we'll go ahead and call tonight's uh
Planning Commission meeting to order and
look for
a um approval of the minutes and agenda
makeing a motion to approve
them do we have any amendments or any
changes I don't got a motion do we have
a second
I'll
second all in favor hi hi
opposed and we will uh go right into our
old
business um do I need to say anything
about the van Dorry zone or yep thank
you Mr chair I just wanted to give you a
quick update on that that schroer
Township had a meeting last Tuesday that
I attended virtually and they're going
to begin their schroer Town Plan update
in January they're going to they've had
a few they did a call out for Township
committee members essentially members of
the community that want to participate
and so they had some interest from
citizens and I expressed willingness and
interest to be a part of that process
too so that I can uh help however way I
may and so we'll begin that meeting in
January and uh I can give you updates as
we go along um but the voran reone
request subsequently withdrew their
rezone application and we told them that
they could reapply for for the rezone
after that Township Plan update has
taken effect and that we would wave the
application fee so essentially hey the
town plan's updated let's see how this
uh request matches up with that Plan
update in the future so that is
completed for now thank
you um second old business item uh Peter
grubish Green bull LLC request to
consider preliminary plant to sub
preliminary plant to subdivide one
parcel into 16 residential lots um
Temperance Trails
development um file number 2024 2p Neva
thank you Mr chair this is being brought
back before you uh this is a revised
request back in August you reviewed a
version of this preliminary plat that
was phased out so originally it was a
phase one phase 2 proposal uh since then
the plan has now been modified to be the
proposed full buildout of the plat
that's one of the biggest differences
than what you may have seen or
remembered from August so before you now
is the preliminary plat to subdivide
into 16 and this would be again the full
build out of it as a reminder the
property is a little over 29 Acres Zone
single family residential where the lot
development is proposed and General
commercial over by the highway uh these
planned unit developments are
conditional use in the zone district and
the conditional use permit was issued
about this time in
2023 and uh this property is within the
nor management
Zone uh on the screen is the revised
preliminary plat map um the property
again is located behind Birch Grove
Community School and is generally uh
used for an outdoor education space at
the play area the preliminary plot has
set aside the recreational space as a
common element between units 104 and 105
North of this project site is F1 Zone
land which is the 20 acre minimum lot
size area east and west of the project
site is the single family residential uh
Zone district and immediately south of
the project site is General commercial
and Land South of Highway 61 is Resort
commercial and
R1 uh I put in the conditions of
approval for the conditional use permit
that was issued again the conditional
use permit was allowing up to 22
residential units the conditions
attached to that were that the drinking
water Supply meets state code
requirements there was a full septic
design plan with other stipulations with
septic requirements the preliminary plot
was to identify areas for storm water
management a large sight storm water
permit would be required prior to
beginning a grade fill activities on
site all state and federal permits would
be secured including storm water permits
with PCA and or Minnesota Pollution
Control agency and the community public
water supply plan approval with
Minnesota Department of Health and
potentially Department of Labor and
Industry and that the road in culdesac
would remain as a double lane travel
Corridor on the screen is the zoning map
for the locality with the proposed
project site just above that red area on
the screen I also included the map just
to remind you of what the original
conditional use permit looks like so the
road shape is in spirit still about the
same configuration with that Dead End
Road we now don't have the culdesac it's
a hammerhead and it's located in a
little bit of a different location with
a different setup of the residential
[Applause]
units let's see for site conditions and
considerations for Wetlands the
application has shifted the road south
to minimize Wetland impacts to comply
with the state Wetland Conservation act
the road development will still require
a wetland replacement plan and that
would be through the purchase of wetland
credits for septic Mitch erson the Cook
County environmental health specialist
has provided a memo indicating that
environmental health will need to work
with a septic design in the spring when
the review of soils is feasible this is
to say that a full septic design has not
yet been reviewed for the site and that
can't really happen until the springtime
when the soils can be
verified for the road the platted road
is shown as 66 ft wide and the plat
shows a 30ft setback from the road
RightWay the plat map shows a hammerhead
turnaround that's 20 ft deep and 110 ft
wide staff have reached out to the Cook
County Sheriff's Department Highway
engineer and tofy Township to see if
this would be an adequate uh size for
emergency services the feedback I
