How are you? was >> six point. Good afternoon. Uh, welcome to the Crowing County Planning Commission Board of Adjustment meeting uh, this afternoon. It's 3 p.m. on November 20th.
Please rise for the pledgece 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.
If you've not already done so, I would please ask you to silence your cell phones. If you are online, please make sure that you've muted your microphone until you're ready to speak. And please note that this public hearing is being recorded.
The first item on our agenda is roll call. Uh Rock Linamy >> here. >> Sue Masky >> here. >> Andy Larson >> here. >> And I'm John Oa. I would note that our chair Rebecca Best is absent. >> Item two is review and approval of the
minutes and findings of fact for the meeting held on October 16th, 2025. >> Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve the findings of fact and and the minutes. Is there a second? >> I'll second. Okay. >> Moved by Rock, seconded by Andy. Uh,
further discussion hearing none. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed? Carried. >> This afternoon, we have three items of new business. We greatly appreciate your patience as we conduct the meeting, but if you're on this agenda, you got lucky.
It's one of the meetings where we have the fewest number of items we've had in a long time. Our procedure is when we call your application, you will be admitted to the meeting if you are online or if you are in person, we would invite you to come to the table here in the front once seated to please state
your name and address for the record. The staff will then read your request into the record. We then provide the applicant an opportunity to add any new information that has not previously been submitted. After that, we'll open the request up
for public testimony. This afternoon, we will have two public testimony opportunities, one in person and one online. If you are online and wish to speak to an application, please use your hand icon to indicate to us
that you wish to speak. Then, once you are admitted, please unmute your microphone and state your name and address for the record. If you are speaking in person, we would invite you to come to the microphone at the podium in the center aisle. In either case, you
will then be given five minutes to give your testimony. Please do not repeat what someone else has said, and please do not read your emails or letters that have already been received and read. Everyone who gives who wishes to give testimony will have an opportunity to do
so. We will then bring it back to the applicant to address the items brought forth from the public. Please note that once we close public testimony, we will not reopen it. We ask all participants to please be respectful and note that
all questions and testimony are to be directed to this board or staff. Our decision process is as follows. for a preliminary plat or land use map amendment of which we have none this afternoon uh request we make a
recommendation to the county board for a variance or conditional use permit request. This board makes the final decision. We make our decisions based on our findings of fact. To help us do that, we do on-site visits where we physically go
to the property and examine the site and look at what is planned. Prior to this meeting, we each have read every letter and email that was submitted and we listened to the public testimony this afternoon and the applicant. In
addition, we have a worksheet that we use to help summarize the findings of fact. Preliminary findings have been included in the staff packet. I would like to pause for a moment to let the public know that we greatly appreciate your correspondence and input. Next, I
will ask each board member to confirm that they have reviewed the preliminary findings of fact for each each application that were provided in the packet. Sue, >> yes, I have. >> Rock, >> I have. >> Andy, >> I have. >> And I have as well.
So, this afternoon, our first application is item 3.1, RAN Property Group LLC Preliminary Plat. Uh, Chris, if you would please present the staff report. >> Uh, Mr. Sure. >> Mr. Chair, if it's okay, we'll invite
the applicant up to the table. >> Oh, we I shouldn't do that, shouldn't I? >> We missed one step. That's okay. >> Could you please state your name and address for the record? >> Uh, Andrew Ranweiler, 4706 Wilderness Court, Brainer, Minnesota.
>> Now, Chris, would you please >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. The applicant tonight is Rand Group LLC with a parcel number of 99270692. Uh the property in question is adjacent to Sandberg Road in Gilbert Lake. This is located in First Assessment. The
request uh this afternoon is a plinary plat for Trailside Preserve with a total of 21 lots. Um I'm going to scroll down to the survey so you can see the the lots and the layout themselves. I'll zoom out just a little bit.
might be hard to see. Um, so this is you have Gilbert Lake Road running north and south. Then you have Sandberg Road running east and west to the south. Um, you can see that the layout of the lots is such that there'll be a road coming
off of Gilbert Lake Road here and there'll be a culde-sac at the end. Uh there is a proposed um easement for those that live within the plat for a walkway to be able to get access to the Paul Bunan Trail. Um and then uh the the
way that this is laid out uh is a little bit different than probably what it will be laid out when it's done. The we did get some comments from highway. Uh one of the comments that they made was that there can only be three entrance points off of the culde-sac. And so um there's they've already been working on that.
We've been working that with uh with uh the applicant and with their surveyor um Cremerly Deleo to get that um resolved. It shouldn't be a problem from a uh from a standpoint of of the layout. And then um lot 15 was proposed here to come off G Lake Road. The entrance will actually
have to come off with the proposed new road here, Trailside Court. Um I know that there has been some questions from the public. Uh one of the questions that I saw come in and I thought I'd answer it now. um was that this is located in the first assessment district unorganized territory. Um there's been
some questions that what is the zoning on the property? Uh so the zoning on this property is rural residential 1 which allows for uh 1acre lots. The county board went through a process back in 2023 and 2024 and updated the county's comprehensive plan. Part of
that comprehensive plan review included review of the um county's land use map or commonly known as maybe the zoning map. Um, and so one of the changes that the county board made at that point was in first assessment, one of the things that was heard through the through uh
public feedback and um when we were looking at drafting and putting together the comprehensive plan was the need for um more affordable housing and for smaller lots because it was seemingly difficult with these larger lots to make them affordable for uh for folks. And so
that was something that the county board heard. They thought that it was important and so they made that change. And so if you're in the first assessment district or the unorganized territory north of Brainer Baxter, um if your property isn't within the Shorland district, which is 1,000 ft to a lake, if your property isn't commercial or any
sort of an industrial zoning, um anything in the real residential area that's our nonshorland is going to have a zoning classification of real residential one. Uh and so the question is, well, how did that happen? Uh so it happened through the process of um
public meetings and um so the um there was no notice mailed out to everybody in the county where their zoning was changed. There were public hearings. Uh we followed state statute as far as making those changes and um and so just to be just to be clear for folks to know
uh that that's how the zoning um changed on this property compared to what it would have been um in the past. So uh Mr. Chair, I think at this point that's all I have. I do want to point out that there are two septic sites uh on every on every property. Um the road for trailside court um is going to be
required to be built up to um the specifications of the unorganized territory and that's uh working with highway department on that specification. It'll be a a black top road with a 7 ton capacity. There is a 66 foot wide um proposed dedicated um
area for the roadside itself for trailside court. This proposal as submitted meets all ordinance requirements and uh there's no need for any variances condition use permits as part of this process. I'd be happy to answer any questions.
