All right, we'll get things uh started if everyone's ready. >> Call the April 8th Planning Commission meeting to order. Start by entertaining a motion to approve the agenda and minutes. >> I will make a motion to approve.
>> Second. >> I'll second. >> Uh all those in favor any or any discussion first? Anything? Great. All those in favor? >> I >> I. >> All those opposed? Uh, approved. All right. We'll get
started on our new business with 2026-1 IUP. Carol Bergland and Tamara Krauss. Nea. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. The first item on the agenda is a request for an interim use permit in accordance with Cook County zoning ordinance to
allow the renewal for a seasonal event venue/wedding barn called Woods Creek Wedding Venue within the F3 zone district at 392 County Road 60 within the Shorland area of Woods Creek. The applicant's property includes 240 acres which with over 3,000 ft of shoreline to
Woods Creek. The parcel is entirely within the F3 zone district. The proposed use of a wedding barn and event venue is not specifically a listed permitted use in this zone district. However, public and private parks, playgrounds, and recreational areas are a listed conditional use number two
within this zone district. And Woods Creek is a designated trout stream classified as a tributary river segment within this property. for general project description. Uh, this request is to reissue an interim use permit for an additional year to allow the
continuation of the seasonal event venue and wedding bar in Woods Creek wedding venue. >> This is not working. >> Is the Got it. >> I wanted to watch Bluey. >> Oh, this has never happened before. That's fun.
>> Okay. Well, I'll just, you know, keep reading through while things are happening around me. Um, so the and the initial interim use permit for this wedding barn was issued in 2022 and a renewal interim use permit was granted in 2023 for one year. No renewal application was submitted for the 2024
and 2025 seasons and staff have not received any complaints about the use outside of the public hearing comment periods. Uh events are proposed to continue seasonally from June through September with the applicant also requesting to host events in October in this application. The application states
they would like to host events for up to 150 to 200 guests. However, it is unclear if the structure meets the state requirements for this level of use. The application states that music will be allowed until 10 p.m. with guests departing at 10 p.m. However, the online advertisement states guests will leave
at 11 p.m. So clarification. uh food will be catered in and according to the Minnesota Department of Health uh MDH, an MDH food license is required only if dishes are washed or food is prepared on site and if all food is fully catered catered in, which is what
this uh event operates as, an MDH license is not required. The 240 acre property is located on County Road 60 in a rural agricultural area. The surrounding landscape consists of forested areas, residential parcels, and agricultural land. The nearest dwelling is about 1,000 ft from the barn, a
separation distance that is comparable to the 1,00 foot buffer required for dog kennels to provide adequate sound mitigation. The proposed parking will be accommodated in the field and driveway areas. And the applicant anticipates approximately 50 to 100 vehicles during events.
And there's the kind of visual representation of that nearest residential structure from the wedding barn. For zoning considerations, this property is located in the Shorland area in the F3 zone district. The principal purpose of the zone district is provide for permanent and seasonal areas at medium
density. Farming and other rural activities are also allowed. Previous IUP applications for this use have processed this request under the catchall language included in section 10.03D 03d of the Cook County zoning ordinance which states any use not expressly identified as permitted
conditional or prohibited use within this ordinance may at the discretion of the county be processed as a conditional or interim use. Additionally, the F3 zone district does identify public and private parks, playgrounds or recreational areas as a listed conditional use. Uh however, we do not define what
recreational area is in our zoning ordinance. Um there are several other definitions related to recreation areas such as a commercial recreation area which is defined as a recreational facility operated as a business and open to the public for a fee. I've included the definitions of conditional use and
interim use as a reminder uh for your benefit as well as the section 10.05 05 the general criterion requirements that we use to review these types of uses. For background, the application, as I've mentioned, is a renewal intermuse permit
uh initially issued in 2022 and and then renewed in 2023. The property owner, Carol Berglin, and her daughter, Tamara Krowy, have been making improvements to modify the existing barn and agricultural area to accommodate seasonal event venue from June through September. Mrs. Berglin lives on site.
