That was just an FYI. >> Oh, yeah. >> Do I get one if I promise to be good? >> You absolutely do. >> Just so you know, um I've got a phone call with our West Coast client at 6.
So, I got to be out of here by talk all you want. >> But you're leaving? >> I'm leaving about 5:15. Thank you for the treat. >> You're welcome. >> Love
You were >> sharing your microphone there. >> Okay, thank you. Do you mind? at that point of the agenda. >> Yeah, sounds great. >> Okay.
>> When Rock's not here, are you going to make a motion? >> Sure. >> I don't want to stand on That funny guy. >> Oh, yeah. That little funny guy. Ready? Welcome to Crowing County's Planning
Commission and Board of Adjustment meeting. It's 3:00 on April 16th, 2026. Please rise for the pledgece to the flag of the United States of America and to the stands. One nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> If you have not already done so, if you'd please silence your cell phones and if you are online, please make sure that you have m muted your microphone
until you are ready to speak. Please note that this public hearing is being recorded. The first item on the agenda is roll call. Rock Yelini is not here. Please note that. Jean Ojay >> here. >> Sumasi >> here.
>> Andy Larson >> here. >> And I am Rebecca Best. The next item is to approve the agenda. Are there any changes to the agenda? >> Yes, madam chair. Thank you. We like to add item 6.11, river shores on white
fish plat extension and 6.12 foster variance to consider um amendments to conditions on that variance. >> Thank you. Any other changes or additions? >> No, none from staff. Thank you.
>> Okay. Uh if not, then I'd ask for a motion to approve the agenda. >> Move to approve as amended. >> Second. >> There's a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Not all those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I.
>> The agenda is approved. The next uh item is to approve the minutes and findings of fact for the meeting held on um last month on March. Looking for my date here. >> Sorry, Madam Chair, for not having that
in there. >> Yeah, that's okay. >> March 19th. >> March 19th. There we go. I was trying to do a calendar in my mind for the meeting minutes of March 19, 2026. >> Madam Chair, >> yes. >> Make a motion to approve the minutes and findings from the March 19th, 2026
Planning Commission Board of Adjustment meeting. >> There's a motion in a second. Uh any discussion hearing? None. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. Same sign.
Uh the minutes are approved. Today we have two items of old business and now we have 12 items of new business and we greatly appreciate your patience. Our procedures when we call your application, you'll be admitted to the meeting. If you are online or if you are
in person, please come to the table up front and state your name and address for the record. We then will have staff read your request into the record. We then give the applicant an opportunity to add any new information that has not been previously submitted. After that,
we will open the request up for public testimony. And today we have two public testimony opportunities. One here in person, one online. And 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're speaking in person, please come to the microphone at the podium in the center of the aisle. In either case, you will then be given five minutes to give
your testimony. And we do actually time those testimonies to 5 minutes. Please do not repeat what someone else has said. And please do not read your emails or letters that have already been sent. Uh, everyone who does wish to give testimony will have an opportunity to do
so. Once we close public testimony, we will not reopen it. We then will bring it back to the applicant to address the items brought forth from the public. Our rules of conduct are please be respectful. For the applicant, that means to sit quietly during the public
testimony period, and for the audience, it means to do the same for the applicant as they respond to your testimony. All questions and statements are to be directed to this board or members of the staff, not to the applicant. Anyone that I feel is being disrespectful or not following these
rules will be asked to leave or would be disconnected from the meeting. The decision process for a preliminary plat or land use map amendment request. We make a recommendation to the county board. For a variance, conditional or interim use permit request, we make the
final decision. We make our decisions based on our findings of fact. To help us do that, we do several things. We do on-site visits where we physically go to the property and examine the site and look at what's being planned. Prior to attending this meeting, we each read every letter and email that is submitted
and then we hear public testimony and we listen to the applicant. I would like to pause for a moment to let you know the public that we greatly appreciate your correspondence and input and we have all read the submitted comments. In addition to that, we have a worksheet that we use
to help summarize the findings of fact. Preliminary findings have been included in the staff packet. Next, I will ask each board member if they have reviewed the preliminary findings of fact that were provided in the packet. Sue, >> I have. >> Andy,
>> I have. >> And John, >> I have. >> And I have as well. Uh, with that being said, our first applicant of this evening under old business would be Cobble Press Properties LLC. >> Good afternoon. Tyler Pereiraba, the land surveyor from
Woodsth, 10878 Brent Drive, Briner, Minnesota. >> And Brad Pson, the attorney for the applicant. >> Thank you. Would you please read the U request into the record, please? Nichollet. >> Yes, ma'am. M madame chair. Um, tonight
property owner is Cobble Crest Properties LLC. Authorized agent is Woodsth or uh Tyler Pgriba. Um parcel number 500-70563. Physical address is 230001 Clearwater Point Road in Brainard and this is in
Bay Lake Township and the current land use is Shorland. Um going to page 12 of your packet. The property is located on Clearwater Lake, um, which is a recreational development lake with a 100 foot setback. New parcels on a recreational development
lake must have a minimum lot size of 40,000 square ft, a minimum buildable area of 16,000 square feet, and a minimum lot width of 150 ft. This item was heard at the March 19th public hearing, at which time the board tabled the application. There was a lastminute
change in the design of the proposed driveway and the board wanted to allow the township to review the proposal as the township would require a permit for the proposed driveway. Going to page 14 of your packet is the survey or the preliminary plat.
Let me just kind of zoom out here. Um so there are two requests tonight, Madam Chair, and I would suggest running the public hearing for them together. um making a separate motion on each. The request tonight is a variance for 65 cubic yards of dirt moving within the
bluff impact zone where no dirt moving is allowed. Um the placement of a driveway located within a bluff impact zone where um the driveway is required to meet a 30-foot bluff setback. And the second request is a preliminary plat,
the Clearwater Point second edition with four total lots. Um, just to remind you, lots three and four are on the north side of Clearwater Point Road. Lots one and two are on the south side. Both um are on Clear Water Lake. Existing access
for lot one is currently through a parcel of land which is not owned by Cobble Crest Properties and an easement for access was not obtained to continue utilizing the driveway. The applicants are proposing to reroute the driveway through the bluff impact zone to create legal access to lot one. Their first
proposal was for the driveway to go through the bluff impact zone and go straight to connect to Timber Trail. A few days before the March 19th public hearing, the applicant submitted an alternative option to wrap around and connect to the existing driveway access on Timber Trail and engineered plan for
erosion control has been submitted with this application as part of the variance request. All proposed parcels with within this plat meet the land use ordinance requirements for lot size, width, and buildable area for repairarium parcels on a recreational development lake with the exception of
lot one needing a variance request. A comment was received from the township on January 14th recommending denial of the application stating concerns of conforming lot size. After that comment was received, the applicant updated the request to include the variance for the driveway. The township then submitted
another comment recommending to deny the application, stating concerns of the driveway location, safety of pedestrians utilizing the road, as well as concerns of how the proposal will impact the bluff um zone over time. At the March 19th public hearing, the application was tabled to allow the township more time
to review the change in driveway location proposed by the applicants. An updated comment was received from the township on March 15th recommending denial of the application stating the request for a variance was not necessary as there seems to be an alternative option available that would not require
a variance. Um 12 comments were received from the public. one with no objection to the application and 11 stating concerns of the new proposed driveway creating unsafe conditions, noting limited sight lines within the driveway in either direction of Timber Trail. Concerns on
pedestrian ATV, golf cart safety, uh traffic, as well as feasibility of emergency vehicle access into lot one. Um I can answer any other questions you might have. >> Scroll down to the new design. >> Oh, yeah. Uh, do you want it just
>> the one that they put together? We just got recently. >> This one. >> Okay. Are there any uh questions from the board at this time? Is there anything that you would like to add? >> I could add a few comments. I don't want to repeat everything I said since I was here last month. Although some of you
were not here last month, but just really briefly, most of the negative comments were regarding moving a creating a new driveway north of where it's now being aligned and that would make it closer to that sharp turn and there was worried about, you know, safety concerns. Those those problems
should all be moot at this point because we've the new alignment comes back into where the existing access is. If that makes sense to you. Why we're needing a variance is because if you look at that triangle there, >> excuse me, Brad, there's a pointer right in front of you there. If you want to, that might help.
>> Thank you, Chris. So, we we're going to go up here, which would be closer to the sharp turn, and that's where most of the comments were from. Now, we're going this is our old alignment right here, but this is the new proposed road. Now, it's the exact same entry. So, all those
comments really are now moot. Why we need a variance at all is this amount of land right here, it's about 80 square feet, is not owned by the applicant, but it's owned by the neighbor and we're unable to get an easement agreement in place. So, we're just going in the township right away back to the original
alignment. We we tabled this last meeting or you tabled this last meeting to kind of get the town board to react again to the new application. There was I don't think any comments or concerns about the access point because it's the same as it is now. So all those concerns went away, but there was still
concern about this being too sharp a turn for emergency vehicles or there's still work in the bluff impact and there could be erosion or problems in the town right away or the road. Our professional engineers and surveyors all assured them it's this is an engineered plan and that that the work in the rightway is in the
bluff impact zone is very dimminimous. I they don't have any st professional staff. I I wouldn't it would be nice if Chris would comment if this is consistent with my experience is this work in the bluff right away is very dimminimous and we've approved other applications like this many many times
so it' be consistent with past practice but the township didn't have that staff expertise but in my mind the only issue right now is is this new alignment unsafe even though we've had engine drying saying it is safe or is it cause too much um of an impact in the bluff
impact zone I think that's really the issue for today. I'll note too that the the first application um required a lot more fill than the the new application. It's about a third of what the last application was. So now there's less than two ton trunks of fill needed to complete the
work in the town right away. I talk fast, so please ask questions or make me say that slower if need be. >> Thank you. Any questions from the board at this time for Brad? Okay. Okay. And did you want to address what?
>> Um I I would probably defer to highway on this one. This is I'm not can't say I've had a lot of experience with this. So Matt, any feedback on the highway side? >> Uh yeah, with this I mean it's not a county road, but based on you know some of the access stuff that we deal with at
the for county jurisdiction roads, access points are a huge uh point of emphasis for us. So whether you're adding one or taking one away or in this case having the same access point, um we see that as a positive. Um I wasn't at the last meeting. I was out. But if you
if you're saying the driveway was supposed to be to the north, um if this was our road, we would deny that pretty quickly. So um based on highway perspective, this is an improvement. Um that being said, I haven't been out there and seen sight lines and stuff like that, but um based on what I'm
seeing here, it's an improvement from last month. Thank you. >> Can I add just one thing? >> Certainly. >> Um, Nichollet, so just Yeah, the applicants had revised the driveway location connecting to the to the
previous um existing driveway location. So, the net the net cubic yards that we're moving is 24. Um but as you can see if you go back to the to the prelim plat out of that 24
um there's there only a small portion of it is within the bluff impact zone and that that is a do you have a the updated one? >> Yeah. This should suffice as well.
This the the darkened portion there that is where the bluff impact zone is. This area right in here is not within the bluff and our total project although it does still cont. The total project is 24
cubic yards. This is the only portion that's within the bluff impact zone. All I wanted to do is clarify that. >> Thank you, >> Madam Chair. >> Yes. >> Um, so in that clarification, you're saying instead of 115 cubic yards, you
need 24. You're requesting 24. So you say it's not much in the bluff impact zone. Can you tell me how much is in the bluff impact zone? >> Well, I don't have the the the definite
numbers. The total I'm looking at the engineering plans right here. The net earthwork that's going to be um cut is 24 cubic yards. That's for the entire project. So where it connects from
from right here all the way to right here, they're proposing 24 cubic yards. Um I mean this this is the area that's within the bluff impact zone. I mean, and I would say less than a fourth. >> So, Tyler, can I have you clarify
something for us? So, you have total project here. >> Yep. >> Excavation cut 40 cubic yards. >> Yep. >> Then embankment fill 15 cubic yards. And so, are we cutting 40 cubic yards? >> Yeah. So, they're proposing to utilize
some of the some of the dirt that's going to be moved for the grading. That that's what they're planning to do. So, I think there needs to be a clarification on dirt moving amounts because it's not the net gain, it's total moved. Cut is one. And even if you're moving it over and placing here
and using that, that's two. >> And the shoreline alteration permit is that that allows for 100. >> Yeah. >> Okay. But with we, excuse me, um, madam chair, but with with the location in the bluff impact zone, we wouldn't allow a we
couldn't issue a permit because of the of the bluff of the bluff at that point. So that's why the 65 cubic yards is what you see on the request is what we're talking about tonight. It's at 65 total yards. >> Madam Chair, Chris, >> yes. Where did they come up with this? Because I'm looking at the numbers. We
got 40, 15, and 24. That does not come up to 65. that comes up to 79. >> There's also this within property boundary 8 and three. So we just took all of the excavation cut fill cut fills
and I'm not sure where the net what the net was meaning but we count cut and fill for dirt. >> So is it 65 or is it what's up there >> that up there between >> plus >> the excavation and the embank and the
embaitment or whatever it is. So it be 60. It' be 66. If you were if you to take the excavation cut fill for both, it would be 66. >> 66. >> Yep. >> Well, it's it's it's 55 for the entire project. This is broke down the within
property boundary. That's only including this right here. >> Okay. That's where the Okay. >> So it should be 55. >> But 55 would be the total 55. Okay. >> So So Madam Chair, >> yes. Um, I just have to ask again. The application that's on my screen in front
of me says 115 cubic yards. >> Is the uh is it now >> 65? >> 55. >> 55. So why >> are you looking So can you go back to the go back to the um page one of the
staff report please? Um, >> so the version that we have up on the that we've posted to the website is at 65 is what then that's what we're looking at right now. >> It's on page nine of the packet. >> Okay. I'm looking at page 52 of the
packet that maybe still has the old number. >> I think page nine. >> Yeah, I think that's was from previous meetings. And so then Sorry about that. >> Yeah, no problem. >> What What is the number we've arrived at now? I've heard 55. >> It's now 55. Even though the packet says 65, it's 55. >> 55.
>> But it's still in the bluff impact zone, but it's not clear how much of it is in the bluff impact zone. Is that what I heard? Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Anything else from the board? Anything else you'd like to add? Okay. At this time then we will open up this
request for public testimony. Today we will have, as I said, two public testimony opportunities. And we start with the courtroom. Good. Good afternoon. >> Good afternoon. My name is Don Hails. I live at 14994 Gro Lane in Dearwood. For the record, I am a supervisor in Bay
Lake Township. I'm the the chair of that board. Uh I'm a little confused. Last month I came here and this the day of the meeting there was a change in the design of the driveway. We didn't get notified of that until I got here. Tonight I'm wondering which are we
looking at? Are we looking at the the hair pin or are we looking at this? >> The hairpin. Okay. Correct. >> And we don't know how much dirt is being moved in the uh bluff impact zone. >> 65 total yards for the project.
>> And how much is allowed? >> Zero. >> Zero. So they can't move a teaspoon of dirt without a variance. And they're suggesting to move several large dump trucks of dirt. Uh
I have I Bay Lake Township has two main issues with this situation here. That bluff is extremely delicate. Uh we've had dirt slides that have come down that bluff onto our road that we've had to have people go out and clean up.
Uh it is a very dangerous section of that road. For those of you that have been out there, you know how the elevation is extreme. Brad, do you hand me the pointer, please? Can you zoom out here a bit? >> More yet? More yet? >> You want me to go to the survey, Don?
>> Go up to the top one then. Or okay. Starting about here, the elevation comes up. Big sharp turn. It comes up here. It's an extremely curvy uh not just
curves but sharp corners uh a lot of elevation and you can go back to the other one. Now I just want to show that is okay here. So that really the dangerous part of this road starts about here and comes up all the way up through here.
This driveway here goes all the way down and comes out on a very flat area on Clear Water Point Road. Trish you were shaking your head. Yes. You you noticed that when you were out on on site, >> correct? >> Uh to to to get a variance, you have to have a practical difficulty. They want
to put this driveway in on a very dangerous situ spot on the road when they already have an access to the property on a very flat I won't call it a straightaway, but it's pretty darn straight and it's very flat. Uh so what
what they really have here is a want, not a need. The need is to get access to their property. They already have that. Okay. This is a want to get out this way. Now, the public has the right of their health, safety, and welfare. And by
putting this here, you're taking that right away from them. Anybody that's walking on this road, rollerblading, running, driving, biking, it's going to be an extremely dangerous lo. And so, we're asking again to have this
denied for those reasons. There's no practical difficulty here. Okay, they have access. This is just an extra access that they wish to have. The dirt meeting that should be totally denied. There's zero dirt moving within the
bluff impact zone as we all know. 65 cubic yards of several dump trucks. So again, Bay Lake Township is asking to have this denied. >> Any questions for me? >> Any questions? >> Thank you much. Appreciate it.
