Loading records…
2020-02-24
Agenda
Not posted
What was on the agenda.
One-line summary
The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval of the Hazeman easement vacation, continued the Leistico Estates East plat hearing to March 24, and asked for review of subdivision street-construction ordinance alternatives.
18 items as recorded in the packet and minutes.
A1Pledge of Allegiance
The pledge was recited, and the minutes note a moment of silence for Melvin Johnson before roll call.
A2Called to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM by Chairman Ames.
A3Roll Call
Roll call was taken and the meeting policy was read.
A4Approve/Amend tonight's meeting agenda of February 24, 2020
Approve or amend the February 24, 2020 meeting agenda.
The agenda was amended to add a subdivision ordinance discussion on street construction, then approved.
A5Approve Planning & Zoning Meeting minutes of October 22, 2019
Approve the Planning & Zoning Meeting minutes of October 22, 2019.
The October 22, 2019 Planning & Zoning minutes were approved.
A6Public Hearing: James Hazeman easement vacation, 19350 Jasper Street
Public hearing on James Hazeman's request to vacate part of an existing drainage and utility easement at 19350 Jasper Street.
The commission recommended approval of the easement vacation, with the item to go to the City Council on March 10, 2020.
A7Public Hearing: Leistico Estate subdivision, 21413 Nowthen Boulevard
Public hearing on the Leistico Estate request to subdivide three existing lots into four parcels at 21413 Nowthen Boulevard.
The hearing was opened, no comments were received, and the commission continued it to March 24, 2020 at the applicant's request.
A8Subdivision Ordinance for Street Construction Requirement
Added agenda item on subdivision ordinance street construction requirements.
After discussion, the commission voted to ask the City Council to request planner review of possible ordinance alternatives for discussion at the next meeting.
A9aUpdate: Comprehensive Plan finalization
Update on comprehensive plan finalization.
The planner reported that the comprehensive plan was moving forward after Metropolitan Council initial review.
A9bUpdate: Code Enforcement workshop pending
Update on pending code enforcement workshop.
The update concerned a pending City Council code enforcement workshop.
A9cUpdate: Thompson building reconstruction
Update on Thompson building reconstruction.
The building permit had been approved under the nonconforming-use reconstruction rules.
A9dUpdate: MBI construction at 7900 Old Viking Boulevard
Update on MBI construction at 7900 Old Viking Boulevard.
The update said MBI should be starting construction soon.
A9eUpdate: Possible TR Concrete building addition
Possible building addition at TR Concrete on Ferret Street.
The commission received an update about a possible building addition.
A9fUpdate: Possible Dock-n-Door building addition
Possible building addition at Dock-n-Door, 19941 Iguana Street.
The commission received an update about a possible building addition.
A9gUpdate: Possible three-lot subdivision at 7300 Pinnaker Road
Possible three-lot subdivision at 7300 Pinnaker Road by a new landowner.
The commission received an update about a possible subdivision.
A9hUpdate: Possible development behind Mini-Storage at 8335 Viking
Possible development concept for land behind the mini-storage at 8335 Viking.
The commission received an update about a possible development concept.
A9iUpdate: New houses on Merles Lane and 223rd Avenue
New houses on Merles Lane and 223rd Avenue.
The mayor noted that the City Engineer should be notified because Merles Lane is an upcoming road project under consideration.
A10Motion to Adjourn
Adjourn the meeting.
The meeting adjourned after a motion by Alders and second by Schillers.
What this meeting did about specific topics, organized by issue rather than by document.
Meeting opening and routine approvals
The commission opened the meeting, observed the pledge and a moment of silence for prior P&Z Chairman Melvin Johnson, amended the agenda to add a street-construction ordinance discussion, and approved the October 22, 2019 Planning & Zoning minutes.
Agenda: A1, A2, A3, A4, A5. Motions: M1, M2. Speakers: Dale Ames, Liz Stockman, Alders, Pearo, Schiller.
Hazeman easement vacation at 19350 Jasper Street
The commission held the public hearing on James Hazeman’s request to vacate part of a drainage and utility easement between two lots that had already been legally combined. No public comments were received, the discussion focused briefly on septic and drainage concerns, and the commission recommended approval to the City Council for March 10, 2020.
Agenda: A6. Motions: M3. Speakers: Liz Stockman, Jorgensen, Alders, Schiller.
Leistico Estates East plat at 21413 Nowthen Boulevard
The applicant requested more time because the applicant and concerned parties could not attend and wanted to review engineering comments. The commission opened the public hearing, received no comments, did not discuss the application details, and continued the hearing to March 24, 2020.
Agenda: A7. Motions: M4. Speakers: Liz Stockman, Schiller, Pearo.