The last renewal intermuse permit application was issued in 2023. No renewal permit was applied for in 2024 2025. This renewal application was submitted after land services staff inquired with the applicant after noting the online advertisement presence. The following is a summary from the 2023
planning commission public hearing that was provided to the board of commissioners. Property owner Carol Bergland and her daughter Tamara Kray request to renew the interim use permit issued in 2022 for a seasonal event venue. During the one-year IUP approval, one wedding event was held. The interim approval was a trial period. Should the
operation go well, the applicant will reapply for a conditional use permit with potentially larger occupancy limit. Once building improvements have been made to meet the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry standards for places of public accommodation. No written comments were submitted during the written comment period. Uh Miss Cray
explained that they have been steadily making improvements to the barn for this use. The wedding event in 2022 went smoothly without any issues or complaints. The planning commission determined that the small sample size and no complaints from the neighborhood warranted a one-year renewal to continue a trial period of the use. The planning commission voted unanimously to
recommend the removal approval of the request. And then I've also included the conditions of approval which we'll uh elaborate more um later in this packet. And on the next couple pages are site sketches from the application. These are pretty much the same site sketches in
each of the different applications from 2023 that were then used for this application as well for site conditions and considerations. Uh, for septic, the barn does not have plumbing at this time. The applicant is proposing to have portable outhouses rented on site until improvements have
been made. Future plans include adding a septic system, pressurized plumbing, and restrooms to the barn to make the facility more fully functional. Jesse Johnson, the Cook County Environmental Health Officer, has reviewed the renewal interme permit and provided a memo uh stating that without the running water being provided, portable toilets will be
acceptable for waste treatment and they'd like to see a signed portable toilet agreement form filled out for the current year and submitted to environmental health. And then generally speaking, that the property must remain in compliance with Minnesota and local septic regulations. For wetlands, wetlands are located along the riparian
area of Woods Creek. Uh primarily this is just important to note that there's going to be fill brought in for the parking area out there that we just want to be cautious about unintended wetland impacts. Uh for noise, noise was a subject of much discussion in the 2022 public hearing and the following condition was set. All music shall be
indoors only and ceased at 10 p.m. Noise shall comply with comply with Minnesota State Rule 7030 for noise pollution standards. In conversations with the applicant, it's understood that some events have been held under uh tents in the field with music outdoors. This is potentially one reason that noise has
been more observable by neighbors and can be further discussed at the public hearing. For lighting, exterior lighting should be downcast and shielded. Safe access is available off County Road 60. And parking is planned for the main yard and into the field. A condition was set in 2022 and 2023 that required a 100
foot wide native vegetative buffer established with to filter storm water runoff from the parking areas and all parking shall be off street and no closer than 100 ft from Woods Creek. Uh the application doesn't include details whether or not those conditions specifically meet the um proportion of
where the creek is on the site sketches. Uh for public noticing, uh the application was legally noticed in the Cook County News Herald on March 20th. 14 letters of notification were sent to adjacent property owners as well as county departments, Minnesota Department of Health, Labor of Industry,
and DNR hydraologist. Written comments received, we received two by adjoining property owners as well as two from state agencies. Wayne and Anne Russ of 413 County Road 60 recognize the improvements made to the barn and the use of the property support the owners. Uh they request that the renewal
continue with the conditions previously approved, specifically conditions 1, 3, 5, 6, and 9. expressed concerns about expansions to the approval time period, occupancy, parking locations, and noise past 10 p.m. Emphasis is added that they would like the sound to be contained within the barn with sound insulation or
alternative meth methods. And uh summer wheelland new land owners in the area that leave live in the area seasonally. They support the use of the property. However, they have a concern about noise generated from the events. Ask that there be ways to reduce event noise with keeping music inside or below
certain decibel levels. and Minnesota Department of Health uh provided a comment that said that they don't need uh food or beverage uh requirements through MDH. However, they did indicate that the state fire marshall's office would be interested in this type of activity. There's many fire hazards
associated with old barns and many do not meet code and they provided a reference for that uh resource. And then the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry uh provided the following comments. The Minnesota building code is clear regarding how occupant loads must be calculated for assembly type
occupancies. Occupant load and then they have this whole formula that I'm not going to read. Uh primarily just stating that even if we are less than 100 guests, there still need to meet certain requirements with the state building code. And I'll just add that this is one of the things that did not come forward
when I reached out to Dolly in the 2022 and 2023 hearings. So this is the first time that this information has been brought forward to the planning commission during one of these renewal processes. The standards that we use to review conditional use permits and interim use
permits. Um so the first one the use conforms to the land use or comprehensive plan of the county. The Cook County land use guide plan includes a list of guiding principles in chapter 7 which include some of the following. There's a commercial goal to provide commercial facilities to meet the needs of residents and visitors. Um,
specifically, there's policy number 42 that mentions specialized commercial activity 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. There's also a general land use to have an inventory of land suitable and appropriately located for the anticipated types of land uses compatible with natural resources and proximity to existing infrastructure. And one of those goals is to protect
non-compatible land uses from one another with policy number 12 reading the review of conditional uses and resonings must evaluate impacts on but not limited to relationship to land use plan benefit to overall community adjacent use air and water quality traffic generation public safety and
health area aesthetics and economic impact in the area. uh for this um finding verification of the structures compliance with the Minnesota state fire code and state building code has not specifically been provided mostly because it hasn't come
up in earlier reviews uh without documentation from the state fire marshall or department of labor and industry. Compliance with applicable public health and safety standards cannot be confirmed. Uh written comments from neighboring property owners identify concerns regarding compatibility with surrounding area. These factors are relevant in
determining whether the proposed use aligns with the goals and policy of the land use guide plan. For number two, the use is compatible with the existing neighborhood. It's well acknowledged that there's a desire to see this family farm be supported with the transition to this use. However, the noise has been been a concern that was raised during
