We've got 5:30, so we're going to go ahead and uh get started with this evening's meeting. We've got uh four public hearings on the agenda tonight. Uh and so we're going to uh to move right through those. For those of you who are here uh to speak at the public
meetings as we go through, we're going to follow the agenda in order tonight. We're just going to knock through it. Uh for anyone who has a public comment, there'll be an opening at the beginning for you to come up. Please state your name and your address for the record. uh and then uh give any comments that you'd
like. Um not a lot of people here tonight, so I'm not going to impose uh much of a time limit, but I would ask if uh if you're coming up and and uh and someone else has kind of already given uh what you have to say, uh please don't repeat. That will help the commission
stay focused on new information and help us get through this. Uh with that, uh Jen, I'm assuming you have attendance covered. Uh let's go ahead to item number two. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting held on April 23rd, 2026. I would look for a motion.
>> I would move to approve the minutes from last month. >> Second. >> Okay, we have a motion and a second. Uh any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor say I. >> Oppose. Same sign. Motion carries. All right. We're going to go ahead to the first public hearing item 3A. A uh I'm
going to call to order a public hearing to give consideration to a variance to allow the construction of retaining walls in the shore impact zone and to allow the removal of three healthy trees from the shore impact zone at 1019 Lakewood Avenue. Larry, can you give us a brief rundown?
>> Yes. Eric and Lisa Lawson have requested a variance to allow retaining walls in the shore impact zone and the removal of three healthy healthy trees from the shore impact zone at 1019 Lakewood Drive. There's an 8 to 10 foot drop from
the house to the lake. The retaining walls are needed to replace the existing deteriorated retaining wall system on the property and the trees need to be removed as they will suffer root damage due to removal of steps and the retaining walls.
Uh section 18, subdivision 7E states that landscape walls are not allowed in the shore impact zone and a variance is needed for the project. I would note that uh in a later item on our agenda, we're going to look at
changing our zoning ordinance and one of the changes would be that we would allow retaining walls in the shore impact zone as that's typically the place where they are needed. Okay. >> Staff recommends approval of the variance requested based on the
following findings. Number one, the variance is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance. The proposed project will restore the lake shore and remove deteriorated retaining wall steps and trees that are currently a safety concern. Additional rip wrap will be
added in order to minimize future erosion. The retaining walls need to be replaced to avoid further deterioration and erosion. Two, the variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The proposed plan increases the functionality of and value
of the lot by removing the deteriorated retaining walls and building a new retaining wall system. Three, the proposal will put the property to use in a reasonable manner. The proposed project improves the lake shore and prevents erosion. Four, there
are circumstances unique to the property since there is an 8 to 10 foot change in elevation from the house to the lake shore. The change in elevation needs to be addressed and retaining walls and rip wrap will stabilize the shoreline and facilitate the grade change.
Five, the variance will maintain the essential character of the locality. The lakeshore restoration will improve the looks of the property, protect the lot from erosion, and maintain the essential character of the area. The only condition that we've suggested
is that the owner replace the three existing trees in the shore impact zone. Okay. Thank you, Larry. At this time, I would open it up to public comment. Is there anyone that would like to uh address the commission or make a public statement about this issue?
Anyone who would like to make a comment. All right. Hearing no comments, I'll close the public hearing and I would open it up to the commission for discussion and a motion or a motion. >> Larry. Oh, go ahead. No, go ahead. >> I have a question, Larry. Um it doesn't
state what is the um products that are going to be used as far as building the braided painting wall. I'm assuming that with the steps that were there before was possibly railroad ties which used to be used and that's what's deteriorating. >> Well, typically you grant the variance
and the way that they build it would be something that would come out when they apply for their building permit or their zoning permit. >> And does that get reviewed by wershed as far as by staff >> at this point that would just be
reviewed by staff, city staff. >> Okay. >> I mean, I know that previous retaining systems were products that are really not recommended now as far as the safety of the water and so do >> I think the owner could address that. I think he knows what material he's
planning to use. >> Yes, please. And would you just state your name and address for the record? >> Yeah. Eric Lawson, uh, 1019 Lakewood Drive, Detroit Lakes, Minnesota. Um, the current,
it will be a stone of some kind on the steps. The current, uh, the retaining walls will be ledge stone step uh, ledge stone rock. Um, and yes, we are replacing old railroad tie um, rotten wood that is probably leeching into the
lake currently. Um so that's that's why we're trying to address the whole situation. >> Have you consulted with like a lakeshore management landscape person to >> Yeah. So uh as far as our drawings and all of that, that's all been done by Spirior Lakeside. Um and they're the
ones that gave us a recommendation on the taring of it. Um and they've came out and surveyed it and laid it all out to where it would land and and where we would go with it. >> Okay. Thank you. And I guess just to note Larry's comment um about three
trees. That's I mean that's not going to be an issue. There will be plantings in these levels as well as whatever trees we need to replace. Um that's just something that we kind of have to determine when this project is all done and we can see where we plot them.
