and call this meeting to order. Um, we do have a quorum. Jen, you're good on attendance. >> And uh, minutes. I would look for a motion to, unless there's any corrections, I'd look for a motion to approve the minutes from the last regular meeting, but all the way back in
November. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All right. I have a motion and second. Any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor say I. >> Oppos. Same sign. >> All right. Uh, unless there's an objection, I'm going to go ahead and move uh 3B up to the front of the line
since we actually have uh Jim here from United Community Bank and nobody else from the public. So, uh, at this point, I will call to order a public hearing to give consideration to a variance to allow 26 parking spaces instead of the required 36 spaces for
construction of a credit union and a coffee shop at 100 Richwood Road, United Savings Credit Union. Uh, Kelsey, you want to give us the rundown? >> Yep. chair and commission. So, United Savage Credit Union is seeking to redevelop the existing car wash at 100 Richwood Road by constructing a new
4,668 square foot building to include a bank and coffee shop. Uh the site plan includes actually two drive-throughs to service the bank and coffee shop. Uh the property is currently zoned B3 and these are permitted uses. It really looks like other than parking, everything else, at
least on the the draft uh site plan would meet zoning requirements. Uh the drive-throughs confirmed to the ordinance setbacks, all those things seem to look good. Um I included in my staff report the actual section out of the zoning ordinance that has the off-
streetet parking uh requirements. Uh the applicant also provided a really nice kind of uh summary of what is needed again based upon the breakout of what is bank space, what is actual kitchen space
and what is the dining area for a total of 36 parking spaces. Uh furthermore, um the ordinance states that if a variance or a waiver is requested from the parking requirements, there's a payment in lie of parking spaces. Currently, the
city council has that price set at $2,500 per space. So, if there's a variance for 10 parking spaces, in theory, that would result in a $25,000 payment in lie of uh the applicant is requested to wave that payment in lie of
in exchange for granting the city uh the city and the Boys and Girls Club basically access to the parking lot through an easement. And there are times when um there are events up at the Boys and Girls Club that overflow parking. Um
they do need some additional parking. So there is a need for that um additional parking. I list out some findings. If you bear with me, I'll read through these. Um again, zoning ordinance um stipulates a
few conditions you should look at when granting a variance. is the variance in harmony with the purpose intent of the ordinance. The 26 parking spaces are adequate for the proposed businesses based upon applicants experience in other locations. The proposed parking is adequate as the coffee shop and credit
union consists mostly of drive-through traffic. A public parking lot is located nearby with additional parking spaces. Two is the variance consistent with the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan identifies this area as commercial and the proposed use is consistent both
with the comprehensive plan and the B3 zoning district. You also have to establish a practical difficulty and that means has the property owner proposed to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance. Uh the proposed project is consistent with the current use of the area and is
consistent with the current B3 zoning district. A shared parking agreement will provide a safer environment for attendees at larger events at the Boys and Girls Club. Is the plight or is the plight of the land owner due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the land owner? Um the
property is unique with its topographical challenges as it sits on a hill with some large existing trees on the property. The variance would allow trees to remain and limit the amount of excavation and retaining walls needed on the site. The proposed site plan with 26 spaces provides the efficient use of
space and functionality. A city park and parking lot is located adjacent to the property. Uh let me see. I got last one. The variance if granted will not alter the essential character locality. Again the property is zone B3 has been a
commercial use for many years. The project is a significant redevelopment of existing vacant blighted commercial property. The credit union coffee shop will maintain the business character of this locality and provide another service business in the area of the city. So lastly, the the recommendation of
staff is to grant the variance uh based upon uh these conditions. Uh the applicant provide a minimum of 28 parking spaces or provides 26 parking spaces and pays uh $5,000
for a payment in lie of parking fee. kind of a an option there. And then of course the applicant do provide the an easement to the city provide public parking for events held at Crocher Park in the Boys and Girls Club of Detroit Lakes.
Uh the applicant's here. Um if you have any questions, I'll take those or I'm sure the applicant will speak to his request. >> Well, let's go ahead and uh open it up for a public comment. Jim, if you want to come up and just state your name and and official address for the record, please. Okay.
Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for moving the the agenda around. I I certainly appreciate that. Um getting on the road sooner is I'm going to pass these out if if I could. >> Absolutely. >> Just grab one and pass it on down. Uh
that sheet of paper. Um well, wait, I'll state my name first. Uh James Schaebower. I'm the president CEO of United Savings Credit Union. Uh we're the ones asking for the variance. Um, we I do live in Fargo, North Dakota, 3709
22nd Street South in Fargo. Uh, we do have a lake place down here on Lake Mson. And so that is my retirement place. So I really like the area. We we love being down here. Anyway, um the the reason for this and United Savings
Credit Union is um we're about a $120 million credit union. been in business for over 90 years and we have three locations in Fargo, one in Dworth and we opened up the one down here in Detroit Lakes in 2019 just when I took this
position. My previous position was with Capitol Credit Union. I had just got done building our new branch on 32nd Avenue and Veterans in Fargo in West Fargo there. Fargo West Fargo with the coffee shop very similar to this type of
operation. Um, and so for comparison, I I gave you all what the Fargo parking requirements are just so that you have some comparison because if I was if I was to build this same building and square footage in Fargo, we would
require 21 parking spaces. M >> and there there's I guess there's a little bit you know the thing of it is Fargo there you can see their requirement for a they have a separate breakout for financial whereas the the ordinance down here um doesn't and and
first of all I I want I I should thank Kelsey uh Kelsey's been a great help in helping me get the requirements that I needed for down here and making sure that I was calculating it right. So, I I certainly appreciate his his time and effort in helping us through this. But,
um, so the thing of it is that site plan and if if you've got it up there along the south side, there is an electrical box there. That's what the little square is. And then there's another little box there. I think once we clear the area,
we're going to be able to fit more parking spaces in there, but I I don't know what that is right now or what the count is. And then those three spots that are showing on the west side way on the left there, those are actually if if
you walk the site, that's going to go into the hill and probably take out a couple of big trees. Now we're, you know, I I'm I like this area. I like the trees and the grass. I would rather not have an area of just cement and and
asphalt around our building if if need be. So I I know uh Kelsey and his staff, they recommended, you know, 28 and and 26 if we pay for two. And I mean, I I
think we're going to get them. I I think we'll get more parking spaces along the south side, but I can't really guarantee you that um how many I'm going to get because I can't I can't draw that on there yet or it's it's hard to put that on there until we actually get the
excavating done so we can see how we can easily fit that in there. But I was going to ask for a little bit of leeway on that final number until we get the place leveled and so that we get to the
spot where we want to be. I mean, I I'd like to be closer to that 21. You know, maybe maybe we can fit 24 25. Um 28 is going to be a stretch without going into the hill and taking some more
trees out. So that's that's my request here and and I'm not >> Yeah. Uh chair and commission just kind of our my rationale when I looked at assuming that the three parking spaces on the west side were
you know uh buildable I guess or were able to put in. That's how I was able to come up. All right. So the current site plan that you're looking at is 26 parking spaces. The thought is if you can move the transformer then all of a sudden you would have 28 parking spots.
