[0:07] we'll go ahead and call tonight's uh

[0:09] Planning Commission meeting to order and

[0:13] look for

[0:15] a um approval of the minutes and agenda

[0:20] makeing a motion to approve

[0:23] them do we have any amendments or any

[0:25] changes I don't got a motion do we have

[0:28] a second

[0:30] I'll

[0:31] second all in favor hi hi

[0:36] opposed and we will uh go right into our

[0:39] old

[0:40] business um do I need to say anything

[0:42] about the van Dorry zone or yep thank

[0:45] you Mr chair I just wanted to give you a

[0:46] quick update on that that schroer

[0:49] Township had a meeting last Tuesday that

[0:51] I attended virtually and they're going

[0:54] to begin their schroer Town Plan update

[0:57] in January they're going to they've had

[0:59] a few they did a call out for Township

[1:02] committee members essentially members of

[1:05] the community that want to participate

[1:06] and so they had some interest from

[1:08] citizens and I expressed willingness and

[1:11] interest to be a part of that process

[1:12] too so that I can uh help however way I

[1:15] may and so we'll begin that meeting in

[1:17] January and uh I can give you updates as

[1:20] we go along um but the voran reone

[1:23] request subsequently withdrew their

[1:25] rezone application and we told them that

[1:28] they could reapply for for the rezone

[1:30] after that Township Plan update has

[1:32] taken effect and that we would wave the

[1:33] application fee so essentially hey the

[1:36] town plan's updated let's see how this

[1:38] uh request matches up with that Plan

[1:39] update in the future so that is

[1:42] completed for now thank

[1:45] you um second old business item uh Peter

[1:50] grubish Green bull LLC request to

[1:53] consider preliminary plant to sub

[1:55] preliminary plant to subdivide one

[1:57] parcel into 16 residential lots um

[2:00] Temperance Trails

[2:02] development um file number 2024 2p Neva

[2:07] thank you Mr chair this is being brought

[2:10] back before you uh this is a revised

[2:12] request back in August you reviewed a

[2:16] version of this preliminary plat that

[2:17] was phased out so originally it was a

[2:19] phase one phase 2 proposal uh since then

[2:23] the plan has now been modified to be the

[2:26] proposed full buildout of the plat

[2:28] that's one of the biggest differences

[2:29] than what you may have seen or

[2:30] remembered from August so before you now

[2:33] is the preliminary plat to subdivide

[2:35] into 16 and this would be again the full

[2:37] build out of it as a reminder the

[2:40] property is a little over 29 Acres Zone

[2:43] single family residential where the lot

[2:45] development is proposed and General

[2:47] commercial over by the highway uh these

[2:49] planned unit developments are

[2:52] conditional use in the zone district and

[2:53] the conditional use permit was issued

[2:55] about this time in

[2:56] 2023 and uh this property is within the

[2:59] nor management

[3:02] Zone uh on the screen is the revised

[3:06] preliminary plat map um the property

[3:09] again is located behind Birch Grove

[3:10] Community School and is generally uh

[3:13] used for an outdoor education space at

[3:15] the play area the preliminary plot has

[3:17] set aside the recreational space as a

[3:20] common element between units 104 and 105

[3:23] North of this project site is F1 Zone

[3:26] land which is the 20 acre minimum lot

[3:28] size area east and west of the project

[3:31] site is the single family residential uh

[3:33] Zone district and immediately south of

[3:35] the project site is General commercial

[3:37] and Land South of Highway 61 is Resort

[3:39] commercial and

[3:43] R1 uh I put in the conditions of

[3:46] approval for the conditional use permit

[3:48] that was issued again the conditional

[3:51] use permit was allowing up to 22

[3:54] residential units the conditions

[3:57] attached to that were that the drinking

[3:59] water Supply meets state code

[4:01] requirements there was a full septic

[4:03] design plan with other stipulations with

[4:05] septic requirements the preliminary plot

[4:08] was to identify areas for storm water

[4:10] management a large sight storm water

[4:12] permit would be required prior to

[4:14] beginning a grade fill activities on

[4:16] site all state and federal permits would

[4:19] be secured including storm water permits

[4:21] with PCA and or Minnesota Pollution

[4:24] Control agency and the community public

[4:25] water supply plan approval with

[4:27] Minnesota Department of Health and

[4:29] potentially Department of Labor and

[4:30] Industry and that the road in culdesac

[4:32] would remain as a double lane travel

[4:35] Corridor on the screen is the zoning map

[4:38] for the locality with the proposed

[4:42] project site just above that red area on

[4:46] the screen I also included the map just

[4:49] to remind you of what the original

[4:50] conditional use permit looks like so the

[4:52] road shape is in spirit still about the

[4:55] same configuration with that Dead End

[4:58] Road we now don't have the culdesac it's

[5:01] a hammerhead and it's located in a

[5:02] little bit of a different location with

[5:04] a different setup of the residential

[5:08] [Applause]

