[Music] All right, I would like to call this meeting to order. Thank you for your patience. Sarah, would you please take role? >> Commissioner Kelly >> here. >> Commissioner Z
>> here. Uh, Commissioner Kip and Commissioner Oats are absent and will be swearing in Commissioner Chamberlain in just a minute. >> All right. I am now going to read the oath of office for Dean Chamberlain to come. So raise your hand. I, Dean Chamberlain,
>> I, Dean Chamberlain, >> do solemnly solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States. >> Do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States >> and of the State of Minnesota. and of the state of Minnesota >> and faithfully discharge the duties of
the office of the planning of planning commissioner >> and faithfully discharge the duties of the office of planning commissioner >> of the city of Bport >> of the city of Bport >> in the county of Washington and state of Minnesota >> in the county of Washington and state of Minnesota
>> to the best of my ability >> to the best of my ability >> so help me God >> so help me God >> great congratulations you Okay. Next on the agenda is approval of the minutes. Is there any discussion of the meeting
minutes from February 18th regular meeting? >> No. >> No. I review as well. Okay. Then I move to approve the meeting minutes from February 18th, 2025. >> Okay. I second that.
>> All those in favor say I. I all those opposed. Motion carries. All right. Next on the agenda are the public hearings. Um there are a lot of them. I will remind you um at the end of
each application, but once your application is done, you are welcome to stay, but you can also feel free to leave. You don't need to stay for the whole thing because we have a lot going a lot of exciting stuff going on tonight. All right.
The first uh application is 13 point road project. Um if uh it is to consider variances to allow grading on steep slopes and allow encroachment into the 40ft bluff line
setback for a single family home remodel reconstruction project located at 13point road submitted by Bruce Lensen Design Build.
Sarah, if you would introduce the applicant and and then um who will provide a short presentation on the product project. Sorry, it's been a long day. >> Commissioner Kelly, members of the planning commission, I'd like to introduce Bruce Lensson. He is the
representative for the project on behalf of homeowners. >> Good evening. Thank you. Um a brief overview. It's a single family residential home. Um and the reason as stated is because of the variance that
will be required because of the technicality of your ordinance about gradient filling and then 40 ft of the on slopes greater than 12% 40 ft. Other than that the home meets the criteria for all the riverway and is compliant
every pretty straightforward. So, okay. Any questions? >> Not yet, but we might call you back up if we have questions. Thank you. [Applause]
[Music] >> Good evening, planning commissioners. Daniel Lick with the planning company on behalf of the city of Bayport. Uh, as outlined by the chair and the applicant, the request tonight at 13point road is for variances related to earing on slopes greater than 12% and also
encroachment into the 40ft bluff line setback. The subject site at 13point road is located obviously on the point uh along the St. Croy River. The comprehensive plan guides the property for lowdensity residential development. The property is zoned R1 single family
estate district that's also subject to the lower St. uh river management ordinance as well as flood plane management regulations as well. The entire point is developed of single family dwellings on similar size lots uh all served by private septic and
well systems. the site plan that was provided for the uh proposed improvement. Basically, this is taking down the existing single family home to uh the foundation and then constructing a rather large expansion of the home as well as a
larger uh patio area adjacent to it. Um as part of the examination of the request, the lot complies with the requirements of the R1 district in terms of lot area and lot width. Impervious surface within the lower St. Croy management district is limited to 20%.
Uh they're bringing the site into that uh requirement at just under that 19.99% so getting it right up to the limit. U with regards to the setbacks from the river itself uh the house and proposed
uh deck with the pool and pool house etc meets the ordinary high water setback as well as the bluff line setback. Where the bluff setback comes into play is these yellow highlighted areas on the site plan. Those are essentially man-made creations from when the house
was originally constructed. Um the way the ordinance is written, those are counted as bluffs and subject to the setback requirements even though they were man-made. So thus necessitating consideration of the variance. Uh the tree removal uh existing trees are shown
on the site plan. They're removing two trees from the front yard to accommodate uh the grading of the site and the driveway. Otherwise, nothing on the riverside will be impacted. Uh any trees that are damaged during construction would need to be replaced as part of an administrative process. Um with the
respect to the grading plane plan, same issue as with the setback variance. These are 12% slopes that were created with construction of the existing house. They're being altered uh to accommodate the expansion and reconstruction of the house. DNR staff did comment on the
amount of fill being brought into the site uh to accomplish the proposed expansion of the house. Uh but provided all of the regulations are complied with, the expansion seems appropriate. Uh the developer is also in part bringing in this fill to raise the
elevation of the house so that it complies with the flood plane regulations as it's lifting the house and 15 ft around it outside of the uh flood plane limits. Uh and then also providing for installation of a new subsurface treatment system uh as well
as a private well. This is the building plan overview. Um basically again removing most of the existing house down to the foundation. The new house is two stories at grade again with the raising of the site uh to accommodate flood elevations. The defined height is just
under just over 23 ft. So it is within the 35 ft allowed within the shoreline management area. uh and the developer would be required to use the color palette appropriate for the the riverway corridor. So, city staff's recommendation is that the uh with respect to the variance is that the
bluff is a man-made condition. Uh the variance is necessary to allow for not only the house expansion but to comply with the provisions of the flood plane ordinance. There are comments included in your packet from the department of natural resources in the middle of St. Croy wershed management organization,
but city staff is recommending approval subject to the 11 stipulations in our report from June 18th. All right. Um I would like to now Oh, is that all of the staff? Okay. Just want to make sure the way it's written on here. Okay. I would like to open the
public hearing and invite anyone wishing to comment to come forward to the podium. State their name and street address for the record. Anyone? All right. Okay. I'm going to
move to close the public hearing on this um application. Is there a second? Second. All those in favor say I. >> I. All those opposed. Motion carries. At this time, I would like to entertain
further discussion or questions from the planning commission on the application. >> Um I just where did it what did the um middle water shed say? Did I miss that in here? I mean there
>> it was attached to the the report. >> Um so they had no issues with the application. >> Okay, they're fine. That they agree that it's a man-made block. So is that is there a possibility since it is I can't remember the exact number
but it's fairly close to the edge of the bluff. Is that right? >> So the house itself from the riverway bluff isn't close. >> Okay. >> It's these two bluffs to the side of the house if you will that were caused by
when they filled the house to bring or filled the site to bring in the new house or the original house. >> Okay. So, >> so when it and are they going to do erosion control and other things to keep it from >> correct? So, as part of the grading of
the site, there is an erosion control plan that they will implement while they bring in the fill uh construct the retaining walls etc. Question about the erosion control too is who um I will say polices that to make sure that there isn't an emergency
stuff that you know erosion control can fill up and then spill over. Everybody's maintaining it. Just curious, >> Madam Chair. So that is done through the building department as well as the city engineer uh and public works staff as well. We'll oversee that. Great.
>> Any other questions on this application? All right. Then, um, I move to recommend to the city council to approve a variance to allow grading on steep slopes and then an ovarian to
allow encroachment into the 40ft bluff line setback for a single family home remodel. Reconstruction project located at 13point road. subjects to the findings of facts and conditions of approval recommended by staff.
>> I second the motion. >> All those in favor say I. >> I. All those opposed. Motion carries. Thank you. >> Congratulations. 13 point road contract.
All right. Again, a reminder, if you want to leave, you uh can after your application, but you are certainly welcome to remain. Next, we have the 10point road project. This is considering variances to extend
the roof line, allow grading on steep slopes, and allow encroachment into the 40ft bluff line setback and a conditional use permit to allow alternative flood proofing methods through peers to elevate the existing
single family home and remodel reconstruction project located at 10 point road. submitted by Kell Architects. Sarah, will you introduce the applicant, please? >> Commissioner Kelly,
this is Megan and she'll be presenting the project. [Applause] >> Any of these? Any of these should just be sure I can take yours. Good evening.
>> Um, thanks for hearing our proposal for 10point road. Sounds like there's a lot going on in Point Road this time of year. Um, I am Megan Kell. I'm Kell Architects. I am here on behalf of the homeowner, Julia Kemer, who is
also here with us. Um, at the heart of this proposal is something we believe the commission doesn't hear often, and that's a project driven not by expansion, but by reduction. A dramatic reduction in building and site coverage and service of a
healthier, more sustainable relationship with the land. For Miss Kemer, the most important goal is positive stewardship. Her family has cared for this land for generations, and this rebuild is about continuing that care, not only by reducing impact, but
by creating a healthy, energyefficient, and flood resilient home that coexists with the landscape rather than competing. The impetus for this rebuild stems from two major challenges with this site. First, it is highly energy inefficient.
this house. A significant portion of the existing square footage is consumed by an aging and unused indoor pool. A major source of heat loss and energy waste, of course. Second, the home floods nearly every spring. The main
level sits below the 100year flood plane, and each year the owner must shut down the septic system and well system, evacuate the property, and return only after flood waters have receded. The result is repeated damage, intensive cleanup, and a major disruption to
healthy yearround living. Between the removal of the guest house and the reduction of the main house, over 7,000 square ft of imperous coverage will be removed and replaced with native plantings and natural grading.
