##VIDEO ID:-Dc_WZa68Y4## Planning Commission meeting for November to to order and we'll start with the approving of the minutes and the agenda for the meeting minutes from the October meeting I'll make a motion to approve I did find one it's just a one word on the bottom of the second page but middle it says Chris skildum owner of Woodland Foothills he's not the owner he's an owner at of to at any other changes or additions Corrections yeah any changes to the minutes no motion to approve the minutes and agenda already you already moved to approve right no I moved to make a motion oh okay is there a second to this motion yeah uh okay I'll second okay any further discussion all in favor I I opposed motion carries and jury Enterprises request to consider we're looking at the preliminary and the final plat for the wood hil's first edition Nea thank you madam chair this was at the October 16th Planning Commission meeting there were a couple of revisions that were noted uh that needed to be made and so those Corrections have been made the County Recorder did look over that and she did not have any additional comments um and the ordinance does allow both the preliminary and final plat to be approved at the same meeting provided the preliminary plat was heard at a previous meeting so that means that you can uh move forward with recommending approval of both the preliminary and final plats um I do believe I've got a quick slide on this um again this was for adding the five New Lots uh Woodland Foothills as the first addition this would complete the buildout of this platted development and here I just have a little bit of an update on the staff recommendation um the only condition of approval is that all lot development conforms to the county ordinances and applicable regulations thank you and this is not open to the public for a public hearing we've done that is there a motion to approve or deny make a motion to approve it is there a second is a motion to approve both preliminary and Final in yeah I'll I'll second and that's with the recommendations from staff any other disc discussion all in favor I I opposed motion carries and the vertical Bridge able LLC request this was tabled as well and we've gotten more information yes so uh I'm going with the motto that what is it slow as smooth and smooth as fast on this one so we're going to go chronolog logically so at the October 16th meeting you guys held the public hearing on this and voted 5 to one to recommend approval of the cell tower following that meeting I received correspondence from the County's uh radio communications analyst with comments related to statements made by the applicant during the hearing that they wanted to get factually accurate to be presented for the county board's consideration uh it was kind of felt that during the Planning Commission meeting there wasn't adequate time for for further dialogue to really flesh out some of those details and so they're trying to get those facts cleared up for the County Board uh with that memo that was included in your packets here um there the concerns from the radio communications analyst included um the comments made by the applicant about the possible alternative locations the Planning Commission had asked whether or not if this Tower could be placed further up on the ridge line if it would still service that Highway 61 Corridor uh there is an acknowledgement that that no other location would be servicing this area in that way um I'm paraphrasing obviously um and then also there is a comment about a federal act and that kind of obligated um these towers to be placed there again another paraphrase um and you were all there luckily and so the radio communications analyst wanted to clarify a couple of statements about that so in his memo he indicated that um you know they're up the ridge line is should be able to service this Highway 61 Corridor physically speaking not taking into consideration the infrastructure buildout that might be might or might not be present in that area um so it was almost a request for like an Alternatives analysis which really isn't a part of the conditional use permit process exactly um so anyway the that memo was sent and then the applicant it sent back a kind of a response memo to those statements um just a clar ify their perspective the applicant's perspective this time has this entire time has been that their application is complete and it is to fill in this Gap in this specific area and again just for illustrative purposes um we're looking at this is the proposed coverage for the full Highway 61 Corridor and so the applicant's been maintaining that their purpose is to fill in this gap of the existing Network and that Highway 61 is their targeted range um the locations up the Kramer Road aren't close enough nor do they have the intensity of development that would warrant the um demand for that Tower to be placed further up there so that's kind of the statement that the applicant stood by also there was a question about the height of the tower whether a shorter Tower could succeed the same service area the applicants have been maintaining that that full siiz tower is still necessary due to the additional carriers that need to be placed on that Tower so those two memos went to the County Board yesterday morning uh and yesterday morning we had a robust discussion with the County Board of Commissioners about this item typically when these conditional use permits go forward to the County Board we don't flesh out all the details that we're doing here you guys are kind of making the Hamburger so to say and at the County Board they're kind of just grilling the hamburger they're just finishing it up um but the County Board really got into questions about the specifics of the shadowing whether the height of the Tower would be okay what the elevation of the tower would be um there was some discussion about kind of this greater benefit to the county whether it's serving the benefit of the county wholly to be in this location or if it should be in an alternative location and we did kind of get into some tangents at some points I would I would say um following that the count discussion the Commissioners felt better if this came back to the Planning Commission because we realized that they were kind of getting into the leg work that the Planning Commission should be doing and both the applicant and the radio communications analyst had acknowledged that if felt like that discussion got a little truncated at the Planning Commission level so the commissioner said you know hey we've got these two new memos before us the Planning Commission hasn't read this information so we would feel better if this information went back to the Planning Commission for you guys essentially go through the findings again consider the additional information that has been Prov provided some of it I don't know any of the information is particular nothing changes the application itself so there's no need to reopen the public hearing uh it's more so clarifications about the technology I would say um and so I I also wrote then a memo to you guys so three memos now and my memo is telling you kind of what happened at the County board meeting that's in your packets and kind of summarizing that discussion so the request by the commissioner I believe and commissioner Sullivan is here too and she may want to weigh in if she feels like I missed any of the highlights of this summary is um essentially to go back through the findings take a little bit more time I know we've got a hefty agenda tonight but this is a pretty significant project um and really flush through the that you feel um like there's been a robust discussion about the tower um and with that Madam chair I would like to ask if commissioner Sullivan has anything else to add because it it was a lot rather quickly I think you did a really good job of summarizing things and we just felt um and it's it's really nice that Nea was able to say you know we have a Planning Commission meeting tomorrow we can get this on the agenda and then in a timely fashion we can act on this in December which is the goal to to make sure that we meet that 120 days okay thank you okay well we won't open this up to the public for a public public hearing again because it hasn't been advertised and um we we we can't do that but we'll I've had the opportunity to talk to [Music] um um two of the supervisors at the township and one EMS person and they beg me to um see about getting a tower there so that's my homework I was remiss with with all of this extra stuff last minute um you are correct Madam chair I got an email this morning from one of the Schroeder Township uh supervisors and she did request that this uh be favorably reviewed uh because they do need additional cellular coverage for their First Responders right they said it's I would also offer I talk to the shoulder Fire Department chief and the head of the EMS team and they also echoed that sentiment very strongly for some reason there seems to be a lot of emergency work down there and no the county radios don't work and cell phones don't work right they've literally been in an EMS circumstance working on somebody at a V VRBO who's in a medical condition of course didn't give any details on that but that they weren't getting coverage they've also had volunteer firefighters that didn't show up because they didn't get the message they live down that way right I did look up the purpose intent of the tower ordinance and the tower districts and I have no idea why there wasn't a district considered in that section of the county the other piece that there's a request in here from schroer to review the town plan and I know in talking to these people that their intent is to ask for um more friendly to residential housing zoning along the Kramer Road so there may be a need for another Tower up there but this is today and that's tomorrow so that's where I'm at anyone else there's no way we can find out if uh a need for another Tower would there's a way to avoid having another Tower put up without making too much changes and everything or is it just the way it is um the message I got from the EM EMS person is we need it now I can understand that and if we run off the road down there we'll be happy it's there so what happens when something else happens and they decide they need another Tower that's too bad well maybe the this was R the tower ordinance was written I don't know when but it's pretty dated like 1999 wasn't it no it is more recent and and we just have had amendments to it within recent years since I've been here I would point out that for this type of request we do need to stick to the ordinance standards and the ordinance standards don't include any kind of provision that states you know is there a tower that's is there a better location for this Tower to serve the area that's that's really not the way we're supposed to review these types of requests um so really trying to stick to our ordinance language as close as possible I do think that this has kind of highlighted that we we want to review our Tower ordinance and look at these cases where we have gaps in coverage and what is an appropriate amount of coverage area to Warrant a new tower um but this is you know this is kind of a a high density need if you will although it's not a great physical area of coverage it is a very intensified use everybody that comes to County drives through this stretch of of Road without service so again from the applicants perspective and and I don't think it's inaccurate they've provided a really thorough application and I think they've they've done a very professional job addressing our concerns and helping understand why this site was selected and why it is such a tight Corridor I think it's also what we're being offered frankly I mean we could explore Alternatives but if they don't want to build a tower there then it's not up to us um I think the other thing to talk about is the height which was brought up in discussion and I do see uh an answer that I find pretty satisfying about that in terms of having the height um allow for collocation in the future so when we're talking about