##VIDEO ID:uCYBhLel-JQ## we'll go ahead and call tonight's uh Planning Commission meeting to order and look for a um approval of the minutes and agenda makeing a motion to approve them do we have any amendments or any changes I don't got a motion do we have a second I'll second all in favor hi hi opposed and we will uh go right into our old business um do I need to say anything about the van Dorry zone or yep thank you Mr chair I just wanted to give you a quick update on that that schroer Township had a meeting last Tuesday that I attended virtually and they're going to begin their schroer Town Plan update in January they're going to they've had a few they did a call out for Township committee members essentially members of the community that want to participate and so they had some interest from citizens and I expressed willingness and interest to be a part of that process too so that I can uh help however way I may and so we'll begin that meeting in January and uh I can give you updates as we go along um but the voran reone request subsequently withdrew their rezone application and we told them that they could reapply for for the rezone after that Township Plan update has taken effect and that we would wave the application fee so essentially hey the town plan's updated let's see how this uh request matches up with that Plan update in the future so that is completed for now thank you um second old business item uh Peter grubish Green bull LLC request to consider preliminary plant to sub preliminary plant to subdivide one parcel into 16 residential lots um Temperance Trails development um file number 2024 2p Neva thank you Mr chair this is being brought back before you uh this is a revised request back in August you reviewed a version of this preliminary plat that was phased out so originally it was a phase one phase 2 proposal uh since then the plan has now been modified to be the proposed full buildout of the plat that's one of the biggest differences than what you may have seen or remembered from August so before you now is the preliminary plat to subdivide into 16 and this would be again the full build out of it as a reminder the property is a little over 29 Acres Zone single family residential where the lot development is proposed and General commercial over by the highway uh these planned unit developments are conditional use in the zone district and the conditional use permit was issued about this time in 2023 and uh this property is within the nor management Zone uh on the screen is the revised preliminary plat map um the property again is located behind Birch Grove Community School and is generally uh used for an outdoor education space at the play area the preliminary plot has set aside the recreational space as a common element between units 104 and 105 North of this project site is F1 Zone land which is the 20 acre minimum lot size area east and west of the project site is the single family residential uh Zone district and immediately south of the project site is General commercial and Land South of Highway 61 is Resort commercial and R1 uh I put in the conditions of approval for the conditional use permit that was issued again the conditional use permit was allowing up to 22 residential units the conditions attached to that were that the drinking water Supply meets state code requirements there was a full septic design plan with other stipulations with septic requirements the preliminary plot was to identify areas for storm water management a large sight storm water permit would be required prior to beginning a grade fill activities on site all state and federal permits would be secured including storm water permits with PCA and or Minnesota Pollution Control agency and the community public water supply plan approval with Minnesota Department of Health and potentially Department of Labor and Industry and that the road in culdesac would remain as a double lane travel Corridor on the screen is the zoning map for the locality with the proposed project site just above that red area on the screen I also included the map just to remind you of what the original conditional use permit looks like so the road shape is in spirit still about the same configuration with that Dead End Road we now don't have the culdesac it's a hammerhead and it's located in a little bit of a different location with a different setup of the residential [Applause] units let's see for site conditions and considerations for Wetlands the application has shifted the road south to minimize Wetland impacts to comply with the state Wetland Conservation act the road development will still require a wetland replacement plan and that would be through the purchase of wetland credits for septic Mitch erson the Cook County environmental health specialist has provided a memo indicating that environmental health will need to work with a septic design in the spring when the review of soils is feasible this is to say that a full septic design has not yet been reviewed for the site and that can't really happen until the springtime when the soils can be verified for the road the platted road is shown as 66 ft wide and the plat shows a 30ft setback from the road RightWay the plat map shows a hammerhead turnaround that's 20 ft deep and 110 ft wide staff have reached out to the Cook County Sheriff's Department Highway engineer and tofy Township to see if this would be an adequate uh size for emergency services