Planning Commission / Board of Adjustment - Regular Meeting

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for attending the Hubbard County Planning Commission Board of Adjustment meeting for Monday, July 27th. Bear with me while I read the meeting procedure. All persons in attendance at the Planning Commission Board of Adjustment, the PCBOA meetings are expected to comply with the following meeting procedure. Thank you in advance for helping make this a manageable meeting. Copies of agenda item materials are available for public viewing on the table located at the back of the meeting room. These materials are not to leave the table so that others in attendance may also view them. Please turn phones to vibrate or off during the meeting and conduct any sidebar conversations outside of the meeting room. Interruption or other interference with the orderly conduct of the PCBOA meeting will not be allowed. Defamatory or abusive remarks are always out of order. Disruptive persons will be removed from the meeting. The chair may terminate a speaker's privilege of address if after being called to order the speaker persists in improper conducts or remarks. Written material concerning agenda items must be submitted to the Environmental Services Department by 3.30 p.m. on the Wednesday immediately prior to the meeting date. Written materials will not be accepted after this deadline or at the meeting because the PCBOA will not have sufficient time to review them prior to the meeting. Such material must state the agenda item for which it is being submitted and the name and address of the submitting party. The Planning Commission business is conducted first followed by the Board of Adjustment business. The chair will call the meeting to order and explain the meeting procedure. The chair will read each agenda item into the record and ask the applicant to come forward to the presenter's table, state his, her or their names and address for the record and explain his, her or their request. The PCBOA will then discuss the agenda item with the applicant. The chair will then ask for public comment on the agenda item and to facilitate an orderly efficient meeting there is a three minute speaking time limit per speaker per agenda item unless the chair allows the speaker additional time. The chair may terminate the speaker's privilege of address if after being called to order the speaker persists in improper conduct or remarks. When the chair recognizes a speaker, she or he may approach the audience podium and microphone, state his or her full name and address for the record, and write such on the speaker log, and then share his or her comments. The audience podium microphone must be used by the recognized speaker because the meeting is recorded. A member of the public may not donate his or her speaking time to another speaker.

A speaker should state his or her comments and address the issue, not the applicant.

All comments are to be directed toward the PCBOA. Please do not repeat comments already made by previous speakers. The chair reserves the right to ask a group with similar comments to appoint a spokesperson. If the written comments have been submitted to the PCBOA, please do not read them aloud during the meeting as they are already part of the record and copies thereof have been given to the PCBOA. After everyone wanting to speak on an agenda item has done so, the chair will close the public comment period on the agenda item. No further public comment will be taken after this point. The chair will give the applicant an opportunity to address issues raised during public comment. The PCBOA will then continue its discussion on the agenda item and the chair will entertain a motion on it. The PCBOA will make a motion to pass, deny, or table the item. Once a motion is made and seconded, the PCBOA will develop findings of fact for conditional use permit and variance applications and then vote on the motion. Once a vote is taken on an agenda item, the PCBOA will move on to the next agenda item. Meetings commence at 6 p.m. and continue until all agenda items have been heard or until 10 p.m. No new agenda items shall be considered after 9.45 p.m. The PCBOA may, at its discretion, continue an item that is on the floor at 10 p.m. Any remaining agenda items shall be continued to another date or time, preferably the immediately following Tuesday at 6 p.m., and no further public notice will be provided for such a meeting continuation. The PCBOA through the chair may modify these procedures prior to a meeting or an agenda item. Okay, so on the agenda tonight, we will have the Board of Adjustment will be first. We'll have the approval of the minutes. Approval of the June 22nd, 2026 minutes. Anyone have any questions or comments on the minutes?

No, I'll make a motion to approve the Board of Adjustment minutes for the June 22nd meeting.

Okay, thank you, Tim. I have a motion by Tim.

This is Larry. I'll second.

Okay, and a second by Larry to approve the June 22nd, 2026 meeting minutes. Timothy, how do you vote?

This is Timothy. I vote aye.

Ken, how do you vote?

I vote aye.

Mike, how do you vote? Larry, how do you vote?

Larry, I vote aye.

And this is Veronica. I vote aye. The June 22nd, 2026 meeting minutes have been approved. There's no old business. We're going to move right into new business. First item for the board of adjustment variance application 35 dash B dash 26 by Jason Carr. Lot 18, Duck Lake Addition, Section 31, Township 139, Range 33, Crow Wing Lake Township on Duck Lake, a recreational development lake. Parcel 06.38.01800. The applicant is requesting a variance from Section 704.1H.2 of the Shoreland Management Ordinance from the 100-foot minimum lot width requirement to make a nonconforming lot into an improved lot. Do we have the applicants available? Yes? Okay, please come to the presenter's table. Perfect. Thank you. Have a seat. Yes. Yes, if you could please just state your name and address for the record first.

Julie Carr, 22568 Duck Lake Road, Monaco, Minnesota, 56464. Thank you, Ms. Carr. And you can go ahead and just state your request, please. I'm requesting a variance from a narrow lot, short about six or eight inches, on the roadside, not on the lakeside. I'd like to replace a cabin that burnt in 2017.

And currently, your septic on the property is compliant as well. Is that correct?

Yes.

Perfect. Thank you.

Do we have any questions or comment from the board? I don't think so. I think most everything's been answered over the last few weeks.

Okay.

Okay, any board members have any questions?

Just for clarification, the issue here is that current measurements would indicate that the lot is just a foot or two short of the 100 feet, and that if it was 100 feet, the proposed cabin location and everything else would meet all requirements. Okay.

Correct. And because the house burned in 2017 and it wasn't rebuilt, it went back to the unimproved lot. So we're just taking it back to the improved lot. Exactly. I'm going to go ahead and open for public comment. Seeing no public comment, I'll close public comment.

This is Larry. This variance looks pretty straightforward to me. I think we should approve this variance and go with staff's findings of facts.

Okay. Absolutely. I take that as a motion then?

Correct.

Okay. So I have a motion by Larry to approve the variance application as presented and adopt the staff's findings of facts.

This is Ken. I'll second that.

Okay. And a second by Ken. Timothy, how do you vote?

This is Timothy.

I vote aye.

Larry, how do you vote?

Larry, I vote aye.

Ken, how do you vote?

I vote aye.

Mike, how do you vote?

Mike, I vote aye.

And this is Veronica. I also vote aye. Your variance application has been approved. You'll be receiving a decision letter from the Environmental Services with the next steps for your permitting. Okay? Thank you so much. You're welcome. Thank you. Next item on the agenda, Variance Application 36-V-26 by Michael and Rebecca Wheeler, Lot 6, Duck Lake Addition, Section 31, Township 139, Range 33, Crow Wing Lake Township on Duck Lake, a recreational development lake. Parcel 06.38.00600. The applicants are requesting a variance from Section 702.A.3 of the Shoreland Management Ordinance for a proposed expansion on a nonconforming dwelling located in the shore impact zone. Thank you. If you could please state your name and address.

Mike Wheeler.

Yes, sir.

And my address is 22720 Duck Lake Road.

Thank you, sir.

Rebecca Wheeler, 22720 Duck Lake Road.

Thank you, Ms. Wheeler. And go ahead and state your request for the record, please.

We would like to enlarge the existing cabin by 12 feet on one end, so you have a 12 by 36 addition on the north end of the cabin. The one that's in there, the cabin's kind of small, so we just need to enlarge it a some.

And currently your cabin is 43 feet from the ordinary high watermark setback, is that correct?

Yes.

Oh, yes.

This is can just for the record. The the the nonconformance that that forces of variance is the fact that that screened in porch, not the cabinet itself, but the basic screened in porch doesn't meet the 50 foot setback correct correct and it's 1955 so that's illegal nonconforming.

The cabin in addition or or prior to or the cabin is prior to the 1971 ordinance yes okay any other questions from the board members before i open public comment no okay so i'm going to open for public comment i'm going to close public comment And just for some supportive statements, I agree as well. The structure was built before the shoreland management ordinance was enacted, as we stated. Most of the cabin is located outside of that shore impact zone, except for that porch area, as Ken mentioned as well. And this really is the only location for the addition. And it is reasonable, given the interior cabin layout and the proximity of that detached garage back there. So I am in agreeance. A reasonable request. Anybody prepared for a motion?

