All right. The reasoning was we're live and we will go ahead and call our planning commission for May 14th, 2025 to order and start with approving our agenda and our minutes from our previous meeting.
I would make a motion to approve the agenda and minutes. Second. All in favor? I opposed. And uh first item off the map LLC.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is an interim use permit request submitted by Grant and Christina Hopkkey. They recently purchased the property of Seagull Outfitters who formerly owned by Deborah Mark and Dave Truheart. The interim use permit is for recreational vehicle. The applicant's property, well, it also is
undergoing a subdivision, so it's now less than 16 acres. uh the area where the RV is located as resort commercial residential and RVs are not uh listed permitted or conditional use in the RCR zone district. So therefore, this is being considered under our catchall
provision in the Cook County zoning ordinance. The applicants are requesting a 2-year interim use permit to allow the recreational vehicle, a travel trailer to be allowed as a residence during the transition period of purchasing the business. The RV is intended to be used seasonally between May and October of 2025 through 2026. I've included in your
packets details regarding the RCR zone district relative to its purpose. And as I say before, recreational vehicles are not listed as permitted or conditional. With that said, um interim use permits generally are
being reviewed for activities that uh in any unlimited number wouldn't be compatible with the zone district. And so that's the intent. And then also there's a temporary nature of an interim use. So, the 2-year time frame is part of what makes this distinct from a conditional use. In your applica or in your packets,
I did provide for you a zoning map that shows the zoning pattern. There was a reszone recently processed through this group um last year that reszoned the lower portion of this property to uh Lakeshore Residential and F3 and the
remainder is now resort commercial residential for septic. Uh there was a note from the environmental health officer requiring some additional details for the septic and I understand that that has since been completed and the applicant can speak more to that when they have an opportunity to speak
shortly. In previous surface coverage, wetlands uh and noise aren't really seen as potential issues. I think parking might want to be discussed since where the trailer is going I understand is currently parking space during the outfitting season. So, just to ensure that this trailer doesn't displace
current staff parking and then we'd have parking issues on the road or something like that. So, that might be something you want to discuss. This application was publicly noticed on April 25th in the Cook County News Herald. We mailed out 17 letters of notification to adjacent property owners as well as county departments and the
DNR hydraologist. We did not receive any written correspondence during that written comment period. I did provide for you draft consideration for fact and findings relative to the standards outlined in the Cook County zoning ordinance and for recommendations for
consideration. Um I did acknowledge that septic requirements which I believe the applicant will have additional information for you and some draft conditions uh for approval and there's four of them outlined in your packet. The first would be that in accordance
with the application, this would be for a travel trailer RV, the intermuse permits restricted to a towable non-motorized RV. This IP does not apply to motor homes nor fifth wheels. Condition number two, the parking of vehicle on Island Road is no parking of
vehicles on Island Road is permitted. Number three, all local, state, and federal regulations must be adhered to, which would require the Cook County recreational vehicle permit, as well as compliance with the septic requirements, and all uh permits, if there's going to be any deck additions, might trigger a
land use permit. And then all these permits or conditions would be met prior to bringing the RV on site. And I believe we have the applicant on the call-in line uh available to answer your questions. Thank you, Neva. Uh would the applicant
like to add anything to staff's narrative? I can and I think um my other half is also perhaps there in person um and can add comments as well. Um we did take care of and submit back the septic
agreement compliance form that was needed to um make a uh compliance plan for the um septic. Um, so that should address that consideration. Um, in terms of parking, um, that specific area
wasn't really, uh, staff parking. There is nearby staff parking off the road. If there is, um, not enough space for the staff parking due to the travel trailer. Um, we would just transition those um, parking those vehicles down to um, our
general parking um, down across the road from uh, the office. they would not be permitted to park on Island Road. Um I think in terms of kind of the reasoning for our application, that's pretty well put into our narrative um to make clear
that the sale has gone through since our application. So the ownership did change hands. Um uh the only other thing I I would note um kind of sim simultaneous with receiving the packet and the recommendation here um the uh RV is on
site based on just um that actually the 10th was when we could get someone to deliver it but it is not being used. Um so it is presently there but will not be uh put into use uh pending this application because we um respect that
it it is still pending and um we don't know what the outcome will be but I in full disclosure I wanted to disclose that um the um travel trailer is on site in the location but not being used pending a decision on our application. If there are questions on that we can
certainly um address that. Thank you. If you'd like to add anything else, I'm up to the microphone if you'd like to. Oh, we do need your name and address for the record. So, uh Grant Hopky. Um
address 12208 Gun Trail. Um I guess yeah, nothing really to add. I think Christina hit um hit it on the head there. Um and yeah, it's yeah, just just sitting there at this point. Um uh you waiting to be hooked up pending pending whatever the
decision is. Uh at this point, we'll open to comment from the public if anyone is here to speak on that on this application. Hearing none, we'll close to the public and discuss it as board.
Who wants to start? Anybody got any comments? I mean, I think in reviewing it, the only thing Yeah. that was a hang up for me was the septic agreement. And if that's in place, I think that's taken care of. And otherwise, the use seems very reasonable and allows the owners to
get going. And there is lots of parking. Uh the public lot up there is very large, so you could easily accommodate a staff car or two need be. You've been up there. Is your trailer going to be back on that back side of
that lot or towards the island road? I know that lot pretty well. I know their propert is as far back in the lot as we can get it. Good. I would make a motion to approve with the conditions. With the conditions. All right. And I second that
motion. Motion, second. Um, any other discussion? All in favor? I I opposed hearing none. That'll bring forward to the
county board. Okay. Thanks, Christina. This will be before the county board on the 27th. Okay. Thank you. Our plan next item was withdrawn by the applicant. So item B is withdrawn. Uh
item C I will recuse myself from and Paul will take over. I'm going to step over to the hot seat. All righty. We will move on to our next item 2025-3 IUP. Neva. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is a request for a renewal interim use permit for a hot mix asphalt plant for up to 18 100 days per year at 1319 Arrowhead Trail zoned F1 and F2. The applicant's property includes 160 acres nonshoreland. The gravel pit operation
on this property has been allowed by the Cook County Board of Commissioners since 1995 which was uh the resolution was amended in 2015 to allow the expansion of open area. The intermuse permit for the hot mix plant was issued um previously which I'll get into those
details shortly. Uh the use is proposed to be potentially year round with primary usage between spring to fall with minimal winter use and the hours of operation between 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. The Labota gravel pit is situated on three parcels comprising 160 acres. Gravel resources
on this site are the result of glacial outwash actions that left deposits of a variety of mining resources including bedrock, boulders, mixed aggregates, sand, and clay. Hydraology is a prominent feature on the landscape. Note that the application materials do include some original documents from the 2020 intermuse permit request which then
included an expansion to the pit area. This application is only for the renewal of the asphalt plant. In your packets, I included significant uh details about the F1 and two zone district, primarily saying that there are four more rural activities that I believe are compatible
with this use. For background summary, the pit was first permitted in 1995 as I mentioned before and then in 2015. Uh ownership changed and the Labotas now own it. Um I've included the resolutions in with the packets for you. Sorry, I'm
trying to like balance going through what I need to go through and not drive everybody crazy. Um, in the screen here, you'll see the ownership map that's in the application. Just a note that this is a pretty remote location on the Arrowhead Trail. Uh, when we sent out adjacent property owners, I think Diana
had to, you know, send out the notice like miles to get to 10 people. Um, we received one written comment that had no issues with the request. Uh for site conditions and consideration, this pit is annually reviewed by land services with site visits attended by the Cook
County wetland specialist and zoning administrator to ensure compliance with conditions. There are significant wetland resources on this parcel and wetland delineations have been completed. The application has provided supporting documentation that state permits have been granted for the MPCA asphalt permit, the MPCA crushing
permit, and the state MPDS storm water permit. The hotmix plant is portable and permitted by the MPCA, therefore removing much of the monitoring burden by the county. However, hotmix operations must adhere to section 10.06 of the Cook County zoning ordinance. I did include those details in your packet
as well. I did put in draft findings for the planning commission to consider um regarding this pit. And again, from my perspective, this is a renewal interim use permit and we haven't received um any complaints. I'm not sure that operations have operated there before.
