Hey, go ahead, Charlie. Um, we will go ahead and start our uh September 10th, 2025 board of adjustment meeting. We'll call that to order and start with our agenda and minutes from last month.
Do we move to approve the minutes as provided? I'll second. All in favor? I. All right. Uh Keith and Pam Alteringer uh 202514V
Nemo. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a variance request from the Cook County Zoning Ordinance section 4.08C to place an accessory structure at a reduced road setback 38 ft from center line or 4 1/2 ft from the right of way where a minimum of 50 ft from center line is required or
35 ft from right ofway is required, whichever is greater. located at 49 Wolfpoint Trail. The applicant's property, ah, there we go. Here's my slides. The applicant's property includes 2.61 acres with approximately 367 ft of Tucker Lake shoreline. The
parcels contained primarily within the lakeshore residential zone district. Zoning lot size requirements for newly created lots along the natural environment lake must be 2 acres in size and 200 ft wide. And Tucker Lake is classified as a natural environment lake. For general property project
description, the applicants Keith and Pam Alteringer are requesting relief from the road setback requirements to allow a garage to be placed on their property at 49 Wolfpoint Trail. The garage is proposed to be a 30x30 garage with two foot eaves measuring approximately 21 ft tall at the peak.
For ordinance citation, there's two ordinance clarifications applicable to ordinance citations. I'd like to take a moment to clarify for Lakeshore residential. The Cook County zoning ordinance outlines road setback requirements per each zone district. Staff have identified that the lakeshore residential zone district extends
further from the lake than is displayed on the zoning map due to the presence of wetlands along the lake shore. The Cook County zoning ordinance section 4.03 defines the lakeshore residential zone district as follows. In the Lakeshore Residential Zone District, the zone district boundary shall extend 300 ft
back from the shoreline of each lake, river, or stream designated in appendix I of attached herein and made a part thereof. The shoreline of Tucker Lake is technically the ordinary high water level, which is defined as follows.
The ordinary high water level a reference to the boundary of public waters and wetlands which is determined as the margin where aquatic vegetation changes to terrestrial vegetation as caused by the highest water level which has been maintained for a sufficient length of time to leave evidence on the landscape. The level of
water at this margin is the ordinary high water elevation. Other terms that have equal measure are shoreline. Essentially, the wetland bog along the lake is aquatic vegetation and therefore is still below the ordinary high water level. In these types of landscapes, staff begin measuring the structure
setback from Tucker Lake where the wetland boundary transitions to upland. Using the aerial photo in figure 1, the tree line can be used as a good indicator to begin the measurement to determine the 300t lakeshore residential zone district. staff did confer confer with the Minnesota DNR area hydraologist
on this interpretation with figure one and they agreed as follows. Based on the guidelines for OHWL determinations, I would agree that the blue line appears to be an accurate OWL determination based on desktop review. Primary features of OHWL determination water basins and wetlands are tree evidence,
waterformed evidence and other vegetative evidence. The tree evidence is very apparent on satellite imagery. So what this picture is trying to show is that the wetlands along the lake are still technically lake and we do begin the lake setback where the wetlands meet
the land and staff just drew a blue line trying to roughly approximate where that boundary could be. Uh and then kind of figuring out what the length between that wetland upland boundary is inland is still within 300 ft. All of this is to say that I believe the whole property
where this garage proposed location is is zoned Lakeshore residential. So that's the setback that we'll be reviewing this by is the structure setbacks from roads in the Lakeshore residential zone district. So that was a rabbit hole to try to um clarify there.
So I appreciate you following along with me. Next up for the road setback. This variance requesting relief from structure setback requirements from Wolfpoint Trail. As noted in one of the written comment letters, staff did identify the incorrect alternate setback in the public notices. We referred to
the centerline setback and instead we should have applied the right-of-way setback which is more restrictive in this specific location. Staff would apply the right-of-way setback where the platted line begins because the road easement area is technically what would be the right of way which is on the
other side of the line. So, as you can see in this drawing, the 35 ft from the property line is more restrictive than the 50 ft from the center line. So, it's I believe 4 and 1/2 ft from right-of-way should be how we're perceiving how much variance relief is being requested here.
