Well, the official clock in the back says 528, but every other clock in the world says 5:30. So, I'm going to go ahead and call this meeting to order. All right. Um, well, we now have a quorum. Jen, you got everything you need? All right. Uh, let's talk about the minutes. Item eight. Well, before we
actually talk about that, um we are going to have one additional business item, item 4E, which is a uh a resolution for a uh a TIFF district. And uh we'll we'll get to that at the tail end here. Um let's start with uh
approval of the minutes for the regular meeting held on June 26th, 2025. I'll make a motion to You got it. I'll second. All right. I'll make a motion to approve the uh minutes from June 26th. I'll second. All right, we have a motion and a second. Any discussion?
All in favor say I. I. Oppos. Same sign. Motion carries. All right, we got uh few items of business today. Uh we'll go a public hearing uh that we're going to kick it off with. And then under the business, we've got a variance request, a final
plat, and a consideration for an extension of a uh of a of a conditional use permit. I am or a variance. So, um, we'll probably bump that one up just a little bit given who's in attendance. Um, before I kick off the public hearing,
couple of, uh, ground rules I just want to go over. Um, there's a lot of you here tonight. We're going to start off with a, uh, a report from from Larry. He'll go through, uh, the details, uh, the the in addition the staff recommendation as well as he's going to read into the
public letter public uh, record a letter from the DNR. And then after that, there will be an opportunity for each of you to come up and speak. Uh because of the number of people we have, I'm going to put a two-minute limit on your comments, but all of you are welcome and encouraged to come up and speak to the
commission. Uh Andrew here will be our timer as well, so he'll give you a little heads up as you're getting close to that two-minute mark. Uh and uh from there, then we the I'll close the public hearing once everyone's had an opportunity to say what they want to say and the commission will discuss.
Question. Yes. Um Jack is going to be speaking for the crew. So if he could have more than two minutes so that he can kind of cover it and then I don't know if any of the rest of us will even have comments after that. Okay. I'm fine with that. All right.
That works. Thank you very much. All right. With that, I will call to order a public hearing to give consideration to a variance to allow 16 boat slips instead of six boat slips at 1897 Bridgeview Boulevard, Bridge View Estates Shared Lot and Dock Association. Larry,
yes. The Bridgeview Estates Dock Association has requested a variance to allow do a dock with up to 16 boat slips at 1897 Bridge View Boulevard. The current controlled access lot is a legal
non-conforming use and is only allowed six slips based on the zoning ordinance. Staff recommends denial of the requested variance as the applicant has not demonstrated that they have a practical difficulty that would justify the requested variance. They want more slips
than their property allows and they have not demonstrated that there are circumstances unique to their property that would require the requested variance. The applicant has submitted the following statements in support of their request.
Number one, in your opinion, is the variance in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance? Yes. The proposed variance maintains the harmony of Kerman Lakes's existing and conditional recreational residential use by residents of Bridge View Estates
permitted by both the ordinance and city's comprehensive plan. The ordinance provides for use of boat slips which was for 13 original residents but then upgraded to 26 without further consideration of boat slip allotment.
The variance request is also in harmony with all other non-commercial marinas that serve well over 50% of their respective communities. Number two, in your opinion, is the variance consistent with the comprehensive plan?
Again, they answer yes. The proposed variance maintains the harmony of Kirkman Lakes's existing and continued recreational and residential use by the residents of Bridge View Estates, permitted by both the ordinance and the comprehensive plan.
Specifically, a de facto look at Kerman Lake shows that the lake has two existing multiple slip marinas located along with numerous residential dock slips and lifts. As the city advised, residential lots enjoy unlimited dock
and slip use with no restriction. All of which demonstrates, the requested use is in harmony with and conforms to and is compatible with current uses permitted under the ordinance and comprehensive plan. This is consistent with the comprehensive plan as long as we agree
on the number of boat slips 13 to 16 with the understanding there will be no further requests or variance moving forward. Number three, in your opinion, does the proposal put the property to use in a reasonable manner? Yes. The applicant
proposes to use the property in a consistent and reasonable manner already permitted by the ordinance and plan. This request for additional slips serves a reasonable residential need particularly where the number of housing units 26 far exceeds the number of
permitted slips six. Further expanded dockage for additional slips will not interfere with the natural shoreline or vegetation buffer. The requested variance in dock design maintains reasonable expectations for shared lot access and use by residents taxpayers
and the request for 13 to 16 slips for 26 residents/taxpayers is not unreasonable. There will never be fueling or fuel storage permitted on the access lot or dockage and to our knowledge there is no demonstrated environmental harm. This
proposal will utilize the property in a more reasonable manner by allowing more residents/taxpayers to use the marina and preserve the open green space of the 33,000 square foot shared lot. Number four,
in your opinion, are there circumstances unique to the property? The applicant answers yes. The ordinance states the minimum square footage needed is 15,000 square feet. Actually, the 15,000 square feet is the requirement for Detroit
Lake. The requirement for Kerman Lake is 20,000 square feet, but again, their lot is 33,000 square feet, which is uh in far in excess of the required size. B. The Bridgeview states developers initially planned for 13 residential
homes on 13 lots when allotted six boat slip slips. It then expanded to 26 homes on 13 lots. All 26 owners share lot access and pay property taxes on it. However, the developers failed to address the need for more boat slips for
its 26 owners. C. Kirman Lake residents have a unique hardship of access to the lake. Water levels from mid to late June usually prevent pontoons from navigating under Long Bridge. This was also the case for
most of 2024. Since there is no public access on Kirkman Lake, we cannot enjoy the lake we live on when the water levels are high. D. By restricting the Bridge View Estates residents to six boat slips, you are requiring our senior residents to
always store then trailer and transport their boats or pontoons to the public landing launch, pull and retra the boats, and then transport them and return to storage for each use. The Bridge View residents and access lot owners believe this is a unique and
unreasonable hardship circumstance supporting issuance of the requested variance. E. Although Bridgeview Estates is not formally a 55 and over development, the development and access lot have been owned and used by those over age 55
since its inception in 2001. Economics suggest it will remain a retirement community for the foreseeable future. Therefore, single day use via Southshore Landing works a unique hardship circumstance on Bridgeview's senior community.