So that's that was the rationale but as pointed out um maybe those parking spots on the west side are going to be challenging. They they they will be and I you know I I because I've walked that I walked all the way around
that perimeter and going into that west hill I I just don't like the fact that we're going to tear down trees just to get parking spots when I I don't think we'll need them. The other two factors that that come into this is financials
today 70% of our members and we have 7,000 members. 70% of them have online access and and so they either get online on the computer or everybody's got these things in their pockets. You can deposit a check. You can go to any ATM and get
cash out. our traffic from a financial perspective is really low and I think a lot of financials are that way and and the coffee shop when I talked to the owner in Fargo there who runs the coffee shop where we had put that together she said she manages two different she
manages the code of coffee too in in addition to Bully Brew at Capitol there she's never had a problem with parking in either spot and most of their most of their business is drive-thru as well So that's I guess some of the rationale for
going with not needing even the 26, but uh I think if we you know I know uh Kelsey recommended 28, but if we can at least remove those three on the other side and say we're going to get 25 out
of there, I think we will for sure along if I can, you know, remove those two spots and do parking all along that south side, I think we'll get there. Um, so I I I think I could settle on a number of 25 if if you would be
agreeable to that. Uh, yes. >> Can you explain the coffee shop concept to me? Is it a sitdown area that you have to have a number of cars? >> There's Yeah, there's a little bit or is it a drive-thru coffee shop? >> It's it's a there's a little bit of a sit down in there, too. So, we kind of
share a lobby area, but in in the cases where we're not open there, there's a spot that closes. so that they can't get over to the financial side. So, we're basically coll-located, but we we share lobbies. We share bathrooms.
You know, the public bathrooms are both ours and theirs. And when when we're when we're closed for business, they would have we would have our there's a door that closes so that they can't get through to the financial side. So,
Kelsey, explain to me um the how we come up with the parking spaces needed for the coffee shop, which is sort of a restaurant. My understanding is that's usually based on a square footage of the building that is the restaurant.
>> Correct. So, I I put up on the screen here, this is the the summary that Jim did, and this is this is accurate. So, you're basically splitting the uses that are within that 4,668 square ft. uh we minus 10% is it's you
just reduce 10% off your square footage for interior walls, those sorts of things. Uh and then basically the bank, you know, we don't have a separate classification for parking for banks. Um it's just office building, so it's three spaces plus one per 200 ft of floor
space, which is this 19. And then uh the coffee shop, it gets split between what's the kitchen area cuz that's one space per 80 and then the the dining area. Um, as you pointed out, there is there is a little walk-in area, there's a little seating area. So, um, you know,
that dining area then has a different calculation of one space per 40. And that's how you get the calculation of 36 parking spaces. And then I I tried to detail out the way the Fargo you can see on the Fargo there
when you compare the two the the office other than medical space they have um and I I just took that for comparison to the office space down you know requirement down here theirs is one space per 300 square ft and there's no
extra three on it and then but they have a separate financial breakout in Fargo for for banks and credit unions and so that is one per 250 square ft whereas down here it's one per 200. So there's less spaces that would calculate there
and then the kitchen areas broke out. It's the greater of the um well I I I didn't they had a restaurant and then they have a restaurant with a drive-thru. So I I wanted to have an equal comparison because we have a drive-thru here. So I did them both.
>> So this is a double drive-thru. You drive through for coffee on one side and you drive through for banking on the other side. >> Yes. Yes. >> Yeah. You can see on the north side there the the on the north side is the the credit unions. So that's it's got
three stacked there. A a bypass lane and the outside lane is where the the kiosk will be for them to order their coffee. >> And so that's that's where they would order their coffee. It's It's very similar to the one I have that we did in
Fargo. It's It's almost exactly It's just smaller because the other one was a bigger one. But anyway, the kiosk is there. They order their coffee there and then they're they just have to make sure they don't crash into each other when they're coming away from the drive-thru
or their kiosk. But that's the exact same way that they have their setup there. >> It's true of any McDonald's with a double drive-thru. So, I can't do that. It's a different issue. >> Yeah, thank you for clarifying. >> Okay,
>> Kelsey, question for you. Does this initial site plan for the parking lot meet the interior landscape and part of that ordinance of parking lots? >> I I have not done that calculation. I mean, as you can see, there are some islands in here that would all count. Um
I did not run the kelk because um well part of it the architect hasn't done the kelk for me yet. So um but you see all these different nodes in here. All these things would actually count towards the interior landscaping. So um you know
just a quick glance at it I think it's going to be really close but I have not run the cal calcs yet. Again, my reason for having more grass and trees than cement and asphalt. >> Did you consider downsizing the square
footage in order to meet the parking requirements? I did. >> And what would you have lost? >> We would have lost the coffee shop. I mean, if >> you would have if if if this doesn't work, we just won't put the coffee shop in. I I would like to have it there
because I think it it it helps both of us, but um if if push comes to shove, we're going to lose the coffee shop. >> And correct me if I'm wrong, but we are going to lose tree coverage.
Is there any retainage consideration and tree coverage removal on the north side of this construction or site plan? >> Not at Not at this point. No, >> there isn't. >> No. Um, you're going to have runoff issues from the upper lot. Have you considered
that? >> From the Boys and Girls Club. Yeah, we'll have to channel that somehow. >> Okay. Um, Kelsey, I have another question. Where is that park that you're referring to that's adjacent?
>> Oh, uh, Crover Park is actually the where the Boys and Girls Club sit. That's actually all city park. That's all Crover Park. >> Like right here. >> Oh, okay. So the definition it's still >> Yeah. >> up and over. >> Well, it comes all the way down though. >> It does.
>> That's the section that's right here. >> This where the number 27 is at. Kind of right. So if you if you scroll to the down to the next map, Kelsey, >> right where the number 27 is. >> That is all city property. >> That is all city property. >> Correct. >> Yep.