[5:10] units let's see for site conditions and

[5:14] considerations for Wetlands the

[5:16] application has shifted the road south

[5:19] to minimize Wetland impacts to comply

[5:21] with the state Wetland Conservation act

[5:23] the road development will still require

[5:26] a wetland replacement plan and that

[5:29] would be through the purchase of wetland

[5:30] credits for septic Mitch erson the Cook

[5:34] County environmental health specialist

[5:35] has provided a memo indicating that

[5:37] environmental health will need to work

[5:39] with a septic design in the spring when

[5:41] the review of soils is feasible this is

[5:43] to say that a full septic design has not

[5:45] yet been reviewed for the site and that

[5:47] can't really happen until the springtime

[5:49] when the soils can be

[5:51] verified for the road the platted road

[5:54] is shown as 66 ft wide and the plat

[5:56] shows a 30ft setback from the road

[5:58] RightWay the plat map shows a hammerhead

[6:01] turnaround that's 20 ft deep and 110 ft

[6:04] wide staff have reached out to the Cook

[6:06] County Sheriff's Department Highway

[6:08] engineer and tofy Township to see if

[6:09] this would be an adequate uh size for

[6:12] emergency services the feedback I

[6:14] received from those entities is they did

[6:16] not think it would be a big issue the

[6:18] tofy township supervisor indicated he

[6:20] wouldn't think it would be a problem for

[6:22] the township and Sheriff Elias and also

[6:24] indicated that he didn't think that this

[6:25] would be a

[6:28] problem for storm water the preliminary

[6:31] plat shows storm water ponds on the east

[6:33] and west side of the development the

[6:35] size of the rain event the stormwater

[6:37] Pond is designed for is unclear the Cook

[6:40] County Highway engineer has indicated

[6:41] that these ponds should be designed for

[6:43] a 10year 24-hour rain event minimum uh

[6:46] per Minnesota state requirements which

[6:48] would be approximately 3.55 in

[6:51] rainfall for the survey

[6:54] review um you know now would be an

[6:56] appropriate time to acknowledge that the

[6:58] Cook County Surveyor Wayne hen she did

[6:59] recently pass away so he was unable to

[7:02] do a review of this plat uh when I

[7:05] reached out to other surveyors uh to Mr

[7:08] hen's Legacy and credit many expressed

[7:11] strong enthusiasm to assist us in any

[7:13] way that they could uh being he was such

[7:15] an important role in that community so I

[7:18] did get assistance from St Louis County

[7:20] to review this plat and um they

[7:24] indicated to me that the type of plat

[7:27] that this is is subject to Minnesota

[7:28] state statute

[7:30] 5:15 um the part of the information I

[7:34] received so I'm not going to have this

[7:35] in the staff narrative itself because I

[7:37] didn't have this information when I

[7:38] wrote the staff narrative uh so I do

[7:40] have I made a slide for it there we go

[7:44] uh you don't have to read that I will

[7:45] read it to you um so this is the

[7:46] information from the St Louis County

[7:48] surveyor's office they completed a

[7:50] meeting with the St Louis County

[7:51] Auditor's office regarding this

[7:53] preliminary plat submitt for the cic 43

[7:55] in Cook County the biggest concern that

[7:57] they saw is that the Declaration is

[7:59] incomplete uh the title on the

[8:01] Declaration doesn't agree with the title

[8:03] shown on the map portion of the plat and

[8:05] the dec uh declaration States cic number

[8:08] 17 whereas the map says cic number 43

[8:11] the cic also indicates there's 15 uh or

[8:15] total of 10 units where the plat map is

[8:18] showing a different number and the legal

[8:21] description on the property isn't

[8:23] accurate in the the

[8:25] Declaration uh that was the biggest

[8:28] concern that they saw uh they felt that

[8:30] the Declarations needed a significant

[8:32] amount of cleaning up so to say before

[8:34] it submitted for final plat and the

[8:37] emphasis with these types of

[8:39] developments and this type of a plat is

[8:40] that the Declarations document is is

[8:43] really the meat and potatoes so to say

[8:45] that ties everything together so it is

[8:47] really important that that gets accurate

[8:49] before this project goes to final plat I

[8:52] think there's a way to condition this

[8:54] that requ requires improvements of the

[8:57] Declaration to be reviewed by an

[8:59] attorney and then the county attorney or

[9:01] one of our representative attorneys can

[9:03] also review it before it goes to final

[9:04] plat to to remedy those

[9:07] issues um there also was a it's worth

[9:10] noting there was a little question about

[9:14] the drainage and utility easements um so

[9:17] the plat map shows drainage and utility

[9:19] easements and this is getting a little

[9:20] bit in the weeds but I do believe we'll

[9:23] want to further talk about that with the

[9:24] applicants as to whether or not that's

[9:26] allowed on a cic plat um and this is not

[9:29] a subject matter that I typically work

[9:31] with but the St Louis County surveyor's

[9:33] office told me that drainage and utility

[9:35] easements cannot be on cic plats we I

[9:38] don't again don't think that's

[9:40] substantial to this but I want that kind

[9:42] of shown in the record that that needs

[9:43] to be addressed before the final plat uh

[9:45] is approved to make sure that that's

[9:47] conforming to State

[9:49] statutes for the design standards uh

[9:53] relative to our Cook County subdivision

[9:56] ordinance this project does meet the

[9:59] requirements of the um open space

[10:04] preservation what I did highlight in my

[10:06] staff report is that there was areas on

[10:08] the plat map that indicated was open

[10:10] space but isn't allowed to be open space

[10:14] um so that would be the septic treatment

[10:18] and the storm water

[10:20] infrastructure even if those were taken

[10:22] out of that calculation this does still

[10:24] meet the 50% open space requirements so

[10:26] just to note that uh detail there for

[10:31] public noticing I did Reen notice this

[10:34] plat request because the design had

[10:35] changed so significantly from the

[10:37] original public noticing so this began

[10:39] all the public noticing process again so

[10:42] this was on the Cook County News Herald

[10:43] Public Notices on November 29th 57

[10:46] letters of notification were sent to

[10:47] adjacent Property Owners as well as

[10:49] County departments the town of tofy

[10:52] norshore management board and DNR hyd

[10:55] hydrologist we received three letters of

[10:58] support uh from members of the community

[11:00] which included Rob Deer who was in

[11:03] support to expand housing on the West

[11:05] End Dennis risdall personally on behalf

