Yep, that absolutely works for me. All right. Well, 5:30 we'll go ahead and uh call this monthly meeting of the Detroit Lakes Planning Commission to order. Uh we have quorum. Jen, I think you're good on uh attendance. All right.
Uh with that, we'll start with uh approval of the minutes for the regular meeting held on March 27th, 2025. I'd entertain a motion. I'll so move to make that motion to approve the minutes as presented. We'll second. All right, we have a motion and a second. Any
discussion? All in favor signify by saying I. I. All right, motion carries. Liz, I believe you had an adjustment you wanted to make to the agenda. I do, Mr. Chair and honorable commission. I'd like to make a motion to actually remove um item D under other business planning
commission training and add the a brief discussion of the Pelican Watershed District to the agenda. Is there a second? I'll second that. All right. So, we have a motion on the floor to remove item 4D and replace it with uh a discussion on
the Pelican River Watershed District recent changes. Any other discussion? All in favor signify by saying I. I. Opposed. All right. Motion carries. So we have that adjustment noted. All right. Um with that we'll move on to
public hearings and get that going. Um couple of quick notes. So this is the public hearing portion here. Uh all of you will have an opportunity to address the commission. I would ask that when you come up uh please come up to the podium. Uh use the microphone, state your name and address for the record. Um
and uh and and we'd love to hear what you have to say. If you have any questions for the commission, you certainly ask that. Uh once we're done with uh all the public comments, we'll close the public comment portion and then we will discuss as a commission. Uh this is the first stop. Uh we will make
a recommendation here and then that'll go to the community development committee which meets on Monday, May 12th at 5:00 pm in the conference room behind you back over there. Uh and then it'll go to the council on Tuesday, May 13th at 5:00 pm right back here in these
chambers. All right, with that, I will uh call to order a public hearing to give consideration to reszoning pro uh property from R2 one and two family residents to LB Lakefront business district at 1321 Summit Avenue for the
city of Detroit Lakes. Uh John, I assume that one's you today or is Larry, are you going to take that? I'm going to start and John can chime in if he feels like I'm all right leaving out anything important. So, the city of Detroit Lakes is requesting the reszoning of 1321
Summit Avenue from R2 one and two family to LB Lakefront business district. This property is near People's Park in the city's city beach and it's the city's intent to construct a public parking lot on this site.
uh 59 parking spaces are going to be lost with the reconstruction of Westlake Drive and this is a way that we can uh provide some needed parking in this area. The comprehensive plan shows this area as a mixeduse and low density
retail area and it also states the following. The Washington Avenue and Westlake Drive corridors also hold opportunities for additional housing options, but is secondary to the commercial and service land uses. The city's major park
facilities are contained in this area. A major commitment by the city to keep these areas viable with modern and attractive facilities is vital to encourage investment in the corridor. So, I think that with that, it it shows that it fits in well with the
comprehensive plan. And for the planning commissioners, you have this material in front of you. It basically shows the current parking spaces and the proposed parking spaces. It has a very, I would say, preliminary
draft of what the parking lot will look like. It certainly doesn't show the details of any screening or plantings at this point in time, but that will come later. Okay. And also when we had a public open
house, we had a survey done and 67% of the people who took that survey liked the parking lot. 23.68 were neutral and 9% dis 9.21% disliked it. So there's
very strong support for the parking in this area. Okay. Anything further? All right. All right, with that, I'll go ahead and open it up to public comment. If you'd like to address this issue, please come up to the podium and state your name and address for the
record. Any public comments? Hello. Hi. Hi. Hi. Um, Angie and Nick Polyki and we are at 1317 Summit Avenue. Uh, we wrote a letter for you guys that I'm just going to read off here. Voices
our opinion and ideas about this change. Um, so dear citizens and staff of Detroit Lakes and Planning Commission, my family and I are members of the community and close neighbors to the exciting new changes appearing in
our beautiful city of Detroit Lakes, Minnesota. There are many changes and advancements that have been presented um to enhance our community and we would could not be more supportive of the many ideas. Today we are all here to
discuss and vote I guess soon vote on specific first priority to these changes, the people's park parking lot. As my husband and I look forward to the changes designed in the community, we can't help but feel opposed to the People's Park park parking lot. We are
aware that this plan is to accommodate parking that will be lost with the Westlake Avenue plan, but we hope that you all acknowledge how this space could better be considered. This property may currently be seen as wasted space to the city, but as a
neighbor, we see it as a well-used green space for local and visiting people. The city property is shared park space that many local pedestrians use as a low traffic breach to access restaurants.
