##VIDEO ID:hPUasq06c5Q## for the Planning Commission to order and we'll move to approve the agenda and the minutes for the the minutes for the June 12th say June 12th we haven't had a meeting for three month months okay okay all right we will approve the minutes for the June 12th meeting okay is there Corrections addition changes motion to approve both as written there second it any further discussion all in favor I I I oppose same sign motion carries okay we'll go on to the new business with the green bll LLC preliminary plat packet Neva thank you madam chair so we're going to try something different for my presentation we've got a PowerPoint presentation that will give a a visual uh addition to my normal reading through of the packets so I figured since we would have a full house here today I just first wanted to give an introduction to all of our guests that have joined us in the room welcome to the Planning Commission and following Board of adjustment meeting um participation in this meeting might be new for some of you so I just wanted to lay out kind of the guidelines uh when it is an opportunity for the public to speak we ask that all comments be directed to the chair and to the Planning Commission or the board of adjustments no personal directions to people in the audience um we do ask for people to focus on their points that they want to make and if you have similar points to what somebody else has said you can just say I agree with so and so and then anything different that you might want to add um we ask that you state your name and address for the record so that when we write our own notes of the meeting record we've got that nice and clear uh and also the chair May set time limits for the comments depending on how many people want to speak just so that we can move through our business in an orderly fashion today so thank you all for taking your time to join us today so on to our first Planning Commission item yes I can thank you uh the temperance Trails preliminary plat for the Cook County Planning Commission this is a request for the consideration of a preliminary plot to subdivide one parcel into 10 residential lots or units as phase one of the planned unit development known as Temperance Trails which is a common interest Community preliminary plat the property owner is the Cook County Housing Redevelopment Authority and the applicant and agent is Peter grubish of greenbull LLC the property includes 29.3 7 Acres the parcel Zone single family residential and General commercial the zoning requirements in this Zone District allow for residential planned unit developments as a listed conditional use in the single family residential Zone district and sh classification is that this property is within the NorthShore management Zone but does not have any water Frontage the general project description this preliminary plat application is for residential plan unit development for 10 units as phase one development of temperance Trails per the application Phase One units will consist of three entry level 1,000 ft two bedroom one bath homes the remaining seven houses will consist of three bedroom two bath houses between 1300 to 2,000 square ft the preliminary plat application shows space set aside for two storm water ponds one on the west end and one on the East End however this isn't shown on the plat map and the space set aside re septic treatment wetlands are located on site and the project has adjusted to minimize Wetland impacts phase one shows a hammerhead turnaround for vehicles at the end of the road zoning considerations and background this property is located behind Birch Grove Community School and is generally used for outdoor education space the preliminary plat has has set aside the recreational space as a common element for the school to continue to use between units 103 and 104 North of this project site is F1 Zone land east and west of the project site is single family residential and immediately south of the project site is General commercial zoned Land Land South of Highway 61 is zoned Resort commercial residential R1 I've included the zoning map for that area the Cook County Board of Commissioners approved the conditional use permit for a 22 unit residential planned unit development Temperance Trail subdivision at 21 Good Neighbor Hill Road in December of 2023 with the following conditions that the drinking water supply meet state code the full septic system design with a shared septic system maintenance and management agreement is required uh the preliminary plat to identify all areas for storm water management a large storm water permit be required prior to the beginning of grade fill activities and all required state and federal permits be secured along with storm water and possible Community public water supply rules as well as the road in cesac to remain a double lane travel Corridor for site conditions and considerations as I mentioned there's Wetlands on the property Mitch Travis the Cook County Wetland specialist has provided a technical review of the proposed wetland impacts with the enclosed memo the plat map shows inaccurate Wetland boundaries from the wetlands lineation the Wetland their application has shifted the road south to minimize Wetland impacts to comply with the state Wetland Conservation act the road will still require mitigation of wetland impacts for the approximate 1850 Square ft uh of impacts through an approved Wetland replacement plan and the purchase of wetland credits additionally it is noted that the phase 2 culdesac is problematic for wetland regulations and will likely to be relocated to the Upland area for septic Mitchell ersson the Cook County environmental health specialist has not received any septic information regarding this proposal without design and soils information it is not possible to know if this is an adequate site to provide septic treatment the septic treatment area plann to be set aside is immediately adjacent to the storm water Pond and hammerhead turnaround compatibility with a close proximity of these item should be reviewed and considered by specialist the road the platted Road is sh as a 66 ft wide Road and the plat shows or roadway I guess uh the plat shows a 30ft setback from the road right of way the storm water design plans indicate a sidewalk however it is unclear if a sidewalk is proposed or not for storm water the preliminary plat shows a storm water pond on the west side but the East storm water Pond is not shown on the map the size of the rain event of the storm water Pond is designed for is unclear the Cook County Highway engineer has indicated that these ponds should be designed for a 10-year 24 rain event which would be approximately 3.55 in of precipitation open space there appears to be a significant error on the plaed acreages shown on the plat map as table one shows on the next page of the staff narrative and oh not on that one see this is a new process there we go um the sum of the shown acreages on the plat map exceed the parcel area by over 20 acres any analysis of the compliance with the the planned unit development and the 50% open space requirements shall be held until this plat is revised to provide accurate information staff encouraged the applicant to refer to sections five and seven of the Cook County subdivision ordinance to revise their application and provide accurate information that complies with the ordinance requirements based on the plat provided open space is set aside on the North side uh 7.16 acres and the South Side 9.63 Acres of the property totaling 16. 79 Acres if accurate this would meet the 50% open space requirements of the 29.3 7 acre parcel the HOA document should be updated to accurately address all items in section 7.3 7.4 and 7.6 of the Cook County subdivision ordinance the plat has errors that need to be addressed at minimum the acreages uh inaccuracy the plat notations are difficult to tell on units 100 through 106 where the rear yard line is since common elements are indicated in the Wetland but property lines appear to continue through the common area supporting information should be provided to demonstrate the space provided on the preliminary plat for the septic and storm water Pond will be sufficient to serve the proposed development and Wetland boundaries are inaccurately depicted I included a summary of the acreages provided on the plot map to show that total um that needs to be addressed for public noticing the application was legally noticed in the C County News Herald on August 23rd 2024 57 letters of notification were sent to adjacent Property Owners as well as County departments the town of tofy the NorthShore management board and the DNR hydrologist one written comment was received in Land Services during the written comment period from the US Forest Service stating that the parcel that is planned to be developed a buts Federal property make sure to stay within private property boundaries as not to encroach or trespass on federal lands five tech technical memos were submitted Robbie hos the C Highway engineer stated my only comment is in regards to the storm water ponds just make sure that those are actually designed to be a particular storm event the bigger the better but I understand there can be a slight limitation as well Mitchell erson the Cook County environmental health specialist summ summarized uh his comments under septic considerations cook or Mitch Travis the Cook County Wetland specialist summarized his comments under Wetland considerations Dustin Elms the Cook County Recorder provided a technical memo with examples of how a preliminary plat should be revised and Wayne heni the Cook County Surveyor provided a technical comment stating the basis of bearing is approximate since the plat basis is the Cook County coordinate system self Zone this is not allowed in this area we require a full section subdivision drawing rather than a vicinity map to allow us to review whether the plot boundaries meet subdivision standards the County engineer needs to review the storm Pond and stormwater runoff for the project staff recommendation for consideration affordable housing is a vital need in Cook County and this project can be help be a part of the increase in the housing Supply staff are committed to advancing it in a manner that complies with the subdivision ordinance requirements ensures Clarity and avoids future complications due to this Project's relationship with the Cook County HRA this preliminary plat submitt was on a deadline to be reviewed by the Cook County Planning Commission at the September meeting staff have been working with the applicant for several months to produce a complete application as shown on this narrative there are issues that still need to be revised or addressed before the preliminary plat can be approved staff recommends that the Planning Commission holds a public hearing as publicly noticed on September 11th then facilitate any discussion they wish after which point this application should be tabled pending the following information number one the plat is revised to address all deficiencies and errors noted in this narrative including but not limited to an accurate Wetland delineation layer on the plat map and accurate lot sizes totaling the parcel size the plat is revised to act address the Cook County surveyor's comments to use the appropriate plat basis the County Surveyor has yet to do a complete review of this preliminary plot due to the underlying reference data issu stated above after that issue is corrected the County Surveyor will be able to do a thorough review with further technical comments number three the plat is revised to address the county record's comments regarding formatting and required information on a plat the applicant should consult with the county record's office to ascertain which cic number this is assigned number four storm water design should be updated to meet the mpc's requirements of a 10year 24-hour rain event number five a licensed septic designer coordinates with Cook County Environmental Health Specialists to complete the soils verification and septic design for the proposed developments this information should demonstrate that the platted area proposed for septic treatment will be adequate for the proposed development number six lock Corners roads soil test areas should be flagged for identification on site staff are willing to wave this requirement if the Planning Commission deems it reasonable number seven draft HOA document should be updated to satisfy the requirements outlined in section 7 of The Cook County subdivision ordinance thank you is there someone from the public that wishes to speak regarding this plat hearing none we'll close it the public comment and open it to the Planning Commission comments well I think that Nea has done a thorough job as usual and um I would just say that it needs to be complete consistent and without eror errors as she has indicated in her recommendations okay I guess the um the septic design is the one that is a pretty significant point to me mhm in so far as to ensure that they can come up with an adequate septic design that'll work for you know housing unit I it's basically a small City solution right I think this size of a project warrants an a firm engineering firm to probably do the design not sure excuse me Madam chair yes we missed the part to provide an opportunity for the applicant to provide additional comments um after I guess I included that with the public sorry yeah is there someone who wishes to represent the applicant not the applicant but the property own okay is that okay sure absolutely I looked right at you you I guess I'm public technically part of the public um thank you uh chair and Commissioners I just thought it'd be helpful to provide a little bit of context um one uh name oh I'm sorry the record for the record Jason hail executive director of The Cook County H 425 West Highway 61 sweet b um so the part of the reason that we uh looking at this today is we knew there were these issues that again uh that Neva has uh thoroughly highlighted and and really really appreciate her work on this seriously um we knew that we had some of these things to wrap up and contend with but we were also trying to adhere to the agreements of the HRA so part of the reason it's before you is to ensure one that this project continued to move forward which is a requirement of our agreement with the with the um prospective Builder uh and also Comm communicating with NE and her office that there were these leftover items that we needed to solidify but again I just want to reiterate we know we need to that the the builder needs to finish these items and and address the things that she laid out I don't think there's any issue and Mr grubish is here he can speak to that but I think he's totally understanding that those things need to be checked we were trying to adhere to a certain process to check the box so that we are compliance with the agreement we have so we expected this would come before you you would say well yeah there's a few more items that have to be taken care of it'll be tabled giving them a little more time to work with um the county office to take care of those things and then come back before you for approval so I just want to give you that like why is this in front of you if it's not ready to go it's more on our end for process to make sure we're in compliance with the agreement we have so that we can continue to make progress on the project and I'm happy to answer any questions you have about that thank you you're welcome okay any one else from the public wish to speak okay now we'll go back to the Planning Commission and I think the recommendation the and the explanation is pretty complete Madam chair I guess I my question would be to Nea is I have a whole bunch of questions and maybe it's better to convey him to staff to work with the um developer