AT&T and our emergency services that that additional height Mak that possible okay any other comments yes um just for informational purposes the um Tower ordinance last had a complete overhaul in May 2023 so it was originally adopted in 2001 uh it was completely changed in 2023 I question whether they looked at the population whether there was more districts needed because when this was written you know everybody was thinking it was an isore now we also assume you have cell service that that's just kind of where I thought yeah the whole discussion is what I think will lead us to discuss further changes to the to yeah I will add Madam chair I know the applicant Mike Beck is here today um he has provided some numbers about the population density up the Kramer Road should you feel that that information is helpful to you at all or if you want to ask him any other technical questions to help understand the request better so that's available to you as well as well as Jou the radio communications analyst is also here well we we can take that information and sure I'll pass it out I I didn't get to submit it to this Maxwell earlier because I just completed it today since the meeting was yesterday um what this information is I went and literally drove Kramer Road and Sugarloaf road to look for number of dwelling units along that those stretches of the road and I broke it down yeah into little uh segments based on where the the roads intersected um and so that's basically what here I'll come up to the microphone so you can understand better um so that's basically the number of dwelling units that I found along Kramer Road um the top number 44 should actually be minus the 13 and seven up until fenberg drive because that area is actually served by the existing cell tower uh right up at the corner of Kramer in Highway 61 currently and I I noticed on my phone while I was driving there's three to two bars within that stretch of road so that's that's definitely adequate uh service um that was something that that was one of the items that the uh County Board was looking for was for us to look and come up with some reasons as to why there was not the ability to go back into the Kramer Road area um the other item um did you provide them the other document I provided you yep that was uh that should be in the packet so the the you have the memo that talks about shadowing yes so that was a um additional memo that I recently got from Mike as well yeah that shadowing was another item that the County Board had questions on um shadowing and interference both of those are definitions or descriptions based on uh Josh Matthews he he wrote this for us uh he was the radio frequency engineer who was here yesterday at the meeting um and basically what shadowing is and I had mentioned it at the first plan commission meeting it's a degradation of the signal that occurs when line of sight between where we're where the tower is and where it's trying to get to are blocked by typically terrain building trees or something of that nature so by put it up on the ridge to get down to Highway 61 you've got quite a bit of stuff that gets in the way of that signal um during the winter the trees are more bare so it can penetrate a little better but in the summer months when those trees are full that foliage also helps to block the signal so that was another issue that like I said the the County Board was interested in finding out you know more specifics on what we were talking about with shadowing and that's basically it you put it up here it's coming through all the crud in between to get down to the highway which is down here and has trees at the the perimeter of it so that's really kind of the the two issues and I I believe we those were the two items that the the County Board was really looking for us to provide you information on all right thank you well I think down the road there may be a need for another Tower up on the kraber road to service that area because I think that's probably where development will happen um so that Tower I had forgotten about the tower down by tanite Harbor yeah that T-Mobile is actually on that Tower that's one of the towers we mentioned in our um our information that we provided that that this proposed Tower is connecting to that Tower and one of the items when I looked um uh Miss Maxwell had mentioned to us after the County board meeting to look kind of in the Sugar Loaf and Kramer Road in that area and basically if they were to go up in that area what would happen is if you imagine a wheel that's how cell coverage works so you have the spoke the center The Hub and then all the spokes around it are where the other cell sites need to be now if we were to go anywhere near that Sugarloaf and um Kramer Road intersection what would happen is we would be approximately 4 miles to get to uh this location approximately 2.8 I believe to get if you go perpendicular down to uh the highway so it's it's still a significant distance but what would really happen which is the big problem we would be only 3.7 mil to the SBA Tower and over 10 miles to get to the American Tower site so what happens then is you have a huge gap to the South which basically is this area and then you have interference between the two sites being too close to one another so it it's really I I believe that that is a exactly what the County Board was looking for it there's no way we can go up there and and put it Tower it would it would cause major problems for the signal okay thank you anybody have other questions do you think that answers questions the County Board would have okay so the message will get relayed is there a motion to act on this I'll make a motion to approve it okay is there recommendations that go along with the motion yep I've got the Diana could you get the slides back up again let me get a second first is there a second so it's motion made seconded okay Diana so these are the conditions that were on your original motion and the County Board didn't um we didn't even get to the point of discussing this but I think these these recommend commendations for proposed conditions of approval still apply and the applicant has acknowledged that the financial guarantee is is satisfactory to them as well okay with these conditions any other questions discussion all in favor I I opposed motion carries thank you very much for all your time and putting into this I know it's a lot thank you have a good evening [Applause] okay and then C we've got Mary vanor and Brian vanor reone update yeah so with this attaching the agenda is a letter from Schroeder Township again received this morning uh from their meeting yesterday and so they acknowledg that they plan to work on a Town Plan update in 2025 and so they would um um request that this this rezone application be tabled until that Plan update occurred um a little bit of the from a staff's perspective tabling something that far into the distance without a specific end date is a little problematic just for our own processing procedures um we try not to just leave things out there unprocessed uh the applicant does have the right to wave processing timelines but I think a more suitable alternative would be to request of the applicant that they withdraw this application and we allow them to reapply after that town Plan update has happened and we wave the application fee so that they're not um out any money and it allows our processing timelines and everything to work out so um that's going to be my formal recommendation to the applicant she has you know a choice to pursue that or not we do have time um with our own timeline processing I believe to have this before you in the December meeting if we needed to so that is your update on Schroeder I'll be um zooming into their December meeting uh to talk with them a little further about the town Plan update and kind of what that Vision could look like great so we don't need to act on that it's just information only yep and you will recommend that she withdraw it and redo it if need be yeah yeah I just got this information from them today so I didn't have a chance to connect with Miss vandoran but I'll give her a call tomorrow and we'll we'll figure out which rout she wants to go forward with okay all right we need a motion to adjourn I'll make a motion to adjourn is there a second that's the I I second all in favor that was good so we'll call the board of adjustment meeting to get that to order and the minutes we need to approve the minutes for the September 11th meeting and approve the agenda for tonight a motion to approve the minutes and agenda I'll second second all in favor I motion carries first can you guys speak your mic they can't hear you in the back okay okay so Michael and Teresa Chim has been tabled and we'll turn it to you NAA thank you madam chair again this was a request before you at the September 11th meeting I believe um the applicant Mr mik is here today he did reach out to his contractor during this time period uh as a reminder during that September 11th meeting the board voted to approve the phase 2 part of the resort uh master plan and then tabled the meeting for the phase three part of the project um and part of that uh tabling of phase three project was to have more analysis on the bluff impact uh completed um listening to the minutes the discussion was what is an adequate amount of analysis and the board indic at that having a local contractor look into that would be sufficient so Mr Kik um asked his contractor to look into that um let's see the here here's the memo um so I can just read it out this is from Rick Crawford and he said this emails in regards to the cille Cottages variance I'm writing this email to reassure that the construction of the garage laundry building on the property will have no detrimental impact I see a 9-- foot poured Foundation against the bank that would be very helpful for erosion and Shore up the hill I didn't see any indication of erosion in the bank and I don't see any impact or drainage issues Mike isn't changing much to the bank of the Hill putting Concrete in it is like Shoring that bank from any erosion drain tile and drain Rock will carry lower water out and away from the bank and building I see no alteration to Mike and Teresa's property and I support what they are proposing thank you um as a reminder the this public hearing was held at the September 11th meeting there was a lot of public comments heard um a lot of written comments and verbal comments were heard at that meeting um and again the zoning map of cwell road I think is is part of why this is gaining so much attention obviously cwell road is situated between Highway 61 and Lake Superior with a lot of Residential Properties mixed in with Resort properties so this is why we try to condenser zoning in in one spot when we're able to but this is reflective of the historic development patterns of the area and again cville Road has that character where a lot of people come to this location to walk and recreate on it which is a part of how um a lot of the public comments were reflecting that the concern of approving this variance would alter the feel and use of that road in in area um in Mr kik's uh application he did show um the site plan this is from the application again so the map on the right is showing the proposed project and so the the three cabins uh were uh recommended or voted for approval at the last meeting and then we're looking at the Large Garage Shop laundry on the north side of the road there and then the site sketch that he showed on the right side there is showing kind of his alternative plan that he could build meeting the setbacks his thought is that this would would um close off the view of Lake Superior from users of the road um that isn't really aligned with the purpose and intent of of what people want to see along the road there um when we look at variances again we're looking at variance criteria and so um what I I think is important in this request is we still have to be sure that we're going over the variant standards um I think the the Practical difficulty and the reasonableness standard specifically I encourage you to have some healthy discussion about