[0:08] Seven o'clock, I am going to go ahead and call the meeting to order. Let's do roll call, please. Commissioner Brown. Here. Commissioner Crescenson. Here. Commissioner Bonsocka. Here. Commissioner Jordan. Commissioner Lawrence. Commissioner Swin. Commissioner Thompson. Here. Commissioner Wolk. Okay, let's stand for the pledge of allegiance.

[0:46] All

[0:48] right. The first item is to approve the agenda for tonight. I don't believe there's any modifications. So can I get a motion to approve the agenda?

[0:56] I have one modification on page 5, my mistake.

[1:02] The motion to approve the agenda.

[1:05] We'll move to approve the agenda.

[1:07] All right, motion by Wolf, second by Lorenz, all those in favor say aye.

[1:13] Opposed?

[1:14] That motion carries.

[1:15] Next on the minutes.

[1:17] Are there any changes to the minutes this week?

[1:19] One modification, Madam Chair.

[1:22] Go ahead.

[1:22] Okay. Page 5, the third full paragraph down where it says Wolf asked when construction is planned to begin.

[1:28] I believe that should be Jordan asked when construction is planned to begin, and then with that change, I'll move to approve the minutes.

[1:36] Any other changes?

[1:40] Okay, we have a motion by Wolf.

[1:44] Second.

[1:44] Second by Brown.

[1:45] All those in favor say aye.

[1:47] Aye.

[1:48] Opposed?

[1:49] That motion carries.

[1:51] There are no public hearings on the agenda tonight.

[1:54] There is a one application in request, a review for Final Platt for Big Sky Third Edition,

[2:03] which is a single, or a 35-lot single-family development to be located at 1.57th Street in Aquila Avenue Project 21-62.

[2:14] Thank you, Chair Craigs and good evening members of the commission.

[2:17] As stated, the item before you is a Final Platt request for Big Sky State's third edition.

[2:26] The property is approximately 74.8 acres in size.

[2:30] It is surrounded by low density residential to the north.

[2:34] Previous phases of the big sky development

[2:36] to the east and southeast,

[2:38] in addition to an elementary school,

[2:39] a little further east,

[2:41] and remaining mining area to the west.

[2:44] And that mine is run by or owned by prior Lake Agregates Inc,

[2:48] who is the property owner at this time

[2:50] and subject to the application as well.

[2:53] And on the other side of County Road 44,

[2:55] before we have City of Credit River property.

[2:58] The property is zoned to plan residential development today,

[3:01] and they are not proposing any changes

[3:02] to the zoning district with this request.

[3:07] So as stated, this is a final plat request.

[3:10] It is from an applicant, but they have a Keyland Development LLC,

[3:14] and we do have representatives in the audience this evening

[3:16] if you have questions for them later on.

[3:18] They are proposing to plat 35 single family lots and two outlots.

[3:24] And again, the zoning is planned residential development

[3:26] with no changes. And this group saw the preliminary PUD amendment back in January and it went

[3:33] to the Council in February. So now they're asking to go through the final process for, again,

[3:39] the same 35 lots.

[3:44] So lots in this third edition are consistent with the previously approved phases,

[3:49] 1 and 2 related to size and setbacks. The setbacks for this development again would include 25 feet

[3:57] in the front and rear and side corner lots and seven and a half feet on each side yard.

[4:03] So on your screen right now is one of the two proposed grading plan pages and the box

[4:09] that you can kind of see within the lot area there is considered the building pad which

[4:15] would comply with those setbacks that we just discussed for each of those lots.

[4:20] It does not indicate that the house needs to be that large, however that would be the

[4:23] the building pad if someone wanted to pursue those minimum setback requirements.

[4:31] As shown on the grading plan, this particular addition will include an extension of the

[4:37] existing 157th Street right along here going northwest, as well as a temporary cul-de-sac

[4:45] to accommodate again the third addition.

[4:47] It is not known at this time if this will be extended in the future for another phase.

[4:52] So, at this time, staff is asking for, again, temporary construction of that cul-de-sac

[4:57] and at such time that that is extended, the easements and things would be vacated,

[5:01] and the road would be continued on.

[5:04] On the second page of the grading plan, which is addressing the kind of

[5:09] southeast portion of this project, it shows an extension of existing Aquila Avenue here,

[5:14] all the way down to the south with, again, another temporary cul-de-sac,

[5:19] which will be held within an easement document until further development of the property occurs.

