recommending,they'll allow us to combine those properties afterthe plats created. Okay, so I'm definitely not the onlyone that's reviewed this. As I as I mentioned, we've hadthe city engineering memo that was dated December 29th that should read of 2026at a highlight. It's included in yourpacket at a highlight. It provides standard conditionsfor revisions of the plans. Requires road dedication,stormwater management, all of those things a trail. And I do note that we you know,the engineering memo contains many of the same, same concernsfor stormwater management as South WashingtonWatershed District. Um, we've also been in closecoordination with the city's emergency services team. The city fire chief hasreviewed that emergency access and informed the design,including the slope of it. Uh, as I mentioned, we'vetalked to South Washington Watershed District. We've also gotten a review memofrom the Washington County. Uh, really their primary focuson this project is that Bailey Road corridor. I just want to summarize, incase we need to come back to this, the PUD flexibilitiesthat are being requested. Setbacks. Impervioussurface on a per lot basis. Tree preservationoverall that's required. Um staff are recommending withcash and Luffy total required plantings, flexibility of 12trees and cul de sac length. So I'm not going to read theseslides, but I do want to make sure that we mention them. The city does have findingsfor preliminary plats. Um, and and these areactually findings for denial. So the city would have to make these findings to,to support a denial. Uh, staff do not believe thatwe need to make any of those findings for denial. The city also has findings inits ordinance for when it can issue planned unit developmentsin your staff, report our proposed findings for you thatwould allow for an approval of the planned unit developmentwith the considerations. All right. Um, And then findings for the Rezoning and ComprehensivePlan amendment. So rezoning generally should beconsistent with the comp plan. And if the rezoning isnot consistent, then a comprehensive planamendment must be requested. Well, a comprehensive planamendment has been requested to make sure that the futurezoning and future land use category are consistent in its consideration of theComp plan amendment. Staff recommend considering. Does the change align with thegoals of the city's comp plan? Is it consistent with otherplans or policies, and will it be consistent with applicableMET Council policies? And I think the answer to that first question ispart is in part. You know, there are a numberof land use goals that are contained within thecity's comp plan. And one of those is toencourage a more diverse amount of new housing in the community. And I think, as you all know,the community has approved quite a few different types ofhousing, but nothing actually at this low of a density inthe last number of years. And so this would contribute tothe different mix of units that are available in Newport. We, with the Comprehensive Planamendment, did also send an adjacent and effected reviewnotice to our neighboring communities of Woodbury,Maplewood and Cottage Grove. In particular, thosecommunities could be possibly impacted by the comp planamendment, and all of them got back to us with anote of no comments. So we understand that they'renot particularly concerned with this development. The staff report does contain 15 recommendedconditions for approval. Should the Planning Commissionand City Council ultimately approve this project? I like to break these down intothe standard and more unique conditions with this project. Of course, the standardconditions should apply. These are things like approval. The approvals are contingentupon the comp plan amendment being approved by the METCouncil, uh, being consistent with the engineering memo,paying fees and those things, getting permits. Uh, the unique conditionsI noticed I did have one duplicative comment orcondition on the requirement for a trail, but runningthrough these, the applicant will need to provide, uh, easement and maintenance agreements for theshared driveway. So there is one area thatI think we're still working through and can definitelycontinue to work through as I go back to the plan. Apologies for the whiplash here. Um, there are three lots thatare proposed on a private drive, and I think this issomething that the engineer, the engineering team is,uh, taking care of and the engineering memo. And so we are requiringconformance with that memo. But basically, if this will bea private drive, we're going to need to get easements andthings in place for the folks that are on the three, thethree families that will be on that private drive to be ableto access it and share it. All right. Going back. I mentioned thetrail connection. So that's going to be animportant thing to identify in future plan submittals. We do have one condition forout lot B being combined with lot 34 of block two priorto issuance of any building permits for that lot. That's a result of that wholeTorrance versus abstract legal description issue. We're satisfied that wecan manage that through