>> Uh thanks Chris. Board have any questions Chris at this point? >> No >> hearing none. Um do you have anything as the applicant? Anything you'd like to add at this time? the surveyors and I don't know that it got here but KLD was
able to address the two concerns that the highway department have for lot 15 and lot seven. So they adjusted the driveway location and they actually around the culdeac they put controlled access like a controlled access so that nobody can in the future
>> put a driveway. >> Yeah, we did we had we have received that survey. >> Did you I I thought they were going to submit it to the update but I I know it's there. So >> yeah, we do have it. Anything else? That >> that's it. >> Okay. This is a public hearing. So, we
will invite first uh those in the room that wish to address the board on this item to come forward. And uh all you need to do is step forward to the podium at the center aisle and state your name and address. Anyone wish to address the board, please?
>> Carrie Martin. Address is 16682 Jean Street, Brainard, Minnesota. My question is when you say that these are going to be affordable housing, what is the home going to be built at
for affordable housing? The cost. >> Uh, Mr. Chair, I can maybe just try to answer that and Andrew maybe you could answer too. It's not something that I think when people hear the term affordable housing, I think they hear the idea of subsidized housing and that sort and that's not going in here. This is going to be single family residential
homes and it'll be um built um typically the way that um Mr. Vanler does his plat is that they build out the homes in the plat themselves and you can see examples of that if you want to go up Ky Road 77 heading out uh west of town. There's a couple plats they've done out there.
Sanctuary Way and what's the other one? Sanctuary Ridge. >> Sanctuary Ridge. There's a couple plats they've done. So you can see examples of their type of construction that they do. So, this these homes will be built at a value of 300,000 or more. >> That I can't speak to the value. I don't
know what the value will be. That'll be determined by the county assessor. So, >> that's what we need to know because all of us that live on Jean Street, Sandberg, and Paul, all of our homes are $250,000
or more. We want to know what these values of these homes are going to be. That's information we will not have. >> How do we acquire this? Because as the builder, he should know what he's building these homes for, what they're
going to have a retail value of. So, what are they going to be retailing Andrew for? Are you going to build them at 250,000, 350,000? >> That's something we need to know. >> Yeah, ma'am. We we direct the testimony
to the board first, please. and and he'll he'll respond he'll have the opportunity to respond to your question after we hear all of the public testimony. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> So then my other question was, did you say there's two septics? Cuz I didn't quite hear exactly what you said, Chris.
Is there >> Yeah. Each each property has two septic locations, a primary and an alternate. >> Okay. And each of these lots is only one acre. >> Correct. >> So how did that get changed? because it's always been a standard that you
have to have an acre and a half or bigger to be able to put a septic on it. Where did that change? >> Uh, as I mentioned during the introduction was I as I introduced it, the county board updated the comprehensive plan in 2023 and 24. And
when they did that, part of that uh update to the comprehensive plan also updated the zoning map which then made these lots oneacre lots. That was approved by the county board in August of 2024. >> Okay, these look really tight. Very tight. Um we don't have tightness over
on Jean Street, Gilbert Lake Road, Samberg Road, Paul Street. We all have space. We like the space. Um, why are these build being built so
close? Why is there not space in them? >> They're 1acre lots. So, this is this is the layout for a 1acre lot meeting the requirements of the ordinance. >> And has this piece been purchased already by Rand or is this piece still not is this piece still available for
sale? Um, who has the ownership of this? Do we know? Can you answer? >> We own it. >> Yeah, it's owned by the Randweather. >> Okay. Um, that was my questions for right now.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else wish to speak? Please, >> Mr. Chair, do you want me to wait till the end to answer? >> Uh, yes. Uh, please state your name and address for the record.
