call to order the city of Bport City Council and Planning Commission joint meeting for January 5th, 2026. Um we're going to start with roll call for the city council. Matt, >> Council Member Bliss >> here. Council member Gilmore >> here.
>> Council member Hill >> here. >> Mayor Hansen >> here. And then Sarah, can you do roll call for the planning commission? >> Commissioner Sigfrey >> here. >> Oaks >> here. >> Kip >> present. >> Chamberlain >> here. >> Okay. And first on the agenda is some
public is the public hearings which there's only one. Um, we're going to consider a petition for annexation and zoning land use applications for Bay Haven at Bayport second edition submitted by Pratt Holmes. And we have
Dan L here from where's his company called? He'll tell us the planning. >> Good evening, mayor, council members, and planning commission members. Uh, happy new year. uh Daniel Lick from the planning company uh assisting city staff with the review of the development
application before you this evening. Switch to the PowerPoint here. We go. Um so, as the mayor indicated, the purpose of the hearing tonight is to consider a petition for annexation to the city of land currently in Baytown.
Uh that will include zoning the property to the PUD planned unit development district. Uh it's also necessary to amend the comprehensive plan uh to include the property being annexed uh as part of the municipal urban service area uh and as part of the land use plan designated for future development. Um
with the actual development of the property, the city's considering applications for a planned unit development general development plan and a preliminary plat of 10 single family lots uh to be known as Bay Haven at Bayport second edition. Uh and then also related to the applications is an
amendment for the initial Bay Haven planned unit development that was the original development approved last spring consisting of 105 dwelling units. Um these are all discretionary actions by the council first and foremost given the annexation of the property to the
city uh and then designation of land use and determination of zoning through the planned unit development district. Um, looking at kind of the area, you know, you don't think Bayport has changed much or changes much over time, but I think if you look at the last 10 years in this area of the city, there's been quite a
bit of change. Uh, you have inspiration uh, moving forward with uh, the third and fourth editions. Uh, just to the south of this property, uh, to the north, you have the Bay Haven at Bayport development, as well as the new elementary school under construction and even the fire department on the north
side of Fifth Avenue. Uh west of stage coach trail, you have the preparatory school and uh lots within Baytown Township unlikely to change. Uh the single family uses uh being incorporated as part of this uh second addition to Bay Haven at Bayport will be consistent
with the overall character of the existing development that was previously approved as well as transitioning to the inspiration single family homes to the south. Uh the annexation of the uh property includes six platted lots owned by a resident within Baytown Township as
well as a portion of property that was a legal description error between uh the inspiration third edition plat and the existing plat within Baytown. That was resolved through a quiet title action undertaken by the developer whereby the property is then allocated to the abuing
property owners. uh with the annexation, it will all be brought into the city. We noted uh currently on the south or northeast corner of the gap parcel on the Thompson property didn't petition for annexation at this point. So that
will likely not be included at this time. The city can go back and address that as part of a separate action simply because once these annexations are approved, then the entire that Thompson property would be completely surrounded by land within the city. So with a simple ordinance it can be brought in uh
whether the property owner requests or not. Um so the petition from the property owners uh the criteria is that the property must be less than 120 acres in area. It absuts a city boundary and it's not served by utilities all which uh is satisfied. The city also owns a
portion of this gap parcelled by way of its ownership of adjacent property uh that can be simply annexed by ordinance without condition. Uh the process involves notice to Baytown Township in abuing property owners 30 days prior to this hearing um by uh US registered
mail. Uh the planning commission will conduct a public hearing. Uh following that public hearing, the city council would consider adoption of an ordinance annexing these properties that is then submitted to the state of Minnesota for final approvals. Uh and as I noted, there's the exception piece related to
the Thompson property. As far as the comprehensive plan amendments that are being considered tonight, again, the process is uh public hearing by the planning commission, uh preliminary city council approval of that uh should they so decide. And then it's submitted to metropolitan council
uh to make sure that the amendments are consistent with uh regional development policy. City staff has worked closely with metropolitan council staff as part of this application to ensure that there are no uh hiccups along the way with submission and consideration of that application so that it moves smoothly.
