would stop right we go ahead and call the Planning Commission for Thursday March 13th to order and we'll start with a uh do we need to adopt the agenda for
this one I don't sure I'm assuming we should adopt the agenda second will you you you're motioning for it oh I thought somebody down there motioned okay whoever we got a motion a motion
for the agenda approval of the agenda who second okay there we go I'll second John there all right all in favor to adopt the agenda I now we'll go right to our vacation rental ordinance proposed amendments Nea
thank you Mr chair uh as we've discussed before from time to time our office will go through our ordinances and ensure that everything is in good working order so our a rental ordinance when we did a review of it we identified a couple of items that mostly are housekeeping edits
we out uh sent this out for public notice in the newspaper and sent it out to the different municipalities and the city we received no written correspondence or any interest from the public during that written comment period the changes that are proposed to this include and Diana if you want to
put on the screen we can go through the just a couple of slides on that so the first part is for the application process we Chang changed the location where the permitting is so we made that more accurate to the E permitting site and then in Article 5 what we're
proposing to do is add in a table that outlines the number of vacation rental licenses that are eligible per parcel uh in certain Zone districts when I was going through the list in the current vacation rental ordinance there was one error of a Zone District that wasn't aligned with what's outlined in the
zoning ordinance so I made that correction and then also we've had some confusion a little bit about the Resort commercial residential Zone District previous staff had interpreted that there wasn't a maximum to the vacation rental licenses for that um however that
really gets a little confusing when we look at other provisions and we don't really need to go down that rabbit hole but we decided to do is just clarify that three vacation rental licenses are eligible in the resort commercial residential Zone district and if people want to go beyond that then we have the resort that's a permitted use that
people can just do that instead so uh three is what we have when we looked through our current vacation rental licenses in RCR zoning uh that's the most that any RCR parcel has this isn't going to change something more restrictive to what someone already has
so you get a bonus one essentially in Resort commercial residential which would be aligned with the purpose and intent of that zoning district and then the other changes again are mostly housekeeping as you'll recall we recently had the provisions updated in
the zoning ordinance that recognize tiny home um and uh modular homes um to be allowed as a vacation rental uh if it's modified per that section of the zoning ordinance so that was adopted by the County Board
uh last month and so this would clarify that although no vacation rental operations are allowed in recreational vehicles they are allowed in tiny homes and park models provided they're meeing those changes to resemble cabins um and then yeah adding that
table a so uh we outlined that the appeal does require a required fee in the appeal section and then just changing up the adoption requirement language so again mostly housekeeping type items and uh today is our public
hearing opportunity for that so we would open to the public the same as we so does anyone from the public wish to speak on these proposed amendments hearing no no public will discuss it as
a board thank you have one quick question um back to the residential with the three permits so for example if we look at somebody like Clift wellers who has a building with numerous um room rentals in
there that's that one building would be just one permit there's been a distinction in the operations I think this is different if you're thinking about um a property like the one that has the three units is three separate
cabins on a parcel it's not like a big Resort so Resorts themselves like Cliff dweller uh they're kind of an exception to this whole thing so the key is residential parcel and so we've got you got Resort Parcels that are like Resort operations and they don't they're not
subject to that three cap but the gray area was these RCR zoned lots that aren't actually a resort but there are people that have like three old cabins on them and so they get the three licenses okay thanks for that clarification go ahead Tim if I could
just expound a little bit upon this too this is kind of a stepping stone um say we have carabu Highlands which has uh a lot of actually owner uh units that are used as um uh vacation rentals um and we
have a distinction in there for uh Resorts that uh the the resorts if they are if the they're managed by the desk if everything is taken care of by the front desk and everything like that they're part of the resort but if they're managed in and of themselves
they have to be licensed by themselves so the owner of the unit itself even if it's in Caribou Highlands would have to be the uh LIC Z of that um whereas we are going to be taking a further look into the distinction between what we
would call then the resort-based vacation rentals as opposed to the uh just regular vacation rentals uh and that that's it's it's going to be further looked at uh down the road but at this point in time it is is just
making this distinction of the three okay I have one question Here Charlie um have we gotten a good distinction uh from the state uh as far as like you're talking about there
