[Music] We will go ahead and call the planning commission for September 10th to order and uh start with our approving our minutes from last month and our agenda for tonight. >> A motion to approve the minutes.
>> Second it. >> Minutes and agenda. Uh all in favor? >> I post none. Uh we'll get right to new business. Uh, Superior Heights LLC
um 2025 5CUP Eva. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a request for a conditional use permit for a third dwelling at 6558 West Highway 61 zone single family residential. The
applicant's property includes 1.1 deed acres. Uh we've got 202 ft of lace period shoreline. the parcels entirely within the single family residential zone district. The Cook County zoning ordinance does not specifically address third dwellings. So a request such as
this is considered under the catchall provision section 10.03D of the Cook County Zoning Ordinance and this property is within the Northshore Management Zone of Lake Superior. For a general pro property description, uh the conditional use permit is requesting to have a third dwelling unit on the
property at 6558 Highway 61. The dwelling is proposed to be a 240 square f foot one-bedroom unit approximately 15 ft tall to be used as for the caretaker or property owner. Mr. Shower is requesting this to be a fully functional dwelling, meaning it has sanitary and
kitchen facilities, which differentiates it from a residential bunk house, which is a permitted use. For zoning considerations, this property is located in the Shorland area of Lake Superior in the single family residential R1 zone district. The principal purpose of the R1 zone district is to provide for
residential uses at a higher density generally adjacent to or near developed areas, major roadways or other sources of services. Multiple residential dwellings, uh, mobile home parks and limited commercial uses are also allowed on a conditional use basis in the zone
district. Uh the condition allowing the principal dwelling in one guest cabin allowance is outlined in the packet which also stipulates that one residential bunk house may also be permitted on a residential lot. So this request is essentially to allow
a second guest cabin to be added instead of the permitted residential bunk house. As a reminder, a conditional use is an activity that's defined as that which would not be appropriate if allowed outright in any number, but which if controlled as to the number, location,
and activity, could be consistent with the comprehensive plan, and not be injurous to the public health, safety, or general welfare. The review of each proposed use must determine that it will or will not be compatible with the standard of the article and is found to be must attach conditions to ensure this continued compatibility. So, as such, I
did include the R1 zone district requirements in your packet, and I also included the provisions for how we review conditional use permits on page seven of the packet. For background, Mr. Shower has entered into an agreement with the current property owner, Ernest Lamp, with a recorded
trustees deed dated June 25th, 2025. A land use permit was issued August 11th for a primary dwelling, guest cabin, and a bunk house with the layout design similar to the conditional use permit application. Staff notes from the land use permit state that the permit is approved for three structures. Cabin A
and B may be pressurized water to them, but the bunk house cannot unless the CU is approved. No portion of the building may be closer to 40 ft to the top of the bluff/veation line. A drilled well and septic system is proposed to support the development. Access to cabins A and B are proposed to be from Skywalk with
parking near the shared driveway. [Music] I kind of broke out the table of the permitted structures on page eight of your packet. Cabin A is proposed to be 18 by 31 length width with a height of 34 ft and 162 square ft of decks. Cabin
B or what we would call the second dwelling or guest house. A lot of different terms for that. That would be about a 20 by 35 foot 34 foot tall structure with 310 square ft of decks. And then this third structure for the conditional use permit is currently uh
permitted as a bunk house but proposed to be changed to have pressurized plumbing. That structure is 10x 24 with a 15t height and no dexer porch. You'll see that the zone map there is a mix of single family residential with
RCR zoning. The bunk house is partially constructed constructed as permitted uh going up on the property there. For any of you that might have done a site visit, that's what it's looking like right now. And for site conditions and
considerations, a new permit for the septic system was approved to support the development permitted with a land use permit. Impervious surface coverage. The application includes details indicating that the property will meet impervious surface coverage requirements. Wetlands are not an issue driving the need for the variance or for
the conditional use permit, sorry. Uh for slope, there is a bluff on the lot. The proposed development indicates bluff setback requirements will be met. For noise, changing the use of the bunk house to a more fully functional dwelling should have minimal impact on noise. For lighting, changing the use of the bunk house to a more fully
functional dwelling should have minimal impact on lighting. Safe access exists from Highway 61 from a shared driveway. And parking is indicated in two areas to support the proposed development. for public noticing. The application was legally noticed in the Cook County News Herald on August 29th. 16 letters of
notification were sent to adjacent property owners as well as county departments, the Northshore Management Board, and the DNR hydraologist. There were no written comments received during the written comment period for staff consideration of facts and findings. Number one, the use conforms