The proposed home design is almost 2,000 square ft smaller than the existing home. The proposed design is compact and vertically organized to elevate the property above the flood plane and allow water and air to flow naturally beneath
it. Respecting not resisting the flights flood or the site's flood plane context. [Applause] The storm water and septic plan developed in coordination with the middle sanory water management organization has already received
approvals. existing vegetation is largely preserved and tree cover screens the new home from the river. And before we get into um I think what you're going to go over with the variance requests and c request um I'll just go through
our powerpoint that we've been working uh with the city on over a couple years now to refine. First I'll go over the photos of the existing house. Um, this home has been built onto or renovated a couple other
times in the past. Um, but still in the same family as Miss Kemer. Um, this is a view of the uh approach to the house. So, you're not you're this is down the driveway. Um, we've included a few photos, drone
photos that we had taken of views from the river. So you can see that the house is is virtually you can't see through the trees and foliage from all the banks. Existing floor plan is here on your
screens. Um the one with the red on it is the red is outlining where the buildable area actually is within block lines here. Um there's not a house that can possibly fit within the buildable
area. Um so our approach was to actually work with the main home as to not disturb any other part of the site that has not been disturbed yet. This is a closeup of the two structures
that we're talking about. Um the guest house is in the upper left yellow and the lower house is the main house. The guest house would be completely removed and all of its driveway and sidewalk um improvement services would also be
removed. The existing structure is 5164 square ft with 1,764 ft square ft of deck. Our proposed remodel is 3,340 ft.
1,270 square ft of deck. You can see the blue is um our proposed structure overlaid upon the existing structure which is in the yellow obviously um existing floor plan. This is really
showing you the um elevations that do not comply with um flood plan areas. So, our main slab of the garage is at 693, which is our 100-year flood plan. Uh, the existing living level is below at
690.7 ft. And the existing pool deck is below also at 691.3. And of course, the pool goes lower than that. So, our proposal is to remove the pool and other excessive living areas that um
the homeowners do not need. Um we're bringing our garage slab up um 67 feet um to clear any issues with flood plane to but it's in the same location that
the garage uh is existing. The main entry is being um pulled up to 694.17 ft for its finished elevation. And the main level is lofting above 7 ft higher
than the current main level living to 697.17. So here are images uh of existing versus the new and rendering format. Um, just so you can see side by side the differences as you approach the house,
we have a landscape architect involved as well, which this goes to show that we're trying to uh create more and more vegetation around the house for for more visual appearance. This is a direction southeast from the
point. Um, you'll see this uh sort of stone structure in the front. That's an existing uh pizza oven that the winners that that the owners uh want to keep. Um you'll see this little um concrete sort
of uh wall that's jutting out into the landscape that is existing. Wouldn't we would prefer to keep it. This is a a direction from the southwest. Um looking at the one-story property, it of course is lofted up
above the grade. You are seeing a lot of foliage and um growth that we're hoping to place there just to kind of hide uh the bottom portion of these peers um which you could uh instead see all the
way through the bottom of the house if these were not there. And another view from the west or of the west side and a view of the northeast side. This is really showing the one twostory area
of the house where we have the garage on the main level and above that is the owner suite. We are preferring to put the owner suite above the existing garage footprint so that we can reduce the size of the footprint of the house.
And I'll briefly go over the materials. We're we're we're trying to do all natural finishes um by using true wood, thermally modified wood that will gray out over time much like birch trees
um and and actually decking as well. We have a little bit of stone on the building near the entry. Metal roof would be stand traditional standing seam metal roof. Concrete peers would be under the building and you're not really going to see them. They'll be in shadow at all times.
and feature windows would be a copper clad um which is also a natural color and then the uh an Anderson window color uh for the typical windows. So here is architectural rendering
without all of the trees blocking it. Um pointing out a little bit more about where those materials are. The whole building really is that thermally modified wood siding to keep it very quiet. We've got metal roof. We've also got a green roof over the flat roof link area
between the garage and the main house itself. And you can see in this picture pretty clearly how the concrete pairs are lifting the building above the site. This is from the south side of the south elevation. And this is where you can
also see that very clearly that these peers are are lifting the house of Oak and again I can answer any questions when anyone has them. Thanks. >> Thank you. Now for the exciting stuff.
Okay. So as um chair outlined um free variance is extending the roof line above the existing structure because this is a nonconforming building with respect to the bluff line setback. uh grading on slopes again greater than 12% encroachment into the bluff line setback
for the uh proposed structure as well and then the conditional use permit for alternate flood proofing methods u comprehensive plan again this is basically a repeat of 13point road low density residential zoned R1 state district subject to lower St Croy
management regulations as well as flood plane rules uh surrounding uses are single family homes consistent with the use of the existing property property. Uh, as noted during the architect's presentation, there are two homes on the property. One being a guest house
located to the north. That one is being removed as part of the project. Uh, lot requirements. The lot does comply with the minimum lot area and width requirements of the R1 district. Impervious surface is being reduced from 12% to 7% still well within the 20%
allowed within the St. Croy River District. uh the setbacks to the bluff line, the encroachment basically occurs on this side of the structure because the bluff line comes right up to this oops right up to this retaining wall. Uh you'll notice on the east side of the
property, this is the bluff line. So portion of the existing deck is within the bluff, but uh the main portion of the structure including the existing or the proposed uh doesn't encroach. uh they will remove a couple trees on the uh interior side of the property but
will not affect obviously the view from the river. Uh and then the grading of the slopes that are greater than 12% is basically occurring in the area between the main house and the guest house as part of the removal of that structure. So u the u new addition to the home
isn't impacting those slopes. And then again, as the architect outlined, they'll replace the existing septic system with a new one that complies with uh flood rules. Uh the building plans were reviewed in detail. Uh just highlighting the flood construction. Uh
the previous application for 13point road used the primary means of addressing that by bringing in fill to create an area 15t around the perimeter of the structure that is at or above the flood elevation. The zoning ordinance allows you to raise the structure on
peers such as proposed here uh with a conditional use permit. The main thing the city is looking for with the conditional use permit is to make sure that uh the building plans are certified to comply with the flood plane regulations and construction methods. The second is that the access to the
property is at uh flood plane elevation so that if the structure is basically raised out of the flood plane, you can still escape if there is a flood. And that is the case here. Uh the increase in building height again is this section of the structure going from the singlestory garage uh to include the
owner suite. Staff is supportive of the request given the reduction of the impervious surface and that this section of the building does comply with the bluff line setback. The additional height is still within the 35 ft allowed by the zoning ordinance. So there is no real impact to the river in terms of
allowing this increase in height. uh and it's not relevant to the non-conforming condition of the of the building. So, city staff recommends approval of the application. Uh the encroachment into the bluff line is not increased. Uh the grading is necessary for the removal of
the second dwelling. The conditional use permit uh for the flood plane construction is appropriate given the architectural design of the building and uh the administrative building permit process that will follow. DNR comments as well as those from the Middle St. Wershed Management Organization were
included in your packet and we are recommending approval uh subject to the 10 conditions in our report from June 18th. I would also add and the architect alluded to this that this project has been undergoing extensive discussions involving city staff, DNR staff and watershed management organizations.
There's been at least two on-site meetings uh that have happened. So, this has gotten a lot of attention and a lot of review and the architect has done a good job incorporating comments from city staff to make this approval relatively straightforward affair.
>> Thank you. >> All right. Now, I would like to open the public hearing and invite anyone wishing to comment to come forward to the podium. Please state your name and street address for the record. All right, then I'm going to move to
close the public hearing. Second. >> All those in favor say I. I. I. >> All those opposed. Motion carries. At this time, I would like to entertain further discussion or questions from the
planning commission on the application. Uh, so I guess I would like to say that this is exciting to see how you're wanting to work with the land and to move forward
from I don't know old versions of construction. So, um I this seems like a great project and I've heard about the flooding every year. So, it's nice to not have that
happening perhaps in the future. >> Yeah. I just say that I appreciate all the the detail that's gone into making it look like it should be part of the kind of natural environment and especially much more than the more modernist architecture of the house that
is out there right now. So my I I think it's great too. I just which I assume is probably in the works or city engineer for all of the peers like so they have to get
stamp certified and approved and all of that you guys have all your restrictions and guidelines they have to follow to make sure it's >> yeah madam chair commissioner s freed that's correct and that would be reviewed as part of the building permit process once the variance and conditional use permit are considered by
the city council and approved. >> Any other comments? >> Um, please. >> Yeah. I was just wondering, and perhaps don't really answer this question right now, but is there any time in the future you might want to put the guest house back or something like that? Is that
something entertained at all? Like, do you I don't know if you don't know the answer to that question. I was just curious. No. I just I just know that housing is is important in the community. So, it's just just wonder.