Um, so that would be a part of it, but uh I don't think anything has significantly changed in the area that would alter the findings granted by the planning commission in 2020. for staff recommendations for consideration. The given the remoteness of the pit and the inclusion of Ulin Brothers and the
regulatory oversight by the MPCA staff do not foresee any conflicts uh allowing the portable hotmix facility to move forward providing there's a documented uh demonstrated ability of the pit to support activities and doing so within the permit constraints. The proposed use appears non-proatic with surrounding
land use patterns and zoning. The planning commission should consider the potential findings listed in the packet and modify or amend or adopt as they determine appropriate after the public hearing and for recommendation of the county board of commissioners. The property owner and Yulan Brothers are in attendance or at least property owner.
Yep, Yulan Brothers is here too. Uh so they'll be able to answer your questions further. I did include the list of conditions that were attached to the 2020 permit. I also added a condition that this stays with the property owner and that if the property was to transfer ownership, the new property owner would
need to apply for their own interim use permit, which is a thing that interim use permits can do. Um, and that's pretty much what I have for you. All right. Thank you, Neva. Uh, would the applicant like to add anything? Uh,
Charlie Labota, uh, 64 Black Granite Trail in Hovind. Um, I don't have anything to add. I just uh it's a renewal of a of a permit and uh if you got any questions for for me
or representatives from Uland about the the plant itself specifically, we're here to answer questions. Okay. Thank you very much. Anyone from the public wish to comment on this application? We'll open it to the board.
[Applause] Um, given it's a renewal, I have gotten no complaints. I I got no problems with it. Same. You got to continue on with the same hours of operation. Yeah. All the same same uh pit conditions will
remain. Okay. All right. Yeah. Yeah. I think uh I go by there often and it's a good location, remote and not a huge impact on surrounding property owners. So I'd entertain a motion. I'll motion to
approve with conditions. Second. All in favor? I I those opposed none. Uh application is approved. Thank you very much.
Thank you. I got this. I shuffle we have today. It's a lot of papers. Item D, the amendments to the Cook County zoning ordinance number 37 and Cook County subdivision ordinance number 50. Eva, thank you, Mr. Chair.
And I anticipate that's what a lot of people are in the room for tonight. So, thank you everyone for your time and attention to this. Um, there I think I'm going to give a little background first, pretty brief, because I'm imagining people are here have already educated themselves on some of this. And I can
leave it to the board's discretion on if you'd like me to go through this in high detail or if we'd rather hear the public's comments first and then go through it in detail. Um, you know, depend I don't know if there's value in just going through the clean version of what all the proposals are first as and
then give the public the opportunity to comment. Um, I can see benefits to both sides. So feel free to let me know if you have a preference on on which way we do that. Should I just roll and then after I'm done everybody else gets to talk? Okay,
sounds good. So, um, is this Yes, it is on. Okay, great. All right, just a for a quick background, we being the planning commission did a work session at our April meeting and after that I gave a presentation of the Cook County Board of Commissioners at their
committee of the whole meeting and after that I presented to the Cook County HA and then I did an interview with WTIP to give an educational background which they then uh put a lot of information out to the public on their social media. We did the legal notice in the Cook
County News Herald and Cook County MIS department also put together an online interactive map to show where these areas might be eligible just for concept purposes. And then we also gave a presentation to area realtors and Schroeder Township. So there's been a
lot of effort to reach out to stakeholders and hear what items people might have concern about in this process as well as many other folks. This is just in the last short period of time. Uh here's a list of legal noticing. After all of that, I did get some
written comments from about 10 people. Um some of them are residents, some of them are business owners, some of them are county um agents or representatives. And just a quick summary, just like a brief overview of the public comments. I think generally speaking, there's support for these
initiatives. I think there's a lot of kind of standard concern about what does this mean for my property? Uh there is some push back with regard to the um 125% performance uh agree performance standard uh in the developers agreement
section which we'll comment on later which I have some proposed revisions to address those concerns. Uh some concerns about the need for the wildfire protection plan as a part of preliminary plat review. Um and I also have put in some cleaned up language about septic
requirements that we'll talk on soon. Um, I think people have concerns about roads, you know, how far remote is reasonably remote for these sort of things. Um, but I think generally speaking, just like in my conversations with people about town, people are generally supportive of these ideas. So,
I think there's enough momentum to to give this time and room and see, you know, if we have something workable or if there's things that need more modification to to make them cleaner. So, um, so this is how I have it structured and I'm going to show this slide a couple of times just so that we
all kind of stay organized because there's a lot of different things going on. So, so there's the zoning ordinance itself, which we're looking at the overlay district section of the zoning ordinance. And then in the subdivision ordinance, there's changes to uh five
different sections of the subdivision ordinance. And a lot of those changes came about in earlier reviews of our subdivision ordinance with former HR d HR director Jason Hail. And some of that was trying to clean up language, make it more clear um and streamline some things
for developers so that we didn't have redundancies or like too early in a process require more than they really need if they don't know the details. So um that's why there's little bits of so many of these different sections that get called out in this. So, if we're really talking just about this residential open space overlay district,
that's just going to be the zoning ordinance and section six. Um, but that or yeah, section six, but then there's still like general platting stuff that applies to all plats. So, I'm going to cite which section we're in as we talk through this so we can all try to stay relatively organized in your packets.