and think that through as you're reviewing this request um the in in my opinion the memo that was submitted by the contractor doesn't change the project at all uh it's typically recommended that you know when we table these hearings and we bring them forward with more information if that information changes the project and how we noticed it it is appropriate to reopen that public comment period to you know see how those changes um may or may not affect things um but since that memo doesn't from my perspective change the application at all I don't think there's an obligation to reopen the public comment period with that said Madam chair I do know that there's people here today um that may have interest in commenting but it's up to your discretion um and again we don't want to just rehash the same comments that were heard last time um so I think I'll stop there and see if you have any questions for me okay so the I'm looking back at the minutes the number two request has been voted on and passed correct and the number one request has been tabled yeah let's be clear about what's number two and number one so I was referring to the phases of the master plan buildout so phase one was the Inn that was already completed phase two is the three cabins along the lake that was voted for approval and and passed at the last Board of adjustment meeting so now we're looking at what's faced three of the project which is the the cabin or the laundry garage um and apartments on the the top level right right okay so that's what we're looking at is the second phase and um I hesitate to hold a public hearing because I question whether it's been advertised and put out there enough that it could be done and if we're just going to rehash what's been said before Mr Mrs chimi do you have any changes that you would make to this request no we we don't have any plans for changes we we're looking at at evaluating the request as submitted okay okay all right and the variance that was in place has now expired correct Okay so we've got a clean slate we're looking at just the garage building laundry on the upper side of the road okay board Madam chair I'm sorry to interrupt but um there's been a major flaw in the anal and discussion here that I really would like to bring to your attention because it's going to cause reversible error if you if you don't think of what I have to say so I I really would appreciate having a few minutes to explain why what my thinking is okay let me talk to the board what do you think do we hear comments further and Molly are we in trouble as far as opening a public hearing tonight without proper notification that there the public hearing would be opened I it's your discretion whether you'd like to open the heing it's not required okay and uh you may wish to consider whether um you know those who wish to speak today already had an opportunity to speak at the last meeting right and I have guidelines here when invited to speak the following guidelines speak into into the microphone with Clarity state your name and address you may speak respectfully for up to 5 minutes time may be shortened if many people want to speak public comment is reserved for the board to hear your views and not a time to debate with them or others all discussions must be respectful in nature and must be directed to the board not at other members all comments must be directed to the board I'll ask for a show of hands how many would like to speak tonight okay thank you board I think brief less than 5 minutes okay take the microphone stay your name and we'll hear the three that raised their hands mam chair is that 5 minutes per person less than five per person per person okay thank you very much your um your honor um Madam chair Julia I'm Julia R and I live at 1780 East Highway 61 one and I'm a few Lots down from the kelix on the the clock um by way of background and I will get there as I said there was remember five five yes I got it okay by way of background this is a depiction of the proposed building and the Harris's new garage that they just put into the setback on Crawfield Road and as you can see from this the the big the building is a lot bigger than the Harris's Harris's is representational of the other 10 garages in the setback the 17 cabins in the setback and it's it's a little smaller than some of the houses in the setback but they also are dwarfed in comparison to this so um as Nea pointed out it must meet a practical difficulty test it um it um can't alter the essential character of the locality and another thing is is that um uh guiding principle 42 says Resorts can coexist with residences through the use of size and scope standards and that does not look like size and scope standards to me but this leads to my main point you might ask why we would not allow this very if the chics are going to do their alternate plan that Nea Nea uh referred to there alternate no variance plan but there is no no variance plan this is the flaw there's no no variance plan sure they have a non-conforming lot that's less than 5 acres and sure it's grandfathered but it's grandfathered for the use that it had when it came into being way back when when that place was built when the the the rules were changed it got grandfathered but it's not grandfathered to expand I ask you to take a look at Minnesota statute section 462 357 and Cook County ordinance 901 and 902 it says you do not expand grandfather uses and gr if it's if it doesn't fit on on the law without a variance so there is no VAR Varian option now this is important for two reasons first the applicants base their entire practical difficulty test on the fact of this no variance option they're saying if you don't let us we'll do the no variance option but there is none so they have not met a burden of showing that they met a practical difficulty test the second reason that it's important is they can't expand at all without a variance to the non-conforming use they need it for the three cabins they didn't get it they needed it for their Inn as far as I know they didn't get it they need it for the garage they need it for the strip Motel they need it for everything they do on there they need it because they don't have 5 acres and they can't expand so that pen variant is not part of this proceeding it has not been noticed to the public that they're asking for that kind of variance they need to come back in and have all new hearings on all of these things and to conclude I would say in light of all this a finding looking at this the standards and everything a finding that chics have have a practical difficulty and have met the burden of showing that there's a practic practical difficulty is going to be subject to reversal and if they allow if they're allowed to expand in in a way without getting a non-conforming lot variant they also will be subject to reversal so I just really felt like you needed to hear this and I really appreciate you um letting me have the opportunity to do it I hope I was less than five minutes thank you for respecting the time of um the the cabins and the ref to and I'm really sorry but I don't have enough that's fine give one to Molly and there you go they're the ones who need it okay and I'll give one to and next person [Applause] please hello hello Madam chair um my name is Andrea Carlson um I'm at 1575 and 1579 cville Road I share a border with the applicant um so I heard earlier and I kind of laughed a little that it's uh residents are mixed into Resorts and its resorts are mixed into a residential neighborhood um the owner doesn't need this variance as illustrated by the other plan I would prefer the other plan we weren't asked um it was just kind of assumed that this would block The View and no one would like that I would prefer the non-variant um form but as as um was just pointed out you can't do the you can't do any building on there without further you know variance appeals on the status of it as being a resort under 5 Acres the letter coming from the contractor isn't a bluff plan I feel like you like there was questions being asked by the panel saying how does this Upper Floor the top floor connect to the bluff is there parking up there where does the storm water go a road is a dam when the water comes off the bluff it hits that it can't go past that road um without a culvert there are no culverts on his property on my property all the way to my second property there's a there is a culvert but you go through um driveways so there's no way for that water coming off that roof to get on the lake if you put any any things up like um gutters where does that gutter water go to there's a bluff there all the way to the road so you could ditch it out and really purposely put that that water on my gr on my property but that would be a lot of problems for my property so that makes me an AG grieved party and I I have um secured a lawyer um it's unsafe for uh first respond ERS to have all those cars we I discussed before all the cars that would be on that property we we we don't have a also the the thing with the contractor's letter is he has financial gain in building and putting the foundation down as I he's he's working on the foundation alone he's not an engineer and neither is the Builder we haven't had an an independent Source an independent opinion from an engineer to actually look if that's stable I know where the dining room table is going to go in this garage but I don't know where the storm water is going to go actually I do I took video of it but I'm not allowed to show it to you today um he he he says there's going to be workers housing in this garage well if you're going to double the amount of units you have if you're going to double the amount of of uh of guests in your place you necessitate having to have workers housing CU you just doubled you just made the problem that your thing fixes okay thank you thank you next hello um thank you for giving me the time to speak uh my name is name and address my name is Ted kushman I live at uh 1579 and 1575 cville road which is a property adjacent to the chix property um I also wanted to point out that uh I went through and reviewed the history of variances on cville road since there was number of comments made about how many non-conforming properties there were because it is an older community and older communities create uh these situations I will point out that in in the history I could review I wasn't able to find the the sum of of variants that have been approved do do not uh equal the the amount of of non-conforming uh structure added by this um and in fact looking through history I I could find I I wasn't able to get far enough back to find any other uh structures that actually are are even close to this scale um storm water is a is a particular concern for us the proposed structure adds 3,300 square feet of impervia surface within 20 ft of the road plans as presented do not describe where the storm water runoff from the structure will be directed storm water generally does not run uphill and would likely run into Lake Superior or onto adjacent properties particularly mine uh addressing storm water runoff is already difficult for us um as we're trying to preserve a historic fish house that's on our property that already uh receives a lot of runoff and so any anything that would direct more water towards that uh property would would be a hardship for us um and we would need to pursue whatever remedies were available ailable uh the bluff is concerning um but ultimately if there's damage to the bluff that doesn't affect me that's that's for Mike and his guests uh to deal with um the bluff has been cleared of brush and trees so any mitigations that are are needed would need to be reestablished um and yeah and the uh second floor re exits on the property are are of because you would assume that there would be a parking lot attached to those and there there's no such thing on the plan so not sure how people get get up and down from there anyway um that's my comments thank you for hearing and Mr Mrs jimick do you wish to comment you got five I I'll comment briefly I'm Michael kelik I live at uh crawf Road Cottages 1558 crawf Road um I I'm kind of I'm I'm