Number five, in your opinion, will the variance maintain the essential character of the locality? The applicant answers yes. The variance will actually increase the essential character of the locality by maintaining its green space with no clutter. This will also enhance
the extended lo excuse me. This will also enhance the extended locality by eliminating additional congestion around Southshore Drive boat landing. The total number of slips will not exceed that permitted under the variance 13- 16. All slips
will be seasonal and removed at the end of each season. The existing shoreline and vegetative buffer will be maintained and no fueling or fuel storage, waste disposal or pumpout facilities will be permitted. In short, the proposed variance will enhance and maintain the character for
the locality and will be consistent with the ordinance and the comprehensive plan. 13 to 16 boat slips is the range we are seeking. We recognize there is not a reasonable enough space to exceed 16 slips. 16 slips would serve 61% of our
residents slashtaxpayers. Following now is the city's findings in response to the applicant's answers and statements. First, the requested variance does not meet the requirements to be granted a variance based on the following findings. Number one,
the variance requested is not in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance. When controlled access lots were allowed, the only way to add additional slips was to enlarge the lot size by adding 15% to the lot width and the lot area. A controlled access lot
allowing six slips was required to be 75 ft wide and 20,000 square feet. Another slip could only be added if the lot was increased by 11.25 ft in width and 3,000 square ft. These regulations were designed to
prevent overcrowding of the lake and shoreline with docks and watercraft. In 2018, the city amended its shoreland regulations and eliminated controlled access lots in order to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the
community. Shuts such lots are now a legal non-conforming use and should not be enlarged or expanded. There are other controlled access on the lots on the lake that would also be interested in having more slips. For example, 1744
East Shore Drive, Peanut Trails Beach Club has 17 members and only six slips. 516 Shorewood Drive has 25 owners and only eight slips. These only serve a fraction of the owners.
Number two, the variance is not consistent with the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan states that the purpose of the shoreland ordinance is to preserve and enhance the quality of surface water, conserve the economic and natural environmental value of
shorelines, and provide for the wise use of water and related resources. The city council has determined that no additional controlled access boat slips are permitted. So adding more to the existing controlled access lot is not
consistent with the comprehensive plan. Number three, the applicant does not propose to put the property to use in a reasonable manner. The requested variance would enlarge a use that is no longer permitted by the zoning ordinance.
Additional slips will allow more motorized boat traffic on Kerman Lake and will potentially disturb important fish spawning areas. When Golden Bay Shores was developed, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources required all motorized boat
slips for this development to be located on Detroit Lake. Motorized boat slips were not allowed on Kerman Lake. This was done to protect the fish spawning areas. Adding more slips for motorized boats is not reasonable given the past actions with regard to motorized boat
slips to prevent overuse of the lake and degradation of fish spawning areas. I have five letters that the DNR wrote back in 1997 when Golden Bay Shores was being developed and they all
urged the city to protect the fish spawning areas and offered numerous suggestions about how that could be accomplished. Also, um there's a 2009 agreement that the city has regarding Golden Bay Shores
that allows them to have 28 motorized boat slips on Detroit Lake and no motorized boat slips on Kerman Lake. Number four, the circumstances are not unique to the property. This property is a standard controlled access lot and
does not have any unusual features that make it difficult to meet the standard of allowing sips boat slips. The fact that there are more owners with a fractional interest in the property who wish to have a boat slip is a problem created by the owners and is not unique to the property. In fact, there are
other controlled access lots on the lake that are similarly situated and with more members and owners than available slips. And again, I mentioned 1744 East Shore Drive and 516 Shorewood Drive. The
fact that twin homes were built and created a situation where 26 owners of the access lot instead of 13, it also created was also created by the property owners and is not a practical difficulty associated with the lot.
Number five, the variance does not maintain the essential character of the neighborhood as adding additional slips will alter the aesthetic of the area. A dock with six slips is entirely different than a marina with 16 slips. A 16 slip marina would either cover more
shoreline or extend further into the lake and would not be as aesthetically pleasing to the neighbors and lake users. Again, based on the findings stated in this report, staff recommends denial of the requested variance. There's no practical difficulty shown
that would provide legal justification for approving the requested variance. And then you wanted me to read the letter into the record that we received from the DNR. Yes, please. This letter uh that we received from the
DNR arrived around noon today. This is from Roger Hemple of the DNR. Members of the Detroit Lakes Planning Commission, thank you for the opportunity to comment on this application requesting an increase to watercraft storage on the controlled
access that is part of Bridgeview Estates. My comments and recommendation are based on eval an evaluation of the facts presented in the application received on June 18th by the city of Detroit Lakes against the criteria in
Minnesota statute 462.357. Based on this evaluation, the DNR recommends denial of the variance. Summary of the variance request. The applicant has requested a variance to increase the number of mooring spaces from six to 16 spaces on the controlled
access lot for Bridge View Estates. Controlled access lots are prohibited by the city of Detroit Lakes current zoning ordinance. Reviewing the city's previous ordinance shows the number of slips allowed at the time of platting Bridgeview estates allow only six slips
on a controlled access lot of the size designed for the plat. The requested 16 spaces would be 10 more spaces than was allowed, a significant deviation of 167%. Evaluation criteria and approach. The
role of the city of Detroit Lakes Planning Commission is to objectively evaluate whether the submitted facts meet the statutory criteria for approving a variance. Under Minnesota statute 462.357,
variances can only be approved when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning code and when they are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Specifically, variances can only be granted when the applicant proves there are practical difficulties in complying
with the zoning code. State law only allows variances if all three practical difficulties criteria are met. First, there are unique st circumstances to the property not created by the land owner. Second, the property owner
proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the ordinance. And three, granting the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. If any of these criteria are not met,
then the variance must be denied. State law also does not allow approving variances solely for financial reasons. The decision to approve or deny a variance requires rational explanation based on facts, not on proposed
conditions of approval. Conditions may be considered, but only after a decision is made to approve. Additionally, opinions of support or opposition without supporting evidence from neighbors or the public are not facts and should not be considered.
