to our planning commission board of adjustment meeting for Tuesday, July 14th. We will begin with a call to order and we will then rise for the pledge of allegiance. >> I pledge the algiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you. >> All right. And we'll begin with a roll call.
>> Marcy Weaver >> here. >> Joe Ayes >> here. >> Uh Teddy Ziran absent. Roger The >> here. >> And then Lee Brisbane >> here. >> All right. And our next item is the open
forum. If there is an item on the agenda you want to speak to, those items will have their own open form. So, this is really for something that is not currently on the agenda. If you have something you'd like to present or a question, feel free to approach the podium, state your name and address, and proceed.
All right. I don't see anyone approaching, so we'll go ahead with the agenda. The first item is approval of the June 9th, 2026 planning commission meeting minutes. Do we have any changes or a motion to approve? >> I move to approve.
>> Do we have a second? >> I'll second. >> All in favor say I. I. >> Any opposed? Motion passed. Um, now we'll proceed with the public hearing for variance application fee 260001 Amber Pass, 8784 Breezy Point Drive in
Breezy Point. Parcel ID is 10 210765. They are requesting a variance to increase the volume legal non-conforming use with the construction of a 20x 20 addition to the existing dwelling. This is zoned as R3. We're going to open the
public hearing and we'll start with the applicant presentation. So, if you'd approach the podium, state your name and address, and just walk us through your request. >> Hi, I'm Amber Poss, and I'm here um regarding 8784 Breezy Point Drive. Um I
am looking to put a sun room on the back, 20 by 20, and um for a few reasons. One, uh I'm going to be hopefully moving up here in a year. Two, because it would be more aesthetically pleasing. It's going to elevate the look
of the home in comparison to the neighboring properties. Um, I'm on the golf course and I think it's going to be aesthetically pleasing from the golf course too with that addition. Um, the reason that I need the variance is
because it of where it's located on the back of the cabin because it's a non-conforming structure where it was built. Um, but if I move it over, it's going to affect some really mature trees and their roots if I try to shift it over. Um, also strategically and where
it look would look the best is where we have it placed. Um, my neighbors have spoke with them and they are 100% fine with that. Um, let's see what else here. Yeah. And basically um on that print
there's a little bumpout for the fireplace and we're actually tucking that back in so that bumpout wouldn't even be on there. And I did bring my builder too. So if you have technical questions hopefully he can jump in too.
>> Perfect. Do we have any questions for the applicant at this time? So, it's a four season screen. >> Um, no, it'll be glass. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> And it's going to be 10 ft from the
property line or am I looking at that? >> No, cuz >> about 9 ft. >> The cabin is 5T from the line. >> I see that. >> So, it it would be adjacent in line just coming straight off the back of the house.
>> Okay. And for example, like my neighbor who's on the right would be right at that other, you know, whatever 10 ft from his line. The way he designed his house is there's no windows or anything there anyways. Um, so it's just, you know,
they'd be kind of adjacent to each other when you look out, but >> And it is attached to the existing house, right? >> Yes, we put it right on right on the existing home. >> Trying to figure out how that
>> Did you have questions or any more time? >> Did you have any more? And you're going to take out part of the driveway is impervious. >> Yeah, that yeah, found that out after because of imperous surface. So, we'll take out some of that driveway and just do some nice landscaping up front, too,
that looks more aesthetically pleasing. >> Okay. >> So, it looks like the impervious is going down from 34 to about 30, >> right? >> So, there's an improvement there with this. >> Thank you. >> All right. Well, if we have more questions, we'll bring you back up. Thank you.
>> Okay. Thank you so much. Okay, moving on to staff review. >> This is variance number 260001. Applicant is Amber Pass. Property address 8784 Breezy Point Drive, Breezy
Point, Minnesota, 56472. Property ID 10210765. Legal description is a sixth addition to Breezy Point. States lot 17 is zoned as R3 original neighborhood. Applicable
city codes are 1533 15344 0453.120 and then 153007. request to construct a 20 by 20 proposed addition to the
existing dwelling um which is considered a legal non-conforming use. Uh let's see. Property is located at 8784 Breezy Point Drive. The existing dwelling is 40x 28 singlestory dwelling. Front
setback 47 ft. Rear setback is 61. side setback of eight and 4.9 feet. Uh the property abuts to a traditional golf course uh property serviced by municipal sewer. Dwelling was constructed in 1975.