This is Ken. I'll make a motion that we accept application 36V-26 and accept the staff's finding of facts.

Okay. Thank you. We have a motion by Ken to approve the application as presented and adopt the staff's findings of facts. Do I have a second?

This is Mike. I'll second.

And a second by Mike. Timothy, how do you vote?

This is Timothy. I vote aye.

Larry, how do you vote?

Larry, I vote aye.

Ken, how do you vote?

I vote aye.

Mike, how do you vote?

Mike, I vote aye.

And this is Veronica. I also vote aye. You'll be receiving a decision letter from Environmental Services on the next steps. All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next item on the agenda, variance application 37-V-26 by Austin Foss and Ryan Raguse. Government lot 7, section 15, township 141, range 32, Akeley Township on 11th Crow Wing Lake, a recreational development lake. Parcel 01.15.01900, the applicants are requesting to amend conditions two and three of variance 39-V-25 and requesting variances from section 506.2, 506.5, 701 and 702 of the shore land management ordinance for a proposed guest cottage that covers more than 700 square feet of the land surface. and exceeds 15 feet in height and to be able to maintain and put to a new use in a non-conforming structure whose use is discontinued.

Okay, if you could please state your name and address for the record.

Yep, Ryan Raguse, Wheaton, Minnesota.

Your address again, please.

7856650 at Wheaton, Minnesota.

Okay, thank you. And go ahead and proceed with your request.

Yeah, our request is to amend the variance that was approved last fall to switch out cap structure D with structure E. I can go further into explaining the rationale if you'd like.

Sure.

So prior to doing the variance, we never inspected, we didn't do any work on the structures. So after the variance was approved, we started to look into structures even a little bit more, realizing that the structure itself would need probably more significant repairs to the foundation than we were anticipating. We wanted to switch from from that structure to structure D to structure E. Structure E is closer to the water, but it is a smaller structure for a little bit of benefit to the regulations.

Okay.

This is Tim. Did one of these have any more bedrooms than the other?

I believe E is one of the bigger ones. So that one has two, three, I think, three in it, if I remember correctly. And then structure E has two bedrooms in it, I believe. So it's a smaller structure. Did I answer your question? Sorry.

I'm looking for what the bedrooms were. So is that second story in E, is there bedrooms up there?

Yes, there is. There is a bed up there, yeah.

OK. And you had two or three bedrooms in D?

I believe there's three. So it'll be one less bedroom overall. It'll be a smaller structure and we'd be downsizing to one less bedroom.

That's a trade off of... Yeah, I've seen the structure underneath there. You're pretty brave to be underneath there with a jack, I thought.

Yeah, maybe a little brave.

I think in, this is Ken, I think in the right of some place you indicated that to redo D that the basement doesn't meet the water table restriction of three feet. Is that adequate or is that a right assessment?

I believe the assessment at the time was that in order to get the proper footings, we'd have to go into the ground, which would probably get to the water table pretty quick. I'm not an environmentalist. I don't know the answer of where the water table is exactly, but the floor of the basin is probably three feet above the water, I would think. But we'd have to go pretty deep, I would think, to get the right footings in place, if that makes sense.

Is that the only reason you don't want to rebuild right there?

We weren't planning on rebuilding. We were planning on just modernizing, updating the existing structures. We've never planned to rebuild anything to date. And for the record, that's not going to be in the picture.

What buildings of the eight have you removed?

We haven't removed any of them yet, but they will be removed by September 1st. Or we'll have them taken down and then brought accordingly to the recycling area, bring the shingles and the different pieces of wood. We haven't demolished anything yet.

Are you demolishing them? Or in what way are you, I mean?

So the plan is to start off with taking the shingles down, bringing those to the recycling center, and then taking the windows out and the appliances out, bringing those to the recycling center, and then taking the structures down from there for the other eight structures.

If I recall, when we approved variance 39V25, we picked D over E because of D meets the shore impact zone setback, whereas E does not, if I recall. That was our reasoning. Do you remember?

Can you repeat that, Ken, please?

Can you repeat that? We were going to allow them to guest cabins, given the history of it, and we asked them to remove A and C and keep B and D, and we picked D, I believe, because it has about a 70-foot setback from the lake, whereas E is like 36 feet.

Correct.

So the issue here becomes guest cabins are not supposed to be allowed in the shore impact, actually 100 feet, but never in the shore impact zone. So that's our constraint on not wanting to allow E. That being said, D is three cabin, or three bedrooms, E is two, it's smaller, which would suggest less occupancy in the facility. The shoreline there is all buffered with vegetation. I'm looking for reasons why this might be reasonable, even though it's very much in conflict with what a guest cabin should be. Looking for input from my colleagues here.

Well, it has a slab that it also sits on, so it's not something that's going to rot away. How about moving something like that?

If they tore down D and moved E up to it, I don't know much about construction that way. Is a cabin of that size, would it make sense without it falling apart or something to move it?

No, with no floor joists or stuff, it's a problem. Tim speaking. Okay. It could be done, but it would be expensive. So that's not a viable option then, okay. So public comment?

I'll do that. Okay, I'm gonna go ahead and open for public comment. Seeing none, I'll close public comment.

This is Tim. My opinion is I'm okay with it, doing that trade with conditions for the future of if anything happens to it or he's gonna, with no expansions ever and if it ever If it burns down, it's gotta move to setback.

So if it ever has to be rebuilt, it would have to be rebuilt meeting setback requirements, okay.

This is Veronica speaking. My most difficult part of approving this is the simple fact that he hasn't removed one building yet, and he has five weeks to meet his,

I'm sorry, I didn't.

I said my most difficult part is that none of the buildings have yet to be removed and his deadline is five weeks.

Yeah.

Okay.

This is Mike. We didn't get a, I didn't get a chance to look at that building very closely. Is the bottom of it in pretty good shape sitting on that slab or is it? Starting to fall apart. A lot of the siding around those buildings are terrible.

You're talking about structure D for clarification? E. E. Oh, E? You know, E's in, it's fine. Yeah. The one we're proposing is in a much better structural sounding condition.

And I agree with Veronica a little bit. I see gas tanks at all the cabins, so you've been using all of them?

No, we have not used any of the, I don't know which ones they are, but we have not used any of those other structures. The propane tanks that you're looking at were there prior to, they were there when we bought it and we haven't used them. They're still full.

They're brand new. and brand new fixtures on the interior. And the front cabin A has living quarters. People are in it.

Sorry, say again?

I believe there's people living in the first one.

The lodge? Which one? In A. I'll bring it back down to the map here.

I mean, during lot views, there just seems to be stuff inside, only just looking at that none of them have been demolished yet. So there was just people staying inside letter A. Yeah, so A, we used that last year.

This year, we've moved everything out of there this summer. So that hasn't been used since this spring.

Veronica, I think it would be a good question. If we were to approve this, They have six weeks to tear down all those buildings and remove them. Is that feasible? Is that in your plan?

Yeah. Well, this is Tim speaking. They have the deadline. Yeah. They have the deadline to meet. So do we put a condition on that if it isn't met that the- It becomes null and void? It becomes null and void.

Yep, that could be possible.

Yeah, I think we'd be okay with that.

Well, this is Mike. I think we're violating a lot of the ordinances here. I can't agree with this myself.

And again, this is Veronica speaking. I just wish that I had seen a lot of, that was the whole purpose of providing the deadline and giving them all summer. And the deadline of September 1st to give them time to remove these structures and not having one gone is a little concerning, alarming. And then that's all. I understand the situation.

An excavator in a dumpster will have that wiped out in a day.

Yeah. It should have been done already.

They got till September.

That is true.

Yeah, they could do it in short order, but they haven't started.

Right, but he's got until September.

I would have thought one would have been started.

So you know how important that is.

I'm very aware, yes.

I am in favor of reducing this. It is a smaller cabin, so that is... you know, a trade-off. I would be open with the condition that if it's those other, obviously if those eight buildings aren't removed by September 1st, then this becomes an Olin void. This amendment becomes null and void.