the feedback I received from those entities is they did not think it would be a big issue the tofy township supervisor indicated he wouldn't think it would be a problem for the township and Sheriff Elias and also indicated that he didn't think that this would be a problem for storm water the preliminary plat shows storm water ponds on the east and west side of the development the size of the rain event the stormwater Pond is designed for is unclear the Cook County Highway engineer has indicated that these ponds should be designed for a 10year 24-hour rain event minimum uh per Minnesota state requirements which would be approximately 3.55 in rainfall for the survey review um you know now would be an appropriate time to acknowledge that the Cook County Surveyor Wayne hen she did recently pass away so he was unable to do a review of this plat uh when I reached out to other surveyors uh to Mr hen's Legacy and credit many expressed strong enthusiasm to assist us in any way that they could uh being he was such an important role in that community so I did get assistance from St Louis County to review this plat and um they indicated to me that the type of plat that this is is subject to Minnesota state statute 5:15 um the part of the information I received so I'm not going to have this in the staff narrative itself because I didn't have this information when I wrote the staff narrative uh so I do have I made a slide for it there we go uh you don't have to read that I will read it to you um so this is the information from the St Louis County surveyor's office they completed a meeting with the St Louis County Auditor's office regarding this preliminary plat submitt for the cic 43 in Cook County the biggest concern that they saw is that the Declaration is incomplete uh the title on the Declaration doesn't agree with the title shown on the map portion of the plat and the dec uh declaration States cic number 17 whereas the map says cic number 43 the cic also indicates there's 15 uh or total of 10 units where the plat map is showing a different number and the legal description on the property isn't accurate in the the Declaration uh that was the biggest concern that they saw uh they felt that the Declarations needed a significant amount of cleaning up so to say before it submitted for final plat and the emphasis with these types of developments and this type of a plat is that the Declarations document is is really the meat and potatoes so to say that ties everything together so it is really important that that gets accurate before this project goes to final plat I think there's a way to condition this that requ requires improvements of the Declaration to be reviewed by an attorney and then the county attorney or one of our representative attorneys can also review it before it goes to final plat to to remedy those issues um there also was a it's worth noting there was a little question about the drainage and utility easements um so the plat map shows drainage and utility easements and this is getting a little bit in the weeds but I do believe we'll want to further talk about that with the applicants as to whether or not that's allowed on a cic plat um and this is not a subject matter that I typically work with but the St Louis County surveyor's office told me that drainage and utility easements cannot be on cic plats we I don't again don't think that's substantial to this but I want that kind of shown in the record that that needs to be addressed before the final plat uh is approved to make sure that that's conforming to State statutes for the design standards uh relative to our Cook County subdivision ordinance this project does meet the requirements of the um open space preservation what I did highlight in my staff report is that there was areas on the plat map that indicated was open space but isn't allowed to be open space um so that would be the septic treatment and the storm water infrastructure even if those were taken out of that calculation this does still meet the 50% open space requirements so just to note that uh detail there for public noticing I did Reen notice this plat request because the design had changed so significantly from the original public noticing so this began all the public noticing process again so this was on the Cook County News Herald Public Notices on November 29th 57 letters of notification were sent to adjacent Property Owners as well as County departments the town of tofy norshore management board and DNR hyd hydrologist we received three letters of support uh from members of the community which included Rob Deer who was in support to expand housing on the West End Dennis risdall personally on behalf of and on behalf of American and tofy a letter of support indicating a desire to see the development restricted to owner occupancy only and not allow nightly rental use and Mary omnus provided a letter of support at housing and tofy additionally for technical memos as I mentioned before Mitch erson provided his review uh C County so and water conservation District provided a detailed membo indicating guidance for storm water practices in the difficult terrain uh and also that they could help hopefully help secure grants to implement climate resilient storm water infrastructure Holly schroer the Cook County Recorder indicated that the plat has not been updated to include the signature line for the Planning Commission chairperson the county attorney