the condition there. Um, making sure we're gettingresubmitted landscaping plans that detail the bluff restoration for longterm stabilization and making sure that if thereare, if there is going to be flexibility granted for treeremoval through the planned unit development, that acash in lieu fee be required. And that in in in the eventthat there is potentially incidental loss throughconstruction that those trees you know, definitely tryto avoid that number one. Number two, if it does happenof being able to require a cash in lieu fee because some of those trees arereally close together. And if they're trying to saveone and they accidentally damage another, that's next toit, that might be a problem. And then, um, if grading isgoing to begin on this site before a final plat anddevelopment agreement are executed or entered into that,we will have a requirement for a grading agreement. And so one of the things we'veseen with developments in tree removal is just that. The timing is very importantfor that, in particular with some of the um species inthe area that we're trying to manage for. Okay. So what the nextsteps look like the first. The first step here after thePlanning Commission, would be that city Council reviewand decision on the project. After that, the developer wouldtake the take the decision of the city council. And if that's approval, theywould probably be resubmitting a revised plans and afinal plat application. So with that, I will be veryhappy to take your questions. I will note that the developerand their team are here this evening to answer anyquestions you have for them. I do have an example motionthat I've put together for you, but again, happy to takequestions you have for me. I'll remind you, youhave a public hearing. Can you go back to the slide where it shows thebluff easement? There's a red line thatintersected it, actual piece of the bluff, and it looks toconveniently not hit homes. And I'm just wonderingis why does that line. Number 22 and 21 homes. Number 22 and 21and go up this one. Nope. These. Nope I think it's yep. This one. So right there you see wherethe red line oh intersects with the blue one. Are you talking about this. Yes. So why does that happen. That is a yes. I also had that same questioneffectively with the topography in this area. That's the bottom of a bluff. So this blue area,this blue is a bluff. The top of this bluff is here. And it starts to actually thisis the it comes down on the property here. The topography is kind of funny in this area, butthat is the bottom. And the bottom of a bluffarea does not have the same protections that the top ofbluff has, because we're trying to have that stabilityat the top So that is. That is a good. A good, good observation. Because it's the only place Imean, it intersects one other place, but it's a corner. Yeah. And this isactually called out. We've had a number of meetings. The city engineer, myself andthe development engineers team and, um, that that particularsite was identified as something to work throughon the grading plan. So one thing that will want tomake sure that we continue to review for is, um, we don'twant these lots to have issues with, with drainage,particularly drainage coming down the slope. And that would drop the numberright to 77, which would potentially change buildablesquare footage that could have a waterfall effect. Yeah. So the developer iscurrently barely, barely meeting that two and a halfunit per acre standard. And so we are trying to workwith them to make sure that we have a development thatwill meet our comp plan. We we need. We need to have that. So, um, you'll you'll noticethat between the bluff and the southern property boundary,it's, it's it's about as compressed as it can getin terms of a development. Any other questions for me? Here. Any questions for the developer before we open thepublic hearing? No. Yeah. Sorry. This has been a reallybig review, so I apologize. There's a lot ofinformation to give you. Oh it's good. It was. It was an interesting read. The other thing that I read wasare we, uh, as part of the plan with the road that comesdown to Hastings, would we be forfeiting thecemetery parking lot? I don't think that there willbe changes to that parking lot. I think the access toit me may change it. I think actually, thedeveloper's engineer can speak to that questionbetter than I can. Okay. This is the developer. Engineer. Want to come up? Yeah, I'd love to. At least that one specifically. And I am interested about thesetwo other homes because like I said, if you can't put two homes in there,it changes a lot. It does? Yes. Thank you. Chair. Members ofthe Commission. Members of theaudience and staff. My name is Brian Tucker withSummer Gate Homes, and we were here last August to visit with you guys about our concept plan. And I think at the end of theday, it looks pretty similar to the product that we're bringingbefore you this evening. As your planner indicated, thishas been a complex site to work with, and it took us a littlelonger to get to this point, but there were a number ofchallenges to work through, and staff has been very, very