All the smoke in there. My allergies are killing me. All right, we have a full quorum and I have 4:30 on my clock. So, I'm going to go ahead and call this planning commission meeting to order. I am going to reverse the order tonight. We're
going to take uh the uh item 3A first and then we will take 2B and then 2 A. Uh, so let's jump down to item 3A, consideration to the final plat of Lyn View Estates's first edition at 865 Shorewood Drive, Bristland Construction.
Larry, >> this is a 10 lot residential plat. >> You get closer to the mic. >> Closer. >> There you go. >> This is a 10 lot residential plat. We've approved the preliminary plat. This is the final plat. Staff recommends
approval of the final plat provided that the owner obtain any Pelican River Wershed District permit, that they obtain a land disturbance permit, that they provide any utility or drain drainage easements deemed necessary by the city engineer. And with that, I
recommend approval. >> This is the one where they're doing the storage units >> or this is the Oh, no. This is the one this Sorry, this is down there. I was thinking of the other one. My apologies. >> Yep. All right. Uh, questions, comments, discussion, or a motion from the
commission? >> I'll make a motion to approve the final product of the Lindio States with the recommendations. >> Yeah, I'll second. >> All right, we have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? >> All those in favor signify by saying I.
I >> I >> oppose. Same sign. Motion carries. All right. >> I will call to order a public hearing to give consideration to an amended variance to allow a 20- foot setback from the property line adjacent to the road rightway, a setback of 41 ft from the ordinary high watermark and a 33.1%
imperous surface coverage for construction of a two-story home at 1217 West Lake Drive for James and Pam Benedict. Larry, go ahead. Yes, this request is coming back to us because uh there was a slight error in the measurements and the owner would
like to have a setback of 41 ft from the ordinary high water mark. Also, when the council reviewed it, their feeling was that the impervious surface coverage should remain at 30% and the applicant should get a mitigation permit for that
portion of the variance. So basically we would be approving a variance with a 20 foot front yard set back and a 41 foot set back from the ordinary high water mark. Otherwise it's the same as what they requested originally.
Okay. Uh at this time if there's anyone that would like to address the council and make a comment on this please uh come forward. Any public comments? All right. Not hearing any public comments. I'm going to go ahead and
close the public hearing and I will open it up to the council for discuss or to the uh commission for discussion. >> Yeah, Larry, what is the difference from what we I've got the numbers, but what was the difference from what we approved before? >> The original request was for a 43 foot
setback from the ordinary high water mark. But after they got more serious with their ruler, they found that they were only 41 feet from the ordinary high water mark. So nothing has changed. They just >> nothing has changed and just more
accurate measurements. >> Same imperous surface coverage. >> The impervious surface coverage is going to be 30%. They're not we're not granting them the variance for 33.1%. >> Okay.
Right. Any further discussion or a motion? Any further discussion or a motion from the commission? >> And we are going with the conditions or Larry, you are recommending the conditions as follows. >> Yes.
>> With the the six listed conditions that are there. Is that correct? >> That is correct. >> Okay. >> And those are the same conditions that you had before. >> Yes. >> Okay. Yeah, I would move to um approve the
request for variance with the changed um numbers uh including the impervious surface as well as the setback and following excuse me all requirements the six requirements.
>> Is there a second? I'll second that. All right, we have a motion and a second to approve this with the stated conditions from the city. Any further discussion uh on the motion?
Um are we using the Yeah, the stated findings from the uh city. My apologies, use the wrong word. >> Uh sorry, Sean, they do have findings and conditions in the staff report. >> Okay. So, and so your motion is for the findings and >> and the conditions. Yes.
>> We'll just be clear. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> And Andrew, you're good with that? All right. I am good with that. Okay. All right. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying I >> I oppose. Same sign. >> All right. Motion carries. I will call to order a public hearing to give consideration to a conditional use
permit to allow the extraction of materials at 983 Richwood Road. Larry, will you give us a quick rundown of this? >> Yes. There are two items in your packet. One is the staff report. The other is a fact sheet that was just handed out this
afternoon. Basically, this is a gravel mining operation. The project consists of the extraction of 500,000 cubic yards of gravel and top soil from this site. Uh the plan is to take about a 10-year time frame to
remove all of that material. And basically the facts, I'm going to read the facts from the fact sheet and I would like to have these included in the resolution that we present to the council. First, the property at 983 Richwood Road
is owned by the Detroit Lakes Development Authority. Two, prior to purchasing, the city had been trying to acquire the Cleveland property for more than 30 years for development of industrial park lots. Three, the land adjacent to the property
has been zoned industrial for 29 years and includes the Detroit Lakes North Industrial Park. The adjacent Detroit Lakes North Industrial Park was platted in 1996. The industrial park was developed in part with EDA grant funds.