confused by what by what my neighbor Julia raal has presented presented uh we bought this property in 2003 because it is zoned RCR with the intention of of of reopening a one-time Resort uh we selected that property spe specifically because it did allow us reasonable use to create a resort there um so I I am a bit confused by by what Julia is talking about that it's a non-conforming property um but that's that's about all the comment I have uh uh my application has is is I think pretty thorough and I I think I've presented what I wanted to do and I'm glad to answer any other questions you might have all right thank you okay we'll close the public comment and comment from the board I wonder if we can get a little clarification on use and variance because I I believe that we did discuss that last time and that the the use so long as it is Resort commercial residential is not part of the variance correct correct this isn't a variance for the resort activity right um it is accurate that so this property has 4.93 Acres which is just short of the 5 acre lot size minimum requirement so it is it is a substandard lot because it's missing that acreage so that that's uh an accurate statement um but the the variance was um for and noticed accurately for the project I'm just double-checking some of the ordinance language so I might want to just confirm that before I give you and my understanding is that so long as you meet the setbacks in a substandard lot you can build that structure correct yes yeah um the there's without without a VAR yeah without a variant yeah the the substandard lot requirements and ordinance language is outlined in section 9.03 of the Cook County zoning ordinance and there's four criteria um we have to look at it whether it's a single lot separ in separate ownership from neighboring properties which is the case for this one and that ordinance language I can bring up for you um so it say a non-conforming single lot of record may be allowed as a building site without variances from lot size requirements provided that and then there's four criteria the first is that all structure and septic system setback distance requirements can be met and I think that's what the applic the U Miss raal excuse me is is suggesting is that we didn't technically notice this as a variance on a substandard lot traditionally I've interpreted that as um when somebody is proposing a project within the setbacks that needs a variance that's when the description of the variance includes on a substandard lot of record this one there is locations on the property where conforming development can be met so perhaps um you know that's that's been how that interpretation has been been handled here I hope that makes sense I'm happy to further clarify and attorney's hickin is here too in case if she wants to weigh in on this at all do you wish to weigh in um I'll just say that I think that the notice is adequate and that was properly noticed okay um I'm aware that at one time there was talk of a 10% variance in a dis 10% discrepancy in lot size it would still be a lot of a legal lot we don't have any any like that in the zoning ordinance you might be thinking of the subdivision ordinance which does allow for a certain percent deviation from the standards for the far one 2 and three Zone districts for for that that's the closest I can think of it sounds like that because there was talk of a 10% CH variance M like on a 20 acre lot cuz not all 40s are 40 right so yeah my line of questioning I guess is specifically to to think about what the applicants options are if this is not approved and to address those comments that we heard I think it is it zoned RCR and you can develop it that's my opinion uh this particular application ien no because of where it's located I think in the Practical difficulty conversation there's a lot of other buildable land on that property um you know like the the alternative pro pro proposal of development being like a something on the lake side but I also think there's there's space up with 61 access up top of the hill there's there's a lot of other options and quite frankly for a building this large um which people still may not like but you can build it in there with no variances is how I look at this so I'm I Le know that's where you are I would like a little bit of clarification from Neva on the bluff Impact Zone um and how far that applies on the toe of the bluff versus the the top of the bluff so the bluff Impact Zone stretches from the toe begins at the toe of the bluff and and goes up the slope to a distance of 20 ft past the top of the bluff so everything on the slope of the bluff is a part of that from the base of the toe right from the toe right and I don't have the original application memorized but are we actually getting into the cutting into the toe of the bluff in this project the the the base of the building is going into the hill side I I might I don't know that I have a version on this slide that would show that but yeah in the packets um that was shown there's a stake on site as you did a site visit I believe all of you did a site visit and there's a Stak in the hillside that goes a number of feet into the into the dirt I just wanted a refresher on that so yeah Brad yeah I um I'm looking at this so um I I noted the the comparison to another garage but I don't think we compare commercial properties to private garages so it's misleading okay the building that I compare it to is the one across the street that's already been built right that fairly sizable structure where they rent out rooms and house the main main office is the point of comparison within that section of ground because in residential commercial mixed circumstances we're going to have wildly varying appearances in terms of properties just as people who've built new homes have quite the difference from the people who are staying in small cabins that are you know 15 by 20 ft you know along the lake uh drove through there again this week just or just today just to get a sense of the orientation of the uh of the community um so I um I I take it that the that the folks who live there are wrestling with this and I'm sensitive to that to a point but there is also uh as I mentioned in the last meeting business owners make plans there was a previous variance of approved I know it's expired and we're not bound by it but there's some sense of being um somewhat also sensitive to the idea that the chocks were making plans based on things that had been approved previously and so finding that um um you have quite a bit of of um resistance to this at this moment in time is is uh you know something that we have to balance here it's it's a struggle the um you know not going to approach the the legal interpretations of of you know the reversible comments that were made um not my space the um so I find that this building that they're asking to build is you know 5 feet higher 22 feet longer and 2 feet wider than what they originally had approved so sizewise not a lot of variation there um storm water management uh in construction of this size they have to produce a storm water management plan that Nea has to approve we had to do that to build my own house it's it's kind of the nature of things so the um but the Practical difficulty comment you made Paul um about other places on the property that could be used additional space is is something that similarly gets um you know I I have a bit of sensitivity too and so far so I'm um at the moment sitting firmly on the fence okay let me clarify the this would be considered a lot of record I believe so that's my understanding I'm I'm looking the point 4.93 would be considered a lot of record and on a lot of record which means it was established before zoning took place there's lots of them out there that can meet setbacks that don't require variances a substandard lot is a lot that's less that you can't meet the setbacks is that a correct in the zoning ordinance we recognize that a substandard lot if it's not meeting the size requirements for the Zone District so substandard is just it's less than the acreage so this is a substandard lot substandard but still a lot it's a lot yeah I I think it can be build on a substandard lot without a variance is that correct yes yes traditionally yeah we we issue land use permits on substandard Lots you're correct in that are when a lot of when when many Lots were developed historically we didn't have the same tools that we have today as far as survey grade equipment so as res surveys go through it's not uncommon for there to be discrepancy even on the County GIS there's differences between the mapped acreage and the deeded acreage so this this variation of 07 Acres uh traditionally if if they applied for a structure at a conforming location we would not require a variance to build on this sized lot if all of those requirements outlined in section 9.03 were being met okay thanks that does clarify it so okay ready to vote make a motion I guess I would just briefly you know Echo uh what Brad and Paul have said I I really where I'm coming to is on a commercial lot I would think that this should be approved it's within reason uh close enough to the already approved but expired variance I'm just coming up with if there's a if we really if there's another spot on the property that can be built on it that's that's my hang up so without VAR looking for the list of review practical difficulties is it consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive land use plan Harmony and general purpose intent of Cook County zoning ordinance and official controls yes I think it is I believe it is and the proposed use of the property is allowed in the land use District in which the property is located yes yes RCR the property is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the cook County's Z new ordinance the can can you read that one more time the use yes the property owner is proposing to use the property and here's where I Stumble in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance Eva would it be helpful Madam chair if I read the draft findings that staff put together in the September 11th packet for your consideration yes okay so to that question so the property owner is proposing use we at the reasonableness right reasonable manner M right not permitted by the Cook County zoning ordinance so for this project the garage laundry apartment accessory building is a substantially sized building which has increased in size and use from the 2011 variance proposal information is unknown as to how this structure may impact Bluff stability and storm water runoff the board of adjustment should evaluate whether this proposed building is a reasonable proposal the board may find that this proposed structure is too large to be reasonably situated within the road setback Additionally the board may find that although this project is within RCR zoning it is surrounded by single family residential zoning and this may not be a reasonable use within the road setback given that character the board may find that this proposed structure is reasonable given that this is a parcel that is zoned Resort commercial residential and the character of cravell Road provides for lower traffic speeds making structure placement within the road setback more reasonable the board may find that the 2011 proposal for this structure as part of the master plan of cville Road Cottages is reasonable but the expansion of size and use proposed in the variance is not reasonable the board may find that more information is needed to make the determination of reasonableness on the request and keep in mind that was prior to the tling so that was drafted several months ago right and the remaining questions are the property owner has established that the Practical difficulty involved is due to circumstance is unique to the property and not created by the property owner you you want me read that one yes so the draft written for that in the packet was the property owner indicates that this property is unique due to the location of the road and topography and expresses that without Varian relief it's not possible to build a structure on the north side