call to order our planning commission meeting for November 12th. And we'll start by approving tonight's uh agenda and our minutes from October 1st. >> All motion to approve. >> Motion.
>> Second. >> Motion second. Uh all in favor? >> I >> I >> opposed. None. Uh, new business, the Roso discussion. Nea. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wanted to put this before you as an opportunity for us
to have a discussion as intended um regarding the residential open space overly district. And um I'll maybe just go through the memo from the top since this is the start of what might be a longer conversation.
So, as you'll recall, the residential open space overlay district is a new zoning district that was created by the county board of commissioners um following recommendation by the planning commission back in May of this year. This is an overlay district. So, where it would get implemented is through a
reszone process and that would kind of be the first step for people who want to move into this. Um, we being myself and the HA director did a series of community meetings back in September of this year to go throughout the county and talk about this new zone district
throughout uh, Cook County and it was a really wonderful exercise. We had a lot of very good discussions with the public. One thing in considering those conversations was the general question of where will this happen? Um, and that leads to the question of how are we
going to reszone properties into the Roso district. We don't often see a lot of reszones. Maybe one or two come to this board uh a year on average, but if you look over the general reasonzone criteria for amendments to the zoning
map, um, those questions aren't really very helpful if you think about evaluating a contentious reszone into the Roso district. So, I was considering it may be helpful for the planning commission and county board of commissioners to have specific criteria
to re review and evaluate a property when someone asks to get put into the Roso district. What are the types of questions you would want to be thinking about? How do you make a fair and unbiased um findings of fact for that type of decision? So, that's kind of
where this is going towards uh from a big picture point of view. So, in this memo, um, I kind of started with that background about the purpose of the Roso district because I think keeping aligned with that purpose is kind of helping us think through what questions we should
be asking. Um, the zoning ordinance outlines the eligibility criteria. So, the Roso district is only even able to be considered eligible if it's meeting those criteria. So, that's step one is is a property eligible. And then step
two is kind of a suitability is is the best word I can think of. So it's one thing to be eligible, but it may not be suitable for that type of development depending on the location. So the eligibility criteria that's in the ordinance is within a half a mile of
state highway 61 or a county or township road. The parcel is fully within the nonshorland area except for shorland area rivers can be within the open space of the open space subdivision. And then um a nuance about the Northshore management zone eligibility
and then the parcel must be zoned F2 or F3 and the parcel is not within the city of Grandary subdivision jurisdictional area. So those eligibility criteria um we have a map on the county website that kind of highlights properties that meet those queries if you will and so you can
go on that map and it's kind of interactive. And then the next question is do are all these properties okay to be rozoned? probably not. Um there there needs to be that next level of evaluation to see um is a property along County Road 7 as suitable as a property
at the tip of the arrowhead trail for high density residential development. Gut instinct probably says tip of the arrowhead trail probably isn't the best place for really high density. Remember we are allowing up to as small as a quarter acre lots. So really small tightly dense residential housing. Um
typically you want those things closer to services. So, this is where um and if you read the memo, there's uh a discussion point to kind of prompt the brainstorming session. And I want you're I want you guys to have time to think about this
and consider it in whatever way you want to move forward with asking these questions. Um you know, when is a Roso district resone appropriate and how will the county determine whether a site is suitable for this Roso district or not? That's kind of the key question to think about. I want you to picture yourselves
being in this room with a room full of people, half for, half against a Roso request in their neighborhood. How would you, the decision makers, think through what questions you want to be asking to make sound decisions for this? Um, so the proposed language that's in this is
is truly a starting point. Um, I put in kind of some like key points that I think the question should try to ask towards is like plan consistency and this is kind of already a resone criteria like is this reszone aligned with county plans? Well, our land use
guide plan doesn't actually mention the Roso resone because it Roso rezone didn't exist in 2016 when our land use guide plan was done. Um, whereas like the Schroeder sub area plan will mention it. So, those are things that we can we can refer to. Um, the next is access.