This is Ken. I'm leaning towards letting the switch happen. There's a lot of paperwork cleanup, though, that we have to do. First of all, the drawing that was submitted, which we have to refer to that lists what's got to be removed and what's kept, is still identified as a drawing of June 17th, 2025. Okay, so if we approve this, we have to approve that drawing. It has to have some other designation that was in the package. I don't know what we call it, modified document from 617 or whatever, because I have to refer to it if I'm going to make a... Eric, is there a way of identifying that? Can I call it modified? Our document 617-2025 modified, how can I refer to it? The one submitted? Help me out.

It's the site plan.

This sketch is part of the current variance application, so I think as long as you say the site plan sketch.

The site plan submitted with the application. Let me make a motion that we approve this application with the following conditions and I'm going to say no additional vegetation removal is allowed within the shore impact zone of the property. Cabin D must be removed from the property with all the other structures proposed to be demolished in the application submitted with the application. The drawing submitted with the application and all of the action lists on it are part of the variance with the change that D be removed, item E or structure E is allowed to remain. All cabins, number four, all cabins proposed to be demolished must be removed from the property by September 1st of 2026. And a fifth item, cabin E, cannot be expanded in the future. And if rebuilt, must be moved to meet setback requirements.

Eric, is there anywhere on the lot that it can meet requirements?

Let me check. It's going to be tight.

I'm not sure your last one can qualify. So Eric's going to check real quick. Because of the overlapping, since it's on that little peninsula, I don't know that it can quite meet them, but it might be able to.

I said setback requirements. That could be 50 feet, which we've done in the others. Well, Cabin D is 70 feet. If you move that 30 feet back, you could put it there at 100 feet from at least the east side. Shoreline or I think it is I can't tell from here It would seem to me when I look at the size of things So it could be it could be put in between at a hundred feet If the septic isn't there. Well, I guess that could be one way or the other The new septic tank for cabin e is down by e because that's what they show here. So if you put it up there, you could still use it?

I would think so.

I'm not a septic person, but I would think so. I can't hear you. Sorry, I'm not a septic person, but I would think so, because that would roll downhill.

Ken, my only other suggestion is that if the deadline isn't met to remove the structures, then this becomes null and void. Then I said, as Tim mentioned earlier, or maybe it was Mike, that if all the structures aren't removed by the deadline, then this amendment becomes null and void.

Okay. You want to add that? Becomes number six. Okay. Are we changing the last one?

Nope. Nope. It makes it.

Okay. Okay. Now you're going to look for findings of fact, right?

Mm-hmm. Correct. Okay.

This is hard, as you would see in Pittsburgh, it's hard. Hold on, let me get to, give me a second to get to the things so that I can read the findings of fact. Come on, Ken, where's Eric's thing here? Come on, come on. Okay, here we go. Item one is the variance in harmony with the general purposes intent of official controls. Allowing cabin E to remain is a reasonable trade-off since cabin D is unusable. Cabin E is smaller, two bedrooms versus three bedrooms in cabin E. The condition that Cabin E can not be expanded or rebuilt except meeting requirements. These trade-offs make up for it being close to, is in harmony with the intent of still, and still be in the shore impact zone.

Also, the existing height of Cabin E is camouflaged by the vegetation from the lake. So the height is not really an issue there. Okay, good.

Number two is the property owner proposing use it in a reasonable manner, not permission. Controls for item one above the request is reasonable with reduced occupancy on the property. Number three is a need for a variance due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by current or prior property owner. The appellants were granted a variance for two cabins. Cabin D was determined to be unusable after detailed inspection. There is no other alternative for two guest cabins which were approved. Let's see, I guess that's it.

Well, the property is long and narrow also, and we had existing structures there. That's a good add, yes.

Okay, will the issuance of variance maintain the essential character? Yes. Switching cabin D and cabin E will not change the character of what was approved in variance 39V25.

Is the staff's finding a typo with no? It seems to support a yes. No, they're all no in the staff report.

I didn't understand what you asked.

I asked if number four was, I believe the staff report supports a yes. It's marked no. And it's marked no. Yes. All five of them were marked no. Yeah, but I think if you read it, it supports a yes. Okay.

Eric, was it supposed to be a yes?

I don't remember.

It kind of looks like it could be a yes.

Well, I think it's comparing that other than this, it's just single seasonal residents in the area. And this is multiple ones, I think is. Well, anyway, I said what I said, okay. Five, does the stated practical difficulty be more than just economic considerations? Yes. Applicants indicate that redoing cabin D would require deep footings and make it more difficult to rebuild.

And not meet that three foot separation. And possibly not meet that three-foot vertical separation.

He couldn't confirm that, so I don't know what his guess is.

Okay. This is Timothy. I'll second the motion.

Okay, so I have a motion by Ken to approve the variance application with the six conditions stated by Ken, and Ken created the findings of facts, and a second by Tim. Timothy, how do you vote?

This is Timothy, I vote aye.

Ken, how do you vote?

Ken, I vote aye.

Mike, how do you vote?

Mike, I vote nay.

Larry, how do you vote?

Larry, I vote nay.

How did you vote?

I haven't yet. This is Veronica. I vote aye. Fingers crossed you proved me right. This variance application has been approved three to two. You'll be receiving a letter from the Environmental Services with the next steps for the permitting process for your land use permits and such.

Thank you. Appreciate you all. Thank you.

OK, the next item on the agenda was 38-V-26 by Brad Ines. And he had withdrawn the application. So we will continue moving forward with variance application 39-V-26 by Mitchell Blom and Patricia Stanley. Lot 7, Muskie Bay, Section 9, Township 140, Range 33, Nevis Township on Lake Beltane, a recreational development lake. Parcel 21.47.00800, the applicants are requesting a variance from Section 702A3 of the Shoreland Management Ordinance for a proposed addition to a non-conforming structure located in the shore impact zone. Thank you very much. Can you please state your name and address for the record?

Mitchell Blums, 24359 Fairwood Lane, Nevis.

Patricia Stanley, 24359 Fairwood Lane, Nevis, Minnesota. Thank you so much. Please go ahead with your request. We are wanting to expand the cabin on the roadside, not the lakeside, a 12 by 23 foot addition to expand the kitchen and add a small office workspace.

Okay, perfect. And this is Veronica speaking. We did receive additional information, right? That says that you're going to meet that three foot vertical separation by 10 inches. Yes. Above, right? Yes. Perfect. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Um, just for additional information, the dwelling is 21 feet from the ordinary high watermark setback. And as the applicant said, this addition is going to be on the non-lake side. Any questions or comments from the board members? I'm going to go ahead and open for public comment. And seeing none, I'll close public comment.

I think, you know, for the record, let me state that we did receive documentation that, in fact, the lowest level of the addition meets the three-foot ordinary high water mark offset.

Yes, thank you, Ken. I appreciate you turning that in. Thank you very much. Yep, and the septic on the property is compliant and sized for the two bedroom, and you're not increasing the bedroom space. You're expanding the kitchen and making an office, as stated. During the lot views, I noticed that we discovered you've got quite a bit, 120, quite a bit of shoreland there when we asked you about your side lot line.

This is Tim. The addition is on the non-lake side.

Yes.

So it won't affect the lake.

Right.

And adding them to increase the kitchen square footage is reasonable.

And I would add that looking at the shoreline with the large set of cattails and other things, that about 50% of the shoreline has a vegetation buffer. Good.

Well vegetated, not very minimal erosion. Are you ready? Yes.

This is Tim. I'll make a motion to approve variance 39-V-26. Findings for number one is a variance in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the official controls. Yes, the addition proposed will be on the non-lake side of the home. Number two, is the property owner proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner, not permitted by official control? Yes, adding on to increase the kitchen square footage is reasonable, and I'll accept the staff's findings for the rest.

Thanks. Also, do you want to, on one or two, do you just want to add that they also verify that they can meet that three foot vertical separation?

Yes. They also meet the three foot separation. It's three foot ten inches. Correct.

Okay. We have a motion by Tim to approve the variance application as per site plan and creating findings of facts numbers one and two and adopting staffs three through five. Do I have a second?

This is Leary.

I'll second.

And a second by Larry. Timothy, how do you vote?