[11:07] of and on behalf of American and tofy a

[11:10] letter of support indicating a desire to

[11:12] see the development restricted to owner

[11:14] occupancy only and not allow nightly

[11:16] rental use and Mary omnus provided a

[11:19] letter of support at housing and tofy

[11:21] additionally for technical memos as I

[11:24] mentioned before Mitch erson provided

[11:26] his review uh C County so and water

[11:28] conservation District provided a

[11:30] detailed membo indicating guidance for

[11:32] storm water practices in the difficult

[11:35] terrain uh and also that they could help

[11:39] hopefully help secure grants to

[11:41] implement climate resilient storm water

[11:44] infrastructure Holly schroer the Cook

[11:46] County Recorder indicated that the plat

[11:48] has not been updated to include the

[11:49] signature line for the Planning

[11:51] Commission chairperson the county

[11:52] attorney and the County Board

[11:53] chairperson which was mentioned in the

[11:55] county records August 28th memo

[11:58] originally and and additionally I

[12:00] indicated I reached out to Craig corak

[12:02] the tofy township supervisor and he

[12:04] indicated the Township's priority was at

[12:06] the homes be deed restricted to no

[12:07] short-term rentals and that the Cook

[12:09] County Sheriff palatalized and indicated

[12:11] no concerns with the proposed Hammerhead

[12:15] turnaround for staff recommendations for

[12:18] consideration the preliminary plat

[12:20] proposes to add 16 residential units in

[12:22] tofy a use which is highly desired

[12:24] throughout the community and Township

[12:26] this application has significantly

[12:28] increased its ACC accy since August

[12:30] middle and is now proposing to proposing

[12:33] the full plat instead of the original

[12:34] phase approach the residential density

[12:36] has a lower density than the original

[12:38] conditional use permit allowed and

[12:40] smaller lots and unit sizes than

[12:42] originally proposed neither of these

[12:44] items are viewed as problematic to staff

[12:46] so long as the plat can maintain the 50%

[12:48] open space preservation the Planning

[12:50] Commission must decide whether to

[12:52] recommend approval or denial of his

[12:54] application at the December 18th meeting

[12:56] tabling the application is unlikely to

[12:58] be productive as the proposer has an

[13:00] agreement with the county H that

[13:01] requires a permitting decision by the

[13:03] end of

[13:04] 2024 staff believes that additional

[13:06] Corrections and Technical information

[13:08] can be addressed after approval of the

[13:09] preliminary plot and it encourages the

[13:11] Planning Commission to consider setting

[13:13] conditions of approval to address any

[13:15] and all concerns they may have to be

[13:17] addressed before final plat if

[13:19] additional information to be gained

[13:22] significantly Alters the project an

[13:24] amendment to the plat to Amendment to

[13:26] the preliminary plat is an option to

[13:27] address those issues in in the

[13:29] future I put together uh some conditions

[13:33] that I thought could give us some

[13:35] beginning talking points and I'll try to

[13:37] summarize through them um and and we can

[13:40] discuss further from there so number one

[13:43] maximum density is limited to 16

[13:44] residential units total with one

[13:46] dwelling per a lot slun structure

[13:49] setback shall be 10 ft from interior and

[13:51] exterior lot lines with exception on

[13:54] Lots with duplexes connected to the

[13:56] abing lot and a 30t from the plat Road

[13:59] right away each lot is permitted one

[14:01] accessory structure to be used as a

[14:03] garage Andor storage the maximum

[14:05] accessory structure area is 900 square

[14:07] ft or 20 ft in height or other size per

[14:10] the planning commission's discretion the

[14:12] cic plat and declarations must be in

[14:15] accordance with Minnesota statute 515

[14:17] the open space preservation must be in

[14:19] accordance with the Cook County

[14:20] subdivision ordinance and not include

[14:22] the septic treatment or storm water

[14:24] infrastructure storm water design should

[14:26] be updated to meet mpca requirements

[14:29] all other state storm water regulations

[14:32] and Cook County storm water ordinance

[14:34] regulations shall be met the project

[14:36] proposers encouraged to work with the co

[14:38] County Soil and Water Conservation

[14:39] District to explore assistance with

[14:40] implementing climate resilient storm

[14:42] water

[14:44] infrastructure the project conforms to

[14:46] the state Wetland Conservation act

[14:48] boundaries uh which shall be monumented

[14:50] in the form acceptable to the County's

[14:52] Wetland specialist Andor Planning and

[14:54] Zoning administrator all residential

[14:56] lots unit shall conform to the state

[14:57] Wetland regulations

[15:00] a licensed septic designer uh

[15:02] coordinates with C County Environmental

[15:04] Health to complete the soils

[15:05] verification and septic design and I

[15:07] included a lot of details to what would

[15:10] be expected in that number nine the

[15:12] homeowners association is established

[15:15] with the following features and those

[15:16] are four features outlined in our

[15:18] subdivision ordinance number 10 the

[15:20] water may be provided by individual

[15:22] on-site Wells or by one or more

[15:24] Community wells in Open

[15:26] Spaces number 11 the developer and

[15:28] County shall enter into a developers

[15:30] agreement acceptable to the county for

[15:32] all subdivisions prior to the granting a

[15:34] final approval of the development and

[15:36] number 12 approval of the preliminary

[15:38] plat does not constitute an acceptance

[15:40] of the subdivision but is deemed to be

[15:41] an authorization to proceed a final plat

[15:44] and the rest of that language that's all

[15:45] from our subdivision ordinance this is

[15:47] just pulling out certain sections of our

[15:49] subdivision ordinance for uh

[15:52] clarification

[15:54] purposes uh I did receive some more

[15:57] information about stormw Design Elements

[16:00] so when we get into that discussion we

[16:01] can talk about some of the thoughts

[16:04] about maybe setting more clear

[16:06] conditions about the storm water

[16:07] infrastructure as well um one of the

[16:10] things is that the separation distance

[16:12] is supposed to be 35 ft from a water

[16:15] supply well to the ordinary high water

[16:18] level of a storm water retention Pond uh

[16:21] so we just want to maybe think through

[16:23] if that's going to be an issue on that

[16:25] East End again it's it's not your job to

[16:28] set a condition on every state or local

[16:30] regulation you know that those are