So >> great. Thank you. >> All right. Any other questions or discussion? >> I just have one question for Larry. Larry, does the condition of getting a Pelican watershed district permit not exist? >> They're no longer in the shore impact
zone business. They have >> that all their other rules are intact, but they have eliminated that. >> Thank you. >> All right. I want to make a motion. >> Motion to approve with your
recommendation of trees, which it sounds like you plan to do. >> And I'll second. >> All right. All right. So, we have a motion and a second on the table to approve the variance. I'm assuming with the findings from the city >> and uh is there any further discussion
on the motion? All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Oppose. Same sign. Motion carries. All right. Call order a public hearing to give consideration to a non-conforming use expansion to allow a rooftop deck on an old existing 11x6 ft water oriented accessory building at 2272 Long Lake
Road for Marty Johansson. Larry, >> I will make this short and sweet. The request has been withdrawn. >> Oh. >> Oh, >> okay. Well, next time tell me before and I won't even go over it other than to mention it. >> We need We needed to get it in the minutes anyway.
>> I would have gotten it in the minutes, but All right. I'm going to we'll we'll we'll close that public hearing and we'll open up a public hearing for item 3C, public hearing to give consideration to a reszoning from R2 to R4 limited multifamily residence district, a
conditional use permit to allow a senior housing planned unit development in an R4 district and including a variance to allow a building height of 44 feet and 5 in instead of 39 ft at 565 Southshore Drive, Southshore Senior Living. Larry,
can you please bring us up to speed on this one? >> Yes. A request has been made by Southshore Senior Living to reszone an 11.76 acre tract of Southshore Drive in 270th Avenue and for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a planned unit
development for a 141 unit senior living community. The PUD will include up to 72 units of active living, 18 units of independent care, 29 units of assisted living, and 22 units of memory care.
The property is at 565 Southshore Drive. It's an 11.76 acre site. It's currently zoned R2. They've requested R4 zoning, which is limited multifamily. and they are I'm suggesting the
following conditions be considered for the planned unit development. Number one, that all programs meet regulations and standards set by appropriate governing board and agencies. Two, that all requirements of state, fire marshall, local health
authorities are complied with. Three, all requirements of this zoning ordinance and building code are complied with. Four parking areas containing five or more spaces are screened and landscaped from abudding and surrounding residential uses in compliance with
section three subdivision five of the zoning ordinance. Five, the grades and topography of the site shall not restrict the use of yards and open spaces. Six, the applicant can demonstrate a need for the use based on existing
concentration of similar uses within the neighborhood and/or community. Seven, that the owner obtain a land disturbance permit from the city prior to issuance of a building permit for this project. Eight, that the applicant also apply for
a land disturbance permit from the city prior to issuance of building permits. Nine, that the owner obtain a construction storm water permit from Minnesota Pollution Control Agency prior to issuance of a building permit. You just heard three different agencies now
that are involved in storm water. So, three agencies are regulating the same crop of water. So, sorry about that, but that's just how it is. Number nine, that the owner obtain a Pelican River wershed district prior to issuance of a building permit for this
project. Number 11, that the site be under single ownership or unified control. 12. That the owner obtain a mitigation permit from the city for exceeding 25% imperous surface coverage. 13. That the project
be constructed generally as shown on the site plan. 14. That 50% of the project area be open space and that 20% of the project area be usable open space. 14. that the owners provide the city
with a landscape plan that meets city council that meets city staff approval and 15 that the property be reszoned from R4 limited m to limited R4 limited multifamily.
The proposed 141 units meets the density requirements for the site. The tallest proposed buildings on the site are 44 feet 5 in. The proposed imperous surface coverage is 34.67 and the zoning ordinance allows up to
35% imperous surface coverage through mitigation. The proposed project meets all of the requirements and conditions listed in the zoning ordinance with the exception of the building height which is 39 ft and so that requires a variance for the
two westerly buildings. This is a $40 million investment in Detroit Lakes. With regard to the variance to allow a 44 foot 5- inch building height instead of the required 39 foot maximum height for the two westerly buildings, the following
findings should be considered. Number one, the variance is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance. The ordinance is intended to promote public health, safety, and general welfare, ensure compatible land uses, and encourage
orderly development, allowing additional building ITE in this case supports those goals by enabling a well-designed senior living center that integrates more effectively into residential neighborhood. This is the increased height is not for additional density or intensity but
rather to accommodate a pitched roof that enhances the architectural character and reduces the appearance of a large institutional structure. This design approach aligns with the intent of maintaining compatibility and avoiding visual impacts typically
associated with flat roofed commercial buildings. In addition to a pitched roof rather than a flat roof, the first building level of the building is for parking which requires a taller building. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan supports a range of
housing types, including senior housing, and emphasizes quality design, neighborhood compatibility, and meeting community needs. The development advances these goals by providing needed senior housing while incorporating residential scale
architectural elements. The increased height is directly tied to achieving this design objective and does not conflict with the broader land use or development policies. The comprehensive plan also shows multifamily use in this area.
Number three, the proposal puts the property to use in a reasonable manner as it allows two buildings to have a height of 44 feet 5 in. This allows a three-story structure with parking on the first level. This design reduces the amount of
imperous surface on the site as it combines dwelling units with what would otherwise be a standalone parking lot. Number four, there are unique circumstances related to this property and proposed use. The need to balance a
large-scale residential care facility with a predominantly residential neighborhood creates a unique design challenge. Unlike typical single family structures, senior living facilities require larger building footprints and massing. The use of a pitched roof to
break up the building mass and create a residential character necessitates additional height beyond the standard limit. This is a designdriven constraint specific to this type of development and site context, not a condition generally applicable to all properties.