This is Timothy. I vote aye.

Larry, how do you vote?

Larry, I vote aye.

Ken, how do you vote?

This is Ken. I vote aye.

Mike, how do you vote?

Mike, I vote aye.

And this is Veronica. I also vote aye. Your application has been approved. You'll be receiving a decision letter from Environmental Services on the next steps for your permitting. Thank you. Thank you so much.

I'm just going to say, you know, we have this one, the one in between, and then a second one we might want to take both of these. Absolutely, sure. Good idea.

Okay, next item on the agenda is variance application 40-B-26 by Hubbard County Parks and Recreation. The north half of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of part of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter, all in section 10, Township 142, Range 34, Clay Township on Deep Lake and Natural Environment Lake. Parcel 04.10.00200, the applicant is requesting a variance from section 502.1 of the shoreland management ordinance to place a deck within the 150 foot ordinary high watermark setback. Hey there, can you please state your name and address?

I know, I got it all out there too, right? Corey Kimball, Land Commissioner here at Hubbard County, 101 Crocus Hill Street, Park Rapids, Minnesota. We're known at the Public Works Building. First of all, I just want to say I appreciate what you guys all do. I've lived here my whole life. I appreciate what you guys, keeping the county in good shape. So it's been a big project for me since I've started here three years ago. So it finally feels good to get to this point. So the first variance here, is to repurpose, first of all, we have a, the ski resort built the retaining wall, and I believe they had storage along the lake. As you guys saw, sorry I couldn't be there Thursday. I was on vacation with my family for a couple days, but I hope Greg could kinda show you around a little bit. The resort had a retaining wall, the ski resort did, and I believe they used it for some storage. It's about 80 feet long by 20 feet or so in width, and with the elevation it's about 8 to 12 feet tall, made with blocking. I was talking with the administrator one day and we were kind of thinking, you know what, it'd be kind of neat to reuse that, repurpose it and put a natural wood deck on there with a railing. People could sit and just look at the lake, look at the beavers messing around or the loons or whatever out there. Yeah, that'd be our request, just to repurpose that non-conforming structure near the lake there. It is pretty close to the lake. I believe it gets to be about 25 feet away from the lake Um, right now a little further cause it's so dry out there, but, uh, the water does come up to about 25 feet or so. Um, yeah, so natural, you know, we'd definitely use natural wood, wood, uh, flooring and, uh, railing and no, no roof or anything like that would be needed. Um, but yeah, it'd just be something simple, something to reuse it. And, um, yeah.

All right. I'm just going to go ahead and open for public comment. Seeing none, I'll close public comment. I just had a quick question. As far as lighting goes, are you going to have any lighting on it for the evening, nighttime?

No, no lighting, no utilities to it. I don't think we really need that. In the wintertime, we're not going to use it. In the summer, it stays light out until... The park's only open until 10, so...

How are you not going to use it in the wintertime, though? Can you just explain to me how it's not going to get used?

Just if it snows, we're not going to go out there and shovel it off.

But the park's going to be open 24-7, 365 a year?

Yeah, it'll be open all year long.

Well, you're going to have to maintain the sidewalks then so that people can use it.

Yeah. Yep.

You mean to the... To every area of the campground that's going to be public use.

Yep. Yep. We will. We'll maintain everything with snow blowers. And I guess, yeah, if people really want to use it, well, I guess we could. We could shovel it off in the wintertime.

I just wanted to know how you're not going to use it. I mean, I'm just curious.

Yep, yep. Will you have lighting in the parking lot area? Yes, yep. So the parking lot will have lighted structures. Yep, yep.

There'll be some light there.

So the folks that donated the property wanted low lighting, so barely anything, just for safety. So really, we don't really want to add too much lighting to other structures if we don't have to.

Right. How close is that fishing pier to that?

It'll be, do you see kind of the point to the left there? The DNR went out with us and they decided that'd probably be the best spot with minimal.

So would any of the campers be able to get down there and fish crappies at dark?

Yeah, yep, yep, I would think so.

If I have a parent sitting up there watching them fish, I might want a light up there.

Yeah, and yeah, I mean, we'd gladly add a light, but we don't want to ask her too much if we don't have to. Yeah, a light would be nice, I would think, even if it's a low dim light. Where you're walking, there's going to be people there in the dark. Yep, yep. It'd be neat even if we could have a... some kind of solar light or you don't have to worry about too many underground utilities or overhead. But yeah.

This is like 20 feet wide. Are you putting in more footings or posts or some supports to hold this thing up?

For the most part, there's partitions. It seems like for the most part, that'll be okay, but we probably will have to put... probably some braces, especially on the lake side, some posts, just so it doesn't, I don't know, bow.

Obviously in this picture, you're gonna have to fill in behind this wall.

Yup, yup, you'll have to do.

And I don't know where your 20 foot is gonna go, but it looks like your structure is only 10 feet wide, so.

Yeah, it gets a little bit wider, then it gets narrower, so. It was hard to put a dimension on the map.

Are you going to need more footings to support this or not?

I don't think so.

No, no, no, no.

And I think it's going to be as basic as we can make it. And it might not be the full 80 feet length, but it'll just be just a basic. You know, we might have to put some posts to hold up the deck a little bit in areas. But for the most part, it's just a basic, I don't know. Boardwalk. Boardwalk, yeah, yeah, yep.

But the retaining wall itself, that's the closest it's going to be.

Yes, yes, yep, for sure, yep, yep.

So the wings are going to be the closest or the wall?

The wings. Okay. Yep, yep.

Will you be filling in that gap between the wall and land there?

Yeah, so that used to be like a little basement. And I would think it'd be best if we filled that in and leveled it. Just because right now it's causing a little bit of erosion.

be a safety issue for kids running around underneath.

Yeah, we wouldn't want that. So it would be best to kind of fill that in, level it off, kind of minimize the erosion that is going on. That's another thing we were talking about, pulling everything out of there, which would be another chore in itself. But this retaining wall, it actually does help from the erosion. The bank gets so steep there. So it would be tough to lose that. But I guess I would ask that we could maybe fill that in and level it off and at least make it a little bit more safe for folks. But the brick wall itself is pretty sturdy. There's definitely been buildings on that property that didn't have that nice brick wall, so it's kind of surprising. But for the most part, the deck will go out on them wings that go towards the lake, won't go any further than the wings. I believe them wings are about eight feet. So yeah, it will go behind and in front of that main wall. approximately 20 feet wide, the width, and then fill under it, level it off. So we don't have any more erosion there. What's already.

Basically, your application is you're asking for permission to build a 20 by 80 platform. Yes. At 25 feet from the lake with the intent of repurposing the concrete sets that's there.

Yes. Yep, exactly. Yep.

Eric, this is Veronica speaking. When Corey's mentioning fill, 80 feet's a long way. Do we need to address that since where we're, because I don't understand, I need clarification on what amount of fill and since we're 20 some feet from the lake, do we need to address that and need numbers or no? Because fill wasn't on there, sorry.

They've got the whole shoreline that's within the park. I'd be surprised if the volume it took to fill that void would exceed what they could do with a permit.

Okay, so we're okay there, though. Should be. Okay.

That picture's probably the bad, worst part of it. I should have took a picture of the best part of it. Yeah, it would take probably, I'm just thinking of... Maybe 30 yards or so to fill that whole thing level. And then. Just put support posts under underneath the underneath it.

Any other questions from the board then?

Yes, absolutely.

I guess one more thing is too, you guys, I don't know if you've actually walked around this. There is a few smaller trees growing out of there, like a few birch and elm. I would ask that we could take a few of those out too.

I imagine you'll have to remove some so that you can get your platform.

Looking for a motion.

Yes, sir. Go ahead.

Make a motion that we accept variance application 40-V-26 and accept the staff's finding the fact.

Are you gonna place the condition with the downward lighting must be placed on the elevated platform?

I'm sorry?

Are you gonna place the condition about the lighting?

If you want to, yeah. I'm indifferent to that, okay.