>> Live at one220 Gilbert Trail. >> Thank you. >> My concern is traffic. Um, I've had family that's lived on Gilbert Trail, Gilbert Lake Road North, I guess. Um, since about 1970
and, um, you know, I've lived there personally since about 2004. Um the increased traffic on Wise Road um is alarming. So I know that there was a project that made some turning lanes
which was greatly appreciated. But I just want to know I'm thinking about 21 homes. I'm thinking about one or two cars per home. I'm thinking about delivery trucks. I'm thinking about school buses. I'm really concerned about what the intersection's going to look
like. So that's that's my big big concern. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Good. Uh Jeremy Prem290 Gilbert Trail. Um, we do have a petition pretty much signed by everybody in the
Gilbert Lake Road down, right? And I think I share some of the sentiments on traffic. That's there's no outlet. It's a dead end road, right? Um, there's 47 properties houses on it already with one single outlet to Wise Road. We just as a
county spend a bunch of money to redo that intersection and now we're going to jam or propose jamming 21 properties in the corner here to access through that same intersection so Mr. Randweiler can turn a quick dollar doesn't make sense,
right? And just because the zoning I don't know who was at those public hearing. I'm guessing nobody here heard about it. You admitted you didn't send out any notifications about it. It was with within the law, whatever. Probably was a bunch of developers like Mr. Raneer that were advocating for it,
right? Because he can just make more money. >> I I didn't see Andrew at any of the meetings for those. >> I said like him. >> I didn't see neither. the >> like it it doesn't benefit us. So, you're going the county commissioners and you can have a copy of it are are going to see everybody's opposed to
this. Nobody wants properties jammed in. That's not why we live there, right? Nobody moved up there because they want a development like this right next to them. And if something like this is to move forward, you're going to have to address that intersection, which we just
spent a bunch of money on. That should solely be the expense of the developer, right? Don't be the psy and agree to let him make some money putting lots in and then five years down the road, two years down the road, you're going to be stuck holding the the writing the check to put
in a roundabout or whatever it is you think you need to put in there. Right? Think through this completely. This doesn't fit in this location. Doesn't fit in the area. There's plenty of land in Crowing County. you can go put a development like this that doesn't have
the limitations that this site does have. So, >> thank you. >> Hi, my name is Thor Thorson. I live on 9915 Sandberg Road. So, I'm right across from this. And uh first of all, I mean, I don't envy you guys at all. This is
tough. And you didn't see us probably at those meetings because like a lot of people until it really hits home, you know, we're not going to go to every meeting you have to decide all these things. So the general public, we're not about that, right? So all of a sudden, like they mentioned,
it does seem really packed in there. Now, I know it's 1acre lots and that's what you can do, but you're the board. You don't have to just say yes. I think you can decide that. Um, I'm not saying 2 and 1/2 acre lots. That would be I mean that'd be great. We'd love to have 9 10 homes in there. That'd be a
beautiful parcel. The county would benefit. It would be aesthetically pleasing. This is going to be not great. It's going to be really packed in. Um, but I just have a couple things. A lot of people are talking about the traffic, and that's that's a big one for me, too. Every morning I leave and it's
it is going to be a lot of traffic, but there's a burm or whatever it is just to the as you're heading north on the right, there's a household there. You know what I'm talking about, right? This is a big hill and you can't see to the right. If you're going to make a left turn, you can't see and you're creeping
out into traffic to try to see. So, I definitely want to see that approach if this goes through. Uh, and the other thing is I was going through the plat here and there's I wouldn't have noticed but it's right across from my house and uh Tom or
Wayne. Uh there's this green part that looks like it says a proposed major contour. I don't know what that is, but I see it along the road there, but I don't It's right out in front of my lot and
Tom Nelson's lot, Wayne Nelson. And it just it has all these green lines and it says a proposed major contour and I just really want to know what what that means. Uh unless I'm reading that wrong. It could be. So, uh I am not opposed to
anyone being able to develop property. We're all We all own property. We all own land. We love it, right? But at the same time, it seems a little excessive to just because you can pack it all in there. I mean, 10, 15 homes would be
beautiful in there. It would still be spacious. I drove by kinder. I know this all just happened, but kinder corners and uh Jacksonville, it's beautiful. The county looks beautiful. I drive by, I see all these nice homes in there, and it's spread out. It makes our county look really good. This is going to make
our county look pretty packed in. Thank you. >> Thank you. Sherry Reeberg, 16715 Paul Road. Um, as Thor stated, I too am concerned about the Burm or the Hill or whatever you want to call it, the corner of
Gilbert Lake Road. It's an accident waiting to happen. I see it every day I travel that road. Traffic is horrendous. When the road was redone, I'm not sure all this planning was done and we were having to take alternate routes home,
but nothing was done about the main concern. I know you all remember back when the railroad tracks were there. That was just as dangerous. He took care of that. But this has ne not been taken care of and it's a problem waiting. I too agree that this is just packed in.
We're concerned. We live on Paul Road. We're concerned you may have an outlet coming out of there onto Sandberg Road. What does that do for all of us? It really increases our traffic as well and makes us more at risk. So, I'm not sure
if that is planned or not. The other thing is is there going to be a well on each lot, Chris? >> I would assume so. >> Okay. So, what does that do to our wells? What does that do to our water table? that many houses is really going
to cut into the whole water table of the area. Has anybody done any research on that? That's what I would like to know. Thank you, sir. >> Thank you. Anyone else in the courtroom wish to address the board on this item,
please? Uh Dustin Lake 10194 Gilbert Trail. Um I know there was an engineering study done it said and I I don't necessarily know how to read into that, but I'm I'm concerned about the water runoff with
all of the driveways, rooftops, street. Um my particular lot every spring sees major flooding as is. It can it can almost come 3/4 up to my my building and
uh I don't know I don't know what this is going to do. I know a lot of the land slopes towards our corner Don and I. So I would like to know what that looks like. if there's been any studies done or I I don't know
what that research looks like, but I'd like to know that I'm not going to get flooded and if a retaining pond or something needed to be done in the neighborhood to make it >> No, I got in. >> Sorry about that.
>> Uh continue, please continue. Yeah, if some type of retaining pond or something needed to be done to uh receive all the water runoff, then that'd be something to maybe provide a solution to that if if it is a problem. I just don't want to
get flooded. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else in the courtroom? One more chance. Anyone else in the courtroom wish to address this item? >> I missed one of the things I was going to say. Is that not?
>> Pardon me. >> I missed one of the things I meant to ask. I apologize. >> Please. Yeah, you can. Please. Not usually that nervous. I'm kind of a But you get nervous up here, you know. Um, on your one of your sections here, page
38, letter C-4 on your I'm assuming that's your comprehensive plan. It says, "Regard shall be shown, you know, for trees." And I'm not going to go into wetlands. We know it's not wetlands. There's no steep slopes, water courses, historic natural features. There's none of that here, but there's a lot of
trees. And this was all logged off just, I don't know, 15 years ago, something like that, 10, 15 years ago. So they came in and logged this whole thing off, sold all the valuable timber. So my question is, when you come in here and start taking 1acre lots, clear all that
space for houses, septics, wells, driveways, all that's going to be left is just nothing. I mean, there's some trees on Gilbert Lake Road right now, or I'm I'm sorry, on Sandberg. I just drove out this morning and looked at them. They're nice, but they're big. They're
not great trees, but they're big. And I'm just I can picture this whole thing. There's not going to be anything left by the time you clear and make lots. It's going to be like kinder corners, you know, but that was a field to start. So, you know, planting trees and all that stuff. We we I'm sure they're
saying we'll plant all kinds of trees. And I'm sure you have ordinances for that, right? You must have an ordinance to to plant some trees. You can't just level it and build a house. So, it's just going to look like a big bunch of houses in there. That's my concern is the trees. There's no good standing
timber in there anymore. There's no good strong trees. It's all just brush and shrub. So, they're going to have to mow that all down to build this. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, one more call, last call for uh public testimony in the courtroom.
