Give them one more minute just cuz we're close enough. Uh we'll go ahead and uh call tonight's uh August 13th planning commission to order and start with an announcement. Uh we previously
had a item for cell tower in uh Schroeder on the agenda that has been postponed to September 10th. So if anyone was here for that, that discussion will be on September 10th. Um, and we'll move right into approving
tonight's agenda and minutes from last month. Approval. We have a motion. Second. All in favor? I hear none. Uh, new business. um
Atlanta and Aaron Bates uh 20258 IUP Tim. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And we do have uh Eric Pierce who's going to be representing uh the Bases tonight. Uh, this is a request for a 5-year interim
use permit for a year-round short-term rental of a two- wall tent campsites at 1805 East Highway 61, which is zoned uh single family residential R1. Uh, the property size is 2 acres. The zoning is
uh R1 uh single family residential. Um it is uh the zoning requirements. This is not specifically listed as a permitted or conditional use in the off F1 and we'll get into that a little bit more later how we process we have that catch all uh where we're able to process
this as an IUP uh within our ordinance but we'll talk about that in just a little bit. Um and the shoreline classification this is within the Northshore management uh zone of Lake Superior. Um the general uh project description, the applicant is requesting
an interim use permit to allow for a short-term rental of two wall tents on a property at 1805 East Highway 61. The application explains that each tent will sleep two to four individuals. The applicants anticipate this to be a seasonal use, but may open it to winter
use as well a year round. Uh the tents will be placed on wooden platforms and the primary tent will be approximately 16x 20 ft. uh and the second tent would be smaller in size. The application site uh plan indicates a bath house uh will
be built with a toilet and a sink and a shower uh with an outdoor sink. Um the zoning considerations, this property is within the uh FR or the R1 single family residential zone district. And the principal use of the uh R1 district is
to provide for residential uses at a higher density generally adjacent to or near uh developed areas, major roadways or other sources of services. Multiple residential units, mobile home parks, limited commercial uses are allowed on a
conditional use basis in this district. This proposed activity uh does meet um the definition of a campground per the Cook County zoning ordinance. The campground is an open air recreational area where temporary shelters such as
tents, travel trailers are intended to provide short-term occupancy, but short uh campgrounds are not listed specifically as a permitted or conditional use within this zone district, which is where we get into the uh catchall in our article 10 of the
zoning ordinance. We uh adopted several years ago that uh anything that's not expressly listed as uh conditional, permitted, or prohibited use in a particular zone district can at the county's discretion be processed as a conditional or interim use permit. And
so, uh that's why this is able to be go ahead and processed as sh as such. And you have those uh standards that are uh included on on the pages, uh there for you. And I'll just go ahead and read that. Uh go down on to page three. A
conditional use uh specifically as defined as an activity or use that would not be appropriate if allowed outright in any number but which if controlled as to the number, location and activity could be consistent with the comprehensive plan and not be injurious
to the public health, safety or general welfare. The review of each proposed use must be determined that it will or will not be compatible with the standard uh of the article and if found to be must attach conditions to ensure the continued compatibility. The interim use
is a temporary use of the property until a particular date. So a conditional use uh permit runs with the property whereas an interim use has to have a termination date either a specific date time year sometimes we do it one year 2 years 5 years uh or they can also terminate with
uh sale of the property or transfer of ownership in with the property. So continuing on the background uh this parcel was created in a recent subdivision and it is undeveloped. There is a path that can be traveled on foot
or by ATV, but it is not a driveway, nor is passable by a standard vehicle. This parcel is abudding county land to the north. Uh the site conditions and considerations. Well, the septic the application indicates that a bath house will be built with a toilet, shower, and
a sink with an additional outdoor sink available outside. The application does not clarify the water source of the bath house. uh environmental health uh division in the department offered the following conditions of approval if it is approved that an approved septic uh
permit that adequately treats the waste water produced by the bath house prior to issuing any land use permits and that the property is in compliance with Minnesota septic rules chapter 7080 and the Cook County septic ordinance uh for
noise short-term rental from a tent may generate more noise than it would from a structure Due to the location near public uh county land, this may not be problematic. Lighting uh the application does not indicate uh lighting details. This may
be considered further uh by the planning commission in your discussions. Safe access. Uh there is not currently passenger vehicle uh access to the parcel. Access to the tent sites from is from a shared driveway off of Highway
61. The application indicates a private driveway will serve to access the tent sites. However, there is not currently that driveway access to the parcel and parking is off the share driveway on a neighboring parcel. There is not a physical address sign uh to direct the
traffic to this parcel. So public noticing. This notice was uh legally noticed in the Cook County News Herald on August 1st, 2025. Uh 14 letters of notification were sent to adjacency property owners as well as the county departments, Northshore
Management Board and the Minnesota DNR hydraologist. No written comments were submitted uh for this particular request. And of course in the report you see the pictures and figures that are uh documented uh as well. Staff
consideration for uh facts and findings. A conditional use permit may be granted upon finding of all of the following. Number one, the use conforms to the land use or comprehensive land plan of the county. The Cook County land use guide plan includes a list of guiding
principles in chapter 7 which includes a commercial goal to provide commercial facilities to meet the needs of the residents and visitors with policy number 42. Specialized commercial activity for example resorts, campgrounds, ski hills, marinas, kennels, etc. that depends on and
requires specific site conditions can coexist with residential and other land uses through the application of standards regarding screening from adjacent uses, traffic conditions, size and scope of the activity and other similar concerns. Uh number two, the use
is compatible with the existing neighborhood. The site is accessed through private easement with other private property owners. This use will be compatible upon the installation of a driveway, parking area, bath house, and septic system as described within the application.