Number five, the variance will maintain and may enhance the essential character of the locality. The increased height is being used to achieve a pitch roof design that is more consistent with surrounding residential structures with careful architectural design of
residential buildings and the inclusion of natural tree buffering and thoughtful planned open space. This project will complement and protect the community resources. approach reduces the perceived scale and institutional appearance of the building
compared to a flat roof alternative at a lower height. As a result, the project is more compatible with the neighborhood and better preserves the residential character of the area. The parking lot with two stories of apartment above it will help maintain the essential
character of the neighborhood as it will allow more open space on the project site. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit for 141 units senior living community reszoning to R4 limited multifamily and a variance to
allow two buildings to be 44 feet 5 in tall. >> All right. I did receive one letter and that came from Ecumen and they were opposed to the project for a variety of reasons. I sent that letter
out to all of you for your review and I'm not going to read the four-page letter, but they essentially object to the project because of the number of units and because of the number of uh employees that it creates, the number of
jobs that it creates. >> Larry, if anybody wanted to see a copy of that letter, how would they do do so? >> They could contact me and I could forward them that letter. >> Great. Thank you very much. All right. uh as we get ready to uh open up the floor to hear uh for public comments uh
you know just a quick reminder uh please do your best to not repeat u also address your comments to me the chair uh and do not engage in conversation with the rest of the commission and the same goes for the commissioners uh make a notes of your comments or questions that
you can ask or bring up during our discussion time >> the developer does have a presentation that he would like to make or that they would like to make. Okay. Uh, was that a recommendation to start with their presentation before the comment or do you >> You could you can do it however you wish.
>> Okay. Well, I mean I'm I'm open to that if you guys want to start and then we'll open it up for the remainder of the comments. >> Did you want to wait and do that later? >> I think it might be helpful to address any questions. >> Okay. >> Okay.
>> That's fine. Y we're gonna just wait though. We're gonna wait and see if we have any comments or questions. Are there anybody? >> I think we were going to play the video and then and as their first essentially
their first comment and then >> Okay. Do you need >> I forgot to ask how long this was. >> He said about two minutes. >> Okay. >> You using Lexet still here? >> Try hitting play in the Try hitting play
in the bottom left corner again. All right. With that, I will ask if there are uh any comments anyone would like to make to the commission. Come on up, Jay. >> Uh my name is Jay Hansen. Uh 2111 270th
Avenue. I'm speaking for myself also for Caroline Dizzy at uh 554 Southshore and Amber Abraham at 651 Southshore. And we love old people and we are encouraging you to pass the uh uh change zoning and
approve the variance and uh bring it out to our neighborhood. It'll be a good fit. Thank you. by Mara Gunderson from Southshore Drive. I have a few questions. One is, have the local senior living facilities been
notified of this hearing? >> The only notification they would have received would have been the published notification in the newspaper. But they did. Ecumen did respond >> because I gave them a heads up. Yeah. So
my point being they certainly would be interested all of these area senior living facilities. They would certainly be interested in knowing that the city is considering bringing in direct competition to them and certainly the
facts and figures and perspective that they could provide regarding local senior living facilities would be helpful to the planning commission as you're doing your due diligence before coming to a decision. May I suggest that
you not make a decision until you've had the opportunity to hear from them? Second question, how many parking stalls will be provided within within the active living building?
Well, we can we can try to answer that. I mean the developer can choose to answer that when you know after the public comments if they would after the rest of the public comments if they'd like but this is your opportunity to make your comments. The the point being on that is unless
there is sufficient parking available in the complex. Uh there will be a street parking problem and we already have been down that road with the the Southshore uh boat landing every summer, all summer
long, every weekend, every holiday. We have a whole string of pickups and boat trailers all up and down Southshore Drive. And this complex, if there's a bunch of street parking, it's going to be a dangerous problem. We have all
kinds of walkers, runners, bicycles, uh young mothers with strollers, dog walkers, and for them to come out into the street instead of being able to use the walking biking lane is is going to
be dangerous. Question three, what building height is being considered? The hearing notice says 44 1/2 ft. The application for the project says 60 feet. Which is it?
>> The variance in here is for 44T 5 in. That's the proposed variance. >> If you look at your application from the project, it says they are requesting 60 ft. >> I understand that the the proposed variances for 44 feet 5 in.
>> Okay. Um, may I direct you to page 35 and 36 of the packet? There are two architectural renderings clearly showing sidewalks, trees, and decorative street lamps on both sides of
Southshore Drive and 270th Avenue. My question is, is that an artistic flourish for the rendering or is that actually going to be part of the project?