the initial intermuse permit in 2022. Staff encouraged the planning commission to discuss with the applicant options to min mitigate or minimize the noise more effectively. For the third finding, 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. If noise can be mitigated and conditions followed, the use does not appear to impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding areas. And number four, the location and character of the proposed use is considered to be consistent with the desirable patterns of development of the
area. This property is within the FB3 zone district. The principal purpose of that district is to provide for permanent and seasonal areas at medium density. Farming and other rural activities are also allowed for staff recommendation for
consideration. Uh since the initial review in 2022, there has been an ongoing interest in supporting the success of this use, recognizing its historic and unique characteristics. At the same time, several important items remain that require additional information and
clarification to ensure consistent application of land use regulations. In reviewing the proposed interim use permit, staff offer the following points of consideration in relation to the goals of the land use guide plan, including public safety, compatibility with surrounding properties, and the scale of the proposed use. These items
are provided to assist the planning commission in its discussion and evaluation of the request. I itemize the state code compliance for fire and building code, the occupancy and building classifications. Um, just to
clarify, in the 2022 and 2023 review, uh, it was made clear by the Department of Labor and Industry that if the wedding barn had more than 100 guests, it did need to meet the state building code for places of public accommodation, which was why that earlier condition had less than 100 guests while improvements
were being made to the barn to eventually be able to exceed that 100 guest limit. And that's where I mentioned with the Dolly letter when they said that there's this formula that you still need to have for an assembly type facility. Um it is still subject to
the state building code which we didn't quite have that clear of an understanding in the 2022 and 2023. So I just wanted to point out that this is the first time uh in this review that it came forward for both the planning commission and the applicant to try to understand that part of things. Um the
third item here is public comment and compatibility. So maybe more discussion about the noise impacts and how that might be minimized for the neighbors and the hours of operation. Uh number four is scale of use and prior approvals. Just recognizing uh there is a goal for
this to um reach 150 to up to 200 guests and understanding where we are relative to the state building code and the fire marshall I think will help uh with that discussion point um and compliance with the IUP conditions. And so I itemized a few of the conditions that um perhaps we
could use better clarification to understand whether or not uh those are being met during more more robust operations of this activity as it moves forward potentially. And number six, public hearing and additional review staff recommend that the planning commission holds the public hearing on
April 8th. Uh based on feedback from the state agencies, additional input from them would be helpful to inform the planning commission's decision. The applicant would be responsible for coordinating with these agencies and providing any relevant information. At this time, the application does not
include enough detail for staff to determine whether the previous conditions have been met. And then at the end of the packet, I do include that 2023 intermuse permit set of conditions just as a summary in case if you want to use that uh for your discussion. And the applicant is here today. Um she didn't
have access to the packets right before this hearing, so she was playing a little catch-up. Um, and also for you, Tammy, uh, our planning commission has almost fully turned over. I'm not sure that any of you were Paul was here until the second one. Yeah. >> Yes. Which is why I went into maybe more
detail on the history than in the past because I'm trying to put everyone on the same page with the history of the case. So, that's what I have for you, Mr. Chair. >> Great. As always, uh, we would invite the applicant to step to the microphone if you'd like to add anything uh, to Neva's narrative. anything you'd like us
to know or >> Well, um >> I'll have you step to the microphone just because this is recorded and uh if you can state your name and address for the record, please. >> Hi, that I'm Tamara Krowy. Um the farm is on
up in on County Road 60. Um this barn is 102 years old, built in 1924. And that's when my dad was born and his grandfather and uh the Hedstrom's
cousins helped build this farm. So my dad had passed away in 2016, but before that he asked, "Please help fix up the barn a little bit." So we started and it took two years for straightening
this barn. took another summer for getting the metal roofing on. It took another summer to get all the windows redone on that barn. And then the flooring up in the loft was
um tug and groove pine put down. We have redone some of the outside wood repainted finally. And then I added an 18x60 ft deck. um trek and it's covered
and I tell you it's the most beautiful place ever. I have the carpenters come to me and says, "Come here and look." And I had he dragged me over and he says, "Look at this. This is my office. Look at out there." And he was so excited about that little guy from coalish in his 70s and I thought that
was kind of neat, you know. I was impressed about that. So, we have finished the deck front and back and east and I have um new doors on the upstairs. So you on the north side what you could see
um a deck with two stairways that goes onto the deck on the east. A a stairway going off to the west and in the back now I have a French doors to another deck which stairway which go also go
onto that side deck. So um that is my um fire code situation that I have done. uh I have left is electricity to be put into that place and then I figured then that's where the exit codes for north
and south doors uh lower deck I have two brand new doors on the south side that just opens up I have a brand new door on the east side I have a brand new door on the west side and I think there's original door on the north side in the
lower part so I have all this access. And I do have a stairway inside we put down. So, we have a a third option if we had it run down to the lower level. Um, have not used the barn yet, but the
upper part would be available to use and the deck is used. I might have a little um maybe a kitchenet, you know, but for my use and for setup for whatever we have out there.
I have tables and I have chairs. Um so really that's what I've done with the barn and um trying to finish up now come this spring summer. I have had like you said we had two tent
um the one that was in 22 I think that was about 150 people and I think that was I don't know how big that tent was but then we had another one another tent set up and that was over 400 people
and it was a 120 by 30 foot tent. I had electricity put in by the electrician. um so we can accommodate to plug in for lighting, music and this setup was put on the west side of the farmhouse and
that is where the parking main parking was. It was I would say 50 to 100 cars were parked on that field and nobody had a problem. It it was I we sat in the whole on the back deck of our house and listened and watched the whole time and
um everybody was impressed. Um they walked around. They had music in the corner there right behind the cabin there. They had the music started and they finished stopped the music by4
to 10. And by 10:30 there was not a soul left on the farm. They cleared out and I was impressed about that because I didn't want anybody around too late in the
evening. If the noise is going to be a problem, I could in you know say 9:00 the noise can stop or 9:30 if that is going to but I noticed it got it was the September one and it got dark about
9:00. It was and I thought it was I didn't like that because I don't have lighting out there and I you know so I want everything more during the daylight. So it would be my choice on what time of the season that these people want to have their wedding.