rather than take up all of our time today depends on the specificity um I got a lot of storm water questions okay those type of questions we could probably talk more online it's going to be after 30 years of reviewing plans like this I had a lot of questions there's a lot of discrepancies but a couple of things maybe I'll throw out Madam chair if I can is um one thing I was really concerned about is lot 108 109 which originally on the preliminary or the cup was one lot and those lots are greater than 50% Wetland and my concern would be how how how is the developer going to work with the private land owner to protect those Wetlands from impacts and is that something that should be in the HOA some kind of monumen thing which has been used in other places to provide a boundary protection um and the same thing probably goes with the backyards on the rest of them on the South Side CU there's a lot of wetland that's on private property and not in the common area um the other thing I noticed in the HOA there's no mention about storm sewer system maintenance which can potentially be a big big cost you know these are storm water ponds it appears the developer wants to make them wet ponds I can go into the whole discussion about how that doesn't really seem feasible with what they've got um and their drainage divides seem not to be working right some of those types of things um so those are things I could get to get to staff that you could carry forward the other quick question I had that there's a well denoted on one of these plan sheets M yes there is currently a private well a private well the road getting shifted South to minimize the Wetland impacts is now placing the road where that existing well is so that'll be abandoned yep okay because otherwise there's an issue there with m setbacks to storm water facilities and appears that it's pretty close Okay Okay that takes care of that otherwise I'll mam chair I'll get the rest of my comments to staff because they are more technical than maybe what sounds like we got a really good resource to help get this done Jason note okay good okay you're on board anyone else wish to speak I just you had mentioned septic and engineering and I would state that uh min statute 7080 um clearly states um what requirements would be there and the certified designer Advanced designer will know if they need to kick it up to an engineer or not so that that's not anything we need to address I don't believe okay anyone else have comments my understanding is the preliminary plat is pretty much the final product before they start it doesn't get much alteration after the pr preliminary plot is approved is that correct essentially the preliminary plat is where you're really taking the requirements that the conditional use permit is allowing so up to 22 residential lots and the preliminary plat is putting those puzzle pieces together and showing that you've got the support mechanisms in place to support that development meeting all those site conditions so this really is where the work should happen the cup process was more higher level this is where the nitty-gritty happens and then your fin plat is kind of a cleaner plat face than what the preliminary plat will show there can still be some modifications between those two processes though okay I think we need a motion to table this I'll make a motion to table is there a second I'll second any further discussion I do do we need a time frame put on this tabling I think ideally it would be nice to notice when you're going to read convened to hear it but it might be difficult knowing when the applicant's going to be prepared with that additional information but like 3 years down the road won't work [Music] no 7 months Jason that the our agreement is that we have to have this buttoned up for the developer and closing the property by well I should rephrase our agreement for next week that's being put before the H board uh is requesting the extension after this meeting to the end of the year to have this fun up so that the developer can work with staff work with their engineering team Etc to bring to the Amendments as needed for a final plat approval by the end of the year final preliminary plat or final plat ideally the final plat approval but that's pretty quick well sure uh hopefully obviously we can address those issues in the next couple of months I will say the TR agreement perspective we can close after culinary approval so that we just it would be nice for everybody if we could you know have the thing buttoned up and approved before they continue okay would you care to add that end of the year is that unrealistic chair for the time of the board to meet before then well we've got o October November and December three months of meetings so to be heard on one month's agenda I need a complete application by the first of the month the month prior so to be heard on the December agenda it would need to be submitted by November 1st and I can't that would just be on the Planning Commission agenda I don't know how the County Board uh action item agendas might be lining up in that December sometimes that last action item meeting of the Year kind of gets a little wonky um so I just I can't foree exactly what that timeline could look like at this point so complete application by November 1st would be on the December agenda I just don't know if it would get on the County board agenda in December well times can be changed too so do we wish to add that to the amend to the motion what's that that it needs to be done by the end of the year okay we can if that's acceptable with you guys that's fine okay is there a second to the amendment to include the end of the year for a date a second the amendment okay any further discussion all in favor I table anybody opposed motion carries thank you thank you okay so that takes care of the Planning Commission chair I'll make a mo I like to make a motion to journ okay is there a second I'll second for the plan commission members before you leave you go all right and Mike this is for we're not starting all right so this is for I think that's next next month is a different time this is for the October meeting planning commit just wanted to get these out before okay we'll call the board of adjustment meeting to order and ask for an approval of the agenda and the minutes for the August 14th meeting I move to approve the agenda and the meeting minutes as drafted approval is there a second a second any discussion all in favor I I okay new business request for relief for Michael and Teresa chimli Neva thank you madam chair this is a variance request for from Michael and Teresa Kik for relief from the Cook County zoning ordinance to place a 34 94 accessory structure which would include a laundry garage shop and three employee housing units add a reduced Road setback 26 ft from Center Line where a minimum of 50 ft is required and within the bluff Impact Zone located at 1558 craw Road and a request for relief from the Cook County zoning ordinance to place 3 22x 32 rental cabins at a reduced Road setback 35 ft from Center Line where a minimum of 50 ft is required located at 1558 cville Road the property includes 4.93 Acres with approximately 511 feet of lakes spor Shoreline the parcel is contained entirely within the resort commercial residential Zone District the zoning lot size requirements are in this Zone district is newly created Lots within the RCR Zone must be 5 acres in size and 300 ft wide at the structure setback and the property is within the Shoreland area of Lake Superior for General project description site history and proposal the is owned and operated by Mr and Mrs Kik as a year- round Resort cville Road Cottages the resort hosts Three cabins and a main building which includes the primary residence for the owners an office and five rental units for guests in 2011 Mr kelik requested and received a variance for three phases of development for the Resort's master plan phase one was for an in office and residence which was completed in 2018 phase two was three Lakeside Cottages which were not acted upon and unbuilt and phase three was for the laundry garage and Shop which was also unbuilt during the 2011 public hearing process one verbal comment was submitted in support of the variance request the C County Board of adjustment granted variances quote from the road setback and maximum height allowance to renovate and enhance a resort adjacent to Lake Superior the variance request SL approval included the following findings in considering the request the board recognized the deterioration of the house the historic presence of the resort and Landscape constraints of the property the variance was granted as requested with the following conditions number one all permitting requirements of Cook County must be adhered to prior to the initiation of construction number two all setbacks from structural and septic system component shall be verified and incorporated into subsequent perping applications number three the septic system shall conform to State and County rules the construction must not deviate from plans submitted as part of the request number five vegetation shall be retained within the vegetation setback area number six The Gutter and catchment system shall be incorporated into new or existing construction or divert rain water and snow melt runoff away from the shoreline I included photos in the staff report on page 25 of 92 of the board of adjustment packet um letter or uh photo B um image B is a 2024 aerial imagery of the property with the new Inn and item C is aerial image from the 2011 variance file this 2024 variance proposal is to complete the master plan buildout of phases 2 and three with modifications to the phase three proposal as follows table one in the staff narrative has a comparison of the 2011 and 2024 Phase 2 proposals phase two uh includes the three Lakeside Cottages which R the same in 2011 and 2024 which would be 22 by 32 and 18 ft in height and the stepback request is 10 ft into the road setback total as I stated phase two remains unchanged from 2011 variance request the three cabins would encroach 10t into the road setback refer to the next page of the staff narrative for excerpts of the 2011 and 2024 variance applications during the staff uh site visit staff encouraged a modification to this variance request legal notice to for the board of adjustments consideration which which would instead request up to 15 ft encroachment into the road setback to provide more space from the shoreline of Lake Superior which has some erosion occurring aial photos show historic wood revs along the shoreline to help support Shoreline stabilization efforts proposed phase three in 2011 phase three was for a laundry garage and Shop it was 76 by 32 with a 29 ft height and the setback request was 22 ft into the road setback 2024 phase 3 the current request is for laundry garage shop a 28 x22 meeting room and three apartment units it's a 94x 34 building with a 34t height and it would encroach 24 fet into the road set back the applicant did a mark on the ground where that structure is proposed to be which I tried to annotate in the photo and the staff narrative phase three has been modified from the 2011 variants the proposed structure has been increase in length width and height from the 2011 request Additionally the proposed structure has increased the use to add a portion of the second level as a meeting space and to finish the attic space into apartments for employees on the third level the 34x 94 Dimensions without Eaves laundry garage shop meeting room and apartment building proposes to be placed 24 ft into the road setback this feature would also slightly encroach into the bluff Impact Zone uh the top topographic feature does qualify as a bluff due to the slope and height over Lake Superior I included uh some photos just on the screen so that everybody would have a chance to see them so this is the croftville road view of the proposed structure and this is the side view uh as coming from Grand marray and from Grand Portage sides of the road as you can see it's a walk out on the lower level this is the face of the building from the highway 61 side of the uh building where you can see the three apartment units would have walkouts on the back side of the building away from cville Road and the floor plans for the first floor which I don't have incredible eyesight so I cannot read that and summarize it for you here but it's here in case we all want to go back to it and look at it later so it is duly noted for conversations purposes that we've got that to look at all right so for the proposed master plan um I included citations of why this variance is required again uh crafa road is a county road so it has a setback requirement of 50 ft from Center Line and also the topographic feature is a bluff so I included the bluff uh language in the ordinance on that as well for site conditions and considerations for septic Phase 2 Cottages uh already have septic infrastructure in place and are designed for the buildout from the 2011 variants phase three proposes a new separate septic system to serve the waste water for impervious surface coverage this proposal is within the allowable impervious surface coverage amount given the significant amount of land area above the bluff however the phase three project will create over 3,300 ft of impervious surface area by the 98 by 34 building alone uh with the EES there in that Dimension there should be an evaluation as to how and where the water runoff will go so as to not create any unintended consequences with Bluff stability the road and water flow to Lake Superior wetlands are not consideration impacting this Wetland or Varian request for slope the bluff feature is present on the north side of Crawfield Road the phase three proposed project would be built into the toe of the Bluff at the proposed location within the bluff Impact Zone the variance application has not provided information as to how Bluff stability will be protected uh in the build site for Shoreline Health the Lakes spor Shoreline does have some erosion occurring at this property and I included a photo of that Shoreline sort of in my staff narrative cville Road cville road is County Road 87 it's a well-known quote walking Road for pedestrian traffic due to the character of the area which includes a mix of residential and Resort uses and Scenic views of Lake Superior the posted speed limit is 30 m an hour no when I drove it I drove 15 miles per an hour can't see 30 right now yeah one of them one of them is actually just blacked out okay well for we'll get back to that later I drove 15 just just so everybody's clear all right this specific section of crai road is a straight section of the road with good visibility in this very specific location the zoning pattern along cwell road is single family residential with Resort commercial residential mixed in development along craw Road includes a mixture of small rustic cabins and larger single family residential homes there are several legal non-conforming structures along the road that predate zoning Provisions staff identified 18 recorded variances along Crawfield Road ranging from as early as 1975 to as recently as 2023 variances have been issued from Road setbacks property line setbacks impervious surface coverage requirements substandard lot requirements and Shoreline setback requirements among others here is a zoning map from the Cook County zoning information that shows the zoning pattern so that teal color is the single family residential and then the parcels that are pink are where you have the resort commercial residential Zone districts and so cravell road is kind of following along that section um across that area and then the yellow way up there is F3 um so just a reference the language and the zoning ordinance Resort commercial residential Zone districts do have Resorts