to the land use or comprehensive plan of the county. The use is residential in nature which is supported in the county's regulations and development guidelines for the single family residential zone district. Number two, the use is compatible with the existing neighborhood. The existing neighborhood is a mix of single family residential zoning, resort commercial residential
zoning supporting primary and second homes, vacation rental activity. Due to the small size of the proposed third dwelling, and modest size of the primary and second dwelling, the proposed use is compatible with the area. Number three, the use will not impede the normal and normal and orderly development and
improvement in the surrounding area and uses permitted by right in the zone district. The use is aligned only proposed to be for a two-year period. NP uh nope, that's not the right finding. Sorry, that's from a previous one. This is not for a two-year period. It's conditional use permit. Um so we'll
probably need to correct that proposed staff finding. Um, so determining whether or not this use will not impede the normal and orderly development. And number four, the location and character of the proposed use is considered to be consistent with the normal desired pattern of development for the area. A
notable characteristic of this proposal is the modest size of the third dwelling being less than 250 ft and 15 ft in height. For staff recommendations for considerations, due to the small size of the proposed third dwelling, the proposed use appears nonproatic with the surrounding land use patterns and
zoning. The planning commission should consider the potential findings listed above and please modify and amend uh as you determine appropriate after the public hearing for recommendation of the Cook County Board of Commissioners. Proposed conditions to be considered. Number one, all local, state, and
federal regulations must be adhered to. Property shall be in compliance with Minnesota rule 7080 and the Cook County septic ordinance. Number B, lot coverage by impervious surfaces shall not exceed 30% unless a surface water runoff plan by a registered professional engineer is submitted and approved by the zoning administrator. And number two, the third
dwelling shall be limited to the size of the land use issued uh land use permit issued for structure number three, which shall not exceed 250 ft and 15 ft in height. >> Thank you, Neva. >> As the applicant here, would you like to
add anything? If so, come forward to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. >> Hi, Alex Shawer representing Superior Heights. Uh, address 6558 Highway 61, Tufty. Um, not really much I want to
add. Like Neva touched on, um, I'm building two vacation rentals is what those other two cabin A and cabin B dwellings are. Um, I would like this third dwelling to be able to use for a caretaker and also use for myself through the building process. So, that's
pretty much it. Thank you. Anyone from the public wish to speak on this application? Hearing none, we'll close it to the public and discuss it as a board. So it's it is zoned
residential um and then resort >> single family residential >> single family residential and then having two rental properties on it doesn't cause us any conflict. >> Correct. Currently every residential parcel is allowed up to two vacation rental licenses in Cook County.
>> Okay. That's all I have question. >> Yeah. >> Anything? >> She'll go at you. >> No, I'm good. I don't have anything. >> Yeah. None. nonp problematic. I think how modest that third structure is makes it pretty easy to
go through. >> And I'd agree with Paul. Plus, the ordinance already anticipated up to five dwellings as a conditional use. So, we're adding essentially one. So, yeah. >> And I I uh
concur. I see this as a pretty modest use of the property overall. on. So, um, are we all comfortable with the staff considerations and understanding number three is incorrect. It's not two two-year period. It is a conditional
use, so it runs with the property. >> Mhm. >> Correct. >> Given that, I'd entertain a motion. >> Mr. Chair, I'll move to approve with the conditions. >> Second. >> Any more discussion? All in favor?
Second five. >> I opposed. Hearing none. We'll recommend that to the county board. [Applause] >> And we I would look for a motion to adjurnn the planning commission.
>> Move to adjurnn. >> May I speak? >> Yes. Briefly. Uh state your name and address for the record. Paul Renison, R E N I Sen, 9380 West Highway 61, Schroeder. We received a
notice that this was the hearing date, public hearing date for the tower, the cell phone tower >> amended hearing date. Is did I miss something? We never received another notice. >> Sure. Yeah. >> Or there's nothing on the agenda said it was rescheduled. So, can I get
clarification, please? >> Nea, will you speak to that? >> Yep, I can speak to that. I'm sorry, Mr. Renas. I had reached out to everyone that I had correspondents that had reached out about the tower. The tower has been postponed because they're doing a wetland delineation right now and they
may have to totally withdraw and redesign that location and resubmit a new application based off of that wetland delineation. That information came out maybe like early last week. And so I tried to send out some notices um like directly to the people who I had that contact information. I think your
letter came as like a hard copy, so I didn't have any contact information to reach out to you on. Um, we will be sending out very clear notices when we know exactly what hearing date this is going to be on. Um, this has been a a little bit of a moving target, trying to
get all these facts lined up for folks. >> Well, the pleasure of the board. Thank you for letting us get some clarification on that. >> Thanks. >> Thank you, sir. >> Yeah. Sorry for the inconvenience. that we would look for a motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn.
>> Second it. All in favor? >> I >> Diana, you just say when you're ready. [Applause]