Variance was approved for a 5 foot sideyard setback. Current impervious coverage is at 34.6%. The owner is proposing to construct a 20x 20 addition to the rear of the existing dwelling 41 ft from the rear
property lines, 4.9 ft from the side property line. Uh the owners proposed to replace approximately 550 square ft of driveway with lawn uh to yield impervious coverage of 30%.
Um so and then 155.033 zoning of the properties R3 original neighborhood lot size uh requirements would be 10,000 square ft front uh
setback would be 35 ft rear 35 ft and then the impervious uh coverage limit of 30%. Variance is legally permitted deviation as provided again Minnesota statute 462.357 uh as it may be amended from time to
time from the provisions of this chapters deemed necessary by the board of adjustment when strict interpretation of the ordinance would create practical difficulty and be impractical because of circumstances relating to lot size, shape, topography and other
characteristics of the property. And when the deviation from the ordinance with any attached conditions will still be in keeping with the spirit and the intent of the ordinance, variances cannot create a land use not permitted in a zone.
Uh let's see variance review uh 153 120. Uh variances shall be decided within a reasonable time with considerations for the following. Strict interpretation of the ordinance would be impractical because of circumstances relating to lot size, shape, topography,
and other characteristics of the property not created by the land owner. The deviation from the ordinance with any attached conditions will still be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Land use created by the variance is permitted in the zoning
districts where the property is located. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality and the variance is not for economic reasons alone but reasonable use of the property does not exist under the ordinance. Um under findings so uh the applicant
contends the practical difficulty is and this is intentionally left blank so the applicant can uh state what their practical difficulty would be. The impervious coverage is proposed to be 30%. Uh the use is consistent with the character of the surrounding
neighborhood. The the use is a permitted use. City attorney has advised that a variance is necessary to expand the volume of legal non-conforming use. The following findings effect may be used to support the denial of the
request. The planning commission board of adjustment find that no practical difficulty exists and the following may be used to support approval of the variance. The variance for this structure uh the five five foot sideyard setback was approved in 1975.
Proposed impervious calculations is 30%. The use is reasonable and consistent with the character of the existing neighborhood. Then uh if approved the following may be conditions of approval. Building permit
to be obtained and building to conform to Minnesota state building code. all surface water to be confined to site and addition to be 10 feet from the side property lines and then any other conditions that the uh board would find.
Uh planning commission board of review direction. So the board may be or may by resolution choose to approve, deny or modify the requested variance. Uh the resolution should clearly state the practical difficulty and reasons for the
approval, denial or modification of the variance. That's it. >> Thank you. >> All right. So, one question I have is one of the things that you had put on here as a possibility is addition to be
10 ft from the property line. It's currently slated to be 4.9. Is that correct? Based on um a previous uh what do you want to call a previous uh variance from 1975? Is that correct?
>> Correct. Yeah. >> So that needs to be changed to 4.9. >> If we approve the 4.9, >> right? >> That was already a variance that was >> that would be part of the conditions. >> Yep. >> Okay. And from what I heard, the practical
difficulty in part was the mature trees, the existing nature of the lot and the fact that there was already a variance approved for that 4.9 or 5% previously. >> We we could add the driveway, excuse me, the 30%.
>> Right. That's a nice improvement to go at least with this to take it down to 30. That's >> correct. >> Adding to it. Does anyone have concerns or thoughts? All right, then let's move on to public input to see if there's anyone that would like to share some additional
information for our consideration. If you're in the audience and would like to approach the podium, please state your name and address and share with us, please. All right, I'm not seeing anyone approach. So, we'll go ahead and close the public input portion um and move on to the official action for variance
260001. Do we have any motions at this point in time? I would move the approval of the application with the conditions outlined in the uh city planners memo to us. >> Would you keep it at or would you change
the 10% down to the 4.9? >> Correct. >> I'm sorry. 10 ft. 4 point. >> Can we add the driveway 30% impervious? >> Let's put that as D. 30% impervious.
Just clarifying your motion. So, >> so if I'm understanding it correctly, your motion is to approve it based on the following conditions. A building permit to be obtained and building to conform to Minnesota state building code. B the surface water to be confined
to the site. C addition to be 4.9 ft from the side property lines as previously um approved variance. And then adding D other would be impervious coverage to be reduced to 30%.
Do we have a second? >> I would second this. >> All right. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Any opposed? Motion passed. >> All right. Moving on to public hearing. Variance application V260002.