received from those entities is they did
not think it would be a big issue the
tofy township supervisor indicated he
wouldn't think it would be a problem for
the township and Sheriff Elias and also
indicated that he didn't think that this
would be a
problem for storm water the preliminary
plat shows storm water ponds on the east
and west side of the development the
size of the rain event the stormwater
Pond is designed for is unclear the Cook
County Highway engineer has indicated
that these ponds should be designed for
a 10year 24-hour rain event minimum uh
per Minnesota state requirements which
would be approximately 3.55 in
rainfall for the survey
review um you know now would be an
appropriate time to acknowledge that the
Cook County Surveyor Wayne hen she did
recently pass away so he was unable to
do a review of this plat uh when I
reached out to other surveyors uh to Mr
hen's Legacy and credit many expressed
strong enthusiasm to assist us in any
way that they could uh being he was such
an important role in that community so I
did get assistance from St Louis County
to review this plat and um they
indicated to me that the type of plat
that this is is subject to Minnesota
state statute
5:15 um the part of the information I
received so I'm not going to have this
in the staff narrative itself because I
didn't have this information when I
wrote the staff narrative uh so I do
have I made a slide for it there we go
uh you don't have to read that I will
read it to you um so this is the
information from the St Louis County
surveyor's office they completed a
meeting with the St Louis County
Auditor's office regarding this
preliminary plat submitt for the cic 43
in Cook County the biggest concern that
they saw is that the Declaration is
incomplete uh the title on the
Declaration doesn't agree with the title
shown on the map portion of the plat and
the dec uh declaration States cic number
17 whereas the map says cic number 43
the cic also indicates there's 15 uh or
total of 10 units where the plat map is
showing a different number and the legal
description on the property isn't
accurate in the the
Declaration uh that was the biggest
concern that they saw uh they felt that
the Declarations needed a significant
amount of cleaning up so to say before
it submitted for final plat and the
emphasis with these types of
developments and this type of a plat is
that the Declarations document is is
really the meat and potatoes so to say
that ties everything together so it is
really important that that gets accurate
before this project goes to final plat I
think there's a way to condition this
that requ requires improvements of the
Declaration to be reviewed by an
attorney and then the county attorney or
one of our representative attorneys can
also review it before it goes to final
plat to to remedy those
issues um there also was a it's worth
noting there was a little question about
the drainage and utility easements um so
the plat map shows drainage and utility
easements and this is getting a little
bit in the weeds but I do believe we'll
want to further talk about that with the
applicants as to whether or not that's
allowed on a cic plat um and this is not
a subject matter that I typically work
with but the St Louis County surveyor's
office told me that drainage and utility
easements cannot be on cic plats we I
don't again don't think that's
substantial to this but I want that kind
of shown in the record that that needs
to be addressed before the final plat uh
is approved to make sure that that's
conforming to State
statutes for the design standards uh
relative to our Cook County subdivision
ordinance this project does meet the
requirements of the um open space
preservation what I did highlight in my
staff report is that there was areas on
the plat map that indicated was open
space but isn't allowed to be open space
um so that would be the septic treatment
and the storm water
infrastructure even if those were taken
out of that calculation this does still
meet the 50% open space requirements so
just to note that uh detail there for
public noticing I did Reen notice this
plat request because the design had
changed so significantly from the
original public noticing so this began
all the public noticing process again so
this was on the Cook County News Herald
Public Notices on November 29th 57
letters of notification were sent to
adjacent Property Owners as well as
County departments the town of tofy
norshore management board and DNR hyd
hydrologist we received three letters of
support uh from members of the community
which included Rob Deer who was in
support to expand housing on the West
End Dennis risdall personally on behalf
of and on behalf of American and tofy a
letter of support indicating a desire to
see the development restricted to owner
occupancy only and not allow nightly
rental use and Mary omnus provided a
letter of support at housing and tofy
additionally for technical memos as I
mentioned before Mitch erson provided
his review uh C County so and water
conservation District provided a
detailed membo indicating guidance for
storm water practices in the difficult
terrain uh and also that they could help
hopefully help secure grants to
implement climate resilient storm water
infrastructure Holly schroer the Cook
County Recorder indicated that the plat
has not been updated to include the
signature line for the Planning
Commission chairperson the county
attorney and the County Board