Subdivision ordinance street construction standards
The commission discussed pressure from applicants to use gravel streets or flag lots, the cost of requiring paved streets for small subdivisions, road maintenance concerns, and the need for consistent standards. The commission voted to ask the City Council to request that the planner review the ordinance and bring possible alternatives back for discussion at the next meeting.
Agenda: A8. Motions: M5. Speakers: Liz Stockman, Jorgensen, Alders, Pilon, Pearo.
Planning project updates
The commission received short updates on the comprehensive plan, a pending code enforcement workshop, Thompson building reconstruction, MBI construction, possible additions at TR Concrete and Dock-n-Door, a possible Pinnaker Road subdivision, a possible development concept behind the Viking mini-storage property, and new houses on Merles Lane and 223rd Avenue.
Agenda: A9a, A9b, A9c, A9d, A9e, A9f, A9g, A9h, A9i. Speakers: Liz Stockman, Pilon.
Adjournment
The commission adjourned at 8:04 after a motion by Alders and a second by Schillers.
Agenda: A10. Motions: M6. Speakers: Alders, Schillers.
6 motions on the record. Split votes are highlighted.
M1MOTION to approve the amended agenda of February 24, 2020
moved by Ames, seconded by Pearo
Motion Carried.
M2MOTION to approve the Planning & Zoning Meeting minutes of October 22, 2019
moved by Alders, seconded by Schiller
Motion Carried.
M3MOTION TO APPROVE Easement Vacation
moved by Alders, seconded by Schiller
ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION CARRIED.
M4CONTINUE the hearing until March 24, 2020 meeting
moved by Schiller, seconded by Pearo
All in Favor, Motion Carried.
M5motion to ask the CC to request that the Planner review the ordinance and provide possible alternatives for discussion at the next meeting
moved by Alders, seconded by Ames
All in favor. Motion Carried.
M6Motion to Adjourn
moved by Alders, seconded by Schillers
All in favor; Motion Carried.
Each figure links back to the document it came from. When the council voted on the amount, the motion is shown.
F1
Easement vacation base fee listed on the Hazeman application.
fee · Hazeman easement vacation application fees · FY 2020
$200
inflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F2
Public hearing fee listed on the Hazeman easement vacation application.
fee · Hazeman easement vacation application fees · FY 2020
$250
inflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F3
Escrow amount listed on the Hazeman easement vacation application.
fee · Hazeman easment vacation escrow · FY 2020
$500
inflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F4
Recording fee listed as $30 per lot on the Hazeman easement vacation application.
fee · Hazeman easement vacation recording fee · FY 2020
$30
inflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F5
Amount paid and check amount for the Hazeman easement vacation application.
fee · Hazeman easement vacation amount paid · FY 2020
$980
inflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F6
Base fee listed for the preliminary and final plat application form.
fee · Leistico plat application fees · FY 2020
$200
inflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F7
Per-lot component of the base fee for the preliminary and final plat application form.
fee · Leistico plat application fees · FY 2020
$50
inflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F8
Escrow listed on the preliminary and final plat application form.
fee · Leistico plat escrow · FY 2020
$1,500
inflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F9
Public hearing fee listed on the preliminary and final plat application form.
fee · Leistico plat application fees · FY 2020
$250
inflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F10
Payment received for the Leistico plat application.
fee · Leistico plat amount paid · FY 2020
$6,050
inflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F11
Park dedication fee listed as $2,000 per lot for the plat application.
fee · Leistico park dedication fee · FY 2020
$2,000
inflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F12
Trail dedication fee listed as $500 per lot for the plat application.
fee · Leistico trail dedication fee · FY 2020
$500
inflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F13
Planner's memo estimated one park/trail dedication amount if Lot 3 became an outlot.
fee · Leistico possible one-lot park and trail dedication amount · FY 2020
$2,500
inflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F14
Security escrow listed as 150% of estimated construction costs.
rate · Leistico additional platting security escrow rate · FY 2020
$150
inflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F15
Engineering escrow listed as 7% of the initial security amount.
rate · Leistico additional platting engineering escrow rate · FY 2020
$7
inflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F16
Administrative fee listed as 1% of total construction costs.
rate · Leistico additional platting administrative fee rate · FY 2020
$1
inflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F17
Hazeman application fee agreement states that unpaid bills accrue interest at 6% per year.
rate · Application fee agreement late-payment interest · FY 2020
$6
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.
okay before we start former Chairman's were playing going passed away Melvin Johnson even back 40 years ago I need to announce it was our second chairman here he took over for Harvey
What this is about
Remembering Melvin Johnson, a prior Planning and Zoning chairman, before the meeting began.