>> Thank you. Please come up and state your name and address for the record. >> My name is Steve Lindamman. I live at 23011 Clearwater Point Road, which is right next door to the applicant's property.
Um, my five siblings and I have owned this property along with my parents who are deceased uh for 40 years. >> I was going to May I ask you to pull that microphone a little bit closer, please? >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> I was going to talk about what a special
place Clear Water Lake is, but I'm sure that you're aware of it and time is limited, but it's important because the environmental impacts to this lake are very important for the community. It's at the top of the watershed. It's a very pristine lake and everything that happens at Clearwater Lake flows into
the Nokasippi River and everything beyond it. So environmental issues are of significant concern. Now you have a lot of materials in front of you. I wanted to expedite my presentation. So I brought hard copies of the photos uh that I had submitted. They are in the
binders in front of you, >> these white binders. >> And um I would I would like to run through those photos really quickly. And the reason is I think those photos tell a story that is not told by looking at the drawings alone. But if you look at
the first exhibit uh in the binder, it is a drawing in which I've highlighted the driveway that goes all the way across. So there's a sort of a fold out in exhibit number one. Uh and I've shaded in orange the driveway that goes all all the way
across. Um that drawing doesn't really tell the whole story. That's why I took the photos and I just want to walk you through them uh very quickly uh because I I went out after the last meeting to look at exactly what this uh area looked
like. And from the first photo in in exhibit three, uh this is from the property corner where our property meets the applicant's property and my brother is standing approximately 40 ft away. That is the
outer curve of the new proposed driveway. The sort of hookshaped driveway. That's where he's standing. >> Madam Madame Chair, I apologize for the interruption. Would could the applicant have one of these books to see what they're speaking to while they're
speaking to it? >> I have no need to see the photos. >> Okay. >> At the bottom of the town meeting. >> Okay. I I did bring extra books. >> Okay. Sorry, Madam Chair. >> No, thank you, though. Um, and I did go over these at the Bay Lake Town meeting. Uh, the next photo
shows a closeup of my brother in that same position. So, if you think about that hook-shaped driveway, he's at the outer circumference of the driveway. And right in front of him, you can see where the the hill slopes very steeply down to the road. So whether you call it a bluff
impact zone or not, and I have real questions because the bluff impact zone stops at the property line, the bluff doesn't stop at the property line. The bluff continues and I don't know why it's only shaded up to the property line. If you go out there and
if you look at the topographic lines, it's still a bluff there. So, if you look there, it just stops hard at the property line right there. The shading stops for no apparent reason. I think it's still a bluff. And
I think the photographs bear that out. Um, if we go to the next photo, shows my brother standing in that very same position. And if you look down, this is looking to the west. That's not a bluff. I don't know what is. It's very steep right in that location. that is right on
the edge of this new proposed driveway. If you look at the next uh photo, I think this is another this is a key photo that really tells the story. In order to build this driveway, they're going to have to clearcut and strip away
all the dirt in that area. You can see this driveway would go right between the building that's shown and where my brother is standing. There are at least a dozen mature trees right there. Their roots are what hold that soil in
place. There's other vegetation there. And then the driveway would loop around. And on the other side, if you continue along, uh skip over the the next photo. Um and then >> what p What number are you on right now, Steve? What picture number?
>> So, I'm at picture number six. >> Okay. And we're going to start going counterclockwise following the road curving around. So we're looking across the driveway that trespasses on our property right here. And he is standing at the property
corner. And so the new driveway would loop around him and then come back. >> You got about a minute and a half. >> Yeah, I understand. And I ask for your indulgence so I can get through uh these photos. I think they're very important. Uh,
>> we do need to be mindful of time. I'm sorry, sir. >> I I >> That's fine. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Um, if you continue around the road. So, now this is looking south. It's looking up the hill. I'm sorry.
Look looking west. It's looking up the hill that would be clearcut and flattened for construction of this new driveway. uh it's going to be turned into a a flat kind of subsidance zone and
all of the vegetation that's currently there will be gone. Now, this continues around uh this is from Clearwater Point Road looking up to the uh end of that radius of the driveway. Again, a very
steep hill up to where my brother is. Continue around to the other side. Now we're looking east, even steeper. This is exactly what Mr. Hailes was talking about. This is the area in which they've had a slide, and he is right on the edge of the new
proposed driveway location. As you can tell, I feel feel very strongly about this. This is not about the money for my family. This is about the environment and this is about public safety. And this uh is a a disaster
waiting to happen if they build this. And you can build anything on on a drawing, but when you do it in real life, you have to excavate down, create a stable base and build on top of it. And if you look at the drawing that shows where
this driveway is going to go, um the limits of excavation are within a foot of the driveway, right on the edge, the precipice of that slope. You cannot build that without digging down, putting
a stable base, and putting a retaining wall around that. Their plan doesn't show anything like that. I'm in construction law. I know how these things are built. and you could not build this without doing a lot more excavation than what they're talking
about. I think it's also important to note that the survey that was submitted does not reflect the change in imperous surfaces from this new driveway. The prior uh drawing, you can see it's right
up there in the screen. It shows that they would remove the existing driveway. Their new proposal, which has less excavation, would leave the driveway in place. What that would do is double the amount of imperous surface right in that
area. Where does that go? It flows right onto Clearwater Point Road and it flows right down the gutter alongside Clearwater Point Road. That would also be an environmental hazard. Now, it's been discussed that that
tightly radius curve is also a problem for access for emergency vehicles. As you can see in the drawing and as we've seen in the photos, there's a building right next to that uh entrance into the driveway. So, a a fire truck coming in
would have to take a sharp right turn, do the hairpin turn, and then take a sharp right turn again to get through there. You can imagine in the wintertime with snow banks high along there, how would a big vehicle get through there? There's no room to swing the backside out. It would be a problem. Not just for
them, but for everyone. If there were a fire, we are all on the same road. We have no way out except for right there. Now, I've I've submitted a lot of material. I'm not going to go over that, but one thing I want to say is, >> Madam Chair, point of order. We're at uh
10 minutes for one speaker. >> Okay, >> I will I will wrap it up. >> Two people have yielded their time, so I'm giving the >> five more minutes. >> Go ahead, sir. >> Thank you. Thank you. The preliminary plat cannot be approved unless there is
adequate legal access to each lot in this development. Now, the commission can't rely on what the applicant say says they might do in the future to make that access. They have to have dedicated legal access to each lot. They have a
solution to the problem because they have, if we look back at that drawing with the orange shaded driveway, they have access from the west side for both pieces of the property. They can give themsel an easement across that. They
have not yet done so and unless they do or unless you grant these variances, the preliminary plat cannot be approved. Now, Cobbler's position is based on the assumption they're entitled to subdivide
their property in the manner proposed, but that is not correct. They are not entitled to subdivide it unless it meets all of the legal requirements, including adequate legal access. Now the standard for obtaining a variance is the applicant must show
practical difficulties for reasonable use of the property. In this case they have used this property for more than 60 years with no practical difficulties. The only difficulties here are created by their desire to subdivide this property to maximize the profit that
they get from the sale. That is not enough to justify a variance. Now, the staff has already prepared recommended it findings of fact for denying the variance and for approving the variance. I'm not going to go
through the ones for denying it. I think they were very well drafted. I think they're very appropriate for this situation and I would urge you to make those findings and deny the variance. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Is there anyone else in the courtroom who would like to address this
application? Please come forward if so. Anyone else in the courtroom? Seeing no one, we'll go to online. Is there anyone online? No one online. Okay, I'll bring back. >> There's one. >> There is one. Okay, let's go ahead.
John, you'll need to unmute your microphone and state your name and address for the record, please. >> Uh, hi, this is John Northrup. I uh right across the street from the from
the the Cobblecrest properties. I I join their property across the street. I join their property down on lot three and four on on north side of the road. Um my address at home is 16689 Isosles
Avenue in Lakeville. My address uh in Clearwater is 23020 Clearwater Point Road. >> Thank you. Um, I just want to say that uh first of all
uh the attorney for the the the um for Cobble Crest stated that the most of the comments that were made uh regarding the driveway were uh a mute point a moot
point because uh they changed the driveway. Well, that is not true. Uh I certainly speak for myself and uh from the any of them I read you know they um have problem with the new one. You know
for one thing uh I I have Bill Welch or uh Bill Welch when he owned the property and was alive who owned the property for many years.
when I moved in, he he ca 10 years ago, he came out and said, uh, you know, we met each other. He's very nice man. And he he said, uh, you know, your corner of your property is I parked my boat on that, so here's your stake over here. And he pointed out the stake over there.
So, I don't know. I guess that's within the the is that the county uh uh right away there on the on the side of the road? So, I don't know. But my stake is over right alongside that garage where they where they right where they're
going to dig the the the uh the loop out there. They where where they want to. So my question is uh what about that? you know, I I I own that. And and um then uh you know, just the
other thing of uh apparently they have an illegal driveway right now that crosses uh the the Lindamman property and and and you know, I'm just not for any more driveways and any more access onto that road. I'm not
I'm not for the subdivision of the properties because it's going to cause it's going to at least double maybe quadruple the pressure on the road, the pressure on the lake, the pressure on the wildlife and uh so I'm very much
against it uh the subdivision and and um and I you know I wanted to say that I I put I just built a a a storage building on my property and I've got like three acres ers along there and a lot of bluffs and and you know right across the
street same thing all the bluffs going down to the lake. You know, I was required as a part of my development to add my little storage building. I was required to um consolidate my lots and I had two platted lots. It was the
original plat of of Clearwater Road and and and I was required to consolidate those into one lot in in in order to to get permission to build that building. And uh you know, so here we have
uh the board, you know, requesting that uh for a reduction in number of lots. And so I I ask why are we talking about uh allowing you know the subdivision and the creation of four lots and and you
you know what I mean is when it seems to be that that the b that the requirement around that lake is to protect the wetland and protect the bluffs protect the protect the lake protect the wildlife and and by making more lots
just is not going to do that you know Um and um so so that's you know and and the only thing other else I want to say is yeah any more impervious surface up there the runoff you know I get I get sand and gravel and and it's eating away
my driveway and the road the brand new road that they put in there is being eaten away by because that's so steep and and the water runs down it and digs trenches on both sides of the road and washes anything away every time any uh
if you do anything more up there, it's going to continue to erode and wash onto my property and and uh and eventually then down the big hill right to the lake. >> So, uh that's what I want to say. We don't need any more traffic on that
road. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else online who wishes to speak to this application? See no one, I will bring it back to the applicant to see if you'd like to respond to the testimony that you've heard.
>> Yes. Thank you. Just a few comments. I just want to go back to the practical difficulty reason why we're looking for a variance in the first place. The lot that you don't see fully right now, but it's much larger than the minimum lot size requirements. >> Three to four times. >> Three to four times bigger. It has all
kinds of frontage on the north side of the lot. It's just all bluff. That's what's our That's what's why we're here trying to get a way to get out on the east side of the law because the whole north side is a bluff. That's our practical difficulty. I would hope you would look to the factual evidence, not the emotional
evidence. We've heard people question WSN's ability to build a road or to analyze where the bluff starts and stops. I believe WSN has more experience in Crowing County than any other engineering firm in the history of Crowing County on building roads. They do many of them. There's professional
drawings saying that that driveway is very feasible and doable and it's not going to cause any erosion or issues into the in the town right away. I would listen to that evidence, not conjecture. >> Thank you. >> Anything you'd like to add? >> Yeah, there there was some questions on
impervious. If you look at sheet three of the engineering plans, um they give you the net new impervious. So they are proposing to remove only what what's within the right of way. Nothing with uh
any property that's uh owned by Steve Lindman. Um the net new impervious is just over 600 square ft total. That's the only new impervious. Um and I think there still is some confusion there. There's maybe with John
online there's no new driveway access. Thank you. >> And and I guess one question, this is this is for Chris, and we we probably had some discussion. Um like Brad had said, and if you look at
the prelim plat, the the whole north line has access to the road, but there's there's an entire bluff there. So, you know, with the with the term um adequate legal access, that's I don't know if it
was exactly defined what that is in the land use ordinance. >> Yeah. Uh Madam Chair, uh there is there's no definition of of what that of what adequate, you know, access would be. I think the plain language would tell us that it's, you know, access that
would be in a way legal and and able to provide access to get to the lots. You know, I think that's a question that you have to wrestle with is is there a variance needed to um have that driveway over on the east side as requested or is it sufficient that they would come through the existing driveway and and
have an easement coming through that lot to get to that lot there on the east side? I think that's a question that you're wrestling with tonight. >> Thank you. And just to go off that there, I would imagine there would be some difficulty in preparing a a an
ingress egress easement across lot two. So that's coming from the west that the driveway goes right in between. If you look at the detail of the prelim plat, um there may be 12 feet between an existing
house and a and a shed right in right in there just below where it says block one. So there's there's certainly some difficulty in how you would prepare an easement for lot one from lot two right in here. Um
so there was real no no easy way to do it. Um the applicant tried and they they they failed at obtaining an easement right there. So this was the best the best solution and it was uh they mitigated the the impacts as least as
they could and and that's why they had a civil engineer design these plans and um say that they're they're they're taking erosion and grading all into account. Just wanted to just wanted to clarify that. >> Thank you.
Okay, this back to the board for questions, discussion, >> mad, I would just like to point out that from a timing perspective, we're getting to the we need to make a decision tonight. >> Yes. >> So, a decision has to be made on this um approve or deny on on both requests.
>> Thanks for that clarification, Chris. >> Madam Chair, I've got a question for staff. >> Yes, sir. If we deny the variance for the dirt moving, do we deny the plat because they don't have legal access to lots? >> Uh, Madam Chair, uh, Sue, I think the
question is, is this is this a driveway that's there right now? Correct. >> Yes. >> No. Are you able to come through here to get access to that or not? Is that a poss can you can you come around here and get access to lot one through lot two? Are
you able to do that? this well he's trying to explain it but that's as you can tell that's contoured that's a bluff here's a building or house so that driveway would come literally within one or two feet of that house to get to this house so can you do it I say maybe
technically but practically who's going to want to have a driveway a foot from their house I mean it doesn't make any sense >> but it could it it's it's legally I mean there is there is access to get there may not be ideal but there is >> yes >> so I think You could I mean if that was
the route you wanted to go I think there you could you could approve a plunary plat with a condition before they go to final plat that um >> there's a legal easement >> but an easement would be in place to to gain access to get across correct >> thank you s any anyone else anything
else >> I mean madam chair I mean I have I have concerns with that new access in a bluff impact zone lot of dirt moving they already have an access to
within the existing driveway there. So, I mean, I've been on that road and um it is difficult road. I mean, it's so I mean with the existing driveway, they're
already using it uh to get to both places. I just feel I can't I would not be comfortable approving the variance for the dirt moving in a bluff for that access >> others
>> madam chair >> yes >> so uh the suggestion was we should look at the facts and I think that's a good suggestion and we have findings of fact and I've looked at the yeses and the nos Correct.
>> Um the we have a bluff uh portion of the ordinance because of the sensitivity of bluffs, right? And so uh one fact is that that's sensitive and people have
kind of made that point. Um so we need to understand conditions that make it absolutely necessary to do that as the only in my mind the only resort to give people legal access to their property. That
would be in my mind what I would look at. And when I hear that there is maybe not preferred but another possible option to have legal access, then I say, why would I let somebody then cut into a
bluff and potentially create other consequences from doing that if we don't have to do that? And in my findings for no, we have findings if we wanted to bring that up. so people could look at what I'm looking
at. But we have findings that >> Yes. >> I apologize, John. Uh findings that you're looking at are on page 50 of your packet. >> Thank you. We have findings that basically say um there are other access options including the potential to go
through proposed lot two. So in my way of looking at it, we and and we look at practical difficulty that people have spoken to. Um, if there is that other option, I am not in favor then of uh
cutting into a bluff on a lake that the soil and water conservation district has given us information on is very sensitive. Um, and that could have again consequences for doing so when there is another option. Now, if somebody wants
to put in front of me facts that say there absolutely is not another option, uh that would be another factor, but I haven't heard those facts. So, um I'm aligning with Sue because of that to say, uh I'm not willing and that's the first issue in front of us, right? Is
are we going to grant a variance? Correct. Whether the plat has they have to work that out. That's the second item. But on the first item of what do we grant a variance, I'm not in favor of granting a variance. >> Okay. Anything else? Any further discussion?
Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion. >> Madam Chair, do you want to make sure we're looking everybody understands we're looking at the findings? >> Oh, yes. I'm sorry. I thought we had those up there and people had a chance to review. Okay. >> Just want to make sure does the board have any anything amendments or changes to the findings as you see or is there
anything? >> Um, no. Uh person, Madam Chair, um I'm fine with the findings. I read them and uh as I said commented on two that I think are pretty uh determinative for
me. Um so um there's not a desire for further discussion. Um I would make a motion to deny the variance request for the 65 cubic yards. Um
I got the uh I don't have that right in front of me. the 65 cubic yards for the um and the to cut into the bluff. That's the variance request, right? >> For the creation. >> So, I make a motion to deny that variance. Uh based on the survey that's
been presented, the findings of fact for no that are in our packet and the um discussion this evening >> and the on-site visit we had last month as well. Correct. >> Okay. >> And the staff report. >> And staff report. >> We'll second that. There's >> I would like to add under the township
recommendation, township recommend no denial, but and they recommend a denial with concerns for safety for the pedestrians and the the potential impact on a uh for the integrity of a sensitive
bluff in that area. You >> okay with that addition, John? >> Uh yes. >> Okay. Further discussion before we take action on this variance I need to um verify one on one um before
we vote. Do you understand what is being denied tonight or this afternoon? >> I understand the motion. >> Okay. Very good. With that being said, we will proceed to vote. All those in favor, please signify by saying I.
>> I oppose. Same sign. Motion carries. >> Madame Chair, the findings of facts for the preliminary plat are on page 94 of your packet. >> So, Madame Chair, >> yes, >> I'm getting to page 94. We will need to
revise the findings uh because we just denied the variance. Correct. >> Correct. >> Correct. So for soon as I get to 94, excuse me. So in our proposed findings, um
I would ask that we under item two remove bullet two. Under item three, we remove bullet one. Under
item five, we remove bullet one. I believe that would be it. in a while. >> So, um, >> madame chair, are you ready for a motion? >> Yes.
>> So, I would move a recommendation of approval of the preliminary plat to the county board with the site report. We um the on-site, the
survey, and the amended findings effect uh this evening. conditions. >> Pardon me. >> Oh, I'm sorry. And the five conditions in the packet. I I apologize. >> Including the conditions. >> Correct. >> There's a motion on the floor. Is there a second?
>> Second. >> Second by Andy. Further discussion. >> Uh, Madam Chair, I just want to clarify that by a recommended approval that you're saying that access to lot one will be through lot two and that would have to be through easement. That would be the responsibility of the applicant
to do prior to final plat. >> That's correct. Thank you. >> Um, which is the result of the variance being denied. >> Correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. Further discussion or clarification? >> Hearing none. >> Madam Chair, clarification on Chris.
>> If they if they can come to an agreement with Lindamman's for the access, it wouldn't necessarily have to come through that. So maybe the another condition we should consider putting on there is before a final plat um approved
that they have to show documentation of a legal um access to lot was it lot two >> lot one >> lot lot one regardless of which way they decide to do it rather than saying they have to go through that one would >> so
>> um I'm okay with adding that condition but that would be a requirement of the county board considering it for approval anyhow. Right. >> Correct. >> Our ordinance. That's a base requirement of our ordinance. >> That's covered. >> So I don't know that we need a condition. It's a base requirement of the ordinance, is it not?
>> Correct. >> You okay with that? >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Any further discussion or comments? >> Before we take final action on the preliminary plat request, I need to verify two items. Do you understand that tonight we're going to be making a
recommendation to the county board for approval of your preliminary plat uh as indicated with the details in the in the motion and that the county board does have final approval over this request? >> Yes. >> And do you understand that the required
conditions placed on the preliminary plat applying for the final plat request? >> Yes. >> Okay. We will then proceed to vote. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> Same sign. Motion carries. Thank you
very much, >> Madam Chair. This goes to county board April 14th, >> 9:00, right? 9:00 a.m. >> 9:00 a.m. >> Thank you. Okay. Our first item of new business would be Brad Homeg for an
interim use permit. Good afternoon. >> Good afternoon. >> Brad Homebeg, 24357 Kennedy Drive, Dearwood, Minnesota. >> Uh Chris Summer. I'm with the Summer
Consulting, uh 967 Gold C Meadows Lane, East Co Lake. Paul Herkinoff 4964 Toms Drive Miss >> Would you like to read the request into the record, please? >> Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. The property owner tonight is Brad Holvig.
Parcel number in question is 50070563. This is located in Bay Lake Township. The current land use here is Rural Residential 2.5 and Shorland. this property is located. Uh if we go to page
102, you'll see that the um see do I have the wrong here we go. The property is located off of Noki Lake Road and uh as I mentioned it's a combination you can see that it's a a combination of Shorland and um and
residential 2.5. The Shorland is is with the with the Noka River. Uh the request tonight is an application for a uh let's see down to 108. Oh, I'm in the wrong page.
Let's see. I'm going to just give a little bit of background as to how um how we got here. So, this property uh was previously county tax forfeit. And so, last year um the county um contacted Mr. homeg and initiated a uh a land
swap. So there's land across from the county landfill off of 210. Um and uh and the county is interested in trying to um basically protect and get under county ownership as much land around that landfill as we can as a buffer and uh and so uh we did a the county and and
Miss Roman did a land swap on that that was recently approved. That has to actually go to the go to the state and the state has to prove that as well. That was recently approved. So that's how the the ownership of this lot came uh to be. The request tonight is an intermuse permit for a G4 gravel extraction pit. The the request is to
all crushing, screening, washing, processing of batuminous and demolish materials, stockpiling of recyclable demolition of batuminous materials with temporary hot mix operations and batuminous reprocessing per certificate survey dated March 5th, 2025 and the application packet received on March
10th of 2026. Um, I'm going to scroll down here a little bit so you give you an idea of where we're what the plans are. So, as a reminder, we have five classifications of gravel pits in Crowing County. G4 is basically allowing
there to be the excavation, mining, crushing, and screening and the allowance of a of the of creation of batuminous. Uh, if you go to a G5, that is that is the highest and and probably the most intense of our categories. that would allow for there to be like a a readymix uh cement uh plant there and
they're not requesting that. They're looking to get that G4 permit. The area that you see here um is the area that's going to show where the the operation is. You can see um off on the survey itself that um we have the
location of the crusher the future um asphalt plant where um aggregate will be stockpiled. Um and so we have um all that uh information here as required by the ordinance. Um the or the application meets all standards outlined in the
article 29.5 C and D. Um just to give you some highlights of uh of the activity, the truck activity estimated is about 15 trucks a day with the potential of 30 being the highest during busy season. Dust control measures including calcium chloride application to regulate airborne dust. buffering of
the site including use of existing vegetation as well as utilizing stock piles for sound barriers and visual screening. Um noise controls were proposed to meet all requirements. Um further mitigation of that would be utilizing BMS and stock piles to as well as a decrease in elevation for the mining activities themselves. Um hours
of operation were outlined as daylight hours Monday through Friday. Um drainage plans include storm water to drain vertically into the mined area. Uh this will include a storm water pollution prevention plan or county called a SWIP through the state due to the disturbance of more than an acre. Uh we have
reclamation plans that would include final slopes to be at a 3 to1 with top soil and seed replaced and establishing uh the property to its original site. I think it's important to note that you know there are some gravel pits that are intended for certain projects or uses and then it's going to be terminated. This is not intended to be one of those
gravel pits. This is going to be a long-term gravel pit that's going to be here and a resource to Mr. HomeVIG to use for different uh projects uh uh in the area. We did receive a comment from the highway department on April 9th stating that if the project is expected to go beyond a single use that the
highway department may require further review of access and road improvements including maybe a turn lane. Um and I think we'll let Matt um can talk a little bit more about that here in a second. We did get a comment from the township recommending approval. And there was one comment from the public in support of the request about having just
wanted to make sure there was concerns about um noise and hours of operation. Matt, if you'd be happy to talk about the highway thoughts on this, I'd appreciate it. >> Yeah, just kind of bouncing off what Chris said, there's no requirements that we're going to have on No Lake Road with the operation. If something something we
want to monitor in case it, you know, doubles, triples, go from 30 to 60 trucks, something like that. But right now, if it warrants it, we'll we'll come back to you and have a discussion. But right now, no issues with it. >> Thanks, Matt. Is there anything that you'd like to add?
>> No. >> Okay. Any questions from the board? >> Okay. If not, we will go ahead and open up this application to public testimony. Is there anyone in the courtroom who would like to address this application? Please come forward to the podium and
state your name and address. My name is Tony Jones, 16843 Noki Lake Road. Uh on behalf of Eagle Ridge Timber Company, we own 277 acres uh directly to the south and west of Mr. Holvig's property. Uh just only to say I already
submitted a letter. Mr. Holvig's been extremely uh proactive with us, reached out to us, worked through everything. He's granting us a blanket easement, which is the only way we can get to our parcel on the west side of his property. So, he's been uh great to work with. And
again, the one thing because we do have lakeside cabins about 7/10 of a mile from the gravel pit, we're just we want some no noise mitigation as as it I've read is already in your, you know, in the Crowing County statutes and stuff.
So, uh, we'd like that to be taken into consideration, but otherwise, we're completely, uh, in support of this. Thanks. >> Thank you. Is there anyone else in the courtroom who would like to address this application? Anyone?
>> Okay, seeing no one, uh, double check to see if there is anyone online. I don't believe so. Um, can bring it back to the applicant. And if there's nothing else you'd like to add, we go to discussion with the board.
back to the board and for questions, comments, concerns, action. M >> madam chair, in the in the findings, we haven't done anything yet, but um finding number under number four,
>> we go >> page 118. >> Yeah, excuse me. Page 118 where the findings are located. >> That one there. Um I would just like to add again um the highway department's com uh email from February I mean from
April 10th that they stated that um they will reserve the right to require adequate turn lanes be installed on CASA 8 as traffic generation warrants. I think that needs to be under number four. >> We'll do
>> that addition is noted. Any other discussion regarding the findings of act? >> You know, I'm not sure where it would fit, but maybe a com or maybe a something relating to
outdoor lighting kind of lighting focused, you know, down and away. I madam chair Andy I think that'd be we can look at the conditions and see if there's a potential condition that we could add to that >> conditions um are located on uh page
121. >> You can review those as well. >> Correct. So um this is very standard for um for conditions. The applicant's been made aware of them. So we have information as far as you know um the
permit itself what it's allowed that's an interim use permit that the interuse permit is for Brad Holmic so if he ever sells the property or new ownership this would be null void and a new owner would need to apply we have a buffering in place groundwater separation requirements reclamation as we talked
earlier um there's some there's a reclamation plan in place um a closing plan that would have to be followed once the pit is completely when they're done operating Um we do permit reviews on these to go out and review and take a look um water quality. So we want to make sure that whatever is happening out
there doesn't have any impact to um subservice water resources. And so that's been handled through things like storm water management. Um facility setbacks. We have to make sure we're thousand feet away to a resident, hours of operation. Um and then um what we
have in place here is that anytime they're going to be operating their hot mix that they would need to uh notify our office one week prior to to make us aware of that. And then um instead of audio alarms, we're requesting visual alarms after 7:00 to help with some of
those noise issues. Um and uh number uh 14 is really talking about just making sure that the work they're doing is in compliance of what was what was submitted to us. They must have hauling signs up. They have to follow applicable safety regulations. A
storm water management plan. A SWIP is required as mentioned earlier. Um they have to make sure that they stay within the extent of operations as identified in the the survey that we provided. And then they're going to provide a performance bond in the amount of 1.5 at the times. The cost of full and complete
reclamation of the property. And so we could add condition number 21, Andy, that would say any outdoor lighting needs to be pointed downward and shrouded so that the and we have that language in article 16 for commercial. It talks about, you know, being pointed
downward and and shrouded so that that light doesn't um, you know, escape the property and and be a be a light blinding to. So we we we can add number 21 for lighting. >> Okay. Very good.
Any further discussion, comments? We can look for action on this item. >> Madam Chair, >> yes. I'd like to make a motion to approve the interimuse permit for a G4 gravel extraction operation to allow crushing, screening, washing, processing
of batuminous and demolition materials, stockpiling and recyclable demolition and batuminous materials with the temporary hotmix operation and batuminous pro reprocessing um per certificate of survey data 35205
with the 21 conditions um that have been um that are listed in the staff report and the findings of facts in the staff report. >> So madam chair just for clarity 20 conditions in the staff report with the additional for lighting. So the addition of one. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> And madam chair for clarification. Sue amended the findings too. So >> Oh yes. >> With the amended findings. Correct. >> Thank you. There's a motion on the floor. Is there a second? >> Second by John. Uh any further discussion?
>> Hearing none. Uh before we take final action on this uh interim use permit application, I need to verify three items with you. Uh do you understand what's being approved this evening? >> Yes. And do you understand the conditions that are required as part of this approval? Those 21 conditions. And
do you understand that what is being approved tonight is final? Any future changes to what is being approved tonight 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 your new request. And staff cannot modify or change what has been approved by this board. Okay, we will then proceed with the vote. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Oppose. Same sign.
>> Thank you. >> Motion carries. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Our next applicant would be Natural Resources Management LLC for an interim use permit. Brad Busby, uh, Natural Resource Management and Anderson Brothers, uh,
11325, Highway 210 Brainer. >> Thank you. Could you read the request into the record, please? >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, the applicant tonight is Natural Resources Management LLC. Authorage agent is Brad Busby. Parcel number in question is
783600514. The physical address is 21687 state highway 18 Briner. This is located in Noki Lake Township. If we go to page 132, uh get an idea of where we're located
here. It's got Highway 18 is located here and uh and it's on the south side. You can see there's an existing pit here already. Um current land uses in the area that you can see when for the parcel in question is going to be real residential 2.5. They got agricultural
to the south for that uh for the existing. Uh the request tonight is an intermuse permit for a new G4 gravel extraction operation to allow um crushing with hot mix operations according to the certificate of survey received on March 3rd, 2026 and the
application we received on March 24th of 2026. Um, let's see. The survey is on page right here. So, here's the location of of uh of the property that we're Here's 18 to the
north. Um, let's see. I think this is a better right here. I think is uh let's This is probably going to be the Yeah, here we go. I think I like this map the
best. We'll go here. So you can see that you have activities to the south where there's current aggregate piles, a crushing plant and the asphalt plant. What you see here to the north, this is where you see the the boundary as far as um to the property to the north where
they they cannot be doing the the uh the crushing in that. And so they can excavate in this area in here. They just can't do the crushing. Um, so if we go down here, you'll see as they um move into these areas more, you'll see that the the crushing and the stockpiling and the asphalt plant will be located here
in the southwest corner of the property. They can excavate up into here. They're just not able to um do any of that crushing um or you know, the hot mix in there. As I mentioned before, this is a G4. So there are the there's five classifications of of gravel extraction
allowed in the county. This is allowing basically the mining excavation crushing the the processing just like we had the application just a few minutes ago. Um and uh you know to be able to recycle batuminous and and all that. Um and uh and so they this is not going to have a
readymix plant is not is what is not approved here. Um so as we look and we note this there's an existing extractive use operation the property the south which has a current conditional use that was approved by the board back in May of 2000. So this is a well-established use in the area. Um the proposed interuse
permit is for a new G4. As mentioned, the application does meet all the standards outlined in article 29.5 C and D of the land use ordinance. The um estim the truck activity estimated be 10 trucks per hour or 160 per day with 30 trucks per hour or 480 trucks per day
being at the highest. Dust control will include watering down access roads regularly as well as applying calcium chloride. Uh further mitigated mitigation of dust includes utilizing vegetative BMS will act as a buffer. Um buffering of the site includes vegetation within the 50- foot buffer on
the west side of the property and 100 foot buffer on the north and east. Noise controls will meet all requirements. Hours of operation will be Monday through Saturday 6:00 a.m. to 10 p.m. with the request of up to 10 days of 24 operation depending on project base. Um
there's a drainage plans here with storm water and a uh storm water pollution prevention plan. Uh the wetland basin of the east um want to point that out the applicant plans to be at least 10 ft above the static water table so as not to have any impacts on that. We do have
a reclamation plan included that'll have final slopes be rounded and cornered at 3:1 with top soil and seed with stabilization measures in place. Um there are periods of activity during the life of the operation and during these inactive times interlamation practices will be uh performed. These measures
include vegetation the areas regrading slopes to stabilize stils. We did get some comments on this. We did a comment from Mandot on April 6th uh stating no need for comment at the site access from Highway 18 is already established with existing operations and has a right turn lane and a bypass lane. A comment was
received from the township on April 15th recommending approval to the board. And then a comment was received from the DNR with information regarding the depth to groundwater and what would be needed if the applicant is close to that elevation. Um and we just want to be clear on that the proposal is that the depth of groundwater the applicant will
be um at least 10 ft above that groundwater elevation. So I don't think there will be a concern with that. But if there is in the conditions it does mention that a water appropriation permit from DNR could be required if they're going to be getting into the groundwater. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Anything
that you'd like to add? >> Chris did a great job. >> That we will open this application up to public testimony. application discussion and action um >> the proposed conditions madam chair on
page 153 of the packet >> those are the u findings of fact. >> Yeah, the findings and then conditions afterwards. >> Yeah. >> You want me to go through the conditions again like I did last time? >> Okay. So, the conditions are found on page uh 156. Again, this is a G4 gravel
extraction operation, crushing with hot mix. Um again this is a G4 um gravel extraction operation that would include just like the previous pit for crushing, screening, washing, processing batuminous and demolish materials stockpiling and recyclable demolition and batuminous materials with a
temporary hot mix operations and batuminous reprocessing. It's important to know that this is just for this parcel and this is approved for natural resource management LLC. So any new owner would need to come in and apply for a new permit. Um there's a 50ft buffer required. We talked about the
depth of groundwater. There's a minimum separation of 1 ft above that. Their plan is to be 10 ft. So, there shouldn't be an issue there. Um, there needs to be reclamation during operation, which we've talked about already. And then the closing reclamation plan, which has been submitted to our office. We will review
these permits uh every couple years to maintain compliance. Uh we want to make sure that all the activities aren't affecting water quality. And so, um they are if there's any issues with water quality or water treatment, the operator is responsible to take care of that. No processing equipment such as screening,
crushing, and washing may be closer than a thousand feet to the residents in the existence at time of the application. Hours of operations, we mentioned Monday through Saturday, 6:00 a.m. to 10 p.m. No operations on Sundays. Um, we're asking them to uh contact land services two weeks prior to the start of the
operation of the hot mix. Applicant must keep track of those records. And then um we are this is going to allow up to 10 days of 24 asphalt plant operating for any MDOT projects that require night paving. Uh we want um visual alarms
after 7 p.m. Um we want the extracted use area to be enclosed as as as you see in your packet today to not exceed what's what's in the survey. We want truck hauling signs to be out for safety. Um they must follow all applicable traffic and safety regulations. a storm water plan, a storm
water pollution prevention plan. Um, and then making sure again that uh we're staying within the operations and where the location of the um pit will be located and a security bond will be in place as well for the estimated cost 1.5 times that of the reclamation.