>> Back in the day there were some baseball parks down there. >> Yep. We used to be right here. Again, this is this is all Crovashure Park >> Legion. >> Wow. >> And it was the end of the Sliding Hill. >> Oh, that was >> and and when I and I didn't know this
when I talked to the the president of the Boys and Girls Club because I you know I initially going to ask him to share parking because I you know we knew what we were facing here and he said oh yeah he said that'd be great but he said it's not mine to give. So, thus I got I
got Kelsey involved and and it's been great, you know, trying to figure out how we can make this happen. I mean, we're going to give we're going to we're going to give up, you know, however many spaces we can fit in here are going to be free to um Boys and Girls Club or I'm
not sure if they have doings at the park up there that get that many people there at once, but I know the Boys and Girls Club fill up the lot every once in a while and it's normally during our off hours and so they don't have to go across the road any he said you know they have a church across the road but
they have to cross 34 then to get there and this they can just park and walk up the hill and be there. >> I I personally have attended several large events at the Boys and Girls Club and I'm not so sure I would have gone down the hill outside and gone into the
next parking lot to park, but >> I parked there Saturday. >> Did you for the event they had Saturday? I didn't go. >> I just would have gotten there early. Early bird gets the worm.
Any other questions? >> So, I want to clarify the trees because I'm a big proponent of not taking out these trees. Those are big trees and they're very nice. >> So, the which of the plans is not taking
any trees out? >> I Well, I I don't have a plan that doesn't take any trees out because the the ones right by the entryway down on the the north side >> on the west side. The southwest's corner there. >> Okay.
>> Right by the I don't know how we're going to be able to keep those trees there, >> but I don't want to go into that hill be I mean there's not that's not a hill. They're they're down. Um I don't want to go into that hill on the back side of that building or the current building.
The kitchen in this space is that just going to be like for muffins, donuts, that's >> Yeah, it's it's not a it's not a full kitchen that for meals or stuff. They they might have some like breakfast sandwiches and stuff that they'll heat in a microwave,
>> right? But that's that's the you can grab a goal. >> Yep. They're required to have like a three a three sink thing in there though for I think any coffee shop needs that. So it's I I think you you almost have to
classify it as a kitchen of some sort, but it's not it's not your full kitchen with ovens and and overhead fans and things like that. >> Kelsey, I have a question for you. in your findings under B the calculation
was 5,000 um the difference between 36 and 28 and the minimum would be 20,000 are you reducing that as a negotiated fee because the easement consideration
that's correct that's that's the reason for waving the payment in lie of is you know there's a there's a public benefit and getting the easement from the credit union for additional public
parking. >> Okay. >> And no matter how many parking spaces I'm still willing to pay that to get >> we're at 21 versus 28. >> I I would rather be at 21. I'm just going to make that clear.
Just so you know, I I I would be fine with 21. That's just more more grass and more more green space and maybe even a few trees I can plant. But um >> but your request was really 25.
>> I I I can't I don't know how I can do more than 25 is what I'm saying. If if you if you if you see the benefit of having those parking the you know the public spaces and you would like me to have more grass and more trees and
you're willing to approve the 21. I would I would agree with that too. >> This is where we all run into the challenge. Dylan, >> I would just like to Kelsey and I maybe have a a little bit of a disagreement here. >> Okay. Um so you can take whatever side
you want but I would um caution the board from you know designing the applicant's project. So >> um make sure he is well in his right to change the application as he wants right now. Um but I would make sure that the
board is not caution the board against um you know doing changing the application yourselves. So >> fair enough. And and >> the I guess that's kind of also fits with what I was going to say is I think that that the challenge we always have
here is that this is a property right. So if we grant this, this is with the property whether you're there in 10 years or not. >> Uh and so that's a consideration as well. Um I think another a consideration for us as we can as we think about the
the variance too is it's a tough lot. What what can go there? what really can effectively be there and and what are the requirements around that? So, okay, more questions for Kelsey or for Jim?
>> Well, and to Dylan's comment there, I mean, the applicant can actually remove his request for the variance at this point and come back. >> Yeah. I just want to point out the application uh was for 26 parking spaces
was was on on the application. Um you know Dylan's comment is you know my recommendation was to approve the variance at 26 parking spaces and just whether or not to wave all of the payment in lie of is really was was the
sticking point. But um that was the application and again the applicant could amend their application as well but okay. So I I would I mean again the variance was 26. I can get to 26 but I
think you know Kelsey's counter was 28 but 28 then says I have to put those three on the other side. And so if I'd rather not do that and so if I can amend it, I would like to go to
25 because it's 28 then minus the three and if we can all agree to that. >> I don't know what the process is for amending it. >> He can amend it on the record. >> Huh. >> He sorry. He can amend it on the record. >> Okay. >> So I guess that's your decision if you
want to on the record amend it to 25. Would it be approved at 25? I don't know. We haven't really discussed it yet. >> So, yeah. So, the clarification is if it if we stay at 26, it includes the $5,000 of the
>> Well, that's the recommendation from the city. It's up to us to decide what we want to recommend. >> Correct. And and again, I want to be clear. I mean, my recommendation was based upon the site plan which shows the three parking spots on the on the west side. >> Mhm. >> You know, cuz my rationale was, well,
again, there's some cost involved to move that transformer. Don't kid yourself, right? So, there's going to be some cost to move that transformer, but >> Mhm. >> that can be done. And then clearly, you can fit two more parking spaces in there. So, that was the rationale.
And who bears that cost of moving the transformer? Is that >> That would be us. >> And I know that's not cheap. I've had to move one in Fargo. It's not cheap. Okay. Further questions from the
commission? If not, I guess I would seek uh maybe some discussion and a motion. Oh, go ahead, Dylan. >> Before there's a motion, Kelsey and I have another slight disagreement.
>> All right. >> On timing, and it I will own it. That is a pretty minuscule. It's verbiage. Essentially, the recommendation from the from the staff is that the easement is a condition of the variance. The
attorney's office um hates conditions on variances uh with a burning passion. Um, and so our recommendation would be to that the motion be granting the variance after the property owner provides a
recorded easement to the city, which I am understand is to some degree a condition, but the timing is the difference here. Um, in the way that Kelsey has worded it, you would grant
the the variance and the property owner could go get a variant would then go get the easement for the city or to the city in the way that we have proposed. The once the easement comes, then the variance is granted timing uh maybe is it's a little
semantic, but that's the slight difference. >> Okay, noted. Thank you. >> All right. And the easement is the use of the parking area for the boys and girls. >> Yes. >> Mhm. >> If my word counts for anything, we will
grant that easement. >> We trust you, Jim. All right. Discussion motion. >> So, just kind of, you know, I went down the path of asking about the size of the kitchen or not size, but the purpose of the kitchen. You know, it's more of a
coffee shop. So, we've got a one-sizefits-all kitchen space as kitchen space. We don't have whether or not it's a prep kitchen, whether it's a full kitchen. And you know, in terms of what we did with the coffee shop down on
Westlake Drive, you know, we're not supposed to measure one variance against another, but you know, there's historic precedent again, you know, for or against uh parking spaces. We're always arguing over parking spaces in this community. We're
arguing over drive-thrus and whether or not we should have a double one. And I don't know. So the way that the ordinance currently reads is we need to,
you know, apply the parking ratios based upon what is currently written and then the so I don't know what I'm saying. I'm just saying it's not an easy easy clearcut
thing, >> right? because we always are in need of parking and it's frustrating in in times when the city grants a variance to not allow or not enforce the parking and then it spills over into other pieces of
the community. And I don't know if that would happen in this area. It seems like it's it's a limited amount of parking space for, you know, five offices inside the credit union and nine seating spaces
in the coffee shop. So in that case, we've got every seat filled in that place. We're still going to have parking spaces left over. So I'm advocating both ways. Other discussion from the commission
otherwise I would seek a motion one way or the other. Dan's statement is similar. We've had this discussion on parking spaces. I mean, and we get Zorbas thrown at us every single time an argument comes up.