Number three, the use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding area of uses permitted by Wright and in the zoning district. The small scale of the proposed two rental tents should not interfere with the neighboring development for residential uses. Number
four, the location and character of the proposed area is considered to be consistent with a desirable pattern of development in the area. This property is within the R1 zone district. The principal purpose of the R1 zone district is to provide for those residential uses at that higher density
generally adjacent to or near development areas. Uh multiple residential units, mobile homes, and limited commercials uses are allowed on a conditional use basis in this particular zone district. Additional findings should address uh the following
as an interim use request. Uh such use will conform to the zoning regulations. Uh if the date or the event that will terminate can you be used to identify with certainty. So there has to be a definitive date or time or activity used
to terminate the uh interim use permit. Permission of the use will not impose additional costs on the public if it is necessary for the public to take the property in the future and the user agrees to any conditions that the county deems appropriate for the permission of the use. Staff recommendations for
consideration. The application or the applicant has requested a 5-year IUP or interim use permit for the short-term rental of the two- wall tents year round. staff recommend uh that the planning commission consider the current undeveloped status of the property and
speak with the applicants further about their timeline for installing the driveway, parking area, well, and septic system to support uh the bath house and tent facilities. No writtens work, no written comments were submitted with this request. Staff recommends that the
planning commission evaluate the request based on the criteria specified within the Cook County zoning ordinance to determine whether the proposed use meets the standards outlined in section 10 as a conditional use is defined as a special use and is not typically
appropriate within the zone district. The applicant uh must demonstrate that they do meet the criteria for the permit and interim use permits uh may be issued for a specified period such as one or two years or five or even terminating with the property a change to allow for
a trial period to assess uh the applicant's compliance with the conditions and compatibility with the neighborhood. Uh initial potential findings have been prepared and may need to be revised following the public hearing and planning commission discussions.
And finally, if approved, the following conditions could be considered. All local, state, federal regulations must be followed. An appropriate or an approved uh septic system that adequately treats wastewater produced by the bath house prior to the issuing of
any land use permits. The property uh is in compliance with the Minnesota rules chapter 7080 and the Cook County septic ordinance. And following approval of the county board of commissioners, the interim use permit shall be valid for a specified period of time. The request is
for 5 years, but this board could grant a different time period based on the discussion that you do have and any comments that are rendered. Um, and after this period, no rental shall be permitted without a renewal of that interim use permit. All rental tents and
structures shall meet at the 50 foot uh rear yard and 10 ft sideyard setbacks. A driveway shall be installed with a parking area on the subject property prior to short-term rental activities. No short-term rental activities will be permitted until proper wastewater
facilities are established approved by the Cook County Environmental Health Officer and physical address sign for the turnoff 21805 is installed prior to rental activity. That is the report. Thank you, Jim. Uh, at this time, I'd
invite the applicant's representative to, uh, if you'd like to add comments, come forward and state your name and address and and add comments if you wish.
Uh, my name is Eric Pierce. I'm the representative for Aaron and Atlanta Bates. um they wanted to do their due diligence and make sure they uh took the correct steps before taking any other major uh planning. Uh they appreciate their neighbors and and respect them and
their privacy. Um this is a pretty uh simple and just to make clear it's two wall tents like just two small tents. Um but anyways, that being said, um anything
that's asked of them moving forward with the county as far as driveways and things like that or or um septic systems, you know, will be addressed. Thank you. This time I open to the public if anyone
uh from the public wishes to comment on this case. Hearing none, I'll close it to the public and we'll discuss as a board. Do we have a sense of what the water source is going to be
for now? It's carry in carry in water. Um there'll be a small holding tank actually pulling water from from my house uh cleaning public drinking water from my well um in a in a holding
container for that bath house um to to throw on the sink. basically fest and Washington. Okay. Um, excuse me. Um, I was just looking at figure three. There's kind of a stream course there.
Is there a driveway going to be built into a drivable driveway put in to get into? Yeah. In the future, they plan on building their homes to live in Grand Marray on that site where the tent will be. So at some point in the future actual driveway across everything to get
up to their living home when they actually build. However, um they can establish a parking spot before the creek if that is, you know, a major concern as far as how they're going to cross that. Obviously, they're going to
follow guidelines or stipulations for culverts and things like that and getting the proper permits to make a driveway. But if if for the momentary if they start rolling they can create a
parking spot for that creek access for crossing. Okay, Mr. Sure. The reason I asked is just looking at that picture seems like a wetland delineation probably might not be ad would be advisable to make sure cuz it could be a wetland adjacent to
that stream course before you so you don't have to tear your driveway out after you put it in. Um I had a follow-up question. So the the drive and then that driveway is just for this site. It comes off a shared driveway. that currently exists.
1803, 1809, 1807. Okay. I thought that's what All right. Thank you. I have a question um about county policy on tents. So, we're looking at this specifically because they want to run it
as a rental. Just to clarify our treatment of campgrounds and putting up tents on property is that that's my understanding is we're looking at this really because they want to run it as a short-term rental but it's not covered under the vacation rental ordinance.
