M1MOTION BY PILON TO APPROVE THE AMENDED AGENDA; 2ND BY RAINVILLE. ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED.
moved by Pilon, seconded by Rainville
- YPilon
- YBlake
- YGreenberg
- YRainville
- ·Alders
Loading records…
2021-10-07
Agenda
Not posted
What was on the agenda.
One-line summary
Council amended the work-session agenda, reviewed the Cote invoice, accepted City Clerk Lori Streich’s resignation, discussed accessory-building ordinance language, reviewed planning-fee comparisons and development-process checklists, and adjourned at 8:02 PM.
12 items as recorded in the packet and minutes.
1Call to Order, Pledge of Allegiance, Roll Call, Approve Agenda
Call to order, Pledge of Allegiance, roll call, and approval of the agenda.
The agenda was amended to remove items 3.a, 3.b, 3.c, 3.e, and 3.h from discussion that night and move item 3.i to the top.
2City Clerk Resignation
Discussion and action on City Clerk Lori Streich's resignation.
Council accepted the resignation and removed the item from the October 12 agenda.
3.aDryden, 6660 and 6700 Viking Boulevard
Dryden, 6660 and 6700 Viking Boulevard: Dryden Acres Plat; CUP for deferral of street paving requirements; variances for lot width and driveway setback to lot line; amended 2001 CUP for updated conditions.
Removed from the work-session discussion and left for the October 12 City Council meeting.
3.bWard, 6789 Old Viking Blvd, Lot Split
Ward, 6789 Old Viking Blvd, lot split.
Removed from the work-session discussion and left for the October 12 City Council meeting.
3.cJones, 6167 Viking Blvd, Interim Use Permit
Jones, 6167 Viking Blvd, interim use permit.
Removed from the work-session discussion and left for the October 12 City Council meeting.
3.dOrdinance 2021-04 Accessory Buildings
Ordinance 2021-04 regarding accessory buildings, with clarification or changes.
Council discussed revisions, including front-yard accessory structures and bus-shelter language, but took no final ordinance action at this work session.
3.eOrdinance 2021-05 Plumbing Code Incorporated
Ordinance 2021-05 incorporating plumbing code.
Removed from the work-session discussion and left for a City Council meeting discussion.
3.fPlanning Fees in Similar Communities
Planning fees in similar communities.
Council reviewed fee comparisons and asked that census-related data be updated; no fee change was adopted.
3.gProcess Diagram and Checklists
Development review process diagram and checklists.
Council reviewed the process materials and suggested edits and outside review by recent applicants or developers.
3.hPublic Hearing Process
Public hearing process.
Removed from the work-session discussion and left for a City Council meeting discussion.
3.iCote Invoice
Cote invoice.
Council directed staff to confirm with Hakanson Anderson that the charges were not double billed before sending the invoice.
4Adjourn
Adjournment.
Meeting adjourned at 8:02 PM.
What this meeting did about specific topics, organized by issue rather than by document.
Amended work-session agenda
The Council amended the work-session agenda before taking up business. Planning and Zoning items 3.a, 3.b, and 3.c were removed from that night’s discussion, item 3.i was moved to the top, and items 3.e and 3.h were also removed for later City Council discussion.
Agenda: 1. Motions: M1. Speakers: Pilon, Rainville.
Cote invoice
Council reviewed a proposed $282.50 Cote zoning-application invoice tied to Hakanson Anderson charges. Staff explained which charges had already been paid and which were believed still unpaid, and Council agreed that staff should confirm with Hakanson Anderson that the May 10 and May 11 charges were not double billed before sending the statement.
Agenda: 3.i. Speakers: Pilon, Lorensen, Stockman.
City Clerk Lori Streich resignation
The Council accepted City Clerk Lori Streich’s resignation and removed the item from the October 12 agenda. The City Attorney explained why he was present, warned Council not to discuss employee-performance details in open session, and advised that Council should begin planning for an interim administrator or hiring process soon.
Agenda: 2. Motions: M2. Speakers: Pilon, Ruppe, Rainville, Blake, Greenberg, Stockman.
Accessory building ordinance revisions
Council discussed Ordinance 2021-04 language on allowing a smaller accessory structure in a front yard or corner side yard, including setbacks, matching exterior materials, the 800-square-foot concept, and whether to add a separate allowance for small bus shelters at the end of driveways. No final ordinance action was taken at the work session.