goodin working with us through those issues. Tonight I do have RyanBloom with Westwood. He's our project engineer andhe can speak to the questions about those two lots at thebottom of the at the toe of the bluff, as well as the relationship with thecemetery property. And then I have two folks fromDavid Weekley Homes that would like to come up after me andjust introduce themselves. They'll be the home builderfor this project, and we look forward to workingwith them as well. Um, our plan would be, uh,assuming that this gets through City Council approval to do afinal plat for the entire area and begin construction as earlyin the summer, as we as we possibly can with the idea of having roads andinfrastructure in. And yet this year. So hopefully we have betterconditions than last June and July, uh, because that was adifficult time to try to get get projects graded. But, uh, all four of us will behappy to answer any questions, whether you know, technical or more of the marketingend of things. And with that, I'll havethe weekly folks come up. Or actually Ryan. And then. Yeah, I'm going to ask you real quick, real quickbefore we get started. I got a question forhim, but just hang tight. So to your point, I mean, ifyou're if you're doing a lot of grading and weird deforestation, certain areas ofthis, I mean, rain's going to tell us what's going to happen,um, unfortunately one way or the other, whether, you know,hopefully it's done well. But right when we startpulling, I'm my main concern and I'll get to the publichearing is the the lack of roots, mature roots holdingdown the soil to what's otherwise rock. Um, and so to your point, youknow, but June might not be a bad time to find out what thewater is going to do to all that newly fresh soil that now doesn't have mature roots in it. Right. And so that's I'll behonest, that's one of my main concerns when I see, you know,that because that area has just not been touched overall. Right. And that's one of thereasons why we always do soil reports with, you know, ageotechnical engineers to understand what'staking place there. Those inform our stormwaterplans that Ryan can can refer to here. Another reason why we haveto do quite a bit of erosion control on site. Because anytime you're moving,moving Earth around, you have to make sure and protect so that we don't haveissues downstream. So. Right. Okay. Thanks, Brian. Yeah. I'm Ryan Bloom withWestwood Civil Engineering for the project. And yeah, I'll just start withthe the soil characteristics. So we did have Brian andHurtak do a geotechnical report and boringsof the property. What we found was silty sand throughout themajority of the site. We did hit bedrock and our oneof our deeper borings in the south part of the property,it was 12ft below the surface. And we've scheduled to do someadditional test pits to just confirm the locationof the bedrock. It was found in thatsouthernmost pond at an elevation deeper thanour pond elevation. We want to make sure thatthere's no variation in terms of its location. Um, but we do plan to do moretest pits around both basins to, you know, get a betterhandle on where where bedrock might be located. Uh, going back to a coupleof your previous questions. Cemetery parking lot will stayas as is, uh, where our new road will come out to Hastings. There's a probably a goodchance that we're actually going to match where thecurrent cemetery entrance to the parking lot is, but that. Then the road will curve down and stay off thecemetery property. So, um, we'll coordinate withthe cemetery in terms of their access to their parking lotwill probably come off of the new road versus directlyout to Hastings. So there'll be some reworknear their entrance. So that's the plan. And then the twolots you mentioned. Yes. The bluffs are shown in, in inbig areas and where that what's shown is an impact. It's actually not an impact. It's at the bottom of a bluff. So what we're proposing todo is fill alongside the delineated area,which is called bluff. And as Nathan had mentioned,it's not at the top of a bluff. It's at the bottom. So we're working it withengineering to show how that grading will work. I think we'll do a better jobto on future plans to delineate just the top of the bluff, youknow, and then the protected areas of it. It's my mind. I saw those lines and I was like, they should not intersect. They should not be touching. Right. And so because it's thebottom, there isn't also an easement, although we are keeping a lot of thatarea is untouched. Um, but yeah, that's that'sthat's the reason for that. And that's why itlooks kind of funny. But I appreciate you coming up. Yeah. Good evening everyone. Thank you for having us. My name is Matt McCarthy. I'm with David Weekley Homes. I just want to talk a little bit about who weare as a company. So David Weekley Homes has beenin the business for 50 years. We've been in Minnesota, inthe Twin Cities for about 11. And so what makes us different,and it just makes us a little unique and differentiates us is that we're a privatelyheld company. So we're one of the largest privately heldbuilders in the US. We actually our purpose is