as a permitted use so it's a property right for use in that zone District I think um as a part of this discussion what we'll all feel from this is the difficulty when we have these two different Zone districts all alternating along one road you have people who have single family residential homes and then you have Resorts and so it's that mixed year along Crawfield Road that's kind of creating uh some of the difficulties with this also at the bottom of page 33 of the the staff packets um is I went through and tried to measure every structure that was within cville Road and I couldn't actually make a map because it was so many so every bubble in that is just for reference little scatter plot if you will of the encroachments on cville road there just to show that there's more than one all right public notice as this is a public hearing process uh the application was legally noticed in the Cook County News Herald on August 23rd 2024 35 letters of notification were sent to adjacent Property Owners within the quarter mile uh standard search area and I have that map there for anyone curious to see what that looked like as well as County departments and the DNR hydrologist during the written comment per period which closed the Wednesday PRI prior to this meeting per Cook County zoning ordinance I received 14 written comments from ad joining property owners and members of the public as well as four technical memos um to be reviewed before you the first is Julie Anderson at 1390 cwell road and these are all summaries the full letters are enclosed in the packets uh states that she feels the phase three project would alter the essential character of the neighborhood due to the height and length of the building states that she thinks phase two would be less problematic due to the height but they think it can be built without a variance meeting setbacks states that the large property size would allow for conforming development Beverly BOS and Mary Louise fellows at 1388 Crawfield Road describ the character of Crawfield Road as a pastoral setting due to Wildlife and recreational use expresses that granting the variant granting the request will change the character of the road due to the height and large size of the proposed structure in phase three expresses concern regarding the creation of an event space and transition of residential apartments on the third floor to resid short-term rental Peter and Carol Bennett of 1622 cwell Road States concerns that phase three would violate the essential character of the locality due to the large size and proximity of the road expresses cwell road is used recreationally by people who do not live on cwell road agrees with the Rouse's comments regarding findings for the variance request indicates that the existing in-house office building already stands out due to its height and the addition of the large building across the road would be felt by Road users concerns related to the addition of the commercial laundry with three septic systems on site and potential impact to Lake Superior Water Quality along the shoreline and concerns related to the use of the larger structure on the second level floor plan for the noted multi-purpose event room and wood shop concerns related to the three apartment units on the third floor Anna carried Barrett at 1614 crai Road concerns related to phase three due to large building Dimensions near the road phase two would remove trees and increase traffic indicates that craw Road has excellent birding and Wildlife viewing and development mon proposal would negatively impact the viewshed and Wildlife character of the area hopes to a compromise can be found Tracy Colin and Scott Husby at 277 County Road 60 concerns related to phase 3's impacts to essential character of the road is Road Walkers sites and event center and hopes the boa does not allow phase three as proposed Austin and Mary indrit at 1458 East Highway 61 opposed to the variance as recreational users of the road feel that the variance would alter the character of the area Andre traffic Holly Lamont comments as a cville road Walker has stayed at cwell cottages and agrees the existing three-story structure is Tastefully constructed but does not think the addition of another larger structure within the road setback is within the character of cville Road asks that a variance be declined and applicant Alters plans Barb line and George wils at 1415 cwell Road expresses concerns regarding the size of the proposed development notes that they did not object to the 2011 variants but do have concerns now due to the increase in size and scope of the building opposed to this request if it would quote open the door for similar development by other Resort owners on the road Craig and Dolly opal at 1618 Crawfield Road supports the expansion of Crawfield Cottages to support tourism and the local economy indicates that they have found previous projects on the property to be well done and and create a good draw for the community requests the septic lines going under the road be non-disturbing to the traveling public Lauren Phillips at 16005 and66 cwell Road expresses concerns with the accessory structure phase 3 project indicates the character of crai road is a narrow road barely wide enough for two vehicles passing and is a destination for Walkers F's larger accessory structure will take away from the quaintness of cwell Road concerns with the increase of traffic expresses concerns regarding an event space does not like the size of the structure or close proximity to the road does not have any concerns regarding the phase 2 cabins duee to the size of the structures and setbacks proposed Julie and Tony Ralph at 1780 East Highway 61 objects to the variance request expresses phase three is an obtrusive building size and in addition to phase two would create a distinct Corridor that does not fit the character of the area generally supports the business's expansion goals but believes there are other ways to achieve them uh this letter has provided Mr and Mrs R's own answers to the variance findings questions Mona Sim and Ralph Lindell at 1593 cwell Road not opposed to phase 2's cabins feels this part of the request fits the character of The Walking Road objects to phase three due to the size and location of the road from an existing tall structure concerned that allowing phase 3 would allow more similarly sized structures in the future expresses concerns related to additional traffic sites and Event Center Chris gam at 1681 East Highway 61 1481 East Highway 61 in Anderson Resort supports both both Phase 2 and three development proposals and has found the owners to be diligent stewards of their property William muans and Andrea Larson at 1544 East Highway 61 opposed to the variant request for the road setback relief due to the large size of the structure and close setback for technical memos the Cook County Environmental Heth specialist Mitchell ion provided a technical memo that explains there are two existing septic systems currently serving the property both of which require new compliance inspections prior to any new land use permits being issued also the proposed phase three project will require soil verification prior to the issuance of new septic permit and in conjunction with the new land use permit Cook County Highway engineer Robie house provided the following comments the additional structures would not present a significant safety impact to cravell road while the addition of any entrance onto a road whether it be a driveway Trail or other Road presents another point of conflict cwell road is already dense with an abundance of entrances a recent survey completed by the highway department shows the vast majority of vehicles are already traveling between 15 and 25 M per an hour below the posted speed limit Cook County Soil and Water Conservation District provided a technical memo that provides best management practices for properties along Lake Superior and the DNR area hydrologist provided a technical memo outlining their review of the variance requests relative to the Practical difficulty standards the DNR letter is primarily concerned with the phase three projects encroachment into the bluff Impact Zone and expresses that due to the large parcel size the structure should be relocated to a conforming location not within the bluff setback requirements I'm not going to read the DNR excerpts it's in the narrative for you um and so on to the criteria for decisions the applicants and members of the public have provided their own interpretation of potential findings the boa is encouraged to review these draft findings as a starting point and amend after their verbal public hearing and further discussion the first uh criteria for decision for reviewing a variance is whether the variance is consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive land use guide plan and in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Cook County zoning ordinance and other Cook County official controls Cook County zoning ordinance section 4.17 requires a 50-ft setback of the center L from County Road phase two the applicant is proposing three cabins to be 40 ft from center line given the small size and short statur of these cabins and existing similar size cabins along the road also encroaching on the road setback staff encourag the applicant and boa to consider allowing an additional 5 foot encroachment for these cabins to allow for additional space between the lake SP Shoreline which has some active erosion thereby allowing the structures to be Place 35 ft from center line for phase three the applicant is proposing the accessory structure to be placed 26 feet from the center line the building wall would be placed 23 ft within the setback with a 1ft Eve the three-story structure is proposed to meet the 35t building height maximum the Cook County zoning ordinance section 7.06 requires all structures to be placed outside the bluff Impact Zone the proposed phase three structure would encroach into the toe of the bluff within the bluff Impact Zone Cook County land use guide planned General land use school is to have an inventory of land suitable and appropriately located for the anticipated types of land uses compatible with natural resources and proximity to existing infrastructure and to protect non-compatible land uses from one another policy number 13 states Redevelopment of already developed lands is generally preferred over the development of undeveloped lands Cook County land use plan natural features and environmental concerns goals to maintain and enhance the quality of natural resources and Native ecosystems within the county policy number 16 States evaluate and minimize adverse impacts on air quality surface and groundwaters wildlife habitat ecological systems and other natural features through land use decisions coook County land use guide plan residential goal to provide a range of residential options with respect to cost density of development and locations within the county policy number 30 States residential development should be greatest near areas of concentration of commercial and public services and employment opportunities and Cook County land use guide plan administrative and intergovernmental goal to integrate land use concerns into all appropriate ongoing administrative actions policy number 77 States land use related decision shall recognize the need to duly consider the rights and responsibilities of the general public good with the corresp corresponding rights and responsibilities of the individual the second criteria for reviewing a variance is the proposed use of the property is allowed in the land use District in which the property is located the parcel zoned Resort commercial residential the principal purpose of this Zone district is to provide for the specific commercial activity of resorts lodges and Outfitters residential uses and limited service oriented commercial uses are also allowed the lot is 4. 93 Acres with a conforming lot width the addition of these three cabins and garage wood shop meeting space laundry and three rental units are all permitted uses in the own district and are allowed so long as the proper utilities are installed and maintained to support the use the third criteria for reviewing a variance the property owner is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Cook County zoning ordinance the three cabins are proposed in a reasonable manner for the size and scope of the proposed location in use it is reasonable to allow the cabins to croach 15 ft into the road setback to allow more space between the development and Lake spe Shoreline uh the other one is the garage laundry apartment accessory building a substantially sized building which has increased in size and use from the 2011 variance proposal information is unknown as to how this structure may impact the bluff stability and storm water runoff the board of adjustment should evaluate whether this proposed building is a reasonable proposal the board may find that this proposed structure is too large to be reasonably situated within the road seac additionally the board may find that although this project is within the RCR zoning it is surrounded by single family residential zoning and this may not be reasonable use within the road setac given that character the board may find that this proposed structure is reasonable given that the parcel is zoned Resort commercial residential and the character of crai Road provides for lower traffic speed limits making the structure placement within the road setback more reasonable the board may find that the 2011 proposal for this structure as part of the master plan of cravell Road Cottages is reasonable but the expansion of size and use proposed in this variance is not reasonable the board may find that more information is needed to make a determination of the reasonableness of this request the fourth criteria for reviewing uh variants the property owner has established that a practical difficulty involved is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the property owner the property owner indicates that the property is unique due to the location of the road and the topography and expresses that without variance relief it's not possible to build a structure on the north side of crawf road and access the property from cwell Road staff note that there is a path that leads up the bluff feature further discussions with the applicant and/or contractor could better better understand whether improvements could be made to make this a drivable surface to build Elsewhere on the property the fifth criteria for reviewing a variance approving the variance maintains the essential character of the locality the subject parcel is owned Resort commercial residential cville road is a mix of RCR and single family Zone districts and hosts several small Resorts cabins and homes homes consisting of many non-conforming existing structures and lots there are currently many garages houses and cabins which encroach on the 50ft road setback requirement and are of similar size and character as the phase 2 cabins of the existing non-conforming structures along Crawfield Road none are of a similar size and scope as the phase three accessory structure the board of adjustment should consider whether the phase three accessory structure would fit in with the bluff as suggested by the applicant several comment letters indicate that phase three accessory structure would not fit with a character of locality due to the large size of the structure in addition to the existing presence of the main building across the road which received a variance from height request in 2011 and the sixth criteria for reviewing a variance is the property owner has established that the Practical difficulty involves more than economic considerations alone staff have not found that economic considerations alone are the reason for