pertains toation or not. >> All right, so we're live. >> We're live for board of >> adjust. All right, let's call the board of adjustment to order. First item on the agenda is to approve the minutes.
Anybody have any comments on the minutes or >> I would make a motion to approve. >> Okay. So, I have a motion to approve. I have a second. >> I'll second. >> All in favor of approving the minutes is drafted. >> I >> I motion carried. Moving on to new
business. I see the first item on the agenda is cancelled. We'll move on to item B, Robert Rabin. Variance staff, please. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a variance request submitted by Robert Rayine to
allow relief from the Cook County zoning ordinance to allow after the fact creation of two substandard FA1 F1 parcels within 5% of the zone district lot area requirements. The two parcels are both less than 20 acres in size, both entirely within the F1 Forest
Agriculture Recreational Zone District. Newly created lots within the zone district must be 20 acres in size and 600 ft wide. The Cook County subdivision ordinance does recognize a 5% deviation as a practical difficulty for variances from the lot size requirements in the zone district and its nonshortland. The
applicant is requesting a variance to legitimize two existing parcels located in the F1 zone district. The subject parcels contain approximately 19.63 acres which are slightly below the minimum 20acre lot area.
The purpose of the varianc's request is to formally recognize the parcels as legal buildable lots and provide certainty regarding their development status. While staff interprets the parcels as legal substandard lots eligible for conforming development due to their dimensions, the applicants are seeking formal approval through the
variance process to establish a durable record and eliminate any future uncertainty regarding the parcel's legal status. The parcels do not meet the lot of record definition as outlined in the Cook County zoning ordinance and do not meet the F1 zone district requirements
of the 20 acres. They're just shy of that by less than a half an acre. If this variance is approved, these parcels will be legal non-conforming lots and subject to the substandard lot provisions in section 9.03. Due to their size, it's highly unlikely that variance would be required for any future
development so long as the development is conforming to the county septic and zoning requirements. I have included for you language from the Cook County subdivision ordinance which outlines that 5% shortage as a practical difficulty for a variance review. For background, according to records, the
Cook County Recorders Office, the subject parcels were created in 1998. At that time, Cook County did not have a formal review process for certain land divisions that did not require a plat, although zoning regulations were in effect. Based on available information, staff believed the parcels were likely
created with the intent of meeting the 20 acre minimum lot size required in the F1 zone district. However, each parcel ended up being slightly smaller than 20 acres. Um, Cook County GIS analyst did provide a technical analysis. This obviously is very similar to a variance request that
was reviewed last month. And so we carried forward that same analysis into this request. This parcel is directly abuing the three parcels that were last month reviewed for a very similar request. These parcels are accessed off of Casper's Hills Road and do not have a
fire or an address number signed for emergency services. The memo prepared by the GIS analyst in the county is included in your packet materials and provides historical and legal context regarding the undersized 40acre parcels commonly found in northeastern Minnesota. The memo explains that many
quarter quarter sections that are legally described as 40acre tracks contain less acreage in reality due to the original federal survey methods, geographic conditions, surveying limitations, and historical surveying practices associated with public land survey system.
Um, we did do a public noticing for this. It was legally noticed in the Cook County News Herald on June 27th. Our office sent out 12 letters of notification to adjacent property owners as well as county departments. No written comments were received from adjoining property owners during the written comment period.
I have included draft staff considerations and findings fact for you in your packet. Generally speaking, staff believe that the variance is required due to the historical survey reference data as described in detail in the memo. This persists throughout the county and staff would uh continue to
like to proceed with a broader effort to legitimize these parcels through an ordinance amendment based on feedback from the board of adjustment. And we put together a single uh condition just to if these are legitimized to have emergency or fire number address put out
uh so they are identifiable for emergency services if they're going to be separate. That's all I have for you. >> Thank you. We'll open this up for public comment. Do we have the uh property owner present?
No. And uh any other public comment? Seeing none, close public comment. Open up for board discussion. >> Um the 5% deviation is that taking 5% from 20 acres and would be less or are
we supposed to be adding that? So less. >> Yeah. So it that provision is intended for current proposed subdivisions. So if this lot was to be created today, there would need to be a survey that is on record and then the applicant could ask
for a variance from that discrepancy. Essentially just saying that that's the practical difficulty is to be within that 5% >> 5%. Okay. >> Seems pretty non-controversial to me. >> Very very good mapping deja vu all over again.
So >> pretty much the same discussions as last month. >> I'll make the motions uh to make a motion that uh we accept staff's findings of facts and considerations. U they covered quite thoroughly and their
one condition and that we uh approve this as as submitted. >> I would second that with the um conditions of getting a fire number. Okay. All in favor? >> I.