And my last question, you will notice on the uh sketch that or the architectural rending that was given to everyone for the hearing. Driveways on the Southshore uh South
Southshore side were indicated for some properties, but not for all. And immediately across from the main entrance, the main driveway into the property
um is a wide, of course, driveway. It is directly across from property that doesn't show a driveway. That would be our property. We do have a driveway and because it'll be directly across from
the project with a lot of traffic coming and going uh that will certainly impact our view to see traffic all day long uh all night as well in the winter headlights coming straight down our
driveway into our home. And that I I can tell you I dread that. And if it were possible for the the project managers, the project planners to move their main driveway a little bit to the west so
that the uh impact would be going straight into our whole row of spruce trees instead of right down the the driveway. It would be well appreciated. >> All right. Thank you, Margaret. Appreciate the comments.
Further comments? Further public comments. Public remarks. Would anyone else like to address the commission? Would you gentlemen like to address the commission? >> Sure. >> And just so we have it on the record,
would you state your name and who you're with? >> Sure. >> I'm Mike Coun with TLR Architects. We're designing the project. Thank you. >> First item is is the parking I believe question that she had. Um we do have a
table in our drawings. >> Should be page 31. >> Yeah, >> correct. 177. >> Can you zoom that parking table? Get there up right there. Yeah. So, our first pass at the parking of and of course we're
complying with Detroit Lakes requirements for that. But, um active living, independent living, assisted living, memory care, they all and then the full-time employees all require different parking ratios. So when we went through the requ there there's a required parking
uh calculation that puts us at 177 total parking stalls and then our we just at this point designed to that and we exceeded it and we're at 178 design stalls. Um many of them we haveund
uh 114 plus another nine in garages. There's 123 that are under the build either under the building or or housed within garages. So, um I feel like we've met that requirement and we're open to we have a lot of site. We're kind of up
against it with our impervious, but we definitely do not want a parking problem and and parking on the street's not going to work for the type of facility we're we're um building here. So, um open to that. Um,
next qu maybe we hit that driveway question. I already forgot the the other one, but the alignment of the driveway was something that we hadn't really um considered from um the neighbors perspective at least. But I do think if
we're talking a few feet to the west or something, that's something we can easily address. And it makes sense. I I can see in the aerial that there's some row of trees there that if we take, you know, headlights or or whatever, if that if that would mitigate some of that,
that I think that's easy to to address that. >> Sidewalks and yeah, you so um the rendering, can we go down two pages or so? back. A little bit up.
>> Maybe up a couple more if you could. Oh, where's page 35? 35. There you go. >> Yeah, that's a good one there. So, in our haste to get to a rendering and an animation that that really uh um I
think, you know, we show a lot of improvement on Southshore Drive. I I don't know that that would be, you know, we're not into full site plan review yet, but we're we can um we don't anticipate putting sidewalks for
sure on anybody else's side of the property. Um I don't think even ours up front. We tried to spend a lot of time with a buffer yard and some trees and and have u real good intentions of just blending into that environment. So if that city sidewalks not required or the
city street lights aren't required, we We sure don't feel the need to press on that. We want our internally our site lit up for walk paths and things like that, but >> not the public not those improvements in the public right away. I guess would be probably more years to dictate than ours
if that's fair. >> Yep. Absolutely. I >> think the other question that had come up was the building height in the application versus the variance. >> I think is R4 allows up to up to 60 ft >> to 39. >> R4.
Okay. Where's the 60 come from? >> I'm not sure. >> Oh, okay. >> That's my fault. We put we typed that in >> RM allows 60. >> I think that's >> multif family residential allows 60 ft. >> Okay. Our intent is not 60 feet. I I I
botched that in the application. The 449 that we've worked with. 449 >> 445 >> 445 >> 445 is is our intent. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Any further comments from the public? Any additional comments?
All right, hearing none, I'm going to close the public hearing and open it up for discussion with the commission. What questions do you have? >> Mr. Chair, I have a point of order. Are we going to approve these on separate motions? >> Yes, we will need three separate motions for this.
