Is it on? You are. You are hot. So, thanks, Larry. Jeez. Okay, your mic is on. What's that? terms very well I knew
it said it Item B of the public hearings or item B of the business B as in public hearings there's two B's there are you are correct make sure you
need to speak up item B of the other one you have to recuse yourself on item well I don't know what's up with the clock in the back but I've got 5:30 so I'm going to say we're going to call this meeting to order um So, with that said, uh,
let's go straight to the minutes. I would look Does anyone have any corrections or additions or anything to the minutes? I had a question, but Andrew clarified it for me. So, I'll make a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Second. All right, we have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All
in favor say I. I. Same sign for any opposed. Motion carries. All right. Item A under public hearings is withdrawn. Is that accurate? That is correct. Okay. So, we're going to move straight to item B. Nancy, I believe you had a I would
like to recuse myself from both. Okay. All right. We'll give Nancy a moment here and then I will uh suspend this meeting. call to order a public hearing to give consideration to a variance to allow construction of a 40x30 foot
attached garage was le with with less than a 30-foot setback from the lot line adjacent to the right of way at 600 Shorewood Drive for Sam Larson. Larry, would you please Sam Larson has requested a variance to allow a garage addition with a 14 foot setback from the
roadside lot line at 600 Shorewood Drive. The Larssons have a lake lot with the an existing home being set back about 44 feet from the roadside lot line. The Larsson's would like to add a 30x 40 foot addition to their garage.
My opinion is that the Larssons have a reasonable use of the property without the variance and the Larsson could also build a garage on this lot without a variance. I do not feel that the applicant has demonstrated a practical difficulty to
justify a variance. Also, the applicant has a reasonable use of property without the variance. Below are findings that would be used to recommend denial of the variance. First, number one, in your opinion, is the variance in harmony with
the purpose and intent of the ordinance? No. Allowing a 14 foot front yard setback for a garage presents a safety hazard for backing into the public street and does not protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. Also, a car
parked in front of the garage would be partially in the road right away. Number two, in your opinion, is the variance consistent with the comprehensive plan? Yes, it is a residential use in a residential district. Three. In your opinion, does the proposal put the
property to use in a reasonable manner? No. The applicant has alternatives that do not require a variance. Also, the applicant has a reasonable a reasonable use of the property without the variance. Number four, in your opinion, are there circumstances unique to the
property? No. There are no unique circumstances that justify a variance. This is a typical lake lake lot in this area. And number five, in your opinion, will the variance maintain the essential character of the locality? The variance would maintain the
essential character of the neighborhood as an attached garage is a common feature of homes in this area. So with that, staff is recommending denial of the requested variance. All right. Thank you, Larry. This time we'll
open up for public comment. If anyone would like to address the commission, uh please feel free to come up to the mic name, list your name and your address and uh you'll have a few minutes to make a comment. All right. Any comments?
Sam, did you have anything you wanted to add to this? This is your hearing notice. Okay. Okay. Uh this is your your chance to advocate for for your variance if you would like to address the commission.
Okay. Well, hearing no public comments, I'm going to close the public hearing and I'll open it up to the commission for discussion. Is there any discussion from the commission? or in lie of discussion. A motion. I'm going to make a motion to accept the
denial of the variance and accept the findings as presented by staff. Okay. Is there a second? I'll second that. All right. Any discussion on the motion hearing? None. All those in favor of denial signify by saying I. I. Oppose.
Same sign. Motion carries. All right, Mr. Larson, and for everyone for the public hearings tonight, the way that this works is tonight the planning commission reviews these. We will make a recommendation which then will go to the community development committee, which is 5:00 the Monday night before the
council meeting, which is what date? July 7th. July 7th. Okay. I was going to say it and I was like, I better double check. So, that'll that'll that meeting takes place in that room right back there in that corner. And then that committee makes a recommendation that goes forward to the city council on
Tuesday, July 8th at 5:00 pm right here in this chamber where the final decision is made. Uh and you're certainly welcome to attend any of those meetings. They're all public. All right. Uh let me jump back up to my agenda here. Let's go on to item C. Uh, I call
to order a public hearing to give consideration to a conditional use permit to allow a guest cottage at of 864 square feet currently on site to be relocated to at 1354 and 1362 Southshore Drive for Mike and
Leah Larson. Larry, so this is a request from Mike and Leah Larson for a conditional use permit to allow a guest cottage on their property. This is a unique circumstance. This guest cottage exists on the property
now. It's about 60 ft from the lake shore and the wide end of the cabin is facing towards the lake. The owner is planning to turn that 90 degrees and have it then have the narrow end towards
the lake and be set back 75 feet like it's supposed to be. And then they're going to change the lot line and put it on to 1354 Southshore Drive instead of 1362 Southshore Drive.