Uh once metropolitan council uh approves that then it does come back to the city council for final approval and implementation. Uh so there's two parts to the comprehensive plan amendment. First is including the property within the municipal urban service area. That is the area within the Twin Cities where
regional sanitary sewer utilities are to be made available. Uh because the annex property was not in the city. It wasn't included in the MUS. So it's necessary to include that. Utilities are available to the property through inspiration or excuse me through Bay Haven at Bayport
the first uh phase of development. Uh the comprehensive plan had identified this area as a potential future service area. So it is consistent with the city's growth policies. The second part is amending the future land use plan to allow for uh future
development consistent with the land uses determined by the city. Again, because the property is not within the city, we hadn't considered this as part of the uh 2018 comprehensive plan update. Uh so it's necessary to make this amendment and the policies adopted with that document do provide guidance
that single family neighborhoods are to be the primary form of development within Bayport. uh and any development occurring between 2020 and 2040 needs to be a minimum of seven units per acre for the uh overall amount of development. Um
that is a change from the previous standard of five units an acre. As we were working with metropolitan council staff, they identified that because this isn't being considered until uh January of 2026 that the new regional framework or policy document governs which
increases the required density up to the seven units per acre. So, uh, in order to designate this property for lowdensity residential development at 2 and a half to 2.8 units an acre, it's also necessary to make a slight text amendment uh, within the the zone within
the comprehensive plan to change the range of density for low density up to 11 units an acre and increase the minimum density for a high density residential area to 11 units per acre. What that does, and there's a table in the report that highlights that, is it
increases the number of potential units that could be developed in the areas identified along Highway 95 for potential redevelopment for 2040. It increases those number of potential dwelling units up so that the overall balance of development occurring
between 2020 and 2040 is that seven units per acre. So it really has no impact as to this development. It really wouldn't have any effect on any new development in Bayport unless those properties approximately 3.2 acres along
Highway 95 were to come in for redevelopment. Um this is all going to be reviewed again as part of the comprehensive plan that the city is required to do by 2028. Uh and so we were working with metropolitan council staff uh to look forward not only to
address the current applications but really position the city's comprehensive plan for uh easy implementation uh with that next round of updates. Then finally the zoning map uh would also be amended to address the property
being annexed. It's proposed to be zoned to RPUD residential planned unit development district. The basic standards are the same as the R2 single family district. Um there are some modifications to setbacks and lot requirements that were initially
approved with the Bay Haven uh first edition project and planned unit development. Uh that would be carried forward to this second phase of development. But again the same process public hearing by the planning commission recommendation to the city council and their final action.
So the actual development plan for the 4.4 4 and a half acres of property is for subdivision of 10 lots and one outlot. Um, basically all of the public improvements are being constructed as part of the initial Bay Haven development which includes um Baytown
Lane adjacent to the property which will provide direct access. There is some additional rightway being dedicated for Stage Coach Trail that will facilitate that future construction of a roundabout at that intersection as approved with the Bay Haven Plat. Um they have
modified the street layout slightly on the east end of Baytown Lane uh to accommodate what's known as an eyebrow uh street section. Basically it provides more street frontage along this area because you have the confluence of these private drives that serve the uh Otto
and Thompson property as well as the eastern most single family lot all coming together at this one location. There simply isn't enough frontage with a standard curve to accommodate that. all those driveways into that location without this little bit of pavement
being added. There's also the trail that comes uh off of Baytown Lane and then extends into Barker's Alps Park as through the uh the development is provided for with the first edition approval. As I said, the lot requirements are basically the same uh
as the initial Bay Haven uh request. We are going to clarify as part of this application and the amendment of the Bay Haven first PUD development plan and permit uh that driveways are not subject to building setbacks. Uh also that
retaining walls and or the retaining walls can encroach into drainage and utility easements and also are not subject to uh building setbacks. That's a clarification that's needed to accommodate the house designs that were uh approved or being considered with the
development of both Bay Haven and Bay Haven second edition. Uh that's a typical occurrence in many cities. It's typically addressed at a staff level with an encroachment agreement that says the city engineer is signing off on this uh encroachment into the drainage and utility easement. It's not going to
negatively impact storm water management and it won't affect conveyance of utilities through those easements. So that uh basically the city's protecting its rights to those easements while allowing flexibility to accommodate the house design. Uh the city engineer has