Well, yeah, Mr. Chair and Commissioner Stucker, the uh um there are a couple elements associated with that and much like activities within Cook County is kind of rather eclectic in in nature in in terms of how certain structures are
used or yurt yurts are used or whatever the case may be. So you have your your element of the fact that it could meet the definition of a campground. Um, and you have those tents that aren't typically used for the rental kind of thing, but we do have that catchall to
be able to include and process it to make make it legal if it is deemed by the planning commission. And then subsequently, this would go in front of the board of commissioners for their approval as well. But that's why it's being reviewed because it doesn't necessarily fit specifically into any one of those particular categories. But
we do have the catch all that allows us to process this. So if it wasn't if the idea was not to have it be a rental, it would just be treated as a building permit. That is correct. Typically. Okay. Yeah. Right. Anything else?
I've got a question about the water supply coming from another property. Um is this from from a well or how do you get your water? Well, yes. Is it tested
150 ft deep? Yes, we have room till 12. Um, it is tested every year. Is this going to fall under the Minnesota safe drinking water regulations as far as crossing a property line from another location? How are we going to how does that fit?
Okay. Yes. Again, Mr. chair and commissioner both the um again there there are a variety of circumstances in which we do have remote rental sites out there that the planning commission has approved that are
carrying water only and those can come from uh tap in the city or from from the well. We do work very closely with the Minnesota Department of Health for uh any of the operations that do the requirement for or do require um a
vacation rental uh license that we uh have to work with them because they they don't expressly, you know, permit or they they've been working with being able to permit the carry-in water and those kinds of of things. So we've we've
got kind of a hybrid relationship that we've worked with them to work those those elements out. But yes, it's it's something that we have approved before because this is not carrying water. Well, it it it would be carried in from
another well, but it would be carried in at this point. I thought carried in is just brought from one source to another source. I think people think of two gallon jugs walking in there with but right many of the facilities that I've cleaned in or seen have holding tanks
essentially where they're bringing in more than two gallons of water. Thank you, Sheila. I don't think I have any questions. You guys covered them.
Hearing no other discussion, I anybody want to make a motion? I've got a little I've got a bit of a concern about the length of time on this of 5 years. I realize it's going to take him probably close to a year to get a
septic in there with being so busy with all the the contractors up here and to get the infrastructure in there. And then that would if if we made it more like three years, that would give them a couple years of use and we would have a better idea and just decide in three
years if we want to renew this and it would expire upon the sale of the property would be I I'd be good with that, but five years is stretching it. It's a
little long for me. had a similar concern about the duration. Yeah. I don't remember any other fiveyear IUPs we've had and when people have done things not the same, but for example, the
wedding venue, right, and put them in place for a year and then after a year there's no problem. So then we extended it. um you know so it was a a natural way to as you point out see how things are going and then decide if it goes longer.
I think uh we also had a previous wall tent proposal that was officially withdrawn but a lot of us probably read the packet and or visited the site. So, I think it's it's useful to have, I think, a little bit shorter period of time to get some feedback. Um, cuz I
think part of the potential speculation in in this assessment is whether noise is an issue with it being a wall tent rather than just a cabin of the exact same size, which we wouldn't even see uh in this conditional use permit format
necessarily. But I think having three years gives a good chance for feedback. Bring it back up and see if any of that is actually founded. I move for a for approval for a three-year permit that with all
conditions listed and expiration upon the sale of the property to another owner. I'll second. We got a motion and a second. Any more
discussion? I just want to clarify, Tim. Would that be then the uh a seventh condition, the expiration on am I missing? Expiration on sale of the property. Mr. Chair, I think we could fold that into number two where it would say
following approval of the county board of commissioners, the interim use permit shall be valid for 3 years um or sale of the property, whichever comes. Fold that into two. So, we got six conditions. Um motion approval. I'll call for a vote. All in favor say I.
I opposed. Hearing none. And with that we'll look for a motion to adjourn the planning commission. Motion to adjurnn. Second. All in favor? I I
just give people a moment here and then we'll start the board of adjustment. point clear. IUPs don't follow the property. They follow the owner. Right. They IUPs we have to specify. Okay.