These setbacks are still from the same section of the zoning ordinance, but the board of adjustment should consider the right-of-way setback as the applicable one for the purpose of reviewing the variance. The variance application does clarify that the setback relief for the garage is 4 and 1/2 ft from the property line or right of way where the ordinance
requires a setback of 35 ft from right of way. In your packets on page 10 of the packet are a couple of photos. Figure three, um, which is the one in the lower right hand here, is looking down Wolfpoint Trail, um, at a property across the
road, which has a garage visible from the road. And then in the figure in the left hand side on your screen, I tried to just roughly demonstrate where that garage is proposed to be placed as you come around Wolf Point Trail from the road with a driveway entrance there.
Please note that is not to scale. All right, for backgrounds, the property is within the Wolfpoint plat. The preliminary plat was approved in July of 1991. Developments receiving preliminary plat approval before January 1st, 1992,
but after July 1 of 1986, so during that time period, were exempted from most aspects of the wetland conservation act to the extent that their impact was demonstrated on the plat. As such, these lots were created without considering the limitations created by wetlands and slopes for conforming development
options. The plat file does not reference much detail regarding the topography, and there was no detail regarding the buildable area per lot created. The Altterers have owned this property since 1997, and it is their primary residence. The parcel has a primary dwelling, a septic tank, and
drain field, and a couple of sheds. There's currently no garage on the property. The property is located on the inside bend of the private platted Wolfpoint Trail. The property owners live on the property year round and are homesteaded here. So on the plat map there, this property is in the red
circle number one on that inside bend on the east side of the lake. For site conditions and considerations for septic, the property is served by a septic system. The septic tank is located south of the house on the trench
and a trench drain field is located on the east side of the house between the house and the road. There is a photo in your packet that's from the septic permit. There has not been a compliance inspection for the septic system in recent years. So, a new inspection and certificate of compliance will be required before the issuance of a land
use permit if the variance is approved. For impervious surface coverage, the proposed addition does meet the impervious surface requirements for wetlands. Uh the map that you have on the screen right now is the wetland the national wetland inventory layer
which is a reference data set that often indicates where wetlands may be. We don't use that as a regulatory tool. It's just a front reference data set. Um but wetlands are a considerable presence in the lower lower topographic areas of this parcel.
for slope. Uh the parcel does contain steep slopes of 25% which are an important consideration when evaluating practical difficulties related to the variance request. The portion of the parcel not constrained by wetlands or steep slopes is primarily located near the road along
the inside bend. There may be a small flat area at the base of the 25% slope before the upland transitions to wetland. However, this location lies within the 150 ft structure setback from Tucker Lake. As a reminder, because Tucker Lake is a natural environment lake, the structure setback is greater
of 150 ft from the shoreline. Steep slopes are defined in the Cook County Zoing ordinance as follows. Lands having an average slope of 12% or more as measured over horizontal distance of 50 ft or more that are not bluffs. The Cook County Shorland section of the zoning ordinance identifies shoreland
alterations restrictions which do identify steep slopes having additional restrictions. So essentially it's definitely not preferred to do gradefill activities on steep slopes especially if you can avoid it where possible. Um there we have that that's essentially
showing where that 25% 50-ft segment was found um further away from the road as a potential alternative location. This is a picture from the bottom of the hill looking up towards the where the garage would be. You can see the house was built on a hillside as some of the
public comment letters do indicate. Um and this is as you enter the driveway. The garage is proposed to be on the left side where that clearing is and the house is over on the right. And if you would look directly to the right here as you enter the property, that's where the drain field is. Drain field.