>> Does the board have any additions or comments regarding the uh >> Madame Chair? Ask the board, excuse me, the downward lighting. Do we want to add that same condition to this as we did the previous one? I think we should.
>> Condition number two. We can do Yep. >> Then any lighting be directed downward. >> Okay, we can do that. >> Sounds good. >> I can go back up to the findings >> 153. all had a chance to look at those. Is
there are there any comments or um additions discussion regarding the findings >> under number five? Madam Chair, if it's the pleasure of the board, we could add the mendot comment under number five. >> Excellent. Any further discussion with the board?
>> Madam Chair, >> yes. >> I would offer a motion of approval of the interimm use permit for a new G4 gravel extraction operation to allow crushing and hot mix operations per certificate of survey. Uh received the
amended findings uh that we reviewed this evening. the amended conditions adding number 22 uh in the staff report with uh the 22 conditions. >> Thank you. There's a motion on the
floor. Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> Second by Andy. Further discussion? >> Hearing none. Before the board takes final action on the interim use application, I need to verify three items. Do you understand what's being approved tonight? >> Do. And do you understand the conditions
that are required as part of this approval? >> I do. >> And do you understand what is being approved tonight is final. And any future changes to what's being approved tonight 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. Okay. Hearing that that's understood, we will proceed to vote. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I.
>> Oppose. Same sign. Motion carries. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Our next application would be Joshua and S Susan Hegel for conditional use permit. Okay. Hi, I'm Susan Hegel of 14149 Mian Lane
in Deerwood. Uh my husband Josh may be on the phone as well. >> We're requesting a sand volleyball court. >> Can you read the request into the record, please? Nichollet. >> Yes, Madam Chair. Tonight we have property owners Joshua and Susan Hegel.
Uh parcel number 50200639. Physical address 14149 Megan Lane in Dearwood and this is in Bay Lake Township. We're going to go to page 164 near Packet. And this property is located on
the east side of Hanks Lake. It's a recreational development lake with a setback of 100 ft just north of County Road 18 and west of State Highway 6. This property is within the Shorland district and is surrounded by Shorland and residential uses.
The request tonight is a conditional use permit for dirt moving um for up to 328 cubic yards in the rear lot zone to construct a 42x72 volleyball court which would um be 3,024 square ft. Um on the north side of the
property is the proposed volleyball court and um a little sliver of the dirt moving. There's 38 cubic yards of dirt moving that will occur in a short impact zone >> south >> on the north side of south side of the
property >> on the south side of the property is the volleyball court. Um there is I believe 38 cubic yards where 50 is allowed. So that's within limits for shore impact zone 2. um a 100 cubic yards is allowed with a shorland alteration permit and
they are seeking 328 cubic yards of dirt moving to um create that volleyball court. The applicants um originally had the um layout here completely in shore impact zone 2 um kind of in front of the
house. And when we had discussed at DRT um we had brought up concerns of um wetlands impacts the wetlands and being close to the shoreline and the amount of dirt moving within the shore impact zone 2 area. And since then they decided to kind of scoot it down to the south and
uh move it more back into the rear lot zone. Um, a few comments from the April 2nd on-site noted that the shoreline is well vegetated and there is a natural ice ridge present to pre provide shoreline protection. A comment was received from
the township on April 15th recommending approval of the application and no other comments were received from the public. I can answer any questions you might have. >> Thank you. Any questions for Nicole? >> Madame Chair. >> Yes. Uh, one quick one on the on-site.
Uh, we made an observation about the septic tank being moved and, uh, needing to ensure that the dirt moving calculations for the request considered that. And I assume the answer is yes,
but they're only going to get 328 cubic yards, right? That's the variance request. So, that needs to also take care of the septic. Correct. It should have been part of the because it Yeah.
>> Mhm. >> The septic dirt >> the septic dirt moving would be a separate activity from from this. That's that when you do that, there's no separate dirt moving permit for any sort of septic related activities. That's that's part of the activity.
>> Okay. Even though this is taking that area, correct? Right. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thanks, >> Madam Chair. I'd like a point of clarification >> from staff. The request is for dirt moving for 328 cubic yards, but in the
potential conditions, it says it's for 370 cubic yards. >> So 370 would be encompassing the 28, the 38 in shore impact zone 2. So is the
total dirt moving then 370 cubic yards >> or 328 will >> be the 370 >> 370 >> 370. So the actual conditional use then is 370 not 328. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Um madam chair.
>> Yes. >> Um the additional 28 whatever we just said the additional that's not subject to a conditional use permit. Is that what I understood? So the 328 still is the conditional use permit >> with the total correct but the total
amount will be that number. Yes. >> Correct. Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Thanks. >> Other discussion, clarification, questions. >> Would you like to um review the um findings of that?
>> We have to have a public hearing first. >> Oh, I'm getting ahead of myself. I I apologize. We'll open this up to public testimony. Um, is anyone in the courtroom who would like to address this? >> Thank you, >> Madam Chair. Very briefly, uh, Bay Township voted to approve this with two
conditions. I don't know if that didn't come through on the request from Carol or not, but the conditions were very simple. It had to be remain on lit. That way, they wouldn't be playing volleyball at midnight or 2 in the morning or whatever. So, keep it on lit. and to
keep it pvious. And the reason for that is as people's wants and desires change as they get older, you might not want to play volleyball, you might want to play tennis. And now you have a hard surface
that large how I forget how many square feet it is, but right on the property line could cause water run off onto the neighbor's property. Uh so we're asking that it be unlit and stay pvious. Okay. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Anyone else in the courtroom who would like to address this application? >> Anyone? Is there anyone online? >> Okay. >> No hands raised. >> Back to the applicant if there's anything you'd like to respond to the
testimony. >> Sure. So, um, take the easy one first. The sand by definition is impervious. you won't be able to play tennis on a sand court unless you were very athletic. Um, and secondly, regarding the lighting, um, we actually hadn't
considered lighting and until it came up at the site visit. Uh, but in September, it does get dark at 6 or 7 o'clock. Um, I think there's an assumption that we would be bad neighbors um, and be partying all night long and I have a very early bedtime. So just um unclear
as to why that assumption would be made and um people can be out at the fires and out playing basketball or doing whatever with other lighting. We're unclear as to why lighting is coming up here.
>> Thank you. I don't know if you want to address that as far as um the ordinance or anything. Yeah, the county doesn't have any ordinance requirements that regulates lights on residential property. Uh we don't have an ordinance for that, but uh I'm guessing the township's concerns are the proximity to
the lake and the potential for just uh you know the amount of light that could be cascaded on the adjoining properties to the south is is what I'm I'm seeing Don nod his head. So I think that were the concerns. You could put a condition on place that says you know can have lights maybe up till 1 hour after sunset something like that. So we're not doing
it at 2 in the morning. Maybe that might be maybe that might be a reasonable compromise. >> 10 o'clock. >> Madam Chair, just if I could opine on that. Um I have a little bit of a conflict in the they're they're my
neighbors, but also putting on my our lake association hat. We're really trying to make an effort uh on that with the association to minimize lighting to the extent we can whenever we have the
opportunity to try and keep unnecessary light off. So that's kind of a a significant initiative for our lake association. I know we've had chats with the township about that that we're seem pretty much in line. So kind of that's where that's coming from. So, no no
intent to spoil late volleyball games or anything, but >> yeah. Um, this is Josh Hegel, uh, Susan's husband. Um, I I agree with that. I I love the dark night skies. Um, so if there were any lights, they're
they would be purposeful. You know, if they're not going to be on when we're not, you know, playing volleyball. And to Susan's point, we do want to be good neighbors. where uh you know, you don't want people being loud after a certain point of time. I don't know if that the county has regulations on that. I'm sure
there's there's noise restrictions even if there aren't light restrictions, but um we certainly would want to be would want to be respectful of our neighbors. So >> um >> and and respectful of the dark skies, right? So they'd be
purposeful and they would only be on when you know the court is in use I guess you could say. >> Thank you. Yes, John. >> Madame chair. Um I probably have two questions to get clarification. One to
the issue of converting it from something um that the pvious question, right? >> The conditional use permit is for a volleyball court. If the purpose is other than a volleyball court, that would negate the conditional use permit.
Correct. >> Yes, >> that's question one. >> That I'd agree with that. Correct. >> So that would address the concern about pvious. Um so if it went to a hard surface thing, um unless they called it a hard surface volleyball court, which
would be interesting, but um that would I think address that. The second question is I understand the concern about lighting. Um, I just wonder, um, so help me in my thinking. Can we apply a condition that starts to regulate
something that's not regulated across our ordinances? The conditional use permit process gives you the ability to put conditions on that you think are necessary to mitigate potential impacts to their surrounding and neighboring properties. So, you have the ability to
choose to do so or to not do so. >> Okay. So rather than maybe talk about timing, we could add a condition that says we want no lighting. We won't we part of the condition is you may not light the volleyball court.
>> I think you could if you wanted to. >> I mean so if you have the regulatoratory capability to say I can uh regulate the time and what I could say I don't want any as part of the condition.
You could and then I would think that if you know if some appeal were to be made I think that would be maybe seen as unreasonable and and not um you know not in the you know the the applicability of having a a a permit to allow them to you know
construct and use a >> the volleyball court. So what you're um madam chair if I may so what you're getting is the question I was at are we uh adding such a condition and and putting restrictions on an area that's not regulated. We don't regulate residential lighting.
>> We do not >> uh moves us into an area of moves us into a gray area by such a condition. That's what I was getting at. >> Okay. >> And you're saying yes >> I >> we don't regulate it. >> We don't regulate it. may not
>> if if I can't say you can't have lighting and I but I can say I can restrict how you use all of that lighting. What's the difference? >> Mhm. >> From a looking at it, >> right? >> Okay, >> Madam Chair, I look at putting a
condition with for lighting that we don't regulate. How how do we enforce that condition? How does a county enforce a condition? Let's just say we put one out there that um volleyball court, no lighting after
10 p.m. How can how can the county enforce that? How can staff enforce the condition that again you by statute you have the ability to put a condition in place that you think would mitigate the impact
neighboring property. So you have the ability to do it if you choose to do it. That's that's you have the choice and the option. It's your choice to decide if you want to do it or not. So, you can do it. >> So, m Madam Chair, I I'm not in favor of that
>> because of the fact of what I've described. I think there's a kind of a nexus of conditions to what's being asked. And to me, when we I understand entirely the desire and everything, but there's kind of a nexus of the conditions, if you will. And when we
start to go into an area that we we don't regulate for other purposes in the county, I I get uncomfortable about that. So I I wouldn't support that condition. >> I I agree with John, but I like would like to put a condition in here that the
volleyball court is to remain pvious. >> I would agree with that. That >> everyone okay with that? >> Cannot be turned into a tennis court or a pickle ball court or whatever. It has to stay pvious. >> And I think what I heard Chris say
earlier is because of the nature of the re the permit if it would change that you'd have to come back and get one. Is that what you had said? >> Well, so the the request is for dirt moving for a volleyball court. So I mean I don't know if you'd want to but you could play volleyball court I suppose on
a cement pad. I mean nothing would you know. So I mean maybe you just need to you know clarify that the material to be used is sand you know. So I mean I the uses for a volleyball court but you know people play volleyball on wooden floors. I mean so I don't I mean I don't know how far in the weeds we want to get here
with some of this stuff you know but I think your idea of >> purp you know the impervious in the volleyball court because we haven't uh regulated well maybe they play croquet on there. Is that a violation?
It's kind of this John's logic about lighting applies to the same thing about volleyball. So to me it it we have sort of a dichotomy going here and obviously I'm an advocate for no lighting >> but we haven't done that before. Oh I
understand that. Well I haven't been around that long but I haven't heard any us delineating well this was a pickle ball court so they have to play pickle ball. So >> yeah. Yeah. So madam chair just conversate.
>> So but I think the difference here is the request is for a conditional use permit for a specific use. >> Correct. >> Right. >> Right. >> And as I understand the ordinance that conditional use permit stays with that
parcel as long as that use exists. And when that use changes, they either have to amend their conditional use permit or it gets voided. Right. Correct. >> Because that's not the use. So, >> I'm not hung up on the pvious thing because it's a volleyball court.
>> Um, now I guess somebody could say you could pave that volleyball court and still call it a volleyball court. Okay. So, what language should we put in here to be clear that we are approving the construction of a pvious volleyball court?
Well, I I think we have to go back to the ordinance. We're talking about dirt moving. >> So, that that suggests that, right? >> There's no volleyball court use in our ordinance. So, this is simply >> moving. So, you're telling me the the the conditional use permit by describing
the dirt moving takes care of that? >> And and am I correct in saying what I said about the ordinance and and the use? It's for the use. >> Yep. It's for the use of dirt moving. So, correct. and and so that that to me is the difference there. Um the other thing is simply a condition and there
could be a disagreement about whether that's appropriate. I just for me I think we're venturing into a condition that I'm not comfortable with but that certainly respect that you would see it differently.
Further discussion? Not. Are we at the point where we can entertain a motion? Reviewing >> findings of factor on page 176. >> 176 and then talking about any particular um conditions as well.
Madam Chair, we we'll just kind of walk through the proposed conditions we have now and then I'll just go to that. >> I know everyone's had a chance to go through the um findings of fact, but if there are any, you know, additions or changes, we need this would be the time to talk about that and then um the
conditions if you want to go through those quickly. >> Yeah, we have uh three potential conditions. The first condition that highlighted just is highlighting what the conditional use is for. Uh number two is a shoreline alteration permit prior to construction starting. Three,
implement an erosion and sediment control plan. And four is implement a storm water management plan. And madam chair I again assuming presuming there's support for this I would like to add a number five that it remains unlit.
So in that instance then we would take a roll call vote on adding that or how do we proceed with that? >> Correct. So what we would what we'll be looking at would be a motion. Um so we would you know once you're content with the findings then we would want to make a motion and a second and then we would
talk about the conditions. Then um whoever would make the motion would be able to you know in essence set that condition. And >> so once the the main motion is made then go through that. Okay. Y >> I just about had a procedure >> procedure. Y madam chair maybe just if
again we can do that but to keep it a little more informal could we just kind of give a thought it had thumbs up thumbs down to that then we can proceed either way. >> I I know I'm feeling like I don't want to venture into the waters of okay >> going unlit.