[16:31] always in place anyway but it's helpful

[16:33] at this point to think about those

[16:35] things and put them as as conditions

[16:37] where it seems reasonable so that both

[16:39] the applicant and staff and the Planning

[16:41] Commission can kind of check those boxes

[16:44] when this project if this project does

[16:45] go to final

[16:47] PLS that's all I have Mr chair thank you

[16:50] Nea uh at this point I'd like to ask the

[16:52] applicant if they have want to add

[16:54] anything to staff's narrative

[16:59] I honestly you have a treasure in

[17:02] havinga as your plant I've never worked

[17:06] with somebody more thorough than her um

[17:08] but we we definitely appreciate working

[17:10] with her um overall we understand that

[17:13] there's a few things that still need to

[17:15] be addressed but as a whole I feel what

[17:18] we've got presented to you is pretty

[17:20] accurate our intents

[17:22] on um I do

[17:24] know hasn't been put on there but storm

[17:28] water

[17:29] have been 25

[17:32] year 25 year okay if we ask you for more

[17:35] question we'll we'll have you come up

[17:38] and state your name and address but that

[17:40] thank you um would anyone else from the

[17:43] public uh like to speak for or against

[17:46] this

[17:47] application please come up and state

[17:49] your name and

[17:54] address thanks for the opportunity my

[17:56] name is Bill gaer I live at 68 big Pig

[17:59] Cedar Trail in Len I'm the District 5 uh

[18:03] representative to the Cook County

[18:05] Housing and Redevelopment Authority I'm

[18:08] currently serving as board chair uh

[18:10] we've been working with this developer

[18:12] for a long time and with the town of of

[18:17] uh toofy who did a really um Good Deed

[18:22] in terms of providing the land we have

[18:26] committed our some funding to this

[18:28] because we really think this is an

[18:30] important effort to provide some for

[18:33] sale housing in the West End uh there is

[18:36] a restriction against short-term rental

[18:40] because of the uh support we've provided

[18:42] we think that's important and we're

[18:45] excited about it and we support uh it

[18:48] and I can't comment on all the technical

[18:51] aspects of the review that you need to

[18:54] do uh but just as a overall purpose of

[18:58] housing in Cook County this is one of

[19:00] our developments and we're proud of it

[19:02] and we're happy that you're considering

[19:05] it and we'd appreciate your support as

[19:08] well thank

[19:13] you anyone

[19:21] else hi my name's Chris O'Brien I live

[19:24] at 97 old ski hill road um and I

[19:29] Al a district four commissioner for the

[19:31] HRA and currently serving as the vice

[19:33] chair of the HRA um certainly would Echo

[19:36] what my colleague commissioner gaer has

[19:39] said and I'd like to highlight another

[19:42] point which is that you know we've seen

[19:44] a lot of success with the HRA in the

[19:47] last couple of years in terms of getting

[19:49] traction with multif family particularly

[19:52] with multif family projects um that's

[19:54] important but that's not enough to meet

[19:56] the housing needs of the whole County uh

[19:59] this tofy project really represents

[20:00] something quite different and

[20:02] potentially a model

[20:04] for addressing the the local the the

[20:06] specific housing needs in other parts of

[20:08] the county that are outside the gr

[20:10] marray gr maray has been the City of

[20:13] Grand marray projects have been low

[20:15] hanging lower hanging fruit because of

[20:17] the available tie into Municipal

[20:20] Services um this is going one step

[20:23] further and we see it as a potential

[20:25] model for other housing developments

[20:27] that could be developed in other parts

[20:28] of the county thank you thank

[20:35] you anyone else wish to speak on this

[20:38] this

[20:40] application we're going to close to the

[20:42] public and and uh discuss as

[20:48] Commissioners

[20:51] um one observation I have is um I read

[20:55] the HOA agreement who who's going to

[20:58] have jurisdiction on that in the final

[21:01] format because I um major concerns with

[21:05] with how it's drafted at the

[21:09] moment do we

[21:21] would Peter gubish the developer uh that

[21:25] is a preliminary draft once we get

[21:28] through preliminary plat we're going to

[21:29] have an attorney review everything and

[21:30] draft it but the main focus is is that

[21:32] the community that's within this

[21:34] development will have its

[21:36] own uh elected officials that will vote

[21:40] within the uh the agreement of their um

[21:45] HOA so the people that are a part of the

[21:47] HOA will be able to vote each household

[21:49] will have their own vote so not one

[21:51] person can vote against the other as far

[21:53] as like being out pushed

[21:56] out right but the the concerns I have is

[21:59] just some of the um the things that are

[22:03] being proposed right now are

[22:06] um you know right to enter people's

[22:11] homes right right to for cloes and take

[22:15] someone's home away from them belonging

[22:18] to the HOA committee the right to or the

[22:21] authority to to take a lawyer and assign

[22:25] them to pursue Collections and so forth

[22:27] and the person who's being collected

[22:29] against has no ends up responsible for

[22:32] the lawyer's fees but has no control

[22:33] over what the lawyer does and what those

[22:35] fees AC cruel at it so there's a lot of

[22:37] things that are just and from that

[22:38] standpoint it's all preliminary I I

[22:40] don't disagree to some of that doesn't

[22:42] need to be adjusted um and that's

[22:45] definitely something that as the

[22:47] development they can make final decision

[22:50] on go ahead sorry uh Jason Hill Cook

[22:54] County H 425 West Highway 61 sweet be gr

[22:58] Ray um so the H actually also has final

[23:03] approval authority of that document we

[23:05] haven't approved the draft yet this is

[23:07] the first step is we have to have the

[23:09] ability for the developer to proceed

[23:11] with the desired development before we

[23:13] go to the next step which is prior to

[23:15] closing we have to get that final draft

[23:18] document we have our attorney who can

[23:20] look at it and review it make sure

[23:21] everything is up and up so to speak

[23:23] right but I've looked at the draft I

[23:24] have my own questions about it as well

[23:26] uh but there wasn't we don't want to

[23:28] spend our attorney time or our time

[23:29] doing too much of that until we know we

[23:31] can proceed I'm making sure it's part of

[23:32] the record yep

[23:35] understood okay chair I have a question

[23:38] for neeva I guess on um staff

[23:41] recommendation number 12 so this is a

