Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bishops Bay GDP topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developers present large master‑plan revision for Bishops Bay; commissioners urge more detail on housing mix and parkland
Summary
Tual presented a concept review to substantially rework the Bishops Bay general development plan, proposing far more multifamily units and additional commercial space; commissioners pressed for detailed unit counts, parkland acreage tied to unit increases, and greater housing diversity before approving any rezoning.
Get email alerts on the Bishops Bay GDP topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer Tual presented a concept review May 27 proposing substantial amendment to the Bishops Bay general development plan that would shift remaining undeveloped acreage toward mixed‑use and multifamily development in the Middleton portion of the community. The presentation showed an increase of almost 1,900 total dwelling units under one scenario and approximately 575,000 square feet of commercial space in the town‑center area.
"We just wanna get some feedback from the commissioners ... so that we can just go through this process one time," Jake Buntz of Tual told the commission, describing the propose d corporate boundary adjustment and a denser town‑center concept with a mix of retail and residential above. Staff warned the current submittal was thin on critical data that commissioners and staff need to provide meaningful feedback, including a table comparing current permitted units and uses to the proposed numbers, parkland acreage, and updated utility and traffic impact analyses.
Commissioners repeatedly raised concerns about the proposed reduction of about 259 single‑family lots, the clustering of up to 61 multifamily buildings in parts of the map and the potential for large expanses of impervious surface. "We need a variety of housing in our community," one commissioner said, and others urged adding more single‑family and middle‑housing forms (townhomes, smaller lots) and better distributed parkland and pedestrian access.
Staff and the developer agreed to provide more detailed tables, parkland calculations tied to unit counts, and to return with a fuller application; several commissioners recommended bringing the proposal back when a full commission is present. No formal action or vote on rezoning was taken; this was a concept review to solicit feedback prior to formal submissions.