>> Thank you. >> Who has the first question? >> I have a question. Clara, can you just clarify for me? Um, this is a multi-unit um living space. Why? What's the difference for this type of a um
proposal to use R4 rather than RM? Either one would have worked just as well, but I think that just for the sake of not wishing to overzone the property and ending up if
they decided not to do it, it would be then available for multifamily development, which is not necessarily something we would want at that corner. Whereas with the R4, it's lower lower density and lower building height
and it would have been more compatible with the rest of the neighborhood if in fact they didn't go through with their project. So that's probably the justification for the R4 rather than RM. Well, and then referring to the letter that we received from Ecumen, she
indicated that she felt that um R4 did not is not permitted with the senior care type of operations. I don't know what her research was, but it so that's my question. R4 is okay for
senior care operations. >> Yeah, you could even do this as an R2, but then the R2 didn't have the building height that they were In fact, in this case, they didn't get to the building height they needed without a variance. Anyway,
>> okay. And I have a question for y'all. Since I've been in um senior caregiving stuff, >> what is active living different than senior living? >> Yeah, please. >> Hi. So, Todd Willlet, I'm with uh
Ebenezer Senior Living. We're out of uh Edina, Minnesota. Um just a little background on us. We're the largest operator of senior living in the state of Minnesota. We have some communities in the outstates uh or surrounding Minnesota as well. Um we get this
question a lot and we discussed it a lot with the developers about active senior versus independent senior and what the differences are. Um, I would say that active senior living, 55 plus a lot of people are are
referring to it as is more uh even more independent than than independent living that's been in the traditional senior living space where you have independent living, assisted living, memory care. Um, it's a little bit of a younger population. um uh uh folks that are
building straight active adult buildings without assisted living and memory care tied to them um generally aren't putting like commercial kitchens in them. So, it's really and there's no care in them at all. So, it really is uh multifamily living but for age restricted, right? Um
this campus is more unique where we're going to have more of the act active adult as well as your traditional independent living. Um we are seeing more developments uh happening where you have the full continuum of care uh right
from very active to u where the independent living uh uh spaces can flex as both independent and assisted living. So that people when they need care don't need to move their from one apartment to another. So people that are coming into
the the community that are maybe on the verge of needing services would probably choose the independent living side of the building because they know then once they need cares they can just stay in that apartment and bring cares to them uh in that unit. Now if they needed to
move to memory care then they're going to need to move. But someone on the that that's very very independent I would say and and uh is looking for more activities, more uh being in and out of the community and um they would maybe
choose to live in that active adult side. Um because they're not quite on the needing cares, needing meals, right? If you're in the in the independent AL side, um you can get access to three meals a day made for you if you would
choose to do that or a couple of meals a day or a couple meals a week, right? Um so that ILAL component that's on the uh well when you're looking at the screen, the the left side of the screen uh is more flexible. It can be we're we're showing, you know, the certain amount of
and certain amount of AL, but quite honestly, they could all be assisted living if that's the the need of the residents that are living in those spaces. On the active adult side, we wouldn't be able to bring the assisted living over to that side of the building. Um, in Minnesota now there's
building code where you can't build more than two stories of stick frame uh uh for assisted living and one story of memory carri to go more vertical you have to be concrete or steel. Um, so we wouldn't be licensing the taller
buildings as assisted living where the rest of the community would be licensed as assisted living memory care. >> Make sense? It's not very super clear all the time, but I appreciate the question. >> Okay, additional questions or
discussion? >> I've got one question, Larry. On the staff report item number six, the applicant can demonstrate the need for such a use based upon existing concentration similar uses within the neighborhood and or community. I've not seen that before. What does that That's
fairly typical in these requests. >> Okay. >> And we have a housing study that spells it out and says we do need this kind of housing. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> That was my next question was there is a need
>> for this living. >> Yes. >> I have a question on the project plan. timeline. It I'm guessing this is just a typo, but it says opens March of 27. I'm guessing that's supposed to be 28.
That's all I had. Okay. So, it is March 28th. Got it. >> Mr. Chair, I'd just like to address Mrs. Gunderson's comment. Yeah. >> Um I will say this much. Um, I am a Southshore uh resident and this past
Memorial weekend with the opening in the new boat launch on the north side of Detroit Lakes, we did not see the amount of boats that we normally see on Southshore Drive. So, that was a huge benefit. So, thank you city and DNR for
making that happen. Okay, further questions or comments? >> I guess a comment I have is this has been a hot topic uh property for many years now. We've had various different proposals. We've had uh lots of passion.
We've had a lot of conversation over what is it three or four years. And I think we've come to a proposal here that seems to fit the wishes of of not the entire neighborhood, but if you can get some of the neighborhood in some of
these, I think it's a it's a win. I know that in the past we've had everybody opposed to a a proposal, it seemed like, but you know, I appreciate the consistent, you know, efforts of people bringing things forward because that's
what we need. We have these housing housing studies out there that say that we have a need. We've got a need for for businesses. We need a places for people to live. Whether it's my parents are sitting on two houses, maybe my parents move into this one because we shot down the uh Even Tide on on East Shore Drive.
Perfect place for them to move, you know, half mile down the road, but now they'd have to move, you know, two and a half miles down the road. And now we've got two homes that uh that can be used for single family homes. And I think it's it's an opportunity that we have here in Detroit Lakes to to uh embrace
development, embrace more housing, different types of housing. We don't all need single family homes if there's age restrictions on this. You know, maybe I age a couple years and maybe I want to move into active living so I can just slide on down to memory care whenever that happens next year, the year after.
But I think this is a a good proposal. Um yeah, that's what I have for a comment on this. Great. Thanks, Dan. Any further comments? >> Mr. Chair, I just have one more comment. Yes. >> Mr. Hansen, thank you for bringing a
positive comment to the table. >> Am I negative all the time? >> No, no, no. We never get to hear him. >> We never get to hear the positive. We hear more of the no versus the yes. So, thank you.
>> Thank you. >> All right. Any further comments from the commission? If not, I think we need three motions. I would uh after some brief consultation with our resident lawyer, I think we need to do a the zoning ordinance, then the conditional use permit, and then the
variance. >> I would like to make a motion to approve reszoning from R2 to R4 for the property uh listed as 565 Southshore Drive. >> Second. All right. We have a motion and a second to approve the reszoning from
R2 to R4 for this property. Any discussion from the commission hearing? None. All in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> Oppose. Same sign. Motion carries. >> Mr. Chair, I'll make the motion to approve the conditional use permit as
stated in the findings as well as the conditions presented by staff. >> Second. >> All right. We have a motion in a second to produ to approve the conditional use permit with the staff's findings and conditions. Any further discussion from the commission? Hearing none. All in
favor say I. >> I. Oppose. Same sign. Motion carries. >> We need one more. >> The word. What was it for? >> For the variance. >> Variance. The height. >> The height. >> Motion to approve. >> Second.