[23:44] preliminary approval so

[23:47] we we get another bite at this so to

[23:51] speak they the developer

[23:54] has until we do the final approval the

[23:58] ability to correct all of

[24:00] the discrepancies or changes that we

[24:04] deem should be done so this really isn't

[24:07] the final final we still

[24:09] have a year they have a year in which to

[24:13] correct all of these issues and bring us

[24:15] a set of plans that all agree with each

[24:19] other and and meet the requirements

[24:22] right and I think I would need to double

[24:25] check our subdivision ordinance but I

[24:27] seem to recall subdivision ordinance

[24:29] doesn't require a public hearing for the

[24:31] final plat so it it still comes to you

[24:34] for review and again I want to double

[24:38] check that ordinance language and I can

[24:39] do that pretty easily while we're

[24:41] discussing some other things and I can

[24:42] come back to you with a clarification

[24:43] about

[24:45] that I can okay

[24:49] thanks thank

[24:52] you microphone do you have any comments

[24:59] I mean I think the sentiment is you know

[25:01] it's there it's pretty clear that uh we

[25:03] want this as a community so there's some

[25:06] te's to cross and eyes to dot um I would

[25:10] agree we have a very thorough um array

[25:13] of those things to do um I don't have

[25:17] any specific things to recommend but I

[25:20] think there's work to be done and we all

[25:22] know

[25:25] that okay want

[25:29] I I know I guess I just I tend to agree

[25:33] with or I would say my concerns are

[25:35] addressed in in staff's recommended cons

[25:39] conditions so

[25:42] um I

[25:44] guess any more discussion otherwise I

[25:47] would call for a vote I make a motion to

[25:50] approve it with the

[25:52] stipulations on the 12 12 conditions

[25:56] recommended

[25:58] do we have a

[26:00] second I'll second that

[26:03] motion any more

[26:07] discussion all in favor I I I opposed

[26:11] hearing

[26:12] none approved okay so this go to the

[26:16] County Board of Commissioners at the

[26:18] first meeting in January for Action

[26:20] items thank you thank you look for a

[26:24] motion to adjourn the Planning

[26:25] Commission I make a motion to adjourn

[26:30] second second good

[26:35] faor sorry I didn't have that answer the

[26:37] top of my head I I can follow up with

[26:40] you tomorrow sorry I got quick answer

[26:42] more clear answer about okay okay thank

[26:46] you oh

[26:54] yeah yep five how's it going

[26:59] I saw you

[27:06] chuckle I get

[27:08] it I'm glad you're able to come

[27:15] tonight

[27:18] oh yeah which what was

[27:21] the oh really I'd be curious to talk

[27:24] more about that we're going to go ahead

[27:27] and call the Board of adjustment meeting

[27:29] to

[27:32] order hey Jason can you guys have your

[27:36] discussion

[27:41] outside

[27:44] see look for a approval of the agenda

[27:48] and minutes from last month's meeting

[27:50] and this agenda and move to approve the

[27:52] agenda and the minutes is drafted second

[27:56] all in favor I

[27:59] all right uh new business John and Mary

[28:04] warley request a variance

[28:10] um reference number 20241

[28:13] 18V Nea yes thank you Mr chair this is a

[28:18] variance relief from the Cook County

[28:20] zoning ordinance let just get my screen

[28:23] CAU up uh section 7.14 to place a 30x40

[28:28] 4ot portion of the principal structure

[28:30] within the bluff Impact Zone on lot nine

[28:33] of the legendary luten Sawmill Bay site

[28:37] plat the applicant's property includes

[28:39] 1.65 Acres with approximately 242 ft of

[28:43] caribou Lake Shoreline the parcel is

[28:45] contained entirely within the Lakeshore

[28:46] residential Zone District zoning lot

[28:49] size requirements in for New Lots in

[28:51] that zone District must be 1 acre in

[28:53] size and 150 ft wide at the shoreline

[28:55] structure setback and Caribou lake is

[28:57] classified as a recreational development

[28:59] Lake for project description John and

[29:03] Mary warley the applicants are

[29:04] requesting to place the primary dwelling

[29:06] on lot nine the variance request to

[29:08] place a portion of the structure within

[29:10] the bluff Impact Zone and the structure

[29:12] would meet the lak shoreline setback and

[29:14] property line setbacks of the proposed

[29:16] location for background because this

[29:19] does get a little bit in the Weeds on

[29:21] definitions I'm going to go through some

[29:23] definitions that will be pertinent to

[29:24] help clarify so the the section of

[29:28] ordinance that specifically requires a

[29:30] variance relief section

[29:32] 7.14 uh prohibits or says no structures

[29:35] shall be allowed in the bluff Impact

[29:38] Zone

[29:39] the page 12 of 40 of the variance

[29:42] packets is where uh the illustration of

[29:45] what a bluff Impact Zone is located so

[29:49] to better understand the variance

[29:50] request um we'll talk through this first

[29:54] off the bluff definition is four

[29:56] different criteria of a slope in order

[29:59] for it to be a bluff and that would be

[30:01] that part are all the features within

[30:03] Shoreland area the slope Rises at least

[30:06] 25 ft above the ordinary high water

[30:08] level of the water body the grade of the

[30:10] slope from the toe of the bluff to a0

[30:12] 25t or more above the ordinary high

[30:14] water level averages 30% or greater and

[30:17] the slope must drain towards the water

[30:19] body and then it states an area with an

[30:22] average slope of less than 18% over a

[30:24] distance of 50 ft or more shall not be

[30:26] considered part of a bluff

[30:29] also the bluff Impact Zone then is the

[30:32] area of what we think of the bluff so

[30:34] the feature that meets that definition

[30:36] that I just described of the four

[30:37] characteristics that is in the bluff

[30:39] Impact Zone and then it's the top 20 ft

[30:42] after the top of bluff so that is what

[30:44] makes a bluff Impact Zone this variance

[30:46] request is proposing the structure to be

[30:48] kind of in the middle of the bluff slope

[30:50] so going Midway up the hill is where

[30:52] this feature is going to be

[30:53] traditionally when this board is looking

[30:55] at Bluff setbacks we're usually at the

[30:57] top of the bluff so that's the

[30:59] distinction I'm trying to set clear um

[31:02] additionally uh the well so looking at

[31:07] at the screen here what I have on here

[31:09] is from page 13 of 40 and this is the

[31:13] staff's determination of how we

[31:16] interpret the face of this slope on this

[31:19] lot so the green area is the area that

[31:22] we determine does not meet all of those

[31:24] bluff definition criteria because it is