This property is in the shoreland of a public water, an area that the state has identified as a sensitive area where special laws are needed to protect scenic character, aquatic and repairarian vegetation, habitat, and to reduce the flow of nutrients to
surface waters, preventing excessive algae and plant growth to maintain the safe recreational opportunities. This context is critical for properly evaluating the facts against the practical difficulties criteria whether the planning commission is deciding or
district court is reviewing such a decision on appeal. Analysis of facts and recommendations. The planning commission should deny this variance because one there are no unique circumstances of the property not created by the property owner. Unique
circumstances are physical characteristics of the land such as lot shape, lot dimension, and buildable area that are compared to other nearby shore properties. Personal matters unrelated to the property such as family needs, design preference, and financial
considerations are not unique circumstances. The applicant states the ordinance states the minimum square footage needed is 15,000 square feet. Our controlled access lot is 33,000 square feet, which is more than double what is required.
This is incorrect. Kerman Lake is a recreational development lake, so the minimum lot size is 20,000 square ft and the minimum width of 75 ft. If the controlled access lot had been sized for 16 slips, it would have been a lot
65,000 square feet and 263 feet wide per the previous ordinance. The applicant states the Bridgeview Estates developers initially planned for 13 residential homes on 13 lots when allotted six boat slips. It then
expanded to 26 homes on 13 lots. All 26 owners share lot access and pay property taxes on it. However, the developers failed to address the need for more boat slips for its 26 owners. During the time of the development, the developer did have the option to create a controlled
access lot sized to allow for increased boat storage on the access lot, but chose a different design. As stated by the applicant, all owners in the development do have access to Kerman Lake via the controlled access lot. They just don't have the ability to store
watercraft on the controlled access lot. The applicant states, "Kerman Lake residents have a unique hardship of access to the lake. Water levels from mid to late June usually prevent pontoons from navigating under Long Bridge. This was also the case for most
of 2024. Since there's no public access on Kirkman Lake, we cannot enjoy the lake we live on when the water levels are high. Navigation between two basins is not guaranteed. As stated above, all 26 owners in the development have been
granted access to Kerman Lake. The applicant states, "By restricting the Bridge View Estates residents, taxpayers to six boat slips, you are requiring our senior residents to always store, then trailer and transport their
boats and pontoons to public landing, launch, pull, and retrail the boats, then transport, and return them to storage for each use. The Bridge View residents and access lot owners believe this is a unique and unreasonable hardship circumstance supporting
issuance of the requested variance. It also stated, "Although Bridge View Estates is not formally a 55 and over development, the development and access lot have been owned and used by those over age 55 since its inception in 2001.
Economics suggest it will remain a retirement community for the foreseeable future. Therefore, single day use via Southshore Landing works a unique hardship circumstance on Bridge View Senior Community. These statements, though may be currently true, are not
facts that establish unique circumstances or negate the determination of unique circumstances based on facts. There is nothing that makes this property physically unique from other similar shoreland properties or to justify the increase of nonconformity with current standards
when others must comply. If this property is entitled to a variance, there is no reason why any other similar property would not be entitled to a variance. Granting a variance therefore undermines the purpose of the shoreland regulations. In fact, the problem is due
to preferences and financial concerns. the property does not excuse me the property owner does not propose to use the property in a reasonable manner given the purpose of the uh state legislation. This criterion is about
what is reasonable given the purpose of the ordinance not what is reasonable to the property owner. Variance requests should only be the minimum necessary to achieve the purpose of the ordinance. The purpose of limiting the number of mooring spaces is to minimize impacts on
lake ecology by protecting fish and fish habitat in the nearshore aquatic area. Kerman Lake has been identified as a critical fish and wildlife habitat numerous times as development of the shore has been proposed in past.
Large docks with many mooring spaces shade out aquatic plants and elimitate habitat critical for fish spawning, feeding and refuge from predators. Limiting mooring spaces also protects water quality by limiting the number of motorized watercraft. Propellers in
shallow areas disturb sediment, increase turbidity and release phosphorus, which along with warming waters accelerates algae growth. The applicant has not demonstrated why it is necessary to increase the number of moing spaces further over the allowed limit.
The variance will alter the essential character of the area. Essential character is about how the resulting structure improvement or landwater disturbance will alter hydrarology, nutrient flow into waters, soil stability, vegetation, habitat,
shoreland character or be out of scale with the capacity of the land and water resource to tolerate the impacts. Excuse me, Larry. Could I ask you guys to uh keep comments and conversation to uh a minimum? If you need to have a conversation, please feel free to step out.
The variance will significantly increase the number of mooring spaces over the existing number. The expansion of dock facilities will significantly increase the visual impacts of this shoreland area. Furthermore, the lake ecology in the shoreline area will be significantly
altered even if human eyes don't notice it. Kerman Lake has already been identified as an area providing critical habitat for fish ranging from pan fish to muskies and habitat for water fowl and other wildlife. Protecting the critical contributions to local fish and
wildlife of the near shore of Kerman Lake has been considered and protected in the past in regards to development decisions of the city. Conclusion. The facts do not support a decision to approve and show that the design preferences and/or financial concerns are driving the variance
request. A decision to approve the variance would therefore be arbitrary and capriccious. The DNR recommends denial. All right. Thank you, Larry. That was a mouthful, but we you've heard it. Um, all right. Now, I would invite public
comment. And if you wouldn't mind stating your uh name and well I guess address. Yep. First of all, I'm really disappointed. Um I met with Larry in person and Larry assured me that I would have all the
information that I needed ahead of this meeting. Um and I have absolutely zero knowledge of this DNR report. I don't care if it came in at noon today. I really don't. Um, and I apologize for being rattled because I am very rattled
right now. Um, I feel like I was kind of stabbed. So, um, we're not in a position with Okay. Secondly, I couldn't hear word. I'm a little bit disadvantaged with my hearing aids. So, I apologize. I kept asking my wife, "What's being said?
What's being said?" So, she told me that it's a DNR report that came in at noon. That's all I even know. I couldn't hear a word. I will, you know, I'm going to give you I have a paper copy that I don't need. You can have that copy. I do want to point out that I did
forward the staff report to Jack. I I just want to point out that I did forward the staff report to you. Yes, I got the staff report. No, I understand that. But this is a public hearing. This is when all of the information is provided. You aren't
necessarily entitled to hear all of the information or get all of that prior to the meeting. All you do get is the staff report. All you do get is the staff report of what we're recommending. I got mistake.
