Cook County commissioners tackled a number of topics at the Tuesday, May 27, 2014 board meeting, starting with a discussion they thought had been taken care of last fall—rumble strips.
John Gorski, a resident of Grand Marais and a Hovland property owner, approached the board during the public comment period, asking the commissioners to “finish the work you started last fall with MnDOT.”
Gorski reminded the board of the public outcry over the rumble strips installed by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) on Highway 61 last year. He reminded commissioners that they had asked MnDOT to remove, or fill in the rumble strips, which MnDOT did—but only as far as Judge Magney Park in Hovland. Beyond that, Gorski said, the rumble strips have not been mitigated.
Gorski said he had a phone conversation with MnDOT engineer James Miles and from that discussion it was his understanding that MnDOT believes its work east of Grand Marais to be done.
Gorski said Miles told him that the agency uses five criteria to determine which rumble strips should receive mitigation. Gorski said the criteria looks at higher housing density adjacent to Highway 61; proximity of Highway 61 to Lake Superior; location of longer passing zones near homes; curve locations where drivers continuously cut the corner; and areas with wide shoulders that are used for biking and walking.
Gorski said the criteria was not consistent with what MnDOT has done. He said the rumble strips on state land near Judge Magney Park, the Superior Hiking Trail and Paradise Beach had been mitigated. However, private property owners on the east end of the county still have to deal with the rumble strips. No sound study was done for the area east of Judge Magney Park.
“There are a lot of citizens—taxpayers living out there—who are being victimized by this decision,” said Gorski.
Commissioner Garry Gamble thanked Gorski for the detailed information. He said the county board’s understanding was that MnDOT would look at this, do sound studies and come back with a solution. He said he understood that MnDOT would come back in the spring to fill in the rumble strips. “If that has changed—well, say because of monetary reasons, they need to address that with us, because we were under the impression that they were coming back to do the work,” said Gamble.
Commissioner Bruce Martinson asked County Administrator Jay Kieft to compile the correspondence of what was said when the county discussed mitigation of the rumble strips with MnDOT. “I’d like to hear their recommendation of a rumble strip that is less intrusive.”
“After corresponding with MnDOT, we may think about having another public hearing so we can hear from the people. And start it all over again,” said Commissioner Jan Hall.
Gorski said, “He [Miles] did indicate that spring is when they would mitigate other areas, so time is of the essence.”
Gamble said the board needed to follow-up, to clarify MnDOT’s plans. “A citizen has the right to expect that criteria that is used to make a determination is equally applied,” he said.
Commissioner Heidi Doo-Kirk agreed, recalling public meetings held to discuss the rumble strips and concerns about MnDOT’s criteria. “We just need to have another hearing and let MnDOT know that we’re not done.”
Conditional use permit for Oddz & Endz
Planning and Zoning Administrator Bill Lane brought forward an application for a conditional use permit (CUP) from William Copeland, Sharon Bloomquist, and others regarding the establishment of a “general business operation” in the old Howling Wolf Saloon/Gunnar’s building in the general commercial zone district of Grand Marais.
Lane said the intent of the applicants was to establish a retail store and small business incubator. He said Bloomquist and the other people involved in “Oddz and Endz” intend to enter a lease-toown purchase contract with owner William Copeland.
Lane said, “It’s something we really view as kind of a good fit.”
However, Lane said there was discussion at the planning commission about whether their plans fell under permitted uses in the general commercial zone or if it should be granted a conditional use permit.
“What we decided in the planning and zoning office was that a CUP gives them a little more flexibility and freedom to go forward with some different aspects rather than being slotted into the permitted uses,” said Lane.
Letters were sent to 31 adjacent property owners, informing them of the possible CUP. At the time of the planning commission meeting on May 14, 2014, only one comment had been received, in support of the CUP. After discussion of resolution to possible septic system and/or parking problems, the planning commission unanimously approved the CUP application.
However, Commissioner Sue Hakes questioned the need for a CUP, asking what Oddz and Endz would be doing that was not already permitted in the general commercial district.
Lane said of the 10 items listed as permitted uses, number 8 could possibly have relevance for the Oddz and Endz/ business incubator model. Number 8 states that the following is allowed: Commercial retail sales and service establishments such as: food, drugs, general merchandise, apparel, furniture, hardware, motor vehicles, farm machinery, lumber and building materials, offices, personal and professional services, amusement and recreation service, finance, insurance and real estate services.
Hakes asked what wouldn’t fit under that description. Lane said because of the “variability of possible occupancy and overall scheme of businesses,” planning and zoning wanted to be “somewhat accommodating.”
Hakes said she knows the organizers and noted they are “stand up people,” but said, “What if it’s Last Chance on Earth?”
From the audience, Sharon Bloomquist quickly replied, “That’s not happening!”
Hakes said she knew that, but thought it was the job of the county board and the planning commission to decide what is a conditional use, not Oddz and Endz. “I don’t like relinquishing that power.”
Commissioner Doo-Kirk said the CUP was needed because there may be a wood turner working there, or a sculptor, which would not fall under the general commercial permitted uses.
Hakes said, “So if there’s going to be artists doing their work, let’s give them a permit for light manufacturing…Let’s not give them a blank check.”
Lane said it was certainly the board of commissioners’ decision. He said the board could modify the planning commission recommendation.
Gamble expressed concern about putting together uses that were not compatible, but asked Lane, “Given your understanding of our county permitting process, you recommended this. You’ve heard the discussion of the board. Have you heard anything in this discussion that would make you decide differently?”
Lane said no. In answer to another question about potential businesses not in compliance with the CUP, Lane said if such a business were started, they would have to come to planning and zoning to amend the permit. He said the board could require additional conditions for the business in the CUP or the requirement that the county review each business that starts up in the building.
Gamble said, “From my perspective, I don’t as a commissioner want to be in that position, to have to oversee to that detail…in good faith, and I’m one that says it’s better to define, but in good faith, we’re saying we’ll allow you, within the context of the criteria to allow you to proceed.”
Commissioner Martinson said, “I’m comfortable going ahead and approving this as requested. They’re just covering themselves in the future. If someone wants to come in and build snowshoes or something like that, so they’ll be okay. I don’t think we need to make them come back to the board every time to decide. I think it’s up to the landlord to decide.”
Hakes asked a final question, whether the CUP stays with Oddz and Endz or the property itself. Lane said the CUP would be for use of the building. Hakes said for that reason she would vote no. Hakes said sorry and added, “You almost had me.”
The motion carried with the other commissioners voting in favor of a CUP for the Oddz and Endz group.
Leave a Reply