So basically the current guest cottage is 24 by 36 ft. They are allowed as a conditional use in the R1 and the R2 districts. They do meet the minimum lot size requirement. The minimum lot size
requirement is 26,000 square feet and they have a lot size of 37,700 square ft. A guest cottage is generally not allowed to cover more than 700 square ft of land service surface, but this is an existing cottage. We're not changing the
dimensions and it's 864 square ft. Guest cottages are supposed to be constructed above grade and be on a single level. This uh structure is on a is a single level and it does not exceed 11 ft 5 in. They're allowed to be as
much as 15 ft high. It also meets all of the required setbacks. 75 ft from the ordinary high water mark, 10 feet from the side lot line, and 30 feet from the rear lot line. So, with those facts in mind, I would
recommend approval of the condition use permit. Great. Thank you, Larry. All right. Is there anyone that would like to uh address the commission to make a comment on this issue? I did I did have one condition that I and that is that the
guest cottage be set back 75 ft from the ordinary high watermark and be relocated as shown on the approved site plan. That's an addition to the That's just the condition. Okay. Gotcha. Oh, yeah. There it is. I see it. Great. Thanks,
Larry. All right. Anyone would Is there anyone that would like to make a comment? Any comments on this hearing? Any comments? All right. Hearing none, I'll close the public hearing and open it up to the commission for discussion
or a motion. Are there any comments from the commission? Otherwise, I would definitely entertain a motion. I have one question in changing that lot line. Um, is there is there a standard as far as a
front footage that a uh lot has to be the lot? Yeah, it has to be 75 ft wide. So, it's meeting all of the requirements. So, remaining narrower um property is within that. Okay. Okay. Any other f any further discussion
or a motion? Yeah, I would move to um accept the uh conditional use permit as stated with the um conditions that Lar that Larry described. Okay, I'll second. Great. We
have a motion and a second on the floor. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor say I. I. I. Opposed. Same sign. Motion carries. All right. Item D. I will call to order a public hearing to give consideration to a
variance to allow a 27 foot setback from the ordinary high watermark for construction of a deck at 1183 Long Beach Drive for Meg Johnson. Larry, when you say a 27 foot setback from the ordinary high water mark,
that sounds like, wow, that's really close. And it is really close. But as the property exists today, they're only 20 feet from the ordinary high water mark. And their house is where it is. Their decks are where they are. And so I think you'll find that they do have a
unique circumstance that they're dealing with. and that a variance in this case would be appropriate, but it certainly isn't something that we would normally grant to every project that would come along. So, basically,
uh, Meg Johnson has requested a variance to allow a 27 foot setback from the ordinary high water mark for construction at a of a deck at 1183 Long Beach Drive. Um the normal setback from the ordinary
high water mark is 100 ft. Project is to construct a deck with a 27 foot setback from the ordinary high water mark. They would normally be allowed to be set back 59 1/2 ft if you use setback averaging which helps their case a
little bit because normally the setback on Long Lake is 100 feet. So here are the conditions that the staff has prepared for this request. First, the variance is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance. The remodel
will be increasing the distance from the deck to the water and eliminate a dilapidated sunroom, decreasing the footprint of the house. This variance would not cause any new issues or change the aesthetic of the surrounding area. Number two, the variance is consistent
with the comprehensive plan. and the updates would fit well with the overall property and area. It would also address concerns to the existing structures and deck. Three, the proposal puts the property to use in a reasonable manner. The updates would increase the distance
from the lake to the deck. It would also tie the overall visual appearance together, eliminating the hodge podge look of what is currently on the property. New decking and construction would also eliminate the safety concerns of the current decking. Number four, circumstances are unique to
the property. The property has been in the family for generations. Remodels and additions from many years past would make it difficult to gain any additional utility from a backyard remodel or from a buildback remodel. Number five, the variance will maintain the essential
character of the neighborhood. The variance will not alter the character of the property or the neighborhood. It will increase the distance from the deck to the lake, reduce the footprint of the house, and provide necessary updates to enhance the value and usability of the property in the neighborhood.