tobuild dreams and enhance lives. So we're excited to enhancethe lives of yours in Newport. Um, you know, we reallygive back to our team. We've been named fortuneMagazine's top 19 companies to work for for 19 years now. But we're excited to give backto our team, our community, and just the culture that youguys have put in place. So we really appreciateallowing us to be here. Thank you. Appreciate it. Have you more than happy toanswer any questions you may have as well? I got a lot of answers outof the pictures and whatnot. For right now, I don't thinkthere is any mic you got. No, I think I'm good right now. Okay. Appreciate it. Thank you. Anything else you guys want totalk about before we open the public hearing? I think we. Um. Nothing done. Doodle. Um. We good? Yeah, I think I havejust a couple questions. Yeah. Um, one, I was thinkingabout the the setbacks and making them smaller. Um, and especially on acorner with a smaller setback. Are we worried about thatinhibiting any sort of view for driving when goingaround the corners? That is a really good question. So I think if we look at thiszoomed in image here, um, it's kind of easier. It's a little easier to tellthe the standard that the city has for what you're calling. It's kind of conventionallycalled the view triangle or the, you know, the safety triangle, if you will,near the intersection. So we measure 30ft from the intersection on eitherside and then draw a triangle. And these, these sites withthat 20 foot setback should generally still be able tocomply with that requirement. So that is that is definitelya very valid, um, question. And then I was just wonderingif that new road is going to be we talked about being a bit steeperthan, than typical. Do we know what percentgrade that's expected to be. At its highest? I imagine that's steepest grade. Um, if memoryserves me correctly. And I think, again, thedeveloper's engineer will be more familiar withwhat they're proposing. I think I think we're in theneighborhood of around 12% at the very, very steepest. Um, I will tell you that thathas been definitely a concern of engineering. And although, you know, um,it's not preferred to have steep roads, you know, in thecommunity, I think having that second point of access is, isa more important thing for, for emergency services and water main looping andall of those things. So, um, the engineering andpublic works team have looked at this pretty hard, andthey're comfortable with where we're at right nowwith what's proposed. Thank you. Yeah. And that now I just want to askbecause I think about winter. Yeah for sure. So so if in the middleof winter it's snowing, technically that communityonly has one access point. If you're concerned about theslope, I will say that we have the good benefit of having apublic works garage, literally a budding site. I won't be first toget my my road plowed. I get it though, butthey'll be first. Okay. So there are. Just. It is a valid it isa valid government. Yeah we have allkinds of it here. So yeah. Or I think if they. Can't get up that hill, they'regoing to have to take the other way, which could take longer. Yeah. And so you are right. They do. This neighborhood does have the benefit of thatsecondary sterling. So if there are concerns fromthe residents about how to get through this area, um, theywill have that opportunity. And I will also add this is I'll call it asouth facing road. So you should have a little bitless issues with ice buildup during the winter. Not to say itcan't get slippery. And that the sun isalways facing that. Right. So direction, at leastfrom the standpoint of getting and getting the sun to burn off. Some of the. Thinking about the problemsince 65th during our last. Slide and backwards. I will also add just what's onstaff's mind as we work through planning revisions andrequiring that trail in particular is thinking about,you know, the city maintains trails, making sure that that'sgoing to be maintainable and not have ice build up aswell with how it's designed. Okay. Go ahead and getto the public hearing. So we'll open our will reopenthe public hearing that was tabled during thelast meeting at 630. So anybody has anythingthey want to say? Please come to the podium. Speak clearly into the mic and state your nameand your address. Certainly. Here. Anybody that came. Pauline Miller, 9710th Street in Newport. Um, I have four, uh, questions, and you've already addressedmy concerns here. I apologize, but even thoughI sit in the front row seat, I can't hear your conversation. Can't hear it. So the first one has todo with the setbacks. Um, requested those would beconsidered variances, would they not? If the if a setback is 30ft andthey are asking for a setback of 25ft, that's a variance. Chair. Members ofthe Commission. To answer the question, thedevelopers requesting a planned unit development. And so this tool is notthe same as the variance. This is a flexibility thoughthat that is being requested. It's a PUD. I can't hear. So it's a pud. So it's built into that. It's not a variance. Okay. Because my thought with it is,you know, if it's a variance they're granted based