And again, at the bottom of that hill looking up, the septic tank is located downhill of the house and the garage would be looking straight up from that. For shoreline, this parcel is located in the east end of a bay on Tucker Lake. Tucker Lake is a natural environment
lake with a structure setback of 150 ft. So it is particularly important that adequate vegetative screening exists. The Minnesota DNR classifies lakes and rivers. In this case, natural environment lakes are described as follows. Generally small, often shallow lakes with limited capacities for
assimilating the impacts of development and recreational use. They often have adjacent lands with substantial constraints for development, such as a high water table, exposed bedrock, or unsuitable soils. These lakes, particularly in rural areas, usually do not have much existing development or recreational use. This parcel is heavily
forested and a good amount of tree cover provides vegetative screening from the lake and dock. There is a viewing corridor from the dwelling to the lake. However, it does not seem as though the cabin will be easily visible from the Bay of Tucker Lake. I should have said garage. The cabin is visible, but I
intend to say garage location. My apologies. for a public noticing. The application was legally noticed in the Cook County News Herald on August 29th, 2025. 10 letters of notification were sent to adjacent property owners as well as the county departments and the DNR hydraologist. The public notice area is
on the screen there. To that public notice, we received nine written comments from property owners. Wayne and Cynthia Doseier expressed concern related to the variance due to the size of the garage and the distance from the road. They identified the visibility of the garage from the road and noted that
the placement is along the inside bend. Jeff Ayes 52 Wolfpoint Trail was opposed to the request, cited concerns about safety hazards from placing the garage too close to the road on a curve, negative impacts on the views of Tucker Lake, and failure to follow the Wolfpoint Association procedures. They
argued that the applicants could build a garage elsewhere on their lot without a variance, and that economic considerations alone do not meet the legal standard for practical difficulties. The comments expressed that the application should have included more technical information. Paul Groin at 30 Wolfpoint Trail
supported the request with a reduced road setback for a garage. Peter and Amy James at 128 Wolfpoint Trail supported the request, identifying that living yearround in this location requires more storage and space than seasonal cabins or vacation rental homes. agree that the applicant has the slope for the
property, does not provide viable options, and explains that they drive past the property regularly and would prefer to see a garage than a yard of equipment, trailers, and sheds. Tyson Smith on behalf of Carl Johansson identifies that the incorrect setback was being applied in the variance notice
and road setback should apply to the 35- ft road rightway setback. states that the large garage does not fit the character of other properties in the area and typically vegetation within the setback area provides visual screening. Expresses the variance is driven by financial concerns and the applicants
haven't identified non-economic considerations for practical difficulties. States that buildable locations exist that are not flat such as a house and that Cook County contractors are prepared to build sites on hillsides. Also identifies that HOA process with the architectural
committee. Bob and Anne Carrick at 48 Wolfpoint Trail support the variance request explains that they are im neighbors immediately across the road from the subject property. Bob and Ruth Shushart at 28 Bruce Black Spruce Trail. They're okay with building a garage but feel the structure should be smaller to
fit into the setback regulations. Express concern that if the structure is moved away from the road, it would be more easily visible to the lake. Identify the Wolfpoint Architectural Committee and board will also review this process for the request. Bill and Sandy Stru understand the need for a garage. Ask if the garage will hinder
the view of the road along the curb and if it will impact snow removal. Matt and Jamie Stru concern with a reduced setback from the road if it will affect road usage such as providing enough clearance for larger trucks such as logging trucks near the inside bend of the road. concerned with potential
impacts to snow removal and identify the HOA processes. First off, consideration for facts and findings. As you know, we have to review variances based off of the criteria outlined in the zoning ordinance. With this the first question, the variance is
consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive land use guide plan and in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Cook County zoning ordinance and other Cook County official controls. We identified that the zoning ordinance requires a setback of 35 ft from the right of way in the Lakeshore residential zone district and the
applicant is proposing to place structure 4 and 1/2 ft from the right of way. Can I ask a quick question? Is that a 4.5T encroachment in the rightway? Nope. That's 4 and 1/2 ft from the right of way. Okay.