chairperson which was mentioned in the
county records August 28th memo
originally and and additionally I
indicated I reached out to Craig corak
the tofy township supervisor and he
indicated the Township's priority was at
the homes be deed restricted to no
short-term rentals and that the Cook
County Sheriff palatalized and indicated
no concerns with the proposed Hammerhead
turnaround for staff recommendations for
consideration the preliminary plat
proposes to add 16 residential units in
tofy a use which is highly desired
throughout the community and Township
this application has significantly
increased its ACC accy since August
middle and is now proposing to proposing
the full plat instead of the original
phase approach the residential density
has a lower density than the original
conditional use permit allowed and
smaller lots and unit sizes than
originally proposed neither of these
items are viewed as problematic to staff
so long as the plat can maintain the 50%
open space preservation the Planning
Commission must decide whether to
recommend approval or denial of his
application at the December 18th meeting
tabling the application is unlikely to
be productive as the proposer has an
agreement with the county H that
requires a permitting decision by the
end of
2024 staff believes that additional
Corrections and Technical information
can be addressed after approval of the
preliminary plot and it encourages the
Planning Commission to consider setting
conditions of approval to address any
and all concerns they may have to be
addressed before final plat if
additional information to be gained
significantly Alters the project an
amendment to the plat to Amendment to
the preliminary plat is an option to
address those issues in in the
future I put together uh some conditions
that I thought could give us some
beginning talking points and I'll try to
summarize through them um and and we can
discuss further from there so number one
maximum density is limited to 16
residential units total with one
dwelling per a lot slun structure
setback shall be 10 ft from interior and
exterior lot lines with exception on
Lots with duplexes connected to the
abing lot and a 30t from the plat Road
right away each lot is permitted one
accessory structure to be used as a
garage Andor storage the maximum
accessory structure area is 900 square
ft or 20 ft in height or other size per
the planning commission's discretion the
cic plat and declarations must be in
accordance with Minnesota statute 515
the open space preservation must be in
accordance with the Cook County
subdivision ordinance and not include
the septic treatment or storm water
infrastructure storm water design should
be updated to meet mpca requirements
all other state storm water regulations
and Cook County storm water ordinance
regulations shall be met the project
proposers encouraged to work with the co
County Soil and Water Conservation
District to explore assistance with
implementing climate resilient storm
water
infrastructure the project conforms to
the state Wetland Conservation act
boundaries uh which shall be monumented
in the form acceptable to the County's
Wetland specialist Andor Planning and
Zoning administrator all residential
lots unit shall conform to the state
Wetland regulations
a licensed septic designer uh
coordinates with C County Environmental
Health to complete the soils
verification and septic design and I
included a lot of details to what would
be expected in that number nine the
homeowners association is established
with the following features and those
are four features outlined in our
subdivision ordinance number 10 the
water may be provided by individual
on-site Wells or by one or more
Community wells in Open
Spaces number 11 the developer and
County shall enter into a developers
agreement acceptable to the county for
all subdivisions prior to the granting a
final approval of the development and
number 12 approval of the preliminary
plat does not constitute an acceptance
of the subdivision but is deemed to be
an authorization to proceed a final plat
and the rest of that language that's all
from our subdivision ordinance this is
just pulling out certain sections of our
subdivision ordinance for uh
clarification
purposes uh I did receive some more
information about stormw Design Elements
so when we get into that discussion we
can talk about some of the thoughts
about maybe setting more clear
conditions about the storm water
infrastructure as well um one of the
things is that the separation distance
is supposed to be 35 ft from a water
supply well to the ordinary high water
level of a storm water retention Pond uh
so we just want to maybe think through
if that's going to be an issue on that
East End again it's it's not your job to
set a condition on every state or local
regulation you know that those are
always in place anyway but it's helpful
at this point to think about those
things and put them as as conditions
where it seems reasonable so that both
the applicant and staff and the Planning
Commission can kind of check those boxes
when this project if this project does
go to final
PLS that's all I have Mr chair thank you
Nea uh at this point I'd like to ask the
applicant if they have want to add
anything to staff's narrative
I honestly you have a treasure in
havinga as your plant I've never worked
with somebody more thorough than her um
but we we definitely appreciate working
with her um overall we understand that