Um, and when I talk about things that have already been distributed, I'll cite the page number because that is there's a page number on the bottom of your packets. And I know I gave you a library to bring with you today. So, all right. So, first we'll start with the zoning ordinance because that's that's the easy clear part. So, um with this, we are
proposing to create a new overlay district. This is not changing. This is not to say anything eligibility requirements, everybody gets reszoned into this overlay district. This is something that people would opt into. And so, this we're calling this the residential open space overlay district.
The purpose of the residential open space overlay district is to allow residential uses at a higher density when there is corresponding preservation of open space in areas generally adjacent to or near developed areas, major roadways or other sources of services. This overlay district is to be
applied in nonshorland areas except as specifically allowed within the shoreland area in underlying zone districts F2 and F3 to accommodate efforts to support more efficient and affordable residential development while maintaining the character of Cook County. So that's the purpose of it and
we'll get to some of the details about that shoreland component about the FB2 and 3 component and kind of what it means to be near those developed areas. I think that's something that some of the comments spoke to is this idea of like maybe we should only be within so many miles of certain nodes of things,
but because things are not defined clearly where we start that measure, all that kind of gets a little difficult, but we'll get there. Applicability. The zoning standards of this section apply to property within the Roso district that is platted as a part of an open space subdivision. Again, that's a
subdivision ordinance, section six. In accordance with the requirements of section six of the Cook County subdivision ordinance, property within the Roso that is not platted as an open space subdivision shall remain subject to the zoning regulations of the underlying F2 or F3 zone district. So
that last sentence was added in there because it was crossing my mind. What if someone does the reszone and they want to get the more relaxed setbacks of the overlay district, but then they don't follow through with the actual platting? You know, what what are we supposed to do with that? So that last sentence is
essentially saying if you don't do the platting even though you did the overlay district, we're just going to look at the FAR two and FAR three zone district. It's it's there but it we don't use it. So just for clarity sake on that eligibility. Where can this happen?
Parcels and areas meeting the following criteria are eligible for reszoning to the Roso district. Number one, the parcels within a half mile of State Highway 61 or a county or a township road. Number two, the parcel is fully within nonshorland area except that
shorland area where of water courses may be included in the open space area of the open space subdivision plot. There was a little bit of confusion about this from some public comments, so I'll clarify. So shoreland area is defined and I have that little definition in there. All lands located within 1,000 ft
of a lake or 300 ft of a river. So we're saying none of this can be within 1,000 ft of a lake. We're just staying outside of Lake Shorland area, but we're saying that the open space of these subdivisions is allowed to be within the shoreland area of a river. Why? Because
we have rivers everywhere. Like if if we're if we're really trying to like be flexible about this, uh the open space is undeveloped, right? When we get to the platting part, 50% of this lot is going to be totally undeveloped. So, why not allow a river and the shoreland area
of the river to be in that open space? Um the alternative if that lot was just developed is that the river frontage could be developed more more significantly. So this is a more relaxed uh or more protective method for the river. Um more of the eligibility parts.
Number three, to the extent the parcel is within the Northshore management zone, the parcel is on the west side of Highway 61. That's kind of obvious, but it's in there to be clear. And number four, the parcel is zoned F2 or F3. And number five, the parcel is not located within
the city of Grand Murray subdivision jurisdictional areas. Uh the FAR two and FAR three, I really haven't received any comments about that. It seems like that's generally being seen as okay, I guess, if no comments are good comments. Um and I didn't hear any comments
wanting more zone districts considered. So, all right. So, the actual details. So, I gave you some addendums today because I felt like you didn't have enough paperwork. And, um, you know, when it comes to really committing to something, I have troubles. So, uh,
addendum one here, I've got three addendums for you. Uh, in thinking about the word bunk house, uh, I was meeting with a gentleman who was thinking about putting yurts up and doing like a shared bath house, showerhouse, communal living sort of setup using this structure, which I thought was pretty interesting.
But a yurt might be defined as a bunk house by our county's bunk house definition. So, um, I wanted to be really clear so we didn't have any problems going down the road with that. So, um, on the on the thing up here and then on addendum one, I highlighted the original language and then the proposed
what, you know, if we move forward with these, I'd prefer this proposed cleaned up language, which does recognize that yurts or dwellings without pressurized plumbing can be considered. Um, and then I just left bunk house off because, um, we're saying that it's, you know, just
trying to be nice and clean about that. So, um, that's where we landed about that little addition for you. Uh, and then the requirements for the zoning ordinance, Roso requirements. So, we're saying that, and I did a little hand
drawing because I couldn't do it on the computer. So, uh, you know, you take the parcel, you take the most sensitive features, you set those aside for 50% of the lot to be undeveloped. Then with the remaining 50%, that's where you're citing the houses that have, you know,
the nice locations. Um, you find the location for the septic, you build the road infrastructure to build connect them because we want these parcels to have the opportunity to share the septic system if that makes sense. It's good to have smaller lot sizes so that you can cluster the development near each other
and have less like roads and driveways and stuff. So, kind of builds the conservation element of this type of development. So, the minimum lot area could be 0.25 acres and the maximum lot area of 2 acres. The minimum lot width of 75 ft.
The lot line setbacks are 10 feet from rear yard and sideyard and then zero feet in cases of duplex on separate lots. Uh there was a comment that asked, you know, why do the duplexes have to be on separate lots? Like if you had a 2acre lot, you could have a duplex on
it. Um again, I I've got duplexes listed as a conditional use, so it's something that could be considered on like that twoacre lot if that's suitable. Um but also it in my mind, we're trying to keep this nice and streamlined and simple. So if somebody wants a duplex on two lots, they just buy the two lots and put a
duplex with a sing zero ft lot line. And we're looking at we're trying to maintain true to the intent of the density allowance, right? So we're doing this two times density bonus. So each lot gets one dwelling essentially. We're trying to keep it nice and simple like that. So I'll we'll maybe get into that
some more. So um and we got setbacks. So, stater county roads 65 ft, other public or private roads 50 ft. And then, uh, Jeff was kind enough to point out to me I had an inconsistent language in number six there. So, instead of maximum lot coverage, it should read maximum
impervious lot coverage or impervious surface coverage. So, that would be a amended language change potentially um, for clarity. So, um, about the county and state road setbacks, one conversation I had with somebody, a
potential neighbor who was worried about these ideas, uh, he was like, I just don't want to see this on my neighbor's lot. I live out I'm midway up the arrowhead trail. I don't want to see 16 houses on my neighbor's lot. So, I think the open space design could be used in a
way that allows structures to be placed further from the roads so that there's um visual screening provided. Um so, you know, there could be some consideration about those road setbacks, but I think I think what we have here is is a good starting point. Um so, that's a comment
about county road setbacks that came up in this hand drawing I did. So, this was an example. I'll just talk you through it really quick. So this is a example of a 20 acre parcel in the F3 zone district. So the F3 zone district would usually allow a 5 acre minimum lot size.