Anyone wishing to be heard that hasn't been heard? Anyone? Okay, seeing none, is there anyone online that wishes to address this item? I don't see any hand icons. Anybody
online wish to address this item? Okay, seeing none, we will close the public hearing portion and uh I would invite you to address any or all of the items that have been presented to whichever you're you prefer.
>> Sure. Um, yes, with the septic systems, each w each lot will have its own individual well. Um, the KLD did do some engineering. I don't believe it's 100% finished, but there is they are going to
manage storm water runoff. That's what the ponds are for. There is, I believe, four designated ponds on the property. um and culverts from the new road in the new houses and the new impervious coverage that we are going to create that are going to flow to those ponds and so that we are going to handle uh
the storm water in a manner that is required by Crowing County. Um lot size was a big hit home. Um, I did do a little bit of research. The Sandberg's Northwood Estates, there's a number of properties down there, and a
lot of them are 1 acre or less in size. So, it's very fitting for the development. It's very fitting for the neighborhood to have similar size lots than those. Um, there are a few lots that are on Gilbert Lake Road that are closer to 1.3 acres, but
they're all, you know, um, right in that one acre lot size or less. this meets with your comp plan. As far as house cost, um affordable housing is a interesting
topic and today with every time we turn around we have price increases and that kind of stuff. We don't have an exact dollar amount of what we're shooting for from pricing. We don't have final house designs put together on this one yet. Um
I would really love to see uh you know a price target of about 4 to 500,000 per lot house completed package. Um I would love to be south of that if I could but I just don't know without cheapening things up that that that's a
realistic price target. So I would say, you know, somewhere in that 4 to 500 range, which sounds like a lot, but unfortunately today for new construction, that is affordable housing. >> Okay. Anything else you want to address?
>> Uh, highway department has looked and reviewed the traffic and traffic counts, and I I'm not an expert in that, and I have to rely that they're smarter than I am. That's it. I think I got everybody else's questions and if board if you
guys have any questions, I'd be happy or concerns, I'd be happy to look at them and address them and >> Okay. Thank you. Uh we'll bring it back to the board for discussion. Anyone have any items for discussion?
I think I think the only thing I want to point out somebody said uh something about we could change the lot size. That's not something that's in our purview. That's something that's uh zoned and would require a process to reszone that those parcels and that
would go to the county board. Uh so that's not an option for us uh to consider. questions, discussion if not uh could we bring up the proposed conditions for the preliminary plat. I believe there are seven
and I think they're the standard conditions we would apply to a preliminary plat. >> That would be correct. >> Sorry, >> we Oh, I'm sorry. Can't you hear me? >> Okay. All the questions for answer. >> Sorry ma ma'am that we've closed the
public testimony. It's now for discussion by the board. Um the conditions uh are on the screen. The board any comments or questions? If not, could we pull up the findings of
fact, please? These are the proposed findings uh for consideration by the board. Anyone have any additions or changes to the findings? >> Sure. We we can >> and we'll if you could scroll through we'll leave it up there so you could see
it. If there are no proposed uh additions or changes to either the conditions or the findings, then the uh it would be appropriate to have a motion relative to this item. >> Mr. Chair,
>> uh yes, sir. I'd like to make a motion to recommend approval of the to the county board the preliminary plat of trailside preserve with the 21 total lots with the findings of facts submitted in the staff report and the
conditions in the staff report. >> Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> Okay, there's a motion and a second to recommend approval to the county board for the preliminary plat. Any further
discussion? Hearing none, uh, I need to ask you two questions before we proceed to vote. Do you understand that this afternoon we are making a recommendation to the county board to approve your preliminary plat request? The county board has final approval over this request?
>> I do. >> And do you understand that the required conditions placed on the preliminary plat must be completed before applying for the final plat? >> I do. With that, uh, we would proceed to a vote then. All in favor of the motion signify by saying I. >> I.
>> Opposed, carried. So, it's recommended for approval to the county board. The county board will take this item up on what date? >> December 16th. >> So, they'll take this up at their meeting on December 16th where they have the final approval. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Item 4.2 Two on our agenda is Alan Poocher Jr. and Diane Larson for a variance request. >> In person or online? >> I am online. Kevin McCormack. >> Kevin McCormack. Could you please state
your name and address? Well, could you take just a minute here? People are exiting. >> Sure. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. They didn't answer questions. Both of that are less acre. Some of them are half acre.
Okay, Kevin, I think we'll be able to hear you. Could you state your name and address for the record, please? >> Thank you very much. Kevin McCormack with Land Design Solutions, 11821 Lake Trail, Cross Lake, Minnesota, representing Alan and Diane today. Thank
you very much. >> Okay. Thank you, Nichollet. Would you read it into the record, please? >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, tonight we have property owner Alan. >> Excuse me. Could Could we catch the door? It's hard to hear.
>> Okay. >> Okay. So, tonight we have property owner Alan Poucher Jr. and Diane Larson. Authorized agent is Kevin McCormack. The physical or sorry the parcel number is 60180542.