Um CUPs follow the property. Yeah. Period. IUPs we have to specify. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. We'll uh go ahead and call our August 13th board of adjustment meeting to order. Start with uh last month's
minutes and approving tonight's agenda. Move to approve the agenda and minutes as written. I wasn't here, so I'm looking for somebody. Oh, I'll second it. I second it, Mr. Chair. Motion second. Uh all in favor? I
I post hearing none. Um our first item has been postponed if I'm reading this right. So we'll go to item B. Uh Glenn Helguson and Rita uh Helguson
202511 V. Tim. Thank you Mr. Chair. This uh variance request is to place an additional or an addition that's 10 ft by 19 ft covered screen porch with a twoft eve and a partially covered 6 ftx
10 ft deck at a reduced uh ordinary highwater level shoreline setback of 88 ft uh from Caribou Lake which is a recreational development classification and where a minimum of 100 uh foot setback is required located at 112
Peninsula uh road. Uh the property size is 2.4 acres uh with 290 ft of uh Lake Caribou uh or Caribou Lake shoreline. Uh the zoning is Lakeshore residential zone. Um and the classification of the
lake again is recreational development. Uh the cabin is currently the cabin that exists there currently meets the 100 ft setback. The pro proposed addition would be no closer than 88 feet from the shoreline. Background. The county uh property tax
records indicate that the main cabin was built in 1938 and maintained over time to have an effective building date or build date of uh 1980. uh being that it then is a uh exist existing uh legal
nonconformity for the structure um or existing structure. Yeah. Uh the Cook County or ordinance does permit decks without requiring a variance to be added to non-conforming setbacks if they meet the criteria outlined in 9.03 of the
Cook County Zoning Ordinance. Um, we we did put that addition into the the zoning ordinance back in 2003 because we were running into a lot of the pre-existing uh cabins that uh very frequently came in for variances for uh
decks much like this. Uh and we just determined um that uh those standards would be uh acceptable without having to run through a variance process. So it those those standards uh are then that it would be constructed prior to uh
August 31st of 2003. The deck shall not have any sidewalls or roof. The deck shall not exceed 8 ft in depth and the closest point of the deck uh addition from the nearest high water level mark shall be no closer than 50% of the required setback uh of the zone
district. Uh due to the age of the cabin, the structure is eligible to have the deck addiction deck addition meeting these criteria outlined in. However, the proposed project is larger in size and scope with the enclosed porch uh and with the roof and thus does not meet the
performance standards which is why it is in for the variance today. Uh site uh conditions and considerations. Uh the property is served by a septic system. The impervious surface coverage uh is within the 25% imperous surface coverage
allowance. Wetlands are not an issue for uh the need for the variance. The slope is relatively flat. Uh slope is not an issue driving the need for variance. The shoreline health uh the property is well vegetated. Trees are present between the structure and the lake to provide visual
screening. mode paths are present along the shoreline with a wide uh swath of turf turf grass immediately along the lake shore of the in the shore impact area. Uh public noticing the application was legally noticed in the Cook County
News Herald on August 1st of 2025. 13 letters of notification were also sent to adjacent property owners as well as to the county department and the Minnesota DNR uh hydraologist. Uh the following written comments were received during the written comment
period. Uh John Bell from 130 Peninsula Point uh Road expresses no opposition to the variance request and feels that the request is tasteful and does not negatively impact the neighbors and this is an adequate setback to protect the shoreline environment and appearance.
the property or the Caribou Lake Property Owners Association board of directors expressed two of their core values uh that their core values are preservation, protection of water quality and shoreline aesthetics of Caribou Lake, feel that the shoreline
vegetation is adequate on this site and that the property currently has adequate visual screening from the lake and they do not oppose the request but request that two conditions be considered that storm water uh one storm water management of the water runoff from the
addition and two uh protective measures from the shoreline vegetation to remain intact. Uh the Cook County Soil and Water Conservation District provided a technical memo that explained the unique improving uh water quality trend of Caribou Lake indicating good land use
practices by lakeshore owners and the active uh lake association's efforts. The memo indicates that the land use impacts have had a direct or have a direct impact on phosphorus loading into the lake which impacts water quality and the memo indicates that good storm water
management and shoreline and vegetative buffer uh are good. So the Minnesota DNR uh department of natural uh resources hydraologist provided the following that they find the application is neither controversial nor problematic as far as
they are concerned. So the staff considerations for facts and finding uh going along the variance is consistent with the goals and policies again of the comprehensive land use guide plan uh and in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Cook County zoning
ordinance and other uh Cook County official controls. Number one, the county uh zoning ordinance number 37 section 7.05 requires a setback of 100 ft from the recreational development lake. The applica applicant is proposing
an 88 foot setback from Caribou Lake. Uh number two, Cook County land use guide plant general land use goal is 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 to protect non-compatible lands and uses land uses from one another. Policy number 13 uh is redevelopment of already developed lands is generally preferred over the development of undeveloped
land. Number three, Cook County land use guide plan uh natural features and environmental concerns goal is to maintain and enhance the quality of natural resources and native ecosystems within the county. Policy number 16
within that is to evaluate and minimize adverse impacts on air quality, surface and groundwaters, wildlife habitat, ecological systems, and other natural features through land use decisions. Number four, Cook County Land use guide plan administrative and and
intergovernmental goal uh is to integrate land use concerns into all appropriate ongoing administrative actions. Uh policy number 77 there indicates 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 property is zone Lakeshore residential. The prop parcel is conforming in size with 2.4 4
acres of lot area and approximately 290 ft of shoreline. Residential uses are permitted in this zone district. The property owner is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Cook County zoning ordinance. The property owner has
requested a deck and screen porch addition that are beyond the size and the scope of the current deck addition allowance in the Cook County zoning ordinance. The encroachment into that setback will not encroach into the shore impact zone. uh 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. Uh the staff encourages the board of adjustment to evaluate whether there is a practical difficulty present present present necess necessitating
necessitating the need for the uh variance design preference and landowner desires are not necessarily valid practical difficulties. Here are some considerations. The cabin currently meets all setback requirements. The property is eligible to add a deck
edition within a late setback area meeting the design standards outlined in the Cook County zoning ordinance. The applicants have chosen a project that does not meet uh those particular design standards. The application indicates that the practical difficulty is the
location of the original structure and the desire to add exterior space to the structure with a lake view. Approving the variance maintains the essential character of the locality. The area is zoned lakeshore residential. The ad addition will likely not be highly
visible from the lake due to existing tree cover and it will be in line with the current uh structure. The property owner has established that the practical difficulty involves more than economic considerations alone and economic considerations are not the reason for this variance request. So the staff
recommendations for consideration. The staff encourages the board of adjustment to review the proposed variance request following public comments. Further discussion should address the practical difficulty requirement to approve the variance. Cook County zoning ordinance has a provision that would allow for a
deck edition with specified size and design requirement to be added without the variance approval. But if approved, the following conditions may be attached to this variance request that the property shall conform to Minnesota rule 7080 and the Cook County septic requirements. All permits shall be in
place prior to the initiation of any construction. The layout construction must occur according to the plans approved by the board of adjustment at its August 13th meeting. Vegetation shall be maintained and approved uh to provide adequate visual screening of the
addition from the lake. Turf grass shall be limited within the short impact zone to access paths and recreational areas. Gutters shall be installed to manage storm water and the screen port shall not be enclosed in order to become living space. Uh the
rest of it is review criteria that you have and that is the report. Thank you Tim. Uh at this point I'd like to invite the applicants or the representative to step forward and um
state your name and address uh for the record. and add any additional information you'd like to add at this point. Yeah, I'm Rita Penrod Hoguson and the address um is 112 Peninsula Point Trail.