on thefact that there is something with the land that can'tbe altered and, and there's nothing up there thatcan't be altered. It seems like those variances,the differences that they're asking for is based on thesize house they want to build. Not anything todo with the land. Does that make sense to you? You know they're not tryingto preserve a stand of oaks. There aren't some hills theywant to preserve or a pawn they want to keep intact. They simply want ahouse that's, uh, 60ft wide. And they want to put iton a 70 foot wide lot. And it's like, well, build fewer models, and thenyou don't have to have those changes in our setback rules. That's my comment. Okay. Uh, my second questionis the conservation area. It looks like, you know, if Iwere to buy a house up there, I would really havea very large lot. I mean, lot lineslook like they go that the lot includesthe conservation area. Am I reading that right? That if I bought a lot upthere, part of my lot would be in a conservation area? Could answer. That. So I think to preventthis from being a back and forth, what we can do is I'llwrite down the questions and then after the public hearings over, I can beginto answer some. Does that work for you, Pauline? Okay. I mean, that's finebecause I'm just wondering how that that impacts taxes. And also there must be a setof rules then, as if, if it privately owned, like if Iowned a lot up there and it's got a conservation area, therewould be rules that I would have to follow. Like, I couldn't do this and Icouldn't do that, and I would have to do this andI'd have to do that. Um, and, and if there are rules, I didn't seethat in the packet. And I would think the citywould have an interest in what the conservationarea actually means. Just like when Ilive on the river. I know what the bluff line. You know, I know that Ican't cut down trees on. On the river. And the city knows that. And we don't know what thatconservation area means in terms of actions. And I, we it's not in thepacket, but I do trust that they have thought about it. But yeah I was just givethey'll provide you anything that you need. But I do trust that the city looked into it,especially with this. This is new to me. No, I get it. I'm not. We don't I don't think we haveanother area where there's a conservation area like this. Not like. This. Um, I agree. My third is the three cul de sacs and theroad that connects Hastings with Sterling. Those are going tobe public roads. Correct. And and builtto city standards because I'm looking at going,well, now I know which way I'm going to go to the compost. I'm going to take that road. I'm going to avoid. Bailey. Um, particularlyon my return trip. But another question I have,and I'm sure that, you know, Public Works has looked at it. I'm sure you gotthe answer to it. The largest, that U-shaped culde sac on the southwest part of the property there, andthen has that little trail. Why the cul de sac? Why not just extend thatstreet, extend the street down to the new one? Because that's a lot of homeswith only one way to get out. And I was thinking about thattoday on my way on Concorde, because there was some police action going onand Concorde was blocked off. So there's all that traffic. And we're trying to, you know,make U-turns around and find another way out of that area. So that's my question. Why not just I mean, the cul desac already impacts lot size. Just make it a road. But anyway, so thatwas number three. And then number four. And I think what little I couldhear Brandon, I think you were addressing it and I call itmy alarmist question here. I don't know how many of youhere were in Newport when there were two homes, new homes builtup on 12th Avenue and the bluff between 12th Avenue and 11thAvenue fell away and damaged at least one housedown on 11th Avenue. What I heard was that itactually moved the basement about a foot, the soilcoming down the hill. And that was a small areathat was a small bluff and. And only two houses. So. My question is, I mean, no onecan foresee They could probably build the whole thing andnot anything move up there. But what if something does? I want to know who pays for it. If we've got half the hillsidecoming down on Hastings Avenue, who pays for it? Because I don't want to. So with that, I'll sitdown and understand. Thanks, Pauline. Appreciate those comments. Anybody else have any questionsor want to make any comments. All right. Go ahead and close thepublic hearing at 637. Okay. So she brought up somepoints that I want to talk about because the one for methat I really just can't get over is once we touch that,there's really no going back. There's there's probablyhundreds of years of sediment up there with trees that haveroots going very far, at least to the bedrock, at least tothe base of the the rock, right where the soil meetsthe rock at the bottom. Um, I, I'm not opposed toit, but I just don't. To Pauline's point, we don'tknow what we're getting into. And who then would be liable for state stablesite stabilization? And to what end? So, chair and members of theCommission, uh, do you mind if I just kind of walk throughthe different questions