>> All right. Anybody as well or I can. All right. I move to recommend to the city council to approve variances to extend roof line, allow grading of steep slopes, and allow encroachment into the
40ft bluff line setback and a conditional use permit to allow alternative floodproofing methods by through peers um to elevate the existing single family home and remodel reconstruction project located at 10
point code subject to the findings of fact and conditions of approval recommended by staff. All those in favor of it. Sorry, they left that part off on this one. Um
uh all those in favor say I. >> I. >> All those opposed. Motion carries. All right. We are now moving on to the third application. 297 Lake Street project. This is to
consider a conditional use permit to allow alternative flood proofing methods, wet floor flood proofing flood fence for the existing fam single family home and addition project at 297 Lake
Street submitted by Traditional Construction Services. All right, Sarah, could you introduce the applicant? Commissioner Kelly, this is Brad. He is the homeowner and actually I believe he's going to be the contractor on this project. So, go ahead.
>> How are you doing? >> Good. >> Good. So, a little background. I actually owned this house about 22 years ago. So, I owned it through a couple of floods. Um, the idea with this one is we're
taking the existing house off of that property and placing it on another lot that I have in town and then you utilizing the existing foundation and adding the flood vents for the for that portion of basement. And then there's an
additional foundation going to the north of it for the new garage. And then the upper floor connects across and then you would go through a tunnel in between to get to the back to use the tuck in the
garage. >> That's about it. >> All right. Thank you for >> background. We may we'll let you know. Now Dan, please chair. Thank you. Wait for the screen to
come up again. So, this application that included in the public hearing notice was a variance to grade on slopes greater than 12%, but once staff reviewed the plans that were submitted, we determined there weren't the 12% slope. So, that goes by the wayside. Just focusing on conditional
use permit for the flood plane construction. Um, similar to the previous two requests, the comprehensive plan guides this property for lowdensity residential development. Single family homes are appropriate in those areas. Uh, this site is zoned R2 single family urban district. Um, with the
availability of sewer and water utilities to the site. Uh, it is also subject to the lower St. Croy management regulations as well as flood plane rules adjacent to the St. Croy River. Surrounding uses include single family homes to the south, uh the city's lakeside park to the north northwest,
and then the Riverside Marina to the southwest. Uh the lot complies with the requirements of the R2 district in terms of lot width and lot um area. Uh impervious surface is being reduced from 30.6% down to 19.99%.
As noted in our report, however, uh there is some concern with the second access to the driveway or to the garage which is on the back of the home. Uh there's a pad shown in this location for that. There's no driveway shown uh which would obviously contribute to the
impervious surface. Zoning ordinance requires that garages have paved access. Uh so city staff's recommendation is that the driveway be paved uh or uh and other imperous surface removed from the plan or uh the entrance way be size such
that a vehicle cannot pass through that. Uh that's an item that would need to be resolved uh between city staff and the developer as this moves forward to city council. Uh with regards to setbacks, the oops the house complies with all the setback requirements including the from
the ordinary high watermark and the bluff line of uh the St. Croy River. Terms of the vegetation which is shown on the site plan uh as existing. None is to be removed as part of the construction. Uh and the grading plan obviously complies with the requirements of the zoning ordinance in that no
slopes greater than 12% are being addressed and the city engineers signed off on the uh erosion control plans. The site again has public sewer and water utilities. So there's no septic issues on this property. This gives a sense of the the building plan. Uh this would be
the ex most of the existing foundation to the uh right side of the screen with the bridge across the entryway to the back garage. Uh and then the new garage on the north portion of the site. As you can see on the back side, there's the enclosed garage as well as the enclosed
floodproofed areas of the structure. This is the second means of alternative flood proofing methods that are commonly used whereby the lower level of the structure is designed to flood with these vents so that the pressure of the flood doesn't collapse the walls inward
and then the water can move freely out as the flood recedes away. Uh so this is will be certified again through the building permit process and then there are some additional approvals that go along with that in terms of documenting the approval uh as part of the property
title. The building height is essentially a singlestory structure. It's 22 feet to the top of the curb section above the entryway and they would use the color palette approved for the St. Croy River Valley. So, city staff's recommendation is that the uh
conditional use permit be approved as it's necessary to comply with the flood plane regulations. U the request would be subject to comment from the DNR, Middle St. Croy wershed management organization and we are recommending approval subject to the 12 conditions from our June 18th report. One of those
which includes the addressing the driveway to the rear garage. >> Could you go back to the picture of the structure? Okay. Um, first we're going to uh open the public hearing and invite
anyone who wishes to comment to come forward to the podium. State their name and street address for the record. All right. Uh, he's just fixing the TV for everyone. Um, okay. So then I will move to close
the public hearing. Is there a second? >> All right. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed. Motion carries. All right. At this time I would like to entertain discussion or questions from the planning commission on the
application. Um, I wanted the picture of the structure up. Oh, and now it just went away. >> Um, I I'm not. So, the is the tunnel.
>> Yeah, >> these are >> structure to go to the second garage behind. >> Yeah. >> Is that at or below flood plate? >> Below. below. So, it would be cut off if there's a flood, >> correct?
>> Is that um Does anyone have a problem with that? >> No, the the main access to the property is above the flood elevation. Okay. >> Um >> and so the the driveway back to the second garage and the second garage itself can be within the flood plane.
You're allowed to have storage uh within that area. >> Okay. Um, and the main access is through that tunnel. >> Correct. >> Right now. And what can you explain again?
You explained before what you want them to fix, but with the visual that really helps. >> Sure. So, right now, this area is not shown to be paved. Um, so if you're and in their narrative they describe how that second garage is necessary for the
occupants of the house to be able to park their vehicles. So if that is going to be used regularly for vehicle access to that garage, you don't want to have erosion, destruction of the grass, etc. Um, gravel is an impervious surface. The
city doesn't allow impervious pavers uh because of the long-term maintenance concern. So it needs to be a concrete or asphalt surface. if that garage is intended to be used for vehicle purposes. >> So then if they add that as imperous
surface, then they would need to remove impervious surface. It's hard to tell from these pictures, but is it just the driveway or are there sidewalks as well or >> essentially on this graphic, the outline
in red is the impervious surface of the proposed house. Okay. >> So, there is sidewalk, etc. Um, this is the driveway to the upper garage. Um, the original plan had the driveway to the second garage coming out directly to
Lake Street and then through to this pad in the back. >> Okay. So they um from what I know of what we're getting to later with the change in the they have to go down to under 20% for
>> 20% surface. >> Yes. It's right. >> The alternative would be to request a variance, but it would be difficult to meet the criteria that complying with the 20% impervious limit
is a practical difficulty when the house already has a garage that complies and provides storage space as required by the ordinance. The second garage is a convenience or a luxury, not necessarily a a ne necessity for reasonable use.
So, their alternative really would be if they didn't pave that area, they're going to have to expand the garage, >> correct? >> Which would also >> which would also kick it on over.
>> But do they I mean, you're saying if they're calling it a garage, I mean, can it just be storage or whatever? Like, if it's not going to have >> So, you know what I mean? Our concern is that it's designed it's been designed for vehicle access.
>> So the recommended condition is that if you're not going to pave that and then reduce impervious elsewhere, make it so a vehicle can't go through that tunnel. [Music]
>> Then it could be used for storage. >> Can we ask Mr. There's many breaths for the email. Not sure if I was just a >> So, so this the whole driveway thing seems
like a sticking point. What is your thought? How are you going to fix what they're saying? And they're saying that's one of the stipulations. Well, the property
right now has over 30% impervious, >> right? >> Even with the expansion and all we're doing, we're reducing it significantly. I did submit a drawing from Cornerstone with
impervious pavers to get me to the garage, but that put me at 23% even though they're not accepted in >> Bayport. Yeah. >> So, that was that was what I was proposing to do for me to get down there
>> cuz I'm in a household who will soon have four drivers. I've had my mother-in-law living with us for 10 years and I have two kids that'll be coming up. >> Yeah. >> Um I Sorry. Go ahead. I'll finish. >> No, you finish your question.
>> I So is ups is the upper one three car or two car? >> Two. >> Okay. >> Again, I was try I was keeping as small a footprint as I can and utilizing the space below it. >> Yeah. >> Works to have parking. >> Yeah. And then the downstairs one right
now is big enough for the two of us to park in our personal watercraft in the winter and snowmobiles in the summer. >> Yeah. >> For storage. >> Yeah. >> But but the actual size of it going up
was built just big enough to be what the upstairs garage needed to be. >> Yeah. >> It just worked out with what was below it. So really your option is somehow building taller or something. I
think this is a really creative solution to the parking problem and I think this is a kind of exciting and interesting design but I you we hopefully you can figure out a way to work within the
city's requirements. Yeah. Right now the the existing driveway is like the driveway elevation of what the tunnel is. >> Not going any lower. >> Yeah. Just like it sounds like you have to pave it if you're going to put cars
there. >> I would be fine with paving. >> Yeah. >> Or or the previous papers or or or some solution. Um, besides that, uh, that seems to be the
main concern. I thought the DNR and the watershed district were good with the where he is not being. Yes. Um, any other questions? >> I was curious about, and this might be a question for Danner staff, with moving
the existing house. Is there anything that we have to consider with that or I don't know. It seems like kind of a a big undertaking to move a house somewhere else too. >> Commissioner Chamberlain. Um I have been working with Brad for several years.