the variance request staff recommendation for consideration as a resort commercial residentially zon property the applicant has the right to develop this property in conformity with a Cook County zoning ordinance with the location and use of the property the applicant has provided a sort of Alternatives analysis wherein they show that a tall long narrow structure could be placed in Conformity with the zoning ordinance standards where Phase 2 is proposed the applicant indicates that although this would meet the zoning requirements it would not provide the best Aesthetics to the road and traveling public and therefore provided this variance alternative to be considered in 2011 the board of adjustments supported this master plan for the resort development however the current Varian request has increase the size and scope of the phase three development which has attracted more public comments as explained in this narrative some public comments are characterizing the accessory building as an event center referring to the Second Story floor plan which shows a multi-purpose event room staff have understood the space is intended to be a meeting space for staff and guests so the resort can provide a space for their guests to hold their own events this is not understood to be a space that would draw in non- renting guest and therefore would not have an increase in traffic should the property owner choose to renovate this accessory structure in phase three into an event center for non- guests this would require a conditional use permit per the Cook County zoning ordinance which lists conditional uses as follows quote private commercial recreational uses requiring specialized equipment buildings or other facilities a conditional use permit is issued by the County Board after a public hearing held by the Planning Commission some public comments Express concern that the three units on the Upper Floor of phase three may be transitioned from employee housing to short-term rental if this variance is granted the property owner would have the to use those apartments for short-term rental in their Zone District if that's what they chose to do the board of adjustment cannot prohibit the use of any building that is otherwise permitted in the zone District through the placement of a condition I.E it would not be prudent to place a condition on phase three development that prohibited short-term rental since this is an RCR Z own property when reviewing a variance request it is often helpful to consider the reason for the setback requirements for which the relief is requested Road setbacks are often created for the purpose of Public Safety with higher speeds and traffic roads having larger structure setback requirements Additionally the impact of this variance on the character of the area to the public is another consideration which has been stated in many comment letters given the complexity of this request staff recommends that the board of adjustment consider this variance request relative relative to the review criteria separately between phases 2 and three if approved the following conditions may be considered or amended or attach the spian request number one all permitting requirements of the Cook County must be adhered to Prior under the initiation of construction number two all setbacks from structure and septic components shall be verified incorporated into subsequent permitting applications number three the property shall conform to State and uh County Septic rules note phase two septic compliance inspections for the two existing systems shall be required before the issuance of any land use permits permit jerson memo and phase three development will require soil verification and septic permit prior to the issuance of the land use permit number four construction must not deviate from plan submitted as part of the variance approval number five phase two vegetation shall be retained within the vegetation imp line are setback area and phase three vegetation shall be retained within the bluff impact area number seven a gutter or catchment system shall be included on on all new structures to divert precipitation and snow melt runoff away from the shoreline slopes and into vegetated drainage area number eight phase two no component of the proposed construction of the three cabins may be closer than 35 ft from the center line of cwell Road in phase three under number nine no component of the proposed construction of the accessory building may be closer than 26 ft from the center line of cravell Road that's uh mostly it for my staff narrative I did just want to make a note that uh in in my eight years of processing variances and conditional use permits I have not had such a complete application come forward with such complete floor plans and being prepared by the applicant in advance so um there are some public comments that indicate that there's something um trying to be like slid through in this application and I just want to state from a staff's perspective that this applicant has been really straightforward in this request um there is no event center part of this so I want to avoid that part of the discussion that that's some meeting space for guests I'll leave it to the applicant to further explain that um and also uh I'm happy to answer any questions you have I wanted to thank everybody for being so patient while I went through all that information so thank you so much all right Madam chair thank you is the owner here to represent would you like like to speak over to the to the microphone and state your name and address please my name is Michael kelik and I live at 1558 cravell Road here in Grand marray thank you and would you like to address some of the information presented by Miss Maxwell or additional information for the public um the the application that I set out is is very detailed and so I don't think there's a need to to repeat all those details uh but I I would like to comment a little bit on on uh feedback from the letters that were received with the application um first of all our property is zoned RCR uh and we do have buildable space for a garage laundry and vacation rentals on the Lakeside of Crawfield Road where we're where we are proposing the three cabins instead um uh and and we could build that building without seeking a variant so it's true that we could do uh what much of what we're after without any variance at all okay um without a variance we do not have sufficient buildable space on the non lake side of cville road to build the garage laundry shop worker housing we just don't there's just not enough space there we are asking the board of adjustment to make a choice and it's it's not meant to be a coerced Choice it's not meant to be a false Choice it's a it's a legitimate choice between the proposed variance that we have put forth and and the our ability to build a large structure on the Lakes side of cville road without any variance required whatsoever um I myself believe that the variance plan is a better plan than the no variance option uh I think it does a better job at complying with the Cook County comprehensive land use guiding principles and and uh as a result of that uh it is it just simply does a better job than the no variance option which we have available to us does that mean that the variance plan is does that mean the the variance proposal is perfect perfectly fits the Cook County clup guiding principles and of course of course not and is the garage building larger than the other structures on crawf road uh yes it is but it is on the non lake side of crawf road and it is not as large as a building we could place without any variant on the Lakeside of cville Road does will the garage this big garage building alter the view of the non- lak side on Crawfield Road of course it will there's no question about it but so would the no variance option and and and so in the end it's in the end does anyone believe that the no variance plan does a better job at complying with the clup guiding principles than the variance plan and it might be you already know my opinion but it might be that some people really do believe that the no variance option is better but I haven't had anybody come to me and say they prefer me to build on the this large building on the Lakeside of cville Road what I hear is that we don't like the large building that we are proposing with the variant and and I get that I've gotten a lot of push back from Neighbors and that's worrisome some of these people have been my neighbors for 21 years and I take these concerns really seriously however there's Al also things with these push back letters that are a bit baffling to me one was already mentioned the Event Center there is no Event Center and there never was any event center planned and yet it is it is seen in those letters again and again we do have a room that we labeled on the plans multi-purpose event room and that's for our Resort guest um we have people that will request that they'd like to have a Stamper Retreat or a scrapbook Retreat or a workers retreat but they need a space where they can meet for this it's never intended to be that this is a rental space for groups to come come in it is a space for our guests to use that are that are at our Resort there's also a lot of disbelief in the letters that I would want to have a a wood shop and and yet I've been involved with carpentry on at our Resort for 21 years and I've dealt with a canvas shed and and and leaky things and and I I love carpentry I've I've Loved carpentry ever since my grandfather introduced it to me in 14 when I was 14 and I really want a wood shop there's no re there's no alterior ulterior reason of why I want that space other than I would like to have a wood shop um so that those are the concerns I have the other concern was is that of all the letters I don't see anybody comparing the no variance plan with the variance plan and I understand that the variance plan they don't like the big building but there'd be a large building involved with the no variance plan too and it would be on the lake side thank you and we'll have you step aside and I'm going to ask I see a lot of faces that probably want to speak so we're going to limit it to about 5 minutes each and try not to repeat if you agree with somebody just add your agreement and I'd have you come forward sit in the chair state your name and your um address please and you've got your hand up so you get to go first Diana an can you take off the thing and put on the live stream again my name is Carolyn Schmidt we live at 1633 cville Road and Marin and I do and we have looked at the letters ourselves and we've looked at the plans and we talked this over with Mike and one of the realities of living on croftville road is we realized we were on a road that was grown like Topsy it has no plan to it at all and so I think every one of us has some kind of a variance on our property I'd be surprised if everybody doesn't um the I think the proposal the most concern that we have about the proposal is the rainwater runoff or I would say the meltwater runoff which sometimes runs into the back of our garage and such from the we're on the the non Lake Side um and I'm sure that that will be addressed in time but I um overall support this obviously the cabins are terrific um my concern was the height of the building and when we were standing there talking with Mike and we're looking at all of this it started to make a lot of sense to me but the most important thing for this board to be aware of is all my neighbors behind me were It's a Wonderful friendly Road and I really don't want this to make to make this into a thing that's going to um bring contention to our road and I know you're you're not tasked with that I think that if you could push the highway department to put a 20 25 M an hour on we would all be behind this because that's you know that we all talk up and down the road and that's probably brought as much heat as anything else putting up those 30 m hour signs so I want I want to support Mike and Teresa they've been terrific neighbors their cabins are wonderful we know cuz our our daughter that lives in Singapore has come and stayed in the cabins and so their wonderful in hosts and wonderful Property Maintenance they've built some wonderful little Trails up into the woods there that wouldn't have been there before and um I I think I think they were thinking through this very carefully and I can tell by the flavor everyone is wanting peace and resolve yep thank you hi I'm Julia Ral and my husband Tony and I live at 1780 East Highway 61 which um we're on the Crawfield Road and there's one property owner between us and Mike and Teresa's place and I I've known M contesa for a long time and I don't want to be here complaining um they're really their Resort is really good they're very meticulous very well taken care of and highly respect them and their work and their family but I I really have to object to this because it's not really about me it's not about them it's about everyone it's about all of Cook County who walks there now and in the future it's about being good stewards of our land and I just don't see putting a 94t long thre story building 26 ft from the center line is good stewardship ship of our land now I want to make it clear I did we did send a letter and I'm not going to repeat that but I did say all we did say all the reasons that the variant shouldn't be granted mainly it doesn't qualify and it won't fit but I want to make it clear that we don't really have any objections to the three cabins um if they wanted to put a normal-sized garage on the north side of the road within the setback we really wouldn't have any any problem with that that what the other variances are on the the road um if they wanted to put some of these buildings and Mike Mike didn't throw this in as an option but they have F 4.93 acres and it goes all the way to Highway 61 and there's entrance from Highway 61 and there's a potential road going up from the Crawfield so there's there's a way to use that property up there and he doesn't mention that in his in his presentation as an option but I would like to know is there an option of putting any of that use up on the up on the highway side if the if they came to U we got a letter notifying us of that we I don't think we'd object even if they wanted to go within the 130t setback from Highway 61 um but what we do object to is this big huge building thank you the other um the other thing that um I want to clarify in my letter I referred to this building as as being as large as the Gunflint Tavern and the Mayhew combined 10 ft longer than that and the same height I was telling a friend of mine this was a concern and he says to me Julia that's an exaggeration that can't be and but it's not I want to clarify I measured it it is not an exaggeration so um I the administrator puts four four choices forward um one of those is you know Grant and deny we really urge you if you would please consider denying but one of the options is to allow it as it was done allowed in 2011 but you know I don't really think that that's on the table that was that was 10 that expired 10 years ago that variance um at the time when they were build they were building their house they needed a house they had water coming in through the bedrooms they needed it people who weren't objecting and I think it was widely understood that this was way out in the future as it is 13 years later now is the time to object to that and I want you to know I want to be on record that we do object to the 2011 proposal as well so thank you uh for your time thank you anyone else wish to speak okay I see and we're going to keep it to five minutes or less three good my name's Peter Bennett uh my wife Carol and I are full year residents on cville road at uh 1622 our letter opposing the variance request is posted in the package I have three points