there's a few things that still need to
be addressed but as a whole I feel what
we've got presented to you is pretty
accurate our intents
on um I do
know hasn't been put on there but storm
water
have been 25
year 25 year okay if we ask you for more
question we'll we'll have you come up
and state your name and address but that
thank you um would anyone else from the
public uh like to speak for or against
this
application please come up and state
your name and
address thanks for the opportunity my
name is Bill gaer I live at 68 big Pig
Cedar Trail in Len I'm the District 5 uh
representative to the Cook County
Housing and Redevelopment Authority I'm
currently serving as board chair uh
we've been working with this developer
for a long time and with the town of of
uh toofy who did a really um Good Deed
in terms of providing the land we have
committed our some funding to this
because we really think this is an
important effort to provide some for
sale housing in the West End uh there is
a restriction against short-term rental
because of the uh support we've provided
we think that's important and we're
excited about it and we support uh it
and I can't comment on all the technical
aspects of the review that you need to
do uh but just as a overall purpose of
housing in Cook County this is one of
our developments and we're proud of it
and we're happy that you're considering
it and we'd appreciate your support as
well thank
you anyone
else hi my name's Chris O'Brien I live
at 97 old ski hill road um and I
Al a district four commissioner for the
HRA and currently serving as the vice
chair of the HRA um certainly would Echo
what my colleague commissioner gaer has
said and I'd like to highlight another
point which is that you know we've seen
a lot of success with the HRA in the
last couple of years in terms of getting
traction with multif family particularly
with multif family projects um that's
important but that's not enough to meet
the housing needs of the whole County uh
this tofy project really represents
something quite different and
potentially a model
for addressing the the local the the
specific housing needs in other parts of
the county that are outside the gr
marray gr maray has been the City of
Grand marray projects have been low
hanging lower hanging fruit because of
the available tie into Municipal
Services um this is going one step
further and we see it as a potential
model for other housing developments
that could be developed in other parts
of the county thank you thank
you anyone else wish to speak on this
this
application we're going to close to the
public and and uh discuss as
Commissioners
um one observation I have is um I read
the HOA agreement who who's going to
have jurisdiction on that in the final
format because I um major concerns with
with how it's drafted at the
moment do we
would Peter gubish the developer uh that
is a preliminary draft once we get
through preliminary plat we're going to
have an attorney review everything and
draft it but the main focus is is that
the community that's within this
development will have its
own uh elected officials that will vote
within the uh the agreement of their um
HOA so the people that are a part of the
HOA will be able to vote each household
will have their own vote so not one
person can vote against the other as far
as like being out pushed
out right but the the concerns I have is
just some of the um the things that are
being proposed right now are
um you know right to enter people's
homes right right to for cloes and take
someone's home away from them belonging
to the HOA committee the right to or the
authority to to take a lawyer and assign
them to pursue Collections and so forth
and the person who's being collected
against has no ends up responsible for
the lawyer's fees but has no control
over what the lawyer does and what those
fees AC cruel at it so there's a lot of
things that are just and from that
standpoint it's all preliminary I I
don't disagree to some of that doesn't
need to be adjusted um and that's
definitely something that as the
development they can make final decision
on go ahead sorry uh Jason Hill Cook
County H 425 West Highway 61 sweet be gr
Ray um so the H actually also has final
approval authority of that document we
haven't approved the draft yet this is
the first step is we have to have the
ability for the developer to proceed
with the desired development before we
go to the next step which is prior to
closing we have to get that final draft
document we have our attorney who can
look at it and review it make sure
everything is up and up so to speak
right but I've looked at the draft I
have my own questions about it as well
uh but there wasn't we don't want to
spend our attorney time or our time
doing too much of that until we know we
can proceed I'm making sure it's part of
the record yep
understood okay chair I have a question
for neeva I guess on um staff
recommendation number 12 so this is a
preliminary approval so
we we get another bite at this so to
speak they the developer
has until we do the final approval the
ability to correct all of
the discrepancies or changes that we
deem should be done so this really isn't
the final final we still
have a year they have a year in which to
correct all of these issues and bring us
a set of plans that all agree with each
other and and meet the requirements
right and I think I would need to double
check our subdivision ordinance but I