We've been going over this. Um the existing house is of a smaller ranch and um the previous owners of a lot split or subdivided up. So he owns a property with a small ranch and then there's a second lot that would accommodate the
ranch from this property. So we have verified that that will be set back but there is a moving permit and you know building code requirements that will go along with that but that'll be done as a separate process. >> Y okay thank you.
>> So for the um so I just the picture so the old where the old garage is now. >> Yeah. >> What is that? If you >> if you put the picture back up of the front elevation when you when you see
the picture. Yeah. When you see the tunnel >> is that >> the right side of the tunnel is that existing garage foundation that you see if you drive by with the flat rock. >> Okay. >> So that whole foundation ends up being part of the house. >> Okay. Okay. >> And so that's that's the south side of
the tunnel. >> Okay. So all the stuff that's underneath that has all these like flood plane things. I mean that's >> that's the existing >> space though. Like you can't you're just going to have it >> down there. >> Yep. Storage space.
>> Okay. And like whatever storage like whatever the all that stuff. >> It's the types of materials that are used are all >> Yeah. that underneath Okay.
Okay. Okay. Yeah. I So, so is the the option is that if they want that space as a a driveway, they need to have it paved,
but then they have to reduce something to get the pvious. >> Okay. I don't know what else you would get rid of. Unless you get rid of a bedroom. >> Get rid of what? >> Like a bedroom or something. Out of
space. We already made it noticeably smaller. >> Yeah. >> Another question. Really papa. And like I'm curious since I haven't you know worked with this before like what somebody was saying uh adding papers
isn't exactly you know city's preference but it got to like a 23% service. I'm just curious how how that all calculated or works into >> pvious pvious papers are accepted in different cities or municipalities.
>> Right now Bayorn is not allowed. Yes. So, Madam Chair, um this is not uncommon here in the valley. Many many of the communities, most of the communities have adopted a model ordinance prepared by Washington County some years back and they all have a
commonality in that um uh they don't accept forest pavers as a mitigation or an offset rather for imperous surface. So we have to count it as an impervious surface uh because the organ is sort of historic
essentially and uh the direction guys we've been getting from the state and from others uh going back a couple of decades has been that we need and permits um now they can't be utilized as
storm water infiltration practices as as deval knows that if they're constructed are maintained, right? Uh they do infiltrate um but they don't get to reduce the we don't get to shall I
say it this way. We don't get to count them as per we have to come as imperous and then either variance or do some other method. Um,
so just a basic question here. Since we're in your favor, since we're looking at the zoning [Applause] regulations on imperous service, he's zoned R2, which has a 35%.
So why are you saying he has to be under 20%. Madam Chair, so the basic requirement of the R2 district is 35%. When you're in the lower St. Croy River District, the shoreland management rules are 20%. >> Oh, okay. So it
>> so it's an overlay and it's the more it's us, it's the uh watershed >> correct rules. >> That that's what I was confused about. >> Um any other comments?
Um, I guess since Dan, you're up here, if we were to approve with some sort of condition, you know, for like maybe enhancing the storm water uh
mitigation or something for the additional impervious surface. Is that something that we could do as a part of this? I know you said that granting a variance for additional improve service might be a little tough because it's a second garage instead of first garage but just curious if that is something
that could be >> and is it really our variance to grant if you're saying the issue is the watershed then we're okay with 23% it's the watershed that's not
>> madam chair so the 20% is state rule that the city incorporates as part of the zoning organization And then the city's responsible for administering it the same as the variances for rating on slopes of 12%. >> And then is the variance this the same
under the state bill in order to get a variance from the 20%. >> Correct. Yep. Um and we haven't noticed this as a variance application. Yeah. >> Um, you know, the applicant can hear maybe the planning commission's open to the idea. Maybe it can be looked at as a
reduction in the non-conforming condition of the property and maybe the city engineer can recommend some additional storm water mitigation that should be included to further offset the 20% plus imperous surface that's on the site.
>> Probably where I would land. That's where I I mean I it seems like they've really trying to decrease the impervious surface and work with this property and uh
it's seems like if there's a way to get them where they need to be. I mean >> I'm sure >> we just did that with two other properties. Yeah, >> man. If I can just comment. So, um if if
you are thinking about going that route, you have to think about that there's practical difficulties um that they have to prove that they need a twocar versus a fourc car garage. Correct. And so in big wart, we do allow small lots that do
not have garages a variance to have. Now, I don't see too many fourcar garages in Bayport. So if there's a practical difficulty and they meet that criteria, I think then a variance could be considered.
>> Yeah. Well, >> but we're not talking about >> we're not talking about the garage. We're talking about the driveway to use something that's going to be built into it. And I'm not saying that it would work. The garage is already
going to be built into the design. It's the access to that garage. Um, and I'm not saying it would work, but it sure seems like it's worth >> is there recommendations from the engineer or whatever that would work besides what
you're saying. It's reduced. >> Madam commissioner or commissioner, um, it it's not the city's responsibility to design something, right? We're just reviewing what is being proposed. Madam Chair, perhaps what the planning
commission could do is recommend approval of the application subject to the conditions with additional direction that staff and developer meet to review alternatives to address the driveway access and impervious surface limit prior to city council consideration.
Is that is there time between our approval and or can you hold off on bringing it to the city council to have time to figure to try and figure this out? >> Commissioner Kelly, this um has been
scheduled to be on the city council agenda for July 14th. I think we have um some time to meet with the property owner and talk about maybe some ways to mitigate else where there's sidewalk area. I mean, he's so close to meeting the standard. Really, we could maybe do
some creative thinking and come up with a solution that would both accommodate the additional parking garage, but also meet the 20% which you know is for water runoff. He's right on the river there. I think we have to consider the ramifications of allowing that above the
20% um potentially when you can't substantiate the criteria to meet the variance. So we will work with the property owner to try and come up with some solutions and I think to Dan's point to incorporate that in motion will be appropriate.
>> All right. Um then I am going to move to recommend the city council approve a conditional use permit with review of possible vari I don't know if I'm saying
it correctly. Madam Chair, um recommend approval of the conditional use permit application subject to the conditions outlined by city staff with the direction for city staff and the developer to have further discussions regarding garage access and impervious
surface. Yes, that >> um so subject to the finding of fact and conditions already um in the approval approval recommended by staff with talking about the impervious surface.
All those uh is there a second to that? >> Did somebody say give me a second? >> Oh, the attorney. >> Okay. >> Oh, okay. Um, >> okay. We have a second. All right. All those in favor say I.
>> I. All those opposed, motion passes. Good luck. Okay. Next. Um, application number four is the Bay Haven project. This is to consider a final plan for Bay Haven at
Bay at Bayport development including new construction of 35 single family villas and a 70 person multi or 70 unit multi- family
rental property located at 4745 stage coach trail submitted by Pratt Homes. Dan, could you present this item? >> Thank you, Madam Chair. >> Thank you. >> Pratt Construction Incorporated is here
this evening with their final plat application for Bay Haven at Bayport. Uh you'll recall back earlier this year uh the planning commission reviewed the preliminary plaid and the PUB general development plan for Bay Haven uh encompassing the 35 single family lots
and the one outlot or excuse me the other lot for development of a multifamily or townhouse use. Uh those were approved by the city council on February 3rd. Um, so now again we move to the stage where they're crossing the eyes and dotting the tees on the
subdivision application itself. This is really just a technical review to look back at the uh preliminary plat approval. See that developers followed through with the conditions of approval. Uh that they've submitted construction plans for their public streets and utilities that comply with the city's
construction standards and are reviewed by the city engineer. uh and then move forward to execute a development contract uh record the final plat actually subdividing the property and then begin moving dirt and constructing homes. So the site uh that you're
familiar with is located south of Fifth Avenue North and east of Stage Coach. It was annexed to the city and guided by the comprehensive plan for lowdensity residential dwellings. Uh it was zoned to PUD planned unit development district. This is a zoning district specific to this piece of property that
sets forth the allowed uses including the single family villa homes and the multiple family or townhouse uh uses within that one lot and also st establishes the performance standards for it including lot requirement setbacks, street design standards, etc.
that are all unique to Bay Haven. Uh the surrounding uses include the ISD 834 property to the northeast and Barker's Alps Park. Uh also to the east there are single family dwellings both within Baytown Township and uh Bayport uh to
the south including the inspiration neighborhood and open space and then everything to the west of Stage Coach Trail is obviously within Baytown Township. Uh the final plat was established with lot requirements specific to those 35 single family lots.