Uh, address 29473 Shore View Lane in Breezy Point, Minnesota. Lot 76778. That's part of the 17th addition to Breezy Point Estates. Construct addition to an existing dwelling that was a legal non-confirming use. That's 43 feet from
the OW and 7.7 ft from the RO on shore view lane. Uh, impervious coverage is currently 33%. It is zoned in the medium density R2 zone. So, we're opening the public hearing and we invite the applicant to come to the podium. State your name and
address and walk us through your request. >> Good evening. Um, I'm Regina Nelson. I'm representing my clients Gary and Janet Grailius who purchased this lake property um when their daughters were in high school. Um what has changed for
them is Janet has um mobility issues now and um they want to continue um spending time at the lake but they need to have a handicap accessible bedroom and bathroom for her. So um we're here asking for
that variance. And >> I'm Willie Iser. I am also here representing Gary and Janet Gervilius for the um addition of their home. Um I represent all the landscaping that they do at their house. So as part of to help get the impervious coverage down, we'd
also propose that the concrete driveway be removed and we install permeable pavers and then do permeable pavers with the sidewalks as well. >> Okay. Do we need a moment to review or you have any questions for the applicant?
>> Excuse me. Is that on the request right now that the removal of the the drive and the sidewalk? I know that the surveyor had mentioned that if they put in pvious surfaces, it would bring it
down to I think it's 26% impervious with this addition. >> Okay? >> So, it actually by removing the impervious and putting in pvious or permeable, you're actually going to be having
>> less runoff. >> Yeah. Less runoff. >> Okay. So currently it's within code at 23.8. Um the request in here said 33.1 but you're adjusting that to say that you would put in the driveway and those previous capabilities. So that would
take it down to around that 25%. >> Okay. >> But if on the charts if you took the driveway off I don't think you'd get down to that, would you? Unless you took some of the the well landscaping towards the lake and make that >> Well, that's also saying like the
sidewalk we had and remove that >> and put all permittial in. >> Adding it up, it looks like the house and the addition ended up being according to this document 20.9. If we don't add the pavers at 6.4 and
the driveway at 4.4, for the sidewalk and I think there's one other piece on there was about 1.4. So that would keep it within >> Okay. But so the whole lake fire ring would be removed and put in pvious
>> if we would have to. >> Okay. Well, that would help. But >> yeah, I think the CL they're willing to take out anything impervious um to make the addition work.
>> Okay. Yeah. >> So, one thing we could look at is just stating to keep it in that 25% limit. >> Does anyone have any other concerns? It looks like the I'm reading this correctly. The side
setbacks are >> side setbacks. It's the road setback. That's >> um another thing they were willing to do is to remove their little waterhed if that would help. >> Okay. >> That was a 1.4 I believe. >> Mhm. >> Remove that as well.
>> That would still ft off the road. All right. 7.7 >> the right away. >> On the rightway. Have you looked at any design builds that would keep the right away around
where it's at currently with the new addition? Just kind of looking. Have you looked at options for that? >> Yes. They they have an architect who did and because the the property is is kind of a arrow so it
narrows down. So that's why it's it becomes 7 ft away but the current setback from the lake will we will not encroach any closer to the lake. So it it's it's a tricky piece of
property that narrows. >> It's kind of a triangle shape. >> Yes. Yes. >> Questions. Any more questions more time? >> No. Okay, thank you. We may call you back up if we end up having more
questions. Thank you. >> All right, let's move on to staff review. >> Okay, this is variance 26002. Applicant Gary Gallllius. Property address 29473
Shore View Lane, Breezy Point. Uh 56472. Property ID is 10210794,795 and 796. 17th edition to Breezy Point Estates lot 76,77 and 78. This is zoned as R2 medium
density residential. Applicable city codes are 153007, 032, 044, 045, and 1531 120. is requested to construct
a 2,123 square foot addition to the existing dwelling. Uh the property is located at 29473 Shore View Lane, Pelican Lake Estate
Shore. How do you pronounce that? Mouse Bay. Uh access to the property via Shore View Lane. Property is a triangular shape. Variance to construct the house, garage, and deck was approved in 1987.