Um, they also use it to access the farmers market, the pickle ball courts, the basketball courts, and the people's park from neighboring streets. Visitors use this space to retreat from the busy beach to stretch their traveling legs, play a quick game
of catch, or relieve their four-legged family companions. We see the current parking lot plans lack a design that will be considerate to the safety and the amount of p pedestrians that will continue to travel through this open space in the city. We
fear that this plan will bring more traffic and commotion to an area that has been seen to break up and relieve the amount of activity between our busy commercial and forever residential neighborhood. The this new parking lot will only
provide minimal parking that will not solve continued street parking along Summit Avenue and within People's Park. As this new parking lot will inevitably introduce a new location for chaos and roof rafts so close to residential
homes, we ask that you all consider different options for this space that could be more compatible to the residents of Summit Avenue, Minnesota Avenue, and Lake Avenue. We see a better fit would be continued green space, introducing a paved path
for pedestrians, um, native planting, picnic tables, or specific pet relief area that redirects the activity from this act activity from the city beach as better options for this space.
Following these feelings, my family and I recognize we may not understand what the city sees of value to the current plan. If for some reason an alternate idea for the current plan is unworthy, we will continue to remind the engineers
of the importance of privacy and security to the homes neighboring this lot. As my home, our home is one of the most affected by this parking lot. Screening with landscaping shrubs is simply not
enough. Headlights and a variety of strangers become a fear of being so close to this change. Along with shrubbery, a large, well-made, and private fence will be of necessity to the north side of this lot. This fence should not lack appropriate height and
length. We ask that the fence is presented at least 6 feet tall and extends in length from Summit Avenue sidewalk to Minnesota Avenue sidewalk. It is important that the neighboring properties are well protected from the parking
lot, foot and vehicle traffic. We also ask that this fence remain on the city property so that any maintenance is covered by the city. We ask that everyone involved recognize that the fence is a necessity and appropriate screening in this
design. As this plan moves forward and resoning is considered, we thank everyone for listening to all of the thoughts and ideas presented today. There is a lot to look forward to as a member of this community and we are excited to watch our city
transform. Please take time to consider our concerns and ideas as we are one of the most affected by this specific change. Thank you, Polyeski family. Thank you. All right, further. Anyone else have
comments they'd like to make? Oh, unless you had anything further. I'm sorry, I should have. All right. Thank you. Anyone else would like to address the commission and make a comment? Hello, I'm Kurt Wild. I live at 1318 Minnesota Avenue, right adjacent to this property. I ask that you reconsider the
zoning from R1 to R2 to the lakefront business district and keep it as a green space. My property abuts this property as well. Um I feel that the fairgrounds would be a better alternative since it's already a parking lot area already. The
distance from the beach from the fairgrounds is about the same distance as the 1321 Summit uh parking lot. Uh my concern is the loss of enjoyment of my property,
devaluation, added noise, light pollution, loitering, and people leaving the nearby establishment at later hours and making more noise. Um, I have three bedrooms that do face
that lot and it makes it difficult for sleep right now. You hear the noise from the business next door already and I think would be a big impact on my property and the use and enjoyment of my
home. I'm excited though to see the changes in the community on the beach. That's great. But I'd like to see the lot stay as a green space as it currently is. Um, and I just ask that you reconsider
the change of zoning and keep it as a green space. Okay. Thank you. Thanks. All right. Any further comments? Would anyone else like to address the commission and make a comment? We're Ch or Chuck and Janice Palm. We
live at 1310 Minnesota and we'd like to have you reconsider this. Also, we uh our bedroom is also facing to the south. And right now at 2:00 in the morning, there's a certain establishment on the beach. And many times we've been woken up with
commotion, people fighting, people yelling, people swearing, cars tearing out of that place. and uh to have that parking lot so much closer to our house. It would be pro approximately a little bit over 100 feet from our bedroom
window and uh it's going to kind of, you know, wreck our wreck our sleep. I'm sure none of you would want uh that parking lot that close to your to your house next to a bar, which we all know people sometimes get rambunctious at a
bar. They're having fun and and they make noise. And I would also like to comment too, um, people aren't aware of this, but Minnesota Avenue, people don't travel up
Minnesota Avenue. We're not used to having a lot of traffic on our street. So, I mean, even if you were to consider it, at least don't put an exit on Minnesota Avenue. That would appreciate
that. And the only establishment that is going to use this year round is Zorbas. So I noticed when we had that the announcement of this meeting, it was changed to Zorba's parking instead of
