M1MOTION by Ames to continue to June 23, 2020 meeting; 2nd by Jorgensen; All in favor. Motion Carried.
moved by Ames, seconded by Jorgensen
Passed
- YAmes
- YPearo
- YJorgensen
- YAlders
- YSchiller
- ·Barry Wagner
Meetings
Loading records…
Loading records…
2020-05-26
Agenda
Not posted
What was on the agenda.
One-line summary
The Planning & Zoning Commission continued the Leistico subdivision, recommended approval of a minor-subdivision street-surfacing ordinance amendment with revisions, recommended approval of two setback variances, and adjourned at 8:01 p.m.
10 items as recorded in the packet and minutes.
A1Pledge of Allegiance
Pledge of Allegiance.
Ceremonial opening item; the minutes do not record a separate action.
A2Call to order
Meeting called to order.
The chair called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
A3Roll call
Roll call.
Roll call was taken.
A4Approve or amend agenda
Approve or amend the May 26, 2020 meeting agenda.
The minutes available in this bundle do not record a separate motion or outcome for this agenda item.
A5Approve April 28, 2020 minutes
Approve the April 28, 2020 Planning & Zoning meeting minutes.
The minutes available in this bundle do not record a separate motion or outcome for this agenda item.
A6Leistico Estate subdivision
Continued public hearing on the Leistico Estate subdivision at 21413 Nowthen Blvd.
Continued to the June 23, 2020 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting.
A7Street-surfacing ordinance amendment for minor subdivisions
Continued public hearing on an ordinance amendment to Section 10-3-3 and street construction standards for minor subdivisions.
Recommended approval with noted adjustments and planner review of width requirements.
A8Kevin Westerlund accessory-building variance
Public hearing on Kevin Westerlund's variance request for an accessory building at 5434 Verde Valley Road.
Recommended approval of the variance.
A9Merle and Glorianne Zumbaum / McClure home and accessory-building variance
Public hearing on Merle and Glorianne Zumbaum's variance request for a new home and accessory building at 5837 183rd Avenue.
Recommended approval of the variance.
A10Adjournment
Adjournment.
Meeting adjourned at 8:01 p.m.
What this meeting did about specific topics, organized by issue rather than by document.
Leistico Estate subdivision
The Commission did not take up the merits of the Leistico Estate subdivision at this meeting. It continued the public hearing for the proposal to divide three existing lots at 21413 Nowthen Blvd into four parcels to the June 23, 2020 meeting.
Agenda: A6. Motions: M1. Speakers: Dale Ames, Harold Jorgensen.
Minor-subdivision street-surfacing ordinance
The Commission reviewed proposed changes allowing street paving to be deferred for certain minor subdivisions of no more than three buildable lots, with right-of-way dedicated and base/sub-base and emergency-access requirements discussed. The Commission recommended approval with noted language adjustments and asked the planner to review whether the driveway-width requirement should be 10 or 12 feet before the item went to the Council.
Agenda: A7. Motions: M2. Speakers: Elizabeth Stockman, Jeff Pilon, Jason Alders, Robert Schiller, Kelly Pearo.
Kevin Westerlund accessory-building variance
The Commission considered Kevin Westerlund's request to build a 28-by-34 accessory building 59.3 feet from the centerline of Verde Valley Road because wetlands, large trees, the well, and the septic system limit placement options. After no public comments were recorded, the Commission recommended approval of the variance.
Agenda: A8. Motions: M3. Speakers: Elizabeth Stockman, Robert Schiller, Kelly Pearo.
Zumbaum/McClure home and accessory-building variance
The Commission considered the Zumbaum/McClure request to build a new home and accessory building 95 feet from the centerline of 183rd Avenue on a lot with limited buildable area because of wetlands, trees, lot shape, and prior platting. After discussion and no public comments recorded in the minutes, the Commission recommended approval of the variance.
Agenda: A9. Motions: M4. Speakers: Elizabeth Stockman, Jason Alders, Harold Jorgensen.