Um, I've had some, you know, I've had people call now maybe just having the wedding there, but then having their other reception other places. But, you know, that's their choice. But, um, that is
what I have been doing. And I was I was impressed because I was sitting there watching and I walked up and down and I was talking to everybody that was in there and I says, "Is there anything I could do? anything more I could change and they they were just
says this is just beautiful you know so I you know what can I say you know I did the best I could and and I'm just just doing this just for the heck of it you know it's not a I'm not living off of it
but you know I'm just improing the improving the farm by its own respect and restoring everything that we can so it's still there that's all we're doing >> all All right. Thank you very much. >> Yes. >> Uh we'll open it up to anyone else from
the public uh that would like to comment on this application. We'll have you step forward to the microphone and state your name and address. Um, I'm Anne Russ and I live at 413 County Road 60 and I'm uh the nearest
neighbor to Carol and I um I I wrote my husband and I wrote a letter and you have that information. So unless you have any questions, I won't really comment on what I already wrote. But a couple of other things that um we thought of. Um, one thing we're
according to the map we're like a thousand feet from the the barn, but is the way sound travels were uphill. So, it really isn't so much of a vegetation buffer. Um, when people are walking
along the county road and just having conversations, we can actually hear that. So, um, so at the wedding when it was outdoors, like I said in the in the, um, letter that we wrote, we did have to close our windows because it was
MCA. People were having a good time, but it was it was pretty loud for us, so we had to close the windows. Um, and I'm glad to hear um that we're going to hopefully that the parking will stay on the west side. That was kind of an
agreement that we came to um the last goound um for several reasons. Um, of course, because of the wetland, there isn't really a good good place to park near the creek, but also if you if you would
move the parking, as I think was suggested, to um the east side of the barn, then instead of people walking from their cars just on the grass to the barn, you would end up having people
walking on County Road 60 to get to the barn. and that doesn't feel like a a safe thing to do. Um, one other comment about parking. It might be a good idea to actually post signage so that um people don't park on County Road 60 and
so they all go onto the the field. Um, let's see. And then I I hadn't realized that the um that there was a web page now. So I looked at that after the packet um came out. Um,
so I was I was a little bothered by the fact that um if there would be tented celebrations and that they were advertising that power was available because to me that sounds like a lot of um amplified music that's not contained.
And so I I would be, you know, we'd be hearing all of that music. That would be pretty loud. Um maybe it would work to have um acoustic music in a tent if they were going to have outdoor events.
Um and let's see. Is it okay to suggest or to comment on what Tammy just said or not? >> You may. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Just try to keep it brief. >> Yeah. Well, no. I liked hearing that um
possibly events would end up at sunset and that um glad to know that guests would be leaving soon after the music stops and that you were even open to like a 9:00 um music ending time because
of course the sound doesn't end with the music because all of those people have to leave and car doors are closing and um that impacts us also. So, I think those were my comments. Again, it's just it's just
mainly if the music and the event can be contained soundwise, it's a lot um it's a lot easier to envision this happening. But um you know if you imagine that people are having a
big party you know across from your road and and there's no limit on the number of parties that they have. That's a pretty overwhelming thought for us. So you have any questions for me?
>> Thank you very much. >> Uh any other members of the public wish to comment on this application? All right, we will close public comment and discuss as a board. Start on this end.
>> Okay. Um, first question is, it sounds to me like this is a pretty permanent operation. It's been operating for four years already and you're planning on putting in electricity and putting in a septic. So, why are we doing an interim use permit rather than a conditional use
permit? That's the question that I would ask first. Um and uh it was stated that they have catering. It's a wedding. There's obviously liquor. And in the application, it actually says beer and wine andor hard liquor. Um
the question is, is the venue going to get a liquor license or are the caterers going to be responsible for a liquor license? Someone's got to have a liquor license if you're serving and it's not bob. Um
the hours even within the application are again ambiguous and the limit the highest limit was 150 and we've just heard that they've had 400 people there already. Um and then uh yeah um
and then if we do a conditional use permit rather than an interim use permit, my understanding is that that goes with the land. So if it ever sells, then the next owners would inherit that and have the ability to continue on. So it would be my opinion that there are
some constraints placed specifically on how many events can be held. One question that I wanted to ask of the owner is how many events have you actually had? >> Only two. >> Okay.
And so I mean we're not talking about runaway use and people have parties around Cook County all the time that are allowed. So that's not the issue. It's what happens when it becomes a business and you've invested a lot of money and you need to recoup those costs andor the
property sells. valid questions. I don't have any more questions. >> Good. Gotcha. >> Sorry for uh not having my head wrapped fully around this, but um
the if it is it I'm confused about the interimm use or the conditional use. It it's an interim use permit as it's sitting right now. Right. So, how and how long is that? for me, Mr. Chair. >> Amen. >> So, previously with the planning commission review in 2022, the first
time that Tammy gave me a call and said, "Hey, we want to improve this family barn and and hope try it out." Essentially, we want to try some weddings. Um because we have never had a use like this go through our process before. It was kind of a new one for Cook County. We felt the interim use
permit was a met both Tammy's need of the try it out. Let's see how this goes. And also um it gives the neighboring property owners some comfort that there will be a renewal process where they can kind of let the planning commission know from their experience how this process
is going. uh because in that 2022 application you can imagine uh there is a concern about noise and how do we fine-tune these conditions that both protect the neighbors and also protects the the user um the property owner. So
um the 2022 and 2023 it sounds like one event each of those years and then in 2024 and 2025 there weren't any events while improvements of the barn were happening if I understand correctly and maybe not >> I think it was the fall of 24. Okay.