The records I searched do not contain a prior Planning and Zoning record matching this recollection about Melvin Johnson serving as a former or second chairman, or taking over after someone named Harvey. The search results that mention “Johnson” appear to refer to City Clerk Natalie Johnson in 2026 council materials, not Melvin Johnson or earlier Planning and Zoning history. No formal action or biographical note about Melvin Johnson was found in these results.
we made some real boondoggles out of some of the evenings because when they put septic and some of these oh good good examples on Lisle arts up here they ripped out all those tiles up there and a lot of them places up there those Lots don't drain at all like they used to now
— Jorgensen
What this is about
Jorgensen recalled past septic and drainage problems caused when drain tiles were removed on other lots.
The records searched do not contain a prior decision documenting septic or drainage problems caused by drain tiles being removed from other lots, or a finding that lots no longer drained because tiles had been “ripped out.” The closest partial matches are general plat/septic/drainage items. At the February 25, 2025 Planning & Zoning meeting, the commission approved the A&B Addition preliminary/final plat and a conditional use permit for a flag lot, both on 7-0 votes, but the minutes excerpt does not mention drain-tile removal or drainage failures. The same meeting included a “Leistico East Variance” discussion about accessory structures and an unrecorded plat, but the excerpt does not show a septic or drainage issue or a formal vote on that item. A February 24, 2026 packet also included standard conditions requiring two viable septic sites per lot, final grading and drainage plans, and stormwater/erosion-control compliance, but that material does not identify a past drainage problem caused by removed tile.
in the last probably five years we we had our efforts were to try to eliminate the use of flag Lots only under special circumstances stances which is great
— Liz Stockman
What this is about
The planner recalled recent city efforts to reduce flag lots except in special circumstances.
The records show a partial match to this recollection. In the February 24, 2026 Planning Commission materials and the March 10, 2026 Council packet, staff quoted the zoning ordinance as saying that flag lots “shall generally not be permitted” and may be allowed only under unique circumstances through a Conditional Use Permit, where practical difficulties are shown due to natural features, physical constraints, or existing street and lot arrangements. Those same materials list limits such as allowing only one flag lot in minor subdivisions of up to 10 lots, and no more than 10% flag lots in larger subdivisions. The searched records also show this policy being applied in recent development review. At the August 26, 2025 Planning and Zoning discussion, staff noted that one lot in a concept plan might not meet the required lot width but “could potentially be addressed through a conditional use permit for a flag lot.” However, the search results do not show a specific Council vote within the last five years adopting a new “eliminate flag lots except special circumstances” policy; they show the current ordinance language and examples of staff applying it.
we have a long history I guess both ways we have examples in the city where we have required the extension of politics for a water to lot split and we also have examples where you know we felt that maybe a flag lot was warranted
— Liz Stockman
What this is about
The planner recalled past examples where the city required road extension for a lot split and other examples where a flag lot or right-of-way-only approach was allowed.
The records found are a partial match to this recollection. In the February 24, 2026 Planning Commission packet and again in the March 10, 2026 Council packet for Palomino Estates, staff reviewed the city’s flag-lot standards. Those materials state that flag lots are generally not permitted except under unique circumstances through a conditional use permit, but staff noted the proposed flag lot would allow driveway access to 210th Lane NW rather than directly onto Highway 47, and that “there is not a need for a future public street in this location” because of the surrounding lot arrangement near Verde Valley Road. Those same Palomino Estates materials also reflect the other side of the city’s policy history: the ordinance language says an existing flag lot or lot served by an easement may not be split without public street access, and that new access easements are prohibited. The March 10, 2026 packet also included standard conditions making the developer responsible for constructing streets, utilities, stormwater, and related improvements at their own expense. However, the search results provided do not include a specific earlier council vote where the city required a road extension for a lot split, nor do they show the final vote outcome on the Palomino Estates flag-lot request.
if you go back in history quite a number of years ago we required all roads to be paved and now then and then there was a couple of individuals that got the rules change to benefit themselves
— Jorgensen
What this is about
Jorgensen recalled earlier road-paving rules and said the rules had been changed to benefit particular individuals.
The records I searched do not contain a prior decision matching this recollection. The results include some road-related documents—such as plat/legal descriptions and road easement language in 2026 packet materials—but they do not show an earlier ordinance or policy requiring all roads to be paved, nor a later recorded rule change tied to specific individuals. So, based on these search results, I cannot confirm from the city records provided that the road-paving rules were changed to benefit particular people.
now like on Jasper and 185th we paid for that road a hundred percent and we were given money by the county to tar them roads and bring them up to standards and their present board we had at that time went and blew it in something else and that was when they originally did old Viking
— Jorgensen
What this is about
Jorgensen recalled past funding and construction history for Jasper and 185th and old Viking roads.