of cille road and access the property from cwell Road staff note that there is a path that leads up the bluff feature further discussion with the applicant and or contractor could better understand whether improvements could be made to make this a drivable surface to build Elsewhere on the property thank you and the approval of the variance approving the variance maintains the essential character of the locality so I had three items for that so number one the subject parcel is zon Resort commercial residential cwell road is a mix of RCR and single family residential Zone district and hosts several small Resorts cabins and homes consisting of many non-conforming structures and lots number two there are currently many garages houses and cabins which encroach on the 50-ft road setback requirement and are of similar size and character as the phase 2 cabins note that um I I didn't say that for phase three and then of the number three of the existing non-conforming structures along cwo Road none are of similar size and scope as the phase three accessory structure a the board of adjust should consider whether the phase 3 accessory structure would fit within the bluff as is suggested by the applicant would fit in with the bluff as suggested by the applicant and Item B several comment letters letters indicate that the phase three accessory structure would not fit with a character of locality due to the large size of the structure in addition to the existing presence of the main building across the road which received a height variance request in 2011 thank you and the last one the property owner has established that the iCal difficulty involves more than economic considerations alone and I think that's been established I don't believe this was a request based off of economic difficulties okay all right so are we prepared to make a motion I'll move to deny this variance request based on the fact of its reasonableness in that location and the Practical difficulty not being met that this structure could be put somewhere else and I think would be reasonable in another location okay that putting it in this small footprint does not satisfy is there a second I'll second for the yeah the same reason I'll second that for denial is there any further discussion all in favor I I I opposed motion carries thank you okay we'll move on to new business all right Dana can you put the slides up and we'll do the Foley wner Amendment packet all right so this is an amendment to a variance that the board of adjustment approved earlier this summer so Brad Foley and Judith Werner as you may recall this was a variance request for a structure from the bluff setback let me just get my my notes cleared up here excuse me so um the request is to amend the variance approval 20 24-11 V to allow the previously approved new principal structure to be increased in size this would allow a 28x 28 instead of the original 28x 24 foot structure add a reduced Road setback approximately 8 ft from the property line or 35 ft from Center Line and encroachment into the top of BL setback 10 ft where a minimum of 30 ft is required to allow for the addition of two decks and is screen porched on the property within the NorthShore management zone so in the the original variance requests the site sketch might look familiar so the site sketch on the left is from the original variance request earlier this summer and so the applicants essentially requested a variance kind of for a box uh 28 by 24t uh struct dwelling um the complication then is when they meet with their contractor they discuss the details of you know really what do you want this structure to look like and oh we'd like some decks and then it's like oh well the decks weren't on the variant request so we had to take a look at things they also realized they needed a little additional space for the Mechanicals for the building and instead of further encroaching into the bluff what they're requesting to do is keep the front of the structure at the same setback so the decks would be at the essentially the location where the structure was in the original variance request and they shifted the structure back from the bluff which then pushed the structure into the road setback so in the original variance request they were meeting the road setback and with this one they're encroaching slight on this platted road setb so that the structure can have a little bit more um wiggle room for the the Mechanicals and the decks and then they added a screen porch on the building as well so on page 12 of 89 of the board of adjustment packets is where this comparison is for the the drawing so you'll see the 28x 28 slab is proposed with a a 30X 30t drip edge so that would allow for the eaves and then there's a 8x 33t green porch on the east side of that structure and the pink color is the 4ft decks and just to make a note that there's a deck on both levels so they kind of have a a Romeo and Juliet deck I hadn't heard that phrase before on the second level and then a deck on the main level as well proposed in this request then they've got a visualization in uh the packet too as shown here and I provided a list of the conditions of approval that were included with that original variance request this was just reviewed before the board this summer so nothing has changed on site since the last review of this request um I can kind of clarify this is within the plat I'm sure you all probably recall this it again was just a few months ago I did not find any of the site conditions or considerations substantially changed um the only thing I noted was in italics under the site conditions and considerations in the packet which was the slope includes a retaining wall proposed to be constructed to create a level footprint and um under other it says a private road is maintained by the private homeowners and it's a dead end road that serves the platted development at the top of the hill we did publicly notice this and I did receive one written comment from a neighbor Dennis risdall in support of the request and the DNR did indicate that they didn't have any comments on this request specifically because it's not further encroaching on the bluff from their perspective I did provide uh some draft findings and to the test questions for you uh that we can go through if you'd like and I did the my general recommendation from staff for consideration is that given the significant distance to Lake Superior over 1300 ft the presence of other non-conforming structures within this plot and the reasonable size of the proposed structure this appears to be a reasonable request that should have no harmful effect on Lake Superior the following conditions I listed here were included with the original variants remove approval excuse me staff recommend that these conditions be considered and they would need to be amended to not be conflicting if this was approved with this approval so the first three conditions remain the same item four I stated where possible storm water drainage shall direct water towards the road ditches rather than down the bluff through the use of effective grading and gutters I propose the removal of item five since that would be conflicting with this proposal right here which originally we had a condition that say had no additional decking or patios permitted within the bluff Impact Zone I added potential condition six the deck shall remain unenclosed not screened in obviously that does not apply to the the screen porch and then item seven any vegetation removed within the bluff Impact Zone as part of the construction project shall be replanted and maintained to support Bluff stabilization turf grass is not suitable vegetation for the purposes of bluff stabilization and therefore is strongly discouraged within the bluff Impact Zone thank you is there anyone from the public that wishes to speak thank you madam chair and the committee uh it was recently that we were here and uh I guess I guess uh in the course of the last couple months I've learned a lot about drip edges and uh that impervious services and so forth and uh can I have you state your name and address please I'm sorry my name is Brad Foley my wife Judith Werner is also here okay and your address uh we're at we're we live in Chan Hassen Minnesota thank you is there anything you wish to add to neeva's comments uh no I think it's been summarized quite well okay does anyone else wish to speak from the public we'll play we'll close public comments open it to the board any considerations a quick question for miss Ma on number six the deck shall remain unenclosed IE not screened in you're referring to the decks and not the screened in porch right okay we're distinguishing between the two yep and we can make that more more clear I thought it was well phrased in their application itself that they indicated screen porch on the site plan so I was hoping that wouldn't be problematic anyone wish to make a motion I move that we approve the request with staff recommendations and and findings is there a second a second any further discussion all in favor I I there you go thank you thank you I'll send you a memo tomorrow and the Derek and Emily Fox variance request to extend the roof line Nea Dana do you want to give us a visual all right this is also a variance amendment to request so drick and Emily Fox had a variance request in 2023 just last year for their property on Lake Superior the request is to extend the roof line approximately a 5x3 foot or 30 in excuse me on the north side of the cabin uh at a reduced Lake Superior vegetation line setback where a minimum of 40 ft is required uh most of this structure was within that 40 foot structure or setback excuse me the applicants Emily and Derrick Fox are requesting to amend variance request to extend the roof line again Lake SP is a 40ft setback this was a a Improvement on an existing structure the Cook County Board of adjustment approved the original variance request on August 9th 2023 to place a 6X 28t addition and a second level to the principal structure and build a garage with guest Quarters at a reduced Lake Superior vegetation line setback at 3856 Cascade Beach Road the variance was approved with four conditions the site conditions and considerations uh I found that this is a a relatively small increase in impervious surface located away from the lake and as such staff have determined that this should have minimal impact on the resources and neighboring properties on page 31 of 89 of the packets the shows the excerpt from the site plan the amendment to the variance proposes to add a 5 foot covered deck entry overhang to the area on the north side of the building I do believe I misspoke earlier it should be a 5 foot by 30 foot not 5 by 30 in so my own typo in the packet excuse that please I did publicly notice this variance request to adjacent Property Owners as well as County departments the DNR hydrologist the NorthShore management board we received no written comments regarding this request I did put together some draft findings for you again this is essentially to add a 5ot overhang for water drainage issues and it's not the whole stretch that's within the setback it's a a corner of this that's within the setback and then the staff recommendation for consideration this amendment to the variance approval is a small addition with minimal area encroaching within the structure setback area staff do not see approval of this variance Amendment as problematic I included four conditions proposed to be attached to this approval if it's approved number one encroachment into the setbacks are allowed in accordance with a design plan submitted by the applicant in the variance application number two a gutter or catchment system uh or vegetation conducive to water retention shall be included on all new or proposed structures to divert precipitation and snow melt away from Lake Superior number three a land use permits required for the proposed change and number four the conditions from the original variance requests must be adhered to which includes Conformity with the septic requirements again the gutter catchment system or drainage plan or and drainage plan number three the property