Uh setting forth a minimum lot width and area requirements. Essentially what anything pertaining to the design of the subdivision is consistent with the preliminary plat approval. Uh thus compliant with the PUB district. Uh rightways being dedicated for uh public streets with the final plat including
right away along Stage Coach Trail which is subject to review and approval by Washington County. Uh there's the boundary street first avenue north coming off of Stage Coach Trail into the development which now is a boundary line road between the city of Bport and Baytown Township. uh necessitates an
agreement between the two jurisdictions over how that roadway is going to be constructed and basically that the city is going to maintain that going forward and the township has that agreement for their consideration. Um interior streets were designed with a unique standard a narrower rightway and a narrower street
section than would be typical. The idea is to move the homes as close as possible to the interior of the development. You can see on the aerial how the perimeter of the property is substantially wooded and so to minimize tree loss basically put the development as much in the center of the property as
possible. Uh pedestrian access to this project would be accomplished with sidewalks uh connected out to stage coach and a trail along 1st Avenue North that will be extended all the way to Barker's Alps Park and then there's sidewalks on uh the local streets within
the project. Uh the city engineers office has reviewed the construction plans for the development including utilities uh storm water, the streets, etc. and has their memo as part of your uh packet. There also drainage and utility easements dedicated over the
perimeter of each of the single family lots and lot one block 5 multiple family project and outlot A as well. There will be a homeowners association as part of this development to take care of uh maintenance and uh architectural
requirements etc. Park dedication requirements for this project will be unique in that uh the city will not accept land but we are in fact going to take the acquisition of the trail corridor between the development and Barker's Alps Park as credit against
that park dedication fee uh benefiting the city's overall park and trail system. So, city staff is recommending approval of the application. Uh, the wershed management organization obviously has reviewed the preliminary platinum given preliminary approval as well as Washington County the same on
the uh rightaway dedication for stage coach trail but additional comments may be pending. Uh, we are recommending approval subject to 22 conditions in our report from June 17th. >> Thank you. All right. I would like to now open the public hearing and invite
anyone wishing to comment to come forward to the podium. Please state your name and street address for the record. >> Anyone? >> Um I don't think so.
>> Uh the developer is not presenting at this for this part. >> Madam Chair, Mr. Brad is here or his team if anyone needs to make a comment or their question. >> All right. Um then I will move to close the public hearing. Is there a second?
>> I second. >> I second that. >> A long day for all of us here. Okay. All all those in favor say I. >> I. All those opposed. Motion carries. All right. At this time, I would like to
entertain further discussion questions from the planning commission on the application. So, we received this comment from a uh
person who lives in Baytown. Um, and I just have he talks about that there's an easement that was platted in the '60s and that is going to be
the where the road is going to go. Is that correct? >> Madam Chair, um, if I can just address the comments that were received, city staff did have the opportunity to review that. Unfortunately, most of the comments raised should have been raised
at the preliminary plat stage. Um, we're past the point where the city council has given approval to the overall subdivision design, including the public right ofway, the street layout, etc. to the effect that the developer has entitlements to move forward with the
project subject to those conditions as stated with the preliminary plat. Um, so we can't necessarily go back and revisit those concerns in the uh memorandum. We do still have conditions open both for the Bay Haven project as well as the
athome apartments application regarding landscaping and that's something that city staff has indicated both to the resident uh as well as Baytown officials that we're willing to work with them to address their concerns pertaining to the
visual impacts of the development to the extent possible. >> Yes. Um my question was really about the mature trees there and if there are ways to work to save as many of those as possible. >> Yeah, Madam Chair. So the mature trees
that have been identified for removal are obviously within the public rightway that was established with the original Baytown Township Plat. So there isn't necessarily a right or an ability to require those not be removed. um tree preservation measures could be looked at
to try and carefully ensure that you're not damaging properties that are with or trees that are within his property as part of that process. And that's something city staff can work through as part of the construction initiation. >> That that was what I got out of this
letter that I wanted to make sure was addressed. Anyone else have questions? So is the which whatever road we're talking about >> that's I mean a public road
>> there's the easement >> so you can see on the aerial photograph this corridor right here south of the blue line >> oh you don't have this too >> I'm looking
>> all right so the blue line on the south side of the development. >> Yeah, >> this is >> so this is public rightway. >> Um so what the letter property owner indicated as easement, it's actually platted right away, public property, right?
>> Um even though they were using private driveways within that space. Um so now basically the private driveways are being taken out for the purpose of constructing a street within public rightway. So I mean it's that is not his
>> pro. Okay, I understand. Um but yeah, saving as many trees as you can or you know mitigating certain lawns and hopefully that's in the plan or double talk with the city and the builders. City staff is
willing to work with this to the extent that we've discussed planting additional trees in the rightway, which is typically gives public works and engineering people hives. You know, the idea that you put a tree in a rightway, but >> yeah. And I I'm not assuming that that
will be possible, but if there are ways to keep trees, that's always, especially mature trees, it's always to the benefit of the community. Um any other comments,
>> but I want to finish you. >> No. Okay. Um well, in relation to trees in the rightway, I really value the ability to have trees in a rideway. I think it provides uh
traffic quality, provides shade, especially once the trees are grown. Um and notice that so as a background I'm a civil engineer and I design works for a living. So have some knowledge of this as well. Um uh I I did notice that you know the the
boulevard areas the space between the sidewalk and the curves are fairly small but if there's any way that we could select species or something that can work within that smaller right away um I think that would be at least in my
opinion desirable. Uh and I'm sure you know city staff can can work that out uh as part of the future efforts with this. Um the other uh I have another question or u question I guess is the right word.
Uh so I really appreciate the the trail connection between this development and inspiration and uh I think Mark just kind of whatever connects to the neighborhoods we'll say. Um, I know that's uh 8 feet wide. Um,
and considering that this is uh kind of a deadend development and whatnot, I is is that trail if there was some emergency to close the only access to this development. Could that be utilized as an emergency access at some point in
time? Maybe John, that's a question for you if you think that's appropriate or >> um, >> we haven't looked at it as such. So it would be designed as a trail. Um we had we had to take
>> cuz that that is a concern that I have and especially because that grade on the roadway is going to be pretty it looked fairly steep at least from the plan. I didn't calculate it out myself but um from the top of the development down to the stage coach and I could see that potentially being an issue. So, I'm kind
of wondering if that is a condition that could potentially be made for this to widen that to 10 ft to provide a little more emergency access. And >> say staff can tell me if we're past that point or not this
approval process, but um I I would think that that might be >> because there just one entrance and the fire department is all fine with that. Is that true? >> Correct,
>> Madam Chair. So, the entryway to the development, the street section is wider is at stage coach and it narrows down past the first intersection. So, that would help address, you know, potential blockage issues. >> Okay.
Um, sorry, one more question. >> Uh, um, I thought, I'm not sure if this was in packet material somewhere or if this was something I heard, but, uh, the intersection at stage coach and this new
existing/ new street. Um, was there consideration that that was going to be changed to roundabout or something else uh, at some point in time in the future? something. >> Sure. >> Elaborate on that. >> So, St. Croy County or St. Croy County, Washington County as part of their uh
review west as part of their review did identify the need for future upgrade of that intersection. So, the developer at his cost had a roundabout designed for that intersection that would not impact their project uh that met the uh
approval of Washington County. So, that would be a future improvement when traffic volumes more. >> Okay. And is that something then that would is this development contributing towards the cost of that at some point in time or is that >> that would essentially be a future
construction project when warranted? Uh and I believe the county has said their current cost share policy is that the city would be responsible for 25% for the leg that enters this development. >> I personally very much uh appreciate roundabouts. I think they're great for
mobility and safety. uh in that area of stage coach is currently very difficult to navigate. So Rob might might help that even just the way it is right now. Um any other
comments? Um I would like to uh at the the last meeting when we talked about the initial plat um you assured us that you were talk Mr. Pratt is that what your name is? You
assured us that you were talking to people about the multifamily part of this and I really appreciate that we are going to be discussing an application for that. So I I just wanted to say thank you for following through because
it uh makes we had distrust after previous experiences not with you but uh that a lot of people in this city were were concerned about that. So thank you
>> Leon. Why don't you come right on up if we want. Oh, no. Just uh >> anything to introduce. I just want >> Well, just a second. I want to introduce at home apartments. >> I >> now that you've brought this up.
>> Yeah. >> And I want to make sure that you understand these are very highly qualified developers of the apartment building and they'll go into the particulars here. And um also Alan is here, her partner.
And uh we're now going to be able to move into that, but I wanted to acknowledge >> Yeah. >> your Thank you. >> Yeah. Well, and we'll talk about that um momentarily, but I just >> it things are moving as you said they
were going to and I at least as a community member really appreciate that. >> Thank you. >> All right. Any other comments on the behavior? Do you mind if I ask like for a motion like what would be appropriate?