[31:28] less than 30% in slope and the red area

[31:32] is what our staff determined is

[31:35] exceeding the 30% grade and slope so

[31:38] it's more steep in the red area and less

[31:40] steep in the green area when our staff

[31:43] was on site it's a little tricky because

[31:44] it goes from a more gradual slope to a

[31:47] more steep slope as you're walking

[31:49] parallel to the Shoreline and that is

[31:51] where ultimately when you're on site

[31:53] doing determinations you kind of have to

[31:55] draw a line Line in the Sand and looking

[31:58] at uh the data available to us on on the

[32:00] computer and on site this is what our

[32:02] staff uh

[32:04] determined so we don't have a top of

[32:06] bluff setback but a portion of the

[32:07] structure is proposed to be in the green

[32:09] area and a smaller portion of the

[32:11] structure is proposed to be in the red

[32:13] area this was my interpretation I tried

[32:15] to take the applicants diagram of the

[32:19] application and overlay it with the

[32:22] color slope photo we just looked at so

[32:26] again for reference you'll see the

[32:27] garage and the main portion of the house

[32:29] is in the green area so that that's just

[32:31] a steep slope in that location it it

[32:33] does not require a variance just we

[32:35] would want to talk about storm water

[32:37] drainage at the stock level when issuing

[32:39] permits and then in the red area it's in

[32:41] the bluff Impact Zone so we

[32:42] administratively can't permit issue

[32:45] permits uh in that area and that's what

[32:48] the variance is needed

[32:51] for all right uh here is a photo of the

[32:55] plat so this is is lot n and I have a a

[33:00] photo kind of illustrating some of the

[33:01] vegetation in the specific build site uh

[33:04] it's a lot of spruce and balom not not

[33:08] very high quality trees further down

[33:10] slope there are some really nice Cedars

[33:12] I think in here that's the view of the

[33:14] lake so um some forestry Management on

[33:18] site will probably be needed as a part

[33:19] of the development we did uh received

[33:22] some public comments from the Caribou

[33:25] Lake Property Owners Association

[33:28] as well as the Soil and Water

[33:30] Conservation District and the Min uh

[33:33] Minnesota Department of Natural

[33:35] Resources and those were in response to

[33:37] the public notice as we mailed out there

[33:39] was 33 letters sent out to adjacent

[33:41] Property Owners County departments Luts

[33:43] and Township the Cook County Coalition

[33:44] of Lakes Association and the DNR

[33:47] hydrologist in those comment letters the

[33:50] Caribou Lake Property Owners Association

[33:52] uh part of their quote included if the

[33:54] co County zoning and planning commission

[33:57] determines that indeed there would be

[33:59] excessive excavation increasing the risk

[34:01] of erosion and runoff if the structure

[34:03] were moved back on the lot the clpa has

[34:06] no objection to the variance request

[34:08] however if the commission determines

[34:09] that the amount of additional excavation

[34:11] is negligible and does not pose a risk

[34:13] to increase erosion and runoff even

[34:15] though it would be a more expensive

[34:16] building site clpa opposes the Varian

[34:19] request the comment letter also provides

[34:21] concern regarding water runoff and

[34:23] erosion with recommendations for gutters

[34:25] and drainage practices in a storm water

[34:26] plan the Cook County so and Water

[34:29] Conservation District provided a

[34:30] technical memo recommending storm water

[34:32] best management practices be implemented

[34:34] during construction and after

[34:36] construction to mitigate the impact of

[34:37] development on Caribou Lake the memo

[34:39] also provides several excellent

[34:41] resources for implementing best

[34:42] management practices and the Department

[34:44] of Natural Resources area

[34:46] hydrologist uh provided their memo

[34:49] determining that this application was

[34:51] not controversial or problematic the DNR

[34:54] uh provided recommendations for

[34:56] conditions of approval to mitigate the

[34:58] impact of development which has been

[34:59] integrated into the proposed conditions

[35:01] of this

[35:03] report for uh let's see I kind of

[35:06] skipped over the history but it's a part

[35:07] of the legend legendary luten Sawmill

[35:10] Place plat sites which was created in

[35:12] 1985 uh the pl Bluff Impact Zone

[35:16] protection standards were implemented in

[35:17] the state Shoreland rules in 1989 so

[35:19] this is just to say that this lot was

[35:21] created prior to Bluff definitions being

[35:25] created uh the applicants indic that

[35:28] this is their preferred route to access

[35:30] the building site from the easement

[35:31] that's just south of the site which is a

[35:34] less steep slope to build the

[35:36] driveway um for septic the application

[35:38] indicates the new septic site will be

[35:40] installed to serve the property further

[35:42] up from the lake up the hill by Saw Mill

[35:44] Lane for impervious surface coverage the

[35:47] proposed development will not exceed the

[35:48] 25% impervious surface coverage storm

[35:50] water management best practices can be

[35:53] utilized to mitigate the impacts of

[35:55] runoff the zoning and storm water County

[35:58] ordinances have strict requirements for

[36:00] administrative oversight when

[36:01] development is along steep LTS and

[36:03] slopes for Wetlands wetlands are not an

[36:06] issue driving the need for the variance

[36:07] wetlands are present within the shore SE

[36:09] Shoreline setback area near the lake

[36:11] shore not in this building

[36:14] site I gave my version of some

[36:18] consideration for proposed facts and

[36:21] findings I provided some notations of

[36:23] where the land use guide plan indicates

[36:26] um a priority for protecting natural

[36:29] resources as well as uh balancing the

[36:33] needs general public good with a

[36:35] corresponding rights and

[36:35] responsibilities of individuals

[36:38] additionally I noted that traditionally

[36:39] requests to encroach within the bluff

[36:41] Impact Zone are located towards the top

[36:43] of the bluff feature as I mentioned

[36:44] earlier the specific area where the

[36:47] addition is proposed to be placed is

[36:48] approximately a 20% slope and only

[36:50] qualifies as being within the bluff

[36:52] impact area because the slope is steeper

[36:54] above and below the specific build site

[36:58] uh for the variance finding the proposed

[36:59] use of the property is allowed in the

[37:01] land use District in which the property

[37:03] is located the finding is the parcel of

[37:05] Zone Lakeshore residential residential