So somebody could technically just split this up in four square lots as like a standard subdivision method uh create four or five acre lots. With this idea in mind, they could do a two-time residential lot development bonus. So
instead of four lots, they can make eight lots and each lot only gets one dwelling. So you're still maintaining that same residential density of how many dwellings can get constructed. It's just that now they can all be in single ownership um and clustered together to
have less of all the things I just spoke about. All right. And this is the interactive map. Um if we need to wherever our discussions go tonight, I'd be happy to put this live and we can zoom in and scan in why certain things pick up or not. I think one thing that's really apparent when someone looks at
this map closely is just how much public land we have in Cook County. It's it's just like it's wild. So, um there there's just so much of Cook County that will never be developed at the end of the day that I just want to point out to folks. We've got 9% of the county to
work with. So, I'm trying to find a way to be efficient yet protective of our resources to do that. All right. So, here's this page again. So, we just got through zoning ordinance. Now we're over at subdivision ordinance. All right. Number four, section four I want to
strike. This is in our subdivision ordinance right now. It says an administrative subdivision may utilize the design standards and requirements for open space subdivisions. This has never once been used and it's also very unclear. Uh it doesn't talk about like how the open space would be managed or anything. So I I think it's it's a
problematic thing to have in our ordinance. I'd love to have an administrative way to do this, but I've wrapped my mind around it and I can't figure it out. So, I'd rather just take it out for right now and maybe we'll revisit that in the future with much more clear guidelines. Uh section five where the preliminary plat section is at
and just some cleanup languages in there. Um and then number 18, uh 18 and number 16 here will be items for discussion here. So, um we'll talk about number 18 first. Mike Keeport, our emergency emergency services manager, is
here tonight. um he wanted an opportunity to share with you his perspective on the wildfire resilience plan component. Um there was one comment that felt that this was an overprotective a burdensome um thing to put into the the preliminary plat
guidelines. Um I think I would I'd like to have Mike have an opportunity to speak and I did run it by the Paramount Planning Group who's the new Firewise contractor for the county and they were supportive of it. Um, I don't see this as really a huge thing in most cases. If
you have a site that's reasonable, it's not really going to add much to a developer, but um, I think about Mr. Noachic's property up on West Pope Lake that I was out and it's all a bunch of dead and dying ballsome. And if you have 40 acres of that, why not take the preliminary plat stage to evaluate that
hazard, talk about fuels break, you know, let's be preventative. If we're talking about adding residential development in rural parts of the county where we have wildfire risks annually, um I think that I'd encourage this this planning commission to do some planning and uh integrate that into the
preliminary plat aspect of it. Um Mr. Chair, maybe I'll hand it over to Mike to break me up a little bit and let him speak to this component of why it might be important. Yeah. Yeah, I think that's good. Good afternoon. As Nea said, I'm Mike Keeport, the Cook County Emergency
Manager. Our Firewise program uh falls under uh my jurisdiction and our Firewise program has been contracted for many years. We've had quite a robust Firewise uh program over the year years.
probably I I I don't know this but but it's uh we're very active and have been for over 20 years I want to say. Um so when Neva brought this forward as she said I did reach out to our firewise contractor and we talked it through and
it does seem like a good process. Uh the work we do is typically around um buildings, houses, garages, rivers, streams, lakes. Um and and some folks get the idea that we're going in there and clearing the clearing the land, and we're not. We're just doing fuels
reduction, which is basically u getting rid of deadened down, whether it's chipped, burned, hauled away, anything at chest height, five inches and under. not anything specifically balsom fur. Um we now have our uh spruce budworm
situations. So we do work through them uh type of situations and they get eliminated. Sometimes we chip it, put it back on the ground. Uh other times we haul it away to sites. Other times uh the US Forest Service comes in and burns
it on site. Um, with the uh current uh wildfire situation we have going in northeastern Minnesota, it kind of brings people to the edge of their seats and we when I say we as our firewise
folks feel any wildfire mitigation we can do ahead of the game is is just putting us ahead of the game really. And uh um our Firewise um program is entirely grant-f funded
and as you may know grants are starting to dwindle. Um so and not that we we're dying to put it on somebody else's shoulders, but it just seems logical to me an old lumberjack myself to uh get
some of this work done ahead ahead of the curve. And uh and we do, you know, around lakes and rivers and in between property lines, we do leave buffers. You know, we clean up what we can clean up, but it's not like you're
going to be able to see your neighbor if you if you don't want to. So, it's a good program. I just wanted to have the opportunity to uh add some context to uh what Neva is bringing forward to you tonight. And I'm up for any questions
should you have any. While we're on it, do do any of us have questions for Mike? I just have a comment to share. Um, in my role as commissioner, one of the most frequent questions I get is about firewise and how to protect property.
So, I think if we can do something as as we're looking at this overlay district to work in advance of a situation, um, we're helping our community. That would be my thought. Mr. Chair, I do have one one question.
So, as we ask a developer to put this into their design plan, I mean, primarily we'd be talking about probably defensible space planning and fire brakes. I mean, are we going to ask developers come in and do a fuels
reduction across their whole property? I I can speak partially. So the way I have this set up in the current ordinance language is that the our office would put together a form and in that form I would work with firewise to kind of talk about what are things we
should be talking about with these project proposers and there's a lot in our Cook County community wildfire protection plan. It's a little dated now um but I think using some documentation from that as well as just observational site designs. The Cook County Soil and
Water Conservation District is usually pretty helpful as well. Um, so I don't want to be too overly prescriptive at this point in time, but um, you know, million different versions of property can look like up here. Uh, but I foresee a a relatively like a onepage form that says, hey, identify what kind of risk
level the Cook County Community Wildfire Plan identifies your property in cuz some are just low risk and then they're just like, you're done. You don't have to do this anymore. But if you're like in the mid-trail area and it's a high-risisk location, that plan already talks about mitigation measures to take into consideration. So, I don't want to
recreate the wheel. I think we could cite the plan, but then vet it either through our firewise program if they've got the staffing capacity or our soil and water conservation district or even maybe training our staff up a little bit more to be better informed and that and the plan NEA has updated
the community wildfire protection plan is uh one of our next step in firewise is to put a committee back together and have that plan updated. It is it is somewhat outdated. So that's that's in our future too. So is this more of like
a plan info versus a condition of granting these overlays? People ask. So this is in the preliminary plat section. All of this discussion is relative to all preliminary plat. It's more than just this residential open space open space subdivision. Like any plat in Cook
County, standard platting requirements are to look at wildfire risk of the property. essentially. So again, if the site is not really an issue, then it's really not going to take anything on developers to do this. But, um, you know, if if it does have a vegetation,
uh, pattern that we know is dead and dying balsom, that's not going to just go away on its own favorably. So, thank you, Mike. All right. Thank you for your time. Thanks, Mike.