Well, yeah. I don't know where you got that impression. Okay. So, um impression to me. I will let you know. Mr. French, I'm I'm just going to draw the conversation back to the conversation at hand. We cannot change the past, but if you could I just don't know you. Yeah,
I just don't know if I feel like I'm in the position right now to even proceed with a rebuttal to the staff report on the um the variance. Okay. I mean, I can I can go forward with that, but I don't know if I'm wasting my time based on
this. And then the other thing that conflicts with this is I put a phone call into the DNR myself and they told me 100% absolutely zero um um jurisdiction or whatever that it was 100% governed by the city of Detroit Lakes and it is the city of Detroit
Lakes decision to do anything there. So it's just conflicting with what I was told and it sure you know that that kind of frustrates me too. That get gets me a little bit rattled too. What um what I would like to do if you don't mind um kind of compose myself a little bit, but
I'd like to meet with a couple of our other residents that we've kind of worked in this together and chat for five minutes and come back. Would you be able to like maybe go to the next thing on the agenda and then let me come back and and chat? Yeah. Unless there's an objection from the planning commission, we can suspend
the public hearing and reopen it and and we can go we can accomplish some of our other business and then reopen the public hearing. Okay. Are you comfortable with that? Does anyone have any objections to that? Okay, then we will suspend the public hearing and reopen it uh after we
complete our other business. Okay. Thanks. You're very welcome. I'll give you guys a moment to step out if you need us. you just that's what I
All right. Okay. Well, with that, we'll move on to business here. Um, let's start with 4A. Consideration to request for a variance to allow a setback of less than 30 feet for construction of an attached 40 by 30 foot garage at 600 Shorewood Drive for
Sam Larson. Uh, do you gentlemen want to come up? Okay. This this particular request was before the board before. Yep. It was for a 14oot. Larry, can you talk in We're not hearing you. I guess you have to swallow this thing to make it work. But anyway,
it's normally Kel uh it's normally Kelsey's voice. So, okay. This is a request that was before us last month for a 14t setback with a 30 by 40 foot garage and the council sent it back to the planning commission for
further review. They have suggested that we look at allowing a 20 foot setback for a 24 foot wide garage addition and that we also consider the fact that the road rightway in this area is wider than 66 ft. So that creates a unique
circumstance for the property. And if you look at the staff report based on these modifications and this new information, staff is recommending approval. And you that's basically all I need to say. That's for a 24 by 40. 20 24 by 40.
Okay. Scott. Hi. Scott Walls with Middleland Serving. Um here with Sam. He's he's in the back there. um want to apologize for having to come back in front of you. Uh Sam isn't the greatest at public speaking and was a little confused by the whole
thing and didn't really know know how to handle it. So he asked me to go with the CDC meeting and and we explained the rightway width and um some neighboring structures that are as close or closer to the to the rightway. Um so yes uh he would like to to still proceed with the
variance and uh would appreciate your consideration to to approve the variance. Um uh I did Sam and I had uh couldn't remember how the discussion went at the CDC. We thought it was 25 ft. It was the was the
width for the garage from from the house. I see Larry's report is 24 feet. Um Sam's current what's going on is Sam's fam is expanding and he's going to be taking over a large portion of his current garage and making it living space and that garage is 25 ft deep
right now and that works good for getting his truck and everything in there. So he was hoping he could still be 25 ft deep. He's going to be entering from the south right now. We have as you can see on the the survey that we had done he enters from the west. Um, so I guess with that
when you say when you say he's changing the way he's entering, is he entering then straight off the road or is he correct? That's the plan is to enter directly off of Shorewood Drive. I think the issue of one foot one way or the other is negligible. So you can do
what you will on that. The rest of the information in the staff report, including the findings, would remain the same. And so you're requesting 25 ft, not 24 feet for a 19 foot setback. Correct. Okay. Okay. Well, I guess discussion or
questions from the commission or a motion for that matter. What is the right of way length or width? Way is 82 feet in. Yeah, in this area it's 82 ft wide, 42 feet from center line on the north side of the road and
40 ft from center line on the south side of the road. That's how the city acquired it from the county. I don't know why the county made it 82 feet and and not centered, but it is what it is. The next question, we don't have a
current rule on setback averaging on the road side of lake property, do we? We don't. So, yeah. Are we interested in looking at that? I don't think so. It was just what when when it was mentioned that we were
talking, right? It was just that was mentioned that there's other properties that are are set back closer and Yeah, that's and um that it's meeting the harmony of the neighborhood, I guess, is is that argument. Yeah.
Okay. Other questions or comments or a motion? I'll make a motion to approve uh the request with a 19 ft setback to allow 25 foot depth. All right. Have a motion on the table. Is there a
second? I'll second. Okay. Okay. So, we have a motion in a second to allow to approve the variance with a 19 ft setback to allow a 40x 25 ft garage at 600 Shorewood Drive.
Discussion on the motion. All those in favor say I. I. I. Opposed. All right. Motion carries. Thank you. For the record, is that you're using the city's findings for that? Yes. Okay.
All right. Thank you. All right. All right. Item 4B. Uh, well, actually, let's just jump to 4 C since you guys are here. Consideration to the request from Trey Garns authorizing a one-year extension on a variance to allow 15 foot. That's not yours. Which one is yours?