Uh physical address of the property is 36855 Bonnie Lakes Road in Emily and this is in Fairfield Township. The request for tonight is um a variance for a lake
setback of 33 feet where 75 is required to um proposed addition to a dwelling and a deck to construct a 435 square ft addition and also construct a 384 ft
addition to the south. So we have one addition on the north and one addition on the south. Let me kind of zoom in on the survey so you can see this. All right. So, this property is on Goodrich Lake. It is a general
development lake with a 75 ft setback. The proposed impervious is 3%. And this blue bluish purple existing house, this is existing. This is the north edition of 435 ft.
This is the south edition of 384. Um there was an existing deck off to the side. They are going to push that deck over and um keep it flush with the house so they're not increasing any closer to
the lake. If you remember from the site visit, there is a they're using their existing septic for this. And this is an existing septic tank that they are trying to maintain that setback of 10 ft. So, um they have a 14 ft set back
here proposed just to give it a little extra space, but that is why that house cannot be pushed further back. Um this will be a complete scrape and rebuild. they are adding the additions. Um, and
no other comments were received for this application and I can answer any questions you might have. >> Does the board have any questions of neglect on this item? >> I guess the question I have, Mr. Chair,
is is uh the request is for a 33 ft setback, but it shows that there's a 30 foot set back required in order to do the 14 ft addition to the north on this. It's not on our survey, but
it's on that one if I might add. Uh yes, that that's why we showed the uh building detail on that portion over to the side. Yes. Uh the lake takes a little bit of a turn on the inside in there and that far corner is
30 ft. What we're trying to emphasize on this piece is that we're holding the existing building line uh not going any closer to the lake. Uh as it tips up towards there, you'll see that uh uh 30ft distance does uh bring it a little
bit closer. As you look at the other side where the deck is placed, the lake starts to tip the other way. We start to gain a little ground. So, uh those dimensions there on that uh northerly edition is correct. That would be a 30ft
set back there. >> So, that would have to be the request would be for a 30-foot setback, not a 33. >> Correct. >> All right. >> Mhm. >> Apparently. >> Mhm. So the request before us is a 30foot lake setback where 75 is
required. So is that is the current structure then 30 or 33 ft? 33.5 is the existing structure from that corner to the ordinary high water on Goodrich.
You'll see it's 33.5 at both corners. So, so is it fair to say then that this is moving closer to the lake, a portion of it, because of the contour of the lot, >> Mr. Chair? That would be
>> appropriate. Just so we all know that as we consider it. Okay. Uh any other questions of staff? If not, uh Mr. McCormack, anything you'd like to add? Uh no, I think uh staff I'd like to
thank staff for their job there. Uh again, uh very uh diligent with their reports. Um I'd just like to emphasize that yes, we are holding the existing building line. The old deck is just a a shade closer. I think you'll see that
distance of 31 ft. Um the new deck, the new additions, they will adhere to that 33.5. Uh, as staff noted, the uh uh existing sewer tanks, they all meet the current setbacks. Uh, what happens with this lot
is is what we've seen many times before. This structure was placed uh well before the shoreland ordinance. Uh, and that is what creates the practical difficulty with the septic system and the existing structure and the wetlands to the rear.
We just don't have a lot of wiggle room to to to go to it. uh as the impervious for this uh uh does increase uh I actually had to round it up to get to the 3%. So in the grand scheme of things as far as impervious
this is uh very minimal. Uh with that if uh anyone has any questions otherwise uh that's that's the case. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I don't see any questions. So we'll open up the public hearing portion. Is there
anyone present that wishes to address this item? I see none in the courtroom. Is there anyone online that wishes to speak to this item? If so, please indicate with your hand icon.
And I see none. So, we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the board for any questions or discussion. Normally we don't like to see going closer to the lake, but the way the shoreline
curves in, I mean, they're going straight across. I mean, everything is in line, so I understand the minor change in the setback. So, I have no issues with this. >> Okay,
>> I echo her comments. It It makes sense. >> Okay. I just saw the request being 33 feet and see 30 foot something. >> We got to make sure we get it right. >> Thanks for uh catching that. Appreciate that. Could we bring up the conditions, please?
>> Yes, Mr. Chair. Conditions are on page 266. I believe there are three. Anyone have any additional conditions? >> If not, can we bring up the findings of fact, please? >> Mr. Chair, findings of facts are on page
267. >> Anyone have any additions or changes to the findings of fact? >> If if not, uh, a motion on this item would be in order. >> Mr. Chair, yes, I'll make a motion to
approve the variance request for 30 ft to the north corner. Um, >> is there a second? Oh, go ahead. >> Sorry. With the with the conditions and the the uh finding the facts.
>> Okay. Thank you. Is there a second? >> I'll second. Okay. It's been moved and seconded for approval of the 30-foot variance. Before we proceed to a vote, Mr. McCormick, I need to ask you four questions.
Uh, do you understand what is being approved tonight? >> Yes, sir, I do. >> Do you understand the conditions that are required as part of the approval? >> Yes, sir, I do. >> Do you understand that you must obtain permits now from the land services department before construction begins?
>> Yes, sir, I do. >> And the last question, do you understand that what is being approved tonight is final? Any future changes to what is being approved tonight, such as structure, size, height, or location, must be approved by this board. This means that you would be required to
submit a new application, pay the appropriate fees, and provide an updated survey, and any other required information with the new request. Staff cannot modify or change what has been approved by this board. >> Yes, sir. We understand.
>> Okay. Thank you. Well, then we'll proceed to vote. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> Opposed. Motion carried. >> Thank you very much for your time today. >> Thank you. >> We'd like to thank the uh uh the staff
and the board for their time and the resources and uh we appreciate the opportunity to rebuild. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Staff did a great job. Thank you.