Variance to construct a 984 square foot addition. 22 feet from the OW issues denied in 2004. Existing dwelling located less than 50 ft from the OW is considered a legal non-conforming use. Existing dwelling
located 10 ft from the sideyard and 30 ft from the right of way to Shore View Lane. Existing impervious coverage 23.8%. Applicants proposing uh a garage addition on the application
of 416 ft, a porch addition of 248 ft and then a house addition of 1459 square ft. Proposed setbacks a sideyard of 10 ft, OW of 43 feet and 47 feet.
right ofway setback of 21 feet and then 7.7 feet. The previous coverage um on the application proposed was 33.1%. Uh 153.032 032. Zoning of the property
is R2. Uh medium residential with required setbacks, sideyard of 10 ft, OW with 30, right ofway 30, and then impervious coverage 25. variance uh legally a legally permitted
deviation as provided in Minnesota statute 462.357 as it may be amended from time to time from the provisions of this chapter is deemed necessary by the board of adjustment when the strict interpretation of the ordinance would create practical difficulty and be
impractical because of circumstances relating to lot size, shape, topography and other characteristics of the property. And when the deviation from the ordinance with any attached conditions shall be kept shall be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Variances cannot create a
land use not permitted in a zone. Variance review 153.1. Variances shall be decided within a reasonable time uh with considerations for the following. strict interpretation of the ordinance be impractical because
of circumstances relating to lot size, shape, topography, and other characteristics of the property not created by the land owner. The deviation of the ordinance with any attached conditions will still be in keeping with the spared intent of the ordinance. Land use created by the variance is permitted
in the zoning district where the property is located. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality and the variance is not for economic reasons alone but reasonable use of the property does not exist under the ordinance. Uh the findings the applicant
contends that the practical difficulty is and again intentionally left blank for the applicant to state their purpose. Uh the impervious coverage uh was originally proposed to be 33.1%. Uh the use is consistent with the
characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood. Uh the proposed additions encroach the right of way of 21 ft to 7.7 ft and the OW of 43 feet and 47 ft.
The use is consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhoods and the reasonable use of the property currently exists and there are surface runoff concerns. Um as well as um you know
recommend the review of the size of the square footage for the construction as an additional factor. Uh the board may by resolution choose to approve, deny or modify the requested variance. The variance should clearly state the practical difficulty and
reasons for the approval, denial or modifications of the variance. Um, and then I did receive one uh email I'd like to read into the record. This is from Chuck Severson. Um, and this was
originally to Mr. Bon Sack. Thank you for providing the proposed Graalius Pelican Lake home expansion plan. The proposed plan is a very significant right-of-way uh expansion to the existing home and encroaches on the Shore View Lane rightway. Uh to minimize
uh the impacts of the proposed plans, um I would have the following comments. a city review um the potential plan the existing right ofway uh or the existing row of bushes to the Grallius property
um or comparable bushes in the future remain and be maintained along Shore View Lane to retain a vegetated buffer between the home. Uh and then um reviewing the storm water runoff um concerns
uh related. Um and then over the last winter, we observed significant snow drifting at 2 to three feet across Shvy Lane. Since uh this is new since the owner removed the trees uh from the far
lot uh the city uh condition additional row of bushes and vegetation buffer uh is requested for this area and I appreciate the city's considerations for our concerns. Charles Severson 29476
Shore View Lane I got one question Anthony on the 153-032 the zoning property the high water you have it's 30 feet isn't it supposed to be 50 feet the OW
50 feet is required from the OW under the ordinance >> right Um 50 feet is in that area because they're serviced by sanitary sewer, >> right? >> Uh if it weren't serviced by sanitary
sewer, that would be a 75 ft OW setback. >> So the OW printed here is incorrect at 30. It should be 50. >> Correct. We'll make that change. My assumption is that the uh variance
request was denied in 2004 was a result of the encroachment on the high watermark. We didn't find any reasons in the uh property file. I you could assume that but uh I do not believe that there was
any reason stated. Okay. So, the city, what you just read, what couple of their recommendations, just to make sure I have that was um requested to have additional shrubs and bushes put along the property line to prevent from drifting with road. Was that that was one of them, right?
>> Uh correct. So, the two that the neighbor had requested was uh to have um a vegetation buffer between the uh the home expansion and Shore View Lane
and uh and then yeah, I'm assuming that it's the same the same area would then also prevent uh depending on what was used would also prevent the snow drifts. >> Okay. Okay. So, >> and was there something also mentioned
in there in a water runoff plan? >> Uh, the neighbor would like um at least some type of review for storm water runoff just because we're creating a additional impervious surfaces.