that we were asked and then, you know, kind of provide someinitial responses? So I think we kind of clarifiedthe question about setbacks. This is a plannedunit development. The developer is asking forsome of that flexibility from the city, you know, butproviding a different type of housing unit trail and variousdesign elements that are positive in terms ofprotecting the bluff. Um, and we'll talk about the bluff question here in a minute. The conservation area. Um, I think that is a goodobservation that these are individual homeowner lots thatwould, uh, go all the way back to the, uh, theboundaries of the site. And so you're seeing those lotsthat are along the bluff have. And I should ask, canthe audience hear me? Okay. Okay. So I'm going to talk like thisso the audience can hear me, um, when the, um, lots areso deep, they do contain, um, parts of the bluff. And so the alternative wayto arrange the lots for this development would be forsmaller residential lots in some type of an out lotthat contains the bluff. That's a different way to do it. In this case, the developeris not proposing a homeowners association that wouldown that out lot. And so the way that this isbeing managed is to have the private homeowners own all the way back to theback of the site. However, definitely inconsideration of the unique characteristics of this bluff,um, the city will be requiring a conservation easement orsimilar easement that, uh, protects the bluffarea long term. So, um, one of the things thatwe're considering, of course, is where is that easement drawn? And so we have required thedeveloper on these plans to show us where they'reproposing that easement. And, um, part of theconsideration for how we review that is is this enforceable? Uh, the bluff line, one of thethings that I anticipate us having a conversation aboutwith the developer is the location of bluff sign likesignage to indicate there is a bluff and that homeowners don'tactually have the right to go mow their yard all theway down the bluff. That would be not good. And I don't think peoplewould want to do that. But we need to make surethat there's signage clearly indicating, um, thoseareas that are protected. Um, and we need a plan thatwe can refer back to if those signs are ever removed. So those are thingsthat we're considering. Um, but certainly an easementover the bluff area will be that mechanism that the cityhas to ensure that it's not touched, it's protected. It's kept wild long term. So that's that's one thingabout the conservation area. And that is definitely aunique element of this project. Um, so with the homeownersowning back to the bluff, they, they would be responsible for,um, the cost of maintaining the bluff area. Should they shouldthey disturb it? Um, I think just to kind of gointo the bluff question, um, a little further, uh, there aredifferent ways that the city is able to protect the bluff areathrough development review. Uh, first and foremost,the city has, um, long term standards, such as setbacksfrom the top of the bluff. Uh, the landscaping plan withenhanced landscaping around the top of the bluff, and in thatimpact zone to make sure that we've got some good hardwoodplantings that are, um, protecting that long term. And then in the short term,when there's construction happening on a property, thecity requires what's called a sweep, which is a stormwaterpollution prevention plan. The slip is a constructionactivity document that, um, basically regulates theconstruction on site and make sure that it prevents theerosion and controls sediment on the property. So you have those Junerainstorms that may happen, and the swamp shows us where thatsilt fence is going to go. And it describes what actionsthe developer will take if there are issuesidentified with erosion. One of the parts of the of the city's constructionobservation activities. You have your public works teamand your engineering team that are routinely going out toreview the site and make sure that we're preventing erosionand taking immediate action when there are issues. So that is what happens while that construction is is ongoing. And then another kind of longterm consideration just for the understanding of the bluff areais that geotechnical report. And I know that the developermentioned that they had Braun Inner Tech, which is a companythat routinely and regularly does that type of a review. It's in the developer's bestinterest to make sure this is a working development andcertainly in the cities. And so we'll make sure that weask for any geotechnical review documents thathave been produced. So that's just a little bitabout how the bluff at least can be stabilized both during and long termafter construction. Um, in order to address thequestion on cul de sac, we did talk about that a littlebit during my presentation. Um, first of all, thedeveloper, the the city's engineering and public worksteam have asked, and the developer has provided a widerroad on that longer cul de sac that is now going to be 34, Ibelieve, 34ft wide as opposed to 28ft. So that's an additional sixfeet, which does help in emergency situations wherewe have vehicles