That's the cabin address. We live in Minneapolis. And I'm Glenn Helguson and his husband. Would you like to add anything to Yeah. Um nothing that's already been said. I think it's it's covered and we're members of the Caribou Lake Association.
So the values are our core values and we intend with everything we design and do to be true to those values. I just want to add a couple thing reasons for this. Number one, you know, over the years it seems like the bug issue is we had a cabin up on Christine
Lake and so we've been owners up here for about 10 years and we would like to be able to go out and have a screen porch that's accessible because I've already had two knee replacements and we're 65 and this would allow us to step
out from the kitchen and um be able to sit out there and and be able to enjoy dinner without getting eaten up by mosquitoes. and also um in case it rains. So we care family members who need the access who are in wheelchairs.
Yeah. So we want to do single level living as we get older and we do have a a lower patio but we have to walk down to that and to screen that would require pretty much blocking the view from the
living room and it would be impractical. All right. Thank you. Mhm. Does anyone else in the public wish to comment? If so, please step forward and stay here. Just say it from here. I think you can hear me fine. Um, we're next door
neighbors. I do name your name and address. Christensen, 104 Peninsula Point. Thank you. Um, Marsha and I are next door neighbors. Um, I believe we should support their variance. They're the
building there. They their main cabin or the the large building is like you said 1937 or 39 built log home which for Caribou Lake is a fairly historic
building. uh people um I mean we there the previous owner had a book with vice presidents from the United States who had stayed in that building and I think they're doing a a sympathetic addition
to maintain the the spirit and the quality of that house and um I speaking for our neighbors and myself I think it's a a good variance to apply Thank you.
Anyone else from the public wish to comment? Hearing none, we'll close to the public and discuss it as board. Okay, Mr. Chair, um I did did visit the site. Um it is very well maintained,
very nice. Um I didn't see any issues. I think for me one of the things is under the grand grandfather you can be in use 50% of that setback and they're only asking for 12 ft. So I think that's that's seems pretty
reasonable to me. I do have a question for staff. Where did condition number six come from? Um Mr. Chair and Mr. believe that that has been that has been kind of an ad hoc condition that has actually for decades
that has been kind of thrown on. Sometimes it's used more than others and the whole point of concern does come from like soil and water and such for erosion purposes. We don't want to uh have uh too much runoff going towards the lake and that's that's kind of where
that is. So you you you where you do have those roofs without any gutters or catchment systems, then you get those those lines right off of the roof down at the bottom of the walls that end up going that way. That's just it's been a standard thing. Mr. Chair, I'm I'm going to ask that to
be removed because it's contrary to what Mr. what somebody has said is appropriate because that actually concentrates your storm water if it's not put to a rainwater garden or to a storm source system. So, I would
like to see that removed. I'm sorry. 35 years of dealing with storm water, I think I've I have the benefit of of questioning that. um because basically your gutters concentrate your storm storm water flow
and so if it's not appropriately treated it actually makes things worse. So I'll just go on record for that and I'll probably have to talk to staff about that but um otherwise I I believe this based on what I saw on site this this
seems fair very appropriate. So, I'm looking at our 2003 uh non-conforming deck statement here. So, the only uh point of disagreement with what that says and what has been proposed is essentially that it has a roof. Correct.
It it's roof and I think 2T than 8 ft. 8 foot in depth. Yeah. Yeah. Cuz it's 10 foot. Okay. Good. Um, yeah. I mean, I think to the to Commissioner Lee's point, I think actually
it's it's an interesting situation we find ourselves in because with a uncovered deck, I think you've you've got the same kind of storm water issues just raining right through the deck. Um, so I'm
I'm inclined to look favorably on it uh in that I don't think it's particularly different in spirit from that. Um, so I'm weighing that in my mind. Both of their thoughts have kind of I'm
in agreement with them in the sense of the roof, the screen. I I get those things. I don't know what the thought process was in 2003 with no roof, no screens, kind of an approach to things. Um and and I think uh
Mr. Stucker's comment about uh keeping in within the spirit kind of hits it. Um my question for you guys, how do we feel about our findings of fact? Um do we want to concur with staff or do we want
to go through each individual one? Um Oh, Mr. Sure. I'm comfortable with what the the staff has set out for facts and findings based on what I saw on the site and what the proposed plan is. Okay.