Based on these findings, staff recommends approval of the variance. Right. Thank you, Larry. Would anyone like to comment on this item? Any public comments? All right. Hearing none, I will go ahead
and close the public hearing and open it up to the commission to for any comments or emotion or questions. I'll make a motion to approve the variance. All right, we have a motion to approve. Is there a second? I'll second it. All
right, we have a motion and second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. I oppose. Same sign. Motion carries. All right. Item E. I will call to order a public hearing to give consideration to
the preliminary plat of Long Lake acres at 2445 US Highway 10. Daryl and Elizabeth Justison. Larry. Okay. This is a three lot commercial plat. Staff recommends preliminary plat
approval subject to the following conditions. First, that the owner provide any utility easements required by the city. Two, that the owner provide any storm water easements as designated by the city engineer. Three, that the owner obtain any required Pelican River watershed district permit prior to the
issuance of any building permits. And four, that the owner obtain a land disturbance permit from the city prior to issuance of any building permits. This is, like I said, a three lot commercial plat. The access is on the city street, not on highway 10.
All right. Are there any comments? Any public comments? Anyone would like to address the commission? Come on up. Adam Guyger with Middleland Surveying here with Daryl. Um yeah, this is a three lot plat. Uh big lots. They're over 40,000 square feet. Um as shown, be
happy to answer any questions you might have. Okay, thank you. Any other comments? Any other comments from the public? All right, hearing none, I'll close the public hearing and open it up to the commission.
Any questions or a motion? Only question I have is I'm guessing since it's a commercial uh subdivision, there's no park dedication fee. Because it's commercial, there's no park dedication fee. That only applies to residential subdivision, right?
Okay. Any other discussion? Otherwise, I'd entertain a motion. I'll make a motion to approve the preliminary plan based upon the staff recommendations on the recommendation. All right.
Second. All right. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none. All those in favor say I. I. I. Opposed, same sign. Motion carries. All right. Item F, public hearing to give consideration to the reszoning of Lyn View Estates, first
edition from RA residential to R21 and two family at 865 Shorewood Drive for Bristland Construction. Larry, go ahead. Okay. This property is currently zoned RA agricultural residence district. The applicant would like it changed to R21
and two family residential district. And then the next item on our agenda is a plat of that property into 10 single family lots which there are five of the lots in that subdivision that would be large enough for twin homes as well. But
sticking to the zoning change, it would just be changing it to R2 which is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Okay, this time I'll open it up for comments. Any comments from the public on this one?
This is just the zoning one. Yeah. I mean, the first of many things, but any comments? Any comments? All right. Hearing none, I'll close the public hearing and open it up to the commission. I'll make a motion to approve the
resoning. I'll second that. All right. We have a motion in a second on the table to approve the resoning from RA to R2. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none. All those in favor say I. I. Oppos. Same sign. Motion carries. All
right. Item G, public hearing to give consideration to the preliminary plat of Lyn View Estates, first edition at 865 Shorewood Drive. Okay, Larry. Okay. As I mentioned, this is a 10 lot residential subdivision. Five of the
lots are large enough to allow twin homes. That doesn't mean that there would be twin homes, but there are 10 lots and staff recommends preliminary plat approval subject to the following conditions. First, that the owner provide any
utility easements required by the city. Two, that the owner provide any storm water easements designated by the city engineer. Three, that the owner obtain any required Pelican River Wershed District permit prior to issuance of a building permit. that the owner obtain a land disturbance permit from the city
prior to issuance of any building permit. And finally, that the owner pay the 6% park dedication fee of $7,116. All right, I would open it up now for any public comments. Adam with Metal Surveying. Again, Larry
pretty much said it all. 10 lot uh subdivision um single family homes Not a whole lot more. I'll be happy to answer any questions if you have any. Okay. Thank you. Any other comments?
Any further comments? All right. Hearing none, I'll close the public hearing and open it up to the commission. Larry, there were no letters received as far as any comment on this. Uh, there were no comments. Okay. I'll make a motion to approve the
preliminary plat subject to the five conditions. Okay, got a motion. Is there a second? I'll second. All right, we have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none. All those in favor say I. I. I. Oppos? Same sign. Motion carries.
All right, that ends the public hearings. Let's go to some regular business. Uh, consideration to the final plat of Midwest Edition. Larry, you want to give us a rundown? Yes. A new uh a new final plat was handed out to you earlier this evening. Basically, they
have removed the storm water drainage easements because the city engineer says those are private drainage facilities and we don't need to have public easements for those. So staff recommends final plat approval subject to the owner obtaining any
required Pelican River wershed district permit and acquires a land disturbance permit from the city. Okay. Discussion from the commission. I'd move to accept the final plat for
the uh Midwest edition with the um conditions stated. I'll second. Okay, we have a motion and a second on the table. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor say I. I. Oppos. Same
sign. Motion carries. All right. I think Chris, was this the one you wanted to recuse yourself from? Myself. Okay. Okay. Uh item 4B, approval of the revised site plan for Providence Lake. Okay. Uh Providence Lakes was approved
for a 48 unit conditional use permit for this project. uh they delayed getting uh their final uh plans to us because they had to negotiate with the uh Department of Transportation for an access and they
were back last fall and and received approval of a 44 unit development with the access in the proper location. They are now coming back with another revised plan with the access in the proper location, but they are now only doing 40
units because I think they found that it was a little bit tight to try and get 44 units. So, I would recommend approval of the revised plan. It's come down a long ways from the original goal, I think. Yes, they had
twice as many on there originally because they had somebody looking at it that either misread their ruler or misread the wetland. I'm not sure which. And it does look like the road is going further south, the access point. No,
it's it's in the same location that it was last fall. Oh, last fall. Okay. I was going back to the original, right? Okay. The plat in the packet has 44 units, not 40. Yeah, it does show it's supposed to have
40. So, let me let me grab that file here. It does show a September date. We might have just gotten the wrong one in the packet. Jen said that could never happen. This is the correct one. 44.