All right, so moving on. Um, I said, and again, this is all in that preliminary plat section. So, also with the preliminary plat, I gave you addendum number two, uh, working with Mitch Iverson, our environmental health specialist. He wanted to see slightly different language about the septic
requirements. So, this is something that I was doing to try to make it a lot more clear. Our current ordinance language says that we want to see a septic design for preliminary plat which I would say is more burdensome to developers than they need to do at that stage. Frankly, they don't really know what septic
design they need because they don't know how many houses they're going to get to build and what sizes. Um really what we need to know is that there's adequate soils to place a septic system on the property to design the plat around. So that's what these changes are reflecting. Um, I thought we had hit the
mark the first time with these ordinance ideas, but Mitch wanted me to change it a little bit more last minute here. So, um, I have a more revised version of the amendment proposal, um, that he feels more comfortable with that newer language. So essentially what this is a
long winded way of saying that for preliminary plot uh we want to see soil observation logs for where the septics are being planned to go two for every individual lot or if you have a cluster system where that cluster system location is um and reflecting back to
the temperance trails application we weren't seeing that information with the preliminary plot and I'm a little nervous that that might be problematic when we see the final plot because we don't know where the developer pro proposed to put the septic system that that's actually an adequate site to put a septic system because they haven't
done the information yet. So, um I think this would be a a logical thing. This would at least ensure that licensed septic designers getting out on the property at the preliminary plat stage to do that evaluation to tell us that the sites that they have identified are realistic rather than just a handdrawn
and square on the plat face. So, um, and then for a final plat, they'd really have to do their homework before the final plat gets approved. That's really where the rubber meets the road and investing the time and energy with a septic designer to put together the design and operation management agreement um, if it's a more advanced
system. So, that's the language that's in addendum two related to that. And in final plat there's also a little bit about the we just wanted cleaner electronic submitts being made more clear for developers. And then um again
that revised language from our environmental health officer. Um just wanting slightly different language about the same thing essentially for the septics. So I'm I'm sorry for the extra sheet of paper and slightly different language. I this
isn't functionally changing anything in my opinion just different language that he liked better. So um so now that was the that was standard plat everything I just spoke about was about all plats preliminary and final plat subdividing more than four parcels
it's a plat. So now we're going to open space subdivisions and open space subdivisions follow the standard platting guidelines. So everything we just talked about will also apply to the open space subdivisions as far as like procedure, the wildfire protection plan, all that
stuff. So in the open space subdivision, we've proposed to add language clarifying um that the intent of the open space is to preserve, protect, and manage the open space. And then we said that the development of
density may allow greater than normal residential density where 50% of the property is still preserved and the development has been reszoned as a residential open space overlay district which does not allow short-term rental. The density of development for open space subdivisions not within this
district and then it's all the natural normal open space language. So, it's just recognizing that we still have normal open space subdivisions, but now we have bonus residential density open space subdivisions if they're in this Roso district. And again, we're tying
the zoning ordinance uses to the district to get that bonus density. And then I added in a paragraph about the open space being preserved. Um, intentionally designed and maintained to reduce the risk of wildfire to residential development by incorporating defensible space and strategically
placed fuel brakes. Open space design should consider existing wildfire risk, topography, vegetation type, and access for emergency responders to enhance wildfire resilience consistent with the goals of the Cook County Community Wildfire Protection
Plan. And next is in that open space subdivision, there's kind of says open space subdivision type one is like the normal and then number two is the Roso version, the residential open space overlay district. And this is where the Roso open space
subdivisions create lots in excess of the density maximums of the underlying zone district in accordance with these provisions. For standards, the county will allow a higher base density for parcel creation to exceed the underlying zone district standards by two times
double the maximum density under the following conditions. Number one, the property subject to subdivision is within F2 and F3 zone district and also the residential open space overlay district and meets all Roso eligibility requirements in the Cook County zoning ordinance. Number two, the development
restricts uses to those identified as allowed within the Roso district. Number three, the development prohibits rentals for less than 30 days within the deed restrictions. Number four, the development allows for duplexes as well as single family dwellings provided the duplex has each unit on a separate
platted lot. Number five, the development maintains 50% open space. And number six, the development establishes a homeowners association in the event of shared septic and or water systems. I also included a table that tries to break down the density calculation and shows how we would
expect to be uh doing the math on these. So essentially, you consider the zone district first, the F2 or the F3 zone district. So F2 is the 10 acre minimum lot size and the F3 is the 5 acre minimum lot size zone district. Then you
take that parcel acreage and divide it by the minimum lot size requirements. So uh let's just take the bottom line there because it's easiest to see the bottom line in my opinion. So F3 is a 5acre minimum lot size. Let's say we have a 46
acre parcel. Uh the standard residential lot density would allow a person to create nine lots out of that. So it' be nine 5 acre lots and change. And with the roso multiplier, you times it by two and you could get up to 18. Well, actually 19 because we're going to round
up. You round up anytime there's a decimal to make it extra extra friendly. And again, this is a maximum. So a lot may not meet these standards. Our office anecdotally speaking has found that we like septic
systems and wetlands are naturally going to constrain a lot of development and especially septic systems. The cost and size septic systems make uh happen on a lot naturally is limiting. We kind of saw that with temperance trails. The conditional use permit originally I
think was vetted for 20 or 22 residential units and then when the developer really put research into it uh the preliminary plaque came in I think at like 16 or 18 units. So we very often don't see things build up for for the full maximum density. So anyone that
might be alarmed by these numbers I just want to point out that there's still a lot of time and investment to actually get to these sort of numbers. All right. So, open space subdivision just as like a concept of an open space subdivision. It's really taking the
property first, understanding what the property has to work with. So, step one would be to do an assessment to the developer and they can work with our office to identify the sensitive features on that landscape. Where's the wetlands? Where's the creek? Uh where's like a nice viewing area to maintain
those nice aesthetics. Um identify where the 50% open space should be. the things that naturally have to be protected. Then delineate areas out for storm water, septic, wildfire mitigation, and development areas. Say like, okay, these things we want to work with. These are good building sites. Here's the wetlands
over here. We don't want to build over there. Then locate your housing site, then align the roads and shared driveways, and then draw in the lot lines. Whereas a lot of people like to go in and just draw in the lot lines first and not take into consideration the site conditions. So just a just a point there that you got to think about
your process. Um and then additional changes to the open space subdivision and and these are applying to all open space subdivisions now. Um clarification about the homeowners association. Um this language did exist already. Um and some of this
was fleshed out with earlier discussions with different interest groups about uh ma improving some of this language. um open space requirements talk about what can happen in the open space, the minimum setbacks, lot area, um and application requirements. Just a point
of note that some of the public comments did express concern about the open space itself, what can actually happen in the open space and I do feel that the ordinance is pretty clear about this that it's not intended really to be a developed area. There is flexibility for common use activities. I think it talks
about private recreational facilities, but a lot of that can get fleshed out in the planning commission's review. And that's kind of the answer for a lot of the questions that came up during the public comment is that there's a lot of oversight and a lot of review by this board in the creation of these sorts of