Um, so I have a tendency to follow the parking variances as or the parking requirements as stated. So, but I also know parking is such a four-letter word around here because we just don't have enough
>> from that standpoint. >> I think this is the unique challenge we have anytime we're dealing with variances, right? Because the purpose of a variance is to handle the things the ordinance can't handle. >> Can't handle. And and I and I think I I'll just interject a little bit. The you know originally when I approached
the president of the Boys and Girls Club, it was the int I mean I wanted to share because we calculate to 36, >> right? >> I wanted to share 10 with him so that you know we'll go we'll settle on 26 and
I'll still settle on 26. We'll share 10 with them or we're sharing actually 20. we'd be sharing 26 with them and they're sharing 10 for us. So if we if we end up needing more, we can park in their because we're pretty much off hours both
ways. >> Mhm. >> We need them during the day, they need them after hours and for their bigger events. And so that's that's why I originally had approached him and he said, "Sorry, that's not mine to give." Right. >> So
>> chair, I don't know if this helps or not. I mean, you're right. We we've in my time here I've seen us grant parking variances and a lot of them are similar to this right there's usually a public parking lot nearby like think about downtown there's been instances um you
know the the coffee shop there was you know get an easement from the adjacent fairgrounds um so I think we we have granted those type of variances again when I look at this this is not a green field site
This is a redevelopment site. So you go, you know, if you look at my methodology and looking at the findings, you know, you're is this a unique property? And that's that's kind of the point that's being made for the variance is this isn't a flat
lot over by Menards. This is a unique property that has a lot of topographical challenges and it's hard to meet the park requirements. And oh, by the way, there just happens to be a park right next door >> that actually has additional parking. Um, I doubt you'll ever need it, but
it's it's there. And then we can certainly have a policy discussion about our parking requirements at some point. >> Yeah, that's I had that thought in mind, too. I mean, the end of the day, you've got a closed
a a closed down old car wash that is going to continue to deteriorate. probably not likely to reopen, especially considering the current ownership. You know, what's what's going to end up on that corner, >> Kelsey? Does the Boys and Girls Club
meet and exceed their parking requirements or did for their parking? >> I have that question, too. >> Oh, Dan, >> I don't know. I didn't I didn't look Dan. >> Andrew, do you remember
I don't know if we I think they were short, but I can't remember exact. Okay, I'm going to make a motion. >> Thank you. Um, the motion is I'm going to support the easement timing that
Dylan referenced. Um, but also include the provision for 26 parking spaces with a payment in lie of $5,000 as the variance recommended by staff. Just >> make sure I'm clear on that. You are
moving to grant a variance for 26 parking spaces with a payment in lie of of $5,000 in lie of additional spaces and that payment and the easement and
the easement granted after that payment >> prior to >> or no prior to that payment. Sorry, I read that. Thank you. Yes. And the and the the Yeah. Okay. >> I will second that. So, we have a motion and a second on the floor. Is everybody clear on the motion?
>> I guess I have a question. So, we're doing the 26 faces plus they pay. >> Yes. >> So, you're not doing the 28. So, they're paying to the 28. >> Well, because his recommendation states the applicant provides a minimum of 28 or provides 26 spaces and $5,000.
>> That's what I'm asking. We got the or >> I think so you went with the ore. provides 26 spaces and pays the 5,000. >> That is correct. >> And then >> Okay. >> And provides an easement preceding
the variance. >> So, just so I'm clear, you guys want an easement an easement granted before the variance is approved, right? >> Yes. >> I mean, you're approving it, but it's got to be conditional on the easement being granted. And I'm totally fine with
that. I don't know how long how long does that take to do that? >> 30 days. >> Yeah. >> Does that have to go before a commission too or >> Well, so yeah, the process is from here we take our recommendation. It goes to
the community development committee which meets the Monday before council in that little room back there. >> Okay. >> The community development committee reviews that and brings that to the council with a recommendation. And so the council on Tuesday the >> 11th >> 11th. Thank you. Uh we'll meet at 5:00
right in here and that's where we'll make the final decision. >> The 10th. >> Okay. And can we get >> the 10th? >> Can we get the easement done prior to that or do we have to wait for that before we do the >> after that meeting? >> We have to wait with the easement till
after that meeting. >> Yes. >> Dylan's the one that stuck his foot in his mouth on that one. >> Dylan Dylan has to answer that one. >> I can get the easement will take a little bit. Um we would have to get it recorded. Um recording takes a couple
days. We'll have to draft it obviously. Um part of the drafting will be on what we are actually you know where the easement actually is. Um so that is you know a legal description some some of that stuff. So
there is some extra work associated with >> they're costly with that. There's probably some cost, too. >> Yeah, there'll be some cost. Um, >> yes, there'll be some cost. I don't have it. I wouldn't have it off the top of my
head, but Okay. So, we have a motion on the table to approve a variance for 26 parking spaces and payment in lie payment of $5,000 in lie of the additional spaces
and an easement to be granted prior to that payment for additional parking public parking for events held at Croisher Park and the Boys and Girls Club of Detroit Lakes. Is that stated correctly? >> All right. So, we have a motion and a
second. Any further discussion on that motion hearing? None. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Oppos. Same sign. Motion carries. So Jim will take that forward. On Monday the 9th, the community development committee will meet back there. It's not another
public hearing, but you are welcome to be there if you want, but Tuesday and then Tuesday the 10th at 5:00 p. p.m. right here in this room is when the city council will meet. that will be the uh where the final decision will be made. And and again, it's not an initial
public hearing. Uh it is up to the mayor, but he often lets people speak if they want, but uh that's that's his decision at that meeting. >> So, >> and you can attend the community development meeting. >> Yeah, you're welcome at both if you'd like. >> Okay. And the community, what time is the community? >> 5:00 p.m. So, both meetings are at 5:00
p.m. Monday the 9th, Tuesday the 10th. February 9th and then February 10th is the >> is the city council meeting here >> and that's here at 5 >> 5 p.m. >> 5 p.m. >> Okay. >> And Jim, thank you for the chart. >> It was great information.