people's parking. He was on that orange piece of paper. And I know before the city bent over backwards to give Zorbas additional parking over by the pickle board courts. And um you could extend that. That's there's
not anybody living next to that. And uh that's just, you know, kind of what we're thinking. And the screening that they're talking about is going to be some like little trees and that's not going to really do anything. We live in twotory
house would be much above that. And the uh the people leaving the parking lot are going to cause us uh a lot of grief, I guess I could say. And getting back to who's going to park there. I mean, obviously that'll be used
in the summertime, but rarely do cars, we live three houses up from it. Rarely do cars park in front of our house. I don't care if they park in front of our house, but it's rare that they do that in the middle of the summertime. So, I
don't know. And the number of cars that you say the parking spots, I don't quite get where you would get that number. It seems unless they're touching each other back to back seems like an extreme amount. But anyway, getting back to
who's going to use that, that's going to be used year round by Zorbas. I mean, that's who is going to benefit the most from that parking lot. So, if you're not, if you're going to put it in there, don't plow it in the winter time. Save the money. Save the city some money.
Then once or twice a year in the wintertime during the polar plunge and during the um fishing derby clear or clear it out otherwise like I said who gets the most benefit from it? Are they paying for it? I mean now you got their
name on it parking that's my thought about it. Another thought I had is um you know people aren't at the beach after 10:00. Possibly this parking lot if it's built could be closed at
10:00. That way all the people from Zorvas wouldn't be causing causing trouble. But you know the we've got a 100 days of summer here and part of those days are you know rainy or cold and people
aren't at the beach. So the other 300 days it's going to be Zor people from Zorbers parking there. So, I guess that's Do you have any questions for us or No, I think we're okay here. Do you have anything else you'd like to add? No. All
right. Thank you, Chuck. Thank you, Janice. All right. Would anyone else like to uh make a comment? Any further comments? Oh, sure. Go ahead. And I kind of know the city does what the city wants, but if you do decide to
do this, why don't you give Mr. Wild, you know, if you can just change the rules on whim, why don't you let him have his um new garage at least? I mean, he's been wanting one, but Oh, no. He can't have that, but you can change that
to a parking lot. So, at least let him have his new garage. All right. Thank you. Any further comments? Any further comments to the commission? I have two other letters to read into the record. Okay. Why don't you read those in and then we'll do one
more quick call and we'll The first one is from Dquali. I received a hearing notice in the mail for 1321 Summit Avenue, reszoning from one and two family residents to Lakefront Business District. My only question or concern is the removal of the trees. According to
the photo below, there are approximately five trees that will be removed to accommodate the new parking lot. Will the city be planting at least five new trees within the area of the parking lot? I would be more than happy to donate $500 for the purchase of mature
trees to be planted on the property. Completely comprehend that there are insufficient uh parking spots in that area, but let's be mindful of hot and unsightly in summer and asphalt. Larry, could you mention the address of
Dquali, please? She does not list that, but we've got that. We can get that for you. Thank you. She's within 700 ft. I know that. That's all I can tell you at this point. Uh the second letter is from Tom Harper,
uh 1305 Minnesota Avenue. The Detroit Lakes Planning Commission should not approve zoning of the property at 1321 Summit Avenue, which also fronts on Minnesota Avenue. The highest and best use of this land is for a rain garden or storm water
retention pond, not impervious surface for a parking lot. Across Summit Avenue from this property is a sign indicating drinking water protection area. Much of the pvious surface within People's Park has been lost of the last decades. There
is now a concrete surface skate park, a concrete surface under the hockey rink and a warming building. Parking has been expanded on People's Street and on Finey Avenue, and the pickle ball courts were recently added. With this large expansion of imperous surface, surely
the city would be willing to retain this small parcel. Two blocks from this property at 1330 Rosman Avenue is land owned by the Becker County Agricultural Society. The portion of budding Rossman Avenue is a gravel surface, is level, is near to the
beach as summit as 1321 Summit Avenue is, and has adequate space nearby for a storm water treatment area if needed. It would be significantly less expensive to put a parking lot here. Since a better and less expensive alternative exists, I
again urge the planning commission to deny this resoning. Should this resoning be approved, it should only go forward with the requirement that pvious pavers be used for surfacing. I would only point out that the city does not own the uh park the uh
property on Rosman Avenue. So, it's inappropriate to suggest that we should build a parking lot on somebody else's property. That's all the letters, Larry. Uh, the address of Dquali is 1136 Summit Avenue.