reviewed all the uh storm water and utility elements of the project. Again, most of that was being constructed as part of the Bay Haven development. With regards to utilities, there is additional storm water basin provided at the southwest corner of the plat to accommodate the storm water runoff from
these homes being constructed with this addition. Uh easements are provided as required by the subdivision ordinance and over much of the rear portion of the property. Uh which as part of the grading plan uh does provide for a 6 to9 ft high burm along the property line to
basically screen the view of the rear of these homes from the rear view of the homes in inspiration third edition. Uh we don't have an exact landscape plan yet. That would be a condition of approval that that needs to be submitted with final plat uh and approved by city
staff. It is worth noting that uh the open space between uh inspiration third edition and the proposed development means that these homes with the eastern most home being the closest. It's approximately 165 ft between homes here. So there is
quite a horizontal distance that you know these aren't homes right on top of each other back to back. There's separation that again provides compatibility. The developer is going to enhance that uh by landscaping that rear view so that neither home is looking into each other. Uh from that
standpoint, uh as I said, there is the pedestrian trail that's being constructed with Bay Haven First Edition along Baytown Lane on the north side of the street crossing over and then into the uh right ofway and city-owned property. City staff does recommend that
out lot A be deed to the city with the final plat as it does uh include that trail quarter and but the city-owned property headed towards the park. Uh park dedication requirements uh would be expected to be satisfied as a cash fee in lie of land paid at time of final
plat approval as there's no land otherwise being dedicated to the city for the uh proposed development. Uh the house plans are basically representative of what was initially considered as part of uh Bay Haven uh development. Uh the
builder indicates that some of the newer house plans that would be implemented here may be slightly larger. Uh this example house plan that's provided is approximately 1,700 square ft, two levels, two car attached garage, three bedrooms, uh and the same features as uh
was provided for with the first edition. I think it's important to highlight again the four-sided architecture. These buildings look as good from the back as they do from the front. Significant uh with concerns to what the people in inspiration third are looking at across that
65 ft distance. Uh the other amendment that's being considered as part of the uh Bay Haven first edition plat is a amendment to the impervious surface standards. The initial approval established a 40% limit on imperous
surface within the lots. Uh that's somewhat constrained based on flexibility for house designs and driveway layout. So, the developer worked with city staff to do an in-depth analysis that if you increase the lot or the impervious surface area within these
lots by 5%, would the total for the overall development still be within the 35% consistent with the basic requirement of the zoning ordinance? That's possible because of the extent of the open space that was set aside with the first edition. Uh so that basically
they've showed that with this additional flexibility for both uh the first edition as well as the second edition they're still consistent with the requirements of the zoning ordinance. Uh city staff did recommend that this needs to be reviewed by the watershed district as well for their concurrence uh but
have no issue with the uh proposal. So city staff is recommending approval of this application or these applications before the planning commission and city council tonight. Uh they've satisfied the criteria for annexation. Uh the land use would be consistent with the recommendations and policies of the
comprehensive plan. Uh the PUD general development plan and preliminary plat are both appropriate land uses for the site and comply with the requirements of the subdivision ordinance. And then finally for the amendment of the uh Bay Haven at Bayport PUB uh both with regards to imperous surface and allowed
encroachments uh that would be consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance. Our recommendation is subject to the 22 conditions outlined in our planning report from December 25th. Uh we are also adding basically an additional stipulation that there will be amended PUB permit language
addressing the uh allowed encroachments uh with respect to both Bay Haven first and Bay Haven second edition. >> All right. Thanks Dan. >> Okay. Um, chair or commission, what are you? The
deputy chair Sig Freed, would you like to open the public? >> Yeah. Yeah. Um, I will um wish or I will invite anyone wishing to comment come forward to the podium, state your name and street
addressed us for the record. Um we will address public comments and then the planning commission. Um after that we'll close for our discussion. >> Anybody
want to come forward here to talk about your I don't see anybody coming forward. So um I move to close the public hearing. I hear a second. >> I'll second that motion.
>> Okay. >> Commissioner Sigfrieded >> here. >> Commissioner Oaks. >> Uh here. >> Commissioner Kip >> here. >> No, you're you're voting for closing the I'm looking for an I or an A. >> Commissioner Sreed
>> can vote present. >> Yeah. >> I said yes. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Oaks. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Kip. >> Yes. Commissioner Chamberlain. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, now it's time for us to discuss I guess uh technically
commissioners, your feedback is probably first since you would have technically seen this before us. So, if you guys have comments or questions, discussion that you'd like to start, just jump in. >> Uh I can start.