Thank you. The final item this afternoon is Sean Kurpatre Trust for a variance request. You come to the table, please. Dan Worley with Live for Architecture 33853 Gendro Road Cross Lake
representing the owners. Jason TC Barto Brothers Construction 13872 Schaefer Road Cross Lake. >> Thank you. Nichollet, would you like to read the request into the record, please? >> Yes, Mr. Chair. Tonight we have a
property owner Sean Kurpatre Trust. Um authorized agent is Ben Barado. Um and live for Architecture. Parcel number is 68210581. Physical address is 8421 North Clamshell Lane in Pekquat Lakes, Minnesota. This
is in Ideal Township. And the request tonight is a variance for a road rideway setback of 4T. where 35 ft is required to the proposed attached garage addition. A lake setback of 63 feet where 75 ft is required to a proposed
covered patio. Drainfield setback of 15 ft where 20 ft is required to the dwelling. A lake setback of 50 ft where 75 is required to a proposed new septic tank and a lake setback of 40 ft where 75 ft is required
to a proposed new dwelling. to construct a 254 square foot attached garage edition, 385 foot covered patio, 128 ft covered porch entry on the non-lakeside,
and a 274 ft addition to the dwelling on the non-lakeside and install a new type 1 septic system. Your certificate of survey is on page 272 and I will walk you through each of these requests.
So, we're going to start on the roadside for the road right ofway for the 4-foot setback. If you can see my mouse, um this is where that road rightway and the property line for the culde-sac. Um we have a 4 foot setback proposed for the
garage edition. This hatch entryway here or this hatched section is the existing garage. The plan is to extend out and um create more garage space here. So that is the 254 ft garage edition.
Currently there is the entry of the home on the lakeside on um over here. The plan is to move the entry of the home on the non-lakeside. So you have the covered porch entry of 128 square ft
right here um with a 9 foot set back to the property line uh road right away. And then this, so this would be covered entry. This section right here is the proposed addition to the house which will be
enclosed. This is the entryway. This is the 274 ft addition here as well. On the lakeside, um this section will be added. This meets ordinance requirements and that 75 ft setback. Um, so that's part
of this, but then um this is an existing overhang. So this is already there. And then this square right here is the proposed um 385 square foot covered patio. So the patio
already exists. A roof will be added or is proposed. Um, we did receive one comment from the town >> septic location. >> Oh, septic location. I apologize. So, um this is going to be the proposed septic
tank 12 feet from the house. 10 is required. Um but it will be 50 ft back from the lake. And then we have a proposed drain field in this rectangle here which will actually be 40t back
from the lake. The existing drain field is is here. Um the proposal is for a new septic within this as well. One comment was received from the township recommending approval. Mr. Chair, if I could, just as a
reminder, the state standard for septic setbacks to a general development lake is 50 ft. Crowing has a more restrictive setback of 75. So the septic tank actually meets setbacks would be the 50 ft would meet the state standard. Uh the drain field is obviously a little bit closer at 40 ft. But if you look at the
location of the existing drain field, this is moving further away from the lake. It's going to be a new drain field. So, it'll be much better for the water quality of uh uh of the lake as well. I did we did receive a comment uh earlier today. We didn't get a chance to get printed off for you. Somebody had made a comment wondering why we'd
approve a variance at 40 ft for a septic system and why we wouldn't make them meet setbacks. And the response was because there's no building envelope to to locate it and it's pushing it further away from the lake than what's currently there right now. So, just want to give you that extra information. >> Oh, thanks, Chris.
Any uh questions of staff at this point? >> Anything you'd like to add? >> Uh just a little background. Um, I think most of you guys were on site, but the
uh the garage situation, it's, you know, it's an older building that's been kept up, but um we can't they can't fit a vehicle in the garage cuz it's so short. So, that's the ask there. Um, the cabin entry, you have to walk all the
way around the house to get into the building, and we're trying to correct that. Those are both the the township related items and we did meet with them and and they seem to be okay with that. Uh the septic situation we as Chris mentioned, we are improving that. Not we're not making that worse. We're
trying to make that better and that patio does exist. Um we're just trying to extend the living area a little bit out into the already covered area. >> Well, yeah. And it so there's a bay window and and an overhang and stuff on
that already, you know, so that I mean it's space they use that's already there. Uh that septic is underneath there too. So for us getting getting that out of there and improving that and then we would remove the stoop off that
lakeside also. And where Nichollet had mentioned that the existing overhang it's kind of deceiving from the plans. That's I mean there's elevation. That's two or three steps. You probably could see it in the photos, but Okay. Anything else?
If not, we'll open it up for uh public testimony. Anyone in here? I see a no. And so we have no one else in in person. And I'll go online and I see a hand up. So, uh please state your name and address for the record.
Hi, Michael Valley here. Uh, I uh at 8459 North Clamshell Lane, a neighbor, and I I was actually the one that asked that question about the septic uh setback. And I was hoping to get a little more clarity about the risk of
the drain field to the lake of being 40t versus 50 feet. And I think that was partly answered. Is there I guess my questions around just the setbacks and how we how how it's determined and is there safety issues
with a 40ft setback even though I understand that the current drain field is within that 40ft as it is. So I guess just a little better understanding of how these setbacks are uh determined and when there is a safety issue with the
environment in the lake uh based on the setback. >> Sure Mr. Chad be happy to answer that. So when a septic system is constructed, it uh it is required that the drain field have 3 ft of separation. That's called that's considered to be soil that is dry, that's not wet, doesn't have any
um issues where there's a water table. So there's a 3-ft separation to that. And the state of Minnesota says through the pollution control agency that when you have a septic system uh that has that 3 ft of separation, what that does is it it actually cleans the water so that when it exits the bottom of that drain field, it can go back in the
environment and be considered uh clean water as far as going into the lake and frankly for consumption as well. So um there is, you know, ideally we want to try to push septic systems away from the lake as far as we can. We try to get as many structures away from the lake as well just because we're trying to avoid
um dirt moving in those areas and trying to avoid erosion situations. But from the standpoint of having a septic system at 40 ft away from the lake in this um spot here, um it's the it's the best uh situation considering the significant
limitations that the lot provides. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. I see no one else. So, we'll bring it back to the board. Any discussion? If not, could we bring up first the
conditions? There's three conditions proposed for the variance. >> Mr. Chair, conditions are on page 288. Any additions to the conditions? Seeing none, can we pull up the findings of fact? >> Mr. Chair, findings of factor on page
289. >> Any proposed changes or additions to the findings effect? Hearing none, a motion on the item would be in order. I will move approval of the variance. Is there a second? >> Second.