Um the one thing I think we should maybe address is the practical difficulty. And I think I heard the applicant talk about um to me it seems like the size is the reason to kick kick it to here that it's not just approved and and if we've got
uh needing needing space for for wheelchairs or just generally a little bit more of a um however we word that. I think to me that that does then tip the balance on the practical difficulty discussion. Um,
but I just wanted to address it here because I think and I would clarify that to say accessibility given the historic Yep. That's nature of the trying to come up with the right word. There we go. Yes. So So that that was the thing I I had a concern with. So,
um, far as the gutters, I'm I guess I'm uh inclined to suggest that the applicant if address the storm water somehow so we don't concentrate whether that's a uh properly treated at the end of a gutter
system or um I mean the intent of it I I I'm okay with taking it out but as long as we're understanding what we're long as the applicants understanding the concerns is the you know erosion control and and all that. So um with that you
guys want to craft a motion. Um Mr. Chair, I make a motion to approve the variance um with all of the conditions provided by staff except for number six. Okay, I'll second.
Second. Any more discussion? Um, call for a vote. All in favor? I I opposed hearing none. That motion is approved. All right. Um C, Timothy Williamson.
Sorry if I messed that one up. Uh, 2025 12V. Tim. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, this variance request is to place a cabin at a reduced size or reduced a sideyard setback of 25 ft in the resort,
commercial, residential, or RCR zone district on a substandard uh lot of record where a minimum of 50 ft is required. Located at 40 uh Godins drive, Goodens Drive, Good God. Yeah. Um the property size is actually
1.1 or 1.41 acres with approximately 211 uh feet of Lake Superior shoreline. Um this is actually lot number 11 within the Sugar Beach Plat. Uh the zoning is entirely within the RCR uh zone district uh where the lot sizes are basically 5
acres in size and 300 uh feet in width uh for the structural uh and at the structural setback. Um the shoreline classification, this is all within the Northshore management zone. Um the uh
we'll get here. Let me see the uh I don't want to be redundant. So the Cook County zoning ordinance uh describes the resort commercial residential zone district as the principal purpose being uh to provide for the specific commercial activity of resorts uh lodges
and out outfitters. Residential uses and limited serviceoriented commercial uses are also allowed. permitted uses within the zone district uh includes permitted use number one which is single family residential dwelling, manufactured home or modular homes.
Um the uh variance relief request is uh within the the RCR zone district is outlined in uh section uh 4.17. Uh whereas uh the sideyard uh lot size is 50 ft and the rear yard is 50 ft as
well. Um we have here a substandard uh lot uh re of record. This is again one of these pre-existing uh lots of record. It's a legal non-conforming lot. Non-conforming single lot of record may be allowed as a building site without
any variances without any variances for the lot size itself is what it's saying. not not any variances whatsoever, but variances. If this weren't a pre-existing legal nonconformity, there would have to be a variance for the fact that it's a substandard size lot of less
than 5 acres in that zone district. But because it is an already pre-existing lot, um it's a legal uh existing non-conforming lot and therefore does not need a variance for that in in and of itself. So um all structure it may be
allowed um without a variance for uh the uh size of the lot provided that all structures and setback system setback uh distance requirements can be met. Sewage se uh treatment system consistent with the Cook County ordinance can be uh
installed or the lot is connected to a public sewer. The impervious surface coverage does not exceed 25% of the lot and the lot is in separate ownership from abudding lands uh except for lots created either by court order or through the co county boundary commission or platted uh subdivisions approved by the
recorder uh county and recorders in the office of the recorder register titles after 1971. So, the background of this is the lot was created in 1984 as a part of the Sugar Beach Plat. Uh, and the entire
residential uh plat is zoned RCR and consists of several non-conforming substandard lots that do not ne meet the lot area or the lot width requirements for the RCR zone district. The Sugar Beach Resort is on the east side of the Sugar Beach Plat and consists of several
individual uh parcels. The subject property currently has a residential structure supported by a septic system and well the applicants have been property owners of this parcel for 38 years. Current applicants are living or live in living quarters above the
garage. The variance request was described as a guest house in the legal notice uh due to the current living quarters over the garage currently serving as the principal dwelling. However, the variance is forest structure that will be the applicant's primary home or dwelling.
Now, I will say uh take a little uh things here. Normally when when there is this plat and this obviously doesn't happen or didn't happen at that point in time in 1984 and in that area when we approve uh zones and we approve plat we
uh if we are going to approve a plat as we have for say the golf course uh area there we will approve the plat if it's smaller than the required uh lot sizes. We also adjust the setbacks to accommodate for the smaller size lots.
This wasn't that case. They approved the smalls size lots, but they didn't adjust the setbacks to accommodate for the smaller size lots. That's why we're in this in this room today. Okay. Site conditions and considerations. Uh septic environmental
health officer Jesse Johnson provided the following comments. uh that prior to a new dwelling being occupied and approved uh septic permit for a new septic tank, new uh the new septic tank uh to be installed and a certificate of compliance for the new construction or
new installation and that the property is in compliance with Minnesota rule 7080 and the Cook County septic ordinance. Impervious surface coverage. The the parcel will meet the imperous impervious surface coverage requirements. wetlands. The wetlands are not an issue uh driving the need for the
variance. The slope uh the site is relatively flat and slope is not an issue driving the need for the variance. There is a drainage that is present along the western property line partially visible in aerial images. Uh the building site meets all bluff uh setback requirements. Other the
applicants indicate that the part of the reason for the chosen building location is due to the cluster of mature conifer trees in the figure below. These trees are largely located within the 40ft uh structure set back. Public noticing. The application was
legally noticed in the Cook County News Herald on August 1st of 2025. 10 letters of notification were also sent to adjacent property owners as well as the county departments, Cook County Soil and Water, Minnesota DNR Hydraologist, Tafty Township, and the Northshore Management Board. Um, we do did receive written
comments were submitted relative to this request. J Bosch at 36 got how do you pronounce Kadine? I should know that um submitted written comment with no objections to the request and noted that the approval of this variance would be consistent with
the character of the other properties in the area and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources did provide no comment uh to this particular request. staff considerations for facts and findings. Uh the variance is consistent with the goals and the policies of the
comprehensive land use guide plan and in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Cook County zoning ordinance and other uh Cook County uh official controls. The Cook County zoning ordinance uh requires a sideyard setback of 50 ft from the resort commercial residential zone district.