So, it's 25.5 ft into the setback from the right of way. Okay. Yep. Thank you for giving me a break of breathing. That was that was nice. I'll take questions along. Um the parcel is within and then the road has a 50-foot
road easement as a part of the platted road. The parcel is within the Wolfpoint plat, a plat which included 16 lots and two outlots. The plat creation and approval coincided with the roll out of the state wetland conservation act. So the platted parcels were created to with exemption to the wetland regulations.
And then I referred to a few different uh land use goals that we have outlined in the Cook County land use guide plan. For the second variance question, the proposed use of the property is allowed in the land use district in which the property is located. The platted parcel is zoned lake shore residential and has water frontage to Tucker Lake, a natural
environment lake. The lot is 2.61 acres with approximately 367 ft of Tucker Lake shoreline. Residential garages are permitted in the zone district. Third question. The property owner is proposing the use of the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Cook County zoning ordinance. The
property owner has requested a 30 by30 garage totaling less than 1,000 square ft, which is a permitted use within the LSR zone district. The Wolfpoint plat includes a 50ft dedicated road easement. The proposed garage would be located 4 and 1/2 ft from the platted easement or rightway representing an encroachment of
30.5 into the standard rightway. Right? Because it's 35 ft from right ofway. Okay. Wolfpoint Road is a dead-end road primarily used by the property owners within the plat. The narrow road corridor and road design naturally limit vehicle speeds. Additionally, the proposed building site is located on an
inside bend of the road, which further reduces potential traffic impacts and enhances safety. Given these conditions, the proposed garage placement is reasonable as it minimizes impacts on public safety and road use while allowing the property owners to exercise a permitted use of a property. For the next question, the property owner has
established that a practical difficulty involved is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the property owner. The parcel has limited areas for suitable conforming development due to multiple environmental and regulatory constraints. For the lake setback, the property is adjacent to a DNR designated
natural environment lake requiring a 150 foot structure setback from the OWL. The national wetland inventory data indicates significant wetlands present in the lower topographic areas of the parcel. The parcel is situated on the inside bend of a platted dead-end road
which carries a 35- ft rightway setback and significant steep slopes exist within the shoreland where development is typically restricted to minimize erosion, nutrient runoff, preserve shoreline aesthetics, maintain scenic views, prevent bank slumping, and protect fish and wildlife habitat habitat consistent with the Cook County
zoning ordinance shoreland alteration regulations. Due to these overlapping constraints, the parcel has very limited footprint available for development without encroaching into regulatory areas creating a practical difficulty for placing structures in compliance with the ordinance. Approving the
variance maintain the essential character locality. The property is within a residential plot. The additional the addition of a residential garage fits the residential use of the area and provides indoor storage space as preferable to storage items outdoors. And number two, visible from this
property is another neighboring property which has a garage and house easily visible from the road. The property cons owner has established that practical difficulty involves more than economic considerations alone. To meet the road setback, the garage would need to be moved closer to the lake
which is a steep slope and has restrictions for development and vegetative removal along steep slopes for the purposes to protect the lake. And additionally, the 150 ft natural environment lake setback would would limit how far away from the lake the garage can be placed. For a staff
recommendations for consideration, staff concur with the applicant that there are very limited conforming development sites on this platted lot. The early 1990s plat file does not include details showing that the development of this lot considered wetlands, slope, or road setback in relation to potential building sites. For roadway
considerations, Wolfpoint Trail is maintained year round. Public comments questioned whether a reduced setback could impact snow removal. The property owner contacted the snowplow operator who indicated that the proposed garage location would not present a problem. Quote, "I don't see that there'd be an issue at all. I plow much tighter spaces
than the curve/hill portion of the road, and as long as there's still trees between your garage and the road, I'll hardly even notice." With a 50-ft road ement for the platted road, staff believe there's adequate space for road maintenance without encroaching into private property. Written comments also expressed concern about road function
and safety, particularly for larger vehicles such as firewood delivery trucks and recreational trailers negotiating the curve. Given the proposed structures 38t setback from the road center line and the presence of trees between the garage and the road, staff finds it unlikely that a truck access or snow removal would be impeded.