and the County Board chairperson which was mentioned in the county records August 28th memo originally and and additionally I indicated I reached out to Craig corak the tofy township supervisor and he indicated the Township's priority was at the homes be deed restricted to no short-term rentals and that the Cook County Sheriff palatalized and indicated no concerns with the proposed Hammerhead turnaround for staff recommendations for consideration the preliminary plat proposes to add 16 residential units in tofy a use which is highly desired throughout the community and Township this application has significantly increased its ACC accy since August middle and is now proposing to proposing the full plat instead of the original phase approach the residential density has a lower density than the original conditional use permit allowed and smaller lots and unit sizes than originally proposed neither of these items are viewed as problematic to staff so long as the plat can maintain the 50% open space preservation the Planning Commission must decide whether to recommend approval or denial of his application at the December 18th meeting tabling the application is unlikely to be productive as the proposer has an agreement with the county H that requires a permitting decision by the end of 2024 staff believes that additional Corrections and Technical information can be addressed after approval of the preliminary plot and it encourages the Planning Commission to consider setting conditions of approval to address any and all concerns they may have to be addressed before final plat if additional information to be gained significantly Alters the project an amendment to the plat to Amendment to the preliminary plat is an option to address those issues in in the future I put together uh some conditions that I thought could give us some beginning talking points and I'll try to summarize through them um and and we can discuss further from there so number one maximum density is limited to 16 residential units total with one dwelling per a lot slun structure setback shall be 10 ft from interior and exterior lot lines with exception on Lots with duplexes connected to the abing lot and a 30t from the plat Road right away each lot is permitted one accessory structure to be used as a garage Andor storage the maximum accessory structure area is 900 square ft or 20 ft in height or other size per the planning commission's discretion the cic plat and declarations must be in accordance with Minnesota statute 515 the open space preservation must be in accordance with the Cook County subdivision ordinance and not include the septic treatment or storm water infrastructure storm water design should be updated to meet mpca requirements all other state storm water regulations and Cook County storm water ordinance regulations shall be met the project proposers encouraged to work with the co County Soil and Water Conservation District to explore assistance with implementing climate resilient storm water infrastructure the project conforms to the state Wetland Conservation act boundaries uh which shall be monumented in the form acceptable to the County's Wetland specialist Andor Planning and Zoning administrator all residential lots unit shall conform to the state Wetland regulations a licensed septic designer uh coordinates with C County Environmental Health to complete the soils verification and septic design and I included a lot of details to what would be expected in that number nine the homeowners association is established with the following features and those are four features outlined in our subdivision ordinance number 10 the water may be provided by individual on-site Wells or by one or more Community wells in Open Spaces number 11 the developer and County shall enter into a developers agreement acceptable to the county for all subdivisions prior to the granting a final approval of the development and number 12 approval of the preliminary plat does not constitute an acceptance of the subdivision but is deemed to be an authorization to proceed a final plat and the rest of that language that's all from our subdivision ordinance this is just pulling out certain sections of our subdivision ordinance for uh clarification purposes uh I did receive some more information about stormw Design Elements so when we get into that discussion we can talk about some of the thoughts about maybe setting more clear conditions about the storm water infrastructure as well um one of the things is that the separation distance is supposed to be 35 ft from a water supply well to the ordinary high water level of a storm water retention Pond uh so we just want to maybe think through if that's going to be an issue on that East End again it's it's not your job to set a condition on every state or local regulation you know that those are always in place anyway but it's helpful at this point to think about those things and put them as as conditions where it seems reasonable so that both the applicant and staff and the Planning Commission can kind of check those boxes when this project if this project does go to final PLS that's all I have Mr chair thank you Nea uh at this point I'd like to ask the applicant if they have want to add anything to staff's narrative I honestly you have a treasure in havinga as your plant I've never worked with somebody more thorough than her um but we we definitely appreciate working with her um