>> I not be in favor of that. >> I agree with Rebecca and John about the lighting. I don't want to it's not addressed in the ordinance. That's fine. Let's let's then proceed with the four the four conditions. >> Sounds good.
Then we would be at at the point where we'd be >> Madam Chair, are you ready for a motion? >> I sure am. >> Okay. So, I would move approval of the conditional use permit for dirt moving up to 320 cubic yards in the rear lot zone to construct a 42x72
324 ft volleyball court uh with the survey that's been submitted, the findings of fact that are in our packet and have been reviewed this evening and the four conditions listed in the staff report.
I'll second that. >> There's a motion in a second. Is there any further discussion? >> Madam Chairman, do I have a chance to ask about some of these just for clarification or is this not the right? >> I was just going to get to my point where that I wanted to make sure that you understood the conditions. >> Yeah. Okay.
>> So, before we take final action on the conditional use permit, I need to verify. Do you understand what's being approved tonight and do you understand the conditions? >> No. >> Okay. Let's go through those condition. >> So, number two, we actually started with um we actually started with a shoreline
alteration permit and we got moved to the conditional use permit. So, I'm not clear on what what permit or what what my intent of the shoreline alteration permit is. >> Yeah. So, um based off if you are approved, you then would need that
shoreline alteration permit. >> Okay. So, the volleyball court is a piece of that shoreline alteration. I was planning on filing one anyway. I will do that. No problem. Um the second one is um I can work that offline. That's not a huge deal. Number four, I'm
a little unclear. The facts on uh regarding article 41 talk about um this condition maybe being applied for uh up to 15% imperous uh surface. Um 25 kind of being the hard stop and we're at 12.
So I'm unclear about um why this would be applied. >> Correct. So, as we mentioned earlier, the board has the ability to put conditions on that they think would be needed to mitigate any potential concerns. Um, so storm water is is
something that has been a typical condition by this board for most permits either being conditional or variance when you're on the shoreline. And so that's the reason why they why the storm water plan is there. We just want to make sure we have a plan in place to a control when you're constructing it. If we have a massive rain event, we don't want a lot of your sand to be going off
on your neighbor's property or that. And then also want to make sure that you know for long-term drainage issues to make sure that we're not having impact on drainage when you construct that. So that's what the purpose of a storm water management plan is. That's something you put together yourself. You staff work with you on that and we figure that out together.
>> Fair enough. Thank you. Is that helpful? Any other questions? >> No. >> Okay. So, you do understand what's being approved tonight and understand the conditions and do you understand what is being approved tonight is final. Any future changes to what is being approved tonight must be approved by this board.
And 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. Is that understood? >> Yes.
>> Okay. Okay, then we'll go ahead and proceed with our vote. All those in favor uh please say I. >> I oppose. Same sign. >> Motion carries. Thank you very much for your time. >> Our next application would be Blackburn
uh I am Rutgers SPV LLC. Uh, I'm This is uh TJ McMillan uh with Blackburn Ruckers. Uh you need my home address. Is that right? >> Yes, please. >> All right. 8015 West 18th Street, St. Louis Park.
>> Thank you. And then in our uh courtroom we have >> Michael Cameron uh 255039 Tamefish Lake Road uh Ruters. >> Thank you. >> I'm Grant Madison 14450 Blackberry Court and Baxter.
>> Thank you very much. And can you read the request into the record, please? >> Yes, madam chair. Uh tonight we have property owner Blackburn IM Ruckers SPVL LC. Uh parcel number is 50030614
and this is in Bay Lake Township. I'm going to go to page 185 of your packet. So the property that we're talking about uh right now is on the north side of Tamefish Lake Road on the east side of
State Highway 6 within the Ruckers Resort. This property is currently zoned commercial and is surrounded by uh commercial, waterfront, commercial, and residential shoreland uses. Um, on page 193 of your packet,
let me get this so you can see is the request. It is a preliminary plat for Rucker's first hole golf cottages, second edition with 12 total lots. This property went through the public hearing process in the fall of 2021 for an
amendment to the conditional use permit as well as a plat. Both the conditional use permit and the plat were approved for 14 total lots, 12 total lots with 12 structures up to 36 bedrooms, one common
lot and one outlot. 14 lots. The applicants are proposing to move lots one, two, and three um over to the east. So, the original proposal had all of them over here and they are wishing to scoot the one, two, and three out.
Um, they're keeping the remaining portion of the plat the same as the proposal in 2021 with the exception of eliminating an outlot that was originally approved. So, the outlot um with this proposal is going away.
The proposal will also still be within the parameters of the approved conditional use permit in 2021 as well. The preliminary plat meets all of the requirements of the land use ordinance and uh Rucker Resort has an active permit through the MPCA for their sewage
treatment systems and all improvements proposed will be reviewed and approved through the MPCA. Um there is a boundary line adjustment that is in the works um in the process of being submitted to accommodate oop to
accommodate for this boundary line adjustment. Now um they are the owners of both properties but to um change the league of descriptions and keep them accurate for both properties. A boundary line adjustment will need to be submitted and approved before the final plat's approved. Um,
a comment was received from the township on April 15th recommending approval of the application and no other comments have been received from the public. I can answer any of the questions you might have. >> Thank you, >> Madam Chair. Could I We're reducing one lot to correct one of the actual cabin
lots. That's correct. >> Correct. So, there's there's a reduction. So, there there were four up up the top >> and there's now three. So, they've actually reducing one of them up there. So, it's one less than what was approved. Okay. Okay. >> So, that conditional use permit and that so this is really a replant of what they did back in 21 before they took um
before they took ownership of it. >> Understood. Okay. Thank you. Does anyone have any questions for staff? You have anything that you'd like to add the applicants?
>> I don't think so, unless TJ's got something. >> You have anything you'd like to add, sir? Uh, no. I just again it's a uh a slight change trying to um think about the flow
and these new uh units uh that were planned before we uh took ownership of this property. >> Okay, great. Thank you. Um at this point then we'll open it up for public testimony. Is there anyone in the courtroom who would like to address this application? Anyone
seeing no one? Is there anyone online? I don't believe I see anyone. So, we would be bringing it back to the board for further discussion and action. Please, >> we put up the potential findings. Please, >> look at the findings. Those are on page
>> 200 of your packet. >> 200. Madam chair, I like >> just clarification Chris on um finding number two. It says the conditions permit was approved in 921 for 14 total dwelling
units. The new proposal has since been reduced to 12. So we're reducing it by two. >> No, no, that should say 13. Is that correct? 13. Is that the right numbers? >> Can you say that to me again? When how many cabin sites going to be with this
when you're done? There'll be 13 cabin sites. Correct. >> Or how many? >> 12. I thought >> it would be 11 >> structures. Okay. Let me >> 11. >> 193.
>> I believe there's 11 cabin sites. >> Yep. >> Um >> 11, >> you know. I >> Yep. So there were 12 >> and uh >> Yep. But there'll be 12 structures because you have a wellhouse. >> Yeah, but there were 12 approved well there. >> Yeah.
>> Um, >> so there's 12 total lots, 11 cabins, and the common open space in between them. So, >> it's going from 14 to 12 instead of 13. I just want to make sure that because that's what it says on that finding, but
then you guys are talking about just reducing by one. >> Yeah, there were there were 14 lots originally and now they're going to go down. It'll end up being 13 total. 12 cabins and then the commonal space. Correct.
>> We can we'll make that. >> We can update that. We'll get that update in the findings. So it's 13 >> 13 total 12 cabins and the up then the open the current space around it. So >> okay >> is that right? >> 11 >> it's 11 11 cabins.
>> So it'll be 12 then >> it'll be 12 total lots right? >> Yes. >> Could madam chair. >> Yes. >> Could could we just be clear here? The the finding says the proposal has been reduced to 12 total dwellings with 36
total bedrooms, which tells me that >> some wellhouse or something isn't that's not part of that finding, right? >> So, do we have 12 dwellings with 36 bedrooms or do we have 11 with 36 bedrooms or do we have 13 with
>> They have 11 They have 11 cabins and one >> with 30 36 total bedrooms. >> Yep. and one common out and then then at a common space. So there's Yep. 11 cabins with the outlot. >> Okay. >> I I I just want to be clear here. It
should be uh uh 11 uh cabins with 33 keys, but it would be uh 44 bedrooms. >> So we're Madam Chair. So, we're we're
>> dropping by three dwellings, but increasing the bedrooms >> 36 >> by two. >> Okay. I guess that was something that maybe we weren't aware of. So, if we're going to because you were So, right now, you're approved with the conditional use
permit from 2021 for 36 total bedrooms. That's how many bedrooms you've got approved for right now. >> Yeah. If you want to go above that, we're going to have to come back and amend the conditional use permit and then redo the and then come back and do the plat. So, we don't you don't have right now you don't to go to a 42. You
mentioned TJ. Is that right? >> No, 48 was 4. >> How many how many bedrooms did you are you looking at having? >> 44. >> 44. >> Right now you you're you have 32 is what the conditional use permit allows on the north side.
>> Okay. So, you're saying we're going to need to amend the cup first? That's going to need to take >> Well, you could approve you I mean, you could approve the plat tonight, but then
they'd have to come back to amend it if they want to add the extra bedrooms to go to the 44. >> Madam Chair, >> yes. Um, well, I wouldn't be comfortable doing that because the findings won't be in alignment, right?
>> We can't have findings for something they're not allowed. So, if they wish to proceed that way, um, and I wouldn't want the recommendation for the plot to suggest that we would approve the amendment to the cup. So, I think if
they want to proceed that way, I would be inclined to table this uh, and have them come in accordingly. That would be my recommendation. >> I agree with that. >> I agree, too. >> But it's it's up to them, I guess, if that's what they're proposing.
>> I I guess I would uh uh request that we approve it as is if we need to. And we're limited on the number of bedrooms. Uh we can always change the uh design of those units. They don't all
have to be the same. So we could do something different to accommodate the total bedrooms >> and stay under the current. >> So they would be at 36 bedrooms. Okay. Yeah. They would be 36. >> They would be limited to what's in here with
>> it's 11 dwelling units. Correct. Not 12. >> Correct. >> With a total of 36 bedrooms. Correct. >> That's what we're going to be approving tonight. >> Correct. >> And there's one other structure. >> Yep. >> You said >> Yeah. But that's not that's >> in But that does not >> we that's not that doesn't have its own
law. So no >> that's just the pump house. >> Got it. >> So madam chair I just want to make sure that the record would be clear however we do that that they are going to abide by this. They have to abide by
the cup. Right. So that that's what they're saying. they'll abide by the cup and this plat will reflect that. >> Correct. And we will update uh finding number two. We'll we'll update the findings to ensure that we have the right numbers for um dwellings and
bedrooms. We'll get that updated. >> Sounds good. Okay. So, we can entertain >> um Madam Chair, >> discussion or entertain a motion. >> Madam Chair, can I just ask one quick question? Is the boundary line thing
needing to be completed before final plat should that be in the conditions? >> Correct. >> So we'll add condition seven y for that. Okay. With with that, Madam Chair, um I'd offer a motion to recommend to the
county board approval of the preliminary plat of Ruter's first toll golf cottages, second edition with 12 total lots. um with the uh um
uh staff the amended findings of fact the survey has been submitted and these seven conditions that we agreed to tonight. >> Very good. >> Good. There's a motion on the floor. Is there a second? >> I'll second.
>> Second. Further discussion hearing? None. Uh before we take final action on your preliminary plat request, I need to verify two items that you do understand tonight. They were making a recommendation to the county board uh to approve your preliminary plat request.
The county board does have final approval uh over this request and do you understand the conditions those seven conditions placed on the preliminary plat and those must be completed before applying for the final plat request.
Okay. Uh seeing that that is understood, we will proceed with the vote. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Oh, the same sign. Motion carries. >> Thank you. Right. We have there's they have they have the next one.
>> Yes, they have the next one as well. You want to read that into the record, please? >> Do we need to have them restate their Okay, good. Um, okay. So, uh, Madame Chair, the property owner is Blackburn. I am Ruters SPVL
LLC parcel number 5030598 and this is in Bay Lake Township. I'm going to go to page 210 in your packets. So this property is located on the south side of Tam Fish Road on the east side
of State Highway 6 within Rucker Resort. The property is currently zoned waterfront commercial and is surrounded by waterfront commercial, commercial, and residential shoreland uses. On page uh 213 of your packet is the
preliminary plat. All 13 cabins are existing and um were approved as part of the a part of variances and a conditional use permit in February of 2024. The proposed plat establishes a precise location of each structure authorized under the 2024
approved conditional use permit, allowing each cabin to occupy its own parcel of land. The proposal will still be within the parameters of the approved conditional use permit from February of 24. The proposed preliminary plat meets all the requirements of the land use ordinance and uh Ruckers has a permit
through the MPCA for their sewage treatment system. All improvements proposed will be reviewed and approved by the MPCA. A comment was received from the township on April 15th recommending approval of the application and no other comments have been received from the public. I can answer any questions.
>> And madam chair, just for clarification, some of those are in process of being constructed. So they're not all the cabins aren't all there at the moment. There's >> specifically seven and eight are in the process, I do believe, of being constructed right now. >> Okay. >> But they've all been approved for that conditional use a couple years ago that
we went through. >> Any questions at this point? Is there anything that you would like to add the applicants? >> I just I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> Yep. Nope. That's all right. Uh cabins one through eight right now are under
construction. >> One through eight. Okay. >> Yep. Um and again this is uh primarily just to uh allow us to sell the quarter shares that uh we've been working towards to
you know keep up the quality at uh Ruckers over time. >> Thank you. And you neither of you had anything that you'd like to add. Okay. At this time then we'll open it up for public testimony. Is there anyone in the courtroom who would like to address this application? Anyone?
Seeing no one, I'll just double check online. I don't believe there's anyone there either. We'll bring it back to the board for further discussion and action, please. >> Discussion. >> Madam Chair. >> Yes. I would like to make a motion to recommend approval to the county board
the preliminary plat for Rutgers Lakeside Cottages second edition with 13 total lots based on the findings of fact in the staff report and the six conditions in the staff report. >> There's a motion. Is there a second?
>> A second. >> Second. Further discussion >> hearing none. Uh once again, I'll have to ask uh you understand tonight that we're making a recommendation to the county board for your preliminary plat and they have final approval and you understand the conditions that were um
placed on the preliminary plat and they must be completed before applying for the final plat. Okay, we'll proceed with the vote then. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I oppose. Same sign. >> Motion carries. Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much.
>> Thank you for your time and patience. Thank you. >> Our next uh application would be Ellen uh Polar Jr. and Diane Larson for variance. >> Good afternoon. >> Good afternoon. Kevin McCormack, Land
Design Solutions, 11821 Lake Trail, Cross Lake. >> Thank you. And can you read this request into the record, please? >> Yes, madame chair. We have property owner Alan Poucher Jr. and Diane Larson. Authorized agent Kevin McCormack. Uh
parcel number 60180542. Physical address is 36855 Bonnie Lake Road in Emily and this is in Fairfield Township. I'm going to go to page 227 of your packet. Um, this property is located on the southeast
side of Goodrich Lake. Um, a general development lake with a structure setback of 75 ft. This property is in the Shorland district and is surrounded by um, Shorland and rural residential uses. On page 230 of your packet,
>> excuse me, >> is a certificate of survey for the request. Um the request tonight is a lake setback of 30 feet where 75 ft is required to the north proposed addition to a dwelling.
A lake setback of 33 feet where 75 is required to the south proposed addition to a dwelling. And a lake setback of 33 feet where 75 is required to a proposed deck. This is to construct a 512 square foot addition to the north, 512 square
foot addition to the south, and 329 square foot deck. Um, to refresh your memory, in November of 2025, the board approved a variance for this property with the two additions to the north, the south, and the deck. Um, and that was with a 33 foot lake
setback. The applicant is back tonight. Um, because when the board approves a variance, if there's a change, you need to come back to the board. So, um the applicant had some slight changes with construction plans and um the proposed the proposal changed dimensions slightly.
So, uh the north edition was approved um for a 33 foot setback 435 square ft. Um that north edition has now changed to 512 square ft. and um it had some
different lines kind of in here where they squared it off and um eliminated a two-ft bumpout. On the south edition was approved for 576 square ft with a 33 ft setback that has been reduced to 512.