>> Yeah. And I think uh with that point in mind, if there is a renewal of the center use permit, it would be helpful to add a condition that expects the property owner to keep track of these activities and reports back to you the amount of events that they hold, what
you know, what type of information would you want for the RU renewal next year. Uh so we did yearbyear primarily because we knew improvements to the barn were occurring and there was this idea that once the barn reaches this status of meeting the building code and presumably
the fire code now then the planning commission was going to be more comfortable with looking at a conditional use permit. Um with that said we got to keep in mind conditional uses do transfer of the property. So you could do an interim use permit for a longer period of time and have it keep with the property owner and not be
transferable. So, there's a lot of options going forward. Uh, this case before you was publicly noticed as a one-year intermuse permit. Uh, so at this point, we can't pivot and consider anything different than that. Um, and I think with the with the questions and things that get clarified still, I think
that's a really good practice. Um, until we feel like this is kind of locked down in a way that's meeting everybody's needs. So, just to reiterate, I think it's not what we're looking at today, but there is a version of an IUP that runs
basically durationally with the owner >> of the property. So, there is that option >> in our toolkit. >> Anything else? Um my biggest thing is with the first one uh the 2022 2023
um it clearly states it's limited to less than 100 people sound by 1000 p.m. and all indoors only and both events that were held were intense with well over 100 people. Um, so even putting
conditions, how do we know those are going to be um, followed because clearly they weren't followed with the first one. And I feel for the neighbors with the noise
and feel that that's important to have those conditions, but how are we going to make sure those conditions are met? I I would say functionally I mean one of the the things that putting those conditions in creates is an enforcement mechanism right I mean that if you get a
neighbor complaint that one of those conditions wasn't met that gives us a chance to review this conditional use permit right and revoke it potentially >> correct >> definition so kind of a question to follow along with Courtney's question
because we've had a lot of discussion about the barn, but really the interim use permit is for the use of the property. The barn, whether it's the barn or not, it's the property. So, I think that was a good point that if the
current conditions aren't being met, what guarantees that they're going to be met in the future? Um, and I don't know if we've got a mechanism really in place other than complaint driven response at this point,
do we? >> And then you're having neighbors have to be babysitters. >> Yeah. >> Mhm. Or call to account at least. >> I guess to that point, I I have a question in terms of enforcement. I mean, from a planning commission standpoint, looking at the second
condition in the previous IUP, um, compliance with local, state, federal rules. I mean, from a planning commission standpoint, all we can really say is that you need to comply with those, right? And that >> correct. >> That's ultimately MDH and and DI to enforce those. Correct.
>> So, I think we can do what we can do and we can insist that it follows those regulations. That that's where my head's at on it. But if anyone else has thoughts about that or Neva, >> you could request to have documentation
from those state agencies be to help you inform making your decision. Um, since we're talking about a structure presumably, it's not like someone would just need to go get a DNR waters permit or something. It's is the structure feasibly able to meet the fire code and
the building code. And if it's not able to, how would that affect your decision? Um because in the 2022 cases we were review we were focused on it being a wedding barn. You know the events being inside the building. I don't think we were thinking about this as being tents
in the field. Um I think tents in the field came up as the improvements to the barn were happening and it was kind of trying to meet both needs. um try to have the cash flow to do the improvements to the barn and we're trying to find compromise where we can but also still hold the standards of
what was approved and how do we stick to that. Um to answer the questions if conditions aren't being met. There is there is the process where you just don't approve a renewal permit. That was kind of the point of the renewal process. Um so I think having a a
conversation about you know can the applicant meet these conditions? Are they do they understand that it's important that these conditions are adhered to? What are the planning commission's expectations? If you choose to renew this, um, you could table this and wait until the fire marshall and the
building uh, state department of labor and industry can work with the applicant to provide you the information you want. Um, and you could ask the applicant to address any other concerns that you might have about this beforehand. Um, that was kind of the whole point of a renewal interim use permit was to see
whether or not this application as it's proposed can be operated as intended because you are correct. Our our land services staff are not going to go out Saturday night with a pen and paper and tally the YMCA guest singers. Um, but you know, we do need to have confidence
that we're being fair to the neighbors when we're approving something and it's going to follow through with what the approval was. Yeah, I think I'm I'm sensitive to the fact that things move slowly, that it takes years to make these things happen, and so you sort of do the best with what
you've got. Um, but I do think we need to make sure that the thing that we're approving is actually in line with what you have in mind, right? And so, just to be on the same page about how big events could be, that neighbors can know what to expect and be able to offer their
perspective to us based on those. I think that's something that's going through my mind as I'm thinking about this. >> Right. I mean, even the application says in barn like doesn't say. >> Right. Right. >> There was a bullet point somewhere that had
staff findings on it. Can you tell me where that page was again? um about page 12 or of the PDF document or like well 16 of 102 of the packet is where we begin staff consideration of facts and
findings. Okay. What do you think, folks? >> Mr. Chair, I'd like to um propose a motion to table this until the applicant can provide us documentation that they can comply with state requirements on
the building and asurances that they will comply with the current conditions on the IUP to be carried forward. >> All right. Hear a motion. Do I have a second to that motion? >> I would second that motion.
>> Okay. Any discussion on it? Um, if you look at page 19 of 102 with a public hearing and additional review, it talks about additional input from agencies may help inform us on our decision. Um,
and from the MDH and DLI and I feel that that would be the main reason for my table. >> All right, we have a motion and a second. Uh all those in favor of tableabling this interim use permit
application. >> I I >> I >> I all those post seeing none uh it is tabled basically to um come back with that uh feedback from MDH and DLI about the barn.