overall we understand that there's a few things that still need to be addressed but as a whole I feel what we've got presented to you is pretty accurate our intents on um I do know hasn't been put on there but storm water have been 25 year 25 year okay if we ask you for more question we'll we'll have you come up and state your name and address but that thank you um would anyone else from the public uh like to speak for or against this application please come up and state your name and address thanks for the opportunity my name is Bill gaer I live at 68 big Pig Cedar Trail in Len I'm the District 5 uh representative to the Cook County Housing and Redevelopment Authority I'm currently serving as board chair uh we've been working with this developer for a long time and with the town of of uh toofy who did a really um Good Deed in terms of providing the land we have committed our some funding to this because we really think this is an important effort to provide some for sale housing in the West End uh there is a restriction against short-term rental because of the uh support we've provided we think that's important and we're excited about it and we support uh it and I can't comment on all the technical aspects of the review that you need to do uh but just as a overall purpose of housing in Cook County this is one of our developments and we're proud of it and we're happy that you're considering it and we'd appreciate your support as well thank you anyone else hi my name's Chris O'Brien I live at 97 old ski hill road um and I Al a district four commissioner for the HRA and currently serving as the vice chair of the HRA um certainly would Echo what my colleague commissioner gaer has said and I'd like to highlight another point which is that you know we've seen a lot of success with the HRA in the last couple of years in terms of getting traction with multif family particularly with multif family projects um that's important but that's not enough to meet the housing needs of the whole County uh this tofy project really represents something quite different and potentially a model for addressing the the local the the specific housing needs in other parts of the county that are outside the gr marray gr maray has been the City of Grand marray projects have been low hanging lower hanging fruit because of the available tie into Municipal Services um this is going one step further and we see it as a potential model for other housing developments that could be developed in other parts of the county thank you thank you anyone else wish to speak on this this application we're going to close to the public and and uh discuss as Commissioners um one observation I have is um I read the HOA agreement who who's going to have jurisdiction on that in the final format because I um major concerns with with how it's drafted at the moment do we would Peter gubish the developer uh that is a preliminary draft once we get through preliminary plat we're going to have an attorney review everything and draft it but the main focus is is that the community that's within this development will have its own uh elected officials that will vote within the uh the agreement of their um HOA so the people that are a part of the HOA will be able to vote each household will have their own vote so not one person can vote against the other as far as like being out pushed out right but the the concerns I have is just some of the um the things that are being proposed right now are um you know right to enter people's homes right right to for cloes and take someone's home away from them belonging to the HOA committee the right to or the authority to to take a lawyer and assign them to pursue Collections and so forth and the person who's being collected against has no ends up responsible for the lawyer's fees but has no control over what the lawyer does and what those fees AC cruel at it so there's a lot of things that are just and from that standpoint it's all preliminary I I don't disagree to some of that doesn't need to be adjusted um and that's definitely something that as the development they can make final decision on go ahead sorry uh Jason Hill Cook County H 425 West Highway 61 sweet be gr Ray um so the H actually also has final approval authority of that document we haven't approved the draft yet this is the first step is we have to have the ability for the developer to proceed with the desired development before we go to the next step which is prior to closing we have to get that final draft document we have our attorney who can look at it and review it make sure everything is up and up so to speak right but I've looked at the draft I have my own questions about it as well uh but there wasn't we don't want to spend our attorney time or our time doing too much of that until we know we can proceed I'm making sure it's part of the record yep understood okay chair I have a question for neeva I guess on um staff recommendation number 12 so this is a preliminary approval so we we get another bite at this so to speak they the developer has until we do the final approval the ability to correct all of the discrepancies or changes that we deem should be done so this really isn't the final final we still have a year they have a year in which to correct all of these issues and bring us a set of plans that all agree with each other and and meet the requirements right and I think I would need to double check our subdivision