Um the applicant has also proposed a slight change in the layout of the deck. Um, in November it was approved for 216 square feet in size and the new dimensions changed. So, it's um their proposal is 329 square ft. Uh, no
comments were received from the township and no other comments have been received from the public. I can answer any questions. >> Any questions for staff? Is there anything that you'd like to add? >> Yes. I just wanted to thank staff. That's a that's exactly it. What we're
asking for today is no changes in the previous variances from the structure to the lake or to the sideyards. The two-foot bumpout that was approved or that we used uh in the last variance has posed a bit of a problem with the
trusses trying to make this work. So the only changes that we're really making is both additions now rather than 18 and 14. They're both 16 ft. We got rid of the twoft bump, but all the dimensions that we looked at before, 35 1/2 ft,
we're not changing any of that. It's it's just the configuration of the building. The total area actually goes down by four square ft from before. So, it's just a little more simplistic layout and that's what we're requesting. So, nothing changes to sidelines, lakes
shore, or wetlands. >> Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? If not, we'll open it up to public testimony if there is any. >> Madam chair, I do have what? >> Yes. >> You are making a change to the lake setback. >> No,
>> you're going from 33 to 30. >> Uh that was brought that was brought up at the last meeting. It was uh changed uh at the meeting. It said 30 uh we revised that to 30 ft at the meeting. >> It was published that way. So, we didn't make any changes to that. We're showing
the exact correct >> the exact dimension that >> but it was 30 to begin with and Okay. So originally it was 30 but we approved 33. >> Mhm. >> Yes. >> So and the only reason it's going to 30 is because of the shoreline angles
there. >> Correct. And that's we addressed that at the last uh approval. So >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Anything else? Not we'll open it up for public testimony. Is there anyone in the courtroom who'd like to address this application?
Anyone? Seeing no one, we'll double check to see online. And I don't believe there's anyone there either. So, we will bring it back to the board for um additional discussion and action as appropriate. >> Madam Chair, findings of factor on page
240 when you guys are ready. 40. We're ready to for action. >> Madam Chair, yes. >> I would like to make a motion to approve the variance request for lake setback of 30 ft where 75 ft is required to the north proposed addition to the dwelling.
Lake set back at 33 feet where 75 feet is required to the south proposed addition to the dwelling. Lake setback at 33 feet where 75 ft is required to proposed deck to construct a 512 ft addition to the north, 512 ft addition
to the south and a 329 foot deck. Based on the findings of fact in u presented in the staff report and the four conditions presented in the staff report, Thank you. There's a motion on the floor. Is there a second? >> I'll second.
>> Second. Further discussion. Hearing none. Uh before we take action on the variance application, I need to verify four items with you. >> Uh do you understand what is being approved this evening? >> Yes, I do. >> You understand the conditions that are required as part of this approval?
>> Yes, I do. >> Do you understand that you must obtain permits now from land services department before construction begins? >> We do. And do you understand that what is being approved tonight is final? Any further 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's been approved by this board. >> Correct. And just in addition, uh the
building has been staked in its proper location that we're looking at. I've done that already and silk fencing is already up and in place as well. >> Thank you. Okay. Uh we will then proceed to vote. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. Both same sign.
>> Your variance has been approved. Thank you very much. Have a good >> Thank you. >> Enjoy the beautiful day >> evening. Okay. Our next applicant is Stephanie Carvalo and Matthew uh Aken. Hopefully
I'm not mispronouncing too poor badly too. >> Nope, you got it. Okay. >> Um, sorry. Let me turn on my camera, I guess. Yes, >> there you are. >> Um, I'm I'm hoping my husband is going to be coming on. He's already on. Yes.
Um, >> if you'd state >> Sorry, this is my first time doing this. What am I supposed So, just state my name. >> Just name and address for the record, please. >> Perfect. Okay, so Stephanie Carvalo. Um, address 14964 River Arches, Brainer, Minnesota 5641.
Um, I don't know if does Matt need to say something, too. >> Uh, if he's online, that would be great. Otherwise, we can proceed. >> Okay. I I don't know if he >> I'm not seeing >> uh >> Well, there you go ahead.
>> Yep. Matthew Aken, 14964 River Arches, Brainard. >> Thank you very much. And if you would read the request into the record, please. >> Yes, madam chair. Tonight we have property owners Stephanie Carvalo and Matthew Aken. Uh parcel number 9903
0534. Physical address is 14964 River Arches in Brainard. This is in First Assessment Township. I'm going to turn to page 248 of your packet. Um, this pro property is
located on the Mississippi River, which is a natural environment river with a setback of 150 ft. Just to the south of Riverside Drive and is surrounded by shoreland and residential uses. Um, on page 251 is a certificate of
survey. Get this so you can see. Um, bringing us to our variance request. um for a river setback of 90 ft where 150 ft is required to construct a 346
square ft dwelling addition on the lower level with a 346qt addition deck addition on the upper level on the river side of the house. The addition is proposed to be on the lower basement level with the proposed deck to
the um here which would further extend to the corner of the house. Uh no impacts to the steep slope are proposed with this project. Um highlighting a few comments from the on-site from April 2nd. It was noted um that the expansion appears to be
minimal. property slopes towards the river with a natural depression between the slope and the shoreline and the shoreline is stable and vegetated with a well-formed ice ridge. This property is also within the jurisdiction of the
Mississippi Headarters Board or the MHB and this proposal will also need to be approved by the MHB um at their next meeting. Their next meeting is Friday um April 24th. Just to make you aware of that. Um, no comments from the township
as the township is first assessment and uh, no other comments have been received from the public. I can answer any questions. >> Any questions for staff? >> None. U, I'll ask the applicants if you have anything that you'd like to add.
>> Um, I don't think so. I mean, Matt, do you have anything? I think that was pretty clear. the majority of the addition is going to be in the already um existing like patio and deck. So in terms of which you can see there in the picture. So it'll be a
bit of an extension to the side and a tad forward but um you know there's already a platform there and the house you know exists already in that space. So minimal as they said in terms of extending
forward towards the river. >> Thank you. And Matt, you're you're fine. You have nothing else to add? >> Uh no, I don't have anything. >> Okay. Thank you so much. Um hearing uh
that I will open it up now to public testimony. Is there anyone in the courtroom who'd like to address this application? Anyone? Seeing no one. And I don't believe there's anyone online. Uh so we would close public testimony and bring it back to the board for further discussion and action on this
request, please. And we will note that Andy Larson had to leave. So we are the three of us now. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, >> madam chair. U findings a factor on page 258 when you are ready. Madam Chair,
>> yes. >> I would move approval of the variance for river setback of 90 ft where 150 ft is required to construct a 346 foot uh square foot dwelling addition on the lower level with a 346qt
deck addition on the upper level. uh with the uh survey on record, the findings of fact we reviewed in the packet and the four potential conditions that we are now recommending adopting. >> I'll second that
>> motion in a second. Uh is there further discussion? If not, um before before we uh take action on this, I'm going to ask both of you online uh do you understand what's being approved tonight?
Yes. >> Do you understand the conditions that are required as part of this approval? >> Let me just bring >> I believe so really quick. Yeah. Do you understand that you must obtain permits now from land services department before construction begins?
>> Yep. >> Yep. >> And you understand 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'd 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. >> Everything understood? >> Yes. >> Thank you. We will proceed with a vote. All those in favor, please signify by saying I.
>> I. >> I. Oppose. Same sign. Motion carries. >> Thank you. >> Thanks for your time. Have a good evening. Thanks. Okay. >> Okay. >> Thank you. You too. >> Yep. Thanks a lot. Our next applicant would be Michael and Julia Giorgio
>> for variance before. >> No. >> Hi there. you'd state your name and and address for the record, please. That'd be great. >> I'm Michael Giorgio, 4556 Lake View
Lane, Peekquat Lakes, Minnesota. >> I'm Jamie Stozinger, uh, general contractor, 34244 North Oak Drive, Pekquat Lakes. >> Thank you. And can you read the request into the record, please? >> Yes, Madam Chair. Tonight we have property owner Michael and Julie Giorgio
Oak, parcel number 72260536, physical address 4556 Lake View Lane in Pekquat, and this is in Jenkins Township. I'm going to go to page 267 here in your packet. Uh the property is located on the west side of Nelson Lake,
um a recreational development lake with a 100 foot setback just north of County Road 145. This property is zoned Shorland district and is surrounded by Shorland and rural residential uses. Get a survey here. Hold on one second.
Not sure what happened. Uh the request tonight is a lake setback of 86 feet where 100 feet is required um for a detached garage, a 1,831q ft driveway to be located in shore impact zone where no driveway is allowed
within the lake setback. And this is to construct a 784 square f foot detached garage and placement of a driveway. Uh the proposed the proposed detached garage is um proposed in this location
to be a safer parking and access for the homeowners from the detached garage to their house. Um there is an existing septic system that prevents the detached garage to be moved further back, meaning that lake setback. And this is a steep
hill that um once you come around this corner, you start to go down um to the house. And so this is currently where they're parking. They would like to construct something a little bit safer towards the house. Um the driveway within shore impact zone
2 is currently existing and based off of county aerial photos, it appears that the previous existing black top ended in the midmark of shore impact zone 2, which was approximately um right in here. and sometime between 2020 and
2022, the black top was extended into the shore impact zone one area. Um, no comment was received from the township. Two comments were received from the public with no objection other than ensuring erosion control protection and
to protect the lake. I do want to add that if the board does approve this application tonight, staff would like to recommend the following conditions. One, a land use permit for uh prior to construction. Two, implementation of an erosion and sediment control plan. And
three, an implementation of a storm water plan to include measures that prevent runoff from the driveway into Nelson Lake. I can ask any questions or answer any questions. >> Questions. >> Madame Chair, I want to clarify the
driveway. Do we know that is is the 1831 the total distance including the T? >> Yes. >> Okay. Do we know the distance to the midpoint which is what was in existence
prior to as you just mentioned >> approximately 727 square ft. If you look on page 270 of your packet, there is an exhibit that was put together u by the surveyor showing um
showing the totals. >> I'm sorry. Could you direct me to that page again? >> 270 of your packet. >> Can you expand that a little bit? Maybe it might be easier for >> it's an I need to exhibit. Go down one
more, John. I'm sorry. there. >> So, I just want to clarify really quick. Um, in our staff report, we have a 1,831 square ft driveway and it is 1,126 total.
Not 1,800. It is 1,126 total. >> That's just >> Oh, no. I'm sorry. I was correct. It was the 18 because this is so right here you have 705 square feet in shore impact zone one
you have 1,126 combined in two. This section here is estimated to be where it previously the black top stopped. >> Okay, >> which would be the 727
square ft. Any other questions? Is there anything that you would like to add? So, obviously this this project is going around the water drainoff from the
driveway, even if the driveway was uh gravel. So, we did kind of come up with in some ideas for the water runoff. If you guys could take a look. I think I printed off. I only have one picture.
We do have some. >> Okay. Um even if it was gravel, the water if when it on a downpour could still run to the lake. We are proposing
um a drainage system so zero water coming down the hill will approach the lake, approach the water. And then around the new garage, we are proposing um
kind of a dry pond for water runoff to the west of the garage and then a drain cutting across the driveway up by the garage to stop water coming from down the hill. >> Cuz the the water runoff on this project
is a major concern. Madam Chair, may I just ask a quick question? Looking at this drawing, are you keeping the driveway in this proposal and just having >> So, uh, >> we can't park a car on the where it's saying to end the driveway. We can't
park a car there on that steep of a slope. >> I understand that. I'm just asking, are you the 700 and so square feet, you're proposing to keep that with this drawing? >> We're proposing to keep that. Yes. Thank >> Thank you. Okay. Any other questions? Okay. With
that, we'll open it up to public public testimony. If there's anyone in the courtroom who would like to address this application, please come forward. Anyone? Seeing no one, we'll double check online. Don't think there's anyone online. So we will bring it back to the board for uh
additional discussion and action please. >> Uh madame chair. >> Yes. >> So I'm again going to come back and try to get my math correct here. Um so I am not going to support
uh keeping that driveway um in the uh in the diagram the 705 square feet. And what I'm willing to do is um approve the variance for well, first of all, I'm going to back up. I don't
have any issue with the 86 ft with the hundreds required for the garage, right? I I don't have any issue for that, but I would I would split these actually into two considerations for the purpose of of the decision. Um so I'd support that. I
won't support retaining that driveway, but what I'm trying to accommodate is um the ability to come down and slightly extend beyond the garage so that if I was going to back out of the garage and go up the hill, I could do that on the
driveway, but I'm not willing to go beyond that. Um I appreciate the drawings for the reflecting the water. um that's probably required anyhow because we require a storm water management plan currently as
part of the conditions. So I assume we want to make sure that we are going to address where the water's going. Um so I appreciate that and and that would be useful. So I'm just trying to get in my head the number of what that
driveway variance is if we take out the part I I just indicated I'm not going to support. Does that make sense? >> Yeah. So, >> because I could just take out that 705
>> um which would give Where does the 705? Is that just the T piece? >> Yeah, it's half the T piece. It's um so this this divides shore impact zone one and two. So 705 is all in this area. >> Okay. I'm not willing to leave the T
period. >> Okay. So then this 727 square ft is allows this portion in SIS2 to remain >> and that would be you could back out there. Is that what it looks like? >> This is allowing a 10 foot. I'm not
>> okay. >> I'm not sure what's >> Okay. We we roughly I think talked about that on the on site if I recall correctly. >> You have to pull in the garage in order to back out there. >> Yeah. >> It's not big enough to pull to the garage door and back out. >> Yeah.
um that that might be, but I'm not willing to support um we don't allow the driveway in that zone. >> Correct. >> Period. So, I'm not willing to grant a variance. I haven't seen a need uh I haven't seen a um practical difficulty
presented that that's necessary for the purpose of the garage, which is the primary uh issue that was in front of us. So, you're telling me that that number is 7 >> 27
>> 27 square ft. Okay. So, that that's where I would sit today. I would approve the garage variance and I would, however, I would we would want to word that I would only allow the 727 square
foot variance for the driveway. Madam Chair, you know, I can agree with I agree with John. I mean, the placement of the garage, >> the topography of that land pretty much is limiting where that garage can go because it's coming down, you know. Um,
I agree with John with the um that whole tea. I cannot I I'd like to see that removed. Um I mean if they if they are in here and they back out and you that stops that
727 that matuminous driveway stops there to me that looks like significant room to back out of a garage. So I I could support the 727 foot driveway. I cannot and the garage but the rest of it would
have to be >> that's a safety hazard if to stop the driveway right there becomes a safety hazard that the drive the tea on the bottom is the flattest area that was there gravel was all gravel before right >> before I was in the picture >> I understand that yes
>> okay >> but we don't allow driveways in shore in the shore impact zone one and I I cannot support That T needs to be to me. I like to see that removed and just give them
the 720, you know, approve the 727 square foot. >> So, is that supposed to be turned into grass or is that stay gravel? What is your What is your proposal? >> 727 is batuminous right now. It's Am I correct? I
>> think he's saying the T >> the T removed part. >> The removal part >> that Madam Chair, that's to be worked out with staff, right? on what those materials are, but we're saying we wouldn't approve that >> the I think the if it's uh gravel or
asphalt regardless the both we you know um if somebody were to come in today and say I want to put a gravel driveway down we'd say you can't do that and we wouldn't >> when they bought the house that was already existing >> it's been there 50 years >> that driveway has been >> they did not make that that was there it's always been there
>> because to get to their front door that's where the that's where the bottom part the T is to to access their front door of the house. >> And the other side of the coin is a lot of our friends are our age. I'm not I'm 70. So to have them walk down a hill at night or go up the hill in the winter or
whatever is a safety hazard. We didn't create the topography. It is what it is. And we're trying to find a way where we can accommodate you but still not have any safety issues coming down the hill or have our friends have a safety issue.