between a true operating Resort especially with drinking water I mean that's one of the things I was pushing for in this vacation rental ordinance to start with and we worked on and there still seems to be a a giant divide between the two uh the resorts have got
to go to a much higher standard than what we're requiring in the vacation rental Resort now we're going to a three unit where does the state begin picking up and saying wait a minute that's too many do you have any idea where that is have you spoken with the state Nate well
the state the State Minnesota Department of Health has been working with our department and they worked predominantly with Joseph Ruth when he was uh the administrator at that time and they're working with Andrew and now um whereas um that's where we're going to be working a little further with that
distinction between the resort-based vacation rentals as as opposed to just being a resort or vacation rentals and that has a lot to do with that the the the water supply um if they have non- plottable water if it has to be carried
in those kinds of elements on there we want to really be able to clarify those and get those in kind of one more of a wholesale change as opposed to just this being a kind of a minor uh more easily adaptable change okay so that still is
in the work yeah those are expensive water systems to put in yeah yeah anyone else from the board to have any concerns about these changes no I would make a motion to approve them as is do we have a second second we got a
motion in a second um any other discussion call for a vote all in favor say I I opposed same sign hearing none um all
right we'll move to our second item on the agenda um 20 251 cup norer waste um before we get started with that we had some discussion whether I had a
conflict of interest at all um looking at this to my only conflict of interest potential I I believe was with the hoveland portion of the project which I don't think we're discussing it all tonight so uh but but I wanted to bring it up and make sure everyone in the room's comfortable with with me
continuing to chair yeah are fine fine is that all right so we will move into that item Nea all right thank you Mr chair this is the conditional use permit for nshore Waste
[Music] LLC the request is for a conditional use permit for a transfer station to manage transfer and process Solid Waste generated and cooked County in the light industrial Zone District located at 44 chipa Cemetery Trail the applicant's
property includes 10.87 Acres the property is entirely within the light industrial Zone district and the property is within the NorthShore management Zone the proposed facility is a part of a lease agreement between Northshore waste and Cook County this facility will manage transfer and
process all of the solid waste generated in Cook County this Central facility will serve as the transfer station for municipal Solid Waste Demolition and recycling service Services some activities will occur Out outdoors including household waste dumpsters and Recycling services the proposed facility
will operate Monday through Saturday between 6:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. with limited hours and services in the fall and winter seasons approximately 22,500 ft transfer station building is designed purposefully for the operation of solid waste Serv Services these types
of facilities must meet certain design standards outlined in Minnesota state rules for zoning considerations the light industrial Zone district is described in the Cook County zoning ordinance to provide designated lands for light industrial activities good
road access available utilities and consideration of uses in adjacent districts are necessary for this District I included a list of the permitted uses and the conditional uses outlined in this Zone District on the screen is a outline of the zoning map
for that area so all of the gray area is light industrial so you'll see that all of the abing land in here is light industrially zoned and all of the green is single family residential zoning and then just a little bit to the West is where the uh City Line of the City of
Grand marray is located for background um let me get there here we go uh the development of this facility will include the lease agreements between the county and Northshore waste the land immediately north of the
subject property is federal public lands and undeveloped the other surrounding land uses are aligned uh with the purposes of the light industrial zoning of the area for site conditions and considerations the septic shows a
location for the septic systems uh however the environmental health specialist hasn't received any design information yet uh for the component of the septic so he didn't have any further comments for impervious surface coverage the site will have a storm water pollution prevention plan associated with the project and meet State storm
water requirements and is a part of the conditions proposed for approval for Wetlands there are some Wetlands on the property the Cook County Wetland specialist Mitch Travis provided a technical memo he explained that as follows it is important to note that the proposed location for the new transfer station on the east side of grand maray
is situated within the NorthShore management Zone this would mean that the site is considered to be Shoreland for the purposes of zoning in Cook County in applying the Wetland Conservation act this would also mean that the the maximum to Minimus exemption for any impacts to Wetlands which are not incidental or man-made is 400 square F
feet if the total sum of wetland impacts is proposed to be greater than 400 squ ft for the project then a wetland replacement plan must be submitted and approved by the county for w transaction of wetland credits to be finalized before any impacts to Wetlands occur in this process the avoidance and
