wind. It's just been windy. >> All good. >> We'll go ahead and uh call the planning commission meeting to order. May 13th. Uh we'll start off with approving the agenda and minutes. Entertain a motion.
>> Motion to approve. >> I will second the motion. All those in favor? >> I. All those opposed? Motion passes. All right, we'll move on to new business. We're going to start things off with Putton Pets LLC Shogrren request for an
interim use permit 2026-2IUP. Neva, >> thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a request for an interim use permit in accordance with the Cook County zoning ordinance to allow a 5-year intermuse permit for permanent seasonal use of one recreational vehicle in the general
commercial zone district at 2014 West Highway 61. The applicant's property includes 1.89 acres. The property is entirely within the general commercial zone district. This use for RVs is not specifically a listed permitted or conditional use in the RC or in the
general commercial zone district. Uh this interim use permit is being considered under the provisions of section 10.01 and 10.03D of the Cook County zoning ordinance and this parcel is within the Northshore Management Zone of Lake Superior. The applicant, Aaron Shoggrren, is requesting a 5-year
intermuse permit to allow recreational vehicle travel trailer to be allowed as a seasonal residence for 1 to three months uh per year between the months of May and October at Puttons Migall. The RV has been on site in use since 2019 with an RV permit from land services.
During the last renewal application review, staff identified that in the general commercial zone district, RVs are not supported as a permitted use and therefore the interim use permit was initiated. This property is within the northshore management zone of Lake Superior and as I mentioned the general commercial zone
district. The principal purpose of the general commercial zone district is to provide for basic commercial services to the public. This district is located in areas of greater population density with good access to major roadways. Limited light industrial activities are also allowed on a conditional use basis.
The picture on the screen is the figure one from the staff report. the aerial image of the subject property from 2024 and the RV is visible on site there. Um the zone district patterns this property, it might be hard to see on that map, but it's in that red blob and
it's kind of like the light blue circled red blob. So um anything that's not like green, teal, yellow, or red is within city limits. And then so this property is immediately right along the city boundary line and the county uh jurisdiction for zoning. um exercising
authority. So, this is in the general commercial just right along the borders there of Cook and Cook County and city limits. Whoa, that's all I had for pictures apparently on this one. Um so, Diana, if you want to turn off that screen, thank you. Um so, recreational vehicles, as I mentioned, are not a
listed, permitted, or conditional use in the general commercial zone district. As we've discussed before, the purpose of an interim use permit is similar to a conditional use permit except for that an interim use permit is typically for a specific duration of time or until a specific event occurs. In this case, uh
recommended as a five-year proposed by the applicant. Um in your packets, figure three shows the subject RV um from the street view. And I've also listed out the permitted and conditional uses. If you've had time to review your staff reports, you will
notice that recreational vehicles not elicit or permitted conditional use. For background, uh as was already mentioned, um this property is also known as putt and pets mini golf and has had previous conditional use permits to allow the animal units in conjunction
with the mini golf business. Permit records show the conditional use permit in 2013 and 2014 for the animal units for the mini golf course. Uh the property owner applied for the RV permit in 2019 and a 2-year initial RV permit was issued by previous land services
staff. Notes from that approval uh noted that it was for a 2-year period and that it could be renewed for a three-year period after that time. Uh correspondingly to that, the RV was reapplied in 2021 and that was issued for 3 years as well. So last year, our
staff identified when the next renewal was approached for another three years. So, we had a new land use specialist who looked through the zoning ordinance and recognized that this wasn't a listed use. So, some staff errors in there that we were trying to correct. Um, there is a holding tank on the property. This,
uh, property shares the septic system with the neighboring property. Um, so each property has their own holding tank that goes into one treatment area. Uh Jesse Johnson, the environmental health officer, did provide a memo for your packets about the septic system. Um
saying that a septic inspection was going to be needed just due to the date of that uh installation. Um for impervious surface coverage, the RV does not increase existing impervious surface coverage and there are no wetlands being impacted from this use. For public noticing, the application was
legally noticed in the Cook County News Herald on April 24th. 17 letters of notification were sent to adjacent property owners as well as county departments, the Northshore management board, city of Grand Marray, and the DNR hydraologist. No written comments were received by our office during the written comment period. One technical
memo was provided by the environmental health officer and included in your packets. In your packets are some draft findings for your consideration uh to be revisited after the public hearing and deliberations um corresponding to the questions we are intending and supposed to ask for these
types of requests. So the first question for reviewing this type of use is number one the use conforms to the land use or comprehensive plan for the county draft finding. The Cook County land use guide plan does not address recreational vehicles considering the purpose and allowable uses of the general commercial
zone district. the presence and use of the RV since 2019. It appears that the use has not been unsuitable for the area. Number two, the use is compatible with the existing neighborhood. Uh proposed finding this use is compatible with the existing recreational business and has not gener generated any
complaints since it was established in 2019. Number three, the use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement in the surrounding area of uses permitted by right in the zone district. Draft finding. The use has not generated complaints and should not have a negative impact on development of the properties in the surrounding area.
Number four, the location and character of the proposed use is considered to be consistent with the desirable pattern of development for the area. Using the an RV as a seasonal dwelling is a use that has been requested by other businesses in recent years likely due to the limited affordable housing options. As such, this is consistent method
available in the nearby abudding properties in the single family residential R1 and the F3 zone districts where recreational vehicles are permitted uses. Staff recommendation for consideration. The proposed use appears non-promatic with surrounding land use patterns and zoning. The planning
commission should consider the potential findings listed and modify or amend or adopt as they determine appropriate after the public hearing for recommendation of the Cook County Board of Commissioners. The following conditions could be consider considered. Number one, in accordance with the application for a travel trailer RV, the
IUP is restricted to a towable non-motorized RV. This IEP does not apply to motor homes or fifth wheels. Number two, all local, state, and federal regulations must be adhered to. For example, the Cook County recreational vehicle permit is required. Short-term rental of RV is prohibited. The property shall be in compliance with
Minnesota State Rule 7080 and the Cook County septic ordinance. A new septic inspection shall be required by a private inspector. Number four, all permits necessary for the addition of decks or other structures shall be approved prior to the initiation of construction. And the last condition, this intermuse permit shall be valid for
5 years or until transfer of property, whichever occurs first. >> Thank you, Neva. >> Uh, is the applicant present? And if you'd like to add anything, you can come up to the mic, state your name and address for the record. I don't I think it was covered pretty well. So,
>> okay, great. Thanks for being here. In case we have any questions, uh then we'll open it up to public comment. If anyone has any comments on this application, please step to the mic, state your name and address. Seeing none, uh we'll close public
comment and discuss as a board. >> I don't have anything. >> Any thoughts? Yeah, I don't have any questions. >> Um, I would make a motion to approve with the following conditions. Um, one,
two, ABC, C, D, and three. >> All right. And are we comfortable with the findings of fact? Do we want to amend anything, add anything? >> No, I think they are perfect. >> I'm comfortable with them. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> All right. >> I'll second that motion.
Uh any further discussion? All right. All those in favor? >> I I All those opposed? Seeing none, motion passes. Uh it'll be re recommended to the board of commissioners. Thank you. All right. We'll move on to our next item.
WTTC Land Management Co. LLC request for an amendment to the existing conditional use permit in accordance with the zoning ordinance. Eva. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh Diane, can you get the screen on when you get Thanks. This is a request to
amend the existing conditional use permit. Uh the last amendment to this was 2013-27 for the resolution in accordance with Cook County zoning ordinance to allow an increase of the existing gravel pit from 10 to 15 acres of active excavation in
the pit adjacent to Cook County 27 Ball Club Lake Road and the addition of a wash plant at 224 Ball Club Road zoned F1. The applicant's property includes 42.46 acres. The property is zoned F1. Section 10.03B 03B of the Cook County
zoning ordinance stipulates in any zone district conditional uses include number eight extraction and processing of sand, gravel, and other minerals or gemstones. And finally, the property is nonshorland. WTTC L WTTC Land Management Co. LLC is
requesting an amendment to the existing conditional use permit uh for the formerly Humphrey gravel pit to expand the active open pit area from 10 to 15 acres and allow gravel washing operations as a conditional use. The site is located north of the Cook County Airport between Ball Club Road and
Benagami Lake. The Humphrey Pit has a long permitting history with multiple amendments and approvals over time. In 1995, George and Cheryl Humphrey purchased the property. In 1996, there was the initial conditional use permit established for the gravel pit allowing extraction, screening, and other future
crushing and washing under conditions. The approval included 16 conditions, including a requirement that gravel washing could not occur until a complete operational plan, including machinery, water source, drainage, sedimentation control, and production volume was submitted to and approved by the planning commission. No operating hours
were established at that time. In 2001, there was an amendment to that condition or an approved addition for the asphalt hot mix plant. Operating hours were established from 7 am to 8:00 pm Monday through Saturday with Sunday operations at the county's discretion.
In 2013, there was amended resolution 96.38 to increase the active excavation area from 5 to 10 acres. And in 2020, there was an approved interim use permit allowing aggregate washing for a one-year period. In 2022, the previous owners, George and Cheryl Humphrey,
requested an amendment to expand the pit from 10 to 15 acres. The planning commission recommended approval with conditions. However, the application was withdrawn prior to county board action. And in 2024, ownership transferred from the Humphre to WTTC Land Management Co. LLC. The current request revisits the
2022 proposal to expand the active extraction area and adds the request for the wash plant. I'll just keep you on there. Uh the Humphrey Pit is included in the HR County's annual gravel pit review process. The site is situated within a prominent escer formation and does not contain wetlands or surface
water resources within the active pit boundary. Surrounding landscape features are characterized by a network of water resources. Wetlands and additional escar formations. Notably the nearby KGM and Cook County pits are part of the same broader geological system that formed the resource present at the Humphrey
site. for wetlands. A 2013 survey identified wetlands on the pro parcel. However, the proposed expansion area is outside of the mapped wetland boundaries. Cook County wetland specialist Mitch Travis provided a technical memo memo indicating the following and I'm just going to zoom
ahead. Well, I don't have it on there. Apologies. It's in your packet. Um the survey that shows the wetland boundary. >> Um so, please refer to the attached survey. My again, sorry I didn't get that on the screen for this part. uh for a George and Humphrey construction
prepared by Brett Land surveying in June 2013. This survey accurately represents the wetlands present on the property. If the appropriate buffers from wetland features are maintained and best management practices are installed, typically BMS with earth vegetation, I would not anticipate any indirect
impacts to surrounding wetlands. Additionally, if the gravel wash operation and associated holding ponds are constructed in the central areas of the existing pit, the local government unit would not anticipate groundwater draw down to the surrounding wetlands and would not see the need for monitoring wells. The proposed area for
the wash operations has already infiltrated the groundwater table with no apparent impact to neighboring wetlands and would appear to be a viable location for future wash operation use. There are no public waters or sensitive resources near this pit as it has been the case with other gravel pits where
monitoring wells were deemed necessary. And that uh survey map that Mitch was referring to in that memo is figure one in your packets if you have that available. For zoning considerations, the pit is located outside of Shorland area in the
F1 forest agriculture recreation zone district. The principal purpose of the F1 district is to provide for forest management, agriculture uses, and recreation activity in the less developed areas of the county. Extraction and processing of sand, gravel, and other minerals are allowed
as a conditional use in any zone district per section 10.03b8 of the Cook County zoning ordinance. Special criterion requirements are outlined in section 10.06. Other allowable uses of the FR1 zone district are included in your packet on
page uh four and five of this section of the staff report. And in this picture, uh the white is the F1 zone district. So this subject property is the blue outlined uh polygon kind of in the middle top part of that
between Benagami Lake and the Ball Club Road which is over in the orange section. And that's Double Track Lake on the south of there. For project details, the applicants are requesting to amend the conditional use permit to increase the allowable pit area by 5 acres and expand the operating
area of the pit. Currently, the pit is allowed to have 10 acres open excavation. The applicants would like to increase this to 15 acres expanding into the area medial east of the current pit area. The wash plant is proposed in the low points of the pit area. The application provides greater details as to the reasons for both of these
requests, but are generally summarized as follows. The additional 5 acres request includes the following reasons as provided by the applicant. Stockpiling of materials is necessary and require separate piles for different types of materials created in the pit with enough spacing to avoid crosscontamination.