>> Seconded by Rock. Before we go to a vote, I need to ask you the four questions you heard just a minute ago. Uh, do you understand what is being approved tonight? >> Yes, sir. >> Do you understand the conditions that are required as part of the approval?
>> Yes, sir. Do you understand that you must obtain permits now from the land services department before construction begins? >> Yes, sir. >> And finally, do you understand that what is being approved tonight is final? Any future changes to what is being approved tonight, such as structure, size, height, or location, must be approved by
this board. This means that you would be required to submit a new application, pay the appropriate fees, and provide an updated survey, and any other required information with the new request. Staff cannot modify or change what has been approved by this board.
>> Yes, sir. >> With that, we'll proceed to vote. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. >> I. Opposed. Carried. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> And that completes our business items. So, we would move to matters not on the
agenda. >> Correct. Uh so, just uh a couple things for next month. Um December 18th, we have the planning commission meeting. We have our on sites will be on December 4th. Uh and then um we have some stuff to go over next month. It's going to be
a little bit of a busy meeting. We will have the ordinance public hearing. We're going to have an appeal of a staff decision. So staff made a decision for a property up in Jenkins Township. I believe it's in Jenkins Township on Delta Bay where the river where the Pine River comes into Whitefish. And uh and
there's a plat that was done and there was lot block one and block two. And um and so you had block one is the non-reparent and there's the the block that goes with it. And they were meant to be basically giving access across Delta Bay Drive to get down to the lake.
And um and somebody decided they wanted to sell one of these lots that were in lot that were in block two that was intended for uh only to get provide access. And so now somebody bought it and they want to build a house there. Um, and so, uh, we've got information, we've got records, we'll provide all
that to you, um, that show that we've got county board minutes from 1971 that say those were not buildable lots. They were meant for access for the lots behind um, and that information. And so, uh, um, they've got an attorney to represent him who's going to try to, you know, convince you guys otherwise that
this is considered a buildable lot. It did require a wetland replacement plan as well. So, the lot is is basically flood plane and wetland. Um, they could have met setbacks, I think, right? or would they had a variance? I can't remember. >> Oh, no. They went with a they would have been able just a wetland replacement plan. >> Yeah, they could have they could have
met setbacks. Um, so it's a it is a fairly big the lots as you head up to the kind of more up to the north on it are much smaller. This is a little bit bigger lot, but I think that was just because it was the remnant when they platted it. Um, and so, but just to give you guys that heads up that that's uh coming down the pike. Um,
>> before you go, are you done with that item? >> Yep. >> Can you just refresh us? Um I think it's in the ordinance. Uh but will you refresh us what our process is relative to? >> Absolutely. So just to go back to the very beginning. So um Minnesota statutes
394 has a provision that says any decision made by staff um is appealable to the board of adjustment. And so in our ordinance we've got a provision under 8.7 that has that in place. And so we're required to have a public hearing. We're required to publish notice. We
don't mail notice to people. We don't have to mail notice out to it. We just publish the public hearing. And uh and then you have to decide based on two criteria. Your finding a facture based on two criteria. One is was the decision made by staff arbitrary and capriccious. And number two, was it not in
conformance with the ordinance? Uh those are the two the the standards that has to be met to show that that you know staff either made the right choice or made the wrong choice. And so the way that would work is that the the the attorney is putting together a brief now. He's going to provide that to staff
and then um I'm going to provide a memo to you guys kind of basically kind of a response and then um during the public hearing the the attorney and possibly the property owner will sit at the table and and present their case. I'll present my case. You guys will deliberate um and
then decide if you think staff made the right decision or the wrong decision. if we made, you know, if we made the right decision and you denied the appeal, they got a 30-day window to appeal that to district court. Um, and then, you know, if uh I don't know how that would happen, but if let's say you said, "I
made the wrong decision, you know, um technically the county board could sue you and take you to take you to court." That that has happened in Wright County where they their county board sued their their board of adjustment. >> That'd be interesting. >> It would be very interesting. So, they sued themselves. So, so that'll be the
process. Do we need uh findings or is our finding simply to make a decision on those two items? >> I'm going to I part of my memo to you will include a finding a fact worksheet with those two and I will list the findings in those in that why I think so I will have a preliminary finding.
>> You'll have a draft. >> So this this lot was not tied to the other properties by a tax roll or anything. It was a standalone lot that somebody paid taxes on for this last. But if you go up into the plat, lot one
owns lot one, lot two owns lot two, lot three owns lot three. I mean, everybody everybody owns it. To be honest, I think the the sticky wicket on this is that the plat should have said this and it and it didn't. And so what the platt said is kind of the verbiage they put on back then, which is basically subject to
restrictions and um basically that. And so we're arguing, well, the restriction came from the county board when they approved the final plat stating that block two was not meant to be buildable lots. So that's that's where we're kind of hanging our hat on that. >> In a perfect world, that should have been reflected on the plat.