[37:07] uses are allowed on this platted lot for

[37:10] variance finding the property owner is

[37:12] proposing to use the property in a

[37:14] reasonable manner not permitted by the

[37:16] County's zoning ordinance the proposed

[37:18] staff finding is that the property owner

[37:20] does propose to use the property in a

[37:21] reasonable manner given the build site

[37:23] is relatively flatter and will result in

[37:25] less excavation than other locations on

[37:27] the lot

[37:28] the specific build location is less than

[37:29] 30% slope and is only within the bluff

[37:32] Impact Zone due to the slopes above and

[37:33] below the build site the proposed build

[37:36] site is meeting all other property line

[37:37] and Shoreline

[37:38] setbacks for variance finding the

[37:41] property owner has established that the

[37:42] Practical difficulty involved is due to

[37:44] circumstances unique to the property and

[37:46] not created by the property owner

[37:48] staff's draft finding is again

[37:49] traditionally request to encroach within

[37:51] the bluff Impact Zone are located

[37:52] towards the top of the bluff feature the

[37:54] specific area where the addition is

[37:56] proposed to be placed is approximately

[37:57] 20% slope and only qualifies as being

[38:00] within the bluff impact area because of

[38:01] the slope is steeper above and below the

[38:03] Pacific build site this is a unique

[38:05] circumstance not often seen on

[38:07] properties due to the changing slope

[38:09] phase the application suggests 70% of

[38:12] the parcels determined to be within the

[38:14] bluff zone or Shoreline setback

[38:16] resulting in a narrow Corridor

[38:18] approximately 50 ft to allow conforming

[38:20] development near the shoreline setback

[38:23] staff's analysis delineates the area of

[38:25] the slope that meets the bluff criteria

[38:26] does cover a significant portion of the

[38:28] lot additionally This legal lot of

[38:30] record was created prior to the bluff

[38:31] regulations being included in state

[38:33] Shoreland regulations most of this lot

[38:35] is either a steep slope or a bluff Cook

[38:38] County zoning and storm water ordinances

[38:40] both call out higher requirements for

[38:42] administrative permitting on these

[38:44] features enabling staff to be more

[38:46] involved to ensure the lot is developed

[38:47] in a way that mitigates negative

[38:50] impacts for variance finding approving

[38:52] the variance maintains the essential

[38:54] character of the locality draft findings

[38:56] are the area zone Lake Shore residential

[38:58] consisting of platted Lots the subject

[39:00] parcel is located at the end of a dead

[39:01] end platted Road Shoreline is facing the

[39:04] Back Bay of caribou Lake the lot is

[39:07] currently forested however trees will

[39:08] need to be removed for both construction

[39:10] and Wildfire prevention many of the

[39:12] existing trees on side area they're dead

[39:14] dying Balsam and Spruce the structure

[39:17] being placed meeting the 100 foot

[39:18] setback and not being placed at the top

[39:20] of the bluff this suggests that the

[39:21] essential character of the locality is

[39:23] unlikely to be disturbed Beyond normal

[39:25] development especially with functional

[39:27] storm water bu management practices

[39:29] being implemented being placed in the

[39:30] middle of the hillside should make the

[39:32] structure stand out less than if was

[39:33] placed at the top of the bluff and the

[39:36] variance finding the property owner has

[39:37] established the Practical difficulty

[39:39] involves more than economic

[39:40] considerations alone staff did not find

[39:42] that economic considerations were the

[39:44] reason for the variant's

[39:46] request for staff recommendations for

[39:49] consideration staff do not view this

[39:51] request as problematic given the

[39:52] Topography of the lot being largely a

[39:54] steep Bluff or steep slope or Bluff the

[39:57] selected build site provides a suitable

[39:59] location for development however given

[40:01] the Topography of the site it is highly

[40:03] important the storm water bus management

[40:04] practices are taken during construction

[40:06] and after construction to strategically

[40:08] manage the water flow down the hill

[40:09] towards the lake given the condition of

[40:13] existing Forest cover excuse me staff

[40:16] recommends the applicants reach out to

[40:18] Cook County so and Water Conservation

[40:19] District to inquire about managing the

[40:21] vegetation along the bluff Impact Zone

[40:23] management will likely include new

[40:25] plantings of different tree varieties

[40:26] and the removal of dead and dying trees

[40:29] the ordinances restrict vegetation

[40:30] removal along the bluff Impact Zone

[40:32] however when in conjunction conjunction

[40:34] with a plan with Soil and Water

[40:36] Conservation District this can be a

[40:37] healthy land use practice if approved

[40:40] the following conditions may be attached

[40:42] to this variance request number one the

[40:44] property shall conform to Minnesota rule

[40:45] 7080 and the County Septic requirements

[40:48] number two the shoreline shall remain

[40:49] unmowed with natural vegetation

[40:51] consisting of Forbes grasses shrubs and

[40:54] trees and that is at least 25 ft in

[40:57] withd landward from the lake number

[40:59] three a gutter or catchment system shall

[41:01] be included on the structure to divert

[41:03] precipitation run off away from the

[41:05] bluff number four vegetation removal on

[41:07] the lot shall adhere to the County

[41:09] zoning ordinance Shoreland alteration

[41:11] standards and number five an erosion and

[41:13] siment control plan or storm water

[41:16] management plan is required in

[41:17] accordance with section

[41:19] 7.13 of the C County stormw ordinance

[41:22] and I provided that language in the

[41:24] staff narrative

[41:28] that's all I have Mr chair thank you Nea

[41:31] would the applicant like to add anything

[41:33] if to

[41:35] nea's uh narrative and if so please come

[41:39] up to the microphone and and state your

[41:41] name and address

[41:51] please uh good evening my name is Mary

[41:54] Worley thank you for taking the time to

[41:55] look at our variants um my husband

[41:58] wasn't able to make it tonight sorry to

[41:59] inter could you please State your

[42:01] address for oh sure it's 4832 Harriet

[42:04] Avenue in Minneapolis thank you um my

[42:07] husband wasn't able to make it tonight

[42:09] but thank you for uh considering our

[42:10] variance we appreciate it I just wanted

[42:13] to give you some historical background

[42:15] on our decision to purchase this

[42:17] property uh we met last February with