E. Oh, you guys are the TIFF resolution. Okay. Well, is anyone here for items B or C? Let's just jump to the TIFF resolution then. Item 5E, resolution of the planning commission finding the redevelopment plan for redevelopment project number 44 and the
tax increment financing plan for tax increment financing district number 44-1 conform to the general plan for the development and redevelopment of the city. Larry, can you give us a rundown? Essentially, um, this is the project that we approved a conditional use
permit for for a 36 unit apartment building that overlooks Holiday Inn in and the lake. And, uh, basically it fits the comprehensive plan. But in order to consider tax increment financing for this project, we have to make a finding that it conforms to the general plan of
development for the city, which it does. Okay. All right. discussion, questions, or a motion from the commission. I'll make a motion to approve. I'll second. All right, we have a motion this second
to uh approve the findings for this tiff district. I'm not going to reread it. Any further discussion on the motion? All those in favor say I. I. Oppose. Same sign. Motion carries. All right. You're welcome. Classmates but not trade. Yeah, that's
right. All right. Well, let's jump to 4B then. Consideration to the final plat of Long Lake acres at 2445 US Highway 10. Uh, this is a three lot commercial plat on the north end of Long Lake. Staff
recommends plat approval subject to the owner obtaining the required Pelican River Wershed District permit and also obtaining a land disturbance permit from the city. This is the one we reviewed recently that had the uh there was going to be storage building last month and it's yes it's
private owners that plan to build storage buildings there. Okay. All right. Discussion questions or a motion? Nothing's changed from last month. Nothing has changed except that they have submitted the final plat with all
of the necessary surveying information on it. All right. I'll make a motion to approve the final plat uh based upon that they are obtaining the required permits and land disturbance. Yeah. Permits
and I still move. All right. Is there a second? I'll second that. All right. We have a motion in a second. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor say I. Post same sign. All right. Motion carries. Item 4 C. consideration to the request from Trey Garns authorizing a
one-year extension on a variance to allow a 15- ft sideyard setback and a 20ft rear yard setback in an I1 light industrial district for construction of a 10,400 ft flex space shop condo at 1070 Randolph Road and 1065 Fortune
Avenue to August 12th, 2026. Larry, correct? And this was a variance from the rear yard and sideyard setbacks for that flex condo project. I remember that one.
Okay. Well, questions, discussion. Motion. I have a motion to approve. Okay, we have a motion to approve. Is there a second? I'll second. All right, we have a motion to approve the one-year extension to
August 12th of 2026. I guess it's slightly more than one year, but pretty close. Uh, any discussion on the motion? All those in favor say I. I. Opposed? Same sign. Motion carries. Is there anything anyone wants to review in
the variance or conditional use status report? Liz isn't here. I thought Dan would fill in. Give me give me a minute for trying to fill time. No, no, no, not at all. Okay. Um, Jen, would you maybe see if they're
ready to come back in? Thank you. Sure you are. 430. Okay, I will reopen the public hearing and uh thank you for coming back so quickly, Mr. French. Okay,
I'm wondering if we can move back into the conference room where it's less intimidating. Yeah, this DS is not necessarily the most My apologies for being rattled and challenging Larry like I did. I just uh I just felt like I could have been better prepared if id have had that
ahead of time. Understand? As it turns out, after reviewing it, um it basically it basically supported what Larry um claims in the his staff report, right? U
his response to the variance. So, what I'd like to do is I'd like to go ahead and move forward, see if we can um put you in a position to consider approving what we're asking without still feeling like you're undermining
your planning staff because the planning staff put some work into this. Mhm. Um obviously has, you know, very valid points. What I hope to do is project our position with you and show you that the hardship and the the uniqueness is
worth, you know, a serious review. So, what I'd like to start with is, if you don't mind, I'd like to start kind of re review the memo that Larry wrote after the uh community development meeting um committee meeting. And uh I just want to
address a couple of things in that and then I would like to go to the staff report and address uh some of the things that Larry or the that the staff um um planning staff had put in the staff report.
So, as far as first of all, as far as the information from the DNR, um, I want to just get something clear right now, and that's I want to make sure that you understand that, you know, there is the number 16 is in there. We realize that
we we can't go more than 16 in the first place. We're very aware of the fact that, you know, that area, again, some of the points that the DNR and Larry can make are are, you know, ultra. We don't want to do anything to disturb or we want to do the very least to disturb
anything in environmentally. So, 16 is the most 13 is a need that we have today. So, 16 would be gracious, be really appreciated. It will help us in the future, but um it's consistently going to be 13 to 16 is what we're looking for. I wanted to make
that clear. Um so starting with the memo that uh the letter that Larry wrote on uh June um in regards to the June meeting um it says that um our request for 13 I said the request for 13 slips on their
controlled access lot which includes 13 points some of which are not all correct. And what I was pleased about that was that that means eight of them were eight of them were very valid. Okay. And hopefully we'll we'll address
some of those. Um recreational development lake requ u a 20,000 square foot lot is required. Again I want to review the fact that our lot is 33,000 square feet. That's 65% more than what's required.
Uh number two was since this is a crawled access lot increasing the number of slips is not allowed. Understood this is exactly the reason that the various process exists the variance process exists. Um Larry also stated in the community development committee meeting
last month that private homeowners have no limit as far as far as what they want to put on their property for docks. We we all heard that and that basically we're private homeowners although this is a controlled access lot but we're private home owners and we all own that
lot 26 of us. Do we want 26 slips out there? No, we don't. We don't want a dock with 26 slips. We you know what we're looking for there. But it just seems a little bit conflicting with what a private owner can have versus what the 26 of us can have.
Okay. There's other controlled access lots including but not limited to East Shore Drive Villain and the Preserve. The reality here is that there's no other controlled access lots that possess the uniqueness that we possess in regard to limitations, hardship, and
community planning. What others do need in the future is not really relative to our situation and I don't think should be considered in your decision. I understand we all do. We all understand that. I mean, you can you can say, "Gosh, if we
do this for you, we've got all these other controlled access lots that want more that they can do the same thing." I think after you hear me out today, you'll understand that they won't come to you with the uniqueness and the hardships I think that we possess. Uh the fact that the association may have been in non-compliance for several
years is irrelevant. Again, I uh I am not necessarily trying to um make it relevant, but I just and I and I admit that, you know, ignorance ignorance is no defense, but it's relevant in the sense that for four years we had 11
slips and not one person complained about the number of boat slips or any DNR information or push back on environmental disruption. Um, also as far as the governance goes, oh,
the framework is currently in place and yet they're out of compliance on the regulation. Well, our governance does not apply to anything outside of it. It applies to what happens on our property with our dock. That that's all that really that's all the governance is really there for. It's our framework.