Meeting adjournment
After the planning items were completed and the planner noted an upcoming subdivision concept plan by Larry Skogquist, the Commission voted to adjourn at 8:01 p.m.
Agenda: A10. Motions: M5. Speakers: Jason Alders, Robert Schiller.
5 motions on the record. Split votes are highlighted.
M1MOTION by Ames to continue to June 23, 2020 meeting; 2nd by Jorgensen; All in favor. Motion Carried.
moved by Ames, seconded by Jorgensen
M2MOTION by Alders to approve with noted adjustments and have Liz review the width requirements; 2nd by Schiller; All in Favor. Motion Carried.
moved by Alders, seconded by Schiller
M3MOTION to approve the variance by Schiller, 2nd by Pearo; All in Favor. Motion carried.
moved by Schiller, seconded by Pearo
M4Motion to approve by Alders, 2nd by Jorgensen; All in Favor. Motion Carried.
moved by Alders, seconded by Jorgensen
M5MOTION TO ADJOURN AT 8:01 PM BY Alders; 2ND BY Schiller; ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION CARRIED.
moved by Alders, seconded by Schiller
Each figure links back to the document it came from. When the council voted on the amount, the motion is shown.
F1
Base fee for Westerlund variance application.
fee · Westerlund variance application fees
$200
inflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F2
Escrow deposit for Westerlund variance application.
fee · Westerlund variance application fees
$1,000
inflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F3
Public hearing fee for Westerlund variance application.
fee · Westerlund variance application fees
$250
inflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F4
Recording fee for Westerlund variance application.
fee · Westerlund variance application fees
$30
inflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F5
Total amount paid for Westerlund variance application.
fee · Westerlund variance application fees
$1,480
inflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F6
Low end of nonbinding consultant-fee estimate for the Westerlund setback variance.
estimate · Westerlund consultant fee estimate
$700
inflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F7
High end of nonbinding consultant-fee estimate for the Westerlund setback variance.
estimate · Westerlund consultant fee estimate
$1,000
inflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F8
Base fee for Zumbaum/McClure variance application.
fee · Zumbaum/McClure variance application fees
$200
inflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F9
Escrow deposit for Zumbaum/McClure variance application.
fee · Zumbaum/McClure variance application fees
$1,000
inflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F10
Public hearing fee for Zumbaum/McClure variance application.
fee · Zumbaum/McClure variance application fees
$250
inflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F11
Recording fee for Zumbaum/McClure variance application.
fee · Zumbaum/McClure variance application fees
$30
inflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F12
First recorded check payment for Zumbaum/McClure variance application.
fee · Zumbaum/McClure variance application fees
$1,400
inflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F13
Second recorded check payment for Zumbaum/McClure variance application.
fee · Zumbaum/McClure variance application fees
$80
inflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F14
Low end of nonbinding consultant-fee estimate for the Zumbaum front setback variance.
estimate · Zumbaum/McClure consultant fee estimate
$800
inflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F15
High end of nonbinding consultant-fee estimate for the Zumbaum front setback variance.
estimate · Zumbaum/McClure consultant fee estimate
$1,200
inflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
When someone tried to remember earlier business, we cross-reference the corpus and write a short related-history note.
This Public Hearing was continued because the Commission wanted more information regarding the monetary aspect of how the assessment would be handled equitably.
— Elizabeth Stockman
What this is about
The ordinance amendment had been continued from the prior month so staff could research how future road costs or assessments would be handled.
The records found only a partial match. The March 10, 2026 Council packet includes an ordinance amendment related to minor subdivisions and lot line adjustments and states that the Planning Commission reviewed it at a public hearing at the February 24, 2026 Planning Commission meeting and recommended approval. However, the records I searched do not show that this public hearing was continued from the prior month, nor do they include a recorded discussion or decision about how future road costs or assessments would be handled equitably. The February 24, 2026 minutes excerpt does mention discussion of infrastructure improvements being addressed through the development review process, but it does not reference monetary assessments or a continuation for further staff research.
last month we had discussion about this proposed amendment which would defer street paving requirements for certain minor subdivisions that may be approved by the City Council and where we left off continuing this hearing because the Commission wanted more information regarding how this would be handled monetarily
— Elizabeth Stockman
What this is about
The planner referred back to the April discussion on the proposed street-paving deferral ordinance and the Commission's request for more information.