[5:28] The existing 156th street that's kind of cut off here between the two plans that currently runs

[5:36] like so, kind of on the north side of the second edition currently stops right about here.

[5:42] So it will be extended just a little bit further and it will be considered a T kind

[5:47] of intersection for the time being, until such time for the development occurs to the west.

[5:52] So I do have a signage and lighting plan that we can look at in a few slides, but again,

[5:57] there will be a T intersection here temporarily.

[6:00] This road has been identified as a collector street moving forward, so we typically would

[6:05] not have driveway accesses and things of that nature off of a collector street.

[6:10] So again, this particular addition continues that concept, meaning the lots that are adjacent

[6:14] into it would be serviced by 157th Street.

[6:20] Also, on this page you can see that there is an extension right here on the north side of 157th Street

[6:27] to extend the existing Batuminous Trail that currently stops right about.

[6:32] So where my cursor is in the first edition, that is proposed to be extended up until 156th Street intersection

[6:39] and engineering is comfortable with that trail stopping at that point.

[6:44] but we would also still have sidewalk connections that continue on the entire length up to that temporary cul-de-sac.

[6:57] As you can see on this plan, there is no park identified and there was not a park identified during the preliminary phases.

[7:03] And as we discussed that length at the preliminary PUD amendment phase, the applicant as well as the property owner is aware,

[7:11] that prior to the submittal of a fourth edition request, they need to submit a revised sketch plan

[7:17] to show us an updated concept for where they anticipate the future phases as well as future road conditions or to be road connections, trail connections as well as an approximate 8 to 10 acre park as identified in our parks plan.

[7:32] So again, we're accepting park fees in lieu of actual land dedication with this particular item and we will have more information as future phases come in regarding the placement of those sorts of amenities.

[7:44] Again,

[7:47] here was the second page of the grading plan showing the kind of the southeast side

[7:50] in the extension of Aquila Avenue.

[7:54] The next slide shows a landscape plan that was required to be submitted by the applicant,

[8:00] particularly due to not only the required minimum two landscape trees for each lot, which

[8:06] they are showing here, but also to help identify and calculate the SS-9 trees, which we did talk

[8:13] again at the preliminary stage. So there were significant trees of a mesic oak species

[8:20] that were removed a number of years ago with the original, excuse me, initial development

[8:25] of this property. Therefore, the property owner and subsequent developers have agreed

[8:29] to replace mitigation trees as they do their phases. So the landscape plan before you,

[8:35] and again, due to the configuration, it is over two pages here, does show both the required

[8:42] land scape trees, two per lot, and the mitigation trees.

[8:46] So they are meeting the staff's mitigation requirements for this phase, and staff

[8:51] anticipates additional mitigation trees would be necessary in future phases until

[8:55] they satisfy the required amount.

[8:59] And so here's page two.

[9:01] So essentially what they're proposing to do with this particular landscape plan, they

[9:06] have proposed a total of 80 mitigation trees and 70 landscape trees, which again

[9:12] the landscape requirement is two trees per lot. The landscape requirement does not satisfy

[9:17] the mitigation requirement, which is why they have a total of 150 trees going in this third

[9:22] third edition.

[9:29] The plan on the screen right now also shows the signage and lighting plan,

[9:32] which we did discuss when it was last before this group. I'll be the colors are a little bit hard

[9:37] to see. They are proposing multiple stop signs here at the T intersection, which, again, is temporary

[9:45] until that road punches through.

[9:47] They've got three stop signs shown in kind of the red octagon, and then they have three stop, excuse me,

[9:54] three street lights, one kind of in the middle of block four, one on the corner here of the street intersection,

[10:00] and then another one down here, near the end of the Aquila Avenue street extension,

[10:05] which I believe was at the request of the commission back in January.

[10:09] So their plan does meet those items that were discussed.

[10:16] This last slide, albeit a little blurry, my apologies, actually shows what the big sky

[10:21] estate's third edition final flat document would look like.

[10:24] This would be the document that I actually would create those 35 lots and would be

[10:29] recorded at the county along with the development agreement and any other necessary

[10:32] easements that would be required as part of this project.

[10:41] At this time, the development review committee is recommending approval, subject to the

[10:45] conditions that were included in your packet.