Thank you, Larry. Okay. Any further comments? Yeah, come on up. My name is Belfi. I'm just here to support a friend Kurt Wild. Um, but I have been to a number of these meetings and I have been turned down multiple
times for uh impervious surface reasons and also parking reasons. And it's great that they've allowed Zorbas to make a beautiful restaurant or whatever, but they they did have parking at one time some spots. And previous administrations
have allowed Zorbas to use virtually their entire lot, expanding their restaurant. Now they don't have any parking. Now they have a problem and they're asking the city, I think, or maybe not asking, but maybe the city's feeling that they should help them out. And I think it's really a conflict of
interest when when many of us have been turned down multiple times for variances and whatnot for imperous surface and parking spots. I think Larry can attest to that. So that's all I have to say. All right. Thank you. Any further
comments? Any further comments? All right. Hearing none, I will now close the public hearing and I'll open it up for discussion with the commission. Any discussion from the commission? My understanding is we're approving a
zoning change tonight. Correct. That's correct. Thank you. with the intent of a parking lot, right? Um, and I guess I'll address it to the commission. I mean, we heard comments tonight regarding adequate screening.
Um, things to consider when looking at a parking lot in this area to shield from residential areas. And I think that is something that the city should consider when looking at developing this area, putting the adequate screening, whether
it be trees or whether it be fences. I think we've all had those discussions of adequate screening when that's necessary from that standpoint. Um, so I would just put forward that I'd like to see
some adequate screening when we consider that further. I do think the city would be willing to meet with the adjoining property owners to talk about those issues. Okay, further discussion from the
commission. I just have a question for Larry. Moving to the lakefront business district obviously allows a potential parking lot, but does that um require any additional extra screening or any other components to that by going to
that? Um, we have we have screening requirements in the ordinance, but I think type of screening that they're asking for probably goes beyond what the ordinance requires. And so we should certainly meet with them and talk about what can be done to make that more
palatable. Further discussion from the commission to just Oh, go ahead, Eric. I have a question. Um yeah, Becker County Fairgrounds, the uh the hockey rink, the gymnastics, the old food pantry building, that's on city property, correct?
The arena is on city property. The food pantry building no longer exists, but it was on city property, right? Um but the rest of it belongs to the to the fair board, the Becker County Agricultural Society. Okay, perfect.
Go ahead. Go ahead, Chris. Has the city identified other potential spots for additional parking or is this They have not identified other potential spots for parking. Is there any alternative?
There may be, but there's not one that like this that's this size and provides significant number of parking. Sorry, I don't I'm just thinking through as we've developed this. I we've been looking for for parking opportunities,
you know, adjacent to the lakefront district and nothing else has really floated to the surface in terms of where you could do it that wouldn't impact existing park. whether that's city park, people's park, um the
fairgrounds potentially, but again, we don't own that. Not to say we couldn't potentially work something out with the fair board, but outside of that, no, I'm not really aware of any other opportunities. Thank you.