The records I searched do not contain a prior decision matching this recollection. The results include general subdivision-code language on variances and amendments in the February 24, 2026 and March 10, 2026 packets, and development-application updates in the April 14, 2026 packet, but they do not show a proposed ordinance specifically deferring street-paving requirements for minor subdivisions. I also did not find a record in these results of an April Commission discussion continuing the hearing for more information about how the deferral would be handled monetarily, nor any formal vote or dollar amount tied to that issue.
When they did this years ago, it was done with horses. When the dirt work originally was done, they could have gone further back. The ditch to the south doesn't usually have water.
— Harold Jorgensen
What this is about
During the Zumbaum/McClure variance discussion, a commissioner recalled the original Glory Meadows platting and grading history and questioned the earlier approval of the lot.
The records I searched do not contain a prior decision matching Commissioner Jorgensen’s recollection about the original Glory Meadows platting or grading, including any discussion that the dirt work was done “with horses,” that grading could have extended farther back, or that the south ditch usually does not carry water. The search results mostly returned unrelated 2025–2026 packet materials about other subdivision/grading conditions and construction stormwater notes, with no identifiable formal approval history for the Zumbaum/McClure lot or Glory Meadows plat.
basically this hasn't been a real good job for the guy that owns the lot because if the city should have never approved that lot in the first place
— Harold Jorgensen
What this is about
A commissioner said the city should not have approved the Zumbaum/McClure lot when it was originally platted and referred to a past era of approvals.
The records show a partial match. At the May 26, 2020 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, the Zumbaum/McClure variance for 5837 183rd Avenue NW was reviewed. The planning findings described the property as Lot 1, Block 1, Glory Meadows, an 8.1-acre existing lot of record, and specifically noted that the vacant lot had “limitations existing since the time of platting” because of the shape and location of a wetland/drainage easement and its proximity to 183rd Avenue. The packet says the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the variance with conditions, including revised survey information, septic and driveway approvals, engineering review of grading and drainage, and preservation of the drainage/utility easement as natural area. The application included a $1,000 escrow for city review costs. However, the records provided do not include the original plat approval, the date that lot was created, or a recorded statement that the City “should never have approved” the lot in the first place.
<!-- PageBreak --> <!-- PageNumber="34" --> <!-- PageHeader="8." --> CASWELL ENGINEERING CO. ENGINEERS & LAND SURVEYORS <!-- PageHeader="original" --> ## BIRCHWOOD ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA KNOW ALL MEN
Public Hearing: February 24, 2026 Planning Commission Per the Zoning Ordinance (Section 10-3-4 G.), flag lots shall generally not be permitted, except under unique circumstances and through approval o
Public Hearing: February 24, 2026 Planning Commission Per the Zoning Ordinance (Section 10-3-4 G.), flag lots shall generally not be permitted, except under unique circumstances and through approval o
<!-- PageBreak --> <!-- PageNumber="7" --> The public hearing was opened at 8:36pm Public comments included Lori Myhre 19XXX Saint Francis Blvd. expressing concern about driveway proximity to the prop
<!-- PageBreak --> The public hearing was opened at 8:36pm Public comments included Lori Myhre 19XXX Saint Francis Blvd. expressing concern about driveway proximity to the property line. Nash confirme
Every document and recording archived for this meeting.
Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting — Agenda Packet (2020-05-26)
Packet · 2020-05-26
55 pages
Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting — Minutes (2020-05-26)
Minutes · 2020-05-26
4 pages
Meeting recording
YouTube
Transcript · 371 segments · 59:20
The structured brief on this page is auto-generated and may need correction. The PDFs and the meeting recording remain the official record.