[10:47] The list on the screen is not list everything, but just wanted to summarize some of the larger

[10:53] items. Staff is requiring compliance with our review comment letters, which is a standard

[10:58] requirement. Staff is confident that the applicant will be able to meet the items within the letters

[11:06] from both the city staff as well as the prior Lake Spring Lake Watershed District. A couple

[11:11] All of the larger items that are in that comment letter relate to conservation easements that

[11:17] are being required to cover the steep slopes.

[11:21] I'm just going to go back here to the grading plan to accommodate and protect the steep slopes

[11:27] that are behind these lots here in block four.

[11:30] So city staff is requiring a conservation easement and the applicant is agreeable to executing

[11:34] that agreement to preserve those slopes, as well as a separate agreement for maintenance

[11:40] maintenance by the homeowners for the proposed retaining wall that covers lots 2 through 5 here in the back, as well as conservation easements with the prior lake spring lake watershed district to protect the wetland and wetland buffer areas here.

[11:56] This wetland is actually part of big sky second addition, but the buffer requirement may encroach slightly on a couple of the lots, particularly lot 8 and 9 and the applicant is aware of this and is comfortable

[12:09] affordable with executing those easements to protect those areas as staff is requiring.

[12:14] So I'm confident we'll be able to meet those conditions.

[12:20] The other recommendations, again, is a pretty standard needing to execute all the required easements like we just talked about related to conservation easements.

[12:29] The temporary turnarounds for 157th and Aquila Avenue.

[12:34] The nice part about those particular easements is they're being drafted in a fashion so that when future development occurs,

[12:40] They will go away, if you will, so we don't necessarily have to come back and vacate them.

[12:46] So we've used that tool in the past and it seems to work well, as well as any easement

[12:51] for the prior lake spring lake watershed district is requiring for those wetlands.

[12:55] We touched on setbacks already and those were included in the report.

[12:58] The impervious surface is also a requirement for staff and staff in the applicant have discussed

[13:03] Plus that, and are comfortable with a 38% maximum for each lot in the third edition.

[13:10] And we also are keeping the same architectural standards that were required as part of phase one and phase two.

[13:15] So that would be consistent here again in phase three.

[13:18] And lastly, that we touched on was the requirement for a revised sketch plan.

[13:23] Be submitted prior to any future additions within the big sky development.

[13:32] The last slide is just, again, an overview of what the title sheet, if you will, kind of showing the proposed 35 lots as well as the building paths and anticipated driveway locations.

[13:43] We do have a rod just here representing Keyland.

[13:46] If you have any questions for the applicant, otherwise I'm happy to take any questions you might have.

[13:52] Okay, thank you, commissioners, go ahead.

[13:56] Madam Chair, Amanda, the tree mitigation plan will this follow what occurred in the first edition where the trees went in right afterwards before any houses were constructed and most of them either died or were destroyed during housing construction or will these go in after the houses are built?

[14:20] Commissioner Thompson, planning commission members, that's certainly something that we can work with the applicant on.

[14:25] Part of that might depend on the time of year in which they are actually doing the home building.

[14:30] It's my understanding that they're looking to continue to move forward and work on that as soon as possible once approvals are given so that would be yet in this year.

[14:38] But certainly I can let the applicant speak to maybe if something happened in a previous phase so that we don't repeat that moving forward.

[14:49] And if you'd like the applicant to come up, now we certainly can, other ways we can take other questions.

[14:55] I mean, in the first phase there was a mixed build of multiple builders, but when everything was

[15:00] All the trees were flooded and the streets were finished. All the trees went in. So the trees were all in before any houses went out. And of course, and trees died and trees were removed in order to put houses in or they were destroyed or they died in the interim. So the mitigation plan didn't actually go to plan. Commissioner Thompson just in hearing you explain a little bit more. I do not know exactly what the requirements were for the first edition as far as placement of those trees.

[15:28] But the applicant and staff have had conversations regarding those trees that are required for the two trees per lot landscape trees need to actually be planted on the lot, not within the right of way, if you will, or the boulevard area.

[15:44] So that may alleviate some of the issues that may have happened in previous phases where the trees were actually planted in the boulevard.

[15:52] But prior to building permits being issued, and then you had an issue where potentially they were in the way or the placement of those trees was not accommodating to construction equipment, actually trying to access those sites on that same note, those two landscape trees then typically are not put in until after the sod and at that phase of the home building, and we do require an escrow to make sure that those trees do get installed and they are warranted for a period of one year.