Adequate spacing for mobilization and operation of the gravel production equipment. Space for truck hauling traffic patterns. And the current 10acre allowance is taken up with the existing stock piles. And as the application states, approval of this CUP request will allow for additional space to meet the noted needs for stockpiling,
producing, and hauling while also maintaining access to necessary raw materials. This CUP will allow operation of this pit in a safe manner as the Humphre and now Northland have done for many years. Open area includes all areas of the gravel pit where pre-existing vegetation has been removed, top soil
has been stripped, and excavation with stockpiling has begun. Areas intended for travel and or equipment storage do not constitute open area and are not included in the open area calculation for the gravel washing request. Resolution 96.38 from 1996 establishing
the conditional use permit included 16 conditions which included condition number three uh which prohibited gravel washing until a complete operational plan was submitted and reviewed by the planning commission. The required plan must address machinery, water source, drainage, sedimentation control, and
material volume for approval or denial. In 2020, a one-year intermuse permit was approved to allow gravel washing on a temporary basis, and there was a technical memo included by Wink at that point in time. I'm not going to read through the whole thing um because I've got a lot to get through here, but I'm hoping that you all did your homework
and you read it. Um the summary of the gravel pit operation, the image that you have on the screen was provided in that wank memo from that 2020 interim use permit. Essentially, they're not bringing water onto the site for the wash plant. They're grabbing the water that naturally accumulates in the bottom
part of the existing pit and that water recirculates throughout the process. It's not being taken off site and it's not coming into the site um from like a surface water for example. Uh there are a lot of conditions that were included that currently apply. I've
included that in your packets for your review. And um staff recommends that if this request is approved, conditions be included to address current operational considerations and to update and replace relevant conditions from prior approvals as appropriate. For public noticing, the
application was legally noticed in the Cook County News Herald on April 24th. 11 letters of notification were sent to adjacent property owners as well as county departments and the DNR hydraologist. Written comments were received. One was from Susan Parin Schubert at 319 Pine Mountain Road
provided written comments and materials for the planning commission and county board's consideration. Miss Pin Schubert provided materials that discussed the noise aspect of her concerns relative to noise traveling over water environmental regulations regarding noise. There are three main requests identified in her written comment as well as two
additional concerns. Number one, the request the permit to be an interim use permit requiring future review of operations, monitoring data, and adjustments. Number two, request strategic stockpiling during peak summer months to reduce noise from processing. And number three, limit operating hours
from 8 to 6 with no weekend work during peak summer months. In addition, number four, different alarm mechanisms. And number five, requiring a wetland delineation. In your packets also is a memo from the Cook County So Water Conservation District. Uh, number two, Max Tossenson providing a technical memo
with recommendations. There's also the previously mentioned technical memo from the Cook County wetland specialist, Miss Travis, indicating a wetlands lineation is not necessary for the proposed project. And lastly, the US Forest Service realy specialist, Kathy Peterson, provided a comment to ensure
that there's no encroachment on federal lands, including water runoff and gravel washing operations. I did include some background information in your packets about noise regulations. to Minnesota rule 7030 outlined the um amount of noise for the
amount of time um that's allowable per state rules since that was one of the objections from one of the neighbors. Um so that's there and we can revisit that if we want to further discuss that item. I provided some draft findings for your consideration. We can revisit that when
you're ready to go through some draft findings after the public hearing portion is held. For staff consideration, permitted gravel pits in Cook County are subject to annual review processes intended to evaluate compliance with approved conditions and operational standards. The previous property owner and applicant have
historically submitted the annual documentation as required and county staff have conducted periodic site inspections to verify compliance with permit conditions. The surrounding area is predominantly public land with no identified private residential development located within within
approximately 3/4 mile of the operation. The nearest residential structure identifiable by staff on aerial imagery is a cabin on the southwest side of Bengami Lake approximately 79 miles over 4,000 ft from the east property line of the pit. For comparison, the Cook County
zoning ordinance requires a 2500 ft minimum setback from residential structures for asphalt plants. The nearby airport is also an existing noise generating land use within this area. Cook Countyy's geology contains relatively limited limited aggregate resources and the zoning ordinance
recognizes gravel extraction as a conditional use due to the location specific and scarce nature of these materials. Many deposits occur as glacial escars or similar formations limiting where excavation activities can reasonably occur. The planning commission may also consider the short
northern Minnesota construction season which can compress the timing and intensity of extraction and processing activities. Written comments submitted regarding this request primarily related to operational noise and impacts. Noise generation is an inherent component of gravel extraction and processing
activities, including crushing, screening, and washing operations previously authorized on site. Staff note that the location of this pit, largely surrounded by public land and separated from concentrated residential development, helps minimize impacts compared to alternative locations closer to developed areas. The planning
commission may consider operational conditions related to hours of operations, screening, burming, restoration, erosion control, and other performance standards authorized under section 10.04D of the Cook County Zoning Ordinance. Staff recommend caution on imposing conditions that could unintentionally conflict with equipment
safety requirements or standard workplace safety practices. If approved, staff recommend consolidating and updating prior permit conditions into one comprehensive set of conditions governing operation, restoration, and wash plant activities for the site.
I went through all of the conditions that were on the previous approvals because this is an expansion um and also with a wash plant and there was some redundancy and also conflict between some of those conditions. So if this is recommended for approval with
conditions, um the full list of draft conditions here are consolidation of the existing conditions as well as some modifications. Um for your consideration, uh for example, like the restoration plan was a little vague as to what that restoration plan would actually be. Um so that would be an area
for significant improvement with an improved condition. Um and also I would recommend condition number 30 if you want to consider that. Uh just clarifying that all conditions of the previous resolutions from 1996, 2001, and 2013 uh shall be replaced by the
conditions in this so that there's one consolidated place. Um typically when we process conditional use permits, we can't go back in time and change conditions that have already been approved. However, this is a continuence of those. Um and we're not changing the conditions to be more restrictive in any
of them that are listed here. Um at least by how my review of it was. So, um, we can talk more in detail when when and if we get to that point, but that's what I have for you now. >> All right. Thank you very much. >> Uh, is the applicant present? If you'd
like to step forward and if there's anything you'd like to add, state your name and address for the record, please. >> I don't have anything to add, but my name is Jeremy Carlson. I'm with Northland Constructors. uh WTTC is part of our parent company's uh
ownership of the property. So, I'm here to represent. So, but I have nothing else to add to the package he >> Okay, great. Thank you. Uh we'll open it up to public comment if there's anyone that would like to step forward to the microphone, state your name and address,
and anything you'd like to say. And we'll add I'll also add um if you've written in please try not to repeat what you've already written. We've all read the packet just um for time management sake. So if you have new things to add. >> Hi everybody. I'm David How and uh boy
maybe eight years ago I was lost delivering firewood like I usually am in Cook County and ended up at the gravel pit and uh since then we've purchased product out of the uh gravel pit and um it's very good quality and it's close by
and with today's fuel prices having quality aggregates close by is a real benefit to the community. So, I'm in favor of uh um going forward with this
request. Thank you very much. Thank you. Anyone else like to speak on this proposal? All right, we'll go ahead and close the public comment then and discuss as a board. thoughts.
>> Um just a a question for NEA of clarification. Um they currently wash here. >> No, it was a >> that's part of the >> It was an interim use permit in 2020 for a very specific road project. >> Okay. And so we want to reser they want
to resurrect that washing process. >> Yes. And they would like it as a conditional use. And I think one thing that's a little tricky with wash plants as interim use permits is when contractors are bidding on projects, uh, if they get that bid, then they've got a pretty short time period to then figure out where they're going to get that
intermuse permit. And that processing time of these public hearings can take a good bit of time sometimes. >> Correct. >> Um, hence the conditional use permit request. >> Okay. Did we did we as a county accumulate any information of that short-term washing
as far as it worked, it didn't work, the settling pond worked, so on. >> Uh, it's maybe something Jeremy might have direct information on. Um, I was not at the county and I didn't see anything in our files from that, but I'll also note that that was in 2020 and
everything went a little wonky in that time period. Um, so I didn't come across any kind of monitoring information. It probably is detailed in their annual report that was done January 2021. Um, but I had I didn't go back in time and
look through each of the annual reviews. >> Okay. >> Did you have anything to add to that? Maybe just to respond directly if you have any experience of that. But the the only thing I'd say is I don't recall any requests for any information during or after that particular process. Um but
like NA said, if there was something in the annual report that year, the Humphre still owned it at that time. So you'd have to check, I suppose, if there was any information provided that annual report. And so follow so essentially what's
being proposed is very similar to what was proposed in that earlier time period a settling pond or an extraction water extraction >> pond. >> Yeah. Their application directly included stuff from that 2020 application. Okay. >> Um I would say the only main difference
is that in this in the draft condition staff have provided um there's much more clarity as to what the county is expecting to see as a part of this process. So, if this was approved, the county would want to see a specific restoration plan on file. We were unable
to find one when we went through the application initially to see what we had existing on this from 1996. Um, so that's something if this was approved that our staff would work with Northland and the Soil and Water Conservation District to put together a good quality restoration plan that talks about what's happening with the landscape when the
pit is ready for closure. Okay. Getting that on file would be a big good thing. >> Correct. I can agree with that. Thank you. Nothing else, Mr. Chair. >> Any other thoughts? >> Um, the only thing that I would comment on is that the last time I was involved
in a review of all the gravel pits in Cook County, one of the things that we were focusing on was sticking to the 10 acre open area pretty strictly. >> And my concern would be that either a um this will encourage other gravel pits to
then apply for larger spaces um which may or may not be a good thing. Um, but it also creates a competitive advantage. Uh, as there is someone else in the room who actually has a gravel pit, I would entertain comment on that concept if
that person wanted to. >> I don't know if it's appropriate since public comment. >> Sure. >> Can we reopen public? I think that it's a direct question. I I would entertain
it as additional information if within bounds. >> I could also try to address it. Um I think it's a really good point about competitive advantage. Um I don't to in my perspective if the pits have larger open areas I don't see a
specific downside um in the sense that if we are getting better quality restoration plans on these files and with these amendments we say okay you get a larger pit area but we really need better restoration plans because in all of our gravel pit permitting that is the biggest weakness
point is understanding what is the expectation when these pits are ready for closure. Um, I think in in my perspective, I've really gained a greater appreciation of how difficult it is for these materials to become accessible for use, especially at a reasonable price for our community. And
so, I don't want regulatory barriers to be unnecessarily burdensome. So, if there's a real operational benefit, which I think this application does outline, um, in the sense of maybe they got a wide variety of materials and they need that stockpiling,
um, I don't want to presume to make unnecessary restrictions on that. Um, unless we can think of anything other than competitive advantage, if there's a very specific reason why 10 acres versus 15, it seems like kind of a magical number. I don't
know specifically why that number would be picked. And so, you know, to that point, I don't have um a great spreadsheet that shows every pit and what their maximum area is. It should also be noted that there are grandfathered pits in the county that have no restrictions besides they just
can't go beyond their property boundaries and those are not held to any type of open pit area. So um these are the pits that already are having a lot of scrutiny but there are a lot of grandfather pits too that kind of get a lot more com flexibility.