Uh so there's a difference between a controlled access lot and PUDs. We understand that. Says you should note the Golden Bay uh shore of PUD was approved 42 units and 28 boat slips. If I'm the DNR and I'm looking at Kirkman Lake and I got Golden Bay Shores
that wants 42, I'm probably going to be the first one to raise my hand and go that can be disruptive. So to move that over to Detroit Lake and give them um 28 units for their 42 needs um I think is
was is commendable. Um and that's 67% coverage for that community. If we're granted 16 that's 62% coverage for us. So that's just what I wanted to address on that that letter. So this is again a
re you know our reply to the staff report um after we submitted the variance. So under uh answers and statements item number one the variance request is not in harmony
with the purpose and intent of the ordinance when controlled access lots were allowed the only way to add additional slips was to enlarge the lot size. And I understand that formula. We don't challenge that formula. We have 11 We have utilized 11 slips over the
last four years. I addressed that and it has been um sorry this the um the the sentence before that in 2018 the city amended the shoreline regulations and eliminated controlled assets lots in order to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Over the last
four years with 11 slips, there's been no effect to health, safety, and welfare of the community. Um, there are no other controlled access lots in the lake that would also be interested or there are other controlled access lakes uh access lots on the lake
that would be interested in having more slips. For example, the East Shore Drive, Peman Trails, Beach Club, 7 17 members, six slips, Shorewood Drive, uh these only serve as a fraction of the owners. Okay, these controlled access lots reference are on Detroit Lake and
have several public access points. We're on Kirkman Lake. We have zero act public access points in Kirkman Lake. If the water is high, which it is, every year at some point there's a period of time where half of us with a little bit
larger pontoon cannot get under the bridge under Long Bridge. So, what that does, if we are, if we do not have a slip and we have to launch our boat, right, we can't even get to the Kirkman Lake that we live on because we can't
get under the bridge and there's no public access. That results in a practical difficulty and is unique to our property and no other controlled access lots. Um, so these controlled access lots reference are on Detroit Lake, the water
is high, right? So nor do these plots possess the hardship and uniqueness that we have on Kirkman Lake. And that's in regards to what was referenced here. Number two, the variance is not consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Um to conserve the economic and natural environment values of the shorelands and provide the wise use of water and related resources. There is in our opinion they're factual here but there is no evidence that we currently compromise any of the preceding factors
nor is there any proof that additional slips requested this amount anyway would compromise the uh comprehensive or would would compromise them either. Um the city council has determined that no additional controlled access boat
slips are permitted. So adding more to the existing controlled access lot is not consistent with the comprehensive plan. And again, I just have to say that's exactly why the variance process is is in place. The applicant does not propose to use
the property in a reasonable manner. The requested variance would enlarge a use that is no longer permitted by the zoning ordinance. Okay, we've addressed that several times already. Additional slips will be allowed. More boat traffic on Kirkman Lake and potentially disturb
import important fish spawning areas. The number of slips requested will not have such impact. Again, we've been operating with 11 for the last four years and there's no proof that we've disrupted anything.
I think at the end of the day just logical thinking is that another 11 to five another five is not going to all of a sudden be a burden on the on the spawning and the environment.
Um here's the Golden Bay shores information again. Um adding more slips for motorized boats is not reasonable given the past actions with regard to motorized boats to prevent overuse lake degradation in fish bonding areas.
Um you just went through the whole DNR point on that point taken. 28 was a considerably high number of boat slips. We're asking for two to two to well up to five more than we've been doing over the last four years. Um, and
there is um we're asking Oh, yeah. And by the way, we're that we're we're right now saying you can document that, put that in your your public record that we said 16 would never expand over 16 because again, we're reasonable and
intelligent people and realize that we don't really there's really not room to go over 16 anyway. Um, so number four, this is probably the the most that I want to the most time I want to spend. The circumstances are not unique to the
property. The property is a standard controlled access lot and does not have any unusual features that make it difficult to meet the standard of allowing six boat slips. So, I'm going to go through
following points that demonstrate circumstances that are unique to this property. Our controlled access lot is 33,000 square feet, 65% greater than what is required. Bridge View Estates developers initially
planned for 13 residential homes on 13 lots and uh at that time the 13 lots were allotted six boat slips. It then expanded to 26 homes on 13 lots. So these 13 lots that were all going to
be single family homes, the developer changed gears and said, "Hey, we're going to put up twin homes." So we now have 26 residents. At that time um there was um tax base increase doubled right for the community but there was no discussion
about um an allowance of more doc you know boat slips after that that discussion never took place in in our opinion um that should have happened it's not on us as the homeowners but it was on the developer um they failed to address it the need for
for more boat slips for 26 owners I think that no other controlled access lot has that unique circumstance. Kirkman Lake residents have a unique hardship of ex to access the lake. Water levels from mid to late June usually prevent pontoons from navigating under
long bridge. This was also the case in 2024. 2024 we only had six all year simply because of the boats that couldn't get under the lake for the almost the whole year. Um and that's not an uncommon situation. So, even if we
had 16, you're going to, you know, you're not going to see 16 there starting Memorial Day going to Labor Day. That's never going to happen simply because of the way that the water levels go. Um, would like to have the opportunity, but
it doesn't present itself like that. Um, okay. Since there's no public access on Kurpin Lake, we cannot enjoy the lake that we live on when the water levels are high. By restricting the Bridge View Estates residents taxpayers to six boat slips, you're requiring our residents who are
all seniors to always store then trailer and transport their boats and pontoons to the public landing, the public launch, then pull and retra the boats and then transport them to the storage for each use. Bridge View residents and access lot owners believe this is a
unique unreasonable hardship circumstance supporting issuance of the requested variance. We aren't a designated senior 55 and over or whatever, but um I think the economics show that it probably will always stay that way.
Although Bridgeview Estates is not formally Okay, I just Yep, there we go. I just said that. Okay. The fact that there are more owners with a fractional interest in the property who wish to have boat slip is a problem created by the owners and is not unique to the
property that's in the staff report. We feel the problem was created by the developer when the units were increased from 13 to 26 with no followup to access um more boat slips. It may not be considered a practical difficulty but it
is definitely unique to this property. Um the variance does not maintain the essential character of the neighborhood as adding additional slips will alter the aesthetic area aesthetic of the area. A dock with six slip six slips is
entirely different than a marina with 16 slips. A 16 slip marina would cover much more shoreline and would not be aesthetically pleasing to the neighbors and the lake users. Okay, so this is this is very important.
Um the our rebuttal the approval of this variance will not cover any more shoreline than it covers today. And I will I'm kind of going to go through this with you when uh when we get done here. The variance will actually increase the essential character of the
locality by maintaining its green space with no clutter. And by clutter, what I mean is if we have 16 people that would like to be on the lake and have their pontoon in the water or boat, whatever they have, there's and we're only allowed six, then that beautiful 33,000
square foot lot, that's nice green space that's used for gathering, um, fire pit, picnic table, that's going to be they're going to be staged pontoons there sitting on trailers throughout the summer and that's going to be clutter.