ordinance but I seem to recall subdivision ordinance doesn't require a public hearing for the final plat so it it still comes to you for review and again I want to double check that ordinance language and I can do that pretty easily while we're discussing some other things and I can come back to you with a clarification about that I can okay thanks thank you microphone do you have any comments I mean I think the sentiment is you know it's there it's pretty clear that uh we want this as a community so there's some te's to cross and eyes to dot um I would agree we have a very thorough um array of those things to do um I don't have any specific things to recommend but I think there's work to be done and we all know that okay want I I know I guess I just I tend to agree with or I would say my concerns are addressed in in staff's recommended cons conditions so um I guess any more discussion otherwise I would call for a vote I make a motion to approve it with the stipulations on the 12 12 conditions recommended do we have a second I'll second that motion any more discussion all in favor I I I opposed hearing none approved okay so this go to the County Board of Commissioners at the first meeting in January for Action items thank you thank you look for a motion to adjourn the Planning Commission I make a motion to adjourn second second good faor sorry I didn't have that answer the top of my head I I can follow up with you tomorrow sorry I got quick answer more clear answer about okay okay thank you oh yeah yep five how's it going I saw you chuckle I get it I'm glad you're able to come tonight oh yeah which what was the oh really I'd be curious to talk more about that we're going to go ahead and call the Board of adjustment meeting to order hey Jason can you guys have your discussion outside see look for a approval of the agenda and minutes from last month's meeting and this agenda and move to approve the agenda and the minutes is drafted second all in favor I all right uh new business John and Mary warley request a variance um reference number 20241 18V Nea yes thank you Mr chair this is a variance relief from the Cook County zoning ordinance let just get my screen CAU up uh section 7.14 to place a 30x40 4ot portion of the principal structure within the bluff Impact Zone on lot nine of the legendary luten Sawmill Bay site plat the applicant's property includes 1.65 Acres with approximately 242 ft of caribou Lake Shoreline the parcel is contained entirely within the Lakeshore residential Zone District zoning lot size requirements in for New Lots in that zone District must be 1 acre in size and 150 ft wide at the shoreline structure setback and Caribou lake is classified as a recreational development Lake for project description John and Mary warley the applicants are requesting to place the primary dwelling on lot nine the variance request to place a portion of the structure within the bluff Impact Zone and the structure would meet the lak shoreline setback and property line setbacks of the proposed location for background because this does get a little bit in the Weeds on definitions I'm going to go through some definitions that will be pertinent to help clarify so the the section of ordinance that specifically requires a variance relief section 7.14 uh prohibits or says no structures shall be allowed in the bluff Impact Zone the page 12 of 40 of the variance packets is where uh the illustration of what a bluff Impact Zone is located so to better understand the variance request um we'll talk through this first off the bluff definition is four different criteria of a slope in order for it to be a bluff and that would be that part are all the features within Shoreland area the slope Rises at least 25 ft above the ordinary high water level of the water body the grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to a0 25t or more above the ordinary high water level averages 30% or greater and the slope must drain towards the water body and then it states an area with an average slope of less than 18% over a distance of 50 ft or more shall not be considered part of a bluff also the bluff Impact Zone then is the area of what we think of the bluff so the feature that meets that definition that I just described of the four characteristics that is in the bluff Impact Zone and then it's the top 20 ft after the top of bluff so that is what makes a bluff Impact Zone this variance request is proposing the structure to be kind of in the middle of the bluff slope so going Midway up the hill is where this feature is going to be traditionally when this board is looking at Bluff setbacks we're usually at the top of the bluff so that's the distinction I'm trying to set clear um additionally uh the well so looking at at the screen here what I have on here is from page 13 of 40 and this is the staff's determination of how we interpret the face of this slope on this lot so the green area is the area that we determine does not meet all of those bluff definition criteria because it is less than 30% in slope and the red area is what our staff determined is exceeding the 30% grade and slope so it's more steep in the red area and less steep in the green area when our staff was on site it's a little tricky because it goes from a more gradual slope to a more steep slope as you're walking parallel to the Shoreline and that is where ultimately when you're on site doing determinations you kind of have