seem to recall subdivision ordinance
doesn't require a public hearing for the
final plat so it it still comes to you
for review and again I want to double
check that ordinance language and I can
do that pretty easily while we're
discussing some other things and I can
come back to you with a clarification
about
that I can okay
thanks thank
you microphone do you have any comments
I mean I think the sentiment is you know
it's there it's pretty clear that uh we
want this as a community so there's some
te's to cross and eyes to dot um I would
agree we have a very thorough um array
of those things to do um I don't have
any specific things to recommend but I
think there's work to be done and we all
know
that okay want
I I know I guess I just I tend to agree
with or I would say my concerns are
addressed in in staff's recommended cons
conditions so
um I
guess any more discussion otherwise I
would call for a vote I make a motion to
approve it with the
stipulations on the 12 12 conditions
recommended
do we have a
second I'll second that
motion any more
discussion all in favor I I I opposed
hearing
none approved okay so this go to the
County Board of Commissioners at the
first meeting in January for Action
items thank you thank you look for a
motion to adjourn the Planning
Commission I make a motion to adjourn
second second good
faor sorry I didn't have that answer the
top of my head I I can follow up with
you tomorrow sorry I got quick answer
more clear answer about okay okay thank
you oh
yeah yep five how's it going
I saw you
chuckle I get
it I'm glad you're able to come
tonight
oh yeah which what was
the oh really I'd be curious to talk
more about that we're going to go ahead
and call the Board of adjustment meeting
to
order hey Jason can you guys have your
discussion
outside
see look for a approval of the agenda
and minutes from last month's meeting
and this agenda and move to approve the
agenda and the minutes is drafted second
all in favor I
all right uh new business John and Mary
warley request a variance
um reference number 20241
18V Nea yes thank you Mr chair this is a
variance relief from the Cook County
zoning ordinance let just get my screen
CAU up uh section 7.14 to place a 30x40
4ot portion of the principal structure
within the bluff Impact Zone on lot nine
of the legendary luten Sawmill Bay site
plat the applicant's property includes
1.65 Acres with approximately 242 ft of
caribou Lake Shoreline the parcel is
contained entirely within the Lakeshore
residential Zone District zoning lot
size requirements in for New Lots in
that zone District must be 1 acre in
size and 150 ft wide at the shoreline
structure setback and Caribou lake is
classified as a recreational development
Lake for project description John and
Mary warley the applicants are
requesting to place the primary dwelling
on lot nine the variance request to
place a portion of the structure within
the bluff Impact Zone and the structure
would meet the lak shoreline setback and
property line setbacks of the proposed
location for background because this
does get a little bit in the Weeds on
definitions I'm going to go through some
definitions that will be pertinent to
help clarify so the the section of
ordinance that specifically requires a
variance relief section
7.14 uh prohibits or says no structures
shall be allowed in the bluff Impact
Zone
the page 12 of 40 of the variance
packets is where uh the illustration of
what a bluff Impact Zone is located so
to better understand the variance
request um we'll talk through this first
off the bluff definition is four
different criteria of a slope in order
for it to be a bluff and that would be
that part are all the features within
Shoreland area the slope Rises at least
25 ft above the ordinary high water
level of the water body the grade of the
slope from the toe of the bluff to a0
25t or more above the ordinary high
water level averages 30% or greater and
the slope must drain towards the water
body and then it states an area with an
average slope of less than 18% over a
distance of 50 ft or more shall not be
considered part of a bluff
also the bluff Impact Zone then is the
area of what we think of the bluff so
the feature that meets that definition
that I just described of the four
characteristics that is in the bluff
Impact Zone and then it's the top 20 ft
after the top of bluff so that is what
makes a bluff Impact Zone this variance
request is proposing the structure to be
kind of in the middle of the bluff slope
so going Midway up the hill is where
this feature is going to be
traditionally when this board is looking
at Bluff setbacks we're usually at the
top of the bluff so that's the
distinction I'm trying to set clear um
additionally uh the well so looking at
at the screen here what I have on here
is from page 13 of 40 and this is the
staff's determination of how we
interpret the face of this slope on this
lot so the green area is the area that
we determine does not meet all of those
bluff definition criteria because it is
less than 30% in slope and the red area
is what our staff determined is
exceeding the 30% grade and slope so
it's more steep in the red area and less
steep in the green area when our staff
was on site it's a little tricky because
it goes from a more gradual slope to a
more steep slope as you're walking
parallel to the Shoreline and that is
where ultimately when you're on site
doing determinations you kind of have to
draw a line Line in the Sand and looking