>> All right. We have a motion and a and a second to approve the uh the variance for the height. I'm assuming with the staff's >> staff staff's findings and recommendations. >> All right. Thank you very much. Uh further discussion from the commission hearing none. All in favor say I.
>> I. >> Opposed? Same sign. Motion carries. Okay. So, next steps. Where does this go from here? It's going to go to uh the community development committee which meets at 5:00. Larry, what's the date? I didn't I should have looked at that. >> Juneth.
>> On the 9th. >> June 9th. >> June 9th at 5:00 pm in that room right back there is where >> Oh boy. This is the day before that's >> see this is I I haven't looked ahead three weeks yet. Um yeah so June 8th
Monday June 8th at 5:00 PM in that back room the community development count uh committee will meet and discuss this and then that they that committee will bring it forward to the council which meets at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday June 9th right in here where the final decisions will be
made. Uh and of course, you know, with a uh resoning, there's got to be uh more than one reading. So, this will take a couple of months to uh work through the system. So, just bear that in mind as well for all of you. Uh with that, I think we have one item of business under
public hearings yet. Um so, I would call to order a public hearing to give consideration to amending the zoning ordinance of the city of Detroit Lakes relative to permitted, accessory, and conditional uses in business district. Now, for any of you who are not interested in sticking around for a a a really fun
zoning discussion, please feel free to take a moment now uh and uh Larry will go ahead and start walking us through the changes. Thank you all for being here and your comments. Okay, we had a group of planning commissioners that met and discussed this on a couple
of occasions, so we'll see how this uh plays out tonight. The first item that we changed was we eliminated a bunch of definitions that didn't show up in our ordinance at all. So, we had definitions. We had things defined that were not part of our
ordinance. So, we're eliminating those. We've added some definitions or modified some definitions in the next section. Um, in the R RM district and the commercial districts and the industrial districts,
we currently have a requirement that they have 15% of their lot landscaped, but we don't have an actual restriction that limits them to 85% impervious surface coverage. So, the next few sections take care of that and require
them to be limited to 85% imperous surface. It's just a clarification. It's been that way for a long time, but this just makes it more codified. Um, in the next section is subdivision two
or excuse me, section 11, subdivision two, we're talking about all of the different permitted uses. And the reason we went through our ordinance was that we had a lot of different descriptions of what the uses were. So, they weren't uniform. the B1 might we
describe retail differently than the B2 district did and differently than the B3 district did. So we've made all of these uniform throughout those three districts and they are also cumulative. So everything that's allowed in the B1 district is also allowed in the B2
district and in the B3 district. Similarly everything in the B2 district is allowed in the B3 district with some additional items. Um, did we send out any comparison information? Okay. If you wanted to to
um we could look at a sidebyside comparison of those uses if you're at all interested. Oh, here it is. So, what this shows us is that item item A under B3 automotive services is
only use that's in the B3 district. It's not a use in the B1 or B2 district. Billboards are allowed in both the B2 and the B3 district, but not the B1 district. So, if you want to go through that level of detail, we can. Otherwise, I will jump ahead and
>> I don't think we need to go through that level of detail here unless anyone else would like to dive that deep. Uh, but I would appreciate it if you would send it out to all of us. >> We will send it out to everyone. cheat, >> but as you as you can see, look at item
C, D, and G. It talks about essential services, and it defines them all the same way in all of the three districts. So, it's just >> a cleaner, easier read. They're all listed alphabetically, so they should be
easy people know their alphabet. >> And Larry, if you don't mind me pointing out the other thing is is cannabis was adopted outside of the ordinance. It's now inclusive in this revision. >> Yeah. Jump in and add anything you think
that's important that I not. That's good. We also have this comparison for conditional uses, but conditional uses are different. They aren't cumulative. They are distinct because some of the
uses that would be the conditional use in the B1 or B2 district might be a permitted use in the B3 district. So it's very hard to make that cumulative. >> I'm assuming you'll include that in what you send out as well. >> We'll send that as well.
>> Thank you. >> So do you want do you want to go through all of the particular uses or how do you want to proceed? I think we should at least take a moment and entertain any questions the
commission has after reviewing it. >> It is a hearing process. >> Yeah, that's fair. Yeah, I mean we should we should probably give a a a quick overview, Larry. They hit the highlights. >> Thank you for the reminder, Kelsey.
I don't I don't see anyone here to comment. Okay. So, the permitted uses in the um B excuse me, I got a got to flip back here.