The applica applicant is proposing a 25- ft setback from the sideyard lot line. The Cook County land use guide plan general use land goals is to have an inventory of land suitable, appropriately located for anticipated uses, anticipated types of land uses
compatible with natural resources in proximity to existing infrastructure and to protect non-compatible land uses from one another. Policy number 13 states that the redevelopment of already developed lands is generally preferred over the development of undeveloped
land. Uh number three, the Cook County Land use guide plan natural features and environmental concerns goal is to maintain and enhance the quality of the natural resources and native ecosystems within the county. Policy number 16 there says evaluate and minimize adverse
impacts and air quality, surface and ground waters, wildlife habitat and ecological systems and other natural features through land use decisions. Number four, Cook County Land use sky plan residential goal is to provide a range of residential options with respect to cost, density, and
development locations within the county. Uh policy number 30 there uh indicates to residential density should be greatest near areas of concentration of commercial and public services and employment opportunities. Cook County land use guide plan administrative and
intergovernmental goal is to integrate land use uh concerns into all appropriate ongoing administrative actions. Policy number 77 there uh says to land use related decisions shall recognize the need to truly consider duly consider the rights and
responsibilities of the general public good with the corresponding rights and responsibilities of the individual. Uh the property use of the property is allowed within the land use district in which the property is located. Uh it is uh RCR zoning. Uh in this zone in the
parcel is lot 11 uh consisting of 1 one 41 acres with uh about 211 ft of the Lake Superior shoreline. The property owner is proposing to use the property in reasonable manner not permitted by Cook County zoning ordinance. The owner
property owner is requesting to place the residential structure 25 ft from the sideyard lot line. the sideyard uh setback distance from a residential use would be conforming in the neighboring single family residential R1 zone district which has a 10- foot wide sideyard setback for residential
developments. And I'll take just a quick break to say there too the other uh we had discussed with the property owners too. The other um kind of relief for this would be a simple reasonzoning of those particular parcels and there was some discussion about that but length of
time and it would make more sense if you could get all of those other parcels on board to do a full resoning of that but the these parcels exist and the plaid exists as they are right now which is why individually we're doing it and it would be faster uh for everybody just to
do it as a variance and notwithstanding a reszone could be something contemplated in the future for this as well. Uh 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. Staff encourages the board of adjustment to evaluate whether there is a practical difficulty present necessitating um the need for the variance. Design preference and landowner desire are not valid necessary. The practical difficulties here are some
considerations. The 55 ft setback for the RCR zone district is typically applied to the larger yachts, larger lot sizes. Uh since the RCR zone district has a 5acre minimum lot area requirement, the board could consider whether the historic plat and RCR zoning
constitute a practical difficulty. Conforming building locations uh are present on property which do not require a variance relief. The applicants indicate that once the setback uh requirements are taken into consideration approximately 030 acres of
the uh overall area is available for conforming building site locations. The applicants indicate that the need for the variance is to maintain the trees on the site. The conifer trees presents are largely located within the 40ft uh of the vegetation line. Approving the
variance uh maintains the essential character the locality. The area is zoned resort commercial residential consisting of non-conforming lots. The subject parcel is located at the end of a deadend road. The abunding abuing property closest to the encroachment is
zoned uh single family residential or R1 which has a 10yard sideyard setback 10t sideyard setback. The property owner has established that the practical difficulty invol involves more than economic considerations alone. Economic considerations are not the reason for
this variance request and stack staff recommends recommendations for considerations. The sugar sugar beach plat was created in 1984 was likely zoned RCR to reflect the historic resort and protect associated property rights. Today, several lots on
the west end are no longer tied to the resort and are used as private residences. While residential uses are permitted in the RCR zone, they remain subject to its more restrictive setbacks. The subject parcel is approximately 185 ft wide at the proposed building site with a 50-ft
sideyard setback allows for approximately an 85 ft wide conforming building envelope. The applicants state that they were unaware of the RCR's zone standards when they designing their project and only learned uh of them upon applying for a land use permit and they
intended to apply for a reszone to a more restrictive and appropriate uh residential or more appropriate residential uh development for the single family residential. staff discussed the resoning with the applicants and noted that this uh lot and nearby uh non- resort lots could be
good candidates for an R1 reszoning due to their size use and adjacency adjacency to the an R1 zone district. However, no reszone application is submitted and the potential reszone is not um a valid basis for just the
variance in and of itself. Following the public hearing, the board of adjustment should consider whether the practical difficulty does exist and the variance request stems from the landowner preference. If approved, the following conditions may be attached to this variance request that the property shall conform to Minnesota Rule 7080 and a
Cook County septic requirements prior to the new building being occupied and approved septic system or septic permit for the new septic tank, new septic tank being installed, and a certificate of compliance for a new septic installation. and all land use permits
being placed prior to the initiation of construction and layout and construction must occur according to the plans approved by the board of adjustment at its August 13th meeting. Thank you, Tim. Thank you. Um would the applicants like to uh add