>> Okay. Uh, Commissioner Oaks, I think so. What I've seen is very well laid, very uh the layout was well done. Um, I really don't have much concern for uh for what the changes are. Um, and I appreciate the thoughtfulness that was
put into it. >> Great. Dean, do you have any >> I do. Um, so bigger picture, I guess, with land use and stuff. Um, I understand that what's before us, uh, essentially fits
in with the rest of the the development that's already been approved in the, you know, kind of villa style, we'll say, for the, uh, the neighborhood up there. Um, however, I'm just this is my concern just generally with, you know, the state
of our community and with um, you know, we'll say the state of our area here is that I I I see a lot of, you know, single family houses up there in the villas, which in the first phase of the villas, which is great. I see a high density
apartment building kind of in the middle of this development, but I feel like we're missing something somewhere in the middle, you know, uh somewhere between, you know, apartment and a say $800,000 single
family house or something like that. And I'm just kind of wondering if we should be looking at something that's more, you know, we'll say giving opportunities for
uh you know more affordable we'll say and in quotes housing uh within even within this neighborhood to kind of balance out what we've got up there already um and just provides more opportunities for you know more residents here in Bayport
that have a range of incomes and uh just I don't know I think it's it's just a piece that's missing in our community generally and I feel Like there might be some thought we could put into would a different type of housing work
for this area up here. something I'm I'm just spitballing this out out in here, but like something like sidebyside duplexes or row houses or like a mini version of dragonfly court and inspiration, you know, kind of as
the houses are going towards each other with a green space in the middle like kind of something like that. And this is what's before us. This obviously is what the applicant has, you know, submitted. So, we're talking about this tonight. But I'm just kind of wondering if it's appropriate to take a step back and
consider like what else might make sense for this area up here. >> I thought tonight was just about the annexation portion and I feel like they had already given a a plan on this.
>> Is that true for the first section or am I misreading it >> mayor? No, they hadn't presented a plan for this. The property does exist as six lots, so it appeared like it was subdivided, but it only has one house on
it. >> Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. >> I I I do have a couple other little things, too. Um, uh, on a more technical side, we'll say, I, this is kind of one of the things where
I, I really want to see more sidewalks generally in Bayport. And I, you know, it's kind of the got to start somewhere kind of mentality, but I would love to see us when we these kind of things to even have, you know, the sidewalk along
the short segment so that people who are trying to access the trail have a way to do that without having to cross the street or to cross the street at an intersection. Um, and then the other thing is I I'm not super jazzed about the shared
driveway on the very east side. I'm I'm don't know if there's a way around that apart from maybe like building a short section of street to accommodate that, but uh maybe that's a technicality that can be hammered out later. But so those are my sorry my three things that I had
as I was reviewing this. Thank you for listening. >> Yeah. Did you have any comments? >> Sure. Yeah. I think um what has been presented is I think well well designed well thought of. Um I kind of disagree a
little bit. If this property is going to be annexed and used for this purpose to be the second edition I feel that use of single family homes I think would fit the aesthetic a little better of of that area. Um so I I think I'm uh likely on
board with it. I the only thing I had was about I did have a thoughts on the pedestrians and crossings and sidewalks and just making sure that is more considered and thought about and
looked at further. That's just what I was one of the things that I was concerned about on it. But um any other thoughts from us as a planning commission right now or no? >> And you guys can talk again too after we
talk and we can all kind of talk. >> Those are just feel like that's it. But um yeah. Okay. >> Do you have some thoughts you'd like to share, Carl, as we >> No, I kind of go along the row here. >> Yeah. I I appreciate the the the space
that's I mean the the land naturally provides between the inspiration development and and Bay Haven. No other thoughts beyond what's >> okay. >> Oh, was it my turn? >> Man of fusions, Ethan.
>> Uh, no. I think it's uh I think it's good. One question I had. Are these going to be like the villa homes like the other ones or they're going to be serviced or are these going to be So, it's going to be that same that same style. The intent is that the developer will incorporate these lots as part of the homeowners association. So,
>> okay. Perceived as a cohesive unit. >> Correct. >> I was curious about that. Um, other than that though, I I mean, you guys have done a great job so far. I don't see why I would or us would try to limit you at what kind of buildings you can put on there. As long as it's all on the up and
up, I think it's good by me. >> Yeah. I like the look of the single family there cuz of the other single family there. I do think like cuz I can see sidewalks everywhere else except for maybe the new addition, but maybe that's
just not there yet. Maybe they will be sidewalks cuz you can kind of see there's going to be in front of other places. Uh maybe looks a little squished, but that's just me I guess. Like especially the first home pulling in, there's like
a wall drop off right by the house. I mean, it's not a huge drop off probably, but it's, you know, maybe that one's getting squished in, but I'm not a developer, so I don't need to, you know, I like it.