to add to our letter and I think this is three minutes first point the jalics have posed here a false dilemma or so-called sucker choice that means if we are denied a we will be forced to do B and B is pitched as being much worse almost as a threat when I read it I'm not fooled by that logic and frankly I was a bit insulted I trust the board also is not fooled by that logic we just heard almost 10 minutes describing nobody in the room has said yes you need to build option b the sucker's choice that's by Design the chics have many alternatives for an unobtrusive build out on their 5 acre lot as Julia just described for example buil three new cottages on the Lakeside yes please there is universal praise for the existing three and do some more that is literally the character of the road for the garage and laundry make a single story building that actually is tucked into the hillside as they describe it not 23 ft into the setback and please bump the added septic up to Highway 61 not onto a mount next to the road leave the wood shop outside where it belongs maybe up the hill as drawn in 2011 build affordable worker housing also up on the hillside affordable housing the concept of worker housing is admirable and it certainly is part of the solution for this local badly needed but don't pitch it to me or this committee as a rose for 3,000 square ft of Premium third floor Apartments destined for vacation rental second point they describe this variance as a simple renewal of the variance of 2011 uh blah I don't actually need to go with that one third point they described the 50 Foot Road setback as non-existent as evidenced by 53 existing structures that violated it 18 by your count as I call your narrative the implication is one more building would hardly be noticed in reality as we know no other structure on the road is so imposing as the existing building on the south much less the proposed twin tower on the North this casual dismissal of the rules exposes a troubling posture for this proposal in summary if this variance is granted one can only imagine the road in 20 years from now when other owners resident or not plus commercial developers will invest millions of dollars to build similar structures all along the road we beseech the board to firmly draw the line now and prevent that from happening thank you thank you next hi everyone I'm Rebecca West I live at 1634 croftville Road and I'm a little late to the party because I live outside of the scope of sending letters um but I would like to ask that as a procedural change that everyone on the croftville road going forward be included and informed of variances and changes because we're an organism we're all impacted by everything that happens on the croftville road so someone with a you know building a hotel in the middle I'm going to hear every car every truck every delivery numerous times a day I'm going to watch their kids in the middle of the road um and um and so I think that what's proposed here is going to exponentially increase the volume of traffic on a on a tiny Road that's already kind of suffering and so when you make your decision I'd like to ask that um that it's kind of factored into whatever the long long term plan may be for the road if if if we're now developing it as we've got to expand out from Grand morray then then let's replace that road you know water and septic um because everyone is kind of hobbling along in that area already um but um just feeling like you know the Crawfield Road is in the is in the crosshairs of development now so um the neighbors are we're all going to be impacted by that and so I would like to ask that there be some metrics established um uh you know one of the little machines that counts the cars that go on that road and when they go on the road and the speed that they're going on the road and some enforcement of a speed limit that's you know more than I'm taking my spray can to the you know to the posted speed um so I think that more metrics are needed in order to make a really good decision um you know for the road so um and then the added concern that I have is noise construction noise construction noise for this scope of a project is going to be very harmful to those of us who live in that Community um and so that may be you know that part of that bigger umbrella of of my concerns um as a compromise I I guess I would suggest that the plan be altered so that there's you know an entrance and parking for the for the large building onto Highway 61 that seems like the logical thing to do but um you know I think that saying it's a conference room or meeting place or whatever is kind of code for somebody wants to have their daughter's wedding there the scrapbookers come and they're bringing wine and now we have people over drinking on the C croftville Road um okay I I I think there's some other concerns so I think we get the flavor I appreciate your comments and we'll take them into consideration okay thank you next person hello hi um my name is Ashley conop I live at 403 1 Avenue West not on cville road um but I work on cville road and I travel it daily my husband hband and I have lived here for a little over a year in Grand marray and I apologize I've never spoken in a forum like this so I'm a little nervous and I'm a little passionate um I have had the distinct privilege of knowing the chics for over a year when my husband and I were applying for his job to come and work in Grand marray they put us up in their in Suite which I don't think anybody in this room can disagree is magnificent building built with pristine character and it was in that ins Suite that we decided we wanted to move to Grand marray and build our future after being here for a year I know that tourism is imperative to Grand marray and tourism drives this economy and what the cellics have built is topof the line and a beautiful asset to cville Road like I said I drive that road daily and I see never mind um I have had several conversations with Mike and Teresa and they are as honest and kind as they are presenting um there is not an event center like people are proposing they are not building this structure for parties or for anything negative um it is to provide worker housing which we all know is desperately needed in this County my husband and I can barely afford to live here but to have people that care enough to provide housing for their workers goes a long way and so I am so in favor of what the cellics are doing and what they are doing for cville Road um again you've seen pictures of their property whatever they will build will not be an ey store will not be a detriment but will be an asset to this community and so I truly truly implore you to take that into consideration not all of us who live here can afford to live on cille road but um what they are doing is absolutely incredible thank you very much does anyone else wish to speak please I'm Pastor Kelvin conop I live at 43 1 Avenue West in Grand marray and I'd like to speak in favor of the variance request by the Kix um I am the Kix pastor and I know my contri so well um I think that the designs that they have submitted are thoughtful I think that uh for ease of business for success of business to meet the needs that they have uh the building plans are um uh Immaculate and uh will serve the purpose that they are stated to serve um I would invite anyone to think of their own homes uh additions that they may have made changes that they may have made to their own homes I invite anyone to think of their neighbors homes and the changes that their neighbors have made I invite anyone to think of the noise that construction has the traffic that construction demands and I would also invite people to think about our community and the needs of our community the needs that we have for successful businesses as we rely on tourism the needs that we have for housing that's affordable and in beautiful areas for people and I invite people to think about uh the things that they dream of doing and the support that they need to accomplish those dreams so I speak very much in favor of the kics and their proposal and I would encourage you to approve the variance request thank you thank you very much anyone else wish to speak hello my name is Andrea Carlson and I'm married to Ted kushman and we own the properties and we live at 1575 and we own the property of 1579 on C road we share property line with um with the property at 1558 cravi road which is currently under review for easement I got my letter in too late that's why it wasn't part of the packet um I I would like to apologize for that we strongly oppose the proposed easements for the following reasons safety and environmental concerns I want to note that since the proposed additions to the property will extend into the future for generations to come the concerns expressed in this letter are problems that any future owner or neighbor would face so it's not personal the winter before last Cook County received a records amount of snowfall and the county had a hard time keeping up with snowbanks at Crawfield Cottages I also want to like quickly add like context the cottages on Crawfield the three that are existent my great-grandmother built so i' I've known this property my whole life I've I have a lot of commitment to crawf Road um for for several days the road was compromised by a snow pile that occupied half of the road in front of the house the County's plows head to plow around the obstruction the proposed additional driveways would exasperate this problem by by further limiting space for snow removal on the immediate opposite side of the road and displacing more snow from the roof of the structure if you look at the large building for the large garage that is all like parking in front where does that snow go I don't know where it goes cuz then you have the Bluff on the one side encourage everyone to drive down to the space and imagine you know 12 in of snow one day 12 in of snow the next there's nowhere to put it um the main house on the property was built with an easement from the county from the center line of uh Crawfield Road building another large building directly across from the main house means Cook County will never be able to widen Crawfield road we won't get a two-lane road ever there I know people in this room probably don't want it to be larger but for safety reasons and for to support a 30 mph um uh speed limit as as is currently on that road it really shouldn't be a single Lane but you can't do that if you hem in the road you've made a corridor in a constriction um guest dang at the crawf cabins have backed into oncoming traffic and P pedestrians on crawf road including myself crawf Road has a blind curve at my property at our property at 1575 cville Road um the new proposed driveways on that side the three smaller cabins um uh will have less visibility as they're closer to the bend in the road at my property the proposed additional added driveways may add an upwards of six plus additional cars to the property that already houses seven plus car cars I counted yesterday there was 12 this will add more traffic for pedestrians to the road that is already compromised by blank curves and a single Lane environmental those are all safety environmental the proposed easements give near acreage to septic mounds and holding tanks septic Mounds on and around cill are placed on bedrock and off over the Decades of use they may be environmentally harmful if these proposed SE septic systems should fail it'll pack the quality of water on my property at 1575 cville Road as well as impact the locations where we can drill a well or Plum our own septic systems and just to be clear if every house on cravi road was to develop as far out to the shoulders as is proposed in this if every property did this you know it crawf wouldn't be crawf we have to maintain the trees and the the views on our property to have a point of interest um moving removing many of the trees for the proposed building sites on the south side of cwell may impact sh Roan thank you thank you do anyone else wish to speak my name is Mary K Carlson and I'm Andrea Carlson's mom and her father was the son of the Builder of this the houses that were on that property and my problem I agree with a lot of the people that have talked about this variance and I'm not for the variance but my problem with it is the storm water runoff I don't know how many of you have been out there but I'm sure that many of the people in this room that are living out there travel that road and when the water goes across the road it makes very slippery conditions for cars and for the pedestrians and the problem I have with it is that the culverts are not able to keep up with what's going on out there and some of them have been collapsed as was the case at both the properties my daughter has and I don't know if there is any culverts going across Mike and Teresa's property um also this the imperviable surfaces that water is going to be going out into the road and it travels at a at a slope that goes down to the following property a lot of times it goes across the property or across the road or down into the fish house spacee and it goes right through the door so there's there's like a river that forms when there's a lot of rain that happens out there and I'm worried about the storm water runoff thank you does anyone else wish to speak hi I'm Carol Bennett and I live at 1622 croftville Road um we built our property with no variances we respected all of the setbacks from the road and from the lake um I I do want to say this is a democracy and I really respect this whole procedure because Mike and Teresa get to request something they want and the community gets to respond we are neighbors we are good neighbors um we we get together with our we our neighbors um and I hope that continues personally whatever you decide I'm still going to respect Mike and Teresa and uh I might not like the building but I will respect them um I want to say this isn't about character though or how pretty things are this is about there is a rule on the books that buildings should be set back from the center line by 50 ft and I really would urge you to respect that um that ordinance that you have or somebody has written um as a law or a rule because it protects all of us and I like to walk on the road and I really don't look forward to walking between Towers um to really hide buildings thank you so thank you and I did I also want to say one of the things that bothered us was that in the variance request it was written as a garage laundry workshop and employee housing in the Attic but it made no mention of the whole second floor um and that it it raised concerns that this event space was going to be used for something else I trust the chics I don't think they're going to have wet and things there um but what's to prohibit a future owner from doing that if they sell um so I think I think it's something to think about thank you thank you so much next person please I'm Rudy Carlson I live at uh 9917 West Fifth Street in Grand maray uh my concern is uh mostly about Aesthetics I'm I'm envisioning seeing the the large building to the South and another large building to the north and that kind of bottleneck pinching um idea to me is is problem metal it just seems like we'd be walking down a CA a canyon especially when we're pushing those limits inside and I think the road is beautiful lived there most of my life um and I just I I I I'm sure Michael do a good job of building the thing but I just I'm concerned about it being so close to make it look just like a um like I said a canyon or or a bottleneck right there cars being coming in and out I think it might be a issue but thank you so Aesthetics okay next please oops my name is Bill yman and my wife Andy Larson and I live at 1544 East Highway 61 literally the second door next to clareville Road I'm probably on