Thanks, John. Two more questions. Um Larry, it's 44 proposed spaces, correct? That's correct. I can see that. And And it's not going to be labeled Zorba's parking lot. No, absolutely not. They have zero, nothing, nil to do with this. Correct.
They have nothing to do with this. This is fully a public parking lot. Correct. Zorbas did participate in being assessed for parking in People's Park and on People's Street, but they are not involved in
this in any way. And Larry, I'm just going to ask a question and I guess the commissioner too as well. I think in our ordinance we can address some of the concerns that the citizens had tonight. One is the concern of lighting pollution. We can
address that. Um the city as well can actually look at the time available to park in that area. So that is something the city can address. not necessarily a a planning commission, but we can loudly hear the concerns of the citizens that
they'd like some restricted parking in that area if the parking goes forward. So, I think those are things that we've heard before. Yes. And can correct? That is correct. Okay. Okay. Further discussion or a motion
from the commission? I would obtain a motion if one of you wants to. I'll make a motion uh to approve the resoning. I'll second that motion. So, we have a motion on the table to approve the reszoning of a
property from R21 and two family residence to LB Lakefront Business District at 1321 Summit Avenue. Any further discussion from the commission on the motion? That said, all those in favor say I. I.
Oppose. Same sign. Hi. All right. Motion carries. All right. Thank you all for uh for that. We have uh another public hearing. Uh so I will now call to order a public hearing to give consideration to reszoning a property from RA
agricultural residence district to I1 Light Industrial District at 1160 Fortune Avenue for Patrick Bartens. Larry. Yeah, this is a pretty straightforward zoning request. The property is currently zoned RA, which is
residential agriculture. Just hold hold that thought for one second. If if you guys don't want to stay for this part, you're you're fine. You you we that's I don't want to keep you here unnecessarily. If you don't want to be here for this part, we can pause for a minute. Nice job.
Thank you all for coming tonight. We appreciate the comments. Okay. All right. Thanks, Larry. So, again, this is essentially a change from our transition zone of residential agriculture to I1 light industrial district. The comprehensive plan shows
this area as industrial and all of the adjacent land uses around it are industrial and it seems logical to zone it industrial and I would recommend that. Okay. Would anyone like to make a comment on this one? Come on up. If you
could state your name and address for the record, I sure appreciate it. Thank you, council members, for allowing me to speak. My name is Patrick Bartells. I am the owner of PJ's properties and the owner of this property. Um, as Larry said, I am just looking to reszone it to
um, light industrial as all the surrounding properties are as well. Um, and down the road potentially building a shop on the vacant land that's back there that I own as well, uh, with proper permitting. So,
short and sweet. Thank you. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. I I apologize for mispronouncing your name. No problem. Patrick, I got a question. Yes. So, right now it's just a zoning change. No plans to do anything. You're just kind of setting it up, you know. Uh, right now I use it personally for
storage for all of my stuff. Um, but I would like to lease the property out here maybe in the very near future and then build and lease and do that sort of thing. I'm in the rental game, so that's my that's what I do. So, thank you. Thanks. All right. Any further
comments? Any further comments from the public? All right. All right, hearing no further comments, I'll close the public hearing and I'll open it up to the commission for discussion and a motion. I'll make the motion to approve. I'll second that motion to approve. All right, we have a motion and a second to
approve reszoning property from RA Agricultural Residence District to I1 Light Industrial District at 1160 Fortune Avenue. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. Same sign. Uh for those opposed, I should finish my
sentence. Uh motion carries. All right. Well, we got that one. Uh that'll go to the CDC next uh and then the the uh the council on the 12th and 13th of May. Uh okay. Um looking around the room, why don't we
jump to uh 4B really quick and let's take a look at the consideration to the final plat of Southwood Shores Estates. Okay. Thank you both for being here. Thank you very much. So, a request has been made to approve the plat of Southwood Shores Estate.