>> I can give you a call tomorrow. We can talk about it. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you very much. We will move on to our second item then tonight. 2026-2RZ Hedstrom Nea.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. This might feel a little bit like some deja vu. >> Didn't we just do this? >> Yes. Yes. Um, so as you might recall, last month, Mr. Hudstöm had requested to reszone 40 acres immediately off the
Gunland from light industrial to F3. uh that was recommended for approval by the planning commission and supported and adop approved by the board of commissioners at the following meeting. Following that meeting, Mr. Hstrom and I met to talk about his subdivision plans. And through that conversation, we
discussed the road. If you're going to subdivide the the land as a plat, he'll need a platted road. And we kind of foresaw that in the conversation of platting that road. There's probably going to be a lot of questions about a light industrial 20 acres at the end of a residential platted road. and how do
we think about that? Um, so Mr. Hedstrom uh thought maybe it'd be a good idea to throw this into the reszone platting process. Um, so this is essentially the same type of application as what we just saw. Light industrial to F3. I am not
going to read through this whole packet all over again. Um, the significant difference is that this parcel is on the east side. So, it is further away from the Gunflint Trail and the creek that we talked about at the first public hearing. Um, and that it is proposed to kind of be in that residential
development of some form that he's been working with our office on kind of starting to lay the groundwork on. So, um, with that, I believe the findings are substantially still aligned. It's a 20 acre parcel being reszoned into the 5acre parcel. Um, and it is still
adjacent to federal land. And I'm happy to answer any questions you might have. I've got some draft bindings for you in the packet that will resemble what you just saw for the 40 acre parcel. >> And does this project or does this property also fall under those
guidelines of um that term that I cannot think of? >> Residential space overlay district. It does. It is it is eligible to go into that. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All righty. Thank you, Neva. Uh we'll have the applicant speak if you'd like
to state your name and address. uh Howard Hadstrom County Road 60 Grandmary. Um it's basically uh cost me an extra $600 and in some more of my time writing permits. She told me after the fact I didn't ask question. I could have
combined them all at once. Uh I was just lazy at the time and thought I don't want to write that check right now. I can do that later. Uh now's later. So uh we're we're well on our way. We've uh met with uh NEA and other staff of the
county. We're just today actually I've got uh MSA hired as an engineer in the project. Uh Charlie Droval is a surveyor in the project. Um kind of going through uh MSA work as uh we've already done a wetlands delineation on the project on
the property. We did it last fall. Well, they could get out there. Uh quite a bit of work to do yet, but my goal is to get a preliminary application in by May 1st so that uh uh we can march through all the steps needed to get to approval
hopefully this summer um while there's still construction season and things like that. And um I I've met with several realtors uh other people. Uh everybody's pretty excited about having home lots uh of
that quality close to town. Um it'll be the road will be a significant investment because of crossing the creek, but uh um county staff uh have been thinking about it and they're pretty helpful and they can bring in
some of the team uh that they work with to help, you know, site the the road and the bridge and and um you know, team I've assembled seem all good with it and excited. So, here we go. Just waiting for you guys.
It's not it it wouldn't be uh critical to the project except it makes it way more complicated if we have to look at a different zoning on uh and and as brought up at the last meeting. You know, I haven't had any inquiries on
light industrial. Um, you know, one of one of the former board members said they'd never had they if only fielded questions about homeowners home property and not light industrial. So, there's a big parcel just south of our property that's could house more light
industrial as well. All right. Thank you very much. Uh, any members of the public wish to comment on this application? Seeing none, we'll close discussion and uh or comment and open discussion to the board.
Start on this end this time. Mixed up. >> Yes, we have heard this before. >> I don't have any particular question. I just think it's exciting to have some land available for development because we have so little land left in our county. So, thank you for
>> I was going to mention we picked a name, too. It's uh we're calling it Little Creek Woods. >> Oh, okay. >> Because that I've always known that as Little Creek coming through the property there. So, >> good. Good name. Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> Nothing to add to the discussion. No. >> Okay. >> No. >> All right. >> No. >> Entertain a motion then? >> I would make a motion to approve as is. I don't think we have any. I guess I didn't even get to NEA's page
of I don't see any. >> I'll second. >> All right. I've got a motion and a second. All those in favor? >> I >> I All those opposed? >> Seeing none. Passes. >> Recommended to the board. Thank you.
And we will move on to our third item, proposed amendments to the Cook County septic ordinance number 58. Neva, >> thank you, Mr. Chair. We have a new environmental health officer in our land services department, Jesse Johnson, who
did cross trainin with our former environmental health officer, Mitch Iverson, who retired in December. And as Jesse has moved into that position and has gone through the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency septic training courses um the and giving the ordinance a fresh
read and working with contractors and talking about how we apply our ordinance. He's identified several areas that feel um either misaligned with state septic regulations or the terminology is kind of confusing and
vague to people. and then in a couple of cases of where we're just uncomfortable with certain things being administrative duties and wanting to kind of clean it up a little bit. Um, so unfortunately he's unable to join us tonight. He is the expert on these. So I'm hoping I'll
be able to answer your questions. Um, but if we get to a point where some of the questions are beyond my scope because I haven't applied the septic regulations in about seven years now, so I'm a little rusty. Um, we might have to hold off until May. It was our department's hope that we could have this in place by May. So, the next
construction season comes forward. Um, to address any any questions, we we did public notice this in the Cook County News Herald as well as to the MPCA, who's the state agency responsible for the septic rules. Um, we did receive and we also emailed this out to all the
septic contractors. We wanted them to know about this. Jesse had been talking with a lot of them over the last construction season um when he was still crossraining with Mitch to double check that we weren't putting anything forward that they felt would be problematic. Um and in many cases they were very supportive of the changes that were
being proposed here. Um we did receive one written comment uh from a local contractor and he didn't have any issues. If anything, he wanted more clarification about how we define a dwelling, but at that point in time, we've already noticed what we have noticed and we can't really change it. So, um, we can think about that in the
future. So, um, I'm happy to try to answer any questions that you might have as we go through this and I can read it line by line if you want, but I think I'll I would rather just maybe I think maybe one of the bigger things um that I would like to point out is that uh we've
been very vague about how we apply the term administrative variances in the septic regulations. Um and so we would really like to clarify that the environmental health officer does not have the authority to issue variances on
uh septic components going for example into the lake setback. Um whereas previously that was being interpreted that way. Uh Jesse and I both agree that that's a process that's better handled by our co county board of adjustment through a public hearing process. So um there are some things that will
procedurally make a difference. The board of adjustment will probably see a few more septic variances come forward and it will take contractors a little bit longer to get through that process. Uh but we feel that a more transparent public hearing process is better than an administrative variance process. Uh we
still are retaining the administrative variance process under certain conditions. Um one of them is in locating a septic tank. Uh sometimes contractors are planning on a septic tank going in a location and then they're starting to dig and they hit bedrock. And so we would like to still have the flexibility that that tank can
move within a very limited amount within three feet closer to the building. Um again it's we're trying to put a little bit tighter constraints to still work with the contractors on an on-site basis that doesn't necessarily totally way a project. Um but also it's going to put
more more burden on the contractors and their planning process. If a project needs a variance they need to plan that in advance because as you know that process takes a little bit of time. So, that's kind of one of the bigger ones, but happy to answer any questions you might have.