that road by driving or walking five times a week um and my Quest is that you deny this variance um Crawfield Road has got Mom and Pop uh Resorts and small homes it was all done prior to zoning laws in general now we have zoning laws and they should be followed if there's a variance a few feet fine but this variance request is way outside uh normal that I think should be granted it's excessive there are are alternatives and I agree with Peter Bennett and with Julie Ral there are alternatives that can be done scaling down the project remove taking some of that space up higher up on the bluff so I think the key thing I want to say is let's stick with the rules if we're going to have a small variance change fine but this is excessive thank you thank you next person please my name is Milan Schmidt I live at 1633 cville Road um I am uh really torn about this but one of the things that I look at uh trying to look at what the alternatives are and um what concerns me even more than the tower would be a motel size uh style building which would be actually 40 ft longer as I read the plans than the proposed large building across the road and would be 2 feet uh two stories high which I think would have a greater impact on the uh character of the road than the proposed uh variance version um and I I think that if anything changes the character of the road uh to have sort of Motel style buildings beginning to crop up along the uh the corridor would be uh to my mind a greater impact than the proposed variance so I would speak in favor of granting the variance thank you does anyone else wish to speak um I I know what you're thinking I'm one minute one minute you were short the last time so we'll cut it to one minute I'm not Peter I am Peter Bennett but I'm reading excerpts of a letter from dick Gillard who did not receive he was out the quarter mile limit and he does not carefully read the Cook County uh North heral so he did not know this was even happening most of you know dick he's a 40-year resident on the road and a 50-year career architect with experience handling commercial and residential spaces he's opposed to this large proposed structure like many other people in the room here I don't even need to go into that only to say He suggests several Alternatives if I also said again the sucker's choice please don't get pushed into that I believe that Dick's opinion has more gravitas because of his career it's more than I like to rock the road he's designed spaces his entire career and says this is way out of place thank you okay anyone else wish to speak hello I'm Tony Ral I'm at uh 1780 East 61 and uh the main thing that I would like to say is that I think you should really pay good attention to what the DNR had to say about this project I think uh the building just doesn't qualify for it right there I think there's a different way that they can do it so that's all I would like to say thank you thank you anyone else from the public wish to speak okay can I just add to Peter's comment about Richard Gad um he Nea has been copied on the notes that Richard provided which was after could we put his letter into the public into the record he's not here but it was spoken about but you have not read it so if you entered it into the record you would want somebody to read the whole letter if you want it entered into the record we wouldn't just put a letter in the record that you haven't actually read okay okay since we'll just leave it be because I don't know that he even wrote it we'll just go he did he did call me so I I do know that he wrote it okay good all right we'll leave it be okay we'll close it to the public comment and talk with the board of adjustment okay I've got I've got one big question for Nea Madam chair yes um first of all I want clarification so the the 2011 those variances have expired correct okay and is it is it true that he can put this building on the Lakeside without a variance he can build meeting all setbacks he can build a building meeting all setbacks it wouldn't be this exact I did not do a full review of exactly what building space is there but it would be 40 ft from the vegetation line of the lake uh the property line which he had marked out on site I don't have that off the top of my head but then the 50 Foot from the road so there's for there's a strip between you know that Lake setback and the road setback and so that is what that buildable space is and a building could be 35 ft high up to okay and there's a 50ft side yard set back on a on this because it's adjacent to a residential property I think so but do not memorize those numbers off the top of my head so I I think it's true look that's you I'll look it up if you want me to well I believe it okay is 50 ft on a sidey if it's next to a residential I got a lot that's 500 ft wide so right you we'll get 50 ft out of it but it wouldn't I don't think it make a material difference in the sense of just the size of there a lot okay I get another question for the applicant if I like okay and maybe you'd like to take a seat because I think you're going to have questions okay go ahead Linda okay um all right well first of all thank you for such a thorough packet um a lot of questions were answered just by reading through it um thinking about everybody's concerns snow removal comes to mind have you thought about where that snow is going to go because I know at my place you remove you add something and now you've got to find another place for the snow have you thought about that and what we have been doing is we have been with our existing stuff we we go sideways from the parking lots and we push either further back or we push forward in the parking so I mean we have we do have open space between the cottage we do have open space on either side of these build of the proposed buildings so we would we would continue to do what we've done up till now okay great thank you have other questions not I would continue on that snow removal I noticed you had a snowblower attachment for your tractor is this a component because I I know on my own property just because of a hill I have specific limitations so snowblower to continue to move it up and off the driveway is pry standard fair is that an approach because there was a specific comment made about the heavy snow year and a pile of snow causing a block in the road is is there we we bought the snow the the tractor with the snow blower on it last year and unfortunately that wasn't a very good year to see exactly how that works but our plan with that is to be able to use the snow blower so that we do not get those large ridges right up against the road that we can blow the snow further uh more sideways and further into the property on in either direction it was a discussion we had on a previous Resort owner in a building close to the roads that's what I wanted to understand okay and it's a a mixed I I was out today and walked the property and looked at it I have you you've looked I've been how about you Charlie yes had it too so we've all been to the property and walked it and seen what we're talking about so and I saw the markers and the stakes and the spray paint and the snow blower I walked up up above um did as well y so we're familiar with it um Charlie what do you think you have questions um no I don't have questions um just one comment on the snow removal would be if there was a safety hazard presented by snow that may require um physically having the snow moved off site but that's a that's something that would be a a extreme case um but the highway department would deter determine if was a safety issue so um just one comment I just um I think most of the concerns here are with the uh mixed use um residential and Resort commercial residential and um the subject parcel is Resort commercial residential um so just noting that to the board that it is allowed that's what these types of uses are allowed um as I I do have another question Madam chair um what consideration was given to having uh the proposed building up on the hill as people were were mentioning I I could imagine having my wood shop portion on the hill but as far as for the garage space and and the laundry space uh and and hopefully the worker housing having it down on Crawfield Road where where it's centrally located is is where it is is most needed uh I don't imagine anybody would want a garage that they have to that they have to walk up a 25 ft High to go to their garage to get their car car um likewise for the snow removal equipment we would want it down at the level where we need to use it um sure I yeah I hope that answers your question it does thank you y I'm Paul do you have question well I do want to just piggyback on the clarification about 2011 um Neva when does a variance expire just just to have that out for everybody in terms of uh effective 2003 the Cook County zoning ordinance had a change that made a three-year approval for variances so after a variance approval an applicant has three years to secure the necessary permits and then those permits can be extended one additional year um so it kind of works out to be about a four to five year window depending on the permits and timing of that approval M okay I do think yeah another comment about use uh I I agree um with commissioner labota about the use being acceptable in this zoning I think that there there's the sense of ulterior motive that is pretty pretty well covered by Community vigilance I would say that there is a a way of using that building as a future owner or you know it seems like there's a lot of Goodwill on the road and the idea that someone else might buy the building and then use it in a different way that's going to wind up back here if that happens I me because you all are going to report it like that that's what we have in place to take care of that in my opinion and it requires a conditional use it requires AAL use another process of going through become an event center yeah yeah okay um and it was talked about did you did you have any thoughts about finding a compromise what could be done to find a compromise to make this work for everybody or everybody a little unhappy that's a that's a good definition Board of adjustment meeting as everybody leaves a little unhappy so get ready I recognize that the that the variance in Fr the variance request in front of you is not exactly the variance request that was approved in 20 11 I recognize that that that that building has is is significantly larger than the one that was originally approved and uh if if there was a way that that I could modify it to to decrease the size of the building that wouldn't quite completely meet our needs but it might be something where it would leave all of us a little unhappy uh uh okay I and I kind of got the flavor that people aren't very upset about the cabins and I think we could deal this with this in two sections which was recommended and I I think based on you know what I saw it's a logical extension of the resort and I don't think there's you know a lot of objection in the room about that whether we want it further from the center line or if we want it [Music] um with the recommended increase in encroachment in the center with the center line I think the ship has sailed on improving that road because it's there's too many places that are you know and encouraging yeah so I don't know how that will R all I I did think maybe it could be a one-way Road nobody likes it we're perfect good okay so does the board want to deal with it in that manner talk about that I don't care I'm jumping that sounds good the cabins with the cabins I agree yeah I think that they're non-controversial I think okay yeah that there's a lot of comfort with the cabins and I I wanted to make some general comments little before we jump off on that because there were a number of comments made and one of them was respect the law well the purpose of a board of adjustment is that the law can't possibly address everything that's going to come up and our whole purpose of being here as your citizen Representatives appointed by the commissioners to sit down and deal with the fact that people come to us with their dreams and some of them are asking to color outside the lines and that's what we have to think through and many of you have come in and asked to color outside the lines I drove that road I'm seeing the work that neeva did in terms of the the number of variances so the one person who says I didn't have any variances I absolutely believe you but you're a rarity on your road okay and so um we deal with a lot of terrain challenges here in terms of getting that done and worker housing has been one that's been going on for a long time around here in the sense that we can't get people in here who can work and live in an affordable place because we don't have affordable housing so when a business has approached us in the past about getting a variance in order to build that we've been pretty generous with it because we know the need that they have as a business to be successful they need to have that space traffic study was completed I think you could go to the the uh traffic or to our County engineer for Highway and ask about getting the speed limit changed he's already looked at it in the state has come back and said the average is 15 to 25 miles an hour so if you wanted to make a case to him that you could reduce it to 20 he'd probably entertain it easily enough done through your contor um we have to look at what the previous Board of adjustment did I know those have expired but there was business plans created back when he went in and did that about what his expansion plans are going to be and anybody who's owned a business knows that there's just times you can't do those things when you want to and they have to get put back and there's times when you can accelerate things and that happens as well um we have to examine the package that's put in front of us right so the the considerations for alternative building it's not presented to us it's mentioned it's discussed we understand that but that is not the package we have in front of us to look at so we need to be concentrating on that impacts a future board of adjustment decisions we don't control them we can only make decisions based on the package we have in front of us um I did drive the road and a number of homes have gone in and replaced what are you know most of the small cabins that are there been around for probably 75 years but the homes that replaced them people building 2,000 square foot homes nice homes you know where you can I don't know if you had enough room I saw the curl of the eyebrow but uh um you know garage is right next to the road so when you're backing out you're backing out into the road with 5T despair so um we're we're looking at a lot of a lot of points of view here as we're trying to consider this so I just wanted to make sure we kind of covered some of those Baseline thought processes as we sit here and make these decisions up here what we're looking at what we're considering the things we have to understand and what our constraints are thank you madam chair okay anyone else wish to comment I I've got a question for Neva and I don't know that you can answer this I'm looking at the topographic map and did you go above and where did the top of bluff end was it at the 640 elevation or was it closer to the 650 elevation I did not do a top of bluff analysis no when we review variances we're looking at that proposal um so it's not really our standard practice to do like a full alternative analysis because that's not really aligned with the Practical difficulty standard okay I stood on the septic system behind and I've noticed on the back side of the building there were doors with no decks or anything so I assume there's a back entrance to the apartments that would be the plan that there would be like a a uh a wood walkway that would go from the back entrance