I don't know if that answered your question or not but it >> does. Um so I guess the only thing that I would say is that we want to create there is already a condition for a detailed reclamation plan. As long as we in include that in our list of conditions I'm okay with it.
>> Yeah I take the point. I think it makes me think about the balance between, you know, an already excavated site and a new excavation site and the pros and cons of allowing one to be larger or essentially forcing the excavation to happen somewhere else.
>> And I too >> that's a balance. Yeah. >> And I have also wondered, you know, why is 10 acres the magic number when there are already grandfathered pits that are considerably larger? So, >> notably 10 acres is not outlined in the ordinance. you know, it's not like it says somewhere in the ordinance, pits
shall remain at 10 acres or less of open pit area. It's been more of like a policy application, I think. Um, so we very well may see other pits respond to this requesting amendments. And in my opinion, it depends on the site. If there's really sensitive water resources or if it's next to private land, like
much closer to private land, I think that those would be, you know, factors that we would play. But in this location, nonshorland, relatively further away from residential properties, I would view that different. And that's why we do the conditional use process, right? Every site is viewed by
its own merits. It's not just a, you know, consistent thing everywhere. Any other thoughts? >> Um, I I just weigh in. I agree that a
quality restoration plan's really needed because we we in my time on this commission, we've approved two new pits that I I would agree I would conf I thought the restoration plans were
extremely weak and very hard to kind of say yes when you do this this is what you said you were going to do and this is what you said not what you said you were going to do. So there really weren't any parameters that we could use
to establish that the restoration had been done in a proper manner and done with best practices and things like that. So it would be nice to see restoration plans that that do have some end points and some discussion.
If nothing else, I think it helps the owner understand that there's an expense involved in restoration. Restoring a mine site is not cheap and that that should factor into their decision. I'm going to build a pit and um make some money off it and then walk
away from it, which then leaves the residents of the county holding the bag, so to speak. So, I I would strongly encourage we develop >> good restoration plans Do you feel like two through five are adequate or are we
looking for more than that yet or? >> Um, no. I think the >> Well, 28 also addresses the restoration plan. >> Well, yeah. Um, >> 28 we don't really say a lot >> that gives it a time frame. >> Chord. Yeah. In accordance with the
approved restoration plan >> within six months. Another small thing Nea mentioned number 20 number 30. I don't see a number 30 here. >> No, I put it on the sheet added it on the screen and number 30 was basically
citing previous resolutions and saying they have been kind of comingled into this main one. >> Yeah, I heard it. I didn't see it. >> It would be good to double check with the applicant too that he's had a chance to review all these conditions and see if he has any concerns with them as well. >> Have you?
>> Yes. No. No concerns with proposal. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Um, Mr. Chair, I mean 28 does say it shall be restored in accordance with approved restoration plan >> in 6 months. Um,
does that suggest that approving this this use isn't contingent upon seeing that plan and that sta city county staff has approved that plan? >> Yes. So, with these conditions, the wash
and the expansion into the additional five acres could not begin until we had all of these conditions on file. So in the future staff will go into this file and see that restoration plan that's been done um as a part of that and it takes them some time. It would just take
some time before they can go into that next five acres and be >> right because they they can continue to operate their current 10, but the five acre expansion is not possible until that plan has been submitted, approved, and on file then. Okay.
>> Okay. I feel comfortable with that. >> And then the time frame and 28. >> Mhm. Yeah, I think that's great to bound it and >> have an expectation about how quickly that happens. >> Yep. >> After it's closed.
>> I agree with that. >> 6 months is pretty short for a restoration on a 15 acre site. >> Yes. >> Especially if it happens. >> Should we alter that to 12? Um well or maybe it should be re shall
be initiated within 6 months of closure and then the plan theoretically or ideally a restoration plan should have some checkpoints >> you know soil gradient's going to be
done at this point vegetation establishment final vegetation establishment you have some goals that you you need to meet those. That's typically the way state of Minnesota does my enclosure plans.
>> So that would be delineated in that uh restoration plan >> plan would set forth. >> So if it's initiated within six months, >> but the staff would be approving that >> approve. Right. Right. Because yeah, if you're going to establish natural vegetation, especially if you're going to do forested,
you're talking four to five years before you can say that that's fully successful. Probably >> that long. >> I did a black ash swamp in Aken County and it was 10 years before the core of engineers agree that was complete.
So, >> so what would we want to do about number 28 then? Because 6 months is obviously way too short. >> Well, we can just change 28 the word restored to initiated. >> Initiated. I could I could Yeah, that's a good point.
>> But do we want some endpoint so they can't sit on it forever? >> Probably. >> Would that be part of the plan that staff approves? >> That would be something you guys would look at. Yeah. Yeah. I think this is always difficult with gravel pit
restoration. It doesn't I I think to Jeff's point, it can take a long time, but also recognizing property might change ownership. Um, you know, there's nothing that says they can't sell the property to someone else. Um, so the easiest way I see it is we have the plan
with this property owner and we say it has to get initiated at least by a certain point and the plan itself will then trigger timelines. Um, okay. You know, I think it's kind of the best we can do. Um, >> and the plan would essentially attach to
the land then >> it would run with the land. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> But the land probably could be used for other uses in the future. Someone wants it for hunting land or, >> you know, try to put a house out there, cabin seclusion.
>> Just playing devil's advocate theoretically. So, someone else buys it and discontinues it as a pit. are then are they left holding this restoration plan? >> So we don't have any type of financial
shity attached to this. Um that would be the only mechanism through which if it changed ownership and the county really wanted to leverage saying hey half your trees died because you didn't water them. Um that's where the financial shy
component goes into it. Um, I'm unfamiliar with all of our pits that are permitted if we've got financial shy requirements for like just general pits. I wouldn't be surprised if we had them for like asphalt plans or something that was next to more sensitive resources.
Um, so just thinking ahead to that question, I'm not sure if we did that if this would be a first for that or not. And >> we could always table and you know if you need additional information for these sort of considerations we can look that up.
What would legal staff say about the creation of a lean >> or perform performance bond? >> Performance bond or lean? >> Uh, I would say that the county attorney would would need more specific
information under especially with an operation of this size and complexity on another project. So the cell tower that was um before this group last year there was a financial shy component
connected with that and the way the planning commission identified that they said it was in the form satisfactory to the attorney's office. So the planning commission wasn't too prescriptive whether it was a performance bond or um you know another type of financial
mechanism. Um at this point I just wouldn't know what dollar figure to attach. we would probably want to consult with like the soil water conservation district to get some baseline um you know cost of what that expectation would be. But if this is you
know what this board wants for additional information for reviewing it like if you don't want to make a decision without seeing that restoration plan and what that financial expectation is. Um you know that's where tableabling it and asking for that additional information is within um your abilities.
So >> is that something that you could put in though >> when they before you approve it the restoration plan? >> I think if you say what you want in the restoration plan and the conditions that gives staff the clarity of what
expectations when we work with the applicant later. So, if you say a restoration plan that is done um that outlines timelines and phasing um in accordance with and maybe citing the Minnesota um mine closure, you know,
processes, I'm not familiar with that um checklist myself. Um the document I have is from the DNR from the 1990s and that's the best guidance document I have on gravel pits, so there's probably room for improvement. Um so considering that and if you said
that you want financial assurance uh for the completion of the pit um we could probably see what coordination we can have that you know as long as we kind of understand what you want the conditions to be that we could apply to to work with applicant.
So, we have other gravel pits now. We require a performance bond from one that wants to do an expansion. It seems like it creates kind of an unlevel playing field. They've now they
now have to to um pay for a performance bond. I >> um and so is there a mechanism that we have that >> other quaries that or gravel pits quaries are different but um that
currently exists that come back in for review. Do we have a mechanism then that we ask them for >> continuation of their permit if it's an in interim permit or whatever >> that we we want a restoration plan
to be reviewed and approved and a performance bond to go with that restoration so that we put all of the gravel pits on the same footing. >> The difficulty with that is that we can't add on conditions of things that have already been approved. Um, I do stand corrected though. There is one
other pit that has had, I believe, a letter of credit, um, something from their bank that's always been a part of their annual review. Um, I just don't remember what aspect of that pit needed that financial assurance. So, this wouldn't be the first pit that needed some form of financial assurance
connected to it. >> Guess I was just playing on the worst case scenario. And if someone purchases this property after it's been closed and there is no attachment uh covenant that requires
them to do that and there's no financial um it opens things up for problems. So I'm trying to think of some way I also agree it would be it could be egregious to force people to then get a bond etc. And and does create an unlevel playing
field. Um, maybe there's another mechanism that we haven't thought of or hasn't been discussed yet and maybe now is not the time to try to figure that out, but it might be worth moving forward to try to create something upon renewals or expansions
for that process to occur. >> Mhm. And I mean specifically the renewal process that's not I mean that's not coming before us and it's it's not a recons or an amendment to a CUP or an IUP. So it's >> we don't get a bite at that apple
necessarily. >> Yeah. So the way the county used to do it was and you'll find this in the older conditions. They used to say that the conditional use permit was granted but every year it would be reissued. And as we know from our land use legal trainings with the attorneys that we work with, you can't reissue a
conditional use permit. It's a property right so long as all those conditions are being met. And so the way we have kind of appeased the intent of that condition is that we do the annual staff's review. So at the end of every year, at the end of the construction season, I send out a letter to all the gravel pit owners that have permitted
pits. So not the grandfathered pits, and we say, "Hey, it's time for, you know, the annual review. Please send me it. You know, what has been the quantities this year? What operations have you done?" Basically, show us that you're meeting the conditions of your permit approval. Um, so that is our process
that we're checking the boxes and we're having those conversations about what's your storm water best management practices. If we find in that review that there's really sensitive wetland resources that required monitoring wells, we say, you know, have you been doing your monitoring wells? And we have those, it gives us room and space to have those conversations and remind
those pit owners that you have conditions of approval and let's let's talk about whether or not we're having issues meeting those conditions. So, um, so historically, this was a presentation to the planning commission and then the county board. uh we felt that unless there was issues, we really didn't need
to air all of that information very publicly. And so now we as staff do that review internally and we know that if we have some issues with compliance, then we will elevate it to more of that public um viewing area. >> But we're not reissuing pits every year.
It's a conditional use. It's a property right. And so we um need to kind of respect that. Previous boards had a different perspective. Unfortunately, >> I mean, I do consider if if this runs with the land that >> Well, if you're the buyer, you should do your homework. >> Exactly.