>> Sure. >> Um >> Dan. >> So Dan or Sarah or whomever. Um is [Applause] and apologies. I'm coming into this process, you know, midway through the stream. So, I'm just kind of asking to
make sure that what I would suggest is still okay at this point in time. Um, so I what I'm trying what I'm looking to do is uh make a motion to approve uh with the stipulations and stuff, but
um adding in the conditions that the city and developer investigate the suitability of upgrading the trail connection to Barker's Alps to 10 ft wide to provide potential emergency access. And then um also for uh investigating
the suitability of street trees within this development as appropriate for the context of the right size. Is that all okay at this point in time? >> Madam chair. >> Yes. So with regards to the trails, I just suggest modifying condition number
11 to include an additional clause at the end to say where it says subject to review and approval of city staff including investigation of adequate width and weight capacity for emergency vehicles. Um that way we can review that as the city engineer works with the
development team. Uh with regards to the landscaping again because this is narrower rightway than typical uh the street section is narrower. It was specifically designed to move that sidewalk and make the boulevards as narrow as possible with the idea that trees would be placed in the front yard,
not the boulevard. >> And so commissioner, so um we've already had conversations with aboutgraphy is right. Yeah. So the the discussion was that they will be on the back side of the sidewalk but still close enough
to potentially provide shade for um the um not only sidewalk but for part of the road. Yeah. So we've had issues in the past obviously with uplifting sidewalk or different things like that. So that was kind of our compromise at that
point. The other thing that we see a lot is especially in the inspiration development where it's a requirement that every homeowner or an HOA is required to trim trees it doesn't happen and so to try and eliminate some of that
that's um work on staff different things like that. That was our reasoning. Is there a requirement done for each of the lots to have certain tree plantings with I'm just I'm just wondering how to how to enforce that idea.
>> Madam Chair, with the preliminary plat there was a landscape plan that was approved that did include at least one tree, not two per lot. >> You can make a recommendation. You can absolutely make a recommendation for
more. Would you like to make >> I will make or I can approve. >> I will make the motion to approve. Uh motion to approve.
>> Sorry. >> Okay. I would uh move to recommend to the city council to approve a final plan for Bay Haven at Bay Court subject to the conditions of approval recommended by staff with the change in item number 11.
>> Um uh and uh to um work for city staff to work with the developer to to maximize tree coverage
in the frontage of these properties as much as deemed feasible. >> All right. >> I second that. All those in favor say I. >> I. All those opposed.
Motion passes. Okay. Number five con uh application is to consider a plan unit development for Bay Haven at Bayport development for 70 multi-family rental units located at
4745 Stage Coach Trail submitted by At Home Apartments. Uh Sarah, will you introduce the applicant? >> This is Lyanna and at us through
this. It works. Uh, good evening, Madam Chair, Commissioner Sig Freed, and Chamberlain. My name is Lyanna Stefaniac. I'm the president of real estate um and development for At Home Apartments, and I also serve as our company's general counsel. We are very pleased to be here tonight um to present our application to
you as the multif family uh developer and partner um for Bay Haven. Um this is a very exciting project for us and we were pleased when Len reached out and asked could you do this? Um Aome Apartments has a very reputable um history throughout the Twin Cities. Our
company was formed over 30 years ago um doing just this just multif family management and development. And I think one of the things that makes us stand apart from other developers maybe you've had experience with in the past and even in other communities is that we own and manage and develop for ourselves. So when we are coming before you tonight
the project that we are going to present to you we intend to own this and operate this for decades to come. So we're not a developer that's just going to come and be here for 2 years and we're going to sell and flip out. And the reason why I want to make that distinction is because we want to be good stewards and good partners of this community. Um when we approach new communities and we're
bringing in projects um for our housing. One of the key components that we make is will our family want to live here? And if that answers a no, we move on. We know that our families would want to live here and we're very proud of the project that we're going to present to you tonight. Um, one of the fun facts is
at the meeting that you had in February, Mr. Kei from Collage Architects presented what the multif family apartment could look like. We have worked with Pete Keley as our primary design partner for over 30 years. Um we together with collage and at home have produced over 1,000 new apartment units
throughout the Twin Cities. So in communities like Wer Lake, Egan, Modota Heights, Vadmas Heights, we have a very strong partnership. So when we saw the proposals that you guys reviewed and approved of the preliminary plan, we already knew Pete was 85% there because we've worked with him so many times. Um,
but one of the things that as we reviewed the plan, um, that we knew as as somebody who's going to hold on to this property for a long period of time, there were some tweaks that we needed to do for the, you know, feasibility and efficiency of the apartment building, but again, also for the longevity of the
apartments. Um so I really really quick with this application um if I could just kind of go through our slide deck with you um and then review some of the changes that we are proposing and walk through the rationale on that and then touch on a couple components that I think maybe you discussed in February including um parking ratios and in real
world real world data that can help us kind of get um over maybe some of those obstacles that maybe were still present from the February meeting. >> Okay. For some reason you're >> I know it just timed out on me because I was I was talking too much. I'm so sorry.
Yes, >> there you go. So, these are just some examples quickly of some of the projects that we have um produced with Pete Key um throughout neighboring communities. Um this is Boat Works Commons in Wiper Lake. This is a
reserve at Sono and Badness Heights. Um some of the interiors of how we design our units. Uh this is the reserve in Menota Heights. And I think actually some of these images might have been in your packet. I think Pete snuck some of those in, too. Um, again, just some other uh
elements of what our communities look like. Um, this is kind of the gathering spaces and what we know that the residents kind of need to create that connectivity and create community within the project itself. So, just a few samplings of what we can do. You know, that we're a real company. We deliver a
great product. Um, so hopefully that satisfies some of the concerns from previous experience. Um, these are our uh development plans for the Bay Haven apartment building. Um, at first look, you're not going to see a lot of difference from what Pete and um, Mr.
Pratt presented back in February. Just some tweaks that we needed to do um, as long-term operators and owners. So, this the excuse me, the lower level plan has not changed. This still includes the 100 uh, parking stalls that were underground um, heated underground parking stalls.
This is the first level floor plan. Again, not much has changed. A couple corners have been pulled in and reduced. Um, corners are expensive and so we had to adjust some of them. The architect can sometimes get a little far ahead of us, so we had to pull some of those corners in. Um, but that terrace um over
the parking deck still exists for green space and other gathering space for the residents to enjoy. Uh, second floor is the same. third floor. Again, the only thing that really changed here was changing some of the decks, pulling in some of those balconies a little bit, adjusting corner lines, but roughly the
same with what you approved back in February. And then the addition here, this is something new. Um, we included in our development plans, in our application, a fourth floor amenity deck. Um, and why we knew that this is important as an operator, when you're thinking about a new community, what
what do our residents need? what do they need to have in order to stay in the community, be long-term residents, establish that connectivity amongst themselves and not only just who living in the apartment building, but who also is going to be um you know in residing in the villis and how are we going to bring all those folks together and when
we looked at what Pete had presented in February um we were missing that gathering space that community space and so looking at how we could integrate this without impacting the height we knew that the height of the building was important not only for the residents of Bayor you know globally speaking, but
also for the the residents are going to be buying the billows and what are they going to see from the streets. So, what we did is we built the fourth floor amenity deck into the existing roof line. So, not trying to create another whole fourth floor. There's not going to be housing. It's not uh no housing units are up there, but rather a community
room, a wine bar or rooftop deck. One of the things that makes Bayport so attractive is the fact that it's in the river valley and how can we expose our residents to that benefit as well. So adding this rooftop deck into the building line again is going to allow the residents who live in this building
some views of the river valley and depending on the time of year even partial views of the river. Um and to get it up to that height that's over the tree line at 30 ft you can't see anything with the trees being there but if you bring it up just a little bit more you can see into the river. Um and so I'll show you that slide deck in just
a moment but wanted to really um explain why we feel that we need to have this. You know, our concern again is the longevity of this project and without some of these gathering spaces, it's just an apartment unit. We wanted to make it feel special and we wanted it to be an integrated part of this community. So, here is just some of the renderings
that we tweaked. Again, if you compared this to what you saw in February, not a lot has changed. Um, we've added a little bit more stone, actually. Um, but we began pulling in the a couple of the balconies, adjusting the corners of the roof line, um, and pulling in some of
those corners. That's roughly all we've we've really changed for what we've seen in what you saw in February. This is the view at the side entry of the southwest corner. Again, just a little bit softer corner on the front end. Um, but very similar to what we previously was approved.
This is the view at the north or excuse me, northwest corner. Sorry. Views from the east side. And just if you look right here, this is when you're standing at the driveway of one of the villas. So you're looking up. You want to see what you're going to be looking at if you were to buy one of the villa
homes. You can barely see the pergola of that deck. So again, really trying to incorporate that design into the existing roof line to to not be intrusive um and to, you know, keep in harmony with the architectural style and massing that you guys approved back in February. Again, this is a view of the
south corner. Again, you can just start to see it, but it's not um it's not really anything higher than actual height of the building from the midline. It only increased 1 foot when we added this deck. So going from 35 to 36 ft. This is an aerial looking over the top. Obviously, no one is going to see this
unless you're in a drone or an airplane. That's what you're going to see. But we wanted to show you what this gathering space could look like and how it would be programmed. Again, interior space, restroom, and then this rooftop deck with some planting, some um you know, astroturf um and just other grilling stations.
These are just again the height uh elevations showing just a couple changes that we made here in the south elevation. You can see the the roof deck that we are proposing right there. And then this, excuse me, again, this is just the other side.