>> Do we are we still keeping that First Avenue North name of the street? >> No, that's that's our Okay, >> that's Baytown Lake. >> Bayon, I made a note of that, too. that their maps tend to say First Avenue still. >> And it's also >> it's al Yeah, we changed it. So, sorry.
>> Um the other thing that I noticed is we have Bay Haven without the capital H in the middle and we will after all of this is done. We're going to refer to it with a capital H going forward, but for consistency with everything we've done in the past, we're keeping it as the
lowercase H. Um, okay. All very good comments. I would like to um address Dean's um concern over like that maybe this isn't the best like maybe having a different type of housing there would be better that we're missing something in
the affordable range and I remember when all of this started way back when Len and I had a conversation about that I had the same thoughts right just in general like is this the kind of housing we really need here and um he did a really I thought awesome he researched
searched our city and he figured out like we have all of these very affordable homes. Like that's pretty much a lot of what Bayport is is a lot of afford affordable as as much as it can be right now. I know that sounds like like uh it's probably a little not
the best description of it, but the lower end of the price range we have those homes here in this part of Bayport. So, um I feel like this is actually a something that is missing in our town is these higher higher end, right? Like and
even really really nice apartments. We don't have that either. We have apartments, but they're not brand new that like someone might my kids might want to move into. Right. So, um, so that I don't know if that helps make you feel a little better or if you still
have other concerns if >> Well, I I yeah, I appreciate uh the discussion and and and whatnot. I just think just overall in our say our ecosystem like we're we the general we
are dealing with a lot of you know affordable housing shortage overall and you know if we in Bayport are able to provide more opportunities for people to you know get in we'll say
e either you know on the new no homeowner kind of end of spectrum where I'm thinking of my parents as a retirees and be able to afford you know something else >> in a we'll say a newer nicer a lot of the stock down here is you know 100
years old or something like that and my parents I'm thinking of like >> R75 >> might not want to you know take care ofund and whatever year old home forever and might somebody like that might be
interested in something, you know, newer but smaller and don't have as much, you know, stuff to have to upkeep and that kind of thing. Um, >> that is that is a valid point. >> So, I think, you know, if it's not here, which it's sounding like most most of
the committees here are thinking that maybe not here. I think we really need to whenever we do see something else coming along here, uh it it could be, you know, the redevelopment of the prison site or
wherever else. Like I think we really need to be providing some more opportunities for something that's different than just than than you know kind of a luxury single family. >> Yeah. >> It sound it's a concept. It's an ideal world seeing because not the builders
aren't out there that want to do that either and that's the unfortunate part is they're not making money off of those kinds of homes. So there needs to be something else that changes. But um the the other thing just maybe it'll help a little bit too is I talked to Melissa Taporn at the CDA about housing when all
this started too like cuz I again I was just like you. I'm like I feel like there's an affordable housing gap. What what can we do? and she said, "We need housing in general. Any kind of housing is going to help because it's going to move the other people out of those other homes into these homes and then their
homes are going to be available." And you know, it's just any kind of new home is is still a benefit. And I hope that makes you feel a little better as the the one who may be like not feeling as comfortable with what they're proposing here. But u sounds like Carl has
something. So, Commissioner Chamberlain, are you more are you are you more addressing that as a larger philosophical >> uh yes, as a larger philosophical thing, but also, you know, I think there would be maybe some opportunities for
something that looks different even here, which is kind of where I'm coming from. But, uh um but yeah, kind of both both and we'll say that. Um, is it worth having someone from Pratt Holmes talk a little bit
about that and why why it is what it is? And then also, um, about the sidewalks >> and maybe even a little bit to help um, was it that was you two, Dean, that talked about the shared driveway not being your favorite thing. If you want to just give us a little more background on is someone here that can speak to
that about the wise behind what it is and if there can be more sidewalk and helping. Yeah, >> Mayor, just before Mr. Pratt speaks, um I think the commissioner made a really good point as to what the city is going to be looking at as part of the next comprehensive plan update with the
opportunities at the prison redevelopment site. That's just a much larger piece to work with that doesn't perhaps have as many of the physical challenges that this site has. And as a leadin to Mr. Pratt, you know, when he first started talking about acquiring
this property, he was discussing medium-density housing options for it. >> There are practical reasons why that wasn't possible. Much less the political issue that this is an infill piece between his single family neighborhood and an established one to the south.