>> And then that would be the responsibility, the negotiation with the seller >> if this was done or not, >> right? >> Yeah. >> It's not really our job to figure that out. >> It's going to come up on a title search and it's >> Yeah. >> going to not make it very salailable. Ideally, you know that,
>> right? >> Yeah. there's a big attachment to this land and it's pretty obvious that it's a pit. So, it's, you know, right, >> it's what you're buying. >> So, for number 30, moving slightly forward, you said you wanted to add the
um resolution from 2013. >> Condition number 30 would be recognizing the three previous resolutions. So, 1996, the 2013, and the 2003, I think. um and recognizing that those are um not
they're basically that we're referring to these conditions. I don't remember the exact phrasing I have on that slide. Um you can look that up for you. Thank you. Um so draft language is all conditions attached to resolution 96-5320151 and 201327
shall be replaced by the conditions outlined in this amendment. And like I said before, typically you can't go back in time and just say those conditions are changed. Um, as I did my review and we can, you know, double triple check this before it goes to the county board. Um, the conditions here are not more
restrictive necessarily, but we are clarifying like hours of operation are something that we're a little confusing between all the different things. I think because this is um the nature of these activities, there's nothing wrong with setting hours of operation um
especially, you know, given the expansion and given the wash plant. It's just that the conditions have to be relative to the request at hand, which it's a little Yeah. Sorry. >> So, is the meaning of number 30 that if approved, these conditions supersede all
prior? >> That's a better word. >> Okay. I just want to make >> understanding. Mhm. Yeah. because it gets really confusing when you're going through four different resolutions. And I'm trying to add clarity for both the applicant, um, property owner, operator, and staff in the future when we do that
annual gravel pit review. So, we just have one list of conditions, but these this wasn't meant to like go back in time and change any of the earlier ones. Um, if anything, just adding on more and adding more clarity to new ones. Um, and based on that letter that we've
received, do we want to look at number 12 at any hours of operation, changing those or keeping those as is? Right now, it's 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Mine has Sundays and holidays. I mean, I was I I don't know what other
pits are held to, but that stuck out to me as something we got one comment about that, but I could see that being annoying living next to a lot of that if I don't know how much it goes on. >> Mhm. The beeping specifically.
>> I I would say I'm generally comfortable with those hours, honestly, that it's it's limited to construction season. and it's daylight in the summer. You know, that seems reasonable to me. 8:00 p.m. >> I'll motion to approve with all these conditions and then adding 30.
>> Okay. >> And oh, and changing 28 that verbiage. >> What was it? Oh, yeah. Restored to initiated. >> Is that going to be 12 months? um just initiated within >> six >> six. So the conversation Yeah. Yeah.
>> What was what was adding 30? What was 30? >> 30 was the one that was on the prior screen that uh the 2026 CUP will supersede all prior resolutions >> 2001, 2013, and 2020.
>> And Mr. Chair, I'd like to propose one other addition for um item two um in the or condition two. Um item I performance standards for
restoration should be part of the plan. So we have some milestones to figure out when I wrote down and a timeline. >> Yeah, a timeline and financial packet. as needed
would be my eye. >> Shy, financial shy as needed. That side. >> Mhm. >> Yep. >> To be reviewed by the county attorney, I think, is where we left that and found acceptable. >> It's going to be like an I, J. K. All
right. >> May I read to you how I have that written out? >> Y. So item I performance standards for restoration including a timeline and financial shy as needed to be reviewed by the county attorney. >> Yep. >> And that can be one correct. I
>> all under one and then what did we change number 28? Yep. >> I think that's all I have >> within. Yeah. >> Okay. So we we have a motion with an amendment uh with the conditions as
written. uh with an amendment to number two adding item I and number 28 uh changing the verbiage to initiated within 6 months and adding condition 30 as written. >> I would second that motion.
>> Any further discussion? All those in favor? >> I >> I all those opposed? Seeing none, uh motion passes. I'll move to the board of commissioners. All right, next up we have Lucky Soul
Holdings LLC/Ledrock Holdings LLC. This is the request for the reszone of the single family residential to resort commercial residential. Neva, >> thank you, Mr. Chair. This all right.
Uh the parcel is 1.72 acres currently zone single family residential. I think FR1 has a 1acre minimum lot size requirement on Lake Superior and the proposed resort commercial residential zone district has a 5acre minimum lot size requirements.
The applicant requests to reszone parcel 51-019-3150 1.72 acres east of Soulbach and Resort from the single family residential R1 to the resort commercial residential RCR zone district. The applicant has described the request as follows. The
current parcel is one of two parcels associated with Silbach and Resort. The other parcel is zoned RCR and classified as commercial seasonal resort recreational. The current parcel is zoned as R1 and classified as a commercial seasonal resort recreational. So Bachan is operating on both of these
parcels as a year-round resort and we would like these parcels to be zoned the same. This would help maintain consistency on the zoning classification as both parcels are being utilized for the same use. This application is being processed in parallel to a conditional use permit for both parcels and
associated with Sbachan Resort for a commercial plane unit development for a resort conversion to allow the units to be separately owned but still share infrastructure through the plotting process. For background and site characteristics, the parcel is in common ownership with the abuing soulbaching property.
Currently, the subject parcel property has a residential structure identified on the tax records as Jonas House, a detached garage shop, a bunk house, and a driveway. The um so the pink that shows up on that map is the RCR zone district. So, this parcel is one of those greens in between
the two pinks and the green is the single family residential. The red on that map is the general commercial which is generally next to Isaac Hansen's in the Luden area and the yellow is the F3 zone district. on this uh you'll see the um well sorry
if it's too small to make sense but the aerial photo there is showing that Jonas house and there's a blue line and it's so so showing the two separate parcels that make up soakan resort and the way that corresponds with that hand drawing of the um the water plan diagram is just
showing that this Jonas house on this parcel is is functionally connected to the infrastructure on the neighboring parcel that creates Sbach and Resort. So the two parcels also vak in connecting utilities between the two just this one is zoned R1 and the other one is RCR
resort commercial essential. I've included some information about the Cook County land use guide plan. There are guiding principles that talk about land use. Um one of the policies talks about reszoning. Reszoning of land. Um
must evaluate impacts on but not limit to relationship to land use plan benefit to the overall community, adjacent use, air, water and quality, traffic generation, public safety and health, area aesthetics and economic impact on the area. Additionally, reszonings of land must consider the existing quantity
of land available at the appropriate locations and at the time of the given purpose. There's a commercial goal to provide commercial facilities to meet the needs of residents and visitors, which includes two policies that include encourage expanded development of tourist lodging, commercial services, worker housing, amenities to strengthen
the county's tourism destination. And number 42, specialized commercial activity, including including resorts that depend on and require 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. Additionally, there's a public facilities and services goal to provide quality public services in the delivery of public services that meet the needs of residents and visitors and are justifiable in terms of cost effectiveness which includes the adequacy and economics of public services in the review of specific
reasonzoning proposals of conditional use permits. Uh is a valid part of their consideration and should be evaluated in every case. Um in the Cook County Land use guide plan, it talks about the Highway 61 corridor. Um, I've included that language for you. It recognizes along
the Highway 61 corridor that there are a lot of existing resorts um as well as a lot of other aesthetics to that. All right. Uh and then additionally the Cook County land use guide plan talks about the west end community centers um
which kind of recognizes the uh toy loot and Schroeder kind of all have these defined town centers and they want in these guide plans they want the town centers to kind of stay as those hubs um and try to keep them feeling that same way. So feel free I hope you had chance
to read through that. Figure four is the aerial image of the subject property and then the property just to the west of that is the rest of sobakan resorts. And as most reszone applications have, we have a table that compares the two zone districts next to each other. So um
the change here is shifting the existing boundary between the single family residential and the RCR zone district. The change in the existing boundary between the existing zone districts appears to be nonproatic as the property seems well suited to the existing use of the property as a part of an existing
resort. I've included the um sections from the Cook County zoning ordinance that outline the single family residential zone district as well as the proposed resort commercial residential zone district. You'll note that generally speaking, the permitted uses in the current zone district, the R1,
are more restrictive than the uses that are permitted by right in the RCR zone district. Um, additionally, there uh is a difference in the lot size requirements. So, the RCR is a 5 acre minimum lot size. The addition of this parcel to the existing other Sobakan
property makes it just above 5 acres in total. Um, currently it is a 1acre minimum lot size for the R1 on Lake Superior. This is a conforming R1 parcel. Um, there are more restrictive sideyard setbacks. That's the other pretty notable difference between these
two different zone districts. That's all I have for the slides. Um, for public noticing, the application was legally noticed in the Cook County News Herald on April 24th. 40 letters of notification were sent to adjacent property owners as well as county departments, DNR hydraologists, Northshore Management Board, and Mindot.
I've included a public notice map in your packets. Um for Razones, these notices go out for a half mile um for for our regulations. Uh we did not receive any written correspondence by adjacent property owners specific to the reszone request. There was letters for
the cup, but I did not discern in reading those letters that they were specific about the reszone itself. So, I just want to be clear about that. Um, and so staff recommendation for consideration, the Cook County zoning map reflects the county's development patterns aligned with the goals and
policies of the Cook County land use guide plan. The proposed zoning map adjustments represents a modification to the boundaries of the existing R1 and the RCR zone districts in the area. Due to the use of the subject parcel being a part of the existing Sbachan resort, the
reszone seems appropriate to add conformity to the historic use and supports the proposed changes of Sobach and moving forward. I have proposed for you some draft findings for the reszone in accordance with the county zoning ordinance. Um I recommend you revisit this after you hold the public hearing
and have your uh discussions and deliberations. I'm happy to answer any questions you have. >> All right. Thank you, Neva. Uh if the applicant is here and they'd like to come to the mic and add anything about uh this portion, the resoning
portion. I >> have nothing to add. >> Okay. >> Perfect. Thank you. Then we will open it up to public comment if anyone has anything to say on this proposal. Step to the mic. And do bear in mind again this is
specifically to the resoning not to the conditional use permit. >> Uh Mark Youngdall, I live at 175 Fall River Road. Um I just wanted to say that I I think it makes sense just because of the connected use between the two parcels. It's you know it's it is one
resort currently. Um, and knowing the uh, applicant both on a personal and professional level for a while, I have no doubt that um, the proposed project will not only add, you know, aesthetically fit into the area, but um,
add value to the property and the county, specifically the West End in particular. So, >> thank you. Yep. >> Anyone else? Please state your name and address. Hi. Uh name's Mike Todd, 4880 Highway 61.
We're the southwest neighbor to Soulback. I This was a dumb question, but he made a comment about the applicant. Who is the applicant? Is that a lucky soul, but there's a human being behind it. Is that kosher for me to ask? >> I think he's right behind you.
>> And you are? >> S. You're listed as the agent, >> correct? I'm I'm the managing partner of >> Okay. Thank you. That's I just was curious. I wasn't sure who was who. >> This is our team here. >> I kind of figured that, but I wasn't sure.
>> All right. Anyone else? >> All right. We'll go ahead and close public comment and discuss as a board thoughts. >> I have nothing to add or no questions anyway. Seems like it makes sense.
I have nothing on this portion. >> Yeah. >> Anything on this end? >> Likewise. >> I'm curious though, was there a mistake made in the original zoning or we don't know. >> I admittedly did not go back to our much
older version of zoning maps, >> but not to my knowledge. I don't know. It was probably a private property and they just bought it, you know, like the people that created the resort then bought that and just just left it. Yeah.