You know, you kind of look first blush at where a roso resone is. And you know, we say a county road. Not all county roads are exactly the same and equal to each other. So maybe those types of considerations about that road access and consultation with a highway engineer
can help weigh into that. Uh, we've got sensitive features. So kind of just looking, you know, if the whole property is wetlands, whole entire 30 acres is all wetlands. was like, well, that probably isn't suitable. So, there's some of this information that we would have already that could go into a
suitability determination, I believe. Um, and so those are, you know, just kind of some of the bullet points. And I want you to kind of keep in mind that when a Reezone request comes to you, think about some of the reson. So there isn't going to be a survey that
shows the wetlands lineation and all of this technical information. That won't be available yet. The reszone is kind of that an early green light to a developer that says, "Okay, it's worthwhile now for you to go ahead and do the investment for the preliminary plot." So the reason is a pretty substantial thing
to keep in mind um because it's telling the developer, okay, we we think there's really good potential here. You know, you're definitely going to have to iron out the kinks to make sure this is really a good project, but it's worthwhile now for you to go ahead and do the investment to do the plat layout
for the preliminary plat and the final plat. So, um that's kind of the starting point. I won't read through all the language. I believe you guys had time to uh go through and talk about that. Um but I also wanted you and and I also
think items A through G seems like an awful lot of questions. So, I'm totally open to making this more concise if that's helpful. Um, I wanted to give you guys a broad range of things to think about and what you would want to do. And however way you want to move forward,
whether that's like let's schedule another work session in January. Um, we can think about this some more after the holiday. There's really no rush to this exactly. It's just that this is getting into our quiet time. And also there are people I've been talking to about this
and so the sooner we can kind of move forward and if this is a route you want to move forward with that is absolutely an option to also not do anything and just work with the existing re you know rezone criteria too. Um so that's that's kind of what I have before you for this
discussion item. >> Open to comment. >> Yeah I welcome this a lot. um if I think it was Mary Van Dorne, is that right? >> Came in and asked for a reason. And the thing that I recall difficult for us as
a planning commission in terms of recommending anything was we didn't have criteria like this and um and then we were getting into the conversation of upon what basis do we start resoning?
How do we how can we be fair to applicants when they're coming in for a reasonzoning request without a construct upon which to look at and say how are we creating one our findings of fact as you mentioned earlier and the consideration public comment and so forth and and it
came across as we'd be in the circumstance of kind of going well I want to approve this one and that one doesn't feel right that's not anything to go forward on um this helps us with having a construct and with the great public input, you
know, I read through the documentation, I read the meeting minutes and so forth. Um, I've also had sidebar conversations with several of the people who were in attendance at the meetings because I've run into them um during the week and um
uh and appreciated their contributions to the conversation as well because I know Bruce Martinson for one is extremely knowledgeable about zoning and having been involved in hospitality business for a couple of decades around here. He's quite familiar with a lot of
these things and a lot of these conversations and has dug into it quite a bit. He's a former county commissioner as well. So, I've had opportunity to look at those things at that level at that level. So, um I did read through all the documentation. Um I had one minor question just for a
point of clarify clarity. At the bottom of page nine, you've got the far two, far three examples of table. And we've got some total parcel acreage of 58 acres and 46. They're kind of
there. Why do we pick sort of strange numbers? Is it just to show the rounding example? >> Yep. Yep. And that page nine. So that's information. That's what's actually in our subdivision ordinance now. So that's what was adopted. Okay. We this is a table from the subdivision ordinance and
yeah that was to show people because very rarely do properties fall neatly as a whole number with five or zero. Um quite often there's a lot of decimals involved. So it's to point out just like how do we handle these odd ones? And yeah when there's a question we just round up for at least the Roso. And also
just to clarify this potential uh ordinance reszone language it would this is only for the Roso district. So someone who wants to reszone into the overlay district. This isn't intended for every every zone district. Um
because every zone, you know, this wouldn't be compatible necessarily with with other types of zone districts. So did we ever um come to any conclusion about the vacation rental? I know it's prohibited
use, but I thought we started to discuss the length of time that that would be considered. Is that something that's written somewhere? Um, so within the Roso district, it's just prohibited. So,
and that's why we have this extra complexity of the Roso district being a zoning overlay district was to really tie in the zoning aspect with the open space overlay district. But how do you stop somebody from doing a month-to-month rental versus a vacation
rental for 30 days? >> Oh. Um, so vacation rental kicks in for Yeah. Is it 30 days or less? Yes. >> Yeah. So, um, if people wanted to do more than >> a 30-day vacation rental, that would be
an acceptable thing. Then >> it wouldn't fall under the purview of the vacation rental. >> Yeah. It's not defined as a vacation rental if it's over that by both us or the Minnesota Department of Health. >> Okay. >> It's just a short-term rental. >> What's
What do we need to do to proceed? Just I mean, do we >> I can take your direction from here. If you want to work on this language and think about this more over the next time period, if that's something you'd like to do, we can do that. If you like this language, um that's on page five of the
of the document or page 13 of the packet. Um what we could do is we could move to like a a public notice and have a public hearing and and see what the community says. Um, I just don't want to move to that point too fast if you feel like, you know, this terminology isn't
what you'd really want in the ordinance. So, um, I currently don't have us planned to have a December meeting. I don't have any agenda items for you at that month. And I think since it's December, we're probably okay with that. Uh, if you want to wait till January to reconvene, I'll probably have more business for you then. And so, we could
either hold another work session if you want to take some time to think about this. Um, you could revisit that reszone map or if you want me to move forward and, you know, publicly notice this and have a public hearing in January and, you know, after a public hearing, you could amend it and we could work through
it some more. I just wanted to really give you, you know, as much input as you want on the front end to see which direction you'd like to go with this. >> I think it looks very good. I know >> there's not anything that I would change, but I'm also not as
acknowledgable as >> nothing jumped off at me to change anything on it. And then it's also in light of the fact that reading through the minutes and some of the other things, the number of people who've worked on this and the amount of review it's gone through and approval by the Schroer Township
>> Council. Um I think um and and I've read through the whole everything he gave me and uh like I say there was the one question on the table was the you know was the only thing that really came to mind and that was more of a curiosity than an expect just making sure I
understood it correctly is where I'm going. >> Um so I'm not surprised that the language is pretty solid already. you know, I didn't find a why does this say and it should say or. You know, nothing like that came across. >> Um,
>> yeah, I think you did really good. >> So, I think the uh >> amazingly actually >> a public notice in a meeting in January seems appropriate to me to keep this moving forward. >> And I assume some of this new language came based off of the meetings that you've already had.