Uh the former Cleveland farm was annexed to the city and zoned industrial in 2018. The 500,000 cubic yards of gravel and top soil will be removed from the site through mining operations or as a site grading for development of the
industrial lot. So whether we approve this mining conditional use permit, the material is still going to have to be removed. So we're going to have excavation and truck traffic regardless of whether we do it through this mining operation or if we just do it as site
preparation. Uh the exposed areas will be reestablished with turf within 14 days after the area is graded and reach the final planned grade. The site will be lowered by approximately 15 ft and will
be graded for development of industrial park lots. The hours of operation are limited to daylight hours between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 pm. The use contemplated by the proposed project is in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood. does not
jeopardize zoning standards in the area and will promote the general welfare of the community by utilizing the valuable resource for road and construction projects and creation of new industrial park lots. The development will not alter the
essential character of the neighborhood as the site will be mined and graded for use for to a usable elevation. Two, the proposed project has adequate access to public roadways and public facilities. The project will serve a demonstrated
need for the materials extracted, and the proposed project is in an area deemed industrial by the comprehensive plan. So, with those facts in mind, staff is recommending the approval of the conditional use permit subject to
the following conditions. One, that the applicant obtain all required federal, state, and local permits. Two, that the hours of operation are limited to daylight hours between 8 am and 8:00 pm. And three, that the final grade be
completed as shown on the grading plan. All right. Thank you, Larry. I appreciate that. All right. At this time, I will open up uh for any public comments. If you'd like to make a comment, please come forward to the podium and state your name and address. Any public comments?
All right. Hearing none, I will close the public hearing and open it up to the commission for discussion or a motion for that matter. >> I do have a couple of questions, Larry. Um, in the apex grading plan that was attached to the
>> Yes. Um they indicated that excavation will occur on their notes between dusk and or dawn and dusk but based on staff recommendations were saying 8 a.m. >> Not only based on staff recommendation
but the lease that we've signed with Hog Incorporated includes that limitation. >> It does include it in the lease. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um Larry, if you don't mind and you not have that answer. I'm
looking to see if somebody does, but I'm looking at the map and I'm looking at the truck route management. I can clearly see that they're saying no hauling on one portion of it, but can you tell me
if based on the map that we have in our possession um if a hauling is going to occur on the streets that you identified adjacent to the property? >> And will Larry, you can tell me you
don't have that answer. Do you know which routes you're going to be using for hauling? >> There's two points of access on the east side. >> Can you do me a favor and just come up to the podium? That way we can hear it and have it on the record. >> There's two points of access on the east side going out to the industrial park
and then on the north there's also an access point. Uh the only the direction we would not be going is west past a residence that still remains there. >> And that is where it says no hauling on. >> Okay. I appreciate that response.
>> Initially when we talked about reszoning here, another question I have. Sorry everyone. Um, when we initially talked about reszoning, we talked about a three to five year period of time. I'm not going to assume, but because
it's now a 10-year lease, it looks as if we're using the excavated material for future project use. Is that correct over a 10-year period of time versus a 3 to five year period of time? >> Yeah, there was just so much material
because I think they actually the the city engineers office actually treat changed the grading plan to lower it. created even more so it'll be more usable in the future. So given the amount of volume it would take more than it would take about a 10-year time frame we think to comfortably get rid to use
the material >> to use the material. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> I appreciate that. Thank you. >> Mike question. >> So this material that's being extracted where where is it getting hauled to? Is it something being stored on site or >> it'll it'll be hauled off site for
further processing screened and washed. Um, we don't intend to do any of that on site. It would just be extraction. There might be some screening on site, but for the most part, uh, we'd be hauling the material off to projects. >> Right. Other questions or discussion
from the commission? >> Otherwise, I'd entertain a motion. >> I'll make a motion to approve staff's re findings and recommendations. um regarding the conditional use permit.
>> Second. >> All right, we have a motion and a second to approve the staff's findings and recommendations as as presented. Any further discussion on the motion? >> All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed, same sign. >> Motion carries. All right, we'll take
that forward then from there. With that, Larry, is there anything else? I have nothing else except to say that uh we will not be having our regular planning commission meeting because all of the items that were on the agenda have been taken care of. >> That is outstanding.
And you all are here. We have a full commission. Where's the picture when you need one? All right. With that, I will adjourn this meeting. Thank you. >> Thank you.