minimization along with an exploration of project alternatives for these impacts must be demonstrated through the process of sequencing Spilled Out In the state wetland conserv ACT first slope the site plan appears to design the facility with a site topography taken into consideration with storm water
runoff and building design for noise this facility will operate uh indoors and Outdoors and will res result in noise during operating hours lighting isn't clearly explained in the application this could be a discussion point for the Planning Commission to better understand whether security
lighting will be used at night and if lighting will be visible from neighboring properties and access is readily available from Elias and Mill Road uh for public comments we sent out a Jason owner's notices and published this in the Cook County News Herald on
February 21st 12 letters of notification were sent to adjacent Property Owners as well as County departments and the DNR hydrologist I did not receive any written correspondance during the written comment period uh kind of two side notes is a US Forest Service just reached out and recognized that they
share a property line with the subject property and ask that the property owners if they don't know where the property line is to have that survey there's no encroachment issues on the federal lands and also the town of tofy just reached out today so although it's not technically a part of the formal uh comments said they said they were supportive of the variance and
conditional use permit for this request so I assume that was just following their meeting the other night for staff consideration for facts and findings uh conditional uses are reviewed based off of the standards outlined in the Cook County zoning ordinance and so I have draft findings for your consideration that could be
amended after your discussion a conditional use for may be granted upon the finding of all of the following number one the use conforms to the land use or comprehensive plan of the county the proposed finding is that the proposed transfer station is aligned with providing better Solid Waste Management Services to Cook County and
the 2023 Northeast Minnesota Regional Solid Waste Management plan number two is that the use is compatible with the existing neighborhood the finding is the use is adjacent to other commercial and Industrial Services and immediately adjacent to the existing Northshore waste facility that Services household
Solid Waste number 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 proposed finding is that the use is aligned with the light industrial Zone district and existing uses in the area and number four the location and character of the
proposed use is considered to be consistent with a desirable pattern of development for the area proposed finding is that the proposed use is desirable in this area and is a large part is a part of the larger Hub and spoke model that Northshore waste plans to utilize more efficient Solid Waste Services throughout Cook County for
staff recommendations for consideration the proposed use appears to be non problematic with surrounding land use patterns and Zoning the Planning Commission should consider the potential findings listed above and modify or amend and adopt as a determine appropriate after the public hearing for recommendation for the County Board of
Commissioners two proposed conditions that could be considered number one the property shall be in compliance with Minnesota rule 780 in the Cook County Septic ordinance and number two all local state and federal regulations must be adhered to thank you Nea um would the owner
representative wish to add anything to the narrative if so please I think Nea did a fantastic job I do need to have I don't have a lot to I'm happy to answer questions but state your name and address for sure uh Dustin 5774 East
Highway 61 in holand well that yeah if you wanted to add anything else otherwise we're going to open it to the public is anyone from the public wish to speak on on this application looking at you
Rowan no I'm just here in Cas there questions able to answer I don't have anything to add that we're going to close to the public and discuss it as a board start start on this and Jeff what
do you um as far as the conditional use part of it now I don't really have much to add I mean it solves a lot of problems in in my mind I don't have anything
no Sheila no good it's very straightforward to me we have to have this service we're not going to have a landfill in Cook County probably ever and this provides a very necessary service and I did stop and talk to a
neighbor today and he's all for it Brad you got um I think that the uh staff narrative in terms of both the um U their view on the how it conforms and land use comprehensive plan compatible
with the neighborhood and so forth they well founded staff recommendations for consideration are also I think right on Target and uh I'm very helpful to this discussion I know that they've put a lot of effort into into their design and
plan and where this is going how it's set up and I think I think uhu really appears to make it pretty straightforward for us so with that I would look for a vote I'll make or a motion I mean sorry I'll motion to approve a motion to
approve do we have a second with conditions well yes with condition staff findings and conditions for recommendations right we've got a motion in a second uh any other discussion call for a vote all in favor say I I I
opposed hearing none recommend that to the county park and with that we'll look for a motion to adjourn the Planning Commission motion to adjourn Planning Commission second all in favor I
I all right motion take just a moment here for Diana to be able to change the feeds over [Applause]