shall reestablish a native vegetated buffer within the short impact area 20 fet from the vegetation line which likely coincides with the retaining walls of the site and number four the parking area on the west side of the cabin shall be restored to Native vegetation thank you Nea is there anyone from the public that wishes to speak regarding this can you step forward please hello my name is Derek Fox I'm one of the property owners uh and I live at 420 North Hawthorne Road in duth um just want to make sure it's clear that currently the roof line extends 30 in from the structure and it's to add 30 more inches so that's why it's 5T it's 5T within that length right okay sorry it's been a littleit it's a minor change um but happy to answer any questions you have okay thank you is anyone else from the public wish to speak on this okay we'll close the public hearing comments from the board questions motions um I did a site visit this seems pretty pretty minimal and makes sense so it's my for me Paul yeah very modest reasonable motion move that we approve with the recognition of Staff um findings and uh recommendations for uh compliance an amendment yeah is there a second I'll second any further discussion all in favor I oppos motion carries okay and the Cassidy gekas geekus so we are done onto this one so Gus variance this is a application for variance relief from the Cook County zoning ordinance to place a principal structure at a reduced ordinary high water level seac 32 ft where a minimum of 40 ft is is required from Lake Superior located at 10 big Bayo Road the property owner is Cassidy geekus the agents for the request are Nick Dyer and mik Mike Raymond the applicant's property includes 1.90 deed Acres with 2.06 mapped Acres with approximately 500 ft of Lake spe Shoreline the parcel is contained entirely within the single family residential R1 Zone District newly created Lots within the R1 Zone District on Lake Superior must be 1 acre in size and 200 ft wide at the structural setback this is a conform lot and super Shoreland classification this property is within the NorthShore management zone of Lake Superior General project description this variance request is to allow for a new three-story 29t tall 24x 20t principal structure with a 4x6 deck on the second level and a walkout stairs on the main level at a reduced L Superior setback 32 ft the variance is being submitted by the potential purchasers of the property Nicholas Dyer and Rita treel staff know there was a little discrepancy about the deck that we should discuss there's two sheets that show the deck in a different location so when it gets to deliberations we should clarify that with the applicants um I have the ordinance citation there from section 7.05 for backgrounds on July 14th 2021 a variance was approved to modify a cabin by adding a basement and a second story on top of the original cabin the cabin proposed is to be modified the cabin proposed to be modified was described in County assessment records as the actual year built of 1975 with 280 ft of floor area and a value of $1,400 the 2021 staff narrative included an analysis I'm not going to read this whole analysis right now but I did highlight and underline the parts of the analysis that I felt were functional to this discussion which includes functional or not the structure is integral to the geekus variance request and then it goes on and says equal weight is given to the fact that the remnant structure will be assimilated into new construction alternative build sites would require significant clearing and earthw so as the variance request we do not object to construction occurring with a focus on integrating the existing structural footprint the board's decision in 2021 was based upon the reasonableness of the request and the Practical difficulties caused by the Big Bay plat configuration and Landscape there were eight conditions of approval put on the 2021 variants that are including in the packet on page 45 of the packet also on that page there's a photo of the original cabin from the 2021 application that photo is also on the screen so you can see the original structure that was there when the original variance request was reviewed and then today is the photo on the right where that cabin has been removed there's been a significant amount of clearing and now there's decking um platform where the original structure was the applicant did apply for and received a land use permit for an addition to this structure to construct the variance approved project shortly after the variance approval in 2021 however the land use permit expired and no new permits were applied for per Cook County zoning ordinance the 2021 variance approval was avoided on July 14th 2024 after the project had not been acted upon since the 2021 variance approval development has occurred on on the property the original cabin has since been completely removed leaving a platform in the proposed building location additionally a permitted ouse unpermitted bunk house and unpermitted decks were built at conforming locations the bunk house and decks were constructed without proper permits which has since been rectified and then I included a list of the permitting records which included that land use permit to build the variance in September 21 the grade and fill permit for the parking area the septic permit for the vault pry privy which was completed in 23 and the after Thea land use permits for the bunk house and Dex approved in October 2024 in summary the new request before you today should be reviewed on its own basis this is not a request to modify an existing structure since the original structure was removed I've included an excerpt of the application site sketch on page 47 of the packets on the screen is a photo from the site with with the platform and then you can see the driveway and the bunk house and the privy and then a closer photo of the bunk house in the privy in that photo and here's the site [Music] [Applause] sketch for site conditions and considerations the property to the west and North is undeveloped state of Minnesota land properties south of the subject property are within Big Bay Point plat for septic the cook environmental health specialist Mitch erson provided a technical memo indicating that a septic permit was issued in 2021 for the vault ouse the memo also stipulates requirements for septic prior to the issuance of the land use permit should the variants be approved for impervious surface coverage the proposed development is within the impervious surface coverage requirements the design shows a shed roof design which would direct water F runoff further from the lake wetlands are not a issue driving the need for the variance for slope the site does qualify as a steep slope as defined in the Cook County zoning ordinance where a steep slope is having an average slope of 12% or more as measured over a horizontal distance of 50 ft or more that are not Bluffs believe I've got a photo of that calculation there um the bluff feature is present in the southwest corner of the lot a driveway has been installed since the 2021 variance along with the flat area navigating up the slope on a neighboring property the addition of the driveway across the property indicates that it is it is feasible to create a level building pad on the property for Shoreline setback averaging the only neighboring private properties that are located south of the subject property uh the two Parcels within the averaging area both have conforming development meeting all setbacks according to County records therefore the shoreline setback averaging calculation would support conforming lot development access to the site is available via the end of Big Bay Point platted Road however that road navigates up a steep gluff an existing driveway is accessible up Highway 61 I found it through the realtor sign that directed me um when I did my own site visit however as indicated in the 2021 staff narrative it's unclear whether this is a legal access route the minutes from the 2021 boa meeting State Cassidy geekus was present for the request and indicated he has a road access permit with a DNR in state to maintain the road so I'm sure we can talk about that further and get that clarified today here's the aerial image of the property taken from May of 2023 so you can see the recently made driveway Crossing through the property from the East to the South or excuse me from the West to the South um as well as that bluff feature in the southwest corner this does not show the the decks or the ouse or the bunk house that had yet been developed before that photo for public noticing the application was legally noticed in the Cook County News Herald on on October 25th 13 letters of notification were sent to adjacent Property Owners as well as County departments the norshore management board and the DNR hydrologists we received one written comment from the adjoining property owner Philip gusterson at 5421 East Highway 61 with no objection to the request the DNR area hydrologist provided a comment stating that the they would request um recommendations include the extra vegetative planting in the buffer region rain gutters to Di Flow Away from the shoreline and appropriate best management practices for staff consideration for the facts and findings the consistency with goals and policies in the comprehensive land use guide plan in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance and other County official controls the zoning ordinance requires a 40ft setback from Lake Superior this application is requesting a 32t setback from Lake Superior there's a land use General land use goal to have an inventory of land suitable and appropriately located for the anticipated types of land uses compatible with natural resources and proximity to existing infrastructure and to prot protect non-compatible land uses from another this policy states that Redevelopment of already developed lands is generally preferred over the development of undeveloped land the Cook County land use plan natural features has a policy to evaluate and minimize adverse impacts on air quality surface and groundwater wildlife habitat ecological systems and other natural features through land use decisions and the administrative inter intergovernmental goal which is to land use related decisions shall recognize the need to duly consider the rights and responsibilities of the general public good with the corresponding rights and responsibilities of the individual the proposed use of the property is allowed in the land use District in which the property is located the proposed finding is at the parcel Zone single family residential the lot is a conforming lot with a 1.9 deeded acres and approximately 500 ft of Shoreline residential uses are permitted in the own District the property owner is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance the proposed finding is that the structure is proposed to encro 8 ft into the lake setback the new structure is proposed to be three stories which increases the height significantly from the original structure and the question of the property owner has established that the Practical difficulty involved is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the property owner number one the lot is triangle shaped with 500 ft of water Frontage and about 400 ft wide at the structure setback line L the parcel conforms to the R1 Zone district and Shoreland designation number two the application cites the lot configuration and topography and Boulder Hillside restrict room for larger structure and driveway however a driveway was recently constructed through the property developed by the property owner improvements included the bunk house and Vault privy and decks which have recently been recently constructed at conforming locations number three the placement of the VA Vault privy and bunk house indicate that it is possible to build on the lot and seem to contradict the need for the the variant number four a property owner cannot create their own practical difficulty number five the application proposes to use a historical building site the board of adjustment should determine whether there is