>> Seeing none opposed carried. >> Okay, moving on to item C. Allison Eric Anderson's request for variance. Staff, please. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a variance
request for relief from the Cook County Zoning Ordinance section 7.14 and 9.02 2 to allow a tear down rebuild of a legal non-conforming residential structure within the bluff setback zone with a 150 square ft addition and a minor increase in height and the placement of the screen porch and sauna where the minimum
setback of 30 ft is required from the top of bluff at 2366 West Highway 61. The applicant's property includes 2.7 acres with approximately 150 ft of Lake Spear shoreline. The parcels entirely within the F or the single family residential R1 zone district and the
Northshore management zone. Newly created lots within the R1 zone on Lake Superior must be one acre in size and 200 feet wide. The applicants Allison and Eric Anderson are requesting relief from the Bluff setback zone requirements to replace the existing legal
non-conforming cabin with minor modifications which include the addition of the 100 150 square ft entrance on the front of the home with mod uh as with additional decking and a small addition below the entryway to be used as storage and utility space with a potential
increased height of no more than 12 in. Additionally, the applicants would like to request a bluff setback relief for the placement of a second por of the screened porch and sauna to replace the firewood shed further back from the bluff. The applicants have detailed that the screen porch and sauna will be approximately 320 ft combined. The sauna
is about 80 ft and the screen porch is about 240 ft is estimated to be about 12 ft from Florida peak of the great for ordinance citation and application of zoning regulations. The two ordinance sections requiring
variance relief is the bluff setback requirements and non-conforming structures. For residential non-conforming structures in Shorland area, they're granted certain rights under Minnesota state statute to exist and can be repaired and maintained and even replaced without variances. However, there's no right for expansion,
which is why the variance request is before you. The bluff is present on site and both the house and the current firewood shed are located along the bluff uh within the bluff impact zone. As you saw in your packets, you probably
noticed there's a bit of more language about bluffs than what we typically have. Uh and in the review of this variant, staff determined that um a previous bluff determination uh that was done on site failed to do a desktop
analysis and actually look at the slope. Um and so the we're revising the top ofluff definition essentially um so that we don't run into issues later on. Um we wanted to get this right in the first shot as as much as it adds a little bit more complexity to the review. Uh we
wanted to be sure that we were moving forward with the most accurate review possible. Uh the in 2025 the surveyor consulted with land services to visit the site for the bluff determination in preparation for this project. At that time staff determined that the top of bluff would be the break in the slope on
the lake side of the cabin as the landscape had been significantly altered from the original construction of the cabin. Upon further review of this variance, staff have modified that determination to ensure the long-term accuracy of this decision by the board and assurance for the property owner
using available mapping tools which were not utilized in the 2025 determination. It is clear that the top of bluff should be the initial visually identifiable break in the slope at the north side of the cabin as depicted in figure 10 in your packet. Substantively, this does not change any facts about the current
placement of the current cabin and instead this class clarification adds assurance and clarity for the accuracy and validity of the board's decision. The top of left definition is included in your packets in there and
try to get a a figure on here. So, this is um in figure three in your packets. This is the site plan for the proposed development. The jut out on the north side of the cabin is that new addition. And you would see that uh the original
review of this indicated that only a small portion of that jut out was going to be even in the bluff setback. But now with this revised bluff determination, um the top of bluff really is kind of in that first leveling out part of the cabin. Um on the north side,
uh we included some um slope calculations to help explain how that uh revision was um updated. I think this picture probably shows it the most functionally speaking. Uh when staff first went out in 2025, we determined
that the side on the lake side of the house was um the top of bluff. The landscape had been pretty altered in that area. I think with Phil when the house was first put in. Um but after doing the desktop analysis for this variance request uh it was difficult to
not address um the very clear fact that the bluff definition should be applied where uh the first break in the slope is on the other side of that c uh cabin. So again, this doesn't change anything about the proposal of where the applicants would like to do their
project, but it does require um the variance relief to recognize that the full cabin with the addition is in the bluff impact zone as well as the proposed screen porch and sauna and that was not originally going to need a
variance because that was going to be outside of that original bluff line. Um, so the applicants were very responsive when we brought this to their attention and uh we explained the situation to them and they were willing and uh wanting to have that screen porch and sauna rafted into this variance request
so that they could move forward with confidence with their plans. Um, and staff don't see any issue essentially with that screen porch and sauna in that location. It is moving just a little bit further away from the lake and that side. Uh for project details, this is the um
side of the house where that top of bluff is. You can kind of start seeing that slope dropping down there. U this visualizes where that addition to the cabin is going to be. It's away from the lake essentially. It's a a very important aspect of that location to keep in mind. And this shows that screen
porch sauna relative again to the cabin. Uh for site conditions, the septic has an approved permit to relocate the septic tank further away from the lake and further up the slope. Uh this project is within the allowable impervious surface area. Um but because
all the hardscaping essentially is in the bluff impact zone, most of the best management practices in the conditions um would be just to address the construction and long-term use of the site. There's no wetland issues and again the bluff determination was
revised. There's lots of rock substrate here and vegetation is present. Our office did send out the public notices. We did not receive any written correspondence during the public comment period and for staff recommendation for
consideration. Uh overall staff find that the proposal does prioritize maintaining the existing cabin configuration while reducing existing encroachments within the bluff setback were practicable and improving the long-term uh regulatory certainty for the property for the current and future
property owners. Conditions proposed would mitigate impacts for construction activities and long-term land use activities within the bluff setback area. Um, in crafting the conditions for this request, we wanted to be sure that our staff and the applicant and contractor would be able to be on the
same page about, for example, where fill material should be placed on site to ensure that nothing's running down the slope should we have a rain event during construction. Um, that's all I have for you and I'm happy to try to provide a little bit more clarification for any of that if that would be helpful.