>> Yep. Yep. Much of this framework came to mind through those community meetings. So I really thank the residents who attended the whole blind Kville uh Schroeder and then we had a meeting here and so we did hold up at the Gland too but it was a really beautiful day and it
was like the week of openers and no one prioritized us over their mental health. So, so yeah, that uh you know, all the input through all that led led to these types of questions and the county attorney's office was helpful in providing some feedback as well as the
land use attorney that we work with to ensure that we're on a a good path forward hopefully for the community and thinking through through some of this. So, we plan on that January meeting. I'll get it in the newspaper sooner than later so people can have time. I know it's the holiday season, so folks will
feel busy. Sounds good. >> Thanks. Appreciate the discussion. >> Do we need to make a motion to No, I'll just move forward with drafting the language and putting it in with the county and just Herald for for legal
notice and go from there and let the townships and everyone else know. >> The next item I have for you is the Schroeder Township sub area plan. And I actually don't have a slide for it, Diana, so I can just take that down. Um
Amy Bugie Brookie yeah with the Sher Township clerk is here tonight also um to help out. So this has been just a really really wonderful planning effort in our community. As you'll recall about this time last year we we did have a shorter resident come forward and want
to do a reszone and we kind of were challenged by it because it really didn't fall in line with our typical zoning patterns. And one thing we identified through that discussion is that the Schroeder sub area plan was getting outdated and was due up for an update. So, um, Schroeder Township
diligently got put together, uh, the land use committee and we began meeting in January and met monthly or every other month pretty much throughout this year uh, to go word by word through their 2016 plan. 2016. Yeah. And it was
a really in incredible local community planning process. It was very enjoyable. We had some great discussions, some good challenges to think through some some visions. And so this really was a much more comprehensive update than sometimes what people do. Sometimes they'll just
read it, stamp it, say it's updated, and call it good. They put a lot of very critical thought and good questions on the table. We also really worked on the maps. Um that was one pretty significant improvement is a lot of mapping work. Our MIS department helped out with that
um a good amount. So I really want to express gratitude towards them for that. So hopefully what we'll use this document for is as we have in the past if there's a reszone or a conditional use permit or even a variance in Schroeder Township this is a helpful document to go to and think about what
Schroeder Township has envisioned for their future development and whether or not that request is aligned with the local values and priorities. And they also kind of organized Shorter Township a little bit more geographically. So, it's a little bit more geographically identified um by some of the
descriptions of the areas and Amy can weigh in a little bit more too, but they did hold a list a listening session kind of like a public hearing. Yeah. So, um I don't think they received any negative comments from anyone. Um so, overall, this is uh recommending adoption of the
sub area plan. It's essentially an addendum to the Cook County Land use guide plan. So, we would still refer to that document, but I'm not aware of any conflict between the two um when I reviewed it. And then this would go to the Cook County Board of Commissioners at their next action meeting for final
adoption. >> Do we >> public hearing tonight? >> Public hearing. So, we're we're open to the public, >> but yeah, it's an opportunity for the public to comment on it. >> Anyone from the public wish to comment on the draft plan?