something unique about the property that establishes the Practical difficulties present uh item a is that the application states that the original driveway access and topography make the site to build tight staff do not understand how this constitutes the Practical difficulty for the variance finding approving the variance maintain the essential character of locality the proposed finding is it is unlikely that encroaching 8 ft into the setback would alter the essential care for the locality however it should be considered that the structure will likely be visible from Highway 61 due to the angle of the shoreline and the property owner has established that the Practical difficulty involves more than economic considerations alone economic considerations are not the reason for the variance request staff recommendation for consideration the application requests the same variance approval granted in 2021 while the board of adjustment may take the prior variance approval into consideration it is not required to approve a new variance based on that decision in fact this variance request must be reviewed and decided upon based on its own merits staff maintain that the site conditions have changed significantly since 2021 the current variance request varies from 2021 request including modifications of the structures design the removal of the original cabin and substantial development on the lot with approximately 2 acres and 500 ft of water Frontage the size of the property itself does not present present a practical difficulty while unique shaped Lots with large amounts of water Frontage can make it challenging to identify conforming building sites this is not the case on Lake Superior where a 40ft structure setback is permitted much more relaxed than the 100 or 150ft setbacks typically required on Inland Lakes the presence of a historic building site for the original small dry cabin does not in itself present a practical difficulty that justifies granting a variance for a new larger more functional structure the 2021 staff analysis noted that the existing cabin and the request to add on to it were significant factors in the variance approval since then the original cabin has been removed and further clearing and Grading have opened up the lot considerably additionally conforming development has already occurred on the site it's unclear whether a practical difficulty now exists that justifies the need for the variance the driveway is an interesting feature on the property it meets the required setbacks and has created a relatively flat area across the lot however there's no specific reason to require the driveway to provide access to two separate legal routes Additionally the presence of the driveway cannot be used as a justification for granting a variance as the landowner cannot create their own practical difficulty staff encourages the board of adjustment to care carefully evaluate whether the Practical difficulty and reasonableness standards are met with this variance request if approved the following conditions may be attached to this variance request number one encroachments into the setbacks are allowed in accordance with the design plans and submitted by the applicant in the variance application number two a gut gutter or attachment system or vegetation conducive to water retention shall be included on all new or proposed structures to divert precipitation and snow melt away from Lake Superior number three a land use permit is required for the proposed change number four the property shall conform to Minnesota rules and County Septic requirements number five a land use permit shall be necessary for the cabin construction number six construction shall not deviate from plan submitted for this application number seven new construction shall not exceed X ft and elevation uh the 2021 conditions stated 20 6 ft but this application indicates a structure that'll be just short of 30 ft and number eight no vegetation shall be removed within the short Impact Zone I noticed as I was reading this that I took most of these conditions from the 2021 variants and there's a redundancy between item three and five so we can review those and clarify that if we need to thank you does anyone wish to speak from the public step forward Raymond address please I'm Mike Raymond from Red Pine realy I'm the agent for Cassidy getes the owner of the property uh Nick Dyer's agent is behind me Sue Nichols from Red Pine realy he was going to be here and couldn't make it so we have a letter from him if you'd like to see that or have it just email it to you but uh we have copies if you want it it pretty much Echoes what we've got uh proposed um what I'll bring up is a few things uh to clarify so the the road was in the lot when Cassidy bought it and it's a steep grade that originally the developer Larry Peterson put into this lot it's a very steep grade and uh they extended into the lot at a later time his son did um when Cassidy bought it it's so steep he approached the state of Minnesota and did get a an easement from the state so that he could come in the original road that that old road is an original road that came in out directly Highway 61 to that cabin so that was done and the cabin then was they received the variance and tore the cabin apart but the decking you saw in the pictures is the floor system from that original cabin and the Wall Systems are there and so they disassembled it so they could move it aside and and bring in course gravel to do a foundation and so the picture picture you saw there there was a rectangle a light colored rectangle that was the floor system that was set back up on the hillside and uh then has been since put back in its original location um so we kind of felt that that the variance was in process and the construction was in process but didn't get finalized and didn't ask for a in time for a extension on that first variance so that's why we are here and going through this um the there has been an after Thea building permit for the structures the ouse and the loafing shed that are there now and so those things were built up against what is starting to be a really Rocky slope and it gets progressively steeper as you go behind it so it's a little it's a tight spot in which to build a a bigger structure there probably could be another structure further uh south on the lot um but this cabin was unique it's situated uniquely and that's why they originally asked for the variance the buyers would like to carry forward that original variance we altered it a little bit with the decks to get them off the lakefront but it's basically the same general thing that was approved a few years back y want we can speak to that getes 1644 counter 14 gray um when I originally got this property we had a lot of plans to build right where that was and fix up the old cabin and utilize it and we started getting into it we started trying to move it and we realized that ants had gotten into it and we ended up dismantling it taking the floor system out of the way digging out where the foundation would like basically go putting in the wash rock and all that and then got the ouse um variance down for the for the tank and got the I didn't know I need a permit to do the to do the ous itself and then also the small bunk house shed was a 10 x 16 and I was maybe under the impression that 160 ft I did not need to have a exact permit so that's why the permit came later for that um on the driveway as you go up to where the EAS Meed road is in through the other neighbors property down there it drops off very steep to where you see like the large area on the map to where like you think you could probably build a place at some point but it's Steep and also more detrimental to the landscape on the property and would be more difficult it would require another road going down there to get to be able to actually build anything so this one space I believe on the property where the old cabin was was picked because of its buildable qualities does anyone else wish to speak regarding this request I from sure the I'm Sue Nichols realtor with red pine realy and I'm representing um Nicholas and Rita Dyer in their purchase so their their letter reads Hello friends and Neighbors in Cook County it is my wish to continue the Reclamation project of the historical cabin at 10 Big Bay Point in hoveland this modest structure overlooking Big Bay was built by the Lynn Peterson family and Homestead Ed for decades the cabin the cabin site was presumably selected as it was off the slope of the Steep Steepy Rocky topography furthermore is its access to fishing and its location under a towering White Pine made it a fine buildable site in 2021 Cassidy getches and Builder Eric Kemp set out to reclaim this Homestead by building a new cabin on the old footprint this was approved by the Cook County Board of adjustment and work has been underway since since that time a rustic toilet and workshop have been built so that work on a new cabin could begin while the frame has been dismantled the foundation is still there in 2024 the dire family will be taking this project over and we seek an approval of the variance so this work can continue as the previous variance expired moving the homestead back is unsuitable due to the Steep Rocky topography further it would require partial removal of the driveway and threaten The Sentinel White Pine mentioned earlier this area was chosen by the Lyn Peterson family and the getes family for a good reason thank you for taking up this variance request I was a bwca guide in my late teens and early 20s and it is my hope to move back up to the north to give my kids a more immersive Wilderness and Community focused upbringing your neighbors Nick and Rita Dyer thank you and if there's no one else that wishes to speak apparently I have one more thing to mention okay so part of this whole thing why Mike and everyone's here is now I'm working on selling the property I never wanted to do that it actually pains me a lot to sell it because at this point I'm probably never ever going to find something like that again and be able to purchase it but way things have gone lately uh my dad has to live up Trail taking care of his mom my mother spend half the year in Arizona and I'm taking care of their house and everything and working taking care of their business also so it's been a lot of things going on and sadly I'm just not going to be able to finish that project and it's time for it to go on to someone else who actually can thank you yeah okay we'll close the public comment Bo so as I'm reading through the notes um and their application this the the the there was there was a variance approved we know that we know there's some design changes that they wanted to add to the to the height of the cabin and so forth um so had they simply asked for an extension we would be just moving along and there wouldn't be any any questions or issues so the variance approval after Board of adjustment grants of variance there's a three threee window of time and when that expires there needs to be an active permit in order for us to be able to go beyond that three-year period of time if somebody gets a land use permit in year three that would finish out the next year and we allow one renewal for that land use permit so there needs to be some stewardship of monitoring a person's permitting after they get a variance and that's to recognize that rules do change boards change you know we we're constantly trying to get closer to you know doing things as as we should be so we're not held to previous variances 15 years ago for example so yeah so to answer your question most directly if a land use permit was applied for this year before that 2024 expiration date we they would still have a land use permit able to be done acted upon okay and then on the um the bunk house and after action I thought that people could build under 161 square feet and wouldn't have to uh seek a permit yeah so that's for accessory structures so not intended to be for habitation and we we have to clarify that for people all the time okay so it's not intended for any kind of tiny house bunk house anything like that all of those types of structures