to draw a line Line in the Sand and looking at uh the data available to us on on the computer and on site this is what our staff uh determined so we don't have a top of bluff setback but a portion of the structure is proposed to be in the green area and a smaller portion of the structure is proposed to be in the red area this was my interpretation I tried to take the applicants diagram of the application and overlay it with the color slope photo we just looked at so again for reference you'll see the garage and the main portion of the house is in the green area so that that's just a steep slope in that location it it does not require a variance just we would want to talk about storm water drainage at the stock level when issuing permits and then in the red area it's in the bluff Impact Zone so we administratively can't permit issue permits uh in that area and that's what the variance is needed for all right uh here is a photo of the plat so this is is lot n and I have a a photo kind of illustrating some of the vegetation in the specific build site uh it's a lot of spruce and balom not not very high quality trees further down slope there are some really nice Cedars I think in here that's the view of the lake so um some forestry Management on site will probably be needed as a part of the development we did uh received some public comments from the Caribou Lake Property Owners Association as well as the Soil and Water Conservation District and the Min uh Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and those were in response to the public notice as we mailed out there was 33 letters sent out to adjacent Property Owners County departments Luts and Township the Cook County Coalition of Lakes Association and the DNR hydrologist in those comment letters the Caribou Lake Property Owners Association uh part of their quote included if the co County zoning and planning commission determines that indeed there would be excessive excavation increasing the risk of erosion and runoff if the structure were moved back on the lot the clpa has no objection to the variance request however if the commission determines that the amount of additional excavation is negligible and does not pose a risk to increase erosion and runoff even though it would be a more expensive building site clpa opposes the Varian request the comment letter also provides concern regarding water runoff and erosion with recommendations for gutters and drainage practices in a storm water plan the Cook County so and Water Conservation District provided a technical memo recommending storm water best management practices be implemented during construction and after construction to mitigate the impact of development on Caribou Lake the memo also provides several excellent resources for implementing best management practices and the Department of Natural Resources area hydrologist uh provided their memo determining that this application was not controversial or problematic the DNR uh provided recommendations for conditions of approval to mitigate the impact of development which has been integrated into the proposed conditions of this report for uh let's see I kind of skipped over the history but it's a part of the legend legendary luten Sawmill Place plat sites which was created in 1985 uh the pl Bluff Impact Zone protection standards were implemented in the state Shoreland rules in 1989 so this is just to say that this lot was created prior to Bluff definitions being created uh the applicants indic that this is their preferred route to access the building site from the easement that's just south of the site which is a less steep slope to build the driveway um for septic the application indicates the new septic site will be installed to serve the property further up from the lake up the hill by Saw Mill Lane for impervious surface coverage the proposed development will not exceed the 25% impervious surface coverage storm water management best practices can be utilized to mitigate the impacts of runoff the zoning and storm water County ordinances have strict requirements for administrative oversight when development is along steep LTS and slopes for Wetlands wetlands are not an issue driving the need for the variance wetlands are present within the shore SE Shoreline setback area near the lake shore not in this building site I gave my version of some consideration for proposed facts and findings I provided some notations of where the land use guide plan indicates um a priority for protecting natural resources as well as uh balancing the needs general public good with a corresponding rights and responsibilities of individuals additionally I noted that traditionally requests to encroach within the bluff Impact Zone are located towards the top of the bluff feature as I mentioned earlier the specific area where the addition is proposed to be placed is approximately a 20% slope and only qualifies as being within the bluff impact area because the slope is steeper above and below the specific build site uh for the variance finding the proposed use of the property is allowed in the land use District in which the property is located the finding is the parcel of Zone Lakeshore residential residential uses are allowed on this platted lot for variance finding the property owner is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the County's zoning ordinance the proposed staff finding is that the property owner does propose to