[42:20] Joe Joseph ralth who was a County

[42:22] employee at that time and discussed with

[42:25] him the lot and he shared with us the

[42:27] two areas that were buildable on the lot

[42:30] um and you can see those in the in the

[42:32] maps the the green areas that Nea showed

[42:35] us and uh we made our decision to

[42:38] purchase lot based on that information

[42:40] that it was buildable in those two areas

[42:43] with a view of the lake and that's what

[42:45] we were looking for we were looking for

[42:47] a wooded lot that was on Caribou Lake

[42:51] and um so that that was the decision

[42:54] that we made was based on that

[42:56] information that we'd be able to build

[42:57] in that area and we hope that um that

[43:01] with your help we'll be able to to do

[43:03] that to to uh build the house that has

[43:06] some uh where we can view the lake from

[43:10] the

[43:11] house thank you

[43:13] m would anyone else from the public wish

[43:16] to speak on this application that leaves

[43:20] you Tom DWI I'm a contractor and

[43:23] assisting the warley with their project

[43:25] at this point uh and the only thing oh

[43:28] 4921 West Highway 61 in Lut is my office

[43:32] U the only thing I wanted to add and

[43:33] it's been a hard thing to wrestle around

[43:36] and Charlie traval went out and helped

[43:38] us from Northshore land surveying with

[43:41] getting this and the positioning of that

[43:44] line from the top of the the bluff and

[43:47] the 30ft setback that next segment that

[43:50] rule was is it 18% over 50 ft mhm and

[43:56] the last

[43:58] 10 ft of it the upper part of that just

[44:00] shot up and threw the whole thing well

[44:02] over 20 but in the area that we're

[44:04] trying to build in we believe we're at

[44:05] about 16 to 15 15 to 16% in the build

[44:09] area uh that we're going to disturb and

[44:12] hope to disturb and uh function with

[44:15] that's it's so hard to convey that in

[44:17] that map but I don't know if you've been

[44:18] on the site but then I'll answer any

[44:20] other questions that come

[44:22] up thank you when you okay when you

[44:27] um walking the site and stuff did you

[44:29] see rock outcroppings or get a sense of

[44:31] of uh what's on that soil um there is

[44:36] some rockout cropping not a lot right

[44:38] there we expect to be able to dig based

[44:41] on neighboring properties we built the

[44:45] two houses to the south of it one of

[44:47] them was mine uh and we were able to dig

[44:50] 15 to 20 ft before we hit Bedrock that

[44:52] direction and then to the north uh I

[44:56] think there's some rockout croppings

[44:57] that you get to the North side of the

[44:59] lot and onto the neighboring lot to the

[45:02] north

[45:05] okay we just jumped into it but at this

[45:07] point I'll close it to the public

[45:08] comment and and discuss on the board and

[45:11] we likely will have

[45:14] questions um anything else BR yeah just

[45:18] uh if approved the following maybe

[45:21] attached and I've got the no things

[45:23] removed down by the shoreline mhm um

[45:26] there's so going to have permission

[45:27] though to build a set of stairs down to

[45:29] the Shoreline and put a dock in and do

[45:31] those normal things that people live on

[45:33] the lake for yep

[45:37] okay yeah I'm not seeing anything

[45:40] concerning I think it's a a difficult

[45:43] lot that was left by the plat and you're

[45:46] pinched in there pretty tight and it it

[45:48] seems like we're dealing more with the

[45:51] math of figuring the average of the

[45:54] slope than we are actually problematic

[45:56] conditions is sense that I get from this

[45:58] narrative I wasn't able to make a site

[46:00] visit and be hard at this time of the

[46:02] year to determine uh anything too

[46:05] substantive

[46:07] but uh yeah I I would be comfortable

[46:10] well the staff acknowledgement it seems

[46:12] that this is a you know you've got the

[46:14] slope but this is a spot where kind of

[46:16] levels out more than anywhere else on

[46:20] there if I may Mr chair yes just so that

[46:23] note um you know the the DNR comment

[46:26] letter I think think is is a part of

[46:28] that discussion is that I spoke with the

[46:30] DNR area hydrologist to explain this

[46:33] request to her because this is a very

[46:35] unique requests we don't typically see

[46:37] these types of things and when I

[46:38] explained to her the the Terrace that

[46:41] you kind of have in the slope face here

[46:44] and that this is very closely meeting

[46:46] that 50ft segment of the 18% which

[46:49] wouldn't have qualified as a bluff she

[46:52] she provided then this memo that wasn't

[46:55] recommending denial which you know we

[46:57] don't often see from them so um you know

[47:02] I think that kind of supported the

[47:03] thought that this is this is one of

[47:05] those cases of a variance I've been

[47:06] telling people that when you're on site

[47:08] and looking at the landscape it makes a

[47:10] lot more sense than maybe it looks like

[47:11] on paper so to the credit of uh Mr DWI

[47:15] and the applicants they're trying to use

[47:16] the landscape I think in a very logical

[47:18] Fashion on site

[47:20] okay that's uh that's how I see it I

[47:23] think obvious staff and the applicant um

[47:27] have put a lot of effort into this and I

[47:28] I don't see any uh concerns um that

[47:31] aren't addressed in the in the proposed

[47:35] conditions and I would state that I

[47:37] would uh generally agree with staff's

[47:41] considerations for finding

[47:45] facts yeah I didn't yeah yesterday when

[47:48] I read through it I came to the same

[47:51] conclusion I would move to approve the

[47:54] variance with the findings of fact and

[47:56] the conditions as written should we go

[47:58] through the

[48:00] questions sure I mean I'm comfortable

[48:02] honestly yeah I think they I read

[48:05] through them earlier so you can just see

[48:06] oh okay yeah I'm reading it

[48:09] representative if we're if you guys are

[48:11] comfortable with it I I think um

[48:13] acknowledging them and and that we're

[48:15] comfortable with what Nea had

[48:17] stated

[48:19] Okay so we've got a motion do we have a

[48:21] second all in favor I I

[48:27] opposed hearing

[48:31] none thank you thank

[48:33] you it it's

[48:36] approved and looking for a motion to

[48:39] adjourn move to adjourn

[48:42] second

[48:44] by this is our last meeting with

[48:46] attorney hickin that was pretty easy for

[48:48] my last that was your last one thank

[48:51] you I was going to be I was going to run

[48:54] over and ask that question are you

[48:55] moving away or you staying here

[48:57] I'm staying here I'm going to be the new

[48:58] Chief legal officer

Planning Commission - 18 Dec 2024

Transcript