An ordinance to authorize building material restrictions and requirements for BL2026-1406, a proposed Specific Plan Zoning District for properties located at 5601, 5621 Cane Ridge Road, Cane Ridge Road (unnumbered) and 3314 Old Franklin Road, (42.2 acres), to permit 79 multi-family residential units and 100 single-family residential lots, all of which is described herein (Proposal No. 2026SP-019-001). THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE REQUIRES CERTAIN MATERIALS TO BE RESTRICTED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS.

Topics

Introduced: August 18, 2026
Last action: Passed on third reading · August 18, 2026

Sponsors

AI summary — check the source Corrected after adversarial review

Council passes building-materials rules for Cane Ridge Road housing project, 33-1

This bill is the companion to BL2026-1406, the rezoning of about 42 acres near Cane Ridge Road and Old Franklin Road for 79 multi-family units and 100 single-family lots. It locks in limits on what materials can be used to construct the buildings there. The two bills were taken up and voted on together, and the only comment came from the sponsoring council member, who said the builder had met repeatedly with neighbors and volunteered to help the surrounding community. It passed on third reading — the final council vote — 33 to 1, with one abstention.

What it does

Requires that certain building materials be restricted in the construction of buildings on the Cane Ridge Road / Old Franklin Road properties being rezoned in BL2026-1406 (Proposal No. 2026SP-019-001). It only takes effect alongside that rezoning, which covers 42.2 acres for 79 multi-family units and 100 single-family lots.

What happened, in plain language

The bill passed on third reading — the final of three council votes, so no further council action is needed. The chair first tried a voice vote, but because one member voted no on a final reading, the council took a recorded roll-call vote on the electronic board. The result: 33 yes, 1 no (Joy Styles), and 1 abstention (Mike Cortese), with 6 members recorded as non-voting (Angie Henderson, Quin Evans-Segall, Clay Capp, Emily Benedict, Jordan Huffman, Brenda Gadd). The chair announced the tally from the floor as 33 in favor, one against, one abstention, matching the recorded roll call. Because BL2026-1406 and BL2026-1407 were moved and voted together, this same tally covered both companion bills.

On the floor · 8 points

Context

The presiding officer read both companion bills together — the rezoning (BL2026-1406) and this building-materials bill (BL2026-1407) — and recognized the sponsor.

a council member Watch 2:26:28
Context

The sponsor asked to move both companion bills in a single consolidated motion, which was seconded.

a council member Watch 2:26:52
For

The Planning and Zoning Committee chair reported that the committee recommended approval of both companion bills, with none opposed.

a council member Watch 2:27:18
For

The sponsor noted that one of the builders had spoken during the public comment period and that his company was volunteering to help the surrounding community.

a council member Watch 2:27:30
For

The sponsor said there had been 'a lot of meetings' about the property and that the builder was still talking with residents who had concerns about the buildings, discussing things that could be done for their property to help matters go smoothly.

a council member Watch 2:27:43
For

The sponsor said the developers had been very open to making changes and to seeing what they could do to improve the whole community, and asked colleagues to approve the bills.

a council member Watch 2:28:01
Context

The chair asked whether there was any discussion on the companion bills; no one asked to speak, so the item went straight to a vote.

a council member Watch 2:28:32
Context

After a voice vote drew one 'no,' the chair asked whether that member would prefer to abstain so the council would not have to use the electronic voting board; the member did not switch, so a recorded roll-call vote was taken because the bills were on third and final reading.

a council member Watch 2:28:44

What the AI is unsure about · 5 issues caught & corrected

The transcript window is shared with BL2026-1406 — the two bills were introduced, debated, and voted on in one consolidated motion, so nothing in the discussion is specific to the materials bill alone. Every transcript line in this slice uses anonymous SPEAKER_NN IDs, so no statement is attributed by name; the official action text (not the transcript) is the source for the fact that Council Member Lee made the motion. The automated transcript is rough in places: it reads one address as '1314 Old Franklin Road' where the official title says 3314, spells Cane Ridge as 'Kane Ridge,' and garbles the committee's vote counts ('in favor, zero again, zero on our voting'), so only the committee's recommendation of approval is reported here, not exact committee numbers. The builder who spoke during public comment did so outside this transcript window, so his remarks are described only as the sponsor characterized them.

A second pass challenged these claims — the text above already carries the corrections

Discussion point at t=8838 claims the committee recommended approval 'with none opposed' — the transcript line is garbled ('in favor, zero again, zero on our voting'), so the zero-opposed reading is an unsupported inference, and it directly contradicts the summary's own caveat that exact committee numbers are not reported. The committee's name (Planning and Zoning) also comes from the official action text, not the transcript.
Discussion point at t=8788 says the presiding officer 'recognized the sponsor,' but recognition occurs at t=8810 ('Councilmember Lee, you're recognized, ma'am'); the cited line supports only the reading of the two companion bills.
Discussion point at t=8812 includes 'which was seconded,' but the seconding is confirmed at t=8820-8824 ('it's properly seconded'), not at the cited line.
Discussion point at t=8881 says developers were 'very open to making changes'; the transcript says 'very open to doing things' — 'making changes' overstates the quoted line.
Summary field says 'the only comment came from the sponsoring council member,' but the committee chair also spoke to deliver the committee report (t=8838); needs qualification.

This summary was written from the meeting transcript and the official action record, then checked by a second pass looking for claims the transcript does not support. Where the two disagree, the record and the recording are what count.

See this item in the full agenda for August 18, 2026 →

History

Passed on third reading August 18, 2026 Metropolitan Council

Official record

The bill was approved by the Planning and Zoning Committee. Council Member Lee moved that the bill be passed on third reading, which motion was seconded and approved by the following roll call vote:

See the full August 18, 2026 agenda →
Yes

33

No

1

Abstain

1

Other

6
Who voted how (41 members)
Yes · 33

Zulfat Suara
Delishia Porterfield
Burkley Allen
Olivia Hill
Joy Smith Kimbrough
Kyonzte Toombs
Jennifer Gamble
Sean Parker
Deonte Harrell
Tonya Hancock
Jennifer Webb
Jeff Eslick
Erin Evans
Russ Bradford
Jeff Gregg
Ginny Welsch
Terry Vo
Tom Cash
Jacob Kupin
Rollin Horton
Brandon Taylor
Sheri Weiner
Thom Druffel
Jeff Preptit
Courtney Johnston
Bob Nash
David Benton
Tasha Ellis
Sandra Sepulveda
John Rutherford
Antoinette Lee
Sandy Ewing
Jason Spain

No · 1

Joy Styles

Abstain · 1

Mike Cortese

Not Voting · 6

Angie Henderson
Quin Evans-Segall
Clay Capp
Emily Benedict
Jordan Huffman
Brenda Gadd

The filed text for this matter has not been published here yet. It is available on Legistar.