developments. So, um, anything about what can happen in the open space, a lot of that will happen on a case-byase basis. So, they can put in trails. Um, I think there's room for like, you know, solar panels for the community that's living there or community gardens. Um,
you know, that those sort of things. And plan unit development. This is again, this was more housekeeping items. Um, just kind of cleaning up some outdated language and trying to make this just a little bit more clear and
streamlined for folks. Um, and then the developers agreement. So, this is was this is the last thing. I'm almost done. um your third addendum. So, uh I did speak at length with a few different developers or contractors in our region
um and talked about the language. I think in general I found that private entities really appreciate clarity. They don't want to feel like they're guessing or that the county is going to like change its mind on something. They're making a business plan. They want to know what the expectations are. And so
the developers agreement in my mind is setting a really clear expectation that both the developer and the county are agreeing to so that when there's staff turnover in our office or whatever happens, the county board changes over, the planning commission changes over, that developer has signed an agreement with the county and it's really clear
what was expected by this before the final plaque gets signed off. So I think the intent of this is a really good communication tool with our private partners. Um I think the the flexibility is what I heard desired. um maybe not being quite so mandatory. When I wrote
this in mind, I was it was almost it's it's more of a protective thing in my mind. We are we are dangling a carrot potentially for developers in Cook County with this ro and the two times density bonus and our property values up here. I felt a little concerned that we
might be creating a very lucrative opportunity for people from outside of the region to take interest in coming up to Cook County and doing work. So, I wanted to be sure we had a mechanism in our ordinance that's being sure that we can be protective and sure that people from outside the area when they're coming in and working and people inside
the area, uh, that we're really clear about what's expected and we have tools for financial assurance if it's feeling necessary and warranted. So, that is from the SAS perspective the intent of adding in this language. I want to note that we already have a developers agreement language. The black text is
what we currently have and the red strikethrough. It's just like one sentence and it really doesn't tell us much about what is expected in a developer agreement. So, I would appreciate something in there that's talking about all the things that we could be considering and running by the planning commission and county board as
we're working through these different developments. Uh just a couple two more slides. I'm almost done. Common questions. So, as I've had a lot of different discussions with a lot of different people on this common question, how will this affect my property? Um, the other question, can
what happen in the open space? There's a lot of questions about impervious service coverage and what does shorland designation mean? And you know, just kind of general questions for like very sight specific type things. Who's going to take out the trash and who's going to maintain our roads? Um, and then just a
last point, a last permitting processing reminder. So for everything attached to this Roso overlay district and the two times density bonus that's going to require two public hearings. So first there's a reszone public hearing before the planning commission. And then once
the reszone hearing was done the property would be in a reszone. If you turn on the county zoning map you would see that property in a little whatever color hashed mark and you would see it's in its own little overlay district. But then also in order to actually do the subdivision, that is a preliminary plat
which is then another public hearing and that's where neighbors would actually see what the design is being proposed. Where is the open space being located? So if neighbors have concern about the road like I think about the Gunfl Trail, the Gunland Trail is a historic scenic byway. So we don't want to see like
lines of town homes along the Gunflint Trail. That wouldn't be in line with the character of that area. So we would want to be seeing those preliminary plots respecting those local planning efforts of certain areas and being designed in those features in mind. So place your open space so we don't see anything of
your development from the Gunflint Trail for example. So, I think that we have so much local control over these that I want to um give whatever confidence I can to those who might have fears about changing uh feelings in the area that these sites are going to be very sight
specific and they're going to have a lot of ability to have a lot of planning put into every single one of them. It's not going to be kind of a willy-nilly effort of just putting in a bunch of houses wherever. So, and then just for staff recommendation, I'm really glad to see some people in the room tonight. Thank
you very much for sitting here and joining and taking interest in this. Um I think you know I what is here we can talk through the details and see what concerns people have. Um if there's nothing terribly alarming or if we feel we can clean up some language uh I think there's room to move forward with these
but I'm definitely open to hearing you know if there's some things that feel like we got to stop and clean things up before we move forward. If we felt comfortable with moving forward, um, we could do it with the language as is, plus I mentioned, uh, the three addendums, plus Jeff's addition of the impervious surface coverage
clarification or any other modifications we note here tonight, and then this would go forward to the Cook County Board of Commissioners at their May 27th regular business meeting. Alternatively, if we feel like that's too much, too soon, it's still too too disorganized or maybe there's too much misunderstanding
or confusion about something, you can table it. we can clear things up, provide a cleaner version at the June meeting, whatever your pleasure is. I just wanted to kind of leave you with a little bit more structure and organization than all the stuff I just threw at you. And so I am done and everybody else gets an opportunity to
talk now. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and for everybody's patience. I appreciate it. Um, just our normal protocol, right? We just our normal protocol open to the public and if anyone wants to speak, ask questions. Um, please come to the mic
and state your name for the record and name and address and and uh make your comments and questions and it's open to everyone here. Charlie, you need my address, too? Yeah, we we need it for the record. I'm John
Holtzer. I live at 184 West Deeryard Lake Road. Um I'm a realtor at Timberwolf and um I didn't really come to plan to say too much. First of all, applaud Neva. That was pretty amazing and a lot of good work has gone into it. Um from a real estate perspective, I
think it's a good idea. Um I think that some developers will be interested. I mean, we we do have lots that sort of sit around right now that have been platted, but I I just think they're sort of maybe too distant and they're not selling. That was the one concern I had, but I think if a developer, if you're within the areas you're talking about, I
think it could be appealing. Um, so I think it's a really good idea and I I would encourage it. I I sort of wish, it might sound funny me saying this, but I sort of wish there was some mechanism that we could keep the lots at a certain price. I don't know that there's a way to do that and that probably wouldn't it wouldn't be so interesting to developers
potentially then um because you know there's some risk that we do this and the building costs are so much anyway that we don't necessarily get the lot sold and the housing created um but I but it's a great step in the right direction and and that's a lot of that's a ton of great work. Thanks. We're lucky
to have NEA. Anyone else want to make any comments? Mary Van Doran, 20 Schroer Tote Road, Schroeder, Minnesota. I'd just like to thank Neva for all the time that she's put in and all the people that she's
spoken to and the time she spent with Schroeder. We have a representative from Schroeder tonight, too, in the township level. and and um it just makes me feel good that this step is happening right now because I think it really needs to happen. I think it's uh really going to
be something good for this community. It may not take off right away, but it's going to show its face and it's going to be good. That's all I'd like to say. Thank you, Mary. Anyone else? [Laughter]
Hi, I'm Kathy Johnson. I'm a Schroeder Township Supervisor. I'm not here in that capacity. Um, but I just wanted to reinforce what everybody else is saying. NEVA has done a fantastic job and this gives the community an opportunity to have single family homes. Um, and I
really like the specificity she put in there. it won't be vacation rental. Um, and I think that's a concern right now. Um, we lost I don't know what percentage of our housing and due to vacation rentals in my opinion and just from what
I've seen. So, it's it's a it's a nice start and um I support it. So, thank you. I Oh, 9302 West Highway 61. Thank you. not really public, but um Jean Peterson,
county attorney, um 214 West 9th Avenue. And um I just wanted to come on the record and say that I meant to submit something in writing. Um Neva and I met some time ago and I just it fell off my radar. So, I just wanted to
um put on the record that I personally in my office appreciates the um amendments or the proposed amendments on the developer agreement. The prior language that said that the developer and um the county may enter into a an