and uses still require permits because we need to be sure that bunk houses um have some kind of septic plan with it which they did okay did you see the did you go out for a site visit I had difficulty finding it I couldn't find it on my Google Maps I couldn't find it on my onx which has every plot of land that named in the state I couldn't find it it was uh I was out there looking for it though you knew you saw the neighborhood yeah okay good I had the same experience it's well hidden and I live in the neighborhood so I was like man this is a corner I've never been to um yeah that's I I didn't get down there but I I think even the the locality would suggest it is a sensitive and difficult uh area to build in it's steep I looked down a steep Road and thought it's probably down there somewhere I have have been there um and I I believe I feel the same way I did um on the first variants that given the uh impacts that already there on the site I think um going from 40 foot set back to 32 um I see as reasonable so so and you're okay with raising the height I am okay feet yeah I think think hearing uh you know some personal narrative about the continuation of that project it's the it's understandable that things take time yeah and it's iterative you know so is it is the intent to put back some of the internal structure something back from that cabin you've saved it yeah everything's there I took down the walls everything piece by piece and covers all with metal with and the whole entire floor structure there with its large beams underneath are all still there okay so the intentions were all good okay ready for a motion I may Madam chair yeah if if there's going to be a motion to approve can we clarify the deck or there's there's a discrepancy on what floor a certain deck was on I would just like to get the application cleared up uh so we don't have any amendments to a variance later um so is it okay mam Sheriff we yes okay so um so I noted sheet t101 of the application shows the deck on the main floor and Sheet a102 shows the deck on the second level floor and which Page's see of the basement level yeah yeah confusing the basement level so it's looking at so the first main floor of it that's all ground level up top basically um the deck off the front of the building also be French doors coming off there and then off the south side of the wall I believe what is want to be done is have the entry way there and then just a deck off the side of the house as like kind of your entry area so you have a deck actually stand on I believe that there so is there a deck on the is this second level the top level yeah yeah okay so that's why I was confused because there's a deck shown on sheet a102 so page 63 of 89 it shows the 4x6 deck added um yes so originally the plan was to have it on the north side of the wall for the entryway but now it does not make sense in any way to have that on that side so it would be Swit around the south side with the deck so there would not be really anything on the North side so is there a deck on both of the upper levels then no no no just the main floor and then the basement there so there should there wouldn't be a deck there wouldn't be a deck ground level on the front of the building that nothing on the top St okay so she want uh so page 63 of the packet that shows the 4x6 deck added that's incorrect um it says remove deck probably is incorrect picture added on the screen earlier that did show something drawn on there yeah was an afterthought that would be just the best way to do it yeah that yep and and that I think is accurate it's just that this is the second level floor plan that shows a deck added you been a drafts man ER okay I mean it was it was pretty quick I just wanted to be really clear so no decks on the upper top level just a deck on the main level and then the stairs going out okay thank you very much okay okay I can't remember did someone make a motion did not yet I would uh make a motion to approve um with the eight conditions um listed is that is that correct Nea eight we want to three and five maybe just get identical and also get the height figured out for number seven yeah let's make those amendments okay so instead of 26 29 30 i' say no no higher than 30 okay is that your Amendment Charlie I'm good with that no higher than 30 um remove item three three it's redundant to item five and removing item three all right okay I think we should go through the findings because there you know and respond to each of the questions because there was a lot of consideration of of both you know from staff gave us a a really thorough review great appreciate that but it's um it's not it's not a definitive statement and I think we need to make those okay the variance is consistent with the goals and policy of the comprehensive land use guide plan in harmony with general purpose and intent of Cook County zoning ordinance yes yes the proos use of the property is allowed in the land use District in which the property is located yes property owner is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Cook County zoning ordinance yes yes yes property owner has established that the Practical difficulty involved is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the property owner yes yes yeah I think to be more specific the sensitive nature of that site right is my primary consideration there good and approving the very maintain the essential character of the locality yes yes yes the property owner has established that the Practical difficulty involves more than economic considerations alone yes yes okay so the motion's been made has it been seconded I'll second the motion any more discussion all in favor I right opposed motion carries I'll send you guys a memo tomorrow thanks okay and the Lis spry cook packet 24-17 V Eva thank you madam chair Dian IA got very small slide for this uh this is a variance request for relief from the Cook County zoning ordinance to allow three after the fact creation of uh three approximately 440t wide substandard lots and the F1 Zone District where a minimum lot width of 600 ft is required the three Parcels are approximately 441 ft wide uh this is being requested on the three Parcels that originally were one larger parcel each parcel is approximately 26 acres in size so again this is just a variance for the lot width the parcels are entirely within the F1 Zone District newly created Lots again must be uh 600 feet wide and the Cascade river is the Shoreland is a remote River segment for General project description uh the variance applications is requesting relief to allow these Lots be recognized as legal lots of record the three Parcels were created in 1987 3 years after the current zoning standards were implemented the parcels were created with relatively equal area about 26 acres and 440 ft wide with equal Road Frontage from B Creek Road and water Frontage to the Cascade River I included the ordinance citation which includes the lots of record definition and the F1 Zone district and Shoreland classifications for background the application states that originally the land was owned by Cole Thompson who subdivided it three ways to pass on to his airs in 1987 during this time there was not a formal application process with Land Services for the subdivision of property however land was still subject to the zoning requirements which included the current F1 Zone District standards for site conditions and considerations the land is currently undeveloped Upland Forest near the road each parcel has access to belly Creek Road and water Frontage and potential Bluff features given the large lot size and the existing 441 ft with there appears to be ample opportunity for conforming development and use on these lots for a public noticing the application was legally noticed in the Cook County News Herald on October 25th 12 letters of notification were sent to adjacent Property Owners really not quite adjacent quite far away Property Owners just for the record and as well as County departments and the DNR hydrologist there were no written comments received from a joining Property Owners during the written comment period the US Forest Service did provide a comment indicating that these Parcels should not encroach on the abing federal lands I included in the packet uh the aerial photos of these properties as well as the survey that was included with the application for the middle property for staff consideration of facts and findings I indicated that we've got the the ordinance requirements as well as our typical land use related decisions shall recognize the need to consider the rights and respon responsibilities of the general public good with the corresponding rates and responsibilities of the individual the parcel is zoned F1 these lot sizes will allow for the principal purpose of the F1 Zone District which is provide for Forest management agriculture uses and recreational activity in the less developed areas of the county for the reasonableness these lot sizes and widths are reasonable given how long they've been in existence and the remoteness of the parcels for the Practical difficulty standard the board of adjustment has shown deference to lots that were created incorrectly in the Years immediately following the implementation of the zoning standards these lots have existed without issue for many years and their current sizes will still allow for conforming development for essential character locality these lots are maintaining the required lot area the variance from lot width should not alter the essential character locality given the amount of variance required and this is not an economic consideration for staff recommendation for consideration several after the fact requests have come before the board in recent years to address errors made over 30 years ago in these cases the board has been favorable to these requests when it can be demonstrated that conforming development and uses are still feasible on the lots and that the error was made many decades ago without known issues staff appreciates that the property owners have worked together on this Varian application to resolve these issues comprehensively given that the lot width requirement is being maintained staff see no issues with approving um this affair one VAR given that the lot lot area requirement is being maintained is what that should say excuse me on that last sentence so staff see no issues with approving this F1 variance thank you does anyone wish to speak from the public just one quick statement for Jin Palmer cop Banker agent for Michelle R um Nea very kindly pointed out when we were originally was toing property that we weren't meeting the requirements so the application is for clearing up the the um set require or not the set the width requirements for our all three person so that's a good news is that was good work together so we address all that thank you anyone else wish to speak okay okay we'll close it for public comment board seems a pretty straightforward thing to me so these will be lots of Records which will not require variances correct unless they want they're still subject to the substandard lot requirements but it's unlikely that they would need variances based off of their size it's just to make them legal lots of Records so those substandard lot rules that we've been talking about tonight they only apply if you're legal lots of Records so if you're not a legal lot of Records so if you weren't legally created prior to that date we don't even have the ability to issue permits because essentially they're created not legally okay so this would allow us to issue permits so they don't need variances just to put up a structure if the structure is meeting all the setbacks okay great any other questions motions motion to approve there second agreeing with the staff's findings right and I think the um it's pretty clear that's correcting an error I'll second y any further discussion all in favor I opposed motion carries now I need an adjournment motion to adjourn all in favor I I we beat 6 o' today we don't let ourselves go now oh good time sorry I'm too bad you couldn't include that with this meeting I think we did a good job