use the property in a reasonable manner given the build site is relatively flatter and will result in less excavation than other locations on the lot the specific build location is less than 30% slope and is only within the bluff Impact Zone due to the slopes above and below the build site the proposed build site is meeting all other property line and Shoreline setbacks for variance finding the property owner has established that the Practical difficulty involved is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the property owner staff's draft finding is again traditionally request to encroach within the bluff Impact Zone are located towards the top of the bluff feature the specific area where the addition is proposed to be placed is approximately 20% slope and only qualifies as being within the bluff impact area because of the slope is steeper above and below the Pacific build site this is a unique circumstance not often seen on properties due to the changing slope phase the application suggests 70% of the parcels determined to be within the bluff zone or Shoreline setback resulting in a narrow Corridor approximately 50 ft to allow conforming development near the shoreline setback staff's analysis delineates the area of the slope that meets the bluff criteria does cover a significant portion of the lot additionally This legal lot of record was created prior to the bluff regulations being included in state Shoreland regulations most of this lot is either a steep slope or a bluff Cook County zoning and storm water ordinances both call out higher requirements for administrative permitting on these features enabling staff to be more involved to ensure the lot is developed in a way that mitigates negative impacts for variance finding approving the variance maintains the essential character of the locality draft findings are the area zone Lake Shore residential consisting of platted Lots the subject parcel is located at the end of a dead end platted Road Shoreline is facing the Back Bay of caribou Lake the lot is currently forested however trees will need to be removed for both construction and Wildfire prevention many of the existing trees on side area they're dead dying Balsam and Spruce the structure being placed meeting the 100 foot setback and not being placed at the top of the bluff this suggests that the essential character of the locality is unlikely to be disturbed Beyond normal development especially with functional storm water bu management practices being implemented being placed in the middle of the hillside should make the structure stand out less than if was placed at the top of the bluff and the variance finding the property owner has established the Practical difficulty involves more than economic considerations alone staff did not find that economic considerations were the reason for the variant's request for staff recommendations for consideration staff do not view this request as problematic given the Topography of the lot being largely a steep Bluff or steep slope or Bluff the selected build site provides a suitable location for development however given the Topography of the site it is highly important the storm water bus management practices are taken during construction and after construction to strategically manage the water flow down the hill towards the lake given the condition of existing Forest cover excuse me staff recommends the applicants reach out to Cook County so and Water Conservation District to inquire about managing the vegetation along the bluff Impact Zone management will likely include new plantings of different tree varieties and the removal of dead and dying trees the ordinances restrict vegetation removal along the bluff Impact Zone however when in conjunction conjunction with a plan with Soil and Water Conservation District this can be a healthy land use practice if approved the following conditions may be attached to this variance request number one the property shall conform to Minnesota rule 7080 and the County Septic requirements number two the shoreline shall remain unmowed with natural vegetation consisting of Forbes grasses shrubs and trees and that is at least 25 ft in withd landward from the lake number three a gutter or catchment system shall be included on the structure to divert precipitation run off away from the bluff number four vegetation removal on the lot shall adhere to the County zoning ordinance Shoreland alteration standards and number five an erosion and siment control plan or storm water management plan is required in accordance with section 7.13 of the C County stormw ordinance and I provided that language in the staff narrative that's all I have Mr chair thank you Nea would the applicant like to add anything if to nea's uh narrative and if so please come up to the microphone and and state your name and address please uh good evening my name is Mary Worley thank you for taking the time to look at our variants um my husband wasn't able to make it tonight sorry to inter could you please State your address for oh sure it's 4832 Harriet Avenue in Minneapolis thank you um my husband wasn't able to make it tonight but thank you for uh considering our variance we appreciate it I just wanted to give you some historical background on our decision to purchase this property uh we met last February with Joe Joseph ralth who was a County employee at that time and discussed with him the lot and he shared with