Well, I guess it depends on the board. myself i would like lights on them yeah this is larry i would like to see lights on her okay okay then condition being lighting must be placed on the elevated platform from dusk to dawn yeah okay so i have a motion by ken to approve the application 40-b-26 as stated per site plan and with the condition downward lighting must be placed on the elevated platform from dusk to dawn and do i have a second this is mike i'll make a second okay and a second by mike timothy how do you vote

This is Timothy, I vote aye.

Mike, how do you vote?

I vote aye.

Ken, how do you vote?

This is Ken, I vote aye.

Larry, how do you vote?

Larry, I vote aye.

And this is Veronica, I also vote aye. That application has been approved. And if you just wanna remain seated, we'll move, we'll skip to the next one from Hubbard County Parks and Rec. Jump across real quick. to variance application 42-V-26 by Hubbard County Parks and Recreation. The northwest corner and part of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter, section 10, Township 142, Range 34, Clay Township on Deep Lake and Natural Environment Lake. Parcels 04.10.00100 and 04.10.00200, the applicant is requesting a variance from Sections 502.1 and 903.3 of the Shoreland Management Ordinance for a road and parking lot to be located within the 150-foot ordinary high watermark setback. So if you could please, Corey, go ahead and state your name and address again for the record.

Yeah, thank you. Corey Kimball, Land Commissioner, Hubbard County, 101 Crocus Hill Street, Park Rapids, Minnesota. All right, thanks.

And then go ahead with this request, please.

Yeah, thank you for bringing this application on, too. So a few years ago, we were working with a contractor out of the city's SRF contracting, kind of designing our park, and they had folks come out Marking I think they they marked the 150 setback off of different deals i don't know what they how they did it but that's what we we originally used was their setback and we had the environmental services and the dnr out there to actually mark the exact high water mark and it was off a little bit from what the contractor we had had so for the most part everything still works out fine except there's a corner on the side of Part of the parking lot that would be cut off short, I believe a few, I think it was like six to 12 parking spaces were gonna be cut off. But it was my mistake too from the last variance I brought to you guys. I only asked for part of the road going into the setback when I should have asked for the whole area there around the picnic shelter and parking area. So this variance, I'm asking that we can be within the 130 foot setback, which is 20 feet from the, or 20 feet different than the 150 from the Northeast. I don't know if you have a map. Oh yeah, there, that one works too. There's a Northeast trail that goes up around the, or Northwest trail that goes up around the, yeah, right there. Northwest Trail goes around the west side of the lake. That intersect of that trail all the way around to the intersect of that. that trail that goes back to that old maintenance building. I guess we're just looking for a variance so we can have a little bit more wiggle room there instead of trying to push our limits a little bit more than we probably should. So I guess we're just trying to play it by the rules and doing what we should do, what's right. I guess that's what I'm asking.

This is Ken, just so I understand. Based on where you actually, the layout of where the parking lot is, it's just one small corner. Yes. But you're asking for us to allow 130 feet setback just because... for other things you wanna do, just so we don't have to be back here again. But let me finish. However, I don't want that to be a unilateral enablement for you to expand that parking lot another 20 feet. So from my standpoint, I'm okay with 130, but that the parking lot will be constructed per the drawing in your variance application. Okay. Are you okay with that?

Yes. Yeah. Everything fits right now. It's just really tight. Yeah. I mean, you guys have been out there. The DNR set the posts, and, I mean, the parking lot runs right along that post. And I worry that if we plow snow in the wintertime and we push up a little bit of dirt with the snow pile, it's going to – I don't want to cause – cause issues down the road and I'd rather have to see that little bit of wiggle room. Yeah, I guess that's what I'm thinking.

I don't see any lighting on here. I don't know how many poles you plan on putting up. Are they going to be right off the lot?

They're in the lot. Yeah, right on the edge of the lot pretty much. Yep, yep, there's going to be poles there. I don't know what the engineer calls them, but yeah.

Probably address that on the conditional use permit. Yeah. Okay, you want to motion?

I'm going to do public comment real quick for the record. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. Okay, for the record, I'm just going to go ahead and open for public comment. And seeing none, I'll close public comment. Go ahead.

This is Ken. I'm going to make a motion that we accept application 42-V-26 for 130 foot setback, but with the condition that the parking lot will be built to the drawing in the application.

Got a motion by Ken to approve variance 42-V-26 as presented on the site plan with the condition that the parking lot is still built as the site plan stated.

Correct? And accept the findings of facts from the staff report?

Yes, and adopt the staff's findings of facts. Do I have a second?

This is Mike, I'll second that.

Okay, and a second by Mike. Timothy, how do you vote?

This is Timothy, I vote aye.

Larry, how do you vote?

Larry, I vote aye.

Ken, how do you vote?

Just Ken, I vote aye.

Mike, how do you vote?

Mike, I vote aye.

And this is Veronica, I also vote aye. This one has also been approved.

Thank you. You're welcome, and then I'll get to the next one, and then we'll... Can I just ask a question? So I've seen like 20 site plans of this place. Is it this picture here you're talking about, or...

um drawing we have in your application okay okay okay when i can reference okay sounds good yeah all right thank you no that's perfect good question thank you all right so now we're going to backtrack to variance application 41-b-26 by timothy and tracy grill UNIT 8 BEACHWOOD ESTATE SECTION 9 TOWNSHIP 141 RANGE 35 ARIGO TOWNSHIP ON ISLAND LAKE A RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT LAKE PARCEL 02.51.40800 THE APPLICANTS ARE REQUESTING VARIANCES FROM SECTIONS 702A3 AND 1014.3C OF THE SHORELAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE AND THE CONDITION Place on variance 90-V-15 that limited the structure footprint to 24 by 28 for proposed expansion of a dwelling located in the shore impact zone and in a residential planned unit development. Thank you, sir. Can you please state your name and address for the record?

Timothy Grill, 26138 Island Bay Drive, Park Rockets.

Okay, thank you, sir. And go ahead with your request.

So I'm requesting that we add an eight by 28 onto the south side of the existing cabin. We're also gonna change the roof line. I don't know how much of a variance that would be or if it's necessary, but the entire structure will remain within the platted footprint that's allowed by the association.

Okay, so your request is to place an 8 by 28 addition on the south side of the dwelling and increase the second floor wall height by adding dormers to the existing roof, correct?

That is correct.

The dwelling is roughly 22 feet from the ordinary high watermark per your application, is that correct?

That is correct.

Okay, and the structure was allowed to be built by the variance 90-V05. that had conditions on it, which is what we're here for as well. But that one also had a 24 foot in height. And what is your height going to be? What is your request now?

The height is going to remain the same. So it'll be 21 feet.

So it's still going to be 21. It's just changing it a little bit.

Correct.

This is Larry. Were you aware of the other variance when you bought this property?

No.

Okay, I'm going to go ahead and open for public comment. And seeing none, I'm going to close public comment for the record. What is the purpose of the expansion?

to expand the kitchen area in the cabin.

And what's the upstairs? The upstairs doesn't have the kitchen?

No, the kitchen's downstairs, and to add a bathroom to the upstairs. Right now, currently, there's only one bathroom in it. Due to health conditions, we need an extra bathroom. When you came out, you could see that there was a porta potty out in the back side, and I would like not to have to do that every year.

What's in the upstairs currently, a bedroom?

Well there's three bunks, but it's just an A-frame. So there's about a six foot wide walkway throughout from the front to the back, from the lake back to the road.

So currently there is no bathroom if you're using a port-a-potty?

No, there's one bathroom downstairs.

Okay.

This is Ken, if I understand the original variance 90V05 was very explicit with regards to the size of the footprint and height of any structure. and that our ordinance is pretty clear about no expansion for PUD units that are in the shore impact zone. So you're asking for a fairly significant change, variation, nonconformance in what you're requesting. Yes, sir. I also noticed there's really no shoreline buffer along most of that whole shoreline where your cabin or your home and the other ones are. They're basically grass to the sand and nothing in between at all, vegetation-wise.

We have redone that shoreline three times in the last nine years because of the ice heaves. And so we have finally, after enough research, I have finally got it down to where there has not been a problem in the last year. And hopefully that will remain the same. There was not a steep, it was too steep of an angle from the lake to the shore. And so in the winter, it would just push the shore back toward the cabin.

Yeah, I have a lot of experience with that called my place.