>> I think the application the applicant mentioned something about a a storm water plan too. So >> hope they do >> when they approached I wrote that down >> the replacement of the uh pvious or the
impervious surfaces the driveway and the the back patio. Yeah. >> So kind of summing up what I think our considerations are. The impervious coverage was a concern with it being an increase over the limit, but it sounds like if we
remove the pavers, the driveway that would reduce it down to meet conditions with the housey addition and then the if they wanted to keep the sidewalk that was.7 those would keep it within that 25%. %
um being able to add the shrubs and bushes and the vegetation buffer would be a good improvement just because there is on that road always some drifting and things like that that would >> Oh, sorry. I thought we were just
discussing like I'm kind of summarizing what we were talking through to see if we had more questions for him. >> Was there anything else that we had that were questions that we wanted to review with this?
>> Well, I I'm just the runoff is a concern, but half of the addition of the new proposed is on the city right away. I mean, In other words, I'm thinking the house is definitely doesn't fit that triangle
shot lot very well. It's >> Do we have any more questions or things as part of the staff review? >> Was there any kind of a watershed there now? you know, as far as the runoff that is there,
>> I do believe there is a uh a neighborhood drainage covert on the uh opposite side of the street at least. Um to my knowledge, that's that's what's out there so far. So
now that the garage is actually added, the driveway gets shorter, too. So is there a safety concern on I mean it's a pretty short driveway. Just seems like a lot to fit on a a
triangle shape lot. Any other questions for staff? All right, then we will move on to the public input. So if anyone in the audience would like to share, please uh state your name and address and approach the podium.
All right, not seeing any public input, then we will close out the public hearing and move on to official action for variance 26002. So I think the biggest concerns that we're going through is that road. How
close it is to the road. Is that kind of what I'm hearing? >> The size and close to the road and the impervious which they addressed. But we still have the issue of being so close to the road, you know, with the driveway in
Well, the driveway is existing. So did that really change? >> Yeah, actually >> right >> the driveway size itself is the same or I mean um >> correct but it's shorter if you look
the driveway and then the addition is what is that 8 ft? Yeah, I think it was 7.7. >> Yeah. >> And I'm assuming that's the corner, the
top corner, cuz there's like two corners. There's kind of like a little jagged edge that comes out. Oh, well, >> what I'm looking at is there's this set back and this one. >> Mhm.
But now we've lost this. driveway. >> Yeah, but to me that's not really changing >> parking. >> Well, if they're parking inside the garage. >> Oh, that works. Well,
>> I shouldn't be sarcastic about that. >> All right. >> So, what are you guys thinking as far as the those two corner points? This one and this one are the ones that will be closest to the road. >> They're both like seven,
>> I'm guessing, because I didn't see that on there. Are both of the distances about that 7.7? Um, I don't have a way to point it out, but you know, the the two pieces that are the closest to the road, are those about the same distance?
>> Are you asking us, Marcy? Are you asking us? >> I was seeing if it was on the diagram because it's just so small print on here. I can't tell. >> Madam Chair, yeah, it does appear that those points are about the same distance. >> Okay. I guess is it going to affect anything
with snow removal? You know what I mean? Could you remind us why there is a 30foot uh rightaway setback rightway setbacks are are typical in all
districts. Um number one's conformity. Some of it is sightelines. Some of it is uh snow. um landscaping, that type of thing. >> I would say >> separation from the road.
>> Yeah, there's a safety issue, too. >> Yes. >> Someone were to drive off the road, um that would be a safety issue. >> Landscape. Should I go up there? >> Well, if we have questions, we'll call you up. Okay.
So the hardship is the shape of the lot, right? It just boils down to do we think that those those two setbacks are going to create an issue? Is that what
30 now? And this would move it to 21, which is losing seven feet. >> I can't really go back. to be I mean that could be an option. >> Madam chair, I have a question uh for the applicant. >> Would you would the applicant mind
coming back up to the podium and addressing a question? My assumption is that you would consider uh the difficulty being the owner needs to make that addition
handicapped accessible. >> Mhm. >> Correct. And >> and without encroaching on the high water mark, that's the only direction >> you can you can go with the condition. Because the other the neighbors the corner of the neighbor's property is
only like four feet from the property line. >> Mhm. >> I mean it's >> I mean every piece of property in that culde-sac is probably not within compliance. So it's tough >> but the homeowners are keeping
that end piece na that's going to be natural. It's just going to be planted as one of the emails concerns came in was a hedge going in that is actually in the plans to be going in in the very very near future to fill that back in with plants and prevent the wind put a nice windbreak in there and everything
again. >> And then lot number 76 is going to be more natural. So, they're going to they're going to do what they can to maintain that lake natural feel, but they'd also like to be able to use
their house. >> Can you tell us what will be done in that addition to make it handicapped accessible? >> Um, we will have um zero entry shower. >> Okay. we will have all of the handicap
bars and the the seat and um so that Janet and maybe Gary someday can traverse that main floor. So the kitchen, the living room, their bathroom. Um yeah.