The permitted uses in the B1 district go from item A do item. >> Oh, quit that. Anyway, it starts with retail and service. It also lists offices,
restaurants, cultural facilities, lodging facilities, recreational facilities, processing and printing, minor fabricating and repair, residential use. In the I1 district, are allowed as long as they're located above
commercial establishments. So basically, uh it has to be commercial on the main level and then it can be apartments up above which seems to be working pretty well in the downtown. Um custom manufacturing and repair,
transportation, parking It it doesn't hurt to just I think I think your your brief version is really good because I don't know how much all of us have read all of this. So I think your very brief version is good because it forces us to take a second and think about this before we vote on a uh a
pretty significant set of changes >> essential services. And then the probably the last two items are fairly new. One is lower potency hemp edibles. So the this the sale of lower potency hemp edibles by registered lower potency
hemp edibles retailers that allows people to sell gummies or whatever and also THC beverages. So places like Zorbas and Lakeside would be interested in having that and those uh businesses
are not restricted by the buffers that we have around cannabis businesses. The other item that we have in here is outdoor display sale and rental as an accessory use. We have been allowing that
>> for as long as I've been here and we just kind of put the blinders on and let that happen. Now we're going to codify it and describe how people can do that. So I think it's a good idea and it I think it'll work pretty well.
Uh the next section uh lists the conditional uses in the B1 district and that would be gas stations, selfservice establishments like laundroies and dry cleaners, funeral homes, daycare facilities, and standalone multifamily
dwellings. The permitted uses in the B2 district again include all of the ones that are in the B1. And the way that I had it before, I could just go to the end and tell you what the last five were that are new to
the B2 district. But now that it's alphabetical, I have to sort through and try and figure out which ones are new. Right. So in this case the additional uh permitted uses are gas stations,
billboards and wholesale businesses which seem to be the kind of businesses that fit in a B2 but not in a B1. And then uh conditional uses were in the B2 are funeral homes, care facilities,
multifamily dwellings, outdoor commercial recreation, animal hospitals, automotive services and pole buildings. One question I have is with the severe shortage of care facilities,
specifically child care, why are we not having that as a permitted use rather than a conditional use to have the extra burden to go through those steps habit? And if you're making a suggestion, we could change that and put that under
permitted uses. It was just something I saw that if if we're trying to reduce barriers and get more child care figured that would be >> Is there a good reason to have it a conditional Part of the
child, >> right? But if like Lakes Shirts or BTD or one of the manufacturing facilities put a daycare facility and they'd have to go through the dog and pony show up getting a conditional use permit >> and >> they they wouldn't because it's a
permitted use in an industrial district. >> We have preced for that very reason. >> Interesting. So there's there's arguably precedent for it already being a permitted use in some case. Correct.
>> But in the case of Mohabiatla, we're in a B2. We would need a conditional use permit to put that facility in. Again, >> it's a policy issue. >> So, you have some discretion over if they're trying to put it in an area
where it shouldn't even be considered being put. have that much discretion though because I mean it's still that's that falls into it's going to fall into the quasi judicial part of what we do. So it was going to depend on the conditions. >> Go ahead Dylan. >> He was he's inching his way over there.
>> I saw it. >> Yeah. >> If the application can fit with the conditions then the application gets approved >> or should get approved would be better way to put it. >> That's a good way to put it >> that. So, you know, to put leave it in
the conditional use section would mean that you would get to have some conditions. So, theoretically, you could make a condition about some safety aspect. Um, but you know, if the, you know, it's not like
you're going to get an applica, you're you're not going to be able to have an applicant come up here and, you know, decide whether or not they can have their their daycare facility there because whether or not you like it. I mean, does it fit with the conditions?
Yes. Then it should get approved. If if it doesn't, then it shouldn't. My my thought would be that given the amount of regulation that daycare facilities have, I don't see any problem with it being allowed as a permitted use.
>> Yes, that was the point I was going to make too because even in your conditional use, you say provided operating and licensing requirements of federal, state, and local agencies are met. Sounds like we have three to 17 agencies that are already regulating this. Thoughts from the rest of the
commission? Dan, since you brought it up? >> I guess since I brought it up, I'd like to see it as just a permitted use. >> I would too. >> I'm on board. >> I'm on board that. >> Okay. >> Just had to talk it through. >> You just permitted.
So for the B3 district, the permitted uses that are new would be automotive services, car washes, and cannabis retail. Excuse me. Uh the conditional uses in the B3
district are outdoor sales and rental, commercial planned unit developments, multifamily dwellings, uh pole buildings and crematorium. Okay, Larry, on the rest of them, I think it's just kind of buzzed through the highlights,
>> right? anything you want to call out? >> Okay. >> Uh, one thing that we did later on is we've changed the >> Larry Kelsey has a quick question. >> I just caught this. So, >> I think in the B3 district for conditional uses that outdoor services
and sales since we moved that up to permitted. >> I don't we'll need to conditional uses anymore. Okay, we can take that out >> because accessory use now. >> Where's he in? I didn't hear him.
>> Oh, if you're if your B3 conditional uses item A outdoor sales and rental is already in permitted uses. So, he's saying we don't think we shouldn't we don't need it in >> thought you would be a conditional use if it was not accessory use. >> Was that our discussion? >> Yeah, I think what we all we need to do
is take out accessory use. >> So, it's going to be a principal use. So the words or accessory use. Yes. >> So then it would read uh outdoor service, sale and rental as a principal use >> and including etc etc.
>> Okay. So, we did also change the setbacks for uh sideyards in the B3 district. They're 10 ft except on corner lots. They're required to have a 20ft setback.