at uh the data available to us on on the
computer and on site this is what our
staff uh
determined so we don't have a top of
bluff setback but a portion of the
structure is proposed to be in the green
area and a smaller portion of the
structure is proposed to be in the red
area this was my interpretation I tried
to take the applicants diagram of the
application and overlay it with the
color slope photo we just looked at so
again for reference you'll see the
garage and the main portion of the house
is in the green area so that that's just
a steep slope in that location it it
does not require a variance just we
would want to talk about storm water
drainage at the stock level when issuing
permits and then in the red area it's in
the bluff Impact Zone so we
administratively can't permit issue
permits uh in that area and that's what
the variance is needed
for all right uh here is a photo of the
plat so this is is lot n and I have a a
photo kind of illustrating some of the
vegetation in the specific build site uh
it's a lot of spruce and balom not not
very high quality trees further down
slope there are some really nice Cedars
I think in here that's the view of the
lake so um some forestry Management on
site will probably be needed as a part
of the development we did uh received
some public comments from the Caribou
Lake Property Owners Association
as well as the Soil and Water
Conservation District and the Min uh
Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources and those were in response to
the public notice as we mailed out there
was 33 letters sent out to adjacent
Property Owners County departments Luts
and Township the Cook County Coalition
of Lakes Association and the DNR
hydrologist in those comment letters the
Caribou Lake Property Owners Association
uh part of their quote included if the
co County zoning and planning commission
determines that indeed there would be
excessive excavation increasing the risk
of erosion and runoff if the structure
were moved back on the lot the clpa has
no objection to the variance request
however if the commission determines
that the amount of additional excavation
is negligible and does not pose a risk
to increase erosion and runoff even
though it would be a more expensive
building site clpa opposes the Varian
request the comment letter also provides
concern regarding water runoff and
erosion with recommendations for gutters
and drainage practices in a storm water
plan the Cook County so and Water
Conservation District provided a
technical memo recommending storm water
best management practices be implemented
during construction and after
construction to mitigate the impact of
development on Caribou Lake the memo
also provides several excellent
resources for implementing best
management practices and the Department
of Natural Resources area
hydrologist uh provided their memo
determining that this application was
not controversial or problematic the DNR
uh provided recommendations for
conditions of approval to mitigate the
impact of development which has been
integrated into the proposed conditions
of this
report for uh let's see I kind of
skipped over the history but it's a part
of the legend legendary luten Sawmill
Place plat sites which was created in
1985 uh the pl Bluff Impact Zone
protection standards were implemented in
the state Shoreland rules in 1989 so
this is just to say that this lot was
created prior to Bluff definitions being
created uh the applicants indic that
this is their preferred route to access
the building site from the easement
that's just south of the site which is a
less steep slope to build the
driveway um for septic the application
indicates the new septic site will be
installed to serve the property further
up from the lake up the hill by Saw Mill
Lane for impervious surface coverage the
proposed development will not exceed the
25% impervious surface coverage storm
water management best practices can be
utilized to mitigate the impacts of
runoff the zoning and storm water County
ordinances have strict requirements for
administrative oversight when
development is along steep LTS and
slopes for Wetlands wetlands are not an
issue driving the need for the variance
wetlands are present within the shore SE
Shoreline setback area near the lake
shore not in this building
site I gave my version of some
consideration for proposed facts and
findings I provided some notations of
where the land use guide plan indicates
um a priority for protecting natural
resources as well as uh balancing the
needs general public good with a
corresponding rights and
responsibilities of individuals
additionally I noted that traditionally
requests to encroach within the bluff
Impact Zone are located towards the top
of the bluff feature as I mentioned
earlier the specific area where the
addition is proposed to be placed is
approximately a 20% slope and only
qualifies as being within the bluff
impact area because the slope is steeper
above and below the specific build site
uh for the variance finding the proposed
use of the property is allowed in the
land use District in which the property
is located the finding is the parcel of
Zone Lakeshore residential residential
uses are allowed on this platted lot for
variance finding the property owner is
proposing to use the property in a
reasonable manner not permitted by the
County's zoning ordinance the proposed
staff finding is that the property owner