>> Correct. And and what they're going to argue is that, well, when we did our title search, that didn't show up. That's going to be one of their big arguments that didn't come up in a title search. And it's true. It didn't come up on a title search. But just because it's
not everything on the title is everything that controls a piece of property. So just a a heads up on that. Okay. >> How many variances were are not going to be on sites? >> Um we had two taken away. So we had two
variances get taken off and one >> So we're going to have so next month we'll have five variances, two conditional use permits, three lumas and one plinary plat. And then this the appeal of staff decision and the ordinance. So we have eight eight items for site visit. We
don't need to go to the lumas. Right. >> Right. >> Right. >> So eight items for a site. >> I plan I plan on being at the onsites. >> Okay. >> I do too. Okay. Um the one one bit of feedback I think I would like to provide is that when
people call after the meetings and sometimes they're upset it they they sometimes feel like you didn't interact with them enough like respond when they were after the you know and give some feedback. I think on that plat tonight I you know I'm guessing I'll probably get some phone calls tomorrow and next week
that you didn't listen to them and they'll say they didn't even talk to us. that didn't respond to any of our questions, especially the woman in the front row who said we didn't answer all of her questions and stuff. So, um I just think when we have those, especially the contentious ones, I know it's no fun and we don't like it, but we need to we need to banter with them a
little bit and and you know, cuz as I'm we just got our remember the cup for the up in uh up on Pelican that got appealed for the dock lift for Kitsman. We just saw the brief on that and their argu their argument is that you ignored all of their you didn't talk to them, you
didn't listen to them. The public comment didn't matter. That's what Sever which is it's bologoney. I mean, you did a great job with that one. Um, so that was that was something they're hanging their hat on. But one thing I did notice that Jason Kabuchek, who's our attorney, when I read his brief today, was making
comments about, you know, the the county has preliminary findings in the report. They've got con conditions to report but he was making it very clear that when we make motions we say we approve the you know we're going to approve the variant for 60 feet d based on the preliminary
the finding the fact in the I mean I think he wants you to actually >> verbally say that >> I I personally think that's lawyer lawyering BS >> it could be Yep. that does the county board do that when they make their
motions on very momentous things? No. Do they uh does the county attorney say to them, "Well, you need to say all that detail that's in the record." Um, no. And has it diminished their ability
relative to getting sued? No. So, I mean, you could say we should read the entire summary of the staff report in our motion to say we've incorporated all these things, but I think any person that reads it says, "Well, the staff report was presented. It was in the
record. We heard it. Of course, we brought the findings up. We brought the conditions up. We didn't change it." So, we're now saying that in summary, we're moving to approve it. So, I have to go all the way back through all those steps in order to for the lawyer to say that's making it more legitimate. I would
suggest that just seems lawyering to me. I would think if a I think a judge is smarter than that. >> Well, and I think what I think Jason would argue probably if he was here that some of the decisions that the county board makes versus the decisions you
make are maybe different in nature, land use. And I think he's going off of, excuse me, previous case law and how they've, you know, how they've seen, you know, things happen in the past. So, >> they make land use decisions. They make lumas. They make plants. >> Thanks, Andy.
>> Yep. See you, Andy. >> I mean, I'm not I accept his >> point, but I'm just saying I bet I could talk to other lawyers that would say the record is clear. It's part of the record, right? Well, and I think we'll a lot of times um when we get the appeal
and the judges make the decision, they often times will editorialize a little bit about what was good and what wasn't good. Um I remember when we had the cup appeal for Trout Lake Camp, they editorialize that our findings were weak. They were good enough, but they're kind of weak is what the was the court
of appeals said. Um so, you know, sometimes they'll give us a little feedback and tell us things that they thought we should have done different or better. So, we'll you know, we'll hear that. We haven't even got it. There's no They have to still go and now present to the court of appeals. So that's a three judges they have to go present to them
and uh Sever will be there and then Jason will be there and they'll they'll do their little thing. I won't we won't staff won't have to be there, I don't think. But um so just that I think that's the only thing that I noticed when reading his brief today that he was really focusing on you know the finding a fact in the packet and and that stuff.
So, but otherwise I don't, you know, I don't think he he made it very clear today that he thinks we'll win. He he thinks we have a very strong argument and a good case and a good file. So, he's not worried about it. >> Can I go back to the interaction thing? Um, I'm not sure I'm following the
point. We we've never, at least my service here, we've never gone back and forth as a board with people providing public input. I think when I think when it's done, I think after they're not while they're doing it, but after they're done, I think I think some of them feel like you didn't consider their
ideas because you never mentioned it. I think so. I >> Well, I mentioned one. >> Y >> we're not obligated. We can't reszone. >> Right. >> Right. Yep. >> It was mentioned that the highway department already has weighed in. I spoke to the traffic concern. I had the list in front of me.
>> The applicant spoke to the price of homes. he spoke. Uh we already addressed the lot size which was their big issue, right? >> That that was done by the county board. Um we didn't uh address the house on the hill. That's a very specific thing.
>> Might know which one they're talking about, but >> we of course didn't address trees because of course any development takes down trees. So, I mean, I went through the list as I was listening and I didn't see anything that hadn't been >> answered. And if they heard what you
said at the beginning, you answered a number of their questions. >> Right. Exactly. >> That they didn't listen to, >> right? They didn't listen. >> No. Exactly. >> Right. So, I mean, um I don't know. I thought I I I But you're not suggesting
we start a banter. Not at all. And and my view is it's public testimony. So you put questions on the record, >> right? >> Um y >> and sometimes we respond to them and sometimes >> right >> and I always I always when people call me and have these complaint they when they don't like it, I say that the board
has a discretion. I said uh as to how they choose to interact and what questions they want and and they direct staff to do what what you want us to do and respond. Um you know sometimes I'll admit I I probably jump in and answer questions. I should probably be looking to the chair first before I answer some questions. But um it's
>> not our responsibility to address traffic safety. If they got an issue with a hill on the road or something on Wise Road, they need to contact the highway department. That's not our I mean they have the adequate interest and onto the
wise road through Gilbert Lake Road and trailside. That's what we look at. I don't I mean I'm not an expert when it comes to traffic safety that they need to address that with the highway department if there's an issue with the hill or something. >> Yeah. And highway never mentioned that in their comment about traffic and those
issues. I think I think you have I mean if you wanted to I think from a board perspective you could say huh I think this is going to increase the traffic out here. I don't think we should approve the plat.