>> But it is currently I mean the the utilities are connected currently. >> Correct. Yes. Okay. >> Yeah. I mean, I I'm pretty comfortable with these findings of fact and I think the reszone itself is pretty straightforward and and just reflects
the current use of the property. Um, >> so I would entertain a motion. >> Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion to approve the resoning. >> Second. I'll second Patrick. Uh, any further discussion from the board?
All right. All those in favor? >> I. >> All those opposed? Seeing none, motion passes on the request for a reasonzone for Lucky Soul Holdings and Ledger Rock. And then we'll move on to our last item
of new business tonight. Lucky Soul Holdings LLC/Ledged Rock Holdings LLC. This is the request for a conditional use permit to allow commercial planned unit development for a resort conversion in accordance with the provisions of the Cook County Subdivision ordinance. Nea, please.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. You have to bear with me. This one's a little bit technical. I will try to make it as painless as I can, but there's a lot to kind of go through. So, uh, this properties that we just discussed of Sbakan. So, in
total, these two parcels include, uh, include 5.33 deed acres, 5.0 mapped acres with approximately 617 ft of lakes shoreline. The parcels are both currently or well one parcel is zoned RCR and the other is zoned R1. And obviously there's a reszone that was
just recommended for approval by the Cook County Planning Commission uh for both parcels to be zoned RCR. And this would become a conforming RCR parcel if both parcels were zoned RCR. Um commercial planned unit developments are elicited conditional use in the RCR
zone district. commercial planned unit developments are not a listed, permitted or conditional use in the R1 zone district. Therefore, the reszone request would make this allowable uh within the RCR as proposed. So, that's the connection between those two requests.
Uh for shoreline classification, Lake Superior is classified as a general development lake due to its unique features. It shorland management plan is outlined in the Northshore management plan. This request is to allow for a resort conversion of Soul Bachmann Resort. the process of taking an established single ownership resort and
platting it out so the units can be held in separate ownership. The property is located in the Northshore Management Zone of Lake Superior, article 8 of the Cook County Zoning Ordinance outline subdivision plotting provisions within the Northshore Management Area. I've included that language directly from the
ordinance in your packets, but it talks about land suitability where we should be looking at water supply and sewage treatment facilities. um you know adequate su stewardship measures making sure the land is suitable for the proposed uses a lot of um the reasons we go through this process um the two
parcels uh let's see what here do I really need to go through um yeah conforming 5 acre RCR that got a little redone my apologies so that's a zoning map that you see there um you see the two pink blobs along Lake Superior the
current Sbakan resort is the blob to the left. Um, and that little green highlighted one just to the east or to the right is that parcel that was just proposed for reszoning. Um, so together they would make that our 5acre RCR
parcel for this proposal. Planned unit developments. Um, we haven't had a a planned unit development application in a while. So, I'm just going to give you a little bit about this process. So, this is a process that's outlined. It's a little confusing because it's both in the zoning ordinance as a use, but also as the
subdivision ordinance as a way of subdividing land. So plan unit development is when you have a plat that's kind of deviating from the typical zoning rules. Um, so that's why the resort conversion is a process for this. So you take an existing resort under single ownership right now. It
goes through this process to look at the conditional use permit processes. What is the existing infrastructure on this property? Let's look at the septic. Let's look at the water. Let's look at the shoreline. Does it make sense for this to go into separate ownership for each of these units? So whereas one
owner owned 12 units before as a resort, now there's going to be 12 separate owners that all share the infrastructure, in this case an expansion as well to add more units because there is certain density allowances for this activity in the ordinance. So conceptually that's
planned unit development. They exist for both residential and commercial activities. This would be a commercial planned unit development which again is a conditional use that's listed in the zoning ordinance. Um and that allows more of that short-term rental activity.
So what I have outlined um on this slide is just that general concept that's an ex existing resort currently and they want it to be separately owned. There's a conditional use permit that is first in this process. And the purpose of the conditional use permit is to look at
conceptually the plan and identify what conditions um could be suitable to make this work and have those conditions integrated into the plat process. So we know that with existing resorts, there's likely going to be things that don't conform to current regulations because
you have existing development. So our job through this process is to identify what is existing on site. What conditions do you want to set if this gets approved to be addressed in the platting process? So if there's nonconformities, if there's issues with
water capacity, kind of all of those things and what conditions do you want to see for the plat? So just broadly speaking, that's why we're here. Um so preliminary plat would be the next step if this was approved. The preliminary plat again is when you look at um you know the proposed actual subdivision of
the lot and then final plat would be following that and then that 710 is the language from the Cook County subdivision ordinance that recognizes resort conversions. All right. So that's a little planning and zoning 101. Um so again a
conditional use permit is required for the entire project before the preliminary plat uh for the whole or any part of this project can be brought forward. I included parts of the concept statement. Um this process includes two phases uh that include some restoration
of existing cabins and some full replacements of other cabins. Um that site plan that's on the screen is an example from the water plan that shows that connection. So again, that Jonas house um is on that single family residential parcel as proposed to be RCR
and then that would connect over to some that does currently connect over to the other infrastructure on the RCR property. This is the site plan that was included by the applicant to kind of conceptually identify where there are remodels
proposed and where there are new cabins proposed. So the green circles are remodels. Um so there's several units along the lake that will be proposed remodels. So mostly interior remodels.
Um the lodge itself identifies three units for remodels. And then there's certain things that will be reconstructed. Um so the motel in this proposal is to remove the motel and put replace that with several cabins. Um,
and I've tried to summarize that in a table um, on page 110 of 156 of your packet. Um, so table one identifies the square footage of the existing and
kind of approximate proposed. At this stage of the game, we don't want to lock in on very specifics of like, okay, you said cabin 18 is going to be exactly this many square feet. It is mostly important that we recognize what that maximum square footage of inside living space is and then in the platting
process is where kind of the nuts and bolts of the square footage of those structures would really be clarified. So, um this is kind of just a reference point. Um one thing about table one is I did realize um the lodge itself does
include three units. So, I didn't uh stipulate that in there. So, that would need to be a change in one of the draft conditions of approval. Um, so we'll just put a pin in that for right now. Um, there are two wells currently on the property. The applicant did provide some
information about the wells. It sounds like one well is used a lot more than one other well. Um, and there are two septic systems, two mounds on the property. The tanks were recently um installed and had compliance inspections. Um there is no detail yet
as to whether or not the septic systems that are installed have the full capacity to support this buildout um that's proposed. So that would certainly need to be a pretty important condition. Um quite often our office has recognized historically that with any uh large plan
for a project, it is typically the septic system that is the limiting factor to the density um no matter kind of what our ordinance says. So, um, even if we provided a condition that said, "Okay, 23 units maximum with so much living space, if there's not space on the property for the septic system, then
that's ultimately not going to be feasible to actually be a reality." Um, and again, that could get clarified um for the preliminary plot that a septic design was provided that shows that infrastructure support. Uh, there's the table that is in the packet. I don't anticipate anyone to
read it. I just wanted to show that that's what that is for. Um, and then this is the existing sewer uh map that was in the application. Um, there's several items to kind of go by uh kind of topically for this proposal. Um, just for background,
Svakin, longtime establishment in Cook County. Property is currently undergoing a property transfer process with a signed purchase agreement for transfer from Ledrock Holdings LLC to Lucky Soul LLC. For septic, the property currently has two septic mounds. The application indicates in phase two may require an
expansion to one of the septic mounds. Mindot did provide a comment indicating that the mindot surveyors can establish the rightway area to ensure that the mounds are not encroaching into the mind right ofway. The Cook County Environmental Health Officer also provided um some information and um
that's in your packet as well. Uh primarily identifying that any expansion in the future needs to have a suitable design um to show that they can be supported for imperous surface coverage. It's unclear with the level of detail in this
application whether the project proposal and development plan will increase with the increase in number of units and supporting infrastructure such as parking areas will meet the county's impervious surface coverage requirements. The application estimates open space will be at least 80% of lot
coverage. Staff recommend that a condition be set that does strictly require that development does not exceed section 8.04i 04I of the Cook County zoning ordinance uh for the planned unit development project plans and that is that impervious surface coverage cannot
exceed uh 30% unless a s surface water runoff plan by a registered professional engineer submitted and approved by the zoning administrator. The surface water runoff plan shall contain at minimum provisions for sediment entrapment and erosion control in order to minimize
impacts on receiving waters. And we've also included the definition of impervious surface just for clarity. For wetlands, there's no known uh factor of wetlands develop impacting development options at this stage of the project. That again would be verified at the preliminary plat stage. Uh for noise,
the changes to the proposed resort may increase noise to neighboring properties in particular to the increased number of units. For lighting, lighting is not addressed in the application. Staff recommend a condition of approval requiring all outdoor lighting to be downfacing and not illuminating neighboring properties. for safe access
and and this is a point um that should be updated in your packets. So just this afternoon I got um a letter from Mindot and it's coming up here in my packet. There we go. Um Mandot sent me a comment that said that they have worked with the
applicant over the last week and it is their understanding that they won't need to have a right turn lane anymore is is generally what I've gathered from that. Again, this is our best available information. Um, so this is something again that would be truly verified at
the preliminary plat stage. Um, at this point it would be to set conditions. Um, if we're making a decision based on the understanding that no right turn lane is needed, it would be a condition saying no right turn lane is needed because that's not something that you've included in your technical review at
this point. So, um, also there's going to be a proposed change, I believe, to the number of entrances. So instead of I believe the current three entrances, it would be down to one entrance. And I think the applicant can probably give you some more updated information about that as well. It's just what I've gathered from the Mandata
correspondence. Um in here I've highlighted that we need to change draft condition number four. Um instead of 20 units, it should include the 23. Um that was an additional information provided by the Mindot engineer um that I did not have
access to um with the layout of the units in that form. Um so that is the update to safe access. Uh now back to Bluffs. Um so Cook County and in figure five we've got the Cook County zoning map and this is just a
reference point. Uh staff didn't have capacity to field verify this before um this point in time. But our zoning map indicates there might be bluffs on the property. So this would need to be field verified. If there are bluffs then that means several of the structures are non-conforming. And so we would want to
be sure to have conditions that restrict future expansions of non-conforming structures and take that into consideration for the planned unit development um if it's suitable for those structures to be um kept there. Um for parking, the application does
indicate parking areas um kind of in the non-conforming parking and cabins section of their application. Uh the Cook County zoning ordinance does indicate in section 5.16 requirements for off- streetet loading and parking
required parking spaces for this activity for tourist accommodations. And in that classification is one parking space for each room or unit and one parking space for each non-resident employee. The application describes traffic and circulation as follows. The resort currently has two public
entrances and a road that runs along the entire property with fire emergency access. Most cabins have individual parking spaces and we'll be modifying them as necessary to ensure that they're handicap accessible for our guests and protect the soil and water runoff from the parking areas. This may include designating loading and unloading areas
as well as ensuring that we redesign the parking using strategies like oil absorbent materials using permeable pavers and rain gardens divert storm water runoff toward vegetated areas etc. There's a parking area by the motel building that can accommodate additional parking as needed. The application indicates performance standard
deviations from parking is required as follows. For cabins 1 through six, we make all efforts to ensure that the parking spaces meet the 40ft step back. However, due to the grade and the slope behind these cabins, there's no practical way to move them back. We're requesting that at least one parking spot per cabin be grandfathered with a
condition that we will design them in a way using strategies to mitigate spills and prevent runoffs. For water supply, the Minnesota Department of Health regulates private wells and would be the authority on this item. No information was provided by MDH regarding this proposal. Uh the
application does indicate some details about the two wells that are on the property. Uh it also includes the following saying we're also evaluating if we need to bore another well on the west side of the property. All efforts will be made to ensure that the location of the well is well within the setback
of the adjacent property line. And kind of for other considerations uh for nonconformities, existing non-conforming cabins and parking areas exist on the property as summarized in figure six, which is the one that's on your screen.