Staff notes that the garage is on the inside bend of the flat road segment where risks of vehicle runoff are lower, though it may contribute to reduced sight distance in the combination with existing trees. HOA considerations. This parcel is within a platted community with an active HOA. Some question
comments question whether the HOA architectural committee and board should review the project before county action. From a variance processing standpoint, the HOA review is a private matter and not a part of the county's variance process. HOAs may adopt standards that are more restrictive than county regulations, but they cannot be less
restrictive or replace the county's review authority. While staff recognizes these community concerns, they are outside the scope of the county variance review. Site suitability and visual character. After reviewing the property's characteristics, staff believe the proposed garage location is generally the most suitable to protect
the lake and maintain shoreline character. Road setbacks are typically applied for public safety reasons such as preventing conflicts where structures are placed along steep slopes or outside road bends. In this case, the garage is proposed on the inside bend of a flat area of the road. There may be conforming building locations further
from the road that meet the rightway setback. However, this area is along the steep slope and likely limited by the 150 ft natural environment shoreline setback. Identifying a feasible alternative location would require a formal survey due to the complexity of the OWL determination. Locating the garage in that area would also involve
greater slope alteration which staff find less desirable from a shoreline protection standpoint. Placing the garage in a location that's not a steep slope and meeting the right ofway setback would most likely not meet the 150 foot Tucker Lake setback. Visual impacts were raised by public comments. Staff find that compared to alternatives
closer to the lake, the proposed site is better positioned to maintain shoreline aesthetics. Additionally, other private properties have development visible from the road, including a residential property across the road from this lot. For garage size, one consideration for discussion is a proposed garage size. The garage is a singlestory garage with
10ft sidewalls, but a 30x30 is larger than conventional one or two vehicle garages. Reducing the footprint could address some neighbor concerns, improve visual compatibility with the area, and provide additional setback from the road. If approved, staff recommend the following conditions. Number one, the
property shall comply with Minnesota rule 7080, the Cook County septic requirements. Prior to the issuance of the land use permit, a septic inspection is required. If the septic inspection fails, the new septic permit must be issued before the land use permit can be issued. Number two, the garage shall be constructed in accordance with the
dimensional design details included with the variance application and shall not exceed 21 ft and no part of the proposed structure shall be located closer than 38 feet from the center line of Wpoint Trail. The garage shall be used for personal residential storage only and not for commercial purposes or separate
dwelling space. An amendment to the variance approval is required to add living quarters to the garage to evaluate the intensified use of the structure. And of course, all of that is before you hold the public hearing. So, all up to be modified and amended. Thank you, Neva. Uh, at this point, I'd
ask the applicant if they'd like to come forward and add anything else. Um, please come to the mic and state your name and address for the record. Thank you. Good afternoon, chair and board of adjustment members. I'm Pam Alteringer. My last name is spelled
capital A L T R I N G R. And along with my spouse, Keith Alteringer, we are seeking approval for a variance to build a garage at our home where we live at 49 Wolfpoint Trail in the Wolfpoint Association of the Wolfpoint Plat. We've been active community members since
1997. We understand civic duty and participate and support functions of our communities. We contacted staff from Cook County Landing and Zoning to get information on building an additional structure on our property. It has setbacks specified in
Cook County ordinances. We felt it was most appropriate to do the county process first then do our HOA as others in the association have done in the past. We are very familiar with the practices in our HOA. I am currently the
s serving secretary. Since submitting the variance application, we began reaching out to the architectural review committee of the Wolfpoint Association. After addressing their questions, showing them pictures, asking them to come conduct site visits, the community