anything to? If so, please step forward and state your name and address for the record. Yeah, I'm Tim and I reside at the property of discussion at 40 drive. Uh thank you Mr. Labota, chair and uh
members of the board for considering this. Um so as as Tim mentioned um you know I only became aware that 10-foot setback was not the norm because that's really consistent with all the other properties actually throughout this resort. Uh if
you look um there's virtually no property that's developed that doesn't have a structure closer than 50 ft from uh side setbacks. Um I uh was living
there the last 5 years. I have owned it like Tim said 38 years. Uh lived there full-time the last 5 years. Before that it was more of a getaway y for family. Uh I recently married Lisa here just five months ago uh in Cook
County and we decided that this would be our home and um because that basically I live above a garage. It's it's finished but it's small. Uh was never intended for full-time uh living. As a matter of
fact, when I bought the property, the idea was to build something closer to the lake if it ever became a full resident uh space. So now that dream is kind of being fulfilled getting married saying this is got a couple problems. It's a little bit too small for two
people and uh it's also always up and down stairs and I hate to say but I'm getting to the point where I got to start thinking about those things. So, thus a a new uh uh building um was
designed by myself. And the figure six on your handouts there is really representative of the trees that I was talking about. That would be a way of building uh um and you can kind of see that there's
kind of a natural space there that looks down upon the lake. Uh so that that's the reasons for uh requesting the variance of uh 25 ft. Um so I appreciate your consideration for this and and uh
await your upcoming. Thank you. Thank you. Uh this time we'll open to the public. If anyone wishes to speak, please step forward, state your name and address for the record. My name is Jay Bush. I live uh near
Wilmer, Minnesota. Um about 5 and a half hour drive from here. We have the house next door to to Tims and everything's growing up. Nobody can see anything of each other's lots anymore. Um
we know very well that um having a lakehouse is really a treasure and very nice for us. Tim's been a wonderful neighbor and um my wife and I, you know, have no
objections. Um I don't think any of the other people had any objections either on either side. Um, so I'm just here to support them in
their effort to build a small house so they can have a little bit more room. So, thank you for your consideration. Thank you. Anyone else from the public wish to speak?
Hearing none, we'll close it to the public and discuss his board. Brett? Yeah. I um um understand, you know, the zone is what it is and the laws are what they are and they had to be drawn at a certain point in time.
um we seem to have a case because as I look at figure five, we can see the homes and the property lines um that are encaptured within that and evident that most of those lots have something relatively close to the property line
and that you know the uh other side of his property line is an R1 zone. We wouldn't be having this conversation. The um the other thing we run into when when we apply certain things like this is you know lakes shore residential goes
back 300 feet from the lake. If you have property on the other side of that it's called forest or agricultural although it can't meet any of the requirements because it's too small. It's not 5 acres. It's not those other things but they still would say okay now you got to move your building to the 25 ft line
from the property. And uh and that's when people come to us to look to say, can we make this a little more sane for what we're going through? And and here I see despite the, you know, the good intentions of the law, we're we're um
basically not allowing property owners to use their property like they'd like to. uh but for a classification that was done 40 years ago. So I I u looking at staff considerations
and some of the practical difficulties uh I find more that our our legal construct is was you know got me questioning uh that we um would not approve this given the uh
the reasonleness of the request. Thank you Paul. Yeah, I think a similar point. I mean, what I'm seeing is that these standards are really meant for a much larger lot. Um, and to learn that standard practice has become to take that into consideration,
uh, I'm comfortable with that in mind and given the features of the site, the natural features on the site to say it's quite reasonable to build in that location. Jeff, I'd agree with both what Brad and all said and it to me it seems like the
zoning's wrong. The land use classification doesn't really reflect what has happened here and it it makes sense that a variance follows here. I do have one point of clarification
that typically in that's a resident or an owner initiated process to reszone. Correct. It is it does not have to be a reszone is actually a legislative action. Property owners can do that and it it it provides strength if if say
they property owners can get the other property owners together and come in in in mass but it is a possibility where uh we could look at an area and have some discussion about it uh and and u it's it's adjusting the ordinance actually.
It's a a reasonzone is is a legislative action. Yeah. I I mean it seems to me in the interest of the county to consider that to reflect the actual usage of this um development in the future. Um but I think today I feel comfortable
uh supporting this variance based on all the things we've just said and the findings of fact. And on that do we concur with staff's findings of fact? think at all. I I didn't find anything that I
disagreed with in going through the findings of facts. So, I I would say yes, we do concur with their findings of fact. Yeah. Likewise. Yes. Right. With that, I'd look for a motion. Just take a quick look at their staff
recommendations for consideration. Was that a motion? No, I'm I'm I'm looking at looking at staff's recommendations for approved. Okay. I was I wanted to double check that. I wasn't sure it was a motion, Brad. So, okay. Thank you. Y um
I'll make a motion to approve the conditions as written by staff. Do I have a second? Second. Any more discussion? All in favor? I I opposed hearing none. Your uh
applications approved. Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion to adjurnn. Second. All in favor? I All right. Thank you everyone. Okay. Thanks. Thanks, guys. Okay. Thank you very much. Good job.