agreement is not necessarily that valuable. um and then setting forth uh with some more clarity what those requirements would be in that agreement is particularly helpful. I think also that um the financial guarantees
although most um developers are working with banks or financial institutions I think that the interests of the county um are while similar are not the same as the interests of a bank. So having the
financial guarantees to the county specifically do as the stated purpose um you know really give more assurance that the project will be seen through to completion rather than just that the
loan will be repaid. So I appreciate the clarity and hopefully that um leads to less work for my office. Anyone else? All right. Um, closed to the public at the moment
and uh discuss as board. Who wants to start? I could start. Um I I and even I've had discussions about this from the beginning. I I really think this is
important. Um it does does help us with the whole housing issue, but also prevents habitat fragmentation, protects natural resources, those types of things. Um, that said, I do have a couple comments that I I um and one of these I
don't like to sound like a broken record, but I do agree with Chelle's comment about transportation infrastructure and caution where we put these because um I see this a lot with fellow employees at Looten Mountain in the
winter. They don't have vehicles. They are they have to find a way to work. And the further these become removed from our economic centers, the harder it becomes for people to make a choice to to to buy a house there and live there. So, some of that consideration might be
especially when we start looking at township roads and how far out we get. Um, the other thing I just I'm going to just bring section 6.2 D2. It's where we talk about open
space may include outdoor recreational facilities. I think somebody in the public raised this comment and I I'm going to raise it too. We talk about that should be available for the general public. Um to me that seems like we're treading on the line of park dedication.
We're saying that this is a park and people can come here. They can come into my neighborhood. my homeowners association, our homeowners association owns this property and now people can come and use it whenever they want. And
I I can see negative reaction to that. And if we do really want that, then let's think about is there a requirement that there should be a public park dedication within these developments or not? Would you like me to address that? Yes, sure. Yeah. So, so two points. So, the
first and I think well, three points. Good point is my first point. I think you know want to be good about that. Uh this was existing language I think is the ironic part when this started coming to people's attention. So the current language is that and by the general public that's that's what's currently in
there. Uh my other point is that the word may is at the beginning of number two. So it says open space may include and all the rest of that is optional. So it's to say that it doesn't have to. So I think of the spear hiking trail as
being an example that say the spear hiking trail crosses through one of these properties. A person could put that into an conservation easement and you know do whatever agreement and it's for use by the general public but it doesn't it doesn't have to the open space doesn't have to be used by the
general public. So and I think that's where again these case by case at least that's been my interpretation. We're lucky enough to have our county attorney here. Maybe Jean wants to double check if she's been catching in on this conversation. Sorry to put you on the spot, Jean, but just double check I'm
getting that right. It's fine. I'm sorry. I was getting a message about my daughter Kenny. I apologize for you. Yep. So, we've got a provision about open space, gene. Um it's it's under the open space requirements and it says that open space must meet all of the
following criteria. So, we start off with a must and then it lists off four different criteria. And the specific section that we're looking at says open space may include outdoor recreational stuff dot dot dot for use by the general public and by the general public. So,
I'm stating because number two begins with may, that whole number two is optional. It doesn't have to include for use of the general public. Correct. The specific qualifier would apply to the second phrase and the general qualifier
would apply only to the first phrase. So it would be an allowable use, not a required use. Right. Okay. Okay. Y I do think to that point though, Jeff, it it puts neighbors in a position
potentially. It's one thing to accept that you are in an HOA with, you know, a a public use park, but that that is being developed next to your parcel that you don't have any, you know, say in. I think that's something to consider for
sure. That being said, I think that's another point of board review though, right? That's in the plat. That's something that we're looking at. That's something neighbors can feed back to and we can take into consideration.
That's all I had. Courtney, do you I don't um I had one question to go back to our section 8 um and the developers agreement in terms of whose discretion it is and it says the county's
discretion. Is that staff? Is that the planning commission, county attorney's office? Who's making that call at what point at 125%. For I mean any of it really because the developer in the county may at the county's discretion enter into
it. Yeah, I don't know that we have any examples of developers agreements that have actually been done in Cook County. I couldn't find any when I went through earlier plats that have been approved. I guess it's been something that's just kind of been in our ordinance but hasn't functionally been applied yet. However, with that said, I reach out to my other
state planning and zoning administrators and a lot of counties do use this as a tool. I foresee it as something as the preliminary plat gets approved based off of the conditions. The zoning administrator, land services director would take those conditions and work
with our county attorney's office to say, you know, these are the conditions. These are the things that were of concern relative to this application. Can you help us put together a developer agreement? because the developers agreement has to get signed before the final plat. So you guys would still be seeing that developers agreement before
the final plat got approved, but there's no public hearing before the final plat just for clarity sake. So but yeah, I think it's it's in tandem. We would bring it to them, but they would have the they're the experts. Mhm. And then my one other question I had was
just on um the conditional use of multifamily dwellings. Mhm. So you could, just to play devil's advocate and spin it out a little bit, you could have say two duplexes
together with a zero setback between them, right? Like like one duplex, two units. Yeah. You could basically make like a forplex. Oh, conditionally with a CP. I haven't thought of that. Just thinking about how
far you could spin out the density. I guess I mean to that could go lots of different ways. I don't think it's a bad thing necessarily. I think more bang for your buck honestly to Mhm. Yeah. Well, and I think with duplex so conditional uses different from permitted uses are
in any unlimited number. They wouldn't be compatible with the zone district. So it's on a case- by case basis. I think of these two acre maximum lot sizes and it that you know we have to be looking at the septic capacity and all those things but maybe like a little forplex of some form whether it's like two
duplexes put together or something might be a really nice way to do that but again I I wanted to try to streamline this as much as possible for simplicity that permitted uses are really clear and then we look over conditional uses similar to everything else. So I I think
it's an option. Yeah. Um but yeah, it's because this lot size range goes from quarter acre to up to two acres. So, you know, would a forplex be suitable on a.7 acre lot or maybe a 2acre lot. So, that's kind of where some of that
discretion would need to come in. And then the septic is just again, this was geared for flexibility because we're using difficult sites. We always say in our office, all the easy to develop land has already been developed. So, I foresee developers trying to work with complex wetlands. they only they got a pocket over here to develop and a pocket
over here. Um so they're going to be trying to figure out that septic need. There's going to be some mixtures of ind individual septic systems, some mixtures of cluster systems. And you know I don't want to say like yeah forplexes can go in cuz how do we know the septic's going to be designed? You know really changes the septic design stuff. So they would
need a cup for that forplex. Anything that's not not for the duplex the duplex zero line. Yep. Because zero. Yeah. because that's maintaining that density amount still, right? Yep. And your 30% impervious cover is going to really play
into that because you're going to have to start working the numbers about how much property do you have, how much house, how much driveway, how much garage, those types of things. And how do you stay under that 30%. Yeah, I almost ask it in more of an affirmative way. I mean, it's it's a great way to
put more in with less impervious surface, right? I mean that it it becomes possible in this to do that. So when you're talking about one dwelling, so these homes can't have garages. They can. They So the dwelling
is only where you sleep, right? It could be like a house and attached garage. Okay. You know, or house and separate garage, I guess. Yeah. kind of gets a little unnecessarily complicated, but the intent was one dwelling per parcel as like the permitted use.