What happens if they trip or fall? Because there's so there's gravel erosion down there. We get sued. >> That's our choice. >> Even the driveway in front of the garage is still on a a heck of a slope, a slant. >> Well, I'd like to bring it back to the
board for discussion. >> This is this is board discussion and I'm not going to kind of debate discussion that sense. Uh I understand the concern you raise. That's the nature of the topography of this parcel.
um you're asking to put a garage. We're understanding that issue. You're in front of us to ask for a garage on that slope, etc. And we do not allow driveways in that zone. And so it exists
and you're in front of us and asking for a variance to allow it and I'm saying I don't support that. So, um that's where I sit sit today. So the question would be if you know if
the driveway was existing and they put you know black top on top of it are you saying they then would it be to remove the black top back to what it was originally which would be that gravel area? I mean is that good >> well is the staff confirming that the
driveway existed prior to 2020? The furthest back that we go with aerial photography is in 2007 and then we'd have to go back and try to find some historical type things. But um
>> Madam Chair, nothing I'm not from nothing stop saying that they can't plant what they remove the batuminous and put grass in. Grass is, you know, it's going to slow the runoff into the lake. It's gonna I don't I just
>> what we're proposing for the drainage part >> is is a better >> Excuse me. This is board this is board discussion. >> Oh, okay. I apologize. >> Yeah. Thank you, sir. So, so maybe uh madam chair in my thought process by by
removing the driveway and getting to a pvious surface, right, which is what we'd kind of like relative to it. Nothing prevents them to the issue of safety of parking a car in the grass, right? I don't I don't believe there's anything that would prohibit that. So, how they wish to use that for their
safety is their choice. We say that we don't allow them and we have a variance to allow a driveway in zones that we don't allow them. And so that's what's in front of us. So unless you're suggesting that if it existed before we
should allow it in its previous state, but we don't know that in front of us tonight. Right. Correct. >> Um so that that's where I am. Could I just add that um whether it was the
first evidence of it being the tea showed up in aerial photos between 2020 and >> with the black with the black top >> with the black top. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. >> How long have you had the cabin? >> Bought it in 2017. >> 2017. Okay.
>> And it was a tea and there was gravel down there. We put we put crush crush crret down there from peekquat sand and gravel things like that. It still eroded. It still went down. It still created a lot of um you know humps and
whatnot in there. And so we decided at the end when we just for the tea for even more safety reasons to put the black top in there as well. I mean if >> Thank you. Um >> okay madam chair. Can I just follow up with Chris on with a question? um if it
existed before but it wasn't allowed and it wasn't permitted. They didn't put it in under a permit. Unless it existed before there was a zoning ordinance, >> right? >> Do we have any obligation to allow it to continue? >> If it's been there, if it's if if we had
evidence it was there prior to there being zoning as like you said the 15 years, then it would be illegal non-conforming use. Yes. >> And it would continue. >> We don't have such evidence before us. Right. Are you asking me to take Don't let them. Okay. >> We don't we don't have evidence that it was.
>> We don't now, but we could do the research and come back and give that to you at a FedE, you know, next month. >> So, if if the um if we can show that, then I'd allow that, but I'm not going to allow it to be paved.
>> Sure. >> It was gravel >> resto. Right. Okay. >> Right. It was it was paved pumminous. Right. We know that after 2020 to 22, right? So, how how would you suggest the board
handle that? >> If you'd like to table it and ask us to go back and do some more research and and we could definitely go back and find some older photography and and look for that. I would I would feel comfortable with that to just really clarify the the dates and times because I I too, you
know, am not in favor of that tea being granted unless we have some specific proof that there was something there before. >> Yeah. So, I'd like to be certain. >> Okay. >> There' be a motion to table?
>> Sure. I would I would offer that. >> And is there a second? >> I'll second it. in its table subject to the additional information coming back. >> Okay. >> Okay. All those in favor please signify by saying I. >> I. >> All the same sign. >> Motion to table has been passed. Thank
you. >> Thank you. >> Next uh application is William McMullen for variance please. Hello, >> Bill McMullen. Address is 217 Fth Street Southeast Medilia, Minnesota.
>> Thank you. Would you read the request into the record, please? >> Yes. Sorry, I just got lost in my pages. >> One second, please. No problem. >> All right, Madam Chair, we have property owner William McMullen, parcel number 63020555.
Physical address is 5936 Martin Road in Fort Ripley and this is in Fort Ripley Township. On page 286 of your packet, the property is located on Crowing Lake, which is a general development lake uh
with a 75 ft setback. This is um just south of Lennox Road. Um and this property is within the Shorland district and is surrounded by Shorland and residential uses. Um the certificate of survey is on page 289 of your packet. Uh the request
tonight is a variance for a lake setback of 61 ft where 75 ft is required to the proposed dwelling addition and uh lake setback of 49 ft where 75 is required to the proposed covered deck.
and that is to construct a 1,036 square foot dwelling addition and a 288 square foot covered deck. Um, this is an existing dwelling. The existing dwelling is a legal non-conforming structure. One
of our earliest records um for this parcel is a public hearing in 1980 for a sideyard setback edition. The propo the owner is proposing to keep this 13 by 24 section of the home and uh rebuild this addition
um while scraping and rebuilding the front port portion of the home including the covered deck. Um just to highlight some on-site comments from the April 2nd on-site meeting. It was noted that there are similar structures in the area and
that the shoreline was stable with a small swale near the lake. Uh, no comment was received from the township and no comments were received from the public. If the board does approve this application tonight, staff would like to recommend the following conditions. Um, one, a land use permit prior to
construction. Two, the implementation of an erosion and sediment control plan. Uh, three, the imple implementation of a storm water plan. And four, due to the proximity to the lake and asbuilt survey after construction is complete.
I can answer any questions you might have. >> Thank you. Any questions for staff? >> Do you have anything that you'd like to answer? >> No. >> Okay. Based on that, we'll open this request up for public testimony. Is there anyone here who would like to uh
testify to this application? Seeing no one in the courtroom. We'll double check online. No one there. Coming back to the board for further discussion and action on this request. Madame Chair, findings of factor on page 298 of your packet when you're ready.
>> Thank you. Had a chance to review those and I don't know if there are any discussion items there or not. And Nicolet had talked about the conditions, potential conditions, there's any additions to those.
>> Oh, Madam Chair. >> Yes. I'd like to make a motion to approve the variance for lake setback at 61 ft where 75 ft is required to propose dwelling addition, lake setback of 49 ft where 75 ft is required to propose covered deck to construct a 1,036qt
dwelling addition and a 288 ft covered deck with the um certificate of survey in the staff report, the findings of facts submitted in the staff report and the four conditions submitted in the staff for second.
>> A motion and a second. Uh is there any further discussion >> hearing? Not none. Before uh we make action on this uh item, I need to make sure and verify four items with you. You understand what is being approved this
evening? You understand the conditions uh that are required as part of the approval? Do you understand you must obtain the permits now from land services before construction begins? And do you understand 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, >> I do understand. I I got a couple questions. Since we started this 8 months ago, my wife has created some health issues and now we don't know if we want to go through with everything we proposed
here. If we downsize that, is that a problem? So, we can downsize it and >> you can go smaller. Yes. >> Okay. That was the only And how long is this variance and everything good for? >> Perpetuity. >> It's good for when? >> Good forever.
>> Forever. It's good forever. It's a long time. >> Very long time. >> A long time. Let's just put it that way. >> Now, one one last question. Is this by chance transferable? >> It is. It's record It'll be this will be recorded on the deed of your property.
And so, as property transfers, it just automatically transfers to the next property owner. >> So, it's just recorded on your deed. Becomes a property right. >> Absolutely. Okay. Uh we'll proceed with the vote then. All those in favor uh please signify by saying I.
>> I. >> Both same sign. Variance is approved. Thank you and have a good evening. >> Have a nice evening yourselves. >> Our next applicant are Thomas and Stephanie Simmons with a variance request.
Thanks for your patience. Know it's getting long. Stephanie Simmons, 2282 Yindistad Road, Carlton, Minnesota. >> Tom Simmons, same address. >> Thank you. And can you read the request into the record, please?
>> Yes, Madam Chair. We have property owners Thomas and Stephanie Simmons. Uh, parcel number 68350540. Physical address of the property is 10313 Oawin Mickey Road in Pekquat and this is located in Ideal Township. I'm
going to go to page 305 of your packet. Um this property is located on Oawin McKe Lake. It's a general development lake with a 75 ft setback. Um it's just west of County Road 39. This property is within the Shorland district and is
surrounded by Shorland and residential uses. On page 310 of your packet is a certificate of survey. Um the variance requests tonight are a lake setback of 24 feet where 75 ft is
required to the proposed new dwelling, a lake setback of 16 feet where 75 ft is required to the proposed covered deck and a lake setback of 55 ft where 75 is required to the proposed deck. Sorry. The 16 ft setback where 75
is required is two proposed covered deck uh to construct a 272 ft new dwelling uh 192 ft covered deck and a 144 square foot deck. Um the existing dwelling is an existing
non-conforming structure um that sit sits oh my gosh sits 16 feet back um from the lake or the ordinary high water mark um and the proposal is to scrape and rebuild the existing structure with an
addition going um away from the lake is what you see here. Um the structure would remain at 16 feet from the ordinary high water mark with an 18 foot or sorry an 8 foot wide covered deck and uh the new proposed dwelling would start 24 ft from the ordinary high water
mark. Um a variance was approved in June 2024 for a 200 foot second story addition on the existing dwelling which I do believe has never been constructed yet. Okay. A comment was received from the township recommending approval of
the request. Uh no comments were received from the public. And if the board does approve this application tonight, staff would like to recommend the following conditions. Uh one, a land use permit prior to construction. Two, the implementation of an erosion and settlement control plan. Three, uh
implementation of a storm water plan. And four, due to the proximity of the lake and as survey after construction is complete. I can answer any questions that you might have. >> Any questions for staff? >> Is there anything that you'd like to add?
>> I don't think so. >> Hearing none, I just open it up for public testimony then if there's anyone in the courtroom, and I don't believe there is, who would like to speak to this application? Anyone online? Bring it back to the board for additional discussion and action on this item,
please. Madam Chair, >> yes. >> When I'm reviewing the discussion during the 112 2026 developmental re review team meeting notes, it says the house is
currently a shell. So the house is not inhabited at this that portion is not inhabited at this time is my question. Um >> I could add to that if you want. >> Pardon? >> Were you asking if it was inhabited?
>> Habitable. >> Yeah, I was just going to say it is uh the former owner completely stripped all the walls. So the wiring is tore out, the plumbing's tore out. Uh there's holes in the concrete in the basement. So yeah, you cannot live in there right
now. The inside of the house is completely gutted. I mean, when you when you look at the certificate of survey, I mean, this property has a fairsized building envelope
that they could potentially they could build this proposed new dwelling that they're looking at in the building envelope. I I just I'm having a hard time justifying approving a variance at 16
feet. When you look at the aerial photo and there's no there's no neighboring or no structure that close to AIE within that locality.
Madam Chair, there was one variance that you approved back I believe it was in 24 to I think >> correct >> it's that one right >> let's see I think >> it was for a a much smaller addition >> yeah it was this one at the it was at
the bottom it was at the bottom that bluff that driveway had to come across through here and stuff so but there's that one there that but that you're right that was that was done through a variance recently a couple years ago What was the locality of I mean what was the set do you know what the setback was
on that Chris that we approved? Um I don't have that number, but um it was more of a we pushed it back as far to the bluff as because it was it was the bluff came down and they >> and it was it was basically replacing there was a cabin that was there existing and they were replacing that
with a little addition to it, I think. >> And I I know in the past we approved a variance on this, but it was for a much smaller addition. Um, that's all the comments I got right now.
So, >> other discussion? >> Well, maybe just for clarification, Madam Chair. So, they're close to the lake 16 ft. They could rebuild there.
They can still use the variance from 2024 and have a second story and that's what they would get if they get the keep the current footprint. That's all they get. Right. We could we could agree to that. They they're allowed to do that because it's there. It's on the foundation. >> That's been approved.
>> We But they're asking to expand that significantly. Right. They're asking to >> build >> larger than that footprint. significantly larger than that footprint. Right. >> Correct. Yep. Behind the existing
structure. >> And I think what Sue is getting at is there's plenty of buildable area there. So, can we push that back further from the lake? Um, >> could you show where the buildable area would be on where it would be on there?
>> Yep. So if we were to highlight >> all this, >> it starts you can see the dotted line here comes down through here up and so all this area here would be would would be at least would be in the building envelope meaning
meeting meaning meeting meaning meeting meaning meeting meaning meeting meaning meeting meaning meeting meaning meeting meaning meeting meaning meeting meaning meeting setbacks and the variance wouldn't be needed to build in that location >> and as it exists they're ask they're saying they're going to go above the bluff with the addition anyhow correct that's what I understand >> y >> is that correct is considered to be a
bluff. >> Not above. I shouldn't say steep slope. >> Steep slope. I don't think it's let me get my language correct. Steep slope. >> It's a steep slope, not a blow. >> You're going to go above the slope with with the addition. >> Correct. >> So the setback cuts through the house
about like right there. So this part would be this would be the part really this since this would be the part they could rebuild. This is the part that would really be, you know, part of the of the variance would would be because this this part up in here would be
conforming. It's this little part right in here. There's a there's kind of a gap between the existing and where that setback would be. So the the the deck is new. So that 55 ft that's new because it's a proposed
the the deck that's in blue, right? That correct? That's the 55 ft. The 24T and the the 16 ft is existing right where 75 is required to the covered deck in front. That's the purple. And the 24
ft to the 75 for the new dwelling is the red part that starts there. Okay. Madam Chair, where I come from is of course if there's opportunity to move things back there's a desire for to do
so, right? Um and I weigh that with they could build where they are today and have a second story, but that's all they'd get. They'd probably say, "Well, that wouldn't be sufficient for what they plan." But if
we So I'm trying to figure out the balance here, right? That's what I'm kind of saying. Um because if somebody wants to stay that close to the water, I would respect that they could on that footprint and have their variance that's
in place. That's all allowed and and that allows them to stay there and that's okay. That's that's what they're allowed by our ordinance, right? Um, but if we want something much bigger, then I'm again I'm just saying is there a way to move it further back from the water?
That's where I sit. >> I would say that I agree with that. Um I we know that there it's perfectly fine to build an existing footprint but um I think to expand to the extent that
they're looking at that it could be moved back 16 ft is very close to the lake which is why I understand why people want to keep it there but there needs to be some I think middle ground here that's close
And I I agree with John. I mean, they could rebuild what's there with the approved variance from 2024 for a 200 square foot second story edition, >> but to go to to a much larger addition,
I think they could it could all be pushed back and put into that large building envelope. So, so Madam Chair, just so I'm clear where we sit, if if we denied this variance,
they still would be left with the ability to be where the foundation is today with the seconds story edition that was approved by a variance. That's still in place. >> That would that would not change. >> They could do that today. So the the
variances we're denying are for the expansion, so to speak, >> the addition to the rear. >> They don't need a variance for the big part in the back. It's already within >> it's well they do because the red part is the addition. >> It's the gap. >> It's kind of an overlap. There is
>> the gap in between is really what you're looking >> Yeah, it's a there's an overlap there. Okay. So, I'm just going to keep coming back to I think we bear a responsibility to support people that want to make improvements, but we also protect water
through our efforts. And so, when we get the chance, we, you know, would like to see people move back. And so, I'm looking for a way to um see if we couldn't accomplish that. But if not,
um then I leave it at they could build what's approved already. >> Madam Chair, findings a factor on page 321 and 323 of your packet depending on >> and madam chair. Yes, if I may one we
don't normally do this but I'm wondering if the applicants want to respond to the discussion about trying to move back. I that would be I mean I'd be interested in their insight on that. Um I think that would be fine. >> Yeah, if you don't mind. Uh the old
variants um at first we thought about trying to just go with the old variants, but uh with the hill I pretty much figured we'd have to build a 30foot bridge that goes to the door of that
upper floor once you add it on. Um, our plan was to maintain the width of the building and get just get back into the hill and try and get to that setback as fast as we could before we went out.
So, that's kind of was our plan to just try and work back into the hill. And then this would be a retirement home for us, uh, not a cabin. Um, and then so in our floor plan, I don't know if you have a copy of that, but everything we would
need for living is on that top floor. And then we have four daughters, so when they come to visit, we'd have bunk rooms and Stephanie works from home. Her office would be on the middle floor. Um, so just the need for more space. uh the
the original footprint just wasn't large enough for our family and what we wanted to do with it. Uh the appeal with the property, the reason we purchased it was the location, how close it is to the water. Um, so yeah, we understand uh we
had talked about building farther up on the hill and keeping that as a bunk house and um but we just wanted the lake views and didn't want to have to once you build back on the hill, you're kind of just looking at the top of that that
structure that's there now. Oh, did I miss anything? I mean, it's it's more like an ease of access thing, too, because it got bigger than we wanted it just to get it up on the hill and fit what we wanted to fit
in there. Um, in all honesty, it's the concern is if you saw the property where it drops down and there's just that little bit of space like snow removal, all of those things with what's existing there. Um, we're thinking about
that long term as well, like how we control that with the way things could drift into there with the front entrance being set down into that hill. So, I am not even sure how we would bring it up
and have an entry off of the top. >> Yeah. I I just think uh it would turn into a strictly a summer use structure if we were not approved uh to do what we want that um going down just the snow
drifts down in there between the hill and the structure that's there now and it's would very hard to maintain the snow and yeah especially as we get older but uh it would just strictly be a summer use structure then.
