Loading records…
2020-10-27
Agenda
Not posted
What was on the agenda.
One-line summary
The Planning and Zoning Commission continued the Leistico Estate subdivision and RRT code-amendment public hearings to November 24, reviewed the Brand Name Storage concept plan as advisory only, and adjourned at 8:58 pm.
10 items as recorded in the packet and minutes.
A1Pledge of Allegiance
The agenda listed the Pledge of Allegiance, but the minutes do not record it separately.
A2Called to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7:02 pm.
A3Roll Call
Roll call was taken.
A4Approve or amend the October 27, 2020 agenda
A motion was made, but the minutes do not record a vote or carried/failed result.
A5Approve the September 22, 2020 Planning and Zoning minutes
A motion was made, but the minutes do not record a vote or carried/failed result.
A6Public hearing: Leistico Estate subdivision
A subdivision by the Leistico Estate at 21413 Nowthen Blvd to subdivide 3 existing lots into 4 parcels for family land distribution and to separate the farmstead from the balance of land.
The item was continued to the November 24, 2020 meeting.
A7Public hearing: City Code amendments and Rural Residential Transition District
Continued public hearing on amendments to the City Code, including the proposed Rural Residential Transition District, impervious-surface limits, lot buildability, parking and driveway setbacks, and single-family development standards.
The Commission agreed to changes discussed during the meeting and continued the public hearing to November 24, 2020.
A8Discussion: Brand Name Storage Phases 2 and 3 concept plan review
Concept plan review for Phases 2 and 3 of Brand Name Storage at 8335 and 8359 Viking Boulevard NW, including removal of the existing farmstead and a new street.
The minutes state that the concept review was advisory only and needed no decision.
A9Reminder: November 5, 2020 special P&Z meeting for Rick Sonsteby applications
Reminder of a special Planning and Zoning meeting on November 5, 2020, to consider IUP and variance applications from Rick Sonsteby for 5430 199th Ave NW.
The item was a meeting reminder; no action was recorded.
A10Adjourn
The motion to adjourn carried at 8:58 PM.
What this meeting did about specific topics, organized by issue rather than by document.
Leistico Estate subdivision
The Commission took up the continued public hearing for the Leistico Estate subdivision at 21413 Nowthen Blvd, which would divide three existing lots into four parcels for family land distribution and separation of the farmstead. The item was moved forward again to the November 24, 2020 meeting.
Agenda: A6. Motions: M3. Speakers: Ames, Jorgensen.
Rural Residential Transition District and zoning code amendments
The Commission continued reviewing proposed City Code changes for the new RRT District and related subdivision and zoning standards. Discussion focused on lot width, setbacks, frontage, buildability, driveway setbacks, and driveway surfacing; the summarized recommendation was 150 feet of road frontage, a 175-foot minimum lot width, and a 57-foot setback from the property line. The Commission voted to make the changes discussed and continue the public hearing to November 24, 2020.
Agenda: A7. Motions: M4. Speakers: Stockman, Ames, Pearo, Wagner, Alders, Schiller, Jorgensen.
Brand Name Storage Phases 2 and 3 concept plan
The Commission reviewed Josh Peterson's advisory concept plan for Phases 2 and 3 of Brand Name Storage at 8335 and 8359 Viking Boulevard NW. The discussion covered combining parcels for access, the proposed stormwater pond, runoff from additional impervious surface, the future road connection, and whether later approvals might cover both phases; no formal decision was required.
Agenda: A8. Speakers: Stockman, Schiller, Wagner, Peterson.
Rick Sonsteby special meeting reminder
The Commission noted the special Planning and Zoning meeting scheduled for November 5, 2020, to consider IUP and variance applications from Rick Sonsteby for 5430 199th Ave NW.
Agenda: A9.
Routine meeting administration
The meeting opened with roll call after being called to order at 7:02 pm by Chairman Ames. Motions were made to approve or amend the agenda and approve the September 22, 2020 minutes, and the meeting adjourned at 8:58 pm.
Agenda: A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A10. Motions: M1, M2, M5. Speakers: Ames, Pearo, Jorgensen, Alders, Schiller.
5 motions on the record. Split votes are highlighted.
M1Motion by Pearo; 2nd byJorgensen- to Approve/Amend tonight's meeting agenda of October 27, 2020.
moved by Pearo, seconded by Jorgensen
M2Motion by Alders; 2nd by Schiller to Approve the Planning & Zoning Meeting minutes of September 22, 2020.
moved by Alders, seconded by Schiller
M3Motion by Ames; 2nd by Jorgensen to continue to the November 24, 2020 meeting.
moved by Ames, seconded by Jorgensen
M4Pearo made the motion to make all the changes discussed above and continue this public hearing to the November 24, 2020 meeting; Wagner 2nd.
moved by Pearo, seconded by Wagner
All in favor. Motion Carried.