>> Yep. Well, Kelsey, too. He So, he was the one that guided me to the right spot. So, thank you. >> Thanks for your time and moving me up. >> No problem. Thanks for being here, Jim. I'm not sure moving it up actually helped much, but But you, you know, by the time you're
out the door, we might finish the rest of our business. >> All right, let's go back to item 3A and I'll go call to order a public hearing to give consideration to a reszoning from RA agricultural residence district to B3 autooriented business district and a conditional use permit to
allow sales from motorized vehicles or trailers at 1686 Randolph Road. Kelsey, >> chair and commission. So DL Hotel Group LLC has request the resoning of the particle adjacent Ortonstone. Again, uh
well, let me pull that up here quick. Just want to be clear. There are two parcels. Uh one that is part of the public hearing is just this parcel that is the old farmstead. Uh the larger parcel that is still Ortonstone Gardens
would remain its current zoning which is RM and that's not subject to the request. Um >> what's remaining is >> RM. Yep. So uh B3 um they're basically seeking
the B3 auto orientated business district to basically do commercial um activities there. Uh in the staff report, I included the section of our zoning ordinance that deals with open or outdoor services and sales. Um that's what the conditional use permit is
required for. And that's one of the reasons why we recommended the B3 zoning district was um the language that allows that type of use for one and then really just the the nature of other being other B3 districts being within that area. So
again, uh the zoning ordinance provides uh some guidance on basically four different findings on a reszoning. Uh it has a relationship to the municipal comprehensive plan. Um the comp plan actually identifies this area as either high density or low density. Uh as you
can imagine that that land use plan was adopted before the development of Ortonstone Gardens. So you know the nature of the of the area has changed and again that there are simulated zone properties B3 located within the vicinity and then the remaining property
is zoned RM for those reasons. Uh the finding was that the proposed zoning change is consistent with the comp plan and zoning ordinance. Second is the geographic area involved. Um this property is bordered by a county highway to the east uh
Randolph Road to the south. again RM property to the west and north and of course right across the road is the railroad track highway 10 and then just basically vacant land. Uh consider the character of the surrounding area. Again the character has changed with the creation of Orton
Stone Garden still west and north of the property and this area has become a destination for the general public. Uh demonstrate a need for such use. Zoning changes in the public interest will provide an area for commercial activity adjacent to Ortonstone Gardens and the Heartland Trail. The zoning change is
necessary to provide services to visitors to these attractions. I just point out this isn't uh necessarily for the planning commission, but to change uh zoning from a residential district to a commercial or industrial zone does require a twothirds vote by the city
council. So, that's something for the council to keep in mind. Um, I added the language from our zoning per or from our zoning ordinance in regards to the conditional use permit in which you're supposed to basically consider if there's any adverse impact to the
general welfare. Um, again based upon the findings listed above did not feel there's a negative impact to adjoining properties. So with that, the recommendation was to recommend uh the granting of the reszoning of the property um from I believe it's RA to B3
auto oriented business district. Um and furthermore, staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit um subject to the conditions spelled out by section 13 of the zoning ordinance. >> Okay. Well, seeing there's nobody here,
I'll go ahead and close the uh public hearing. and uh open it up for discussion and questions with the uh commission. >> Kelsey, question. We're just re would be reszoning this parcel or what would happen with the adjacent to the west of
you know because railroad tracks is all RA right now. Would it make sense to take care of all of that at the same time? Yeah, I mean I think that gets zoned RA just because of the way the GIS just blurs it all together. But
obviously the railroad track doesn't really have practical zoning, right? >> But even coming on the south side of of 54 there and the >> like this here, >> right? >> Again, that's all this right away. So I mean again, it's
>> probably doesn't make it >> I don't think it makes a difference. I mean, should we color it different? I I don't know. Uh, let me find the one there. >> Yeah. >> So, Dan, you're asking about the entire
green area. >> Yeah. If if that if it makes sense to do that all in one piece rather than if ever in the future it needs to be peacemeal it because it's already being peacemeal. We'd have RM B3 and then potentially RA
surrounding it. Yeah, I think for now, um, Jen's pointing out we advertise it as this legal description and we use their specific legal description. So, we probably need to stick to that for now.
>> Sure. And then the next question was this was retained by this ownership group not included with Ortonstone Gardens when the Ortonstone Garden City Park agreement was put in place. >> There are two separate owners. There are
two separate LLC's. Um is there some common ownership between the LLC's? Possibly. >> Right. >> But they are two separate LLC's. Yeah, that was >> so this particular plot is not Orton Stone Gardens. It's where you access
Orton and Stone Gardens. But >> in as far as the city's concerned, it's not because our lease agreement does not include this parcel that's being reszoned in our lease for a city park
for Ortonstone Gardens. It does not include this parcel. Um the grand scheme of Ortonstone Gardens is that the main parking lot would actually go off of Randolph Road here
to then access the park someday. But right now you have a right to use access. >> Yeah, it that just happened because really we're having way too many people park on the road.
>> So they started parking up by the farmhouse. >> So the pictures that you all sent out um shows a new building >> and so we're not this is just the reasoning.
We've got two actually >> and the conditional have the food trucks, but there's nothing. We're just so into parking. There's nothing here about how much parking you have to have there, right? >> No, >> we're not dealing with that right now. >> We're not dealing with that right now. >> Okay. >> No, >> they come back later with a with a new
building and a preliminary site plan and all that stuff. We get to deal with that then. >> Okay. >> Correct. >> So, this is just a >> You're you're you're so cynical. You're assuming they're not going to meet the parking requirements. >> Yeah. Nobody ever just getting a permit and doing their thing. >> We are foreshadowing a future
discussion. >> Yeah. >> Um and she does realize, sorry, she does, the applicant does realize too that we don't have anything to do with defining what food trucks are permitted to come in and
be used on the That's a city. >> Yeah. And they still would have to get a transit merchant license. >> That's exactly what I was hoping she understood because I saw it in her application. That'll be the next ordinance we're looking at. >> And I don't want to confuse things more,
but um in the Ordinstone Garden property, since that's a city park, we've also granted special event permits for them to have food trucks and stuff actually on that garden parcel as well, but that's a
separate issue. So this being private, would they need to have a condition uh >> condition or transient merchant license? >> So that's where >> Mhm. >> Yep.