For public noticing, uh the application was legally noticed in the Cook County News Herald on April 24th. 21 letters of notification were sent to adjacent property owners as well as county departments, Mindot, Northshore Management Board, and DNR hydraologists. The notice area for the conditional use permit is the one quarter mile. So, um,
just a clarification of why that map looks different than what's in the reszone application. Written comments were received as follows. Number one, Nord Hus at 11 Wildflower Lane object to the conditional use permit expressing concerns with compatibility with the
surrounding area. Stress on road infrastructure, source water quantity and quality, impacts to surface waters, quality of life to neighboring property owners, and property value impacts, as well as concerns with precedent. Mindot provided two comments. Um and just again
this is one of the items that uh can be clarified. U we just recently had some different corresponds from Mandot. I think in general we want to ensure that the right of way is clearly established to ensure there's no current encroachment into the mind right ofway. Um as that's a pretty important part of
the infrastructure. Um and then uh you know maybe a condition clarification about the turn lane discussion. Uh and then the number of entrances. Those are kind of the three mind considerations for your um further discussion items. The Cook County Soil and Water
Conservation District just raised some questions um many of which I believe are addressed within this packet. And then the Cook County Environmental Health Officer provided their memo which again is already included in the packet that we discussed. There are some draft findings but again there's going to be a lot of discussion coming forth here. So
you can revisit these draft findings and amend them or create your own after you've had the public comment period and deliberations. And finally for staff recommendation for consideration, the proposed resort conversion and redevelopment of Soulbach and Resort represents a significant
reinvestment into a long-established commercial lodging property on the Northshore. The proposal would allow individual ownership of resort units through a plan unit development structure while maintaining the property's overall resort character and increasing its commercial lodging function. Staff note that the resort
conversions are specifically identified in the Cook County subdivision ordinance through the planned unit development provisions. The proposal includes phase development of existing cabins, removal of the existing motel structure and construction of additional lodging units and accessory sauna facilities. While
the pro proposal generally appears compatible of meeting capable of meeting the maximum allowable inside living space and commercial recreational square footage standards, the submitted plans remain conceptual in nature. Several development details including final structure placement, bluff setback
verification and parking layouts, storm water management and impervious surface calculations will require additional review during subsequent platting stages. The property is located within the Northshore Management Zone of Lake Superior where protection of water quality, shoreline resources, and safe site design are important
considerations. Staff note that the proposal may increase development intensity on the site through additional cabins, parking demand, circulation needs, and associated infrastructure. Although the application estimates approximately 80% open space coverage, insufficient detail currently exists to
conclusively determine compliance with impervious surface limitations under section 8.04i 04I of the Cook County zoning ordinance. Staff recommend a condition requiring the project to comply with impervious surface standards, including submission of engineered storm water runoff plans if thresholds are exceeded. Existing
non-conforming structures and parking areas are present on the property. The applicant proposes reconstruction of certain cabins and locations intended to better conform to setbacks while also requesting deviations related to parking setbacks for cabins 1 through six due to topographic constraints. staff note that
additional survey information and sight specific design details will be necessary to evaluate whether requested deviations are appropriate and whether practical alternatives exist. The proposal may also increase traffic volumes entering exiting Highway 61. Uh the mind comments as we've already
talked about um this part of the staff narrative would be updated. So uh again we can redisuss right turn lane right ofway setback clarification um as well as the number of entry units from mind. Uh the Cook County Environmental Health Officer Cook County Sowater Conservation
District both identified questions regarding septic system capacity and future wastewater demand associated with the phased redevelopment plan. The application indicates existing septic infrastructure may require expansion during later phases of development. Staff recommend that all applicable septic well and wastewater requirements
be verified prior to issuance of land use permits for future phases. Neighboring property owner expressed concerns related to compatibility with the surrounding area, traffic, noise, water quality, property values, and cumulative development intensity along the Northshore corridor. Staff note that
the surrounding area contains a mixture of resort, residential, and commercial lodging uses uh and that the RCR district anticipates resort oriented development. However, careful review of lighting, parking design, storm water management, landscaping, and operational impacts will be important to minimize
impacts to adjacent properties. Overall, staff find this development proposal generally consistent with the intent of the RCR district and the plan unit development provisions of the Cook County subdivision ordinance, provided the project demonstrates compliance with all applicable dimensional, environmental, infrastructure, and
access requirements through subsequent review processes and conditions of approval. The purpose of the conditional use permit for a resort conversion such as this project is described in the Cook County subdivision ordinance as follows. Deficiencies involving water supply and sewage treatment, impervious coverage,
open space, and shore recreation facilities must be corrected as a part of the conversion or as specified in the conditional use permit. The planning commission should consider adding to the potential findings listed uh and modify, amend or adopt as they determine appropriate after the public hearing and
recommendation of the Cook County Board of Commissioners. The planning commission uh can determine additional technical information if necessary uh to make recommendation and table the application if necessary. And that last sentence was back when I thought a right turn lane may be absolutely required. So
we may not need to table depending on how the disc discussion goes. Um, I've included some draft finding or draft conditions as well. Um, kind of addressing several of the items we did discuss. And again, number 4 A would definitely need to be updated. That
lists 20 dwelling units, and that was before I recognized that there's three lodging units within the lodge itself. So, that would need to be uh 23. Um, and that is what I mostly have. That's it. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you.
All right. If the applicant would like to step forward and if you have anything to add, state your name and address, please. >> Thank you, Neva, for uh presenting on my behalf. Um I'm Sai Bazawada. Uh Mr. Chair, members of the commission, um
thank you for uh taking the time to uh listen to our proposal. Um I am representing the team behind Lucky Soul. Um and some of my I just want to acknowledge some of my team members are here. Stephanie Slanganger, Paris Slanganger, and uh um the current owners
u David and Sean How. Um feels a little surreal for me just to sit here. Uh little did I know that um you know 20 years ago when I came here uh as a housekeeping intern in Luden um that I'll be sitting here asking to uh uh
redevelop resort in Luden. So I guess things do come around a full circle. Um, you know, uh, through many experiences of developing resorts, uh, managing resorts on the Northshore and in Minnesota, um, you know, I've come to know why the Northshore is such a
special place, uh, for many people, including people in this room, as well as, um, the guests that come and, uh, visit. Um, and for me, it has always felt, uh, felt home. So I think it's with just to say at the outset it's with that admiration for the great outdoors
that um will be a big driver in u behind the redevelopment of uh Sbakan. Um so our proposal I mean Sbakan as Nea said it's a it's been a it's a legacy resort. It's got what you would consider a a mom and pop resort. Um it's been in Luden. I
mean it's been operating year round for almost uh you know five decades. So um you know and if you just read through some of the guest journals in the cabins and the units you will see why that place has created so many special memories for people uh and there have
been guests and their families that have been coming up and it's just that small cabin resort feel um that has been very appealing. So, our our reinvestment, our investment into this project um absolutely
um intends to maintain that small resort vibe and feel. Um you know, small resorts in Minnesota have been declining since the '7s. I mean there were 3,400 resorts back in the 70 I think 72 or something and now there are under 700
resorts um for various reasons whether as land land values have gone up um you know small cabins were sold off to either to build private homes or individual vacation homes or rentals um or they got consolidated into larger
properties um and just so small resorts continue to to decline and so We definitely feel I mean based on our last development that we did at Breezy Point Cabins in on Lake Superior and Two Harbors. Um I mean that proved that this
model uh still exists that there's a market for it. People love the small cabin feel. So um our intent is to keep that vibe. We do not want to build a large resort. We do not want to build uh restaurants and pools and water parks or
whatever. I mean none of that. I mean I think our intent is to really maintain that vibe. Um you know in in in our in our proposal um the there are existing cabins um that we plan to renovate. We don't uh we
certainly we think the location is fantastic. Um there are there are uh older dilapidated cabins that we will definitely rebuild. Um and of course any any uh all the density um additional
density request is all what we're asking for is all based on what the uh the ordinance already stipulates. So we're not asking for anything more than that and again that's a request uh so that if we can get the request to get the maximum as Neva said we will still have
to evaluate and uh get the site surveys and make sure that first of all we can even get those additional cabins. So there are currently 16 um a total of 16 rental units on property. Um our uh
redevelopment is adding just seven additional cabins and these are just tiny cabins. I mean you're talking anywhere from 300 to 600 ft cabins. So we're not talking big structures. Um again we're we're talking we we want to
keep that intent of that small resort feel. Um the other thing we we we certainly uh you know one one of the um uh since submitting the application um that that was on April 1st we have obviously been working a lot uh based on
all the conditions that NEVA had listed and uh some so some of them for example uh the variances that we are asking aren't because of convenience it's more due to site constraints and existing we're working with what we have. So in
some sense um it is a little more challenging to work with the on you know existing constraints as opposed to let's say you know uh developing on raw land or starting from scratch and so I think those are the things that we are absolutely mindful of but at the same
time uh we fully intend to conform and comply with all the conditions um that Neva listed. I mean just also u uh as aside u our discussions with NEA and her team have been very positive very constructive they've been very helpful
so I have uh absolute confidence that we will absolutely work through all of these conditions um just like NA said even the department of highway we worked with them they said we don't need a right turn lane they didn't think initially they thought it was a big redevelopment but it's not it's a just a
minor enhancement we're keeping the use the same we want to keep these uh units uh renting year round. Um um we certainly I mean the intent again the intent of the um uh re reselling these cabins as fractional shares is because
again to survive as a small resort to survive and thrive. Um that is the model needed given the current reality of land values and how you know Lake Superior frontage it's prime real estate. So, uh, we we definitely think this red redevelopment will help continue
sustaining, um, Sbakan. Um, couple of other points that were brought up. For example, the well and the sewer. Um, again, we've been working with Jesse and making sure that, um, you know, he he was out there yesterday looking at the the septic mounds. Um, currently as is
for phase one, that's why we proposed a phased approach so we don't also just go all in um, and and do it methodically. Um, so the phase one obviously will meet all the requirements and the phase two is where we'll evaluate and see whether or not we actually need to expand the sewer capacity and we've already started
doing that by um installing water meters on the wells to understand flows. Uh and so between now and the next 90 days we will be um we will be meet monitoring the flows. to just to say okay even in during the peak uh season which is let's
say you know July or beginning of August if if flows are considerably lower than what the system has been designed for well then that solves obviously a big headache for all of us but at the same time if they are not then we will abs absolutely design it and we've already
talked through certain areas where the second mound on site uh will enable us to do that same thing with the water um because that again will help us uh understand we're also looking at how we can creatively uh as part of the redevelopment um utilize like lowflow
showerheads uh also new toilets um you know smart toilets these days will really help we had when I when we were managing Caribou Islands for a big property you know same issues we had a lot of water issues but we went through the whole change and you know made all
these changes that I just said and it significantly uh changed the way uh our water uh I mean it changed the water usage dramatically. So I think we'll we'll taking all that experience and learnings from other resorts and developments that we have done. We will
certainly enhance the I think all of that will go in. Uh we're also in terms of imperous service calculations are we'll share that with NEVA. We we in the last two weeks we've been doing that more. Uh we're certainly under that threshold but again we'll make sure that
we work with Neva and her team to um make sure that they see it the same way we're seeing it. Um yeah. So and you know more importantly um a successful redevelopment of this resort will significantly uh increase your property tax income for
the county as well because uh in I mean conservatively we think will it will more than quintuple the uh pro the income that it currently generates from this property uh without adding any additional burden or asking for additional resources from the county. So
I I do think that that you know that's a that's a big that's I would think that that's a big u deal for the county. Uh and not to mention that a significant redevelopment of a significant um investment into this will only increase
the desiraability of Kani and Luden as a uh as a destination for generations to come. Um I think nobody wants to see all the cabins and that again um it's just part of the process of how resorts and uh these type of rental properties have
evolved on the Northshore over the years. So um we are definitely excited. Uh we're definitely looking forward to um redeveloping this project and uh staying true to the intent of uh what we have and goals set up for it. So, um, so
we ask that you, um, you approve this, uh, uh, permit, uh, with the conditions and we'll meet them and, uh, so that we can get to work. Thank you. >> Thank you. All right. Any other or we'll open it up
to public comment now. Are there any others that would like to make a public comment on this conditional use proposal? >> Step to the microphone and just uh, state your name and address again, please. >> Again, Again, Michael Todd, next door
neighbor to Sbaka 4880. Um, speaking as the closest neighbor to this project, I think um I've looked it over as carefully as I can. Conceptually, I don't have any fundamental objections to it. I think a rejuvenation of Sbachan is
probably for the best. Um, it would be nice to make the Northshore rigidly static and nothing changes and nothing gets built. If that were true, I wouldn't have been able to build my house. So, that's not going to happen.