does propose to use the property in a
reasonable manner given the build site
is relatively flatter and will result in
less excavation than other locations on
the lot
the specific build location is less than
30% slope and is only within the bluff
Impact Zone due to the slopes above and
below the build site the proposed build
site is meeting all other property line
and Shoreline
setbacks for variance finding the
property owner has established that the
Practical difficulty involved is due to
circumstances unique to the property and
not created by the property owner
staff's draft finding is again
traditionally request to encroach within
the bluff Impact Zone are located
towards the top of the bluff feature the
specific area where the addition is
proposed to be placed is approximately
20% slope and only qualifies as being
within the bluff impact area because of
the slope is steeper above and below the
Pacific build site this is a unique
circumstance not often seen on
properties due to the changing slope
phase the application suggests 70% of
the parcels determined to be within the
bluff zone or Shoreline setback
resulting in a narrow Corridor
approximately 50 ft to allow conforming
development near the shoreline setback
staff's analysis delineates the area of
the slope that meets the bluff criteria
does cover a significant portion of the
lot additionally This legal lot of
record was created prior to the bluff
regulations being included in state
Shoreland regulations most of this lot
is either a steep slope or a bluff Cook
County zoning and storm water ordinances
both call out higher requirements for
administrative permitting on these
features enabling staff to be more
involved to ensure the lot is developed
in a way that mitigates negative
impacts for variance finding approving
the variance maintains the essential
character of the locality draft findings
are the area zone Lake Shore residential
consisting of platted Lots the subject
parcel is located at the end of a dead
end platted Road Shoreline is facing the
Back Bay of caribou Lake the lot is
currently forested however trees will
need to be removed for both construction
and Wildfire prevention many of the
existing trees on side area they're dead
dying Balsam and Spruce the structure
being placed meeting the 100 foot
setback and not being placed at the top
of the bluff this suggests that the
essential character of the locality is
unlikely to be disturbed Beyond normal
development especially with functional
storm water bu management practices
being implemented being placed in the
middle of the hillside should make the
structure stand out less than if was
placed at the top of the bluff and the
variance finding the property owner has
established the Practical difficulty
involves more than economic
considerations alone staff did not find
that economic considerations were the
reason for the variant's
request for staff recommendations for
consideration staff do not view this
request as problematic given the
Topography of the lot being largely a
steep Bluff or steep slope or Bluff the
selected build site provides a suitable
location for development however given
the Topography of the site it is highly
important the storm water bus management
practices are taken during construction
and after construction to strategically
manage the water flow down the hill
towards the lake given the condition of
existing Forest cover excuse me staff
recommends the applicants reach out to
Cook County so and Water Conservation
District to inquire about managing the
vegetation along the bluff Impact Zone
management will likely include new
plantings of different tree varieties
and the removal of dead and dying trees
the ordinances restrict vegetation
removal along the bluff Impact Zone
however when in conjunction conjunction
with a plan with Soil and Water
Conservation District this can be a
healthy land use practice if approved
the following conditions may be attached
to this variance request number one the
property shall conform to Minnesota rule
7080 and the County Septic requirements
number two the shoreline shall remain
unmowed with natural vegetation
consisting of Forbes grasses shrubs and
trees and that is at least 25 ft in
withd landward from the lake number
three a gutter or catchment system shall
be included on the structure to divert
precipitation run off away from the
bluff number four vegetation removal on
the lot shall adhere to the County
zoning ordinance Shoreland alteration
standards and number five an erosion and
siment control plan or storm water
management plan is required in
accordance with section
7.13 of the C County stormw ordinance
and I provided that language in the
staff narrative
that's all I have Mr chair thank you Nea
would the applicant like to add anything
if to
nea's uh narrative and if so please come
up to the microphone and and state your
name and address
please uh good evening my name is Mary
Worley thank you for taking the time to
look at our variants um my husband
wasn't able to make it tonight sorry to
inter could you please State your
address for oh sure it's 4832 Harriet
Avenue in Minneapolis thank you um my
husband wasn't able to make it tonight
but thank you for uh considering our
variance we appreciate it I just wanted
to give you some historical background
on our decision to purchase this
property uh we met last February with
Joe Joseph ralth who was a County
employee at that time and discussed with
him the lot and he shared with us the