Again, you're seeing the community deck right here. And then finally, to get to the height, again, I know there was an extensive conversation that happened at what the height of the building was going to be, whether there was going to be fourth floor living. Again, we're not going to have fourth floor living here, but you can see that it's roughly with
this fourth floor amenity deck. The height of the building has not really changed. um and that is purposeful. We want to respect what was approved um back in February and the integrity of the initial development for Bay Haven. Um so I thought that diagram would be helpful to give some context as we
continue the discussion. The next would be the Bayboard view. So this is that document that I was discussing of how the uh community deck gives us the views of the river valley and potentially the water. And so you can see on here,
here's the apartment building right here where my little guy is. And then what you can see with the height of the building being now what we're proposing again, um, this one shows the height of the building at for with the 40ft blocks of the tree. So as you get out any tree
over the 30 ft without that amended deck, you're not going to see anything if you live on the third floor. And then here's just a radius again showing what you could see from the various vantage points of that rooftop deck. Um I could pause there for questions
otherwise I would like to get into some of the other um elements that I know were concerning during the preliminary plan. >> Um I I do have a question on the deck. >> Yes. >> Is it going to >> want to go back to the top Ariel?
>> Uh have a view of the prison. No, because you're going to be if you're on the deck, you're going to be turned around. You're being in the building. >> So, >> okay. Oops. Cuz that sort of at least for a little while since it's closing, it was with
>> your aesthetic. I understand. >> Any other questions about what she said so far? Okay. >> Okay. So, with this intended project, we do um what was approved was 35 to 70 units. We do intend to build this out to
be the 70 units and be a mix of a couple studios once and then two bedroom units. Um 70 units helps make the project economically feasible and it does provide a little bit more of that missing housing stock to help fill in your housing needs. Um and it helps with getting the density for the overall
project um and what was required at that preliminary plan. Um, one of the other things that I wanted to talk about with you, um, was the parking ratio. I know that the city has a requirement that we have a 2:1 parking ratio, and that's not uncommon. Lots of communities have had that, especially communities that maybe
haven't had as much development. It's kind of a carryover from the 80s into now. It's 2025. It's a little antiquated. Um, so I just wanted to kind of give you some real world data based on the projects that we currently have. As I said, we're owners and operators of our own property. So, I was able to dial
in to see how many registered cars we have at each property to help you get more comfortable with that ratio. Um, at 1.7 uh for 120 parking stalls for the 70 units, we do feel that that is adequate and does allow a little bit of surplus. In the um packet that I provided or the
narrative I provided for our packet, I I included a table that showed four different properties for home apartments. one in Moda Heights, one in Badness Heights, one in Egan, actually two in Modon Heights, and then one in Egan just to show you different communities and how they live. Um, and even at the communities where we were
built at or close to 2:1 ratio, we had a surplus of parking. The actual registered cars per unit ranged from 1.28 to 1.53. So even with a parking ratio of 1.7 per unit, knowing the history and how our residents live, we
do feel comfortable that that's an appropriate parking ratio and we'll allow some surplus for guests even internally. Um, and we can look at how we can program that a little bit further. Um, in other communities that we have, we've allowed some guests parking inside where they get a special parking code. So we we can continue to look how we're going to program that,
but I just wanted to help give a little bit of background and some data as to why that 1.7 parking ratio is supported. So with that that is those are the changes that we made. Hopefully they're not too aggressive.
Do you have any questions for me? Um >> well let me follow my uh procedure. >> Okay. Follow your procedures. >> Um Dan, did you have anything you were going to add on this? Okay. Let's have
Dan talk next. back up. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, while the screen comes up, I can say with confidence that back in February, you can't imagine this is how well this
would have worked out. And it's to Mr. Pratt's credit for the investment he made in the architectural plans and the site plans for this piece of property and then the partnership he's found with at home apartments to take what was presented at a concept level and basically bring that forward exactly as
the planning commission and city council saw. Um so the previous approvals basically looked at this lot in a concept form. Obviously everyone wanted to see that building that was shown and uh that's what's in front of us now. Um,
basically again the site same as Bay Haven. It's within the development itself surrounded by the single family lots uh with the Baytown lots to the south and then the inspiration. Um the building plans again very consistent and obviously Nana did an excellent job
summarizing the changes and their rationale behind um that additional fourth floor. uh city staff, Pratt Holmes and At Home Apartments met um when they became involved in this project to discuss this fourth story and
we got finished and no one had any comments. Uh they very carefully inserted that fourth floor into what would have been the pitch roof of the threetory structure so it's not apparent to any use surrounding the property and obviously provides benefit to their
project and adds desiraability to it as a location within Bayport. Um so city staff considers the increase of the fourth story and that extra foot that the the measurement moves up as a result of this to be insignificant. Um their preliminary uh floor plan that they
outlined is basically half and half single bedrooms, two bedrooms. Uh that also plays into the parking discussion that Lyanna went over as well. Um that's the roof deck again. I think that was covered very well. Uh the site plan requirements was basically fully
developed as part of the initial Bay Haven uh application with the setbacks established. Uh the landscape plan was incorporated as part of that project to the parking. Uh we outlined in our report looking at the information provided by at home apartments. From our
experience in other communities, we agree that the 2.0 stalls per unit is out of date. A lot of cities still use it. Um, but this is an item that's being constantly reviewed. Uh, with the boom in multiple family housing, uh, we're seeing substantially lower requirements
and looking at Institute of Transportation Engineer parking study data, they're overparking the site still. um not only what they have in terms of the interior garage, the surface stalls, but then they do also have the benefit of the nine stalls adjacent to the site on the street,
taking advantage of some of that pavement at least for a temporary use situation. Uh pedestrian access to the site is obviously well connected with the rest of the neighborhood and over to Barker's Al Alps Park as part of the overall development and the engineering uh again was considered as part of the
overall development of the site particularly with regards to the impervious surface and how to manage the storm water. So uh everything is well in order in terms of moving that portion of it forward. Um, so city staff is pleased to recommend approval of this subject to the 11 conditions outlined in our June
18th planning report. >> All right. Um, so next I will move to um or I would like to open the public hearing um and invite anyone who wishes to comment to come forward to the podium. State your name and street
address for the record. Okay, then I'm going to move to close the public hearing. >> Second. >> All those in favor say I. >> I. All those opposed. Motion carries. At this time, I would like to entertain
further discussion or questions from the planning commission on the application. Uh I have some question uh probably for at home apartments. Um first one is uh if you could come up to the podium.
Thank you. Just so everybody can hear. Um what are you looking at for cost of the different units? I know that it's very early stages, but I know that comes into how you look at
>> Sure. Um, so yes, it is a little preliminary for pricing, but I would say on average our ask for rent is $2 a square foot. >> Okay. So, can you >> So, if it's an 800 ft unit, it's going to cost $1,600. >> Yeah.
>> All right. Um, and then, uh, also looking at the letter for Mr. Nass who submitted from Baytown Township. Um he has concerns about traffic and this is
70 units probably one to two people at least per unit. Um well give me your thoughts on that. I know we probably don't have it because there's just only one access road. I guess that's part of my concern
>> and I I appreciate that. Um we did not do a chip generation study for that. That is something we could do if you if you do want that further on. Um the track of concerns here um you know we do have one way in one way out but it is a roundabout within the community or not a roundabout but a circle around there. Um
and at 70 units I would argue just anecdotally based off of other projects we've done and trip generation studies. This is a nominal impact traffic. >> Okay. >> You're talking you know morning peak and afternoon peak but it's not it's it won't be intrusive.
>> Yeah. It will just maybe be a backup at >> morning and evening time coming in and out of the that main entrance. >> Madam chair, perhaps that you know again not having done the trip study but people are living in their homes differently these days where people are
working remotely. Um you know the you know the typical rush hour traffic isn't what we see anymore in in postco. Um, so I don't anticipate a backup and if and when that roundabout does to get designed, that will certainly aid in that flow of traffic.