This is Veronica speaking. In 2005 there was a variance granted that allowed it to already be expanded. Do you know what size it was prior to that?

No, I do not.

Okay. Veronica speaking as well. I do like to be mindful of conditions being placed by prior board members with, you know, with the shoreland management ordinances intent. Um, cause we do the same thing, you know, to try to preserve and be mindful of our ordinance and everything as well. So I understand what you're saying, Ken. What year did you purchase the house?

2016.

This is Veronica speaking. I do have difficulties and. Expansions when we are in the short impact zone at 21 feet.

I'd like to add also if I could. I was president of the Association for the last seven years. During that time there has been two new cabins and a. Expansion of a third cabin. that have gone all the way out to their footprint. And I'm being mindful of the lake staying away, obviously not adding to the front of the structure and staying within the north and south sides of the allotted footprint.

Yeah, this is Tim. I'm feeling the same way about the previous variance, saying no further expansion. And that's what I support.

I'm ready. Do I have any other comments or questions from any other members? If not, I'm open for a motion.

This is Tim. I'll make a motion to deny application 41-V-26 and accept staff's findings of facts.

I have a motion by Tim to deny the application and adopt staff's findings of facts. Do I have a second?

This is Larry, I'll second.

Okay, and a second by Larry. Timothy, how do you vote?

This is Timothy, I vote aye.

Ken, how do you vote?

This is Ken, I vote aye.

Larry, how do you vote?

Larry, I vote aye.

Mike, how do you vote?

Mike, I vote aye.

And this is Veronica, I also vote aye. The application has been denied and you will be receiving a decision letter from Environmental Services.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you. all right next item on the agenda i think we move into uh the planning commission first thing we have is the approval of the june 22nd 2026 meeting minutes do i have any questions or comments for the planning commission minutes

This is Larry, I move we accept plan and commission meeting minutes from June 22nd.

Okay, thank you, Larry. I have a motion by Larry to accept the meeting minutes as presented.

This is Tim, I'll second the motion.

Okay, and a second by Tim. Timothy, how do you vote?

This is Timothy, I vote aye.

Larry, how do you vote?

Larry, I vote aye.

Ken, how do you vote? vote aye my county vote and this is veronica the june 22nd 2026 planning commission meeting minutes have been approved there's no old business so we'll move right into the new business for the minor subdivision application by craig and angie nelson the south half of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter section 29 township 141 range 32 Akeley Township parcel 01.29.02110 the applicants are requesting to subdivide a 19.7 acre property into two tracks and I don't believe the applicants are here but we can continue to move forward with the application it is pretty straightforward this application This property was created by an administrative subdivision that was approved on November 15, 2024. The subdivision ordinance requires a 5-year waiting period before another administrative subdivision of the property can be done. So the ordinance allows a minor subdivision of the property to be done within the 5-year period. Thus the applicants are requesting this minor subdivision. to create these two proposed tracks they all come comply with the ordinance requirements septic system site evals are included showing that the two type two required or type one drain field sites meet the setback requirements i think it meets all of the other everything and we also have the akeley township approval Any questions or comments and just a courtesy reminder that Minor subdivisions are approved by the Planning Commission. So we do not need further approval from the Hubbard County Commission This is Ted.

I've got a question. Oh, yes, sir, please on the driveway Will this new created lot have an easement to use the existing driveway?

Yes, it says there's an existing driveway that provides access to the existing house and And the 33-foot easement is shown on the certificate of survey and the application to run along the south property line over the existing.

Thank you.

Do you have any other information on that driveway, Eric, or is that correct? That's all we've got.

Well, on the aerial photo, It looks like the driveway is in the proposed 33-foot easement, but then on the survey, they've got center line of drive shown here, and it's north of the 33-foot easement, so I'm not sure.

It's a little off there, yeah.

What's correct?

Right.

But they do have an easement. Right. Right. And that's the property that we were at.

Right. Yeah.

I'm just thinking in the future.

If they have a family fight, then that's their business.

Eric, do you want different documentation then?

No, like Mike said, I mean, it's the way it's shown on the survey, and somebody in the future on the east tract chooses to act on the easement, it looks like there'll be another driveway running along the existing one, but. It meets the ordinance, that's not our concern.

Any other questions or comments? I guess I'll open for public comment. And seeing that, I'll close public comment. Ready for motion.

This is Timothy. I'll move to approve the minor subdivision application by Craig and Angie Nelson.

Thank you, Tim. Do I have a second?

Mike, I'll make a second.

Okay, thank you, Mike. I have a motion by Tim to approve the minor subdivision application and a second by Mike. Timothy, how do you vote?

This is Timothy, I vote aye.

Mike, how do you vote?

Mike, I vote aye.

Ken, how do you vote?

I vote aye.

Larry, how do you vote?

Larry, I vote aye.

And this is Veronica, I also vote aye. All right. Next item on the agenda. Conditional use application 1-CU-26 by Billion Real Estate Holdings, LLC, Government Lot 2, part of Government Lot 8, Government Lots 7, 10, and 11, and the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter, all in Section 1, Township 141, Range 34, Lake Emma Township on Petit Lake and Natural Environment Lake and Big Man Trap Lake, a recreational development lake, Parcels 16.01.00200, 16.01.00600, 16.01.00800, 16.01.01200, 16.01.01300, and 16.01.01500. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit per Section 401, Table 1 of the Shoreland Management Ordinance for a proposed commercial planned unit development use. Thank you. You can please state your name and address for the record.

Yep, Angela Baldwin, authorized agent speaking on behalf of Billion Holdings in regards to Wanna Walk Resort and Conference Center at 21254 County, 24 Park Rapids, Minnesota.

Perfect. Thank you, Darren. If you could please go ahead with your request.

Yeah. We're asking for a conditional use permit to open up to a resort that was privately owned previously by the previous owners. just for themselves and we're opening it up to corporations, associations, different organizations to come and use our facilities as a business where one group comes at a time. We cater to them at kind of a more five-star luxury retreat center offering meeting space commercial kitchens meals accommodations One private group at a time will come and join us Well, they'll get to enjoy all the recreational activities that we have to offer, boating, hiking, biking, winter activities. We propose to be open year round. We have a variety of offsite activities that we're gonna facilitate, whether it's golf at different area golf resorts as well. We'll provide all transportation to our groups. But we're really kind of a corporate retreat center and that's really what our our business model is and that's the customer base that we're looking for So each of the the cottages and accommodations do not have kitchens in them so we have the two commercial kitchens in our lakeside pavilion and our main lodge with our executive chef where we'll provide all meals so it's an all-inclusive package that we're selling to our potential customers they arrive we bring their luggage to their accommodations we bring them to the main lodge we greet them we do all the things, let them have meetings, all the AV and technology that we provide for facilitating hybrid meetings or remote meetings where some of their executives cannot join. But we also want to bring them to the north woods and we want to bring them up north and experience the lakes and experience all the nature and get that experience that a lot of these meeting planner and corporate groups are looking for.

Perfect, thank you. So the maximum, so it says here that you have generally 15 to 60 guests. What's the maximum capacity? 72. 72, okay.

Yep, the property has six cottages and a main lodge with 36 bedrooms. Each bedroom has double occupancy only. So 72 would be the max if everybody came with two people and they were comfortable sharing I mean spouses or things like that. So 72 would be the max.

Okay, and so is there going to be staff on site 24-7? Yes. Yes, so of that 72, that does not include staff. That's just guests. That's just guests. So there's different quarters for staff?

No quarters for staff. All staff are either local and live off-site.

Okay, so they're just going to be awake during the whole shifts or whatever, working? Yep.

Yep, so we'll have different shifts for sure. And when we have groups on property, we'll have overnight security and janitorial people just maintaining the groups that are there.

Okay. Yep. Overnight for staff, just on hand working staff. Okay. Perfect. Okay, I'm just going to go ahead and open for public comment. for the record, and seeing none, I'm gonna close public comment.

This is Ken. Go ahead, Ken. Question, when we were out there, the issue were, information regarding the 50% shoreline has to be natural vegetation. And we asked if there was a drawing or something you could provide to us that would indicate where that shoreline is. Okay. Is that something I should have?