>> All right. Thank you. >> Do we open this up to public comment? Yeah, public comment. Does anyone want to comment on any proposed amendments to the septic ordinance? Seeing none, uh, we'll close comment and discuss as a board.
>> Um, I've noticed a lot of composting toilets crossed off. Why it is the so like the term composting toilet is kind of confusing. Um there's this like public domain uh
what is this uh >> technology composting >> uh it's just like a really undefined bit of a wild west. Some people think composting toilet means sawdust and poop >> and and that's it. Um so we would like to be a little bit more clear about it. I believe it's following what is patent
patented. Um, so that is we're trying to be a little bit more clear about what composting toilets means. >> Okay. >> Actually, I I'll just speak to I once emailed Mitch Everson about that. And uh, basically, I was like, great.
What sort of public domain compost toilet options are there? And he was like, oh, there's yeah, I won't accept any of those. So, it needs to be patented. It needs to be a product that has gone through, you know, UL listing or whatever it is for compost toilets, you know. Basically, that's the gist.
So, yeah, I think my interpretation is you can still have a composting toilet. It just needs to be >> a registered product, not just hit you dug in the back, right? Like >> that makes sense. Thank you. >> And in terms of um Scott's comment,
dwelling, I mean, dwelling is defined essentially in the rest of the code and I assume or our um our language. So I mean we have language around what constitutes a dwelling in the ordinance. Correct. >> I think our office is really clear about dwelling. Dwelling is defined in we have
primitive dwelling in the septic ordinance itself under section 2.26. Um and dwelling classification. Um so like dwelling classification is based off of the size of it which is a part of the
design criteria of septic systems. So, the the word dwelling is in there. Um, but it's maybe not quite as clear as as Scott would like. Um, sometimes there's a desire to have a little bit more
flexibility and lack of rigidness in how some of these definitions and size affect the sizing of a septic system. Um but again our our goal with these edits were that we are getting a little bit more aligned with state rules in places
where it's not adding more burden than we need. So um I think we're open to looking at the at these comments in the future but at this point in time uh like I said we had already public noticed what we had so we weren't looking at adding more definitions to what we had
already publicly noticed. Mr. Chair, >> I have two things. Um, >> one thing that I noticed somewhere in here was changing from requiring two test pits for a septic approval to three. >> Mhm. >> Um, >> while I understand the logic behind
that, that adds a considerable amount of cost to the initial stages of trying to get a septic system installed. Um, if the equipment's there, does it really cost more? I don't know. But um it seems I'm just curious as to the reasoning
behind that and Jesse does uh expound on that a little bit but I just wanted to raise that concern. Um and then the other thing was uh the five permit rule which um has been an issue and I am a victim of it.
>> Um and it's good to see that that's going away. >> Yeah, I I would agree. It's like like contractors plan their own work schedule >> and I and I also understand the logic behind the rule being created and the
reasons for it. However, that's not the county's problem. Um if they can handle having more permits out and then if you have a outhouse and a septic that's two permits for one property so you're, you know, twothirds of the way there. So anyway, I I agree
with that. Trying to find uh your first point, Dave, on >> it might have been in the actual ordinance. >> Yeah. What was it on again? Just remind me. I got distracted by >> uh test pits. >> Test pits. Um yeah, >> I just saw three. >> That's an example of Jesse trying to get
us more aligned with 7080. The state septic rules. >> Oh, it's page 90 of 102, page 23. Um, so that that's one of those things that you go to continuing ed, you do the septic trainings and they say you're supposed to have three test pits per
site. Um, you know, these septic mountains can be pretty long. And so if you're only having one test pit at either end, you're kind of missing a a data point in the middle of that septic mound. Um, and that those soils information are really key in trying to
identify u the mound sizing essentially. Um, so that was one of those that Jesse's trying to get it closer aligned with what 7080 requires. Um, and again, the contractors didn't push back on that. Uh, we sent this out to all of them. Um, so we felt pretty good about
it, but you know, I certainly take the point that we're not trying to add more cost or burden to the to the process. It just kind of feels that they're going to have equipment out there that >> Yep. >> Yeah. trying to get a look closer. >> All valid points. I just wanted to bring it up. >> Yeah. Thank you.