Uh we've also changed the ordinance to allow retaining walls in the shore impact zone. >> And we're changing the timing of regular meetings. At least the applicant has to have their application in the month
prior to the month that they want to be on the agenda. So if they wanted to be on the May agenda, they would have to have their application in by the end of April. Currently, we have a requirement that they have to be in 15 days ahead of the
application. That timing is inadequate to make all of the arrangements and meet the notification deadlines because we only have a weekly newspaper now. So, we have to have enough time to get it in and
have 15 days or the number of days we need for notification. 15 days is too short. um especially since the newspapers have a longer uh wait time that you have to have it in so much earlier than you used to which I don't understand. Now we've
got all this technology >> and yet they have a an earlier deadline for meeting that. So this works very well for us and this is kind of how we've been handling it in infirmly already. So >> what sort of
>> the same thing is happening uh for the acting as the board of adjustment. We're doing the same kind of thing. The current requirement there is 21 days which is pretty pretty adequate but that's pretty close to being being
having to be done the month prior. The thing about requiring people to get it in uh the month prior is that that's an easy thing to tell them. If you tell them 15 or 21 days, that's meaningless to them because they don't know what date the planning commission is going to
meet. So, this is a good way for them to always it's consistent that we can tell them they have to have it in in April to be on the main meeting. >> Okay. The question I had is what impact does that have on the regular citizen because we do have a short building
period >> on >> it doesn't seem to have affected anything because everybody comes in at the last minute regardless of what where you draw the line. And we have the same issue with uh the
60-day rule that depending on where wherever you draw that line, there's a time period when the 60-day rule isn't going to be met if people apply then. And we just send out a notice extending that time. Okay. Is that your full review, Larry?
That's it. Okay. I mean, just for the record, there's nobody here to give a public comment, so I'm going to officially close the public hearing. And uh Dylan, I think you had something to say. >> I just want to make it clear or let you guys know that the language in section
20 subdivision 1B and 21 subdivision 7C, it's the same language essentially. Uh which is the language on the Lar mentioned on the changes does set up for violations of the 60-day rule. Um for basically every applicant that applies before the city council meeting or for
that month. Um, I did some math. Uh, so just on an application, assuming this language is adopted, an applicant who applied on June 1st of this year, wouldn't uh have their uh wouldn't have
the public hearing until the 23rd of July and wouldn't be acted upon until the 11th, the August 11th council date, which is 71 days since the application is received. the 60-day rule uh is obviously 60 days. Um so there is some
you know Larry does point out that there is a mechanism where we can get an extension but the language change does require us to actively get that extension on everyone who applies before uh that month's city council meeting.
And of course if somebody applies let's say the day after we don't necessarily need to get the extension from them at that point. But if the city council decides that they need some other thing, um we are now required to get an extension. Um and so it does put some
burden on the city to make sure that we are tracking when uh the 60-day rule uh gets triggered. Um and just for your everybody's benefit, the 60-day rule
requires acted upon by the city. The public hearing at a planning commission is not being acted upon. Uh applications are acted upon at the city council meeting which is where you get the slight issue. Um obviously there's a
workaround. It just that language does require some um tracking by the city. We currently have that issue that we deal with anyway because based on the timing of when an applicant applies, we
still run into that 60-day rule regardless of what the uh deadline is. And we don't run into it that often, but we do track it. We have a sheet in all of our application files that tracks that and we keep track of it
very carefully. >> What? And with reszonings, we always have to ask for the extension because it requires two readings by the council. >> Would it be worth extending it to like 75 days? So then >> that's statuto. >> The 60-day rule is is a statutory
requirement from the state. We can't do anything with it. >> We must comply with that. >> Fine. >> I don't know. I mean, is it going to happen more often and are we at risk of violating it more? been
we've been informally doing it. So, I don't think it's going to happen any more frequently than it does now. I guess if the city staff is comfortable managing that. Any comments or thoughts on that from the rest of the commission?
>> Okay. It's It's been good for the public because it's easy to tell them when the deadline is rather than having to tell them your deadline is July 6th instead of the end of the month or whatever. It's just it works out very well.
>> Okay. Well, further discussion on this. changes we made. We changed the care facilities to a permitted use from a uh from a
conditional use in the language that was provided and we removed accessory use from the outdoor displays in conditional use under the B3 district. Is that correct? >> Correct. Were there any other changes
that I missed in the in my memory there? Okay. Well, if there's no further discussion, I think be looking for a motion. >> Does this also go to the um community development? >> Yes, this will go to the community development committee. Yes.
>> Yep. >> I would make a motion to approve um >> amending the zoning. >> Amending the zoning. I'll second that >> in the business. Yeah. >> Okay. We have a motion and a second to approve amending the zoning ordinance of
the city of Detroit Lakes relative to permitted accessory and conditional uses in business districts. Is that a good summary of the motion? >> Yes, it is. >> All right. Any further discussion from the commission? Hearing none. All in favor say I. >> I. Post. Same sign. Motion carries. All
right. Anybody want to go over anything in the variance and conditional use status report, Liz? >> No. Anyone else? >> Mr. Liz, >> I knew what he meant. >> All right. Well, with that, I guess this meeting is adjourned. Thank you all.
>> Thank you.