My rating. Yeah, it is 44. It is 44. It is 44. Your eyes are good. Like Andrew said, it's dated September. So September of 24 to be specific. Be impressive if it was September of 25. They went back up. We know they're
coming in. Back to the future. But it does. We have one with 40 units. This is tight. It looks very I saw 40 l We do have a plan that has 40 units. So I This was the wrong one.
It does look like they still are trying to get three and twobedroom units in there. They are still doing two and three bedrooms. They're town homes. Town homes. So, twotory. Yeah. [Music]
While you're looking, how does the parking for the clubhouse They have required conditional use permits. We require significant amount of parking. So in
good shape. Is there going to be a uh turn lane off of 59? There's a Yes, that was part of the requirement and the whole thing. The developers are paying for the turn
line. It's my understanding. Yes, that one. Did they Did they uh There you go. It's on the screen. It's got 40 units. It does look a lot less tight. It does, doesn't it? It does look better.
You might have to actually like stretch to touch the house. They didn't do anything about changing the speed limit on that part of 59, did they? No, they You should call Mindot and see if you get anywhere. Well, it should be 40. I don't think they even agreed to do a traffic study. No, they would not even
study it. Really? Mhm. Okay. Okay. Yeah. You want a motion to approve the the revised revised site plan? Yes. Revised site plan. That would be ideal. Make a
motion to approve the revised site plan as presented on the screen. I'll second that motion. All right, we have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none. All in favor say I. I. I. Opposed. Same sign. Motion carries. Jen, would you please for both
of these email them to the commission in the next few days so we have a digital copy of them? The the two the two revised plans. You had the Midwest edition and then this one. That way we have a digital copy we
can reference. Thank you. All right. Anything anyone wants to go over on the variance or conditional use status report? Liz, I was going to say, what's the status of the uh um Wendell property? Any movement that
way on the bowling alley or on the property to the south? Well, not the 270th because I already see that that's up for sale again. Okay. The bowling alley is on hold because they are pursuing tax increment
financing. That's what I heard. Okay. And then the property to the south, uh, we have been working with the owner on that and we've got that property annexed into the city, but he hasn't come back with any
plans for it yet and it is for sale. Which property? To the south? On Southshore. Uh if you go down 270th Avenue past Lake Forest Edition, it's right there between It's on Abbey Lake on the west side. On that west side. On
the east side. Or the east side. Correct. Okay. And I did notice it went up for sale, I think, last month. And you didn't buy it? Yes. No. Okay. She didn't want to deal with the city. She didn't want to deal with the city.
Oh, okay. Um, and of course I'm going to go back to the Southshore project. His expiration is coming up in August on the conditional use per I have reminded him of that. Okay. I was just wondering let him know that he should be applying for
an extension. Okay. If I recall correctly, the city had agreed to a one-year extension on that. Right. And that on the bowling alley, you mean? No, I'm talking Southshore Drive project.
Which Southshore Drive project? That's Southshore and Southshore and 270th is what you Yes. Yes. The corner of Oh, the the Garri property. Thank you. I couldn't come up with the name. They have a plat. They have not come in for any other
uh project approvals. Are you talking the conditional use permit that they received at the county? Correct. Didn't the city agree that expire? I don't recall agreeing to a one-year extension on that. I think that was purely a county item. Yeah, that was the
county's. Yeah. And the county put Am I wrong on that one? Deadline on a county. And doesn't don't they have two years on their conditional use permits? Yeah, it expires in September of this year, right? Oh, okay. Okay. So, and his preliminary plat did not
show anything there. It's just future expansion space. Correct. But it would appear to be residential based on the nature of the property. But we'll see. I guess done asking questions. Okay. Anything else from any of the rest of the commissioners?
Well, hearing none, then I think we should adjourn. And that was well done, folks. Right. Speedy on time. Speedy Gonzalez. 29.