[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