Um, I can see personally uh some issues uh you know, construction creates noise and dust and people and all that sort of stuff. Again, fortunately, most of the building that I see on the plan takes place a reasonable distance away from my
property line. It's on the far side of the lodge and the far end of the project, the the property. So, other than the remodel of cabins 1 through 4, um, it shouldn't be much of a problem that I can see. I can complain about
construction noise, but Sbachan had to live with my construction noise when we built the house, so I can't very legitimately say anything about that. Um, >> you're a great neighbor, Todd. >> You're a great neighbor. >> There you go. Um, I do have only one
core concern and it has to do with water and wells. Um, the well on our property is an original well. I don't know how old it is. It was on Poly Ericson's property before we bought the property. It's a very lowflow well. Um I can run
it dry real easy. Um and I have so we've learned very well in our house to sort of not do too much stuff at once. Um this project is going to dramatically increase water usage on the Soulbach and property. And what are
the asurances in here that I'm not going to end up with a dry well if the aquafer gets pumped down? That was kind of a question >> if I if I may procedurally in this process. So the public can raise what questions they want for the planning
commission to consider. Um but it's not like a a back and forth to answer every specific question, but they'll have the opportunity to discuss those concerns. >> That would simply be that would be my real personal concern. What would be my recourses if that were to occur?
That's it. >> All right. Thank you very much. Any other members of the public wish to comment on this proposal? >> Hi there. My name is Inger Andress and I am with Edina Realy. Um so a combination
just even personally because my husband and I live on Lake Superior as well in Luton and to to talk about the wells um our well is 350 ft deep whereas our neighbors is only 175 and they're just
vary so much. Um so it's hard to say how that's all connected. So, obviously go to the professionals, but from hearsay with um different clients and understanding um that there's just such a wide variety along Lake Superior um
with that. So, I don't I'm not a professional with that, but that's just my experience with it to take it or leave it. Um, I really do I want to I guess represent more of um clients that
have come in and really mourned how much they have missed uh Luton Resort, how much they, you know, the fires and things recently and that they would love to see something um that they can, you know, an historical place be
rejuvenated. And there is actually even a group of people that come with Sobachin once a once a year that come and clean um I believe the spring cleaning outside for
free because they're so like dedicated followers of wanting to to upgrade um and to keep this going. So, I just want to say that I think there's a lot of people who are really longing for um that special place up here on Luden on
Lake Superior that they can have um whether it's their family events or or any kind of um gathering together um the opportunity to do that. I believe this this pro this project and uh proposal is
going to allow there to bring some hope to some people who've been very longing for that um that I've heard on this side um from people coming and visiting the Northshore and that's I just wanted to share that. So, I'm excited. And uh and then I'm also um actually representing
the seller, so I have to um definitely state that. And um had to do some vetting of different people who have been putting in offers. And so um also vetted uh the buyer here and and see and
have seen um several other projects that they that he has worked on. and so on Lake Superior and seems to be um highly regarded in what his work does. So, thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Any other public comments? >> Hello again. I'm David How and uh with my wife um I Ledrock Holdings and uh uh my wife and I came up to look at the fall colors. She'd been bugging me for years to go on a vacation. So we came
for two days and uh fell in love with the Northshore and um had money to invest and I'm the dairy farmer that accidentally bought a resort. And so it's been a huge learning curve for us
over 13 years. And um our love for the Northshore has just continued and we've met a lot of friends and clients that we love. And um I spent a lot of nights wondering um as we age then uh time is a
big factor for us and how we spend that. and I wanted to um have uh rejuvenate the resort. And we looked at a lot of uh proposals and it
was really difficult to find something that would cash flow with a single owner and we know that from owning it. that uh keeping the resort going, you know, was kind of scary and to pass that on to a young family and then have them struggle
financially, that's difficult, too. And uh when Sy and his team came along, then uh things changed for us. Uh the excitement was back and uh he has a great history. He knows more about running a resort than I do and uh is a
lot better at it, too. I'm a really hard worker, but I'm not a great manager. And this gives the resort that we love an opportunity to add value to the community. And on behalf of the future guests,
um I I think it's the right move. Um as far as water, then um I think size's on the right course monitoring usage. Now, you need to know where you are currently to move forward. I think um in the plans
and we've discussed it a lot is to uh drill an additional well um on the west end and um we've been working with existing wells that have been refracted and um I I think between better usage of
the water that we're using now and then um additional water source um would really help. And um Mr. Todd's a great neighbor and uh one of the reasons why we're selling is because our son Christopher uh it's not really his thing
to take over. So, and Mr. Todd knows Chris very well. Um anyways, I could chat all night, but I I know you guys are busy and uh thank you very much for your time and your consideration.
>> Thank you. Any other public comments? Seeing none, we'll close the public comment period and discuss as a board. >> Dave, you look like you're itching to say
>> I have start us off. >> I have a couple of uh concerns. One of which is already addressed. I was concerned that if there was going to be a required turn lane that one of the septic mounds in figure 4 would actually fall within the right ofway which would
eliminate a whole septic system. Um it is very close to Lake Superior. I'm actually kind of familiar with the resort. I've been there over the years. Um so that that's a concern but it's you know solvable some way or another. But I would propose that uh
well there already has to be a second location on the property that would be an acceptable mound location as I understand it. So that would be taken care of already. Um the other thing was there's a the stipulation on square feet
lists livable space. It does not list mechanicals, garages, uh, outuildings, sheds, firewood storage, anything like that. And my question is simply, is there any is there any limitation or any
way to quantify what that might be moving forward? Um, just notice that as as a as a point that's not spelled out. And then the last thing, it would be a question for Sai. Um the new buildings
will they all have kitchen space because that will change both the amount of water usage and septic usage because the motel units I presume do not at this point. Um it will also if they don't have kitchens those people will be leaving and going to restaurants for
meals and so that will increase traffic. That's just a question. >> May >> yeah why don't you actually as we discuss come on back to the microphone and we might have some questions for you as we go. So to answer your question, yes, the new
cabins will have uh small kitchens again appropriately sized to the units. Um if I'm not mistaken, the motel units currently have kitchens, small kitchens. So they do they already have kitchens. So um yeah, so we we will be sizing them
appropriately. Yeah. So in theory, water usage won't change significantly except for the expansion of the >> correct more buildings, >> right? >> Okay. >> Um those are just the things that I thought of not necessarily stoppers just points of discussion.
>> I think maybe to just uh circle back to mechanical space sheds that's encompassed in imperous surface coverage. Correct. I mean that's going to get accounted for there. Yeah, I would say between open space requirements and impervious surface coverage, those are kind of the
limitations that state kind of how much development can happen. >> Yep. Okay. All right. >> Good. >> Do you know what triggers a turn lane? >> Yeah. So from the conversations with
Mandat um he uh at least the way Jim explained to me was um he he he said well if I didn't know how big and they didn't know how many existing rental units were there. Um so he was like I mean I I'll I'll I don't want to quote
Jim but this is what exactly he said. He said well if you're doing like 80 to 100 units >> that's when we will definitely have to look at this. And I said of course not. So what what we did was we in the um I sent him a separate detachment where we
showed the existing cab uh unit rental units as is and then how many additional we we are proposing and so then based on that he's like um so that was one that was one consideration. The second consideration was uh there was no change in use meaning we will continue to run this as a resort. So that was the other
consideration that he listed as oh okay you're not changing the use uh uh unlike he he I think he may have unders misunderstood thinking these are going to be sold off as private units and not run as a resort so I said there's no change in use so that's the other one and then just to I think the other thing
that gave him comfort was u that we would consolidate the existing accesses into one access so one of the things that I we said we'll work with him on figuring out what is the best among the current accesses which one will be the most appropriate appropriate one to do
that and I think that um made him feel very comfortable with it. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> I have a question on the fractional ownership model. Um, so is this to say that someone specifically owns a unit or
they own a fractional financial share in the resort? >> Yeah, so it's a deed property. So it's um just just to give you reference, it'd be no different for example, Surfside right now in Toy. That's because all the Surfside properties are all most of them
at least are fractional ownership. So what that means is um and maybe I'll give you some more context is as Lake Superior land became very expensive um the number of people that could afford a million dollar second home um significantly shrank. So this concept
was started back in in Veil in the 70s where they introduced quarter shares or six shares or eight shares and now that has become very prevalent in uh tourist tou touristy areas. Um so what that means is each cabin or each unit we are
proposing quarter shares. So each unit would have four uh quarter share owners essentially you would get 13 weeks in the year. Um 52 weeks divided by 4 13 uh it's not time share we don't like that word. It's uh it's a it's a it's a deed
property which you can resell just like any other uh real estate. Um we did this I was involved uh when I was with Odyssey Development and Resorts we did with the Larsmon cottages in Two Harbors. So we that was the first property in Minnesota to do fractional ownership. Um huge success. Our most the
recent the most recent project I was involved with was Breezy Point Cabins just next to Largemont Cottages. Very similar to Sbakan in the sense of tiny tiny cabins. Um and these were 12 cabins um right on the water um that we we
again um quarter shared and sold all. So they were 12 cabins, 48 shares. So the same thing would apply here. Uh we would have uh essentially then that um just like if you were to sell like a Kuwins or a Blue Fin or Loots and Seville, you
have whole meaning owners own it outright and they have a homeowner association. It's the same thing here. You would have a homeowner association. There's all centrally managed. They would pay dues to they cover you know all the expenses. So everything is
essentially split four ways is the best way. Does that help? >> It does. Yeah. So just just to clar they hold the title to that correct property. Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So so the they hold the deed to that their that their their
as legally described. um the association would own the the common areas for example. >> Mhm. >> So yeah, >> it's just an affordable way to own uh to have real estate and Yeah. >> Any other thoughts?