>> What if they had a special event? >> Not on private property. >> Okay. >> It's really interesting because Google Maps actually puts Ortonstone Gardens right on that par partial, too. Um, a couple of questions related to the
permitted use. Are we over the ordinance? Can I ask a conditional use question? >> Use the chair. >> Sure, why not? >> Um, permitted use. Um, you included all of the conditions on section D of the
conditional use for it. Do you know what type of automotive rental? I mean, is there a clarity on what that means from a business standpoint? >> Well, there's a reason why later on the agenda we're going to have a discussion about the B3
zoning district. Um yeah, I mean by the letter of the zoning ordinance to have um to do sales, you know, basically those outdoor sales from a wagon or trailer or vehicle, you're
supposed to have a conditional use permit. And then it it does lay out specific conditions that you're supposed to meet for that conditional use permit. >> Does Okay. So that is what it is is outdoor sales and that's why we went and
included section D in there. Got it. Okay. I I got a little confused in the application what she was trying to accomplish. >> Okay. Further discussion or a motion? I'll make a motion to I'm
going to start with the zoning piece of it to move this property from an RA definition to um a B3. Sorry. >> All right. So, we have a motion on the
table for to reszone this from RA to B3. Is there a second? >> I'll second it. >> All right. Further discussion on the motion? >> Hearing none. All those in favor say I. I >> oppose. Same sign. Motion carries. Okay. So, that's the reasoning. Now, what
about the conditional use permit? >> See, I just want to clarify. So the B3 um autooriented business district in that already has the ability on a B3 property to have sales from a
motorized >> only under sorry it's not only it's permitted uses that section I put in there is under conditional uses. >> So in order to do that use you got to grant >> B3 you have to go get a a cup. >> Yes. >> Okay.
>> Right. So, discussion on the conditional use permit or a motion. >> I would move to uh approve um the staff recommendation to allow a conditional use permit um in this plat once it's
zoned B3. >> Okay. Is there a second? >> I'll second that. >> All right. Any further discussion on the motion? >> All those in favor say I. >> I. I. >> Oppose. Same sign. All right. Motion carries.
For all those who are listening online, that'll happen at February 9th and 10th. Previous schedule noted, you know, cuz this doesn't go on YouTube or anything. >> Click on the video.
>> All right. So, that brings us to 4B, a discussion on ordinance changes in the B3 autooriented business district. Kelsey. So, chair and commission, I think the initial uh stimulus for this
was discussion about car washes because I think a couple of months ago you had a conditional use permit >> for Weber, Ford, and the B3 for a car wash. >> Um, so that's certainly up for discussion. Uh, I think in looking at the the B3 autooriented oriented
district, I think there's other things to also discuss in there. And again, if you want to just Give me a minute here. I'll kind of explain a few things. So, first of all, um, subdivision three, right? It says permitted accessory uses,
right? So, one of the permitted accessory uses is open and outdoor storage is an accessory use provided that. And then you got to meet these different conditions, right? And then it even references section 20 subdivision 1E, which is our conditional use permit
section. So what is it? Is it is it is it permitted or is it conditional? And then if you go down a little bit further, uh we have the same uh language about open outdoor storage as a principle or accessory use
provide that. So again, it's just conflicting itself. Is is uh accessory outdoor storage is it conditional use or is it permitted? That's one example. Um, again, we have car washes. Again, we could have some debate. Should
we have should car washes require a conditional use permit um to be in the B3 district? That's kind of a policy decision. >> Um, you know, my comment on that editorial comment is as long as we have good language maybe in our parking
section about queuing and having enough stacking, maybe you don't need it. Because ultimately, why would you want a condition on a car wash? To me, the main concern is is that stacking and having adequate space for for
the lining up for the car wash. So, again, um maybe that could be addressed by making sure we just have good language in uh our parking section. So, then we get to really the discussion that we just granted a conditional use permit for Ortonstone.
Again, Ortonstone's a little bit of a unique project. as you saw, they're proposing a kind of a small building and then with um some outdoor sales um whether it's food trucks or what have you. Um so we have a lot of language in
here about open and outdoor uh sales that are all conditional uses. Um we have section C and we also have section D. Um, now for better or for worse, I can tell
you um we don't enforce this. I mean, when you look at uh Menard's, Walmart, L&M fleet, all those outdoor sales, none of them have a conditional use permit. Um, when we have um food truck come in
to any of those properties, they don't have a conditional use permit. So, I think there's a policy question. Why? Why do we have all this language in here? Why is it a conditional use permit? What's what are we trying to prevent? What's the concern? And is it
still needed? That's really my question. Is that is that still needed? cuz otherwise I probably got to call Walmart before they get their garden sale out and tell them they got to come and get a conditional use permit. >> M >> cuz we don't we haven't been doing it.
Um the other thing is uh housing uh you know we edited uh permitted uses uh back in 2023 to allow dwelling units being part of a commercial structure and located above the first floor. So
basically mixed use projects um is a permitted use in the B3 and then under the conditional uses uh which is really perplexing to me. Item H with a conditional use can get a multifamily dwelling structure of not
more than four dwelling units provided that I'm not sure why we would grant a conditional use permit for less than four units. I could see why you would do a conditional use permit for for an apartment building. So
with that, you know, when you start looking at some of these permitted uses and conditional uses, we could certainly look, you know, just at the B3 district, but what my recommendation is you almost zoom out
and really look at the B1, B2, and B3 districts and just make sure you have consistent terminology. You know, some of our references go back to and say, "Well, in this district, you can use whatever the permitted uses are in the B1 or the B2 district." Or it
says whatever conditional uses are allowed in the B1 and B2 districts, you can do in the B3 district. So, really, you need to start back at those districts as well. And then you start kind of walking through and say, "All right, what's allowed in the B1? What's
a conditional use in the B1?" Then you go to B2. instead of just if you just look at B3, I think you're missing the whole picture. So, obviously, we don't have changes. We don't have recommendations for what the
changes should be, but I think we should start having a discussion of um looking at how we should make some amendments to our zoning districts. And um you know, staff's prepared to work on that. Um, if
one or two of you want to sit in on those discussions, I'm not going to turn you away. If you want to volunteer, uh, again, I think staff will do most of the heavy lifting on this, but um, what are your thoughts? I mean, do you see
some of the inconsistencies here? >> Can you repeat what you said about the multif family thing? >> Mhm. So if you look in the B3 district um basically uh residential uses are not permitted
uses except when they are above the first floor. So that's basically a mixeduse development, right? Like a McKinley Plaza, something like that, right? >> Um, so that was added in 2023.