Even with that buffer, I think we've seen that challenge in this area in the past, and I think this is probably the best fit >> for this specific site from staff's perspective. So, Mr. Prep. >> Thank you, Dan. That's helpful. >> Well, good evening, mayor and council
members and commissioners. Uh, we're back and um >> Harrison, would you mind showing uh Len instead of the map for a minute? >> Thanks. Okay, keep talking. >> Speak to the mic. >> No,
>> no, you're fine. I just wanted He was just still showing a map so no one knew who was talking if they were watching on TV. >> Okay, >> there we go. Thank you. >> Affordable housing. >> It's it's an issue throughout our country. Anything that's new, very
difficult to do the math, it's impossible to do the math without some kind of a joint. I I'll say the best approach is perhaps a public private partnership and usually what that means is it comes
in the form of multifamily housing that you brought up. Um, I'm not saying it's possible impossible, but it's true all the way across the country. And in this particular site, by the time
that you combine all the parcels of land and get all the entitlements and get all the improvements into the streets and roads and sewer lines, storm water management, um, and then build a house. you know,
you've left what I'll call that a affordable price band. And as the mayor brought up, her question to me when I first came was, "What about affordable housing?" So, I went to work and I've kind of kept track
of here in Bayport um of all of the houses that are still here. And um as the mayor points out, you've got some housing stock here that is what I'll call affordable by the definition of the economics today.
Some of the houses need renewal. Some of the things that have gone on in the past about making affordable houses on houses that need renewal is making certain loan programs available. You know, to be able to make uh improvements
on a house, a new bathroom or a kitchen or a new roof. Um, I've seen some turning over of properties in the heart of Bayport here, but nothing really significant other than I think every time someone buys it,
they want to work on it to improve it. That's the American dream. So I think if we focus on what we've got here existing and if you take a look at the general opportunity that this property will bring to the city is let's
say it's on the upper end. It doesn't hurt to have the upper end uh to complement the entry level housing. It's true. Um that's been my experience.
Um, our other experience on this is that our buyers are typically um older. They've raised families. Although they pay taxes in the school systems and so on, they don't really have kids in the schools.
And my experience is is that they generally are law abiding. So they're not taxing the in the existing infrastructure for services. a net positive. Um, when we set out to do Bay Haven,
we hadn't put the NAS property included into our plan. And as it became apparent to to us that it would work best if we if we did, you know, I heard enough about it and I got
to know the NAS, you know, and um I just talked to him today and he wishes us well well here this evening. So that we're on a good we're on a good good communication. We we hope this work now for the city.
We're anxious to include it now as we go into the spring and continue our work on phase one and then on the second edition as well. You perhaps saw some of the if you've driven up in there, you'll see a stockpile of dirt, you know, that's
piled on what is the multif family site. Some of that will be our burm along the backside of of the second edition homes, but also um we're in the business now of getting that site, you know, the excess
dirt moved off. So, in other words, timing is important on all of this to get it underway. >> Um >> could you address the I know um we have another meeting at 6. >> Oh, okay. So, we just have to um if you could address the sidewalks a little bit
and and the walkability of this. >> Well, I've got Dwayne Sage here who helped us with our plan. I'll let him talk talk about it because you've heard enough from me. >> Okay. Thank you. Sorry. Yeah. Thanks for the further information. >> Hi. Uh >> hi,
>> I'm Dwayne of Continuum Development and I've been working with staff. Uh the reason we didn't add the second walk on the south side of Bay Town Lane is there's currently an 8 foot wide uh city trail that's running the entire
length of this project with pedestrian ramps from these 10 lots onto that trail and three of the homes are adjacent to the trail. >> So it just didn't trigger >> the need for it.
>> Okay. And And we only have one of the maps in front of us. So to see the trail is not really easy, but it does go the whole >> length and along that. >> Yeah, it goes the whole length, but mostly on the north >> other side.
>> So for the western most seven parcels, it doesn't. So, >> and >> as we discussed on the on the eyebrow, the that was added to allow for clean health and safety access for the autos
and as well as that lot 10. And as was discussed in the staff report, there's going to be a joint joint uh access agreement that'll be executed with by the city actually because that that common access is within the public right
away. >> So what is there a way to because I mean he's making a good point. the people that are living on these west in these western most homes are going to have to cross the street in order to get to that trail which most people don't even want to do like they're just going to walk on
the street probably till they get to the other part of the trail so to I just hope that it's safe for them but is there is it just the addition additional cost of having to put a sidewalk all along there that we're not interested in
is that >> well the it didn't trigger the So there there's like general design rules about it that >> Right. >> Oh, okay. >> Well, I'm a civil engineer, so I will tell you that there's >> there isn't >> there isn't, you know, warrants
necessarily for a sidewalk. It's kind of more for, you know, safety and access for people walking along those. >> And I would, you know, it's not nothing for a cost. There's certainly a cost associated with a sidewalk, but I
like I said before, I feel like uh more sidewalks generally in community are a good thing and I you know kind of we should start somewhere with uh you know providing sidewalks on both sides of the street and I'm just saying I think this would be a good time to start. Mhm.