This is a 28 lot residential plat and final plat approval is recommended subject to the following conditions. U I'm going to start with condition two that the owner sign an assessment agreement andor development agreement. that the owner obtain any
required Pelican River wershed district permits and that the owner obtain a land disturbance permit. The first one is regarding park dedication and we have been in contact with the owners about providing a trail easement along
Southshore Drive and 270th Avenue. Uh the reason for that is basically a there's a snowmobile trail that runs through there now and we'd like to have a little additional space there that would reduce the amount of uh his payment for the park dedication
significantly. And um we haven't made that final calculation yet, but we we're also looking at um that that he would either pay the 147660 or provide the 20 foot wide ement
which reduce that by about 30%. So his his park dedication payment would be a little over $100,000 in addition to the trailment. Okay. How many? We don't know that for sure, but there's
Do you have anything you'd like to uh say in relationship to this before we discuss? Uh, good evening. John Lowry uh with Lowry Engineering here on behalf of Garrick Properties and um yeah, thank you for the consideration. I think we've uh you know familiar with this one
through the uh preliminary plat process and um you know single family homes that the lots that are within the thousand foot setback uh to to directly address the question I don't know that they're wide enough or they might be but somebody would probably need to buy a couple of them in order to put a twin
home on it. But the homes that are outside of the thousand foot lakes shore zone are big enough to have a duplex if you wanted to do that on there. But u they're sold as the zoning allows for a single and two family. Just to directly address the question. Um I I did have a
conversation as well with Kelsey earlier today about the potential for we for ease of survey. We wanted to kind of plat this all out at once, although we're not developing it all out at once. So there's going to be a few outlots and the park dedication because it's all in
the plat is being paid all up front. If the city would consider, you know, paying what's platted into lots with fronting right away, uh we would certainly appreciate it. Um you know, the intention is to continue to plat this subdivision. I think we have some
um um uh additional needs and stuff that may be coming forward in the very near future, but if we if we could do it as we plat and and dedicate the fronting right away to make it usable lots, we'd certainly appreciate that. So, just something for consideration. Uh either
way, we request your support on the the overall project and keeping this moving forward. So, thank you. Thanks, John. Any questions for John? All right. Uh discussion motion from the uh commission.
A question for Larry. I guess if we were going to make that recommendation to break up the park dedication fees based on the development of the plot, how would you figure that out? Is that easy math? Well, there's a lot of there's a
lot of ways to figure, you know, a very good answer. Why would they figure? I don't know. Get that Excel worksheet out. Well, I mean, one option would be to charge half of it up front and then the rest as it's
platted or by a certain date specific that they would have to pay the rest of it say in five or 10 years. So, that would be my recommendation. And I think we could negotiate that to be some to be equitable. Yeah. Just thinking out loud some of the
real estate agents in this in the room. You never know what's going to happen. So they start he gets hit hard right from the beginning and market goes down and he sits on these this land for 10 years. I mean he's out I think be fair to give him an opportunity to pay it as
he kind of goes. Like I like that idea. Half down and then as he develops make payments on the rest. Okay. Any further discussion from the commission on this or is it entertain a motion? Um, I'll make the motion to approve the
plat as presented with the staff's recommendations in the staff's report as well, which would include their conditions. All right. Is there a second? That's correct. Would we need to add that condition? No,
I think that condition would include the uh discussion of the park dedication fee as well. Are you okay with that, Liz? I am. Okay. Is there a second? I'll second. All right. We have a motion and a second
to approve the final plat of Southwood Shores Estates with the city's recommendation and findings. Any further discussion from the commission? All those in favor signifi signify by saying I. I. Opposed. Same
sign. Motion carries. All right. Thanks. Thanks, John. All right. Yep, that's right. All right, let's jump back to 4 A. consideration to the request from Broadway Welding authorizing a one-year extension to a on a non-conforming use permit to allow
35,000 foot addition to an existing industrial building with a 17 ft sideyard setback, a variance from the airport zoning requirement to allow 110,500t building on a 5.56 acre lot in land use safety zone B of the airport
and a variance to allow paving of 71 parking spaces for 110,500 foot manufacture. facturing facility at one at 1090 Legion Road to May 14th, 2026. Larry, we received this request and I
asked the uh owner to provide some detailed information about why they need this extension and when they expect to actually start construction. And I received nothing. So make of that what
you will or decide based on that. I'm still willing to grant this one-year extension, but I would not probably be interested in doing it again unless they have a very good plan for moving forward. Could I say something on that? Sure. Huh?