Yeah. We're we've been working with Kevin Anderson out of Little Falls who's very mindful and very respectful of codes and >> um we we felt like this was the best plan for the homeowner >> and and for the difficulties working
within these >> setbacks and so forth in the oddshaped property. >> Yep. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Do we have more questions or is anyone willing to present a motion?
Now, is this like the only plan that um >> that you've for plan that you've kind of looked at? I mean, there may be some other options to get away. >> There wasn't there wasn't a lot of wiggle room because of um minimum 3 to
four feet on each side of the bed. I mean, I think Kevin was very thoughtful about coming up with this and using up as little space as we could. Um, but the possibility of a wheelchair or having to
have an assistant and things like that, you just >> Right. You need x amount of space. >> You need x amount of space. Yep. >> Yep. >> Okay. Anyone wish to make a motion
to approve or deny? If I make a motion, it'll be to deny it. So, I'm not making a motion. >> Did you want to make a motion or >> No. >> Okay. I think there's other plans out there
that would I've seen a lot of handicapped houses that could be worked out and I just don't see the being so close to the road. >> So, just kind of asking some questions
here for consideration. If this wasn't here, that would move to this edge. If this was moved back, I don't know what the plan looks like, but that would >> right >> reduce it. >> That would help.
Right. But if you look, it's bathroom and a closet. >> What is here? Um, bathroom. I think this Where did you see that on there? Right here.
It looks like this was a closet here, a bathroom there. >> Two basically two bedrooms. >> Yeah. Bathroom. Right. >> Three bedrooms up. >> And I don't know enough about building
code to know if they could remove this piece and this piece and reposition it inside of that so that it would be a little bit further on those two points. >> Right. my points. It's where did I highlight it where it shows how much of the addition
is in the in the right away. So if they took this off and this that would really help. >> That's what I was thinking is just as a advice kind of thing. >> This was reposition because then we're
talking we're basically getting back to similar to what it was. >> Exactly. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> What do you >> I'll share what we were just kind of discussing over there which was um basically this is a closet and this is a bathroom over here. If this
wasn't there or repositioned and this was moved back then you would have a more consistent to where it's at like >> you know if it was remove back there then right away would >> we we we gain so it wouldn't be yeah a safety issue so that could be a denial
but a recommendation to come back with a plan that would be similar to that >> I would agree that okay sounds good >> okay so I'm going to try to I'm going to try to summarize this um into a motion So the motion would be to >> Madam Chairman. >> Yes.
>> Um I'm only speculating that you're trying to redesign this thing and you have some concerns about setbacks from the road and and that there should be other designs that are looked at rather than than doing that. I
would recommend that the planning commission table the issue till you get a plan back from the applicant that addresses your issue so that you can adequately adequately approve a variance. >> Okay.
>> I don't think that you should be in the design business. I think you can uh tell the applicant or meet with the applicant after a while and tell the applicant what your concerns are where there should be some revisions made and
then act on the variance that way rather than trying to be the designer. >> Right. I think we were just trying to come back with some ideas on what we're >> right >> the reasons for why we're suggesting a redesign.
>> I don't um what you have is a plan to to approve or or deny quite frankly, >> right? >> Um if you're going to look at other alternatives, you should be acting on those alternatives and not something that you're proposing.
>> Right. So you're saying table not deny. >> Yes. And so it just be a motion to table it and review a alternative plan. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> I would make that motion. >> Have a second. >> I'll second. >> All in favor say I.