two areas that were buildable on the lot
um and you can see those in the in the
maps the the green areas that Nea showed
us and uh we made our decision to
purchase lot based on that information
that it was buildable in those two areas
with a view of the lake and that's what
we were looking for we were looking for
a wooded lot that was on Caribou Lake
and um so that that was the decision
that we made was based on that
information that we'd be able to build
in that area and we hope that um that
with your help we'll be able to to do
that to to uh build the house that has
some uh where we can view the lake from
the
house thank you
m would anyone else from the public wish
to speak on this application that leaves
you Tom DWI I'm a contractor and
assisting the warley with their project
at this point uh and the only thing oh
4921 West Highway 61 in Lut is my office
U the only thing I wanted to add and
it's been a hard thing to wrestle around
and Charlie traval went out and helped
us from Northshore land surveying with
getting this and the positioning of that
line from the top of the the bluff and
the 30ft setback that next segment that
rule was is it 18% over 50 ft mhm and
the last
10 ft of it the upper part of that just
shot up and threw the whole thing well
over 20 but in the area that we're
trying to build in we believe we're at
about 16 to 15 15 to 16% in the build
area uh that we're going to disturb and
hope to disturb and uh function with
that's it's so hard to convey that in
that map but I don't know if you've been
on the site but then I'll answer any
other questions that come
up thank you when you okay when you
um walking the site and stuff did you
see rock outcroppings or get a sense of
of uh what's on that soil um there is
some rockout cropping not a lot right
there we expect to be able to dig based
on neighboring properties we built the
two houses to the south of it one of
them was mine uh and we were able to dig
15 to 20 ft before we hit Bedrock that
direction and then to the north uh I
think there's some rockout croppings
that you get to the North side of the
lot and onto the neighboring lot to the
north
okay we just jumped into it but at this
point I'll close it to the public
comment and and discuss on the board and
we likely will have
questions um anything else BR yeah just
uh if approved the following maybe
attached and I've got the no things
removed down by the shoreline mhm um
there's so going to have permission
though to build a set of stairs down to
the Shoreline and put a dock in and do
those normal things that people live on
the lake for yep
okay yeah I'm not seeing anything
concerning I think it's a a difficult
lot that was left by the plat and you're
pinched in there pretty tight and it it
seems like we're dealing more with the
math of figuring the average of the
slope than we are actually problematic
conditions is sense that I get from this
narrative I wasn't able to make a site
visit and be hard at this time of the
year to determine uh anything too
substantive
but uh yeah I I would be comfortable
well the staff acknowledgement it seems
that this is a you know you've got the
slope but this is a spot where kind of
levels out more than anywhere else on
there if I may Mr chair yes just so that
note um you know the the DNR comment
letter I think think is is a part of
that discussion is that I spoke with the
DNR area hydrologist to explain this
request to her because this is a very
unique requests we don't typically see
these types of things and when I
explained to her the the Terrace that
you kind of have in the slope face here
and that this is very closely meeting
that 50ft segment of the 18% which
wouldn't have qualified as a bluff she
she provided then this memo that wasn't
recommending denial which you know we
don't often see from them so um you know
I think that kind of supported the
thought that this is this is one of
those cases of a variance I've been
telling people that when you're on site
and looking at the landscape it makes a
lot more sense than maybe it looks like
on paper so to the credit of uh Mr DWI
and the applicants they're trying to use
the landscape I think in a very logical
Fashion on site
okay that's uh that's how I see it I
think obvious staff and the applicant um
have put a lot of effort into this and I
I don't see any uh concerns um that
aren't addressed in the in the proposed
conditions and I would state that I
would uh generally agree with staff's
considerations for finding
facts yeah I didn't yeah yesterday when
I read through it I came to the same
conclusion I would move to approve the
variance with the findings of fact and
the conditions as written should we go
through the
questions sure I mean I'm comfortable
honestly yeah I think they I read
through them earlier so you can just see
oh okay yeah I'm reading it
representative if we're if you guys are
comfortable with it I I think um
acknowledging them and and that we're
comfortable with what Nea had
stated
Okay so we've got a motion do we have a
second all in favor I I
opposed hearing
none thank you thank
you it it's
approved and looking for a motion to
adjourn move to adjourn
second
by this is our last meeting with
attorney hickin that was pretty easy for
my last that was your last one thank
you I was going to be I was going to run
over and ask that question are you
moving away or you staying here
I'm staying here I'm going to be the new
Chief legal officer