[16:19] So, I'm hoping that with those trees being placed on the individual properties as the homes are built, that will alleviate maybe some of the challenges that happened in the earlier phase.

[16:29] I'm actually referring to the mitigation trees that were placed ahead of time. The landscape trees weren't the issue.

[16:35] It was the mitigation trees that were placed. Also, those have either been destroyed or died off.

[16:41] Sure, so noted, as if you look at the plan, a lot of the green circles, or the shapes

[16:47] you can see, those are the proposed locations for those mitigation trees, and a lot of them

[16:52] are in the rear yards or beyond.

[16:56] So hopefully that won't be the case, but certainly something that we can make sure that the applicant

[17:00] is aware of, so that those mitigation trees do, in fact, survive those build periods, if

[17:05] you will.

[17:06] Okay.

[17:07] Thank you.

[17:08] Maybe to expand on that, and this might be a question for the applicant, but as far as those mitigation trees go, typically with a normal landscape plan, the homeowner would be watering their tree every day.

[17:23] So with these mitigation trees that look like they're put out away from the typical lots potentially or away from where the homes would be, how does that get handled?

[17:34] And how do you make sure that they try to stay alive once they are planted?

[17:39] I will defer to the applicant for that question.

[17:42] Okay.

[17:43] Would you like to do that?

[17:44] Let's have the applicant come up now, sure.

[17:52] I'm not just, I'm with key land, homes, key land development.

[17:57] In the first phase, we encountered some of the same problems that you're talking about.

[18:01] Trees were put in early, they weren't necessarily put in at the right elevations.

[18:04] Not putting the greatest of locations.

[18:08] And then we just all kind of had to deal with it.

[18:11] We're planning on putting these in as the houses are going in and after.

[18:14] So then we will have a homeowner there to water those trees.

[18:18] Once they're in, you put them in beforehand, you know, you've got to kind of keep your fingers crossed.

[18:23] You can water them occasionally, but it's just easier if you have somebody there.

[18:27] So they will be warranted for the first year, which is what you get from most three people.

[18:31] So we did locate them away from the houses, towards the rear yards.

[18:38] We were required to keep them out of the drainage and utility easements.

[18:41] So we think we have them laid out pretty well where they shouldn't be a problem for anybody.

[18:46] And we'll be a nice amenity in the neighborhood.

[18:49] Okay.

[18:50] Thank you.

[18:51] Yep.

[18:54] Commissioner's other questions?

[18:59] Madam Chair.

[19:00] Go ahead.

[19:01] Amanda, did the applicant meet all the conditions from the preliminary approval?

[19:07] Yes, Commissioner Wolfe, thank you for mentioning that.

[19:09] I should have included that in part of my presentation.

[19:12] Yes, they have met all of the requirements of the preliminary approval.

[19:16] There are still some comments as shown in the review comment letter that still need to be

[19:20] addressed, but they were all for the best of my knowledge incorporated and the applicant

[19:24] is aware and against that is confident that they'll be able to meet those requirements.

[19:28] And all other applicable regulations, if they may all those as well.

[19:33] The best of my knowledge, yes.

[19:34] Yes.

[19:34] Okay.

[19:34] Thank you.

[19:39] Any other questions?

[19:45] Seeing none.

[19:46] I'd entertain a motion.

[19:47] If somebody would like to make one.

[19:49] Madam Chair.

[19:50] Go ahead.

[19:51] I would move to recommend approval of the final plat for Big Sky State's third edition contingent on the development view committee conditions, as noted in the staff report.

[20:02] Second.

[20:03] All right.

[20:03] We have a motion by Wolf and a second by Christensen.

[20:06] All those in favor say aye.

[20:08] Aye.

[20:09] Opposed?

[20:10] That motion carries. And I believe that will go to the City Council meeting then on April 4th.

[20:18] Correct, Chair Craigs.

[20:19] All right.

[20:22] The next, I am staff reports. Are there any staff reports tonight?

[20:27] I was just going to give an update. So the Minnesota MASH application that you had seen at your last meeting, that actually it got delayed.

[20:34] The developer asked that to be put on hold just he wanted some additional time to review the developer's agreement so that also will go to the City Council meeting on April 4th.

[20:41] And then the way it's looking right now, I don't believe we'll have any agenda items for the April 7th.

[20:48] All right.

[20:52] Any old business? How about new business?

[20:59] Meetings adjourned.

Planning Commission - 3/24/22

Transcript