Uh so if they're in the water, it's obviously going to increase the essential character of the locality by maintaining its green space. This will also enhance the extended locality by eliminating additional congestion around Southshore Drive public boat landing.
The total number of slips will not exceed that permitted under the variance, which is 13 to 16. All slips will be seasonal and removed at the end of each season. The existing shoreline and vegetative buffer will be maintained. No fueling, fuel storage,
waste disposal, pumpout facilities will be permitted. In short, the proposed variance will enhance and maintain the character of the locality and the area around there. Um, and we also have, by the way, we also have there's there was
something in the there was something else in there. Oh, yeah. about um neighbors and I can't see where that is but um we have letters from the
neighbors on both sides that have agreed and have 100% support for us getting those variance and having 16 boat slips. Um I've got the signed letters with me if you need to see them. Um,
so I had sent I had emailed um Kelsey Clem some pictures. Did he get those to any of you today? I asked him to send them to you. No, Kelsey is They were They're actually pictures of our lot. He's out of the office. Kelsey's out of the office.
I didn't get an out of office reply. So, um Gosh, I have them on my phone. I don't have my phone. Explaining a little bit. What pardon? I I've got the pictures, but It's gonna be hard off my phone, but I could have kind of explained it because I took the pictures and you watch.
So, here's here's what I'm gonna ask. Um, I think you know, you've gone through the the letter and your points in in some pretty great detail. Um, I I'll give you a couple more minutes if if you want to if you would like to come up and and talk too, but to to just kind of explain, you know, make make your
final case and so that we can discuss that if you wouldn't mind. Okay. Only thing I want to let you know is as far as the the issue with the size of the the dock slips and what it would do, how it would alter the the shore and
the aesthetics. It's not going to because, you know, with the shoreline being right here, we are already at this point right here. We just don't have this. Okay? So, we're out as far as we're going to be out. We just don't have this part.
And um it so I don't I I don't see where it's going to change any of the aesthetics. And when you drive by this lot um it's rather narrow. It's a narrow lot. Um I don't know that the the dimensions of the depth, but I think
it's over 200 feet. Um and then 90 at the water and 68 at the street, but there's trees on both sides of it. um you've got kind of an alley that you can pull into to get to um the picnic table, whatever. Um if you want to bring
something down there, um we have some trailers that are parked inside the the the the trees, if you will, so they're not they're very it's it's not very unsightly. You can barely see them. So, as a person drives by, they can't even
really see the marina that much or the the the the boat slips that much unless you stop and you really look out there. Otherwise, you're seeing a really nice green lot that we maintain on a regular basis, both mowing it and cutting the
weeds down and and that. So, does anybody have any questions? Well, I tell you what, then if you're done, I'll if anybody else has any parting comments. Say something. Can I just ask one question? Sure. When you sent out the letters to all the
homeowners in the area, did you get any push back? Did anybody not send you a letter to this? I have not received any comments.
Thank you. Okay. I'd like to just say one thing. Can I if can I ask you to come up and state your name and address for the record? Yep. My name is Doug Frenchu. I live at 1852.
If you guys would have got the pictures and I took them because nobody has got a visual of it, but you didn't get the picture. So, I'm gonna kind of describe it off of this. If you come down, our dock is four feet wide. On the one side there's reads up right to the dock
literally and on the other side it's probably within about three feet. We have not maintain or not busted up the shoreline. We're probably I doubt we're 10 feet wide there that we're disturbing at the most and it's probably more
realistically like at six or seven feet. We're not disturbing the shoreline when we had the 12 of them out last year. The only difference here was because I have worked with the dock people putting it in and out is we were 16 feet longer. We
told them just leave the last 16 ft off. So technically we would be adding a little bit of length but just to where we've been for the last three four years now with the 12 that we've had in there and we've maintained that shore line. And like I said, if you had the pictures, that would tell a thousand
words. But I'd pass my camera around, but I don't think you guys want that done. So unless you do, I'll pass it around, but if you don't, then I can only try to describe it. All right. Thank you. Um, sir, can I get your name and address for the record?
Uh, Randy Peterson, 1833. Okay. Thank you. All right. Any other last comments? Okay. I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing and we'll and open it up for the commission to discuss and if we have questions we'll we'll definitely ask away.
Okay. Should I sit down at this point? Feel free. I don't know if we're going to have questions or not, but let's go ahead and discuss. Fair enough. We'll do our best to use our microphones. Discussion from the commission.
or a motion. I guess initially I've got a couple comments. Um the process of the zoning and and shoreland ordinance and all of those things are are for a purpose to to
create regulation for for what we're we want to do both for restricting people and then also giving guidance on on what uh the regulation is on what uh what's going to be or needs to be done. Um this process of granting a variance is
permanent. it goes with the the the the property forever. So, we might be one thing today, but it might not be something in the future. So, we're granting something that is forever until something changes that. Correct, Larry?
Yes, that is correct. So making a determination on what things look like right now I think is you know one justification for for asking for a variance because you don't agree with what the regulations are in place and
that's what we're doing here tonight. Um there's regulation on on how we can use our property. So, by using our property to store boats in the um all year round, that really isn't a thing that that you
know, you're not going to be actually able to store boats 33 boats there or 40 boats or six boats or or whatever. That's not something that's that's allowable by by ordinances. Um, so where I'm going with this is
the burden of providing reasonable uh allowance for a variance is is is on the applicant and we are here to judge whether or not that is a valid reason and then we pass on our recommendation to the city council to make the final
determination. Um, I don't know. I think you've you feel like you've uh made a justification for your your variance, but based upon the information that I see in front of us,
I don't necessarily see the practical difficulty and meeting all the uh all the tests. And I'd be open to hearing what other people have to say on the on the commission up here to uh
to get your understanding as well. I agree. Okay. It comes down to the use of the of the property. Is there is there a practical difficulty? Um, and I think the DNR summed it up really well
to me is is yes, you know, the the heart of the the use of the property of changing or adding those those spots really comes down to preferences and financial um, you know, of of some of the decisions that were at the start, not
necessarily with the rule. Um, so to to me, uh, they haven't met the test to say that that they can't use the property. they have the uh the six that were there originally that met that rule at that time. I think also tied to that was the
calculation that the DNR came up with that would say that uh the lot size would need to be up to um 65 65,000 I think it was 200 square feet at 65t wide. So I I think that's a telling uh sign for
me. So I have a question for Larry. Larry, um, of the six slips that they are currently granted to use, are those six slips assigned to any specific property or is
up to the association to determine who gets to use those? Well, as Jack mentioned, there are multiple owners of the access lot, right? I understand. I'm not sure how they allocate who gets the slips. I I believe it's on a first come, first serve basis, but I'm not
entirely sure. But that's a that's a matter that's outside of the zoning ordinance and outside of our issue to address. Yeah. I was just asking if they're actually assigned to a parcel, right? No.