But then further down under uh conditional uses, we have language that uh you can do a multifamily dwelling structures of not more than four units is allowed as a conditional use permit.
And >> cuz that's anything over four in one building would be considered commercial. >> Well, no. Right now you would >> at least in my world it >> Yeah. I It doesn't make sense to me. I don't
know why in a B3 district you'd start allowing twin homes, >> right? >> Why would you do that now to allow an apartment building? Now, maybe there's some discussion why you'd want to allow an apartment building in a B3 district with a
conditional use. >> Are there any scenarios where we have not more than four dwelling units existing in a B3 district? Now, >> I mean, >> I guess I just like to me anything any
duplex, triplex, forplex, those are considered multifamily >> in my world, >> you know, one is single family, anything more than four is commercial. Yeah, >> something must have happened in 96 that >> right
>> that triggered the want or need or somebody wanted to do something in the B B3. >> That was not around here in 96. Well, I just I would say I I I support reviewing all of them
>> because it's 2026 and I mean these food trucks >> have only been around for about 10 years to be honest. I mean that's a new thing that >> fits I mean things are changing now. The rules don't always apply when there's some new stuff that's going on. So, >> and I think if we're going to review
that piece of it too, that particular piece, we should take a look at >> how does it, you know, how do the other ordinances then fees and things like that affect that, you know, are we do we need to address that or is it is that addressed in another component too as a thought?
>> Yeah, I think part of the question is like are those uses that again you always try to come up with a worst case scenario, but should those just be permitted uses? Mhm. >> Is it Is it a problem that L&M Fleet has
stuff outside for sale? >> I don't know. That's a policy question. >> I mean, for me it's not, but I can't speak for everyone. >> So, as you were saying that and speaking to it earlier, all I could think of is let's talk about food truck. Now, let's
put a coffee shop in the middle of a parking lot that is permanent. So, do you guys remember the caboose that used to be sitting in Subways parking lot? >> It was more of a permanent. It wasn't a food truck definition. Now, that's what
I likened that to be and that they would have to get a conditional use permit to do it. Not necessarily L&M's kayaks or trailers that are sitting in their >> parking lot. >> A good point. Yeah. >> I mean,
when I look at that definition in there, and maybe I'm wrong, >> because we wouldn't want somebody like the caboose to go into Menard's parking lot and put up a permanent coffee shop drive-thru without getting a conditional use permit. Correct.
>> In theory. >> Yeah. I mean, >> well, does that apply to Ace Hardware putting their bags of yard, you know, yard stuff because they haven't got much storage because they're downtown, you know, they're they're not a box store. That's >> and they're not and and they're not a B3.
>> They're not B3. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Correct. >> But your point that that I totally believe is you I mean don't don't do this little pinpoint if it's got to trickle down from somewhere else. I mean, start at the top then work your way down. And at the end of this, maybe
you maybe you don't change those things. Maybe it all makes sense when you dig into it. But you know what the planning commission I'm looking for some guidance that this is something we should look at because um just like we're spending more time here tonight.
You'll spend more time here probably in February and March looking at ordinance changes. Well, it's much like the short-term rentals where we started with a conditional use permit and we went to licensing. It just because it was taking up so much time
and it was unnecessary. We'd already done the work to produce the 14 15 checkpoints that you had to do and if they met that it was good to go. >> I mean, I'll ask the obvious question. Isn't this what we're here for? Mhm. >> I mean, the public hearings and all that
stuff are a necessity, but to it seems to me like this is the meat and potatoes of the job that we've been asked to do. >> But there are upgrades and morees that need to be done. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. With change of time and difference of
businesses, marketing, you know, it's I mean, there's popup things going on all over the place. I mean, if you're going to do a pop-up whatever, do you know that has some retail kind of thing? Um, how do you address that? Because that's
something that's become more. >> It's actually been a request. >> Are you suggesting just do the bees for right now? >> Yeah. Mhm. >> I think it'd be a good idea to look at all the B's because they're cascading that things are incorporated from the
previous or >> more restrictive that are I think it just makes sense. I won't be here but we if you want to do some of that work and then in March we can uh >> yeah I think that's a good place to
start. I mean, obviously our parking regulations something. >> Yeah. >> Again, those are policy. I'm not I'm not trying to say what they should be. Um cuz I get it. You know, you you want to have adequate parking. I I completely get it. But
>> how hard is it to pull a a list of, for example, all of our parking variances? >> Is that easily accessible or is that a difficult task? or in the 10 last 10 years. >> I heard that even though
>> yeah, I mean I'm sure you understand why I'm asking that question. You know, it's if we're going to make changes, it should be based on >> Yeah. My my concern is, you know, as the city spends 30 plus million dollars into Westlake Drive and the beachfront and we
want that to spur private investment. I >> I don't know how we're going to get any commercial redevelopment of the beachfront that meets our parking requirements. Nope. >> So, how are we going to handle that? Are we going to just grant out variances like
Zorbas or what are we going to do? You know, are we going to So, >> well, if we change anything with parking, you know, that'll come up. >> We just need a rubber stamp that says various approved. >> Don't put don't put that part in, Jim. >> Yeah. Strike that from the minutes,
please. And Jim did a wonderful job in showing us, yeah, >> Fargo is not like us. We're not like Fargo, but he did do a wonderful job and saying, okay, there's been more delineation between a a bank that has a
drive up consideration versus an office building. I mean, that was a it was enlightening. Correct. >> All right. All right. So, it sounds like what we want to do is move forward with the review of all of the business districts. Uh Kelsey has an open
invitation. Is there anybody that would uh be interested in participating with the city staff in that in some capacity? >> Dan volunteered >> after February. >> Is Dan going to be gone in February? The same time I'm Is Dan missing it because of me missing it?
>> Well, when is the February meeting? Because I'm gonna the last two Thursdays I'm gone. Yeah, then you miss it. >> I think I'm gone. >> 26th I'll be in Sweden. >> I'll be in Wisconsin.
>> So, I'll still be here. >> I mean, I'm willing to volunteer to help. >> Depends on the day of the week for me. If it's a Wednesday or Thursday, that works better. >> I'm retired and I have a lot of time, but I don't know that I have the
knowledge I'm a good listener as well. >> Well, you're literate so you can read. That's something. It's like a huge start. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for your acknowledgement of that. >> Yeah. I just got to avoid having a quorum, of course. So,
>> yeah. >> I I will not volunteer for that purpose alone. >> Okay. >> You think morning, afternoon, evening? I haven't put any thought into this. >> Well, he'll contact the volunteers and
let you know >> by 7:30 tonight. >> All right, moving on. We have a legislative update on as item 4B. Yeah, chair and commission, we probably don't talk too much about proposed
legislation, but um there's really been a lot of effort in the last couple of years uh for better for worse as a bipartisan effort um to basically preempt local zoning controls um and basically requiring some higher density
requirements um in all cities. Um, you know, this is really an approach or a tactic that uh some legislators think that will help housing in Minnesota, right? We we've all have heard about the housing challenges in the state and they think this is
something they can do. This is, you know, legislators want to do something and they think this is something that can help the housing issue. Um, it does have ramifications on Detroit Lakes. Um, some does, some areas do, some don't.