All right. Hearing none board, um I uh sat down and read this. A lot of what I was talking about was related to this one and I had the tube crossed over. Um but um
yeah, I I do really appreciate the way Schroeder uh community came together and updated the plan cuz it would be quite a while before we got around to it had they not taken on so much of the work and um um the thought process that goes
into this and and how it fits with the with the community there. I'm pretty satisfied with it. items. I got a question for you, Neva, on items in here would take precedent to our current county zoning then in this
area. >> Well, it doesn't say anything. I think that's in conflict with our zoning. Um, it's outlining vision. So, like the 2035 conditions kind of reference potential res. So it's more so guiding that development. So I think we talked a lot
about the Sugarloaf Road as an area for potential ress in the future, but it's kind of limited right now by the utility access. So it was kind of recognized in the plan like if if better utility service goes up the Sugarloaf Road, it may be well suited to be reszoned in the future. So it' be more so guiding those
reszones for us to refer to. >> So is this specifically to reszones then? Not >> uh No. No. like um we referred to this document the 2016 version during a gravel pit application of the Kramer road. Um so you know reading what it says about gravel pits uh this current
plan kind of recognizes the community wanting a little bit more balance like they don't want to be the gravel pit hub of the county. Um so it's wanting a little bit more of a balanced perspective which is different message than if this said like we want Kramer road to just be gravel pits. Yeah.
>> So it will it will weigh into like the conditional use permits. There might even be cases where someone asked for a variance that um we can refer to this and see whether or not it's aligned with that. We would essentially to answer your question, it's we look at the Cook County land use guide plan and also this
plan. This plan kind of feeds into that. You might have a more >> just a very quick uh comment, Mr. Chair, that that the ordinance does take precedence over plan plans. We use the plans to guide us on how to develop or change the ordinances. But the the
ordinance takes precedence in terms of application over the plan. And that's why the the plans can change more than the ordinance does. >> And to be perfectly I haven't read the whole thing with fine tooth. I'm just kind of skimming through it and seeing
one that would be about kennels is kennels are allowed as a conditional use permit in FAR two and in this it's saying only in FAR one. So that's prompting the question and I don't I said I So that would be a conflict that our county zoning allows
>> kennels as a conditional use in FAR too. >> Well, it's permitted versus conditional. So I think they both might be in agreement. Kennels are permitted. >> So I'm asking for the clarification. So >> yeah, kennels are permitted use in FAR one, but that's the only district they're are permitted use. So I believe
in this document it's saying they're conditional use in FAR two, which would also be an accurate statement. in the county zone. >> Okay. >> And is there you you mentioned like I said I apologize I haven't read the whole document. Is there anything
specific to gravel pits in here then or is it how I apologize I'm not >> Yep. Um they mention it specifically for sure on the Kramer road. Um the upper >> say I saw it somewhere. >> Yeah. And I didn't bring a red line
version. Um, so I'm just only page five road time here. I'm just >> page five, paragraph C, >> fourth bullet down. Sugarloaf Road is existing bio remediation site significant wetland areas in close proximity to a large gravel pit.
>> Yep. And also on the next page, Kramer Road also recognizes that there's current and historical uses of gravel pits. And then in the 2035 conditions, um, >> what kind of like one of the more stronger gravel pit statements I think
is on page seven of the document or 26 of the packet. Um, it says, so this says 2035 conditions, so desired conditions for Kramer Road. It says gravel extraction projects are among several throughout Cook and Lake counties and
conditional use zoning approvals consider mixed residential uses within neighborhoods. opportunities for gravel extraction across the county are explored to avoid over extraction in this area. So, like I mentioned, there's a strong feeling, especially for folks who live up the Kramer Road, that
there's a bit more of like a residential neighborhood up in there that's kind of mixed in with existing grapple pits. So, they just want that respected, I think, in land use decisions. >> Yeah. Then in the last one, >> Yeah. Yeah. Thank you,
>> Charlie. In the last par bullet too, it says the county realizing the value of residential areas populated by local workers encourages gravel mining in other places. >> Yeah. So, are we uh ready to make a
recommendation or more discussion? I don't have anything to add. I mean, I feel if this is what they have spent all this time on, then >> I I feel that it's
that we should pass it on. >> Yeah. I don't have anything to add. That was my question is what supersedes what but you answered that. So, >> so this would be we need a we need to vote as a motion to recommend approval
just like any other planning commission item. >> Adoption to >> adoption. Yeah. >> So, >> I'll motion to adopt it as written. I would second that >> motion and a second. Any more discussion?
All in favor? >> I I >> opposed. None. Yeah, it looks like a good hard a really good effort was put into this and really appreciate the people who who did this. >> That's a ton of work.
>> Good job. >> Going to set a new president for other areas too. >> So Luden and Toffee both have sub area plans. Okay. And at any point if those townships want to update those plans, you know, we'll I'm happy to
>> be along for the ride and helpful where want. >> Next. >> Look for a motion to adjurnn. >> I would make a motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Thank you everyone. >> Thanks. >> I thought we were going to be here all
night. >> January. No December meeting. So, okay. >> Wanted to wait to find out if they got tabled because somebody got sick tonight or something. So, good job. >> Yay.