>> All right, those were my main questions. Any questions or comments? >> Uh, I'll just say I really appreciate how thoughtfully done this was. It looks like, you know, multif family can look
at a wide range of of ways and it could, you know, you could have just put essentially a box on a lot with no amenities called it all the family, but really the amenity thoughtfulness utilizing the top of the parking deck to provide more space for amenities, the
overlook and whatnot. I think and and just the way that it's rendered, you have interesting like, you know, angles and materials and that kind of thing. I I thought that was really tastefully done and I think that'll really blend in well. >> Thank you. >> I also think just multif family is
something that we needed for uh just generally and I I appreciate the opportunity to provide kind of more opportunities for different people of different incomes and stages of life and and whatnot to the ground community as well. So, um I I think going to the
traffic concerns, um I would tend to agree that this shouldn't be in my experience as a civil engineer, this should not be uh overwhelming, uh to the rest of the community or anything like that, too. So, um yeah, I I just want to
say I appreciate all that. So, >> thank you so much. Um, remind me does the multi does your unit are they part of the homeowners association or they work with the homeowners association or how does that
all work? >> U, madam chair, the apartment building will not be part of the homeowners association. Um, certainly we are looking forward to a very, you know, friendly relationship between the homeowners association and the apartment building. Um, but the apartment building will just be managed and run through at home apartments. Um, but we've already
started having so many conversations about how we could share the community deck and what kind of neighborhood gatherings we could bring to the association and for our residents in the apartment buildings, but they will be separate entities in that regard. >> I was just thinking of
sound at night up on the deck or whatever, which is wonderful, but I can see the people in the homes maybe not appreciating that at point. Sure. >> Working working together on that will
I'm sure help with that. >> Yes, Madam Chair. And our own residents would have those same concerns. So, we do have quiet hours that are implemented in all of our leases and building rules. And so, um we hold those pretty strictly. So, by 10:00, everyone should be in bed. >> Uh any other questions or comments? I
mean, the only thing I have is the um just the traffic, but that's not necessarily part of this for a study with um with this um
just with talking about this, but I'm talking the school that all that. So, it's just a wait and see how easy it gets. Madam Chair, um so when Bay Haven was originally proposed, they updated the traffic study that was done for the
elementary school to add in their estimated traffic generation. Um and that was all found by the city and county to be within the capacity of the roads. Obviously >> the current rules >> the current roads correct >> shocking that I will say. So over time
there will need to be improvements made to stage coach and fifth avenue north because those are designated as collector streets and meant to carry more traffic. Um but just in terms of the traffic generation from this development it's significantly less than you would even get from inspiration for
example based on the >> more the school >> correct >> than it's going to be the track >> and those are very set peak times during 5 days a week. So, >> which tend to be offset from, you know, this development with villa homes is probably oriented a little older uh home
buyer or resident than would a single traditional single family neighborhood. >> Okay. >> Any other comments or questions? >> I was just going to say I'm supportive too of the parking ratio change.
think that like like Dan, you had mentioned, I think that's uh something maybe that we as a city might want to look at at some point in the future just overall. But um I think yeah, like everybody was mentioning kind of patterns have changed since
>> the '7s or whatever. >> That's probably a really good idea, especially if there was going to be a large area of Bayport that was potentially up for redevelopment in say 10 years or so. you want to look at that. But >> and I think too if uh if there are you
know events or something like that somebody has you know there is street parking that's available to that often times isn't utilized you know 24/7 by any means that could you know kind of take that say higher use or
higher parking time. So I would make a motion to approve my new development for homes LLC for 7 multif family rental units uh with the
conditions of approval recommended by staff. >> All right. Well, I second that. All those in favor say I. >> I. All those opposed. Motion passes. Uh before I announce the break, I just want
to say so as a downtown Bport community member when inspiration was growing, it took a long time for all of us to come together cuz it's so separate. So, as you guys are all talking about
community, uh, think about ways to incorporate the whole Bayart community because I think that will bring us all together sooner cuz you are in a location that's sort of like on the other side of where a lot of
people live in Bayport. So, and that's just from experience kind of watching that happen. All right, we're going to take a fiveminut recess and then come back for zoning amendments for anyone who wants
to stay. But feel free to Okay. Anyway, here we are back to discuss uh the one of the final agenda items, zoning amendments. This is to consider amendments to appendix B zoning
section 301 definitions and 601 districts related to imperous surface coverage. Uh consider amendments to appendix B zoning 301 definitions and section 731
recreation vehicle or trailer regulations related to regulations of recreational recreation vehicles and travel trailers. Consider amendments to appendix B zoning
section 729 livestock related to permit fees for small bird foul. Sarah could you present the ordinances please? >> Uh commissioner Kelly a majority of the amendments have been drafted at the
direction of the city council. The first amendment is to section 301 definitions and 601 districts relate to impervious surface. Um just I'm going to go through and highlight the changes. Um you should have in your draft there were um
modifications made um deletions were needed in strike through and then the additions um are in the right text. So with previous coverage first we needed to define what previous surface um included
um we did allow for a 50% impervious credit for decks and residential districts um which are not included with the within planning and development of the riverway or flood plan district or neighborhoods with the homeowners association because they already have
their own regulations separate from this. So mostly this would include um downtown traditional lots here in Bayport which is where the city council wanted to see that credit given because sometimes it can be challenging to meet that 35%.
Um and it also this ordinance clarifies the maximum lot coverage which includes both structures and her surface that is how staff was administering the ordinance but it didn't spell out it was hard cover surface and also structure.
The second amendment is to section 301 definitions and section 731 recreational vehicle and trailer regulations. Um, this defines a recreation camping vehicle uh separate from our from a traditional RV or recreational vehicle
as considered an ATV or golf cart. It also defines a recreation camping vehicle park. And then um I just mentioned it defines the recreational vehicle fee consistent with the 18 card ordinance that was just recently adopted by the city council. And then finally,
it clarifies the regulations for quantity, location, and duration for recreation camping vehicles um and permitted uses on residential property. The third amendment is to section 20 729 livestock and it's related to permit
fees for small f. Um this just removes the notation for permits within this ordinance and places it in the fee schedule where all of our other fees are listed and then the fee schedule ordinance will be updated to reflect this permit fee at an upcoming council meeting.
So, um, as drafted, the amendments will provide more flexibility for property owners when developing impervious surface redexs, uh, facilitate ease of administration from the police department related to w vehicles, and clarify definitions and regulations to make it easier for the general public to
understand. Uh, staff did not receive any public comments on the proposed ordinance amendments prior to the meeting tonight. Uh, staff is recommending approval. Uh the ordinances drafted and happy to take any questions.
>> I have no questions. Anyone else have any questions? >> Commissioner, remember this is a public hearing so >> Oh, okay. >> Uh yes. And then I'll do it in order. It's been a while. Okay. I would like to
open the public hearing and invite anyone wishing to comment to come forward to the podium. State their name and street address for the record. Seeing no one, I move to close the public hearing.
>> I second the motion. >> All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. All those opposed. Motion carries. At this time, I would like to entertain further discussion or questions from the planning commission on the amendments.
[Music] Any discussion? So for the um 301 or the recreational vehicles, so is that meaning if people are in them, it's not just sitting in their yard like a camper sitting in the
driveway? Commissioner say yes. It addresses both um vacant campers and travel trailers when the parks on the property will not be used. Um and it also addresses when
visitors come to a residential property grand and grandpa with their RV for the weekend to see their grandkids. It can be up to 30 days apart there and can be staying in the RV. >> Is it does that answer your question?
>> Yeah. Yeah. >> So, they can live in the RV when they're there for the 30 days. So, um like what? So, if if Colleen asked me to
store her trailer on my lot, that would fall under the 30-day rule because it's uh um not owned by the property owner. >> Commissioner Kelly, that's correct. When talking with the police department, that
was one of the major violations that the homeowner or resident had their recreational vehicle and then they were stoing their brothers and their brother-in-laws, that sort of thing. So, um, we changed the ordinance to require that the RV needs to be registered to
the property owner and then we allow for that at second for 30 days at a time um, for visitors to come to the property. Any other questions or comments? >> Mr. Kelly, I should reiterate that we do
have owner associations in several of the newer uh developments in the city and they might have further restrictions on parking of those types of vehicles. Um but for right now, this is the city's um stance. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. I'm I just have one question. Um, for those larger vehicles parked in somebody's driveway, is there a minimum um distance away from like the street or sidewalk that they have to be parked? Uh, I'm just thinking like those larger vehicles can block people's sight, you
know, people coming in out the driveway or something versus the street. And I was just curious if there's anything reling if they're in the front yard, they need to be on the driveway. Um, if there was a rear yard, it would be considered more of an accessory structure and that would
the general rule of thumb is 5 ft from the property line. But there are additional I guess modifications we can make. If there is an issue with visibility, we can work with the property to have that park somewhere else. The last area
downstruction Jay and I actually looked this up the other day because we were looking at sidewalk blocking. Um, and I believe you cannot block the sidewalk, but I don't know if there's any setback from >> Okay. I'm going to move to recommend the
city council approve amendments to appendix B zoning section 301 definitions and 601 uh districts related to per service coverage.
Um, I also move to recommend amendments to B the city council approval amendments to appendix B zoning 301 definitions and 731 recreation vehicle or trailer regulations related to the
regulation of recreation vehicles in travel trailers. I move to recommend the city council to approve amendments to appendix B zoning section 729 livestock related to permit
fees for small birds and foul. Is there a second to those motions? Okay. Do we need three seconds? City attorney. >> No, you can do it all in one motion and a second. >> Okay.
>> Proceed. All right. All those in favor say I. >> I. All those opposed. Motion's passed. There is no old business, no new business, no general information.
Open forum. The open forum is a portion of the meeting for the public to ask questions or comment on subjects related to land use that are not part of the meeting agenda. Anyone wishing to comment shall state their name and
street address for the record. Hearing no one of the public coming forward, we will um conclude the business of tonight's agenda. Do I hear a motion to adjourn the meeting? I move
to adjourn the meeting. I second. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed. Motion carries. [Music]
[Applause] [Music]