The records searched do not contain a prior decision matching Council Member Jorgensen’s recollection that the city paid 100% for Jasper and 185th, received county money to tar those roads, and then used that money for something else when Old Viking was originally done. No search result showed a past council vote, county funding award, road construction contract, or expenditure tied to that specific history. There are only partial matches to nearby road names. The April 14, 2026 meeting packet lists gravel-road calcium chloride work, including West Ford Brook Drive between Old Viking and Viking Boulevard, but that is a maintenance list, not a construction or funding decision. The February 24 and March 10, 2026 packet materials for Viking Estates discuss access to Viking Boulevard NW/CSAH 22 and Anoka County comments on a proposed new road, but they do not document the earlier Jasper/185th/Old Viking funding history described.
we go with the Rosa five right if that we just last year that guy had to lot so it looks like he's kids build two houses there if that land would have been split some different way he would have had to pay the road or those two homes right the way it worked out it didn't need to
What this is about
A commissioner recalled a previous two-lot situation in which the layout avoided requiring road paving for two houses.
The closest match in the records is the Leistico plat discussed at the March 23, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. That item involved a preliminary/final plat at 21413 Nowthen Blvd to reconfigure three existing parcels into four buildable parcels and two outlots, along with a conditional use permit to defer street paving requirements. Staff said the deferral would allow street paving to wait until further development under the City’s ordinance. The discussion does line up with the recollection that family members could build without immediately paving a road: the applicant said the purpose was to allow two brothers’ families to build homes without having to bring the road up to final road standards. However, the record shown is not exactly a “two-lot” split; it was a larger reconfiguration with multiple lots and outlots. The excerpt includes staff’s recommendation to approve, but it does not show the final vote outcome.
we have the same situation but we don't have only what one house ours and we had to designate our whole lot to the city but they didn't there's nobody taking care of it other than us
— Pearo
What this is about
Pearo recalled her own property split and how right-of-way dedication and maintenance were handled.
The records searched do not contain a prior decision specifically about Commissioner Pearo’s own property split, or a record showing that her lot was dedicated to the city with maintenance left to the property owner. There is a related discussion at the February 24, 2026 Planning Commission meeting, when the Commission reviewed Mark Limpert’s proposed minor subdivision at 21881 Pinnaker Rd NW. Staff noted that Pinnaker Road ran through the property as a “road by usage” without formal platting or easement, and the applicant discussed working with city staff to formalize the road easement. The excerpt does not show a formal vote on that subdivision item or a decision about who would maintain the right-of-way. There is also broader related history at the December 23, 2025 Planning Commission meeting, where commissioners discussed minor subdivision ordinance changes, including clearer requirements for road frontage and reducing minor subdivisions to one new lot. That discussion was general policy direction; no specific decision matching Pearo’s recollection was recorded in the search results.
when he split that land that one condition was is that he provided Street access okay so that's kind of for debate as to whether that will even work there at this point
— Liz Stockman
What this is about
The planner recalled that when land behind the mini-storage was previously split, a condition required street access.
The records searched show a related zoning/subdivision standard, but not a prior approval for land behind the mini-storage. In the Palomino Estates materials included for the February 24, 2026 and March 10, 2026 meetings, staff cited the rule that an existing flag lot or lot accessed by easement “may not be split without the provision of public street access,” and that direct access to a public street is required while new access easements are prohibited. In those staff reports, however, staff marked that provision “not applicable.” The records I searched do not contain a prior council decision or recorded condition specifically saying that when the land behind the mini-storage was split, the owner was required to provide street access. The available results support that this is a city requirement discussed in recent subdivision review materials, but they do not confirm the earlier mini-storage-related condition Liz Stockman was recalling.
## 9. Clerk's Update City Clerk Natalie Johnson reported that Miss Riley had returned, and is filling in while another employee was out on medical leave. Public Works had installed new floats at the d
<!-- PageBreak --> <!-- PageNumber="16" --> ## Municipal Services and Operations Several operational priorities were discussed: Seasonal Employee Hiring: The council agreed this was an ongoing operati
## 9. Clerk's Update City Clerk Natalie Johnson reported that Miss Riley had returned, and is filling in while another employee was out on medical leave. Public Works had installed new floats at the d
<!-- PageBreak --> ### Municipal Services and Operations Several operational priorities were discussed: Seasonal Employee Hiring: The council agreed this was an ongoing operational need rather than a
<!-- PageBreak --> <!-- PageNumber="326" --> 1\. The City regularly receives inquiries from property owners, real estate professionals, developers and proposed purchasers ("Requesting Parties" or each
Every document and recording archived for this meeting.
Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting — Minutes (2020-02-24)
Minutes · 2020-02-24
3 pages
Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting — Agenda Packet (2020-02-24)
Packet · 2020-02-24
34 pages
Meeting recording
YouTube
Transcript · 414 segments · 1:03:32
The structured brief on this page is auto-generated and may need correction. The PDFs and the meeting recording remain the official record.