>> Um I just a couple questions. Um, I I I like this idea actually. It's kind of a retro where I live on Cascade Beach Road that originally was all little resorts with little bitty cabins and
then they all got sold off and I almost wish it would have got left the way it was. But anyways, um, with the 50 the 50% cover open space requirement, theoretically, there's like 100,000 square ft of available space
here. Correct. >> And whatever 5.33 acres converted to square feet, >> it's over 239,000 square ft uh, total. Like if you took 5.33 acres times 43,000. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And to meet the 50% 50% open space
is more difficult to meet than the 30% imp impervious. >> Um so really in reality what you're proposing is actually fairly small footprint on this whole property. >> Correct. >> I like I mean gives you a lot has you
gives you a lot of opportunities to to move things around. Um the other thing I just wanted to refresh my mind for memory for process. So this is kind of a three-step process. There's a cup if that gets approved then then they
then come back >> preliminary plat comes in after that and then there's a final plat. >> So so there is a public hearing for the preliminary plot and so that's where there would be one more public hearing with the public being able to comment. There is no public hearing for the final
plat. It is simply presenting to you the final plat. You are basically saying that everything that was outlined as preliminary plat conditions is addressed, >> right? And so the con conditional use permit is really a very conceptual process. >> Yes. It's >> which is which is what we've seen and I think we've actually seen them in my
opinion. It's a pretty good example of a nice concept of what what's going to happen here. And there's still room to move the pieces around on the board, so to speak. So yeah, I Mr. Chair, I I kind of excited about this.
home. >> So other than that, I have no I have no other questions or comments. >> Mr. Chair, >> um I wanted to talk a little bit about the source water quantity question. >> Um so last year, the year before, we had
a public hearing case that questioned one property's impact by a neighboring property's well. And so I contacted our local well driller to talk to him about in his perspective, how does he talk to people about whether or not their neighbor's well is running their own dry. Um and through that conversation,
what he shared with me was that when we think about um our our wellwater in Cook County, a lot of us think of like a straw going down into a cup and we are all sharing from the same cup. Um in effect, that's not what our water source looks like in the ground here. Instead,
it's like we all have little rivers and the well driller is drilling down until he hits your little river underneath. And so that's where that fractional um fracking term comes in there. Um so he said that more often than not people are at different distances. Um it's like a
little unlikely that one person's straw is going sideways into another person's ground river. And those are not his terms. Those are my terms. Just for the record, ground river is not a well driller term. Um, so what he told me was more often than not, um, it is a person
like there are certain areas of the county that do have drier wells. I tried to look up in the Minnesota Well Index what this specific area looks like. Um, I can't find the wells on Sbakan on the Minnesota Well Index. Um, there are wells on either side, but there's not a
high quantity of wells to really look at that. Um the well driller told me that there's a certain metric if wells are producing at least three gallons per minute that that's deemed as like a good producing well. Um so I think that's certainly something that could be
discussed and certainly evaluated at the preliminary plat stage um or even this stage um if we wanted to collect more information. um at this point in time without more well records there's not a lot to really go off of of you know ver
quantifiably what's in the records and I'm not exactly sure how like soak and wells I haven't gotten into here um sometimes they're like paper files that just never made it over to MDH during that paper to digital transference of records. Um so I just want to kind of
clarify it's not like we all have straws going to the same pot of water. It's more so like little rivers. Um, and that's why the depths vary so much between different property owners. Why one person's neighbor's well is 300 feet, another one is 400 ft, etc. Um, so
just just to clarify on on some of those points >> out of order. Is that on file here? >> The well? >> Yeah. >> No. When Minnesota Well Index is an online >> No, but do you have does the county maintain a information on the well on my property? >> No. It's all through the Minnesota
Department of Health. >> Yep. But it is. Yeah, it is pretty easy to find online. I've looked as I also have a well. It's not >> classic. >> Yes. >> Nea, I have a question about number the
condition number 13. Can you briefly touch base on exactly what that is meaning? >> Um, open space areas identified within the planned unit development shall remain undeveloped. >> Mhm. Yeah. So >> exactly saying there,
>> right? So open space areas. So that 50% open space >> um shouldn't be you shouldn't put like your garages in the open space um except for these specific uses. So um we're saying that in the open space permitted
recreational facilities um utilities. So this would allow the septic mounds um storm water. So if there's a storm water pond needed or a rain garden to affect the water runoff um and access related improvements. Um so if there needs to be that's back when I thought we were at
right turn lane and we need might need like some pulloffs or something. This can be very malleable. I think right now this is just starting language for you. But when we talk about open space this is a question our office gets a lot is can the septic system be in the open space? Um you know no one knows that the
tank is there. So to me it's green space but if you want that open space to truly not include utilities all that's going to affect you know down the road what space is available for development. So this is again just the starting point.
>> Okay. >> I don't have anything else. >> Um >> I'll just say I agree. I'm excited. I'm I'm a big co-op, you know, co-op guy, and this isn't exactly a co-op, but it it shares some elements and and I think rather than cutting things up into the
smallest little pieces, holding it as a larger holding and making people work together on that >> generally a good concept. So, I I I'm really in agreement with that. >> All right. With that being said, I am going to make a motion to approve with the conditions for consideration um
changing number four to 23 dwellings instead of 20. And I think we're covered with the parking with number 11 A and B.
So I think those are fine. Mhm. >> So, yes, I'm just going to leave it as is with that only change, >> Mr. Chair. >> Mhm. >> Um, one thing that we found with some conditional use permits is the board when you make a recommendation based on
conditions, um, I think it would be good to add a condition that says if these conditions can't be met, the conditional use permit is null and void. >> Yeah. Um, we've kind of ran into that before where people can't meet the conditions, then we're in a really awkward position. So, I think maybe
trying to incorporate a condition like that. Um, also I think condition 9 C about the right turn lane needs to probably be rephrased. Um, I think right now you're making your decision based on the understanding that a right turn lane is not required, >> but that could
>> but I think leaving that in there is good because it says a right turn lane shall be installed if determined necessary by mind. So I think keeping that as is is needed. >> True. But if a right turn lane is required, would you be making the same decision right now? To um commissioner
member Seaton's point, if the right turn lane was needed, that might be impacting utilities on site. Um, so I want you to consider that if if later on we realize a right turn lane is needed, would you be making the same decision? Is that okay by you or do you feel that you need
other information? Because this application um was reviewed by at least by staff based on the understanding that no right turn lane was needed. So we don't have any information about where that space is for the right turn lane. Um, so >> I just want to think ahead on some of those because these are the things that
kind of later on make things a little messy. Okay. So, >> but it also has lists that the septic and well, you know, so that's a requirement. >> So, if that does and there's another location, then that will just be moved.
>> Yeah. So, that's my question to you. It's uh is if a right turn lane is okay is is needed, are you okay with that? And you would see that in the preliminary plot stage, right? If you feel that you would have a decision, different decision that you're making this approval based on not needing a
right turn lane, then you should stipulate that in your conditions, just to be really clear about your understanding of what you believe you're approving and putting some safeguards in place of when you would need this conditional use permit to be amended or reapplied for under different conditions.
>> Okay. And then number adding number 15. Is this something that we're going to add in all conditions going forward that if a single condition cannot be met then the CUP becomes vary? >> Yeah, I think maybe a statement that says the conditional use permit is null and void if all the conditions above as
listed cannot be met. And we could ask our assistant county attorney M. Westerland if she feels that that is a appropriate condition. >> It's a great universal condition. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I think you should as a matter of course have that because things can come up
down the road and and you don't want problems manifesting due to your approval and not being specific about the contingencies risk mitigation. >> Mr. Chair, is that not implicit in the entire concept of a conditional use
permit? >> It is. It is, but it needs to be stated. >> It's not stated. I don't want to talk about another case, but we've had another case where conditions couldn't be met and the board was really left in a weird place of saying a a thing was met, but you all made a decision based
off of certain understandings. So, I just want to be more specific about your understandings and being really clear when the application really just needs to be out of here and just redone. >> I I think it's probably good hygiene, you know, just to do that. So, >> okay. So, then back to number nine,
access requirements, the planned unit development What happened? >> I I Mr. Ch >> I know Courtney's reading through it too, but I just read through the I don't have any issues because it says you got to comply with MIDOT including but not
limited to. So MDOT comes up with other conditions, you got to meet MIDOT's >> conditions. >> And they specifically say to ensure septic mounds are not located. So I would assume that if they can't do 9A then the cup would become void
>> if the subject m's being impacted. Yeah. >> Yes. >> Y >> I guess the question is do do we want to address the question of whether we would treat this differently if there is a right turn lane or not? >> Right. >> No, >> I think if you if it if you can still
draw me a map where these utilities are on there and there's a right turn lane, I I don't really have an issue. And so I think keeping it in there with with a you know the addition of 15 our new >> new boiler plate feel that that that feels good to me right like that's you
know >> I agree. >> Well and I just feel like there is only one turn lane on that 61 in that entire area where there's a lot going on in some of those other areas. So I just felt >> somewhat unlikely. >> Yeah. Extremely unlikely.
>> Yeah. Caribou Trail is the only right turn lane through that whole stretch. So, I'm going to say I am comfortable as is and I would >> make a motion whack at this. >> Mhm. >> What?
>> We get another stab at it later. >> So, just to little housekeeping, we're at we we changed four. >> Uh we amended the number of units. >> Mhm. Keeping nine as is and adding of 15. >> Correct. C void if a single condition
cannot be met. >> All right. >> Correct. >> I mean I would say the conditioner is null and void if conditions listed above cannot be met. That way like if two conditions can't be met, it's still good to go. >> Right. >> People play verb games sometimes.
>> Okay. we >> wait for the actual wording of that amendment to be confirmed by legal staff. Is that possible? Can we do that just to make sure we've got the right words if we're really trying to make this a thing going forward?
>> Mhm. >> In regards to >> number 15. >> I don't know it. Um but I mean you could >> ne you restate number 15 one more time. Uh the conditional use permit is null and void if the conditions listed above
cannot be met. >> If the okay is >> I would like time to take it back to my boss. So this seems important if it's going to be one of the universal conditions on all CP things going
forward. So >> we can address it before we go to the county board meeting. I think we understand the intent of it and the specific language corrected by then. >> Okay. Okay. Okay. You just want to say that language with the caveat, you know, we'll our office will approve,
>> right? So, we can still move forward. >> We make it as a part of the >> part of the motion could be like with condition 15 verified by the county attorney's office. >> Okay. >> Add number 16. >> No, it's not under condition. >> Part of the motion on the condition,
we might want to >> All right. There is a motion. Yes. Oh, I will second. >> Any further discussion? >> Seeing none, all those in favor? >> I >> I. All those opposed? >> Seeing none, motion passes and will be recommended to the board of
commissioners. >> Very exciting. >> Based on those findings and conditions, >> your office is going to be very busy. >> Mr. I mean really >> make a motion that we >> And now your office to adjourn. All those in favor of I
>> I make this post and let's post the timing is adjourned. Let's post the time. 611. Why? >> Cuz he wanted to know what the time was. >> Oh. Hey.