Bayport approves annexation and PUD for Bay Haven second edition after debate over housing mix and sidewalks

Bayport’s city council unanimously approved annexation, zoning and related Planned Unit Development (PUD) actions on Jan. 5, 2026, clearing the way for Bay Haven at Bayport Second Edition, a roughly 4.4-acre subdivision that will create 10 single‑family lots and an outlot with a trail connection to Barker’s Alps Park.

Daniel Lick, a planning consultant assisting city staff, opened the joint hearing by summarizing the package of discretionary requests: annexation of property from Baytown Township, an amendment to the city’s comprehensive plan to add the land to the municipal urban service area, rezoning the parcel to RPUD (residential planned‑unit development), a PUD general development plan and preliminary plat for 10 lots, and an amendment to the original Bay Haven PUD addressing impervious surface and allowed encroachments. “The purpose of the hearing tonight is to consider a petition for annexation to the city of land currently in Baytown,” Lick said.

Why it matters: the approvals add new developable lots to Bayport and adjust local land‑use text so the city can meet a regional density target set by the Metropolitan Council. Lick told commissioners the Metropolitan Council now expects an average of seven units per acre in the planning area; staff proposed modest text changes so the city can designate the annexed land as low‑density while accounting for the regional target.

What was approved and why: Staff recommended approval subject to 22 conditions in the December 25 planning report. The proposal carries forward design standards from the first Bay Haven phase, reserves public‑improvement work already constructed with phase one, dedicates additional right‑of‑way for Stagecoach Trail and an eventual roundabout, and includes an outlot the city staff recommended be deeded to the city at final plat recordation. On impervious coverage, staff and the applicant submitted an analysis showing that a five‑percentage‑point increase in per‑lot impervious allowance would still keep the overall development within the zoning ordinance’s storm‑water thresholds; staff said the watershed district should review and concur before final approvals.

Debate: planning commissioners and council members spent substantial time on two recurring concerns. Commissioner Dean (planning commission) said the city lacked mid‑range housing types and urged exploring duplexes or rowhouses in future sites. “I see a high‑density apartment building… but I feel like we’re missing something somewhere in the middle,” Dean said. Pratt Holmes, the applicant, responded that the costs of entitlements and infrastructure make new lower‑cost for‑sale housing difficult without subsidies. “Anything that’s new is very difficult to do the math… the best approach is perhaps a public‑private partnership,” Pratt said, adding the developer has designated a multifamily site in the larger Bay Haven project.

Second, commissioners pushed on pedestrian access. Several commissioners asked why the plan provides sidewalk on only one side of Baytown Lane and whether the westernmost lots would force residents to cross the street to reach the eight‑foot city trail on the north side. Dwayne Sage of Continuum Development said the trail runs the full project length on the north side and three homes back onto it; he added that the joint access, the eyebrow street detail and an access‑agreement executed with the city are intended to address safety and maintenance. Staff said the planning commission and council could add a condition requiring a sidewalk on the south side if they preferred.

Votes at a glance: the planning commission voted 3–1 to recommend approval (Commissioners Sigfrey, Oaks and Kip in favor; Commissioner Chamberlain opposed). The city council then approved each item in separate roll calls: resolution extending the corporate limits (4–0), ordinance amending Appendix B (zoning) to add the RPUD (4–0), resolution approving the comprehensive‑plan amendment (4–0), approval of the PUD general development plan and preliminary plat (4–0), and approval of the PUD amendment related to impervious lot coverage (4–0). Lick said annexation ordinances and comprehensive‑plan amendments will be submitted to state/regional reviewers as required for final approval.

Key implementation notes and conditions: staff noted 22 conditions in the planning report that must be satisfied with the final plat and PUD permit. Condition language will clarify allowed driveway and retaining‑wall encroachments, and staff said outlot A is to be deeded to the city and recorded at final plat. The watershed district’s concurrence is pending on the impervious‑surface change.

What’s next: staff will process the final plat and development contract, record the outlot deed at final plat recording and obtain watershed concurrence before the project proceeds to construction. The council adjourned after completing the votes.