trying to maneuver around. In addition to that, we haveworked with the city's fire chief and public workssuperintendent to identify an emergency, a trail connectionhere that both the residents can use and will benefit fromregularly, but which can be used in order to make sure thatvehicles can come and go in a situation where the roadis otherwise blocked. So that is one one area thatwe've made sure to review for. And under that trail or in thatarea, is a water main loop that will allow for redundancy ofwater in the cul de sac, so that if there is a water mainbreak of some kind in the future, that there is redundantservice to these parcels. So those are some of thedifferent ways that the cul de sac has been kind of designedor tweaked to be made more, more acceptable. Um, the lots on on the cul desac would have required a ton of grading if the roadwere to be looped. So the developer initially didcome in with a looped road, but considering the engineeringchallenges, they actually were able to demonstrate how thatcould couldn't work to the city engineer, which is why we ended up back at the culde sac as an option. So I know it's notthe preference. Staff never want to start therewith a lot of cul de sacs, but in this particular development,with the challenges created by topography, that's that'skind of where we landed. So I hope this helps to answer. Questions that you may have hadand hopefully those that some of the residentsmay have also had. Those are all my questions. You have questions for Nathan. Not really. I was curious about that. Yeah. Let's look at 24. They don't own tenacres, do they? Are they taxed on that? If that goes that way or. I mean, that's pretty good. They own the property. They're taxed on it. Yep. So could you archeryhunt that 24 property. So these are going to besubject to the cities. Um I think we do haveregulations surrounding hunting and I just don't havethem top of mind. Okay. Um, well, I wouldhave to take a look at that. You can't be friends with them. It doesn't matter. I would have concerned. I would have concern. Yeah. Our conservation easement mayhave something to say about that as well. Geez. Other propertyowners might also. Yeah. That's a fun. Are you looking atone of these lots? Apparently. Apparently, I'm gonnago higher up now. Um, yeah. There's a I mean, there's been a ton of work onthis, obviously. My other question was aboutthe little the little trail connecting the new extensionand the cul de sac. I mean, that comes right onthe line, but I just if you're going to make it so people candrive on it, what's going to stop people fromjust driving on it? I mean, I don't, but a road,due to the size and the requirements of the road, wouldthen require them to do a whole other ball game ofgrading in that area. Yep. To make it legal. To make the road legal. Yeah. Informed chair, chair andcommission members that there is a question in there. It's like, what can we do aboutthat trail potentially being used when it's not an emergency? And I think we can. Wait. On the. Creative solutions withbollards and things of that nature could be could be implemented if there are issues. Okay. Any questions or concernswe want to talk about before anything you guysare seeing making you the the. I will admit that the soilis my biggest concern. But again, we aren'tgoing to nobody's. We can do our due diligence,but nobody's going to know until you know what,what's going to take place. I don't know if they're doingtheir due diligence and sandy, silty soil. I've got it in my yard andit doesn't hold together. We're worth crap when it rains. Um, but, you know, um, I againjust don't want it to come back on the city and have thisbecome a not working thing. And then all of a sudden, thecity's out a bunch of money because we have to re stabilize the bluff forwhatever comes next. So that's my biggest concern. Can we see at some point thatreport, have you been given that report. Uh, which like the geotechnical. Yeah. Yeah. Um, I looked at the submittalspackage today and didn't notice it, but I know that, you know,in conversations with the engineering staff that they'vegotten soils information. So I think we'll have moredialogue with them in the coming days before planningfor the city Council meeting. And so, um, we'll look at what we have and what wemight need before. And I imagine you guys areinterested in thinking a bunch of money into a quicksand pit. So. So I know you guys aredoing your due diligence, and I hope you can understand theconcern with taking very old trees out of the ground ina place that doesn't isn't connected to soil. It's connected to rock. So that's my concern. But you want tobring up the yep. The thing. Suggested motion. We read it. So with the rezoning, thatmeans that every one would be 2.5, then to 2.5. Instead of. Three. The comp plan. Yep. The comp plan amendment. And how far out of gaugedoes that go for what the MET Council expects usto be at currently. So the city has a requirement right now of fiveunits per acre. Um, the city as an averagecitywide in areas that are developing or redeveloping. And so the, the, the city andMET Council after