the committee reviewed the aspects of our building plan and included the design, the location, the appearance, and the use. I'm pleased to share that the architectural review committee has approved of our building plan with their
decision pending final variance approval. They affirm that our proposed garage follows architectural review community guidelines and is consistent with the garage sizes in the Wolfpoint Association development. This approval
reinforces that our project aligns with the character of the community and maintains the harmonious relationship between structures. Some of our neighbors expressed concerns about the road maintenance, log delivery, and snow removal. I took
pictures and texted a few of those who had concerns and after viewing them, they had no further ex objections. I also contacted Dave Tuttle who do who does our road maintenance. I contacted De Bergland, Dean Berglin who delivers
our firewood and uses a logging trailer in a big truck and Derek Hawfelt who does our snowplowing all confirmed with me that our building's location would not interfere with their work or access to the area. The 30x30 building that we
are proposing is designed to function as a garage for us who are full-time residents for our two full-size vehicles with additional storage above and shelving along the walls. We need to get the tools and equipment out of our
living area. We initially considered a roof with a 12x 12 pitch so we could add solar panels and then snow would get off our roof easily. But upon considering that it would be quite tall, we decided
we would go with a 1012 roof. But then when I talked to the engineer today, he said, "I think it's actually an 812 roof." And we kind of would like to keep a 1212 or a 1012, but that's something that needs to be decided by you. The
garage's color and materials were closely matched those of our home and neighboring structures, maintaining the cohesive visual character of our street. By keeping the height and appearance similar to other buildings in our area,
we avoid obstructing views or disrupting the established landscape. We believe this approach not only respects the neighborhood's aesthetics, but also adds value by using thoughtful design choices that
complement and enhance our community rather than creating an eyesore. By placing the garage at the proposed location, we minimize tree removal and preserve natural erosion controls. Our possible garage locations other than
what we have would require removing our mature trees and increasing runoff into the lake, negatively impacting both the environment and our neighborhood aesthetics. Our approach helps protect local wildlife habitats and the w water
quality more effectively than alternative sites closer to the lake. We are working to meet all the challenges of our property, including the county setbacks that Neva has expressed in her presentation. The narrow shape of our lot, its
proximity to the road, and the nearby protected wetlands makes it nearly impossible for us to build anything without a variance. Due to these restrictions and limiting factors, we are requesting this variance. Thank you for considering our
request for the variance. I appreciate all of your time and what you do to bring to this discussion and I hope that you will approve our proposal to support both of our needs and an environmental stewardship that it allows. Thank you.
I'm here to answer any questions. Thanks. Thank you. At this time, we'll open the to the public for for comments. Anyone who wishes to speak on this application, please come forward and state your name and address for the record.
Good afternoon. I'm Bob Carrick, Robert Carrick. I live at 48 Wolf Point Trail, so right across the road from Pam and Keith. And I'm here to support the alteringers and the request for a variance for all the facts that have
already been stated. I won't bo I won't bore you with all of those, but I will say that they are very limited in their property. All the trees that you saw in the pictures from the road they planted
because the blowdown of 99 wiped out everything they had. beautiful red pines, but that's why everything is everything looks about the same because they planted them there. So, they've been very respectful of the
environment in that respect as well. The curve of the road, I can't overstate it. It is not dramatic. It is smooth. the placement of their uh garage will not impact any
traffic on the road or snow plowing or Mr. Bergland's delivering of firewood or if there was an emergency any kind of emergency vehicle required to come down the road. It's just not it's not even close to the road.