Everybody gets one dwelling, not two like you get everywhere else in Cook County, right? But they get to be in separate ownership and that's the key to getting more people in homes, right? Could you elaborate just a little more on the locations of these developments?
U as far as roadways and proximity to these roadways, which roadways again were were you speaking of? Do these roadways have to be maintained and plowed year round for the from at at the present time. Right. Good question. So
the way we have the language currently is state highway 61, county roads or township roads that these developments are within a half a mile of those designated roads. So and that those change over time. The county board's having some discussions now about some road designations. The grade might
become a county road in the future. Right now it's not an option because it's a forest road, but if it became a county road, that would open that up for this. And that that evaluation of maintenance level would be a part of this review. So when I reached out to our highway engineer Robbie Hass, he didn't have any comments at this point
in time. He thought that that language was pretty good enough. Um again, because these these the reszone itself, stage one of this with reszone, that's going to be where we need to think through suitability. And I've been considering putting together maybe like
a one-page addendum to that application where we're asking these project proposers to think about things like that to help jumpstart the suitability for the reason. the reszone might not be suitable in areas, although it's meeting those eligibility requirements, but if there's not year- round snow plowing,
well, then that doesn't work. So, um, township roads, I I didn't get a chance to talk with Looten or Toffee Townships. I didn't hear anything from them. I did send them the notices. Um, but I know like Schroeder has township roads that might not be really suitable for
highdensity development right now, but in the future they might want to, but they wouldn't probably want a high residential development if they didn't have the road infrastructure to support it just hypothetically speaking. So, we're going to get comments from like the townships on the township road through this process. I would I would
nag them for that. Thank you. Mhm. And we do have an interactive map. So, if you guys wanted to take a moment to look at that to really understand what this eligibility criteria looks like on a county map, I'd be happy to put that on the I think your little mini computers can can show that
if that's something you'd like. Have you guys looked at that yet? Or the interactive map. Have you looked at that? Do you feel comfortable with where these things would be fitting in? Yeah, I looked at the static one that you sent out. But yeah,
I mean I do I mean you know one question that comes up on that Charlie is like how far up the arrowhead would you really want to do this you know as a developer or as a resident to live there you know so that may be just kind of the
the market may actually limit how far up some of these corridors we go. that that's really where my mind went is the market's going to also have a lot of limiting factors. Um, and I think if I understood what John said, I think I I
think that was part of what one of his comments too was um, you know, you can only go so far and have this density be desirable. So, but at the same time, sometimes when you go farther out, land is cheaper versus being closer to town. So, that might actually open it up to
Yeah. some other people. Um, our actions at this point, we can table it. We can recommend it goes forward with the amendments that have been discussed and that that's really what our options
are at the moment, I think. So, I would just point out if you choose to table it that it just eats up a lot of staff time because I'm going to keep getting calls from people and then I have to present to you again. If we table it though, that those
comments are admissible. We we we're not closing public comment period then. We're we're we're still allowing this stuff to come in or or not. Um I would uh I think you'd have to leave it open, wouldn't you? Well, you've technically tabled. So, once you
table it, all work stops. It nothing happens until you bring it forward again, unless you chose to hold a second public hearing, which you can do. Okay? I'm just I want to point out that please have a purpose and intent because again, it's getting to our busy season, right?
And I want reason for that extra work if unless we feel like there's something that we can work with here tonight to move forward. I haven't heard any deal breakers from people. Yeah. I mean a point of clarification when it goes to the county when we send it forward to
the county board county board also takes public input. So I mean there it's not like because we move it forward we've shut off the opportunity for the public to weigh in. They still get one more bite at it. Yeah. I mean that the county board has a general public comment at the beginning
of their meetings. It's not a public hearing. So um they wouldn't be in the record. Yeah. Right. Okay. And that sometimes creates problems when we encourage people to do things that way because people could just circumvent the planning commission and if everybody just directed all their comments to the
county board it would totally undermine this whole process frankly. So we we strongly encourage the formal comments to be directed at the planning commission so that like an commissioner Sullivan said they can be integrated into the record and then I can reflect that to the county board in my report to
them. Mr. Chair, I'm gonna be bold. I'd like to make a a motion that we um move this forward to the county commissioners for approval. I would second. Is that with the amendment? With the Yes, correct. With all the
amendments we put in place tonight and then NEA sent to us previously too. Addendum 1 through three as well as the impervious surface coverage clarification in section 4.25. Yep. Yep. Correct. Yes. That that would be my
motion. Mr. Chair, we have a motion and a second. Um do we have any more discussion as a board on um call for a vote? Uh all in favor? I I opposed. I'm hearing none. Cool. Thanks,
guys. Thank you. It's amazing the amount of work you've done. You did a lot of work. See if anyone uses it. Well, it could be fun if they do. See what happens on May 27th tonight. Could I ask even one question while we're still um I was just curious if there was any status update on that
aggregate mapping project that we were undertaking with the DNR. Mhm. Yeah. Um there will be a presentation to the commissioners sometime in August or September. uh they'll begin the field work this summer and so it's a
partnership between the DNR and the University of Minnesota. So it's technically going to be the University of Minnesota doing the field work this summer um out collecting that data. So the the outcome of this would be potentially in 2026 we would have a countywide aggregate potential aggregate
resources map so that when we're reviewing gravel pit requests and the neighbors are saying do this somewhere else we'll be able to look at a map and see what does somewhere else look like is there somewhere else. Um so it'll be a very helpful tool for the planning commission in particular as well as other decision makers in reviewing
aggregate uh requests. Okay, thank you. Mhm. That I'd look for a motion to adjurnn. So moved. Second. All in favor. Thank you everybody. Thank you. Good job,
Neva. Like you get a round of applause. I know it's And you like thought of everything like all of our questions she immediately like ban. I talked to