>> I. >> I. >> Motion passed. >> 30 more days. A decision have to be made within 60 days of the application. So it have to go the next month. Madam chair, I can I can meet with the applicant after the meeting and talk
over the next steps >> and you'll know what acceptable. >> Well, we'll I'll talk with the next steps after this. So all right, moving on to public hearing
for the petition to reszone 260001 Holly Ro 6799 County Road 11 Breezy Point. Reszone the following. Describe property as east 300 feet of west 675 feet of the north 360 foot of the north
east quarter of the northwest quarter. Section 18. It's containing 2.48 acres more or less. It's subject to county state aid highway number 11 rightaway. It's subject to easements, restrictions, and reservations of record. The current
zoning is urban and the preso the proposed zoning is commercial. So we're opening the public hearing and we're going to invite the applicant to come to the podium and state name and address and walk us through the request. Yes. Uh I am Holly Rish and the address
is 6799 County Road 11 Breezy Point. Um I am petitioning to reszone it. Um currently it's urban reserve. I'm not sure when it became urban reserve. I've been there for 20 24 years in the area
for 30 years and um everything around me has gotten built up. I think everybody can agree on that. And I now um I've ran a lot of businesses um in my home and out of my home uh
throughout the years. And now I have a small food trailer that is an extension of a brickandmortar store down in Baxter and that has raised the the question of doing commercial and I think it's just pushed to this point because everything
else is either commercial or public. Um my neighbor across the road is still living residential. I really don't have houses around me. Um, but even though he's living in his house and it's residential and everything, his is also commercial now. Um, I'm not sure when
that became commercial, but either way, um, because I have the food trailer there, um, it's it's being pushed to to make this uh, commercial instead of residential to make it all work. Um, so
that's that's my request. Um, I do believe I have the people around me. It would coincide with what is going around me. I'm kind of the only one left. I have a gentleman next to me, but that's just land. Uh, Nicholls. So,
um, that that's all I have to say. >> All right. Do we have questions for the applicant? All right. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And we'll move on to staff review. >> Thank you. So, uh, as far as staff
review, um, for reszonings, um, what I provided in the packet or Jerry prepared is an excerpt from the comprehensive plan, um, showing that that area um was not sort of in the immediate future of
planning for commercial. um under its current zoning. Uh it's intended for um the long-term urban growth of the city um while effectively planning for the growth by larger lot requirements to
prevent occurrence of premature premature scattered urban development while in the meantime allowing a very low density of residential and agricultural uses and land use to promote or foster forestry. Um so those are the two things to consider. Um the
other um thing to consider in this is that uh reszoning to commercial opens up uh to more uses than just um allowing for a food truck in this case. So, we would have to consider all of the uh
commercial usages in a reasonzoning. So, as part of the staff review, I see that you had um the comprehending comprehensive plan land use goals and strategies. And it appears there's um four goals. Some of them are repeated, but one of the things that I noticed it
said under goal four, number one, um direct commercial development to existing commercial nodes and areas served by adequate transportation and infrastructure and supporting of um mixed development, small and commercial spaces. But um one
of the things that just kind of hit me was served by adequate transportation and infrastructure. I know along that road we've had a few other things that have been built up and that's been a concern with the speed and the >> turn lanes >> the turn lanes and that kind of thing. So that was one thing that as part of
the the review document that kind of stood out for me. >> Mhm. And then I think strategy number four said plan for commercial and retail density at the identified nodes in already commercialzoned areas ensuring
that development patterns support mixeduse walkable environment. Um I don't think this would be considered a walkable environment and it's not already in the zoned area. So, that was another thing that stood out
would be a spot zone, which is another thing in itself. Did anyone else have questions on the staff prepared reports >> or you have anything else?
>> No. >> All right, then we've completed the staff review. We're going to move on to public input. If anyone in the audience would like to share their thoughts, you please approach the podium and state your name and address. >> Good evening. I'm Gary Mitchell, 6944
Nickel Road. I uh have the have land that borders Holly's and so um Holly has been a very good neighbor.
However, I had no idea she had a a soft drink stand or whatever on her property. I a realizer told me I should talk to you people about putting some of my land up for sale because it runs all along
County Road 11. I love that land. It's beautiful wildlife. Um I have no intent. However, I do have a purchase agreement from a a couple whose daughter is here and couldn't attend
and uh to take ownership of the property by May 31st of 2027. It could happen quicker than that if we find a unit we want to live in and they their place is up for sale if it sells.