Um, for example, um, one of the things it does is it prohibits any type of aesthetic mandates. Quite honestly, that's not a big issue for Detroit Lakes. We don't have a lot of aesthetic mandates or really any
aesthetic mandates that says you got to use this and this and you got to have a certain size garage. Really, where that comes into play in Detroit Lakes is in covenants. And I had this discussion with the legislators like I said, "What are you guys going to do with covenants? Are you going to prohibit covenants?" Oh, no.
Well, we haven't really thought about that. That's really not a city issue that's really required in covenants. Um, they also want to get this prohibit cities mandating HOAs.
We don't require HOAs on every new subdivision, but we do on planned unit developments. So on a plan unit development where there's some common space or some sort of common amenity, common dock system or pool or something like that, we require them have some sort of organization
that's going to maintain those public spaces. So raise that concern. What are you going to do if we can't mandate HOAs? Oh, well that's not what we intended was their answer. We we just didn't want cities just requiring HOAs for park spaces that the city should be
maintaining. Okay. Well, we understand, but when you put a law that says you can't require HOAs, that's a problem. Um, it would require cities to allow ADUs.
Now, some of you might think this is a great idea, but accessory dwelling units, um, we currently do not allow accessory dwelling units. Um, this proposed legislation could mandate ADUs in all of our residential districts. >> ADU,
>> accessory dwelling unit, >> which is like a mother-in-law suite. >> Oh, okay. >> Right. >> So, like all those garages all around Detroit Lake are suddenly going to become or will officially become >> Well, we don't they can't put bedrooms
in there. >> Correct. Let me see what else is there. So, there's more. I just want to get I don't want to miss anything. Design standards. Um the other thing is it would require cities to allow some sort
of mixed housing in our commercial districts. I look at that and say, well, that's not a big deal. We we allow uh mixed uses in almost all of our commercial districts. Um, and then they get into the choose your
own adventure language. So based upon how big of a city you are, what class city you are. So we're we're a fourth class city cuz we're at 10,000 people. They're looking at a point system that says, "All right. Um, you got to you got to create you got to choose so many of
these policies to get to a certain point level." and you get points based upon basically reszoning areas of your residential district that you can allow forplexes. So, um I I don't know if I have these off top of my
head. Um yeah, you get so many points like if you say 50% of all of our residential areas you can do forplexes that give you points. If you say, "All right, um, more than the mandated requirement for commercial use can can
do apartments, that gets you bonus points." So, basically, what they're trying to do is promote density in all these in all cities. It's what they're trying to do. So,
uh, it's frustrating because, you know, regardless of where you may be on on this issue, this is stripping away local control. This is the state being heavy-handed and basically telling cities on how to do your zoning. And for
that reason, I think cities unanimously have always have have opposed it. Um when I had uh the Zoom call with with a couple legislators in the House who are authoring this bill, um you know, they kept saying, "We know you're you're from
greater Minnesota. We know you're really not the problem." And I said, 'Well, if we're not the problem, why are you passing statewide legislation? You know, if you have some bad actors in the metro area, why don't just target the sevenount metro area? Oh, no, no. We got we got to come up with a solution that
is that helps us out statewide. And besides this other this stuff here, this really doesn't apply. This isn't a big deal. And it's this idea that these mandates don't cost a city even like Detroit Lakes time and money to comply with. I mean, think about if you if you
put this in, think about the time we'll have to put in to figure out how we're going to permit ADUs, right? That just doesn't happen overnight. And it's just kind of that lack of understanding when I start asking these questions about, well, if you prohibit HOAs, what are we
going to do? Oh, well, that's it's a good question. You know, it's just this ripple effect and unintended consequences that happen with this law. So, um this has been proposed a couple years in different
forms and our um our our League of Minnesota Cities, Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities have done a good job shooting it down. Um not getting it passed, but it's coming back again this year. And it seems like um
quite honestly, Representative Hortman was probably the biggest opponent to this language and she had a lot of influence. Representative Hortman's not there. So there's concern among all the city groups that this is going to possibly get traction.
>> How does this apply to townships and counties? >> Nope. >> Just cities, Dan. Well, maybe Lake Fuel will get to be their own town and incorporate and they can deal with it.
>> So, that's my soap box. I just want to make you aware of it. Um, yeah. >> And do you want our perspective and opinion as I I read through it and I wouldn't support this legislation for
our local jurisdiction? >> Contact your legislator. >> I mean, okay, let's take an ADU again. I'm a native Californian. Okay. ADUs are allowed in California. Guess what happens when you allow an ADU on
plots of land in California? You now have changed that impervious surface calculation. Your setbacks go from 30 foot setbacks to five foot setbacks because of an ADU. So, I mean, you've
got people on top of each other. And again speaking to the density piece that's there, >> that's why they do it. So >> right, >> I like the fact that we don't have those densities and that we have greater setback requirements and that we have
impervious to protect >> counter proposal reinstitute the two-mile extr territorial subdivision authority. >> Good luck. >> Well, I my I did make that point though is all right. I just want to point out,
you know, to them was, you know, our our competition in Detroit Lakes for housing when someone's choosing to build or developers looking at develop land isn't whether they're going to do in Detroit Lakes or Alexandria or Fergus Falls. It's whether they're going to do in Detroit Lakes or Lake View Township or
Detroit Township. And all right, I mean there's already all this cost and all this regulation that you got to do within city limits of Detroit Lakes and you can go put in, you know, uh 20 foot paved surface out, no well and
septic, no curb and gutter. Uh as a developer, it's it's a lot less cost to develop. And then you put in these large lots and well and now look at I said you're going to encourage more spraw and development outside of cities in rural Minnesota. you're defeating the very
thing that you're trying to get with higher density >> in greater Minnesota. This type of legislation is going to have the counter effect because you won't have to abide by this stuff one foot out into the township, >> right? >> And then they box it in and make it
impossible for the city to effectively sprawl. >> So, well, contact your legislator. It's my recommendation. All right. Anybody have anything on the variance and conditional use status
report, Liz? >> No, not tonight. >> Thanks. >> All right. Uh, anything else from any of the commission members, city staff, city attorney? All right. Well, let's
call this meeting adjourned.