>> Thank you. That was quite thorough. Um, opening for public comment. Do we have the owner present or the applicant? >> Forward. >> You get there. State your name and
address, please, for the record. >> My name is Christine Anderson. I'm a principal and um um owner of PKA Architecture, 2919 James Avenue South, Minneapolis. >> And I just wanted to let you know that I'm here. my colleague Hannah uh Hannah
um the owners Eric and Allison and then the builder Jamie Brown are all here for answering any questions that you may have. >> So, but I didn't have anything else to offer with that. >> Yeah. Well, I just as as the architect, is there any particular things you want to offer that we should also know for
consideration after hearing what the staff has and the written application? >> Yeah. You know, I think just the the information that Neva had put together with all of our documentation in there, I think needs that just the information there, but if there is anything additional that you may see that you have questions about, happy to answer
those. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Any additional public comment? >> Seeing none, we'll close public comment and move to discussion amongst the board members. Um, in this
picture it depicts a concrete slab and wall. Is that different from what's there right now? Is there not a concrete slab and wall? I missed the first part of your question, Courtney. Um, in the design,
it shows a concrete slab and wall that runs underneath the new cabin. I am wondering is that currently there or is that new? >> It would all be it would be new. >> Okay. So that's >> it would be new but it's being it's
using the existing footprint of the current house that's there. So we're we're staying within the confines of that footprint as well as the shell of the walls. It's that dimension at least. But everything's new >> to bring it into new energy standards.
I mean, I guess the way I see this is the the thing that is really bringing this in is the entryway that's further away from the lake. And so they would have the right >> to replace that footprint and not come before us for a variance. >> Correct. >> And they want to put an addition
>> further away from the bluff. >> Height is also the 12-in change. >> Right. >> Kind of minor, but it's >> reasonable to me. Yeah. you know, when we talk about reasonleness and >> Yeah. No, no, I'm with you on that. I didn't mean to >> a 10 foot or one foot saying observations,
>> right? And and additionally, uh, we'd like to wrap in a review of the screen porch and sauna as well. >> Right. >> I would offer that, you know, we haven't taken this further with structural engineering yet because it's just in this concept phase part. that would
happen, but we're still within, you know, we want to be mindful of the heights that are there currently and that adjustment of whatever that roof line would be. We just want to make sure that we're meeting the energy code R49 or up, but whatever that structure is yet, it's still
>> in determination. It makes perfect sense. And I >> generally of the opinion that we had one variance request in here and he asked to move it up 3T because the guy's 6'6 and the house was built in 1941. Let the doctor go through the door.
>> Yeah. >> Um classic. I don't have anything else. >> Um uh we just need to to read through staff's finding of facts and considerations. >> I have one quick the the new sauna footprint is outside the bluff impact
zone now. Right. >> Except for one corner. >> The sauna screen porch is in the bluff setback. Um, so if you look at figure three in your packet, that that's the
old top of bluff line and the kind of elevation where that new top of bluff more or less is basically kind of where the top of bluff line is. Um, we did not have time to get back out and formally
determine where exactly that top of bluff is relative to the porch and sauna. Most of those yellow lines are the old >> Okay. >> Yeah. But I think it's it's fair to review the porch and sauna with available information. >> The new So there's still Okay. >> Yeah. With understanding that the porch
and sauna is more or less probably within the bluff impact zone. >> Okay. >> It's probably near the top of Bluff. Um the location itself, uh from our perspective, it's it's like when you go out and do bluff determination, sometimes it's a very clear you're walking and you go down and that's kind
of where the cabin is. Over by the porch and sauna, it is a little bit more gradual and I would say maybe more of a natural landscape there. Um so that top of Bluff itself is probably not quite as distinct as maybe where it is in other breaks in the slope on the site. It's
there's a clear gentle ease from where the proposed new entry is like towards it. It's it's Yeah. >> Those contours kind of flare back there. So, yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I would I would find that >> nonp problematic.
>> Yeah. Yeah. I >> given that there's already a structure there as well. I understand we're not replacing the structure, but you know, it's >> looking at the site as it is and and thinking about where the septic is and is going to go and >> uh I'm comfortable with it with the
bindings of fact and >> conditions. So, I'll make a motion uh to approve this variance with uh the staff's finding of fact and conditions as written. >> I would second that. All in favor?
>> I. >> None opposed. Varants approved. >> Thank you, Mr. >> Chair. I'd like to make a motion to adjourn. >> I'll second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Thank you. >> All right.
Easy. Easy. Now Howard gets to build a bridge. >> Okay. Yeah.