us the two areas that were buildable on the lot um and you can see those in the in the maps the the green areas that Nea showed us and uh we made our decision to purchase lot based on that information that it was buildable in those two areas with a view of the lake and that's what we were looking for we were looking for a wooded lot that was on Caribou Lake and um so that that was the decision that we made was based on that information that we'd be able to build in that area and we hope that um that with your help we'll be able to to do that to to uh build the house that has some uh where we can view the lake from the house thank you m would anyone else from the public wish to speak on this application that leaves you Tom DWI I'm a contractor and assisting the warley with their project at this point uh and the only thing oh 4921 West Highway 61 in Lut is my office U the only thing I wanted to add and it's been a hard thing to wrestle around and Charlie traval went out and helped us from Northshore land surveying with getting this and the positioning of that line from the top of the the bluff and the 30ft setback that next segment that rule was is it 18% over 50 ft mhm and the last 10 ft of it the upper part of that just shot up and threw the whole thing well over 20 but in the area that we're trying to build in we believe we're at about 16 to 15 15 to 16% in the build area uh that we're going to disturb and hope to disturb and uh function with that's it's so hard to convey that in that map but I don't know if you've been on the site but then I'll answer any other questions that come up thank you when you okay when you um walking the site and stuff did you see rock outcroppings or get a sense of of uh what's on that soil um there is some rockout cropping not a lot right there we expect to be able to dig based on neighboring properties we built the two houses to the south of it one of them was mine uh and we were able to dig 15 to 20 ft before we hit Bedrock that direction and then to the north uh I think there's some rockout croppings that you get to the North side of the lot and onto the neighboring lot to the north okay we just jumped into it but at this point I'll close it to the public comment and and discuss on the board and we likely will have questions um anything else BR yeah just uh if approved the following maybe attached and I've got the no things removed down by the shoreline mhm um there's so going to have permission though to build a set of stairs down to the Shoreline and put a dock in and do those normal things that people live on the lake for yep okay yeah I'm not seeing anything concerning I think it's a a difficult lot that was left by the plat and you're pinched in there pretty tight and it it seems like we're dealing more with the math of figuring the average of the slope than we are actually problematic conditions is sense that I get from this narrative I wasn't able to make a site visit and be hard at this time of the year to determine uh anything too substantive but uh yeah I I would be comfortable well the staff acknowledgement it seems that this is a you know you've got the slope but this is a spot where kind of levels out more than anywhere else on there if I may Mr chair yes just so that note um you know the the DNR comment letter I think think is is a part of that discussion is that I spoke with the DNR area hydrologist to explain this request to her because this is a very unique requests we don't typically see these types of things and when I explained to her the the Terrace that you kind of have in the slope face here and that this is very closely meeting that 50ft segment of the 18% which wouldn't have qualified as a bluff she she provided then this memo that wasn't recommending denial which you know we don't often see from them so um you know I think that kind of supported the thought that this is this is one of those cases of a variance I've been telling people that when you're on site and looking at the landscape it makes a lot more sense than maybe it looks like on paper so to the credit of uh Mr DWI and the applicants they're trying to use the landscape I think in a very logical Fashion on site okay that's uh that's how I see it I think obvious staff and the applicant um have put a lot of effort into this and I I don't see any uh concerns um that aren't addressed in the in the proposed conditions and I would state that I would uh generally agree with staff's considerations for finding facts yeah I didn't yeah yesterday when I read through it I came to the same conclusion I would move to approve the variance with the findings of fact and the conditions as written should we go through the questions sure I mean I'm comfortable honestly yeah I think they I read through them earlier so you can just see oh okay yeah I'm reading it representative if we're if you guys are comfortable with it I I think um acknowledging them and and that we're comfortable with what Nea had stated Okay so we've got a motion do we have a second a second all in favor I I opposed hearing none thank you thank you it it's approved and looking for a motion to adjourn move to adjourn second by this is our last meeting with attorney hickin that was pretty easy for my last that was your last one thank you I was going to be I was going to run over and ask that question are you moving away or you staying here I'm staying here I'm going to be the new Chief legal officer