My uh nextdoor neighbor, his brother owns Broadway Welding, and they were all set to go on this project. But like a lot of business in the industrial park this last year they had a lot of cutbacks and they do a lot of business with Ice Castle Articat Polaris and a
lot of them have so much inventory left over the last two years that they they got notices that their orders are being cut back and so that's that's why they didn't go through with this and I believe they even had to maybe they were going to hire a bunch of new people too and they couldn't do that because they
didn't have these orders came through. So, it was a matter of orders u not coming through like they should and you know BTD went through and and some of these other ones too. It's just a matter of the business got cut back and that's why this is happening. They they plan to
go forward as soon as the picks up. I don't know what this tariff thing is going to do with all this stuff now, but that's that's the reason why they did that. Right. Thanks for the context, Ron. Right. I have a question for Larry. Is this the first time we've extended this?
Heavens no we have extended this is probably year six we started in 2019 so is there a like a a maintenance agreement on that parking lot that they use the city's parking lot at the baseball diamonds
there likely He could be, but I'm not aware of it. It's kind of a mess over there. Hey, thank you. Sorry. That to the park board. All right. U look for further discussion
or a motion on this. I'll make a motion to extend for another year. Okay. Is there a second? I'll second that. All right. So, we have a motion and a second to to grant the request to extend it for one more year. Uh, any
discussion? All right. All those in favor signify by saying I I opposed. Same sign. All right. Motion carries. We'll carry that forward. One other interesting thing about that and that is um the planning commission is actually the board of
adjustment for the airport zoning. So, we would their requests for these variances and we would be able to decide on the one for the airport commission so they would not have to go to the airport commission to get that.
I did not know that. Congratulations. Yay. Don't tell me we're bringing extra territory. Okay. Uh anything on the variance or conditional use status report anyone wants to highlight other than the one we just addressed?
Okay. Then I believe we added one item for a brief discussion on the Pelican River wershed. So, and I think there's other people in the room that can contribute to the discussion, not just that, but I'm the
only breath of information I have, of course, was the Detroit Lakes Tribune. My understanding in reviewing that article was that there was significant slashing of permitting um regulations within the storm water or
within the Pelican River watershed district which we have relied heavily on that particular function over the previous years. So I bring it forward saying okay what's our next steps? I mean shouldn't there have been consult
consultation? It's It's not as drastic as the paper made it sound. Okay. So, everybody who everybody who gets a mitigation permit from us still has to get a watershed district permit and everybody who gets a land disturbance permit from us still needs to get a land
or get a watershed district permit. Okay. The thing that changed that impacts us was that the watershed district used to do a lot of stuff in the shore impact zone and issue permits in that area and they took that out of their new rules. And we had a memorandum
of understanding with them and they would not only enforce their rules, but would do ours as well because they could do it at the same time they're doing theirs and we wouldn't have to have two different agencies worrying about the same ice ridge or drop of water on the property.
Um, so what's happening there is that we just have to go back to enforcing our regulations in the shore impact zone like we used to do. So, it's not really a drastic change for us. And we've already added that to our uh zoning permit requirements that they
have to get a zoning permit for any work in the shore impact zone, any tree removal, uh any grading or filling or any other activities. So, it's from our end I think fairly well covered.
So really, it's just going to work. And thank you for that clarity because I didn't understand the areas that it was. I don't think the reporter did either. Okay. Okay. So really, our knowledge and refresher is going to be back to our own
shoreland impact zones. Okay. All right. So what you're saying is the headline DL now enforcing its own regulations isn't isn't as good as internal coup at the water. All right. Anything else on that topic? No, just means we have to refresh ourselves. We haven't dealt with it for
a very long time. Since I've been here. Yeah, since I've been here. Andrew, how about you? Been a while. Okay. Anything else? Eric? No. Andrew? Liz? No. Chris? John? You got anything you want to talk to us about? Larry,
anything left? I have nothing else. Dylan or Kelsey? All right, then. Let's call this adjourned. Wahoo. 45 minutes again. Thank you. It's quicker than I thought.