Newport planning commission recommends City Council approval for Eastridge Heights amid bluff, tree and access concerns

The Newport City Planning Commission on Tuesday recommended City Council approval of the Eastridge Heights development, a proposed single‑family subdivision on roughly 58 acres southeast of Hastings and Bailey Road that staff says would place 73 homes on about 29 net buildable acres.

City planning staff opened the public hearing and outlined the applications before the commission: a comprehensive plan amendment to change the site’s future land‑use to single‑family detached, a rezoning to the R‑1 single‑family district, a preliminary plat and a planned unit development to allow several flexibilities. City staff said the developer, Summer Gate Development, requests a reduced minimum density of 2.5 units per net acre (down from the comp plan’s single‑family minimum of 3 units per acre) and that the city remains compliant with the Metropolitan Council’s citywide average requirement of five units per acre.

Nathan (city staff) said the site’s gross area is just under 59 acres with a net developable area of about 29 acres after excluding rights‑of‑way, bluff protections and easements; that calculation yields the developer’s 2.5 units per acre figure. He described requested PUD flexibilities on lot setbacks (front yards reduced from 30 to 25 feet, side yards from 10 to 5 feet and some rear yard relief), per‑lot impervious surface allowances and a requested reduction in tree replacement requirements.

The staff presentation focused heavily on the site’s bluff overlay, which imposes a 30‑foot top‑of‑bluff setback under city ordinance (South Washington Watershed District applies a 60‑foot standard). Nathan said the city would require a conservation easement over the bluff impact areas, enhanced planting at the bluff top, and construction‑period erosion controls; the staff recommendation includes conditions requiring compliance with engineering and watershed standards.

Pauline Miller, a nearby resident, told the commission she was particularly worried about bluff stability and liability, asking, “What if something does [move]? I want to know who pays for it,” and pressed whether conservation easements would leave private homeowners responsible for preserved bluff areas. Nathan replied that homeowners would generally own lots to the bluff line but that the city would require an enforceable conservation easement and signage to protect the bluff; staff also noted construction‑period SWPPP (stormwater pollution prevention plan) requirements, city inspection during grading and geotechnical reports to address short‑ and long‑term stability.

Ryan Bloom, the project engineer with Westwood Civil Engineering, said geotechnical borings found silty sand across much of the site and bedrock encountered as deep as 12 feet below the surface in one southern boring; he said additional test pits are scheduled to better define bedrock locations and inform grading and stormwater design.

On tree replacement, staff presented the applicant’s tree inventory and replacement math: staff said the equivalent replacement requirement was expressed as roughly 1,500 small (2.5‑inch caliper) tree units and the existing caliper inch total for removed trees was reported at about 3,802 caliper inches. The developer’s preliminary replacement plan was shown as about 455 caliper inches, leaving a substantial shortfall that staff said could be mitigated through PUD flexibility and a cash‑in‑lieu fee (the city has used a $150 per caliper‑inch in‑lieu fee on comparable projects).

Staff also described site access and grading constraints that led to a long U‑shaped cul‑de‑sac. Because a looped road produced significant grading and retaining‑wall implications near the bluff, the design retains the cul‑de‑sac but widens it beyond the city standard (to about 34 feet), adds a trail/emergency connection and loops the water main to provide redundancy for maintenance and emergency response.

After additional commissioner discussion — in which several members said they wanted to review geotechnical reports before final permits — a commissioner moved and another seconded a recommendation that the City Council approve the comprehensive plan amendment, rezoning, preliminary plat and PUD for the Eastridge Heights project with staff’s findings and conditions. The commission approved the recommendation by voice vote; no opposing votes were recorded. The matter now moves to the City Council for consideration.

Next steps: staff said City Council will consider the Planning Commission recommendation and, if the council approves, the developer will submit revised final plans and a final plat for review and permitting. Staff emphasized several conditions that must be satisfied before grading or building permits are issued, including engineering and watershed compliance, conservation easement language, and, if grading begins early, a grading agreement and final tree‑removal plan.