the adoption of the comp plan in the 2040comp plan, um, there's a what's called a density log thatthe MET Council creates. That is kind of a it basicallyreiterates what the city showed in the comp plan, and then it's tracked over timewith the amendments. And so I looked at the currentdensity log of what we have on, um, that the MET Council hadthe latest data that they have and then used that, uh, to enter in thisdevelopment information. And we still are above fiveunits per acre somewhere in the area, I think, of5.5 units per acre. Um, with, with this particulardevelopment included. And so, um, that's adding30 acres of low density. So if you're looking back atsome of the recent developments that have beenpermitted in the city. You're seeing a prettyhigh average density. And so that's one thing. If they do push back and say,um, the 2050 policy is you have to have seven units peracre, why are you going down? The answer that I will havefor them is look at the developments thatwe've approved lately. We have a proven track record of being above ourrequired density. This is an important part ofthe housing mix for Newport. And I just want to be clear. Right. If we make that change,we are putting them right at the cusp of notmeeting it again. If something happens to one ofthese houses to one of these lots, they will not meet that. Oh, sure. It will go down. But you're saying we. Have to have anotherdiscussion about this. So at what point? At one end. Right. Is that a discussionthat the city is going to have with the developer and say, if we can't hit 2.5,it can't be done? Yeah. So I think we wedefinitely need to see the development at two, 2.5. I would be reluctant to say weshould go any lower than that, Considering that we do havethat five units per acre for the 2040 plan, and then it goesup, you know, in the 2050 plan, we're looking atseven units per acre. So we're trying to be reallycareful about making sure we're we're mindful. Of I'm. Saying we're. We're we're they're already notgoing to hit that mark, but now we're going to bring them rightto that mark, which means if anything changes,it then falls again. All because of that. Right. And so again, think ifwe think about that, we're just getting them to passingwith the potential of not. So just something to keep inmind, especially when we're going to seven unitsan acre right in 2050. So I would agree with yoursuggestions and the findings. I would like to see the the dirt. I'm a dirt guy. I'm in construction. So I want to see those reports. Um, and so I wouldlike to see that. But For what we have andwhat we're doing now. I'm comfortable moving this. I agree. Um, if somebody do you all feelcomfortable moving this at the stage we're at? This has to comeback at least once. Correct. Well, actually, the finalplat will actually not. Go just to. The planning Commission. It just goesstraight to council. So this this would be the lasttime that you would see this. Okay. Um, so, yeah, if. You know. Goes to council, then twice. Yes, it goes to council twice. There is a second submittalprocess, review process after the preliminary plat concludes,to make sure that we're meeting the conditions for approval anddotting our eyes and crossing our T's in other ways. Okay. Does anybodywant a motion. And read. That whole. Thing? I know, that's whatI was just thinking. Go for. It. New person. You get to read it. New person. All right. No names. Yeah, I can do it, I got this. I moved to recommend CityCouncil approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment,rezone preliminary plat and planned unit developmentrequests by Summer Gate Development for the EastridgeHeights Project with the findings of facts andconditions proposed by staff. Yay! Good job. I have a second. I'll second. That. All right. I have one from Council MemberRommel and a second from Council member Khamis. All those in favor say aye. Aye, aye. All those opposed? All right. So that takes care of that. So next is council. They go through do it. Developers getanother crack at it. Yep. Then bring it back. Okay. I just. Want to make sure potentially. You know, one of the conditionsis, um, it's possible to get a grading agreement that wouldallow tree removal in some grading activity before the final plat process is concluded. So it's possible that thatmight happen considering the preferred timeline here, butwe'll make sure that we get final grading plans, final treeremoval plans before that stuff can take place. So if you see activities beforeyou're aware the city has approved a final plat. There's one other questionI want to ask you put up. You put up some propertyproperties numbers, and I think they were property IDs. And also owner names. Are all the owners of these properties willingand contributing. To this. Purchase agreement that thedeveloper has in place with all the property owners. Saw Brian's name on there. So I kind of was like, whoa,okay, things have changed. Um, but okay, so if there'snothing else, a motion to adjourn, I'll do that motion. A motion to adjourn. I will second. All right. We've got two. Everybody that agrees. AI. We are adjourned at 655.