I would imagine that you're not going to get the contractors complaining about that because that's also more money. It would only be the homeowners, correct? That would have the higher cost. I mean, the contractors aren't. If anything, they're going to make more money on that.
>> Yeah. >> So, >> I see the two crossed out, but I don't see the three. >> Yeah, that's what I was just going to say. It just says um it's in recordkeeping and it says the media doesn't move outside of the verified soil test pits with the two crossed off.
Is there a spot where you saw specifically? >> Yes, but I don't I didn't have a paper copy and I didn't my iPhone wasn't working. >> I'm not seeing any testing pits. >> All right. So, what section did you Okay. Yep. That was a 19. That was in
recordeping. >> So, it's not in the ordinance. It's in the originals. Okay. >> But it should be in there. >> Yeah. So, in in item 12, he's saying that we're defaulting to state rules and
state rules say the three sites. >> So, if we reference state rules compliance, then it's covered. Mhm. Okay. >> One um clarifying question that I had on number seven of Jesse's comments, the flow measurement. So that's just putting
in basically a water meter into everybody's main pressurized water line. Correct. That's his intention there. >> So that would be a supply side measure. >> Yeah. >> Rather than an actual use into the tanks. >> Yep.
Yeah. which I I would say I mean I I have done actually with Scott um and it's very helpful in actually proving how much water you you're using when you come back for an update or you know want to add something and you're showing that
these like astronomical national standards are not actually what we could be basing our design on. So I think that's it's great requirement again it adds a little cost to put that in but pretty negligible compared to a bigger mount ultimately. Anything
commercial has to do it anyway. >> Yeah. >> Well, they do. >> All right. Anything Anything else you want to discuss? >> Um, can we come back to that >> metering? So, are we going to retroactively require people to meter?
>> No, the I'm trying to find just really quick that section that So, 4.02, right? >> Yep. H and it says how Minnesota septic rule 7080 does because section 4.02
doesn't currently require it. However, Minnesota septic rule does and so anytime that we refer to Minnesota septic rule 7080 going forward that would have to be
installed. Correct. >> Well, I know we don't require a full meter on every septic system. I don't think that's what this is related to. >> Page 83 where I'm seeing the language for that. >> Yes. Where they're crossing out the 2011 version of the Minnesota Rules chapter
and just referring Minnesota rules 7080 and 7081. >> And that's in several places. >> Well, yeah. So Jesse and I, that was one of the things when I was going through it, we recognized that our I think these are two different things. The
>> So put a pin in that earlier thing we were talking about. The 2011 rules, I think, are a relic of those not being updated uh throughout the time of this ordinance being updated. And there have been state rules updated since 2011. So we didn't want to find ourselves in a
really awkward position where the rules have changed at the state between 2011 and now and someone wants to force us to follow old state rules when the new state rules are what we should be following. So that is more as we view housekeeping and clerical than
functionally speaking. I don't know anything in the 2011 rules that would be more beneficial for us to be following than current state septic rules. Um, your question about the flow meter though, I it's not fully clicking in my mind on that. >> I think it's this part that type one
systems over 250 gallons per day. >> Yeah. >> Are required to include flow measurement. >> Yeah, >> I believe type one systems are less than 2500 gallons per day. Um, >> so now >> Oh, yeah. It's cutting out the over
2500. Got So now let's say type one systems, type three, four and MSTS with pumps installed or required. >> And that section is about our alternative local standards. So these are places that we have a little variation from the state rules. Um so
those are kind of like our our sweetheart deals so to say in some ways um that work a little bit better for our community. Um, but I think maybe I just didn't go through this well enough with Jesse to really clarify why that change was needed for the flow meter and it's
evading me. Frankly, we haven't talked about these changes for about 3 weeks now and there's been a lot that's happened. So, I apologize. So in answering his question, up to when you adopt these new
verbiage, they would be grandfathered in >> for the for >> versus requiring them to have a flow meter installed. >> Well, look at this. Is that what you're asking? >> Any any septic system that currently exists only has to comply with the rules
at the time that it was installed. >> Right. Bottom line, bottom line. >> Yeah. If you were going to upgrade or increase it, then you would have to meet those requirements >> likely. >> Yep. Anything new would have to have it, >> which is not a bad idea at all because everybody uses more water than they say
they do. >> Yeah. And I'm frankly I'm not a licensed designer anymore. It's been 10 years since I've taken these classes and followed these rules. So I just don't have an answer for you on the flow meter and I don't want to guess. Um, I do trust that Jesse put forward proposals
that I feel really confident about, but I understand that that's not a satisfactory answer. Um, he's out until Tuesday, so he can uh presumably bring more clarification to the county board if you do recommend approval and the county board could uh we could have a better conversation about the full meter
uh thing if if you want more clarification at that point in time if you're uncomfortable with that. Um, I'm good. >> I'd entertain a motion unless anyone has
other things. I'll move we approve the additions and changes to the septic ordinance as presented. >> Second. Anyone? >> I'll second that motion. >> Uh, with a motion and a second. All those in favor? I
>> I. All those opposed? Seeing none, uh, is recommended to the county board. And that concludes our business. So, I'd entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> I make a motion to adjourn. >> There a second. Go. >> I'll second. >> The seconds. All those in favor?
>> I. >> All those opposed. >> Meeting is is adjourned. >> Thank you. Have fun. >> Thanks, Steve. Nice to see you.