Our garage because I've heard question about a 30x30 garage. My garage across the street is 36x 34. I use every inch of that. And if anybody who lives up here understands, you need the capacity
for what you plan for and what you haven't planned for. And you have they have one chance to build a garage. And so it's got to be adequate to meet their needs. So, with uh that said, I want you to know that my wife Ann and I fully
support their request for a variance and hope that it gets granted. Any questions of me? Not at this time. Thank you. Thank you for your time. Hi, I'm Jane Johnson. Um I live at 52 Black Spruce Trail and I did not have
the opportunity to provide um written comments. So I would just like to add I am part I'm a permanent resident and member of the Wolfpoint Association were part of the um plat that did not receive notices. So I got the notice too late or
was made aware of it too late. And so I just wanted to state that the um I was going to say a lot of things that have already been said about the topography and wetlands and need for variances. Um I think variances have been given in the
past for the same reasons that the alteringers are asking for theirs because of the wetlands and the topography and the limited opportunities for spaces to build. And um in terms of the size of the garage, we also have a garage that's bigger than their proposed
garage. So while you think of what a normalsized standard garage is, it's not exactly as normal um in in an area like that. So the garage that's being proposed by the Alteringers is really a fairly standard garage and would fit in
with the area. So with that, um, I and my husband, Richard Johnson, um, fully support the Alteringers and their requests to get the variance and build this garage. Thank you. Thank you. Hello, my name is Jeannie Abraham. I
have a lake home at 124 Wolfpoint Trail. My husband Stu and I have owned that. We bought the property in 98 and built in 99. We've been neighbors of the Alteringers for a long time. We also didn't get the notice and when we
submitted our comments, Neva informed me that we'd missed the deadline. So, apologies for missing the deadline. From our perspective, the proposed garage variance request is reasonable as the Alteringers are full-time residents in Grand Marray. They are among the most
responsible neighbors whose development of their property has always been thoughtful, appropriate, and comparable in scale, environmentally sound, and in good taste. We have seen the proposed site, the only building site really possible on their property, and the
plans for construction. Although some may deem the structure is too close to the road, we understand that they have few building options. We were told the structure and its proximity to the road would not impede slow powering, road maintenance or log delivery. Further,
the property site has existing trees that maintain the natural environment which was pointed out they planted all those trees. Uh these trees protect the view and within a few years we'll add additional coverage. We are in favor of the requested variance for the alteringers and hope that the approval
will be granted. Thank you so much. Thank you. Good afternoon. Tyson Smith, 1710 West Highway 61. I'm the attorney for Carl Johansson. Carl would be here instead of me, but he's in the quatico, so you get me instead. He asked me to simply underscore his primary concern, or one
of them, which is the association review process. architectural review committee approval notwithstanding. I think the number of written comments in opposition is a good indication of the robust discussion that is beginning to occur in the association on that matter. He
suggests and asks that you consider postponing this decision until that process is complete. If the association approves as designed, that should eliminate much of the concern by many of the members who talk about that process. If the
uh request is modified, that would save everyone the work of doing this all over again. So that's all I have to submit for your additional consideration. Thank you. Thank you. Briefly, please. I've also participated in roles on the
uh Wolfpoint Association board over the years. Currently, I'm the lead on the architecture committee and we don't see where any processes were not followed. There's a 30-day turnaround now to 10 days once a request is placed. And with
variance uh hearings like this scheduled weeks out, it didn't doesn't make sense to come to us necessarily before a variance is approved. They did come to us before this meeting obviously. Uh we're able to share all their plans, but
there was no uh egregious uh miscalculation with the way our HOA runs the architecture committee. Thank you. Anyone else from the public wish to speak?
Hearing none, we'll close to the public and discuss it as a board. Uh, a couple of quick questions. One is, um, what is the max building height that would impose them if they wanted that 1212 pitch 10ft walls that's going to
bring them up to about, uh, 25 ft? I am not skilled at coming up with that number at the top of my head. So, I'm not going to speak. 12 feet in. It's 15 feet. You're going to go 12 up. You're going to go another 30 ft. So, it's 15 ft. Yeah. It'd be 25 ft.