I was very surprised to see this quite honestly. Um, I was looking here. Uh, Jerry gave me a list of urban reserve and the requirements and uh, quite frankly all across the road is
commercial and my feelings are that if she wants to have a commercial business that she should sell her place and purchase land across the road. Um I uh the new owner I talked to him he
couldn't make he and his wife could not make it tonight but he was against it and uh I have to say uh even though Holl's been a good neighbor and stuff I am against turning it in commercial to me it opens a whole bucket
of worms. What's that land going to be? How you know if she decides to sell it? somebody can move in there and start a business that who knows what that business would be. And so because it's a beautiful
area, um I love that woods and uh so I'm going to have to say I am against it and the new owner is against it. Remember that. Do you have any questions for me? >> No. Okay,
>> thank you. >> Hi, my name is Sarah Love Choy, 7006 Nickel Road. And I also would just like to say I really do think Holly is lovely and I like their family and I've even been to their food truck. But as a
person who lives right behind it, I'm concerned about the potential light pollution and noise pollution, not from the food truck, but from what else might take the place when she sells if it gets reszoned. So, if we could be guaranteed it would just be a food truck forever, that's one thing. But I know that's not
a promise you can make us. So, unfortunately for Holly, I'm going to have to say I'm also against it. Thank you. >> Thank you. Sorry. Um Kenzie Stish, 7036 Nickel Road. So I'm also in the urban reserve neck of the woods. Um my primary concern
I'm also going to say that I'm against it. My primary concern being that um on that side of 11. It's already kind of a turning nightmare and I don't want to see the road expanded. I don't want to see 11 turn into a four-lane road. I don't want to see Nickel end up with the same turn lanes that Ranchette has. We
don't have the population that would require that. But if we start allowing commercial to encroach the opposite side, so the urban reserve side, um I feel like there probably wouldn't be a choice. We would have to add turn lanes. And then part of urban reserve is to reserve the area to protect the
woodlands to um kind of be a steward of the land that's there. and any potential new encroachments from 11 would therefore encroach on the woods that we're all kind of working to protect in that area. Anyway, um our neighborhood's very very involved. You've heard us here
many times before um but very very involved in preserving the land. So that's just this does not really like um promote the mission of of what it is currently zoned and I just don't think it's necessary. So thank you. >> Thank you. Yeah.
All right, we're going to go ahead and close the public input portion and then move on to official action, which is to address whether we petition to reszone and recommend to city council or what
our recommendation would be. I guess I'll share um first what I'm thinking is currently if you look at that zoning map everything on that side of County Road 11 is urban reserve which is the opposite in my opinion of commercial. It
was intended for wooded residential um larger lots that type of thing. And I know from past experience when we've had other types of things coming up along the road, the traffic has been a an issue. And to note that, you know,
there's no turning lanes. Um there's issues with speed and things like that coming into that area that I that would be a concern that I would have. Um, so the other concern that was brought up a few times, um, that I think has a valid
point is that while the food truck might be something the neighbors would condone, we can't restrict it to just that. So if we make it commercial, any type of commercial business in the future could be there and you could have again more parking concerns, more drive
concerns. Um, it's less like an urban reserve at that point. So those are kind of the summaries of what I heard and what I'm seeing as as our major points. >> Yes. Well, the safety concern is one of
the and the biggest concern. So >> is there any other concerns or thoughts anyone has? >> And it would be a spot zone. So, >> so as a um so our goal here would be whether we recommend it to city council or we table I don't know if the word
would be table but either recommend or or not proceed with that. Um kind of what I'm hearing is saying no to proceeding. >> No. >> Lee, what's your thought? >> I would say no. No. So, I think we have a consensus of saying um not
recommending it to city council to approve a resoning at this point. Can >> you just speak about the traffic? >> No. >> At this point, do we need do we have any questions on that?
>> Thank you. >> Do we need a formal motion? >> Do we? >> I don't think so. Do we? I would suggest you make a formal motion as far as a recommendation to the council. >> Okay. >> Um,
in order for it to be finalized, it would have to the council would have to affirm or or go against the your resolution or your your your motion. >> Okay. Do we have a motion? >> I'll make a motion to deny it, I guess.
>> Do we have a second? >> Second. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Any opposed? >> Motion has been approved. >> All right, moving on to staff reports. Do we have any new staff reports to
cover? >> Uh, yes. So, as I have uh shown on the slide, there is a new planning and zoning administrator that started on July 7th. So, I'm I'm happy to be here and I'm looking forward to uh continuing
to work with the city. Um, next, uh, an exerpt for the cannabis retail update. Uh, just wanted to inform that the council did approve the license, um, for the cannabis retail shop. So, you guys had previously made the the use
approval and then they approved that license at the last meeting. Um and then lastly, just to make a reminder that the candidate filing um had started today. So, >> and that's all I had.
>> All right. Any questions? >> No. >> All right. Any commissioner reports? No. >> All right. Meeting adjourned.