Thank you. Any other discussion at the board level, please or entertain a motion? Look at the um findings of fact. >> Well, um I was I was kind of hoping the
applicant would kind of say we're willing to move back, but they want to keep that structure. And the dilemma is even if if we deny this, there'll be a structure there 16 ft from the lake. That's the that's the reality. So unless
they were willing to give up part of that and move it back and and they're not, whether we approve this and it's an improvement to the parcel or we say no um and they decide to keep it as a summer place and have a second story,
there'll still be a structure 16 feet from the lake. That's the reality and I would agree with that and I think you know if you're looking at it from the environmental standpoint on this um they can rebuild in that spot and they can and put it where it is. So I think going
back you know from an it isn't going to harm the lake anymore. Um I think I it looks to me like they've they did some work. If we go back to that survey quick could you pop that survey back up? you know, they they did minimize the
connection, I would say, here to I think to, you know, to the best extent that they could. And so I I don't I think, you know, I think they've they've moved it back. And um I think it's reasonable from what they're asking for. May not be perfect. It may not be what we would
like. And if they came in today with nothing here, we'd tell you to build up the hill. You wouldn't have a choice um at that point. But, you know, I I can see where your where your thought process is, John. I think you'd think about what are the benefits that we could get to this with the conditions of
storm water vegetation. >> That was just what I was going to say. I I believe with the storm water management plan that there is some benefit that is gained through that versus what is there currently. So, that would be um beneficial
if approved. >> Madam Chair, what if I I understand, John. You're right. They could rebuild it there. But if they removed this covered deck,
then it would be back to 24 ft. At least it's 8 feet farther away from the lake. I don't I mean, I could I could support the I like to see the 24. I'd like to see that covered deck
not be there. And so the structure starts at 24 feet. But just for clarity, is the covered deck simply going over the front part of what the structure is today? Structures at 16
ft, right? So they're just transforming the front part of it to a covered deck. Is that what I understand? Correct. >> Okay. So, I hear you. >> Um >> I was just thinking of a way to get it >> a little farther away from >> we we've tried
>> I mean I >> with that I think we're at the point where to make a >> So so >> decision or motion and have a vote. >> I'm Yeah. So I I mean I appreciate all the conversation. and I understand our objective, but my I still come back to
the fact that there's still going to be a structure there at 16 ft if we say no. And if the next person comes in and proposes something, there's still going to be a structure at 16 ft. So, it's there. So, I'm I'm probably more now in favor of at
least improve the property that is sitting not in great shape that's going to become an eyesore on the lake. uh is is a better thing than since we're not going to get anybody to move it back.
So, I'm going to change my mind and support it even though I'm >> Would you like to state that in the form of a motion? >> Yeah. I I will move approval of the variance for the lake setback of 24 ft where 75 is required of the proposed new
dwelling. A lake setback of 16 feet where 75 is required to propose covered deck and a lake setback of 55 feet where 75 is required to propose deck to construct a 272 ft new dwelling. 192 ft covered deck,
144 square ft deck with the uh four potential conditions, the findings of fact that are on the screen for yes, that were in our packet for our review in advance and the survey that's been submitted.
>> There's a motion. Is there a second? >> I'll second it. >> Motion in a second. Any further discussion? Okay. before we take action on your request. >> One second. Um on the conditions that we
had the proposed conditions. >> Yeah. Um is could we add the condition of that somehow that existing structure 16 ft from the lake is guttered?
>> I mean I I just don't have a storm. >> Sure. We could that's part of the storm water management plan. >> Okay. Cuz I don't what I don't want is I don't want to see all the the runoff off that roof coming down and going directly into the lake at 16 ft. >> Storm water management plan I would
think would address that. >> That's what I would be wrong to Sue's point. There'd be nothing wrong with adding a condition five that requires it to be guttered. Right. >> Correct. >> And you're proposing that. Okay. And I'd accept that. >> Yep. You do that. So there'd be five
total conditions. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Have the second and you both agree on that. Um so before we take action, I need to verify four items with you. You understand what is being approved this evening. Uh you understand the conditions that are required as part of
this approval? >> We do. >> And you understand you must obtain permits now from land services department before construction begins. >> Yes. >> And you understand what is being approved tonight is final. Any future changes in to what is being approved tonight, such as structure size, height,
or location must be approved by this board. This means that you'd be required to submit a new application, pay the appropriate fees, and provide an updated survey and any other information with the new request. What uh staff cannot modify or change what's been approved by this board. Is that understood?
>> Understood. >> With that, we'll take a vote. All those in favor of this motion, please signify by saying I. I am >> same sign variance is approved. Motion carries. >> Negative. >> Thank you. >> Bless you. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. So item 6.11 is Riverwood Shores I believe. >> Correct. Thank you, Madam Chair. If you remember back uh in this time last year, we had the plat of Riverwood Shores on Whitefish. It was that parcel that was
adjacent to um Whitefish. And then the Pine River on the south and it had about I wish I do we have the >> 19 lots. >> Do we have the survey by Oh, we had the survey with us. Do we have the survey? >> No, not that survey. >> Yeah.
>> Um let me >> So So what happened was when that per plat was approved um they chose to not do a developers agreement. So they wanted to build the road prior to getting the final plat approved. And what happened was as they built the road, they built a
subbase um last uh during during last year and they wanted to let it sit over the winter before they black topped it. And so this uh the project was approved last April 17th. Um and they're asking for an extension from the planning commission to allow them um more time to
get that black top done so that they can get that uh letter from the township saying they're going to maintain it. Then they take it to the county board. They can go through the final plat process. they just can't get it done in 12 months. And so the ordinance does allow for the for the planning commission to allow them to um for you
to approve an extension for them to be able to to do that. >> So they're basically looking for a one-year extension. >> Yeah, they're they're saying 6 to8 weeks on here, but I would I'd make a recommendation that we that you just, you know, give them a 12-month extension.
>> I got it up here on the screen. makes sense in case you know there's always something that comes up and that way it's covered >> and there's no harm to the county for it. >> Um, Madam Chair, if John's okay with this, >> what >> I mean when when I'm looking when I'm
reading this, I can see >> they wanted to go through a freeze thaw cycle, which makes makes sense to before they put the black top down and then it breaks up. They got to do it. So >> So sorry, I got to ask a question. Um, but
this would go on all the time. So, it's because they didn't have a developers agreement. >> They they chose >> make this they chose that route. >> What they didn't want to do is have to put the one and a half times, you know, the 1.25 um in C in in escrow account for us to
then go build the road. So, that was the ordinance gives folks the option to either build the road and then get it approved and then come back and final plat or to do a developers agreement. So, in my terms, they made a choice to do something to save money and now they're
missing the deadline. >> Correct. >> Right. Yeah. >> So, um I don't like uh process precedents. We've had one before uh on an extension in my time and we said no,
as I recall, on an extension of the of the timing. So I just that they they they made a choice and they to save money and now they missed the deadline and now it's the freeze frost cycle, but that's not the real reason they missed
the deadline. They made a choice in the front end in how to proceed. So um I that you might well approve it, but I'm going to vote no. So if we if the extension isn't granted
then they'll simp they'd have to come back through and apply for the plat and go through the process again. That would be the process. >> And and I again I am recalling in my time here we had this once before with a uh a plat not meeting the timing and they in fact had to come back again. >> Right.
>> That's my recollection. But >> we've Yep. I don't think they asked for an extension. I don't think I think they just missed the >> they missed it and then I think they asked for a variance because they missed it. >> Yeah. Um same principle. Yeah. >> So I just again as a process thing um
what's the criteria then >> that says we'll give a variance if you to this one but say no to the next one. I don't so I I'll vote no. But I think John on the last one that was like that he hadn't even started
with the roads or he hadn't really done anything. I can I I can understand wanting them wanting a freeze thaw putting the road in before they put the batuminous on. So I don't have a problem
granting them one um a year extension. >> I can too. I have pavement falling apart in front of my house because they didn't go through a freeze thaw. >> Yeah. So, >> if we're ready for action, u madame chair, >> yes,
>> I would like to um approve a one-year extension for the final plat submitt of smittle of riverwood shores on whitefish pertaining to the letter submitted on um dated April 10th, 2026 by Kramer Lee
Deil. >> I I can second that. I will second that motion. >> Any further discussion? If not, all those Oh, I have to talk about the variance first that I'm applying. Um, there is there someone here or
>> nope, they just sent the letter in and there's nobody here. >> Sent the letter. Okay. >> I don't know if anyone was online or whatever. I got ahead of myself. Um, so >> we will just need to vote. There's no one to talk to as far as the requirements. So, um I think we need to do a roll call vote.
>> Madam Chair, can I ask a question? Is this a variance? >> No, this is not a variance. It's it's it's not allowed. It's it's allowed in the ordinance. >> Allowed extension, right? I heard somebody say variance. >> That's no variance. This is not a variance. So, >> Oh, thank you.
>> My tongue is getting a little tired. >> So, um I do believe we need to take a roll call vote on this. Um, so all those in favor of the motion will go down the line. John, >> I'm a no. >> Yes.
>> And I'm a yes. And so it passes two to one. Thank you. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. The last item agenda is we have Chad Foster who um got a variance that was approved by the board um at the end of when was the
application deadline? What date did we do that? approved in December 19th. >> Yeah, December 2025. And uh one of the we pull up the conditions um that we had in place for that, Nichollet. So, one of the conditions that was in place was uh
so if just just to kind of go back, we'll kind of walk through what was approved. Um >> yeah, let's go to the beginning. Maybe we we can figure out just make sure just remind everybody what So this was a variance to allow a bluff
impact zone setback of 10 ft where 30 is required to propose dwelling and deck and dirt moving in the bluff impact zone where it wasn't allowed and a conditional use permit for 195 yards of of um dirt moving. And so if we go down to the survey real quick
and let's go down to the next one below it that kind of shows that side the side cut I think is helpful. >> We can find that. >> Those pictures are very helpful as well. Really shows the topographical features of the >> right >> terrain on how everything drains away
from the lake. >> Yeah. And so the so the question is is that everything was approved and one of the conditions was if you look at um the condition that was in place let's see it requires an engineered
storm water management plan is required and then it also had the engineered erosion 7 control plan was was required and um I've been talking to Chad um a little bit this week last week about is there. His question to you is there is
there really a need to have it engineered. Um and he's really requesting that you would remove that um the engineered component from the requirement of of um of what needs to be done out there. So that's the that's the request tonight.
>> So you still have to have we still get a storm water management plan. It's just not engineered. Correct. >> Is basically what it is. >> Yeah. And I think the concern that you guys had last year was just the location. It's in the bluff and the setback. And I think you guys were just wanted to make sure that that was done
right. But, you know, having conversations with Chad and stuff, it sounds like, you know, he's feeling pretty confident that he's got everything figured out as far as the drainage and and that and where the water's going. So, I don't know if you have any feedback. >> At at the permitting process, erosion
and sediment control measures would be would be warranted anyways. I just want to point that out as far as >> well madam chair has the applicant submitted something that shows us that the concern we had I don't remember the concern then we must had a reason for
wanting that as a condition that that that concern is no longer valid >> if you look in the look in your folder we have a packet of information there and uh Chad did submit some just >> so the first couple is
If we go to the third, if we go to uh page three, you'll see this document here. That's the start of what's what he what's been submitted for you guys to look at. Starts here. All right. This is the Let's see.
>> It should be labeled on top. >> This is the document here that Chad This is the document here. >> Yeah. >> This is the one that he submitted. the other stuff we just want to throw in there just to remind you of of the process. So, >> I'd be happy to explain my plans if
they're pulled up too if need be. >> Do we have these scanned down at all? >> I think so. >> Okay. I'll at least um go to your survey. >> Yeah, the cert certificate of survey would be or that works too. Um it has
the topographical features there. As you can see on the top of the bluff, it's kind of a ridge, right? And then everything from the front of the structure to the south, everything naturally drains away
from the lake. My correct me if I'm wrong, but I am confident and have zero concerns of any runoff or anything running towards Bass Lake. Um everything I feel like will be running away towards
Giri Mo Court. Um in my erosion and sediment control plan there will be silt fence starting from this side of the property line cutting through the front of the structure
structure and then coming to this high spot here. So anything if anything were to happen, everything is is captured and everything drains this way. >> That's this one right? >> Yes. Yeah. >> So it's just documented.
>> And then this road is going to be constructed um right here through this easement. And this is a steep slope. I am proposing to put down straw um compostable straw blankets on
anything that is not vegetated um as this road is constructed. >> And that's that area hatched in blue that you can see here. >> So that's my erosion and sediment control plan. Um and then
if I'm not mistaken the storm water management plan which needs to be in place after construction so that all imperous um imperous surfaces
shed water to a one-inch rain event. >> Correct. >> Correct. >> Correct. Um, and I do have a um I do have a plan. I believe that's in that packet as well. >> Yep. This one is >> um I don't think it's labeled on top, but on the top it does say all drainage
will be directed to vegetated areas >> here. Right, Chad? >> Um yes. Yes, it is. >> Document here. >> So on the first of all, our roof line, right? The roof line sheds all water to the west
and to the east. Nothing sheds towards the bluff. On this roof line, everything sheds towards the north, but through the natural topography. Um, once it hits here, there's going to be a
gutter. Once it hits the north side of the building, it's going to be captured in a gutter and then drain natural drainage down this way. On the house, I will have a gutter and the
downspout will be the south side of the house right here. Then there will be French style drain with 4-in drain tile that directs the water because this is going to be a sensitive area. I don't want everything to drain through the driveway area. That 4-in drain tile with
a down spout will direct all storm water to this vegetated area, which is over in the drain field area. On this side of the house, same thing. I don't want it to drain here and erode anything. So, there's going to be a 4-in drain tile that directs the water off the down
spout towards this vegetated area naturally flowing the rain water down into all this vegetated deep slope area. >> So, basically what I'm This is what
you're proposing is going to look like when it's when it's all said and done. >> That is a that is the 3D structure of what's going to be there. which does show that the roof line is not going toward the bluff. I think he's I think he's done a good job with this.
>> I don't what's what's being what's in front of us tonight? I'm not clear. >> Remove the word engineer. >> Remove the word engineer from the conditions that was approved. >> Does that include the uh erosion and sediment control plan must be signed off by engineer? >> Correct.
>> We're basically relitigating the conditions and revising them. >> Correct. That's the That's the request. >> Yeah. >> When I look at the last variance that was just approved with the home that's
16 ft from the shoreline that doesn't have engineered storm water management plans. I feel like my request is rather reasonable. >> I would agree from a staff perspective. I think what he's put together makes sense and I think it achieves what the
board wants to achieve. >> Entertain um any other discussion or a motion >> probably opposed. So I'm not going to make a motion. Okay. Which which condition are we looking at,
Chris? >> That's going to be the conditions that I think you could just if you >> storm water manage >> off the staff report. >> Yep. Off the staff report. So, we have conditions for the variance. We have the engineered storm water management plan. So, it' be condition number two. Um,
condition number three, removing signed off by engineer, still requiring the storm water management plan, still requiring the the sediment and erosion control plan. >> Yep. I think you could make a motion that says for the variance and conditional use permit to red to remove
any references to needing an engineer approval or sign off. I think you could just make a general statement. So, we would be removing condition two completely and amending condition three saying that >> No, you're not removing condition two at
all. You're just removing the word. You still don't have a storm water plan. >> We just don't want it doesn't have to be. >> I think you're just removing >> any reference to engineered. >> Correct. All you're I think all you need to say is a motion to remove any engineering requirements from the conditions and I think that would cover
it. If we're ready, Madam Chair, I would like to make a motion to uh remove any references um regarding engineered um on conditions for the variance for
Chad and Jessica Foster for the What day did we approve this? >> November 18th. >> What was it? >> 19th, I think. December 19th. >> Oh, 19th. Yes. >> May 10th last year. December >> December 19th. >> Mhm. >> Okay. >> December 19th >> for the for the approved of variance for
on September 19 December. >> There you go. >> December 19th, 2025. >> Here we go. >> All right. Did I do that right, Chris? You make it the right way. >> We just need a second to >> I will second that. Further discussion.
We'll do a roll call vote. Uh John, >> no. >> Sue I. >> And I vote I as well. Motion passes. >> We'll give you your updated stuff. >> Thank you all.
>> Thank you for being last. >> Thanks for being last. Someone has to be >> I would I appreciate being last. >> So enjoy your evening. >> Thanks. >> Okay. Matters not on the agenda. >> Just want to give the board an update. I
did have conversation with um Andrew Ranweiler and related to that plat over by Gilbert