No, that's it right there. We just submitted it after you asked for it.

Oh, okay. And you haven't sent it to us, Eric. Did I miss it someplace?

No, it got finalized today, so I figured we wouldn't have time.

So let me see where that is. So 200. Okay, that entire line of... A parcel or 200 plus around OK. And that one is 0600. OK. And this one is. 13 OK. Yeah. 1200 Okay, so that's the east or west side of 1200. Okay.

All right, so this is Veronica City.

Those are basically all the ones I had marked that were possible, so good. Perfect. Thank you.

Yes, it's a nice, it's very well detailed. It's just exactly what we were looking for. Good. So I think it'd be easiest just to go ahead and go through the staff report, just so that we can document everything. So just for the record, I'm going to read the first one here. The Commercial Plan Unit Development Conditional use permit is requested for the property. The 3M Company historically operated its corporate retreat center on the property and the current owner seeks to reuse the structures and grounds for a similar executive retreat center. And as we've seen on here that the application has a very descriptive proposal for the use and details. The proposed dwelling unit density falls within the allowed dwelling unit for the property. There's going to be no additional dwellings on the property or planned. There was a future improvement listed in the application that we mentioned during the lot views. And that multi-use recreation structure, that would be located in that north end of the property. And we talked about that. So that will definitely be included in this. Let's see. The septic on the property are sized properly to accommodate the proposed use. You've already taken care of the permit, and they've already been installed. When we were on site for the lot views, they already did the inspection that week. Is that correct? Yep, correct. So we're all up to date for that. And you have already turned in this 50% of the shore impact zone for its natural or existing state. So we have that. That has been met. OK. And so then the ordinance also regulates the number of spaces used for continuous mooring of watercraft and states of docks and watercraft mooring areas must be centralized. So we've taken care of that. So yeah, you're on top of it. You've received the variances that were granted to allow those non-conforming structures. Access to your property is through that gated driveway. That gated driveway is always closed, is that correct? It's never open. Correct. Every time that we've came to the property, you have to hit the button. Yep. Perfect. And you have hours for the shooting range from 12 to 5. That's going to be any day of the week. I mean, it's fine, I'm just curious. It could be any day of the week.

Yeah, so primarily our groups are pretty much going to be Monday through Friday. We don't anticipate a ton of weekend corporate-y business. But just in case. But just in case, it could be. It's also temperature-related, too. So if the temperature is below 20 degrees in the wintertime, we can't shoot.

So we have to pay attention to... With the big man trap...

sports funds club just down the road yeah i'm sure they're having shooting hours uh yeah at least that much i have heard them i'm like yep so are you looking at the conditions yep so we'll just go over the conditions now yeah okay because i had a couple of things right perfect so the the conditions number one this conditional use permit is for the operation of the entire premises as one commercial planned unit development use venture As such, any land that through the subdivision or addition to the property to which the CUP is granted is added or subtracted, is or are not granted or allowed the right to operate in accordance with the CUP without first applying for or obtaining the necessary CUP from the county. That is just fine. Number two, the overall number types and locations of the dwelling units and other structures allowed to be located on the property as shown on the site plan.

we can go through we've already gone through all of that do you have any questions anybody have any questions for number two i in number two i think i'd like to add where it says uh label site well layout wne88 okay and the two pages labeled zero one dash one four one dash three four Because there's a little more detail on those two, so I'd like those to be part of the official. Okay. Okay.

Just a second, Ken. Let me add that in here. What were the numbers again, Ken?

Can you repeat the numbers, Ted? Yeah.

01-141-34. It's two pages. And those are the, that's the numbers that are on it. At least in the packet I have.

What's that? Oh, I see. This one here?

Yes. Yeah.

There, then you flip. Mm-hmm. Yeah, and there's these more detailed ones with the various structures, okay?

Okay. And number three, the documentation has been provided.

Do you want to say something like the 50% minimum shore impact natural environment requirement must be met per document submitted in the application? That's what I would suggest right there. Okay. Okay. I'm OK with that.

CHRISTIE WOODARD- Oh, that's great. And those documents were nice documents. Detailed.

CHRISTIE WOODARD- Hopefully, my computer does not decide to do a Microsoft update here. CHRISTIE WOODARD- OK, number four.

Allowed hours of operation for the trap shooting range stayed in application.

That should be fine Any questions for number four, okay number five One thing Eric speaking relative to five that was noted when we were on site is I believe there's also a dock on the south end of petite lake that wasn't captured in the application so that'd be a Just something to mention, if you're okay with that being included, then we should modify this.

Okay, yes, because it was one that during lot views they said was strictly for use only by staff if they needed to service anything or to go rescue someone or something to that effect. So do you want to add that on here then? Okay.

It's a T-shirt. Yeah, it's a T-shirt.

This is Larry. The other platform that was listed as used as a driving range, that was completely onshore, correct?

Yeah, completely onshore.

And that's not listed anywhere either? Does it need to be?

I believe the platforms for the driving range are included in photos that were submitted at least. If not on the site drawings, I'd have to look at them.

I'm pretty sure that those photos of the platforms for the driving range were in the photos.

I don't want you to have to take it out because we missed it.

Right.

What are we looking for here?

The driving range platform that goes off towards the lake. It was just a big platform.

There you go. There it is right there. Yeah, there it is.

OK, perfect. All right, number six. All right, number six was the one that we talked about. Go ahead.

Yeah, Larry, again, do we need to bracket that size-wise a little bit or I assume it'll have to be done by permit anyway, so.

It's up to you.

It's going to be the one that's out back there by the tennis courts. Yep. In that area where there's already septic or water in the well.

Yep, and it's probably where they're planning to do it in the future would be beyond any amount of feet towards any lake.

That's what I was thinking. It was beyond the setback.

But we would probably need a permit for it, I would imagine.

Are we concerned about size restrictions on that, since it's going to be behind, most likely beyond the setback? Can you pull up the aerial just for verification real quick, please, Eric? OK, so if it's in this vicinity, can you just do a rough 150 foot setback if it's where it could be placed? Or 100 foot setback, I guess. 100. Yeah. Oh, darn.

There it goes.

Did we miss it? Darn it.

I told it not to restart, and it is anyway.

Right, but it should meet the hundred foot setback and if it's a hundred foot setback then we're not really concerned with the size so much so Okay, so then Correct. Yeah, right. Yes, that's correct. So then number seven was the septic system on the property They've already brought it to compliance. It's already pulled the permit and it's already been placed in the ground and inspected and everything. So that has been taken care of. So then any other things that anybody could think of as a possible condition? Okay, then. Except to find yep, I would accept the staff's findings of facts. They're documented I was just reviewing them to see if they needed to adjust any for those Two things that had been taken care of number nine The septic systems are sized It's already been brought up to date so Okay, anybody care to make a motion for a recommendation to approve or deny or table or however you'd like to go? This is Veronica. I make a motion that we recommend approval to the Hubbard County Board of Commissioners that we, for 1CU-26, the billion real estate for this conditional use permit application and that we, with the potential conditions, and we adopt the staff's findings.

So we've taken seven off, the septic one, because that's already been fixed.

We're leaving it on there, even though it's already been fixed, but it still needs to remain on there. It doesn't on here, that's what I was... Oh, maybe it was earlier, unless he took it off. Did you take it off? I took it off because it was... Earlier, okay, earlier he told me to...

It was already addressed.

Okay, perfect.

Okay. This is Timothy, I'll second the motion.

And a second by Tim. Timothy, how do you vote?

This is Timothy, I vote aye.

Larry, how do you vote?

Larry, I vote aye.

Ken, how do you vote?

I vote aye.

Mike, how do you vote? Mike, I vote aye. And this is Veronica, I also vote aye. The next step will be to go toward the Hubbard County Board of Commissioners.

All right, thank you very much. You're welcome. Shannon.

Do you want to come out for the three-day inspection? I know, right? The three-day weekend inspection.

Well, you know where I am, so. Thank you very much. You're welcome.

We're not allowed to go over, I guess, because we're recorded.