25. Yeah. And my and my 1212 is at 24. And it met the met requirements. Yeah. 35 ft is the maximum structure height allowed, but the variance would be for a specific
structure size. So you can kind of say that it can't be 35. You know, you kind of want to set a a max for what height of allowance you would grant this structure to whatever degree you feel comfortable with those different roof pitch options. Okay, cool. Well, we're going to let
their engineer decide that. We're not going to start trying to dictate how they build their building. It's not not not for us to jump into, but the the point being is is as you pointed is like we can say no more than 28 ft kind of a thing. and they have flexibility to get the pad and do
other things if they have to do that. The other thing I would mention just as I was listening to particularly staff comments about slopes, roads, wetland encroachments, protecting a lake, an environmental lake, you know,
in the past, you know, not that we're bound to do that, but in our considerations in the past, we've always been more willing to go towards the road than towards the lake. And as I look at that land with those hills going right down into the wetlands, um I wouldn't see any reason we would
ever want to really ask them to move closer to that slope and create more risk there and and more movement of fill, right? They're just going to create more opportunities for it. I just think that's in keeping with it. And I also
take staff's consideration for the fact that HOA processes is a contractual agreement between home owners. It's It's not ours. So, appreciate the the input on that, but it's it's one of those things we have to
cognizant of, understand, but it's it's we don't have any control over that. Um, so that answers my questions and my observations. Yeah, I would concur with a lot of that. I think, you know, all things being equal, we're often differential to the
lake. And here, I think the case is even stronger. The practical difficulty is pretty clear to me, uh, given the slope. We want to protect that and it makes sense to put it closer. I think the road concerns, um, are obviously very valid and and should be considered, but it's a
low traffic road. Um, and I don't think we're not uh we're not getting further into the road right away than the vegetation already is. So, it's not terribly concerning to me. And I would also commend the applicants on their engagement with those
stakeholders in terms of wood hauling, plowing, road maintenance. Yeah. Well done. Neighbors. Yep. All of that. Okay. Um, Mr. Chair, I have one question and some comments um to to Neva. We approve
a variance. Um, they conceivably can reduce their encroachment and reduce their building size, but they can't make either of them bigger. Correct. Mhm. Yeah. Yeah. So, they could place it instead of 4 and 1/2 ft from the right of way, they could place it 6 feet from
the right ofway, move it further as long as they're not encroaching into another setback. All right. Well, Mr. Sure. I actually was out on site um Monday and many of the things that Neva said and Brad said, you know, slopes, trees,
natural areas, everything really restricts where this can happen on the site. And what I saw as I walked around and looked at it and uh talked talked to Pam about kind of their decision process, it it makes sense to me,
especially, you know, given garages are per permitted use. What we're really worried about here is just what what are we going to allow to happen on the encroachment of that road? And I agree with Paul. It's a really low volume road. There's only
four four property owners upstream on that road. So the amount of traffic is fairly small and given what we've heard about the you know the providers of services not having an issue it it makes sense to me.
Um I I uh believe I generally agree with what you guys have all um commented on and um to that I would say are we comfortable adopting uh staff's uh findings of fact? Um
do you want to address anything there? I would be comfortable with the findings of fact. Yes, I would agree. Yep. And I agree. And then the um where you going to go next to the but just that if we're all comfortable that we adopting staff's findings of
facts then I open for action if we're ready for that. Uh the thing I would add to it is um do we want yeah the height application now exceed the height of right now it says 21 ft. I would recommend we change that to 28 ft.
It's seven feet under the mound. Give them that latitude if they want to do a 1212. It's up to them and their engineer, but you know, but we give them the latitude so that they can design appropriate not exceed 28 ft. All right.
And with that, look for a motion. Mr. I'd uh I'd move to approve the variance for the with the um conditions that staff has recommended and our amendment of our measurement of building heights maximum building
height. Correct. I'll second motion. Mr. Chair, before you pass that motion, I kind of want to ask our assistant county attorney a question on that. Um, so the variance application was for a
structure to be 21 feet tall and you're allowing a greater variance than we technically noticed um, as a part of the request. And so I would like to ask make sure that she's okay with that, that you're granting something more than what
the applicant asked for. Um, that that should be fine as long as it's in in compliance with the land use as it's owned. Okay. So, and it sounds like there's latitude. Okay. So, sounds good. As amended, then you you just change the record. So, you're adopting staff
recommendations and adding in an additional height limit. Okay. So, great. Thank you. Sorry, didn't mean to ruin your momentum there. Just wanted to check where I'm at. Great to get it cleared right now. We do have a motion in a second. Any
additional discussion? With that, I'll call for a vote. All in favor? I I I opposed hearing none. Variance carries. Passes. Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion to adjurnn. Second.
All in favor? I. Thank you, everyone. [Applause] [Music]