of the apartments to the top of that Ridge and that would be those would be roughly within three or four feet they would be it would be even with that top of that Ridge kind of look that way and then the septic system is right there the B the mound system the one of the Mounds is there yes parking has been a question that's been on my mind you know for employee parking um you're if you're 26 ft from the center line a car is about 20 ft long correct you know you're going to be parked right on the road which is pretty similar to the existing parking lot I would say setback wise correct actually not because the front of the building there was a blue spray paint mhm and then that's the front of the building and then the distance to the road right now there's cars parked there mhm and then if you put the cars behind there you know it's pretty similar to what the cabins are but you know each each unit could have six two cars that's kind of the way it rolls so there's going to have to be some use of the property up above would be my guess for parking for um um wood shop for well we we haven't considered that as of yet but there is an there is a grown over grassy driveway with access to Highway 61 I saw and uh and uh yeah so and and the the apartments to have that that walkway the idea is is that we want to be sure that the apartments have a second egress other than going down through the building so their main entrance would be through the building probably their main entrance would be through the building but there certainly could be the possibility that we could find parking area for their cars above okay Madam chair yes I just clarify one one fact is that the tourist accommodations parking standards is one spot per per unit essentially or one spot per employee so um the three apartment units up top would require one parking spot each okay but there's very little room to park there if you put a building you know right there and then we haven't talked about but I see garage doors here getting the into the um isn't the intent to park inside in the building is your intent park inside the building uh yes is it now so I see the four garages you already talked about snow removal equipment so there's a tractor that's got to go in one of them are the other three intended for the three apartments or no the other uh two the other two would be intended for our family okay thank you uh but it may be possible that our family may occupy one of those apartments so good appreciate that okay um so I'm look I'm trying to figure out we can repr approve a portion of the variance and deny a portion of the variance that's kind of what I'm thinking or we can approve the entire variance as it stands maybe just deal with them individually versus so maybe start with the cabins make a decision there well we can the variant request is well they one and two Molly we need your advice on this she's splitting the chair is asking about splitting the the various request because we have two requests mm the accessory building and then the rental cabins so we could deal with them SE separately I think you can yes okay all right could Grant it in part right so let's deal with number two is there a motion to approve the three cabins as requested I make a motion to approve there a second and that includes the the staff guidance staff recommendations staff recommendations going F going more further into the Road and farther from the um um the lake keeping with what we've done before is to encroach more on the road rather than the lake right okay so the motion's been made is there a second I'll second Is there further discussion all in favor Madam chair before you vote would you mind going through the findings for the cabins and also if there's any conditions attached to those okay thank you good reminder if I can find it it's 21 of9 the findings begin on page 38 of 92 of the packet okay uh no it's 21 right the finding the recommendations are on thir yeah the as the staff recommendations and the findings are on page 21 and we're dealing with request number two and we'll answer the question questions based on number two is the variance consistent with the goals and policy of the comprehensive land use guide plan and harmony with general purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance yes yes is the proposed use of the property allowed in the land District that property is located yes yes yes is the property owner proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Cook County ordinance yes yes is the property owner established has the property owner established the Practical difficulty involved in is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the property owner yes yes yes and practical difficulty is the operative word there will approving the variants maintain the essential character of the locality yes yes yes as the property owner established that the Practical difficulty involved involves more than economic consideration alone yes yes Madam chair can you answer yes to those questions are you accepting the staff recommended findings as it refers to phase two in the staff recommended findings yes yeah I'm comfortable okay so so number two we've got a motion to approve we've got the findings of fact established with the recommendations from staff conditions and conditions and all in favor say I I I I I opposed motion carries okay number one request for relief from the Cook County zoning ordinance for to place a 34x 94 accessory building at a reduced Road setback where a minimum of 50 ft is required and within the bluff Impact Zone located at 1558 cravi Road [Applause] actually I'd like to I just want to put out something we haven't discussed which is the bluff and I just in terms of looking at the history of this proposal was the 2011 was the corner or the the north side of the structure in the same placement of the bluff do we know the 2011 variant staff did not identify that feature as a bluff interesting my concern when I looked at the bluff was it and it says that there's no removing of vegetation but if you put a Walky and you put in catchment system and you've got the septic system about 10 ft behind there where maybe it's 20 but it would come right out to where the septic system is I'm concerned about that bluff caving or the septic system leaking or the vegetation disappearing most septic systems are built if if I can address part of that most septic systems in Cook County are built to be Mound systems because our soils are problematic for in ground system so the failure of a system I don't think would be related to a bluff unless it was a slope failure of the bluff um it's really the the management and the use and the treatment of the septic system that speaks to how long it lasts and its performance yeah was that is that system intended to be utilized by the 94t building no it is not that mound no it is not the mound serves the house and the serves half of the inn and the three C the three existing cabins the second Mound that we have in a different location if you walked up further that's serves the other half of the inn and the three cabins that you have just approved the variance for and so this new building would require the new building would require a new Mound uh for those three Apartments yes and a laundry and andry and possibly the laundry uh our laundry will be moving from the basement of our in right now to across the street so it will still be the same laundry there is when we when we built the Inn we put a sewer pipe across the road that can go back to our original laundry septic area okay that is a possibility that we could just hook the laundry into that and originally there was going to be no uh no additional septic system because the laundry is just moving locations but with the addition with the plan to include three worker housing apartments now we have to have a different septic system and I would guess that we probably would choose to run both the laundry and the uh new apartments on the same system yeah Madam chair if I can I just want to be sure we're on the same page on page 53 of 92 of the packets is the applicant site plan for the variance option um so that's a site plan that shows the proposed new Mound and in some of this discussion it's I just want to be sure we're clear on that location so the the septic tanks are proposed to be down by the structure but then the proposed septic mound is up between the existing Mound and Highway 61 so I just want to be sure that you have a correct understanding of that proposed configuration over on the west side of the property mhm okay one I guess um I did walk the property in I went up the hill and I looked to the west but can you describe what's going on in the east of that driveway I mean as I look at the site plan there's a large area there oh you uh do you mean the the greenhous so opposite the greenhouse right opposite as I look at the site plan so just ref way over East yep you go up the driveway and and then to the right y yeah uh that's the second Mound system there that large area is that in existence that is in existence that is what that is the septic system that was put in when we built the when we built the inn and we plan for the three Cottages that you just approved okay and that was that was installed by Rick Crawford in 2013 I don't mean to speak for Mr Stucker but I I I what I took from that question was on page 53 of a packet I don't know if you have that but below that mound you just described there appears to be a significant area between there and the bluff is there any any plans of any sort for that there's just woods and and paths that go through there we do have paths that our that our guests can use that can walk okay I mean I'll say where where I'm at generally is that I'm inclined to honor the 2011 variances and you know allow a business owner to execute their business plan but we have changed that proposal um and towards the compromise we're speaking to I think there is a there's a way to limit the size of the building my question is does that alleviate the bluff problem that we're building into the bluff and if the bluff wasn't considered in 2011 I think that's an issue if I may Madam CH should we come to the conclusion of the bluff uh well I was thinking one option I left in the packet was a tabling of this hearing to collect more information and bring that forward at another meeting um the applicant could work with me to identify that top of bluff location if he was if he was interested and willing this only works if he expresses that option you know to explore something other than what he his variance is um so if that's something the board and the applicant was interested in um the applicant and staff could work together to identify those limiting features in Elsewhere on the property and see what what else he wanted to bring forward um that's one thing that could happen but otherwise on on the spot right now I don't think you have the information and I don't have that to bring to you unfortunately about that the bluff yeah to me the bluff is the bigger concern to be honest I think the proximity to the road there are a lot of buildings in proximity to the road and I understand this is a much larger building than those buildings and that's people's General um issue with it but the volume of a building is be a little characteristic on the the volume because it's like you know this is 18 ft longer 16 feet longer yeah and uh 7 feet higher and 2 feet wider it's you know there but it's for what was previously approved it's not that dramatic it it is larger it is taller there's there's definitely some well I get the people's sensibility about it the um I did we apply the definition of a bluff as it's written in the law or do we simply use the dnr's program that says that the lines are too close together so it's it's this in the NorthShore management Zone it's actually pretty easy for a slope to qualify as a bluff because through like many of the standards get met right away so long story short the slope needs to be 30% uh because you already have the over 25 ft over the water level and it's already draining to the lake and it's already in Shoreland area so um it's actually something I'm actively trying to get before the NorthShore management board to see if they still want that to be that way in the NorthShore management Zone but uh that is that is the the ordinance standard adopted in Cook County zoning ordinance um that is aligned with State Statute language for that definition so yeah sorry that I got missed in 2011 no I just wanted to ask the question because I also know that there is the program and it just yeah it labels everything that where SE cont lines too close together turns it black and says it's a bluff yep and Mr Kik did identify it as a ridge in his site plan too so he had that feature identified on his own before we even ever met okay thank you did you have something Linda um I would just like to share where I am at the moment is that's what I was going to recommend maybe we could pull the board and see if there's any point in tabling and seeing if there's something that can be accomplished otherwise ex approve or deny right so yeah so um as both an entrepreneur and um um a previous real estate appraiser of 21 years I am torn um and can see both sides I see the need for uh business expansion employee housing uh laundry absolutely if you're adding more units I also see you know the building being outside of um maybe the what it's Norm so far for the area so I'm right now torn uh the bluff you know is a potential reason to table it but I'm torn my my first I I guess I wanted to ask the applicant um what his thought was on the idea of tabling and exploring other options um if he's open to that or if he'd rather us push for a decision tonight not I mean but it is I guess it's putting you on the spot so yeah um I I certainly want to be sensitive to my neighbors and if if there was a way that somehow I could scale the building down slightly not necessarily to what it was in 2011 but scale it down so that it could be perhaps a little bit a few more feet away from the road which would alleviate the parking concerns but it gets more into the bluff which is also a concern okay yeah um I I certainly am I am certainly willing to entertain uh ways that the building could be modified so it was a little so it was a little smaller uh I I I'm not prepared right now to say what those what that would be so so well it just if you identified what absolutely is vital to running a resort your Workshop your laundry your garage believe and employee housing but that doesn't have to be on the road down there it could be you know to live on your work site is it might be a benefit to have the employees up the hill and out of the resort just for their mental health and maybe a meeting room up there as well you can do that probably in that space to the east quite well and make something there that accommodates the employees and just get the essentials down at the bottom where it's not so tall and it's still functions as a workable resort property yeah but now we're we're we're disregarding the bluff we're not talking about you know these other things that we've brought up as concerns because we're still making the compromise there and so now we're asking him to split the building actually I'm not asking you know my vote will depend on what I'm voting on okay yes but I'm willing to look at what's essential down there and what can be put up out of the resort area and still be a very it might be a very nice spot for a meeting room up there so just to rethink or so it are you open to tabling I I am open or do you want to vote well I I I guess I'm open to tabling provided I'm not I I mean I'm not I'm not committing right now to what I would be agreeing to change right we don't expect that M just to rethink and we've heard what the problem areas