All right, next item on the agenda. Conditional use application 2-CU-26 by Hubbard County Parks and Recreation. The southwest quarter of the Section 3, part of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 4, and part of the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of the Section 9, and the northwest quarter of part of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 10, all in Township 142, Range 34, Clay Township on Deep Lake and Natural Environment Lake. Parcels 04.03.00100, 04.03.00200, 04.03.00300, 04.04.00300, 04.09.00100, 04.10.00100, and 04.10.00200. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for Section 401, Table 1 of the Shoreland Management Ordinance for a proposed county park use. So thank you, Mr. Corey Kimball. If you could please state your name and address.

All right. Thank you. Thanks for having me again. Corey Kimball, Land Commissioner for Hubbard County. 101 Crocus Hill Street, Parker Rapids, Minnesota, 56470. The property I'm requesting is located at 32546 County Road 4, Parker Rapids, Minnesota.

Okay, so this is for the conditional use application. to operate a new county park on a 439-acre property. The property was conveyed to the county for the express purpose of it being used as a county park. The donor placed several restrictions on the conveyance that govern the type of use that concur, and these restrictions can be seen in the deed included in the application. Correct? You said there were multiple things that they pretty much said. Yes. Yep. All right. Okay, well, there's nobody in the audience, but for the record, I'm going to open for public comment. Seeing none, I'll close public comment.

So you're open to questions?

We are. I am open for questions. Go right ahead, Ken, please.

Okay. I know, Eric, can you pull up a map? We're talking about 439 acres and only about 360 was the original gifted property. Can you show me what is the tax-forfeited land that was added?

Yes, yes. It'd be right to the northeast there. There's 160, it'd be half of that 160. So half of that we consider as recreational property, even though it's still tax-forfeited property. Okay, so it's all to the north. Yes. Okay. Yep. To the south is all state land.

And then to the right to the... Including where the 26 RV campsites, that was part of the original gifted land. Okay. Yep.

Yep. Yep. You're correct.

Okay. The 26 RV, is there a second road? that comes off of County 4 to go into that or does it come off the main road that goes into the park? I couldn't tell from

It comes off the main road that goes into the park. There's going to be only one road that comes in and goes out.

Okay, so there's not an additional exit onto 4 besides the main park one.

Yes, there is old blown-over approaches that had old trails going through from the old resort.

No, I was just concerned about two major accesses, especially with our— RVs close to each other and you're saying no just one.

It's just one access. Okay, that'll make it easier for us to Manage for sure. Okay, you know Yep

Yeah, I think some of the confusion, Ken, is... Well, yeah, see that shows that.

That's from the... But there's other drawings where it shows the 26, and it looks like the road was coming in from below very close to that.

This is from the concept plan that was done when they first started ideating for the park, and so that's some of the confusion in the application is there's different versions, as Corey alluded to with one of the variance applications. There's different versions of things floating around, so that's going to be the fun part of it. Locking in what exactly, which version of what.

So if you saw that engineered sketch of the campground, that's what it's going to be. It's up here. A lot of different stuff going on right there. So that's what... Everything's gonna come in on that main road. There's gonna be a loop that has two, an exit and an entrance on the main deep lake road. Nothing, there'd be no other extra entrances out to county road four. It'll just be the.

Well, now this shows county four. Yup. Is the road from county four, that gap there between the dumpster and the others? That's not the main.

That's the main park road.

Where the cursor is. So the main park road goes right through between the two parks?

Yep, so the dump station will be on the south side. So this map is, north is, yeah, I don't know if you, there you go. The dump station will be on the south side of that main drive, and then the RV campground will go on the north side of that main drive.

Okay, so that lighter area, that is the Park Road then?

Yes. Okay. Yep. Yeah, and we just got our 2026 map update and this map was done before that happens, otherwise.

Now, the person who manages this park manages all the part that's covered by our conditional use permit, but also that, 2026 RV campsites and the thing we're getting at and I think it's raised in the staff report is that That's outside 200 or thousand feet So it doesn't come under the shore land requirements and the thought was proposed that We should recommend maybe to the commissioners that they include that RV park as part of the overall conditional use permit, otherwise it's managed under two different situations. You could change or alter that without coming back to the conditional use permit. Sure. Follow what I'm saying? I know, Ted, what you think about that, but I would think that since a lot of the people who are using that RV park will also be using The part that that is now quote under the conditional use permit. So I think the thought that that entire 17 acres or whatever it is be included in the overall conditional use permit. So yeah, I thought and I guess I that's what I that's Yeah, it's allowable because it's not Shoreland management or it isn't a thousand feet, but it would seem to be

one person is going to manage it all and they're so interactive you'd think want to think that if there are alterations made in that you'd want it to come back through the conditional use permit and so on the only way that can be done is if the applicant voluntarily would agree to place the non-shoreland part of their property under the cup we've had a few properties where that has come up over the years but it never led to an actual conditional use application being submitted, so this would be the first occasion where we're running into a use that overlaps the shoreland boundary. So it would be entirely the county board's call if they wanted to voluntarily put this and other parts of the non-shoreland portions of the park under the terms of the CUP.

Okay, so who? The Park Commission would have to volunteer that as part of the application?

The county board would have to voluntarily agree to that. Okay.

What are your thoughts on that?

This hasn't come up before the board. Okay. This hasn't come up before the board that you've just mentioned. So my initial thoughts is I would want to keep them separate so that we could have the flexibility to do something else if we needed to because it's not covered under the shoreline management ordinance. But I'm one of five commissioners.

If that's what you think of the outcome, it just seems to me that an awful lot of the activity under the CUP is gonna come from that set of people.

Yeah, and I would think we would be managing the park as a whole, but now we're limited what we can do in that first 1,000 feet. And that's where you guys come in, is that first 1,000 feet. And beyond that, of course, the county will still be managing it. And we still have rules, still want to do what's best for the county and for the environment in that area.

So you retain more flexibility instead of coming back through the CUP process.

Say we come back, say we start this process and we finally have to make it smaller or something like that, or we have to tweak something. It's my understanding we necessarily wouldn't have to come back to you guys to get approval. Okay. That's my initial thought. Like I say, this is the first time. I had to find something wrong. Like I say, this is the first time I've heard of this, so thank you for pointing that out.

Yeah, and I'm new to this too, so.

I just figured that the park manager is gonna probably spend more time on what's going here than a lot of the other places.

Yeah, could be.

Is there going to be a park manager?

At some point, I would hope that we could hire a full-time person to be there.

I mean, is there going to be someone on-site 24-7?

No, not 24-7. It'll be more of a call, probably an on-call basis after their shift's complete. But yeah, staffed seven days a week.

How are they going to register for these?

So we're talking about an online computer system that... has a calendar and has uh the different different um locations that you can select and if they're booked or not booked kind of like kind of like what hotels do but there's also we could do it like the state has campground spread all over and they just have you put a slip in a box and then clip it on your camper or stick it on your camper but um i would think we'd be more of a technology-based and probably just do the online check-in, check-in, check-out.

So the federal campground does online?

Yep, yep, yep.

So you just come in and you assign them spot 17? Yeah. And they're smart and they just come in and do that, okay.

Yep, yep. Yeah, and at the visitor center we'll have a little... where people, when someone is on site, they can go in and ask questions or get information. But the campground, that's probably gonna be a couple phases away, so it probably wouldn't be, it all depends on funding from the state grants. So it might be up to five years away before we even work on that upper campground.

And just for the record that the county did go through the mandatory environmental assessment worksheet and it was cleared and that is documented. All of the former structures on the property except for the maintenance shop were removed. Are you still planning to remove the maintenance shop and keep the platform?

Yes, so we decided that the maintenance shop was the roof is pretty well gone. So we just figured that to be cost more cost effective and I see it as more environmentally friendly too is remove that, get it away from the lake and add the maintenance shed onto the restroom shower house kind of down by the lower campsite area. So yeah, we did come get the variance. I asked for the variance last year to reuse that building and we just see that it's too far gone. It costs way more to... put money into that roof than it would just add on to the shower house building. And then the parking lot, that trail that goes into the maintenance shed, we just thought that to pull trailers in and trying to get in there with trailers and backing in, it's not as feasible as it should be. So that's just kind of what we saw out of it. Okay.