M5Motion by Jorgensen; 2nd by Alders to Adjourn at 8:58 PM.
moved by Jorgensen, seconded by Alders
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
The Brand Name Storage site plan/building permit review application lists a base fee of $200.
fee · Site plan or building permit review base fee
$200
inflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F2
The Brand Name Storage site plan/building permit review application lists an escrow deposit of $1,000.
fee · Site plan or building permit review escrow
$1,000
inflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F3
The Brand Name Storage application records $1,200 paid by check #1179, receipt #2009056.
fee · Brand Name Storage application amount paid
$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.
Based on City Council action at their October 13th meeting, the Commission is mostly discussing lot width, lot depth, and frontage requirements on local roads.
— Stockman
What this is about
The RRT zoning amendments were being reviewed in light of action taken by the City Council at its October 13, 2020 meeting.
The records I searched do not contain the October 13, 2020 City Council action referenced in this recollection, nor do they show a prior decision specifically tying RRT zoning amendments to lot width, lot depth, or frontage requirements on local roads. The closest related records in the search results are later code materials describing the general subdivision amendment process and Planning & Zoning Commission review role, including that ordinance amendments are referred to the Commission for study and a public hearing. Those records do not document the October 13, 2020 Council action or any vote outcome on the RRT amendments.
Discussion Plan - to go one by one through the list of 10 things the Developer submitted in September, 2020, and the responses to each item.
What this is about
The Commission was revisiting a list of developer recommendations first submitted during the September 2020 public hearing.
The records I searched do not contain a prior decision or discussion matching this recollection of a developer-submitted list of 10 recommendations from a September 2020 public hearing. The search results instead point to later Planning and Zoning Commission procedures and conduct rules, including agenda preparation, focused discussion, and minutes requirements in materials from the February 10, 2026 packet, but they do not identify the September 2020 developer recommendations or any Commission responses to those items.
At the September Planning and Zoning Commission (PZ) meeting, City Code changes were presented with the goal of establishing a new RRT, Rural Residential Transition, Zoning District and bringing the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances into conformance with the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan.
— Elizabeth Stockman
What this is about
The planner's packet explains that the September Planning and Zoning meeting had introduced the RRT code changes and a local landowner's suggested variations.
The records searched show only a partial match. They do not include the September Planning and Zoning Commission discussion described in the packet, nor do they show a recorded vote or recommendation from that September meeting on creating the RRT, Rural Residential Transition, zoning district or on a landowner’s suggested variations. Later records do show that the RRT district was being used in development materials: at the February 24, 2026 meeting packet, the Viking Estates/Rademacher materials describe the subject site as zoned “RRT, Rural Residential Transition,” with a proposed 14-lot subdivision on about 44.04 acres, and the Rademacher concept plan shows about 33.76 acres as Rural Residential Transition plus about 5.91 acres commercial. The same concept plan also appears in the March 10, 2026 packet. These later materials support that the RRT district was part of the city’s zoning framework by then, but the search results do not contain the earlier September presentation or any formal September decision.
As a condition of Phase 1 approval, the findings stated that: Parcel A may not be developed with industrial uses until public street access can be provided and the residential interim use ceases.
— Elizabeth Stockman
What this is about
The Brand Name Storage concept relied on a prior Phase 1 approval condition about public street access before industrial development of Parcel A.
The records I searched do not contain a prior Phase 1 approval condition matching this recollection about Brand Name Storage, Parcel A, public street access, or an interim residential use. The search results instead point to March 24 and April 14, 2026 packet materials for Paradise Solution Management/High Horse Farms cannabis licensing and operating procedures. Those materials do not appear related to the Brand Name Storage concept or the quoted Parcel A development condition.
In 2012, Anoka County completed a planning study that determined access spacing along the CSAH 22 corridor to accommodate the projected traffic volumes.
— Shane Nelson
What this is about
The City Engineer referred to a 2012 Anoka County planning study for future access restrictions along CSAH 22.
The records I searched do not contain the 2012 Anoka County CSAH 22 corridor planning study or a prior City Council decision adopting access spacing or future access restrictions for that corridor. The search results include other Anoka County and road-related materials, such as the 2025 Anoka County Hazard Mitigation Plan in the April 14, 2026 packet and 2026 local road overlay assessment materials, but they do not match the City Engineer’s reference to a 2012 county planning study for CSAH 22 access spacing.
Council may also appoint a council liaison who shall be a non-voting member who is not counted for quorum purposes. B. Terms. The members of the Commission shall be appointed for staggered terms of th
<!-- PageBreak --> <!-- PageNumber="3" --> emphasizing the need to understand each situation thoroughly. Martell affirmed his belief in preserving wetlands and wooded areas and supporting the farmer's
### Development Applications in Review Palomino Estates -- Kyle Roessler - 20930 St. Francis Blvd. · An application for preliminary plat and a conditional use permit for a flag lot were submitted. The
<!-- PageBreak --> <!-- PageNumber="298" --> application shall be submitted to the Planning & Zoning Commission for their advice and recommendations and they shall consider this request at the next re
<!-- PageBreak --> <!-- PageNumber="137" --> application shall be submitted to the Planning & Zoning Commission for their advice and recommendations and they shall consider this request at the next re
Every document and recording archived for this meeting.
The structured brief on this page is auto-generated and may need correction. The PDFs and the meeting recording remain the official record.