>> Mayor, so the plan for having sidewalk only on one side of the street, both for this edition as well as the initial one was taken from uh inspiration where they also have just the sidewalk on one side. Um so for example, as you kind of go
around Baytown Lane up Coler Way, none of those homes have sidewalk in front either. The sidewalk is all across the street on the multiple family piece. So they would have to cross as well. Um, but there is no standard. That's where this plan came from. If the planning
commission and council felt strongly you could recommend and include as an additional condition sidewalk on the south side of that street. >> I have a followup. Um, where's the main entrance for the center multi-unit
complex? Is it? >> Did you get a map? >> Yeah, mayor. It's off of uh Baytown Lane, so on the south side of that lot. So it would be >> so like just across from the third new house. >> Correct. >> Yeah. Across from lot number three.
>> Correct. >> And when I look I look at this area we're seeing on the east side 8 n 10 lots. Well, is would I be correct in thinking that will be significantly less traffic movement where somebody would cross the
street from sidewalk to sidewalk versus to the west there where the main entrance is? I'm just I don't know, but I'm just wondering just the layout. Would I be right in thinking there'd be significantly less traffic there at that end that
>> mayor? Um most of the traffic going to the single family villas on Bay Haven Trail are going to obviously turn there. M >> apartments there. So what you would have using the remainder of Baytown Lane would be basically everything east of that driveway around Coler Way potentially depending on how the
driveways align on the north side. >> 5 10 units kind of in that corner. >> Mhm. >> Okay. All right. >> I think you're right though that the people accessing that apartment building would turn into that driveway. So east side would have >> Yeah. I'm just thinking >> the west side would
>> how much traffic really is over there. >> Yeah. It would be those first three homes that would be the ones dealing with the traffic trying to cross to get the path. >> The sidewalk. Are you Are you talking about the >> Yeah, cuz there's a sidewalk just to the north, right? And you would say if I was going to go on that if I was walking
from >> from stage coach. >> You're saying pedestrian traffic. >> Pedestrian traffic. >> Okay. Gotcha. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> There's not a lot of traffic cross. >> Yeah. Um, the one thing that I'm looking at this map a little closer now. Um,
there's a small short 5- foot fence. What is that, >> Mayor? I assume it was put there to kind of screen that driveway and keep the pedestrians to that corridor. >> Um, so in our report, we recommended that it move entirely to the south side. >> Okay.
>> Just want to make sure that it's not something that's changed since the report. Okay. >> All right. Thanks. >> Okay. Um the I only had one thing in addition to what we've already been discussing and
that was related to condition 19 about outlot A. It says shall be deed to the city. Is there typically like a timeline associated with that or like it just feels very >> like oh in 100 years deed to us. That's
typically done with the development contract. The city attorney will draft the deed, the developer will sign it, and it gets recorded simultaneously with the uh final plat and the development contract. So, >> so we don't need to be more specific in condition number 19 and we feel comfortable with that.
>> Yes. And when we bring the final plat back, it'll say at the time the final plat is recorded. >> Ah, okay. Gotcha. And you also answered my question about why condition number 12 did not list the Thompsons, >> correct? Um it just said the auto
properties. Um so that'll be interesting. We'll be dealing with that down the road. So we have that little pocket that is going to be Baytown. So okay. Um I think that was all I had. I still a
little confused about the density require the minimum density was that table you referenced was a little confusing. Um, but I I guess I didn't understand what the extra there was one extra line of HDR,
high density residential, I assume. >> Yes. >> Um, at 3.2 acres and that's the one they're going to be at 11, but yeah. So, I was just like, so if something else comes along, there's Do we already have these three acres
designated? Is that the >> They're already designated. They're the ones just to the north of downtown. So >> where we just had to randomly pick a place because correct they were telling us we had to have more high density. >> Right. >> Okay. >> So this table that is it's on the screen now if you can switch to that. This is
what Metropolitan Council uses basically to track development density. So you have the original low density Bay Haven the apartments the new development with net 3.56 acres to 3.2 acres on um
Highway 95. So that's 21 acres that the city expects to develop between 2020 and 2040. We had to hit seven units an acre with that. So um based on the way it lays out with the 105 units already
approved, the six units approved with um that are already there on the subject property, the existing lots of record. We were below that. So to get to the seven units an acre, we had to change this number to 11.