Or not. Okay. Okay. Further discussion or a motion? To explain that further, each of the owners has a fractional interest in the lot. And then I'm talking about the homes.
Yeah, the homes do not have a specific slip assigned to them. I'd be willing to make a motion to deny the variance request based on the findings of fact by the city. Okay. Is there a second?
Is there a second? I'll second. Okay. We have a motion and a second to deny the variance based on the findings of the city. Uh any further discussion on the motion by the commission? All those in favor of denying the variance signify by saying I. I. I.
Opposed. Same sign. Okay. The motion carries. Next steps. So this is the recommendation of the planning commission which is to deny the variance. This will go back to the CDC which you visit us uh last month. That will be Monday, August 11th at 5:00 pm
in that conference room right back there. Um, and then from there, the CDC will make a recommendation that'll come to the council on Tuesday, August 12th at 5:00 pm right back here in this chamber. Any questions on any of that? I have a question.
Yeah, go for it. You coach me a little bit on this, but what would the community development committee have to see in our favor after this week? I mean, there are times that the uh community development committee
uh will disagree with the planning commission. Um I I think this one's a tough one because that that findings of fact as as Dan was pointing out, you know, that the the practical hardship is a is a tough barrier to overcome and and
it's one of the areas that I think all of us as commissioners struggle with is putting on what we call our quasi judicial hat, which means that we have to look at those findings of fact. we have to look at the actual ordinances and and so it's not the legislative hat
for example that when I'm sitting that that we make when when we're making new zoning ordinances are changing. So if we were to change the zoning ordinance that would be the legislative side we get to argue our our our points. we get to to uh you know have our opinions but in this case it's interpreting the law or
the intent of the law and and so that really is I think the the antithesis behind the findings of fact that Larry has has presented us and and the motion that was made and and passed tonight
just for clarification did were there five nos five in agreement with denial I'm tiebreaker. So it wouldn't make a difference because I I I didn't hear the what were what were the results of the two votes. Yeah. So it like what I heard was four
vote four votes for denial. Okay. Four votes for denial. Right. I just wanted to get understanding on that. So it really wasn't a tough one, right? I I can weigh it on that part. Go for it. It it is a tough decision because we
take the information here. We take the information that was presented by the DNR. We take the information presented tonight by by you and the people in the audience. We need to look at that and look at the the rules or laws that are in place and then we are up here judging
whether or not an exception should be made. So the real part of this process and the best part to actually do is try to get that that ordinance changed and that has to go through the city pro the city processes through a change recommendation to this body and then the
city council. And that's why you know getting up on my soap box on why local government is so important is because we're telling you what you can and cannot do on your property. M and there's things that happen that when people, you know, I've been in this this room many times where where there's one
person in the audience and then they get up and leave after their uh their thing is is done. And it looks like city government is is done in a vacuum and it's done behind closed doors, but it's it's happening out in public here and and we put in time, you know, we're not
being being compensated for this time to judge what uh what the rules are. And my my point is advocate for your your position, go to the city council level next, and that's where where the final determination is going to be made. talk
to your people that uh that represent you and if you don't like the decision, advocate for the change of the policy and then you can do whatever you want after you have expressed that and got the rules changed. Go ahead. I would point I would point out that it
is rare that the city council votes against the planning commission recommendation and it is especially rare when the vote is unanimous, but that's just for you to know. Well, that makes me feel better. Well, go ahead. You had a question.
Sorry. I didn't want to get give you false hope. DNR, we have the next meeting uh to get the facts to whether or not we'd actually do any harm and then support and give that information the next
meeting, which would maybe give us a different outcome. Correct. Well, that's always a possibility. Like Larry said, it's it's pretty uncommon that it changes. Um, you know, this public hearing process here is really the place uh that that's designated for you to come and advocate. That said, uh
it's it's not uncommon for the the chair of the CDC or or the mayor who's chairing the uh the uh the city council meeting to allow you an opportunity to advocate for your position. Uh especially when the votes opposite of what you're asking for. Um, and so I if
you have materially new or different findings, you know, facts, something that would that would that you believe would would change it. And I would really recommend that you study that DNR letter very hard because I think he outlined it incredibly well. That would
be what I would recommend you bring to uh the CDC andor the the council meeting. um if you don't find much new uh you know I I can't speak for everyone else but I don't know that I would see uh either of those bodies recommending a different opinion than than
in many communities the planning commission recommendations go directly to the council without that step between can I ask a question who which part of the government decides they're going to put all these new access points on
Detroit Lake, like the newest one by the Holiday and stuff that allow all these other people that come in and don't pay taxes here to use the lake, but yet the people that pay taxes for the last 50, 60 years here can't put another couple do or couple
boat slips on. That is the DNR. So the DNR is the one that decides and so they don't think all these additional people from Fargo and I'm I'm not gonna I'm not going to defend or I'm not going to defend the
DNR or try to pretend that I can think like the DNR. So it's a good question though. Thank you. Yeah. Question and this would be for you Larry is letter from the DNR. Is that one
person in the DNR's opinion? They they don't typically send they don't typically send a letter just based on one person's opinion. They usually vet that with other people in the organization. Okay. All right. Thank you all for being
here tonight. Uh absolutely. Absolutely. All right. Anything else for the commission, Larry? I have nothing else. Anything from any of the commissioners? All right, this meeting is adjourned. Yeah, you bet, Jack. Thanks for being here.