are and maybe we can get it figured out so that like I said everybody's a little unhappy I do I mean I but I I also want to Echo Mr silman's point that the the proposed building is not that much larger than the first round and I think if we table it if you scale it down a little bit my sense is that there will still be opposition on the road to a building being there so I also don't want to string this out on the other hand you know if if there's going to be a big building that's the proposal then I think eventually we need to say yes or no to that okay I uh certainly can't speak for any of the members of the people who C drafted the land use guide plan that we reference I was on that and I I'm not speaking for anyone else but I do believe the overall sentiment of that committee and its sensitivity to to um both conflicting sides besides your residences and and uh Resort commercial properties um I I I would tend to think this actually would fit um within their within the guidance of that committee um I don't know that that's means much but I mean we we referen the guide plan a lot and that group spent a lot of time crafting it so I think it's a really good thing to reference it um this is a very difficult one um and I said I I can't predict what they would come down on but I think this um fits the spirit of where they were going with a lot of their decisions so um there's a reason we that this is a difficult decision for us so we need either a motion to table or a motion to accept or deny keep in mind Madam chair that once there's a motion to table there's no further discussion so just be thoughtful about the timing on that and if all the discussion is done there's a motion to table please be thoughtful in in what you would want to see upon reconvening and when that date of reconvening would be so that we can notice that with a decision notice okay thank you more discussion I'm rereading some of the things that um previously the staff recommendation could also talk through the findings and see what what your thoughts are on findings for this structure the page 212 [Applause] 21 21 or or 38 if you want oh I was looking for staff recommendations read through those okay is the variance consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive land use plan guide plan yes yes yes yes is a propos use of the property allowed in the land use District in which the property is located yes yes yes is the property owner proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance that's the that's where that's where I'm stuck the next three has the property owner establish a pract practical difficulty involved that the Practical difficulty involved is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the property owner yes yes yes variance meain will approving the variance maintain the essential character of the locality I'm stuck there too has the property owner established a practical difficulty involved involves more than economic considerations yes yes yes so three and five three and five and one no means it's denied so the um talking it through the property own proposing use of property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the C Count's owning ordinance so the primary encroachments are um tow of the bluff and the um encroachment on the right of way of the road road setback road setb back and so we have numerous Road setback issues on this on this particular road we've already acknowledged that the property or the opportunity to redo the road in a larger or wider manner is probably not feasible given the existing uh properties and their displacement so I think Road setback concerns um are not pertinent in this regard just to be fair with everybody um that's already gone forward on this uh these kinds of decisions and the bluff in the toe um even though the DNR recommended against it they did provide mitigating guidance that didn't seem too obtrusive and the land owner has the applicant excuse me has talked about things that he's doing in terms to mitigate snow loading and and to respond to what was an abnormally heavy year that uh that created an issue so I see that um he is propos to use it in a reasonable manner uh even though not consistent with the with the kind of or with walkway out the back door and the it's right into the bushes and you know that's all going to be cleared at the top of the bluff or quite a bit of it cleared to gain access to the back door is that back door over to the bluff necessary I kind of think it is in terms of safety but but uh we already had if if you walked up there there's already a path going through that woods and this would just cut out whatever tree is in that 3ot walkway to get to the existing path M I think you're entitled to a 4-ot path for Access I know that true for Lake owners to get down to their Lake yeah the 4 foot wide is the stairways withd reference that you're referring to Y okay I know that cuz I built a 64 step okay well I can say yes to three now after that discussion okay okay everybody I agree I think it's too big for the spot quite frankly I'm not opposed to that big of a building I don't think actually it's out of character it's a resort commercial residential but I think it's too big of a building being squeezed between the road and the bluff honestly uh I'm fully supportive of the vision and the business plan and having a space like that but I think it's squeezed in too tightly I agree that's where I'm at what condition would you put on it uh I don't think you can that's it's I I find the most agreement with the the first um option that was laid out with us the board may find that this proposed structure is too large to be reasonably situated within the road setback and I would add the bluff the fact that you are trying to slide it in there that's I think the problem for me it's not the use or the size of the building on the road it's really its location being between those two features but that's that's my feeling about it we can deny the request or we can table it and find a way to put a smaller building I don't think we've pulled out the three of us yeah I mean people people can vote however they want to vote though that's not me speaking well then I need a motion well we need to answer number five we need to answer number five so and as I look at the building plans and then I looked at the Inn sitting right across the street from it which already has a Hy variants and seeing similar designs um which is also a relatively large building in the sense that it houses as family the office and five guests five guest rooms that um were you know um we're we're pushing some some limits on it that that just don't seem to be in keeping with both previous Board of adjustment decisions and the placement um now we're not bound to that previous decision I don't want to imply that we are but was a two story building yeah okay yeah y this is three the the one across the street that you were there you know how tall his his off his main building is yeah and so um so it's it's this one is not in out of alignment with the with the existing main building okay now it's a resort stopped down in the middle of a bunch of residential areas I get that part too but there's a certain point at which what is permitted for him to use his land and um some of the things we're doing is getting we're getting inconsistent in the sense of were saying okay you can do this here but you can do half of it there but we'll put this over there and now we're just but there is a place that can be built on without a variance and he has said that but that's not before us correct that's that's that's a but that's a consideration you know two t two three story buildings basically we're looking at a version of Cliff dweller sitting and sitting there between there and the lake is it's doesn't in my mind doesn't fit the character of the neighborhood you know the Inn that was history it's done but to put another building just like it 20 ft away you know could live in New York maybe not but um number five we need to answer that is it essential character does it maintain the essential character of the locality in my mind yes because it's already been done with the N from that standpoint I can agree yeah we we already have that large tall building right there and we're putting a similar one across the street from it um I would assume similar character and appearance you know somewhat similar to what I've seen other Resort owners do they even have their own color of paint and everything gets painted the same color so the um the consistency in that is that um you know it's it's it's a resort it's a business it's as business plans and expansion requirements and it's allowed um I'm generally inclined to agree honestly I think it's that's not the issue for me um I think yeah like I said the use and even the volume and size of the building is not not the sticking point for me can shut that down I can't go back may Madam chair when it comes to the word locality it's not a specific it's not the same locality is the same for every variant so like if you're on a lake it's not like popular Lake it's not all of popular lake is the locality it's like that area of the Bay of the lake like like that type of thing so I do want to encourage you to think about the scope of what locality means because I do think the record before you does have a lot of information from the community that might suggest otherwise um you know this is this is a a loop road where there's a lot of stuff that's been before you from the public and if we start looking at just that specific property as the locality that's going to be a little goofy if like what would make this variance different from other future variances is locality just going to be that one property like that's kind of the whole point is to look at the effect of the neighbors so I just want to caution you based off of all of the information that's been presented and we've spent time discussing tonight on that decision appreciate it MH how far out can locality go that's up for your discussion I of particularly looking at Resort commercial residential Zone and seeing what are the nearest applications of these standards to those like businesses MH my take on locality it is the the length of cravell road because you do have people that it is a it is a destination site so to say so I would be respectful of of that information that's been presented before you that it's more than just like the three people on each side of this property um that that that's been my perspective from what I've been listening to this evening I guess I would State my at the moment where I'm at as I would um on this essential character of locality I would agree with uh with Mr silman's um characterization of it and uh I really am am actually U landing on being in favor of this application or tabling it so just putting putting that up for the rest of the board I have another question for Nea um can we consider that he is able to build this somewhere else without a variance like on the lake side and just the idea that it would probably be an inferior location because then it blocks Lake View can is that something we can consider I think that is the applicant's main uh point about the compatibility with the land use guide plan that Mr Kik explained earlier so I think inciting his his point as I understand it is that the strict adherence to the zoning ordinance would allow him to build that structure however from his perspective he doesn't think that that would be fitting with the character of the neighborhood to have that long structure between the road and the lake and so that is this again I don't want to speak for him at all but that's that's been my interpretation is that this variance is doing something that is being more aligned with the land use guide plan but it it requires relief from the rules and if I may part of this discussion I think you're struggling with is that the site conditions are tight and it's difficult so you're looking at that reasonableness element and you're looking at that essential character locality element and trying to find balance with those all right so my new input is that um if if he is able to do this without a variance on the lake side I would much prefer it be not on the lake side um from the standpoint of uh you know View and um um if it were done on the lake side would it be where those white temporary structures are it would 40 ft from the Lake Superior yes it would be in the region where the three cabins that you just approve the variance for instead of those three cabins we would be building a large structure in the buildable space there well I'm you know I don't think that's anything that you would do but we're looking at a variance to put it here so I'm waiting for a motion computer's dying on me so I and look at the stuff take that or a motion to table with a date and no more discussion but if we table what new information are we going to receive that we haven't already that's my concern we're just going to extend it out and not get any well he's heard the discussion and he knows some what what our thoughts are and maybe there's a better way to look at things yeah I mean I to my mind the point of tbling would be to address the bluff because the size of the structure is not a concern to me I am willing to accept the variance on the size of the structure but I think that given that tight sight we need to have a wellth thought out Bluff management plan and really think about how that gets situated between the road and the bluff can it just be uh approved based upon that stipulation added condition added Condition it's going to be really right up against the bluff yeah you know it may require green wood part way up my thought in tabling was to I don't believe it's for us to redesign his site right um but to address a couple areas that hadn't really been uh talked about which is the bluff and if there is potentially any other feasible area to make this work and those would need creative thinking and my reason to table would be to allow time for that um beyond that I pretty much figured where I'm at so same here you can always try different motions too true so but I can't make them I've got a crew here to make motions well let's exhaust the possibilities then I would make a motion to table uh this variance request so that we can explore creative thinking around the bluff and mitigation stratey IES and if there are any other ways to place structures I mean in that process that's up to you but come back with something and a time frame well I think we got a bluff mitigation plan should be like don't see why 30 days isn't enough of that it's really a matter of having someone come out and you know it's not me it's the applicant don't does that feel reasonable to come back at the next meeting basically with a bluff management plan can I ask you a question yeah uh Bluff management plan would that involve an engineering firm or a local contractor or a what who who would you need the information from would be the question I think a a local contract ctor that would be doing that work would help me understand what how we're going to impact that bluff okay with the building I think that be fine with that okay so your motion is to table it correct and we'd like to look at other possibilities and a bluff management plan from a local contractor yes is there a second I'll second that no discussion all in favor I I I iOS motion carries and that was to be reconvened at the November correct correct no October October October meeting right okay thank you let's that drag this out and so just for anybody listening that's going to be October 16th whatever the third Wednesday of October is at 5 o' in this room I think it's the 16th okay motion to adjourn second all in favor oppos motion carries thank you my brain is so fried right now but you can try I do appreciate how professional ever