>> That's important for the developer timing. The other way Metropolitan Council was agreeable to doing this would be after final plat approval once the number of lots is set at 10. If you plug 10 in instead of the six, you're over that seven units an acre. but then
they wouldn't be able to consider the final or the comprehensive plan amendment until after the final plat was approved and that's another 60 days down the line and so uh in order to get this in front of Metropolitan Council as soon as possible this line change is uh
necessary. >> Okay, thank you for clarifying that for me. Does it bring up other questions for anybody by getting that information? >> Sometimes it does.
Okay. Any more discussion? No. On my agenda. Do we do now? Um, now the planning commission gets to do stuff. >> Okay. >> Hey. Um, so I move to recommend the city council
um approve. Should I read all these or >> I think we have to. Oh yes. Yeah, I can. Yep. >> Okay. >> Um the first one, extending the corporate limits of Bayport to include certain uninccorporated land from
Baytown through annexation and zoning the property to RPUD plan unit development. And number two, a comprehensive plan amendment for the annexed property to be developed as Bay Haven at Bayport second
edition. and a PUD general development plan and preliminary plat for Bay Haven at Bayport second edition. And a PUD general development plan amendment for
Bay Haven at Bayport first edition related to imperous lot coverage. Nicely done. Do I hear um a second a second to approve that?
>> I second it. >> I'll do a roll call. Madame. >> Commissioner Sigfrieded. >> I. >> Commissioner Oaks. >> I. >> Commissioner Kip. >> I. >> Commissioner Chamberlain. >> No.
Motion carries 31. Okay. >> So now, uh, city council, it's time for us to make some motions. We have to do ours separately with roll calls in between. So, >> I'll move to adopt a resolution extending the corporate limits of the
city of Bayport to include certain uninorporated land from Baytown Township for Bay Haven at Bayport, second edition. >> Yeah. >> Council member Bliss. >> I. >> Council member Gilmore. I, >> Council Member Hill, >> I, >> Mayor Hansen, >> I,
>> I'll move to adopt an ordinance amending >> Did we get a second from Carl's motion? >> No. >> Okay, I thought Wait, we missed something. Does anyone second Carl's motion? Okay, thanks, Katie. I'll go back. We don't have to do another roll call, right? We're good. Okay, we just
did it out of order. Sorry. >> All right. I move to adopt an ordinance amending appendix B zoning to include the annex property for Bay Haven at Bay Court. Second edition. >> Thanks, Ethan. >> I'll second. >> Thanks, Katie. >> Council member Bliss. >> I. >> Council member Gilmore.
>> Hi. Council member Hill. >> I. >> Mayor Hansen. >> I. >> Okay. >> I don't have the sheet. >> Oh, you don't have the sheet. >> I got the wrong No, I have the city council. >> Move to adopt a resolution approving a comprehensive plan amendment for the annex property to be developed at as Bay
Haven at Bayboard second edition. >> Thanks, Ethan. >> I'll have a second. >> Thanks, Katie. Council member Bliss. >> Hi. >> Council member Gilmore. >> Hi. >> Council member Hill. >> I. >> Mayor Hansen. >> I want to do one. Just >> keep sharing. Okay.
>> I move to adopt the resolution approving the PUD general development plan and preliminary plant for Bay Haven at Bayport, second edition. >> Thanks, Katie. >> Second. >> And Carl. >> Council member Bliss. >> Hi.
>> Council member Gilmore. I council member Hill >> I >> Mayor Hansen >> I one last one >> to adopt a resolution approving a PUD general development plan amendment for Bay Haven at Bayport first edition related to impervious lot coverage. >> Thanks Carl.
>> I'll second Katie. >> Thanks >> Council Member Bliss. >> Hi. >> Council member Gilmore. >> I council member Hill >> I. >> Mayor Hansen >> I. All right. I think that concludes our meeting. So, um, ask for a motion to adjurnn.
>> So, move. >> I second. >> Carl and Katie, we are adjourned for this meeting. We have seven minutes for our next meeting. >> Stay. >> Thank you all.