Agenda: 3.d. Speakers: Stockman, Pilon, Rainville.
Planning fees in comparable communities
Council reviewed planning-fee data prepared by staff, including Nowthen’s recent planning-cost averages and comparisons to similar communities. Members discussed using the information to answer resident concerns that development in Nowthen is too expensive and asked for the population and density data to be updated with current census numbers.
Agenda: 3.f. Speakers: Blake, Stockman, Pilon, Lorensen.
Development review diagrams and checklists
Council reviewed new development-process matrices, application schedules, consultant-fee forms, and checklists meant to help applicants understand the land-use and building-permit process. Members suggested clearer wording about when the 60-day review period starts, adding attorney involvement, identifying tasks applicants can do to manage costs, clarifying that Planning and Zoning makes recommendations while Council decides, and having recent applicants or developers test the materials.
Agenda: 3.g. Speakers: Blake, Stockman, Lorensen, Pilon, Rainville, Greenberg.
Adjournment
The work session adjourned at 8:02 PM.
Agenda: 4. Motions: M3. Speakers: Rainville, Blake.
3 motions on the record. Split votes are highlighted.
M1MOTION BY PILON TO APPROVE THE AMENDED AGENDA; 2ND BY RAINVILLE. ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED.
moved by Pilon, seconded by Rainville
M2RAINVILLE MADE THE MOTION TO ACCEPT THE RESIGNATION OF THE CITY CLERK, LORI STREICH, AND IF APPROVED, THEN THE ITEM BE REMOVED FROM THE TUESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2021 AGENDA; 2ND BY PILON. ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED.
moved by Rainville, seconded by Pilon
M3RAINVILLE MADE THE MOTION TO ADJOURN; 2ND BY BLAKE. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:02 PM.
moved by Rainville, seconded by Blake
Each figure links back to the document it came from. When the council voted on the amount, the motion is shown.
Cote invoice balance due
Balance due that staff intended to send to James and Kristen Cote, pending confirmation that Hakanson Anderson had not double billed the charges.
invoice · Cote zoning application billing · FY 2021
$282.5
inflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
Cote 05-10-2021 HAA review legals charge
Hakanson Anderson charge for 05-10-2021 review of legals that staff identified as part of the unpaid Cote balance.
invoice · Cote lot split Hakanson Anderson charge · FY 2021
$56.5
inflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
Cote 05-11-2021 HAA review legals and memo charge
Hakanson Anderson charge for 05-11-2021 review of legals and exhibits and memo that staff identified as part of the unpaid Cote balance.
invoice · Cote lot split Hakanson Anderson charge · FY 2021
$226
inflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
Cote 05-28-2021 HAA review easement legals charge
Hakanson Anderson 05-28-2021 charge that Lorensen said had already been included in the June 3 Cote payment.
invoice · Cote lot split Hakanson Anderson charge already included in prior Cote payment · FY 2021
$113
inflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
Cote 06-01-2021 HAA review documents and memo charge
Hakanson Anderson 06-01-2021 charge that Lorensen said had already been included in the June 3 Cote payment.
invoice · Cote lot split Hakanson Anderson charge already included in prior Cote payment · FY 2021
$113
inflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
Cote June 3 credit-card payment
Credit-card payment made by Cote on June 3, 2021 so deeds could be recorded based on the then-current balance.
revenue · Cote zoning application payment · FY 2021
$198
inflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
Average planning cost for IUPs and CUPs
Overall average planning cost for IUPs and CUPs in the planning-fee comparison reviewed by Council.
estimate · Nowthen zoning fee comparison · FY 2021
$1,720
unknown
Council approval status: not yet on record.
Average planning cost for variances
Overall average planning cost for variances in the planning-fee comparison reviewed by Council.
estimate · Nowthen zoning fee comparison · FY 2021
$1,494
unknown
Council approval status: not yet on record.
Average planning cost for plats
Overall average planning cost for plats in the planning-fee comparison reviewed by Council.
estimate · Nowthen zoning fee comparison · FY 2021
$3,445
unknown
Council approval status: not yet on record.
Attorney hourly rate in consultant checklist
Attorney hourly rate shown in the consultant fee checklist reviewed during the process-diagram discussion.
fee · Consultant fee checklist · FY 2021
$210
outflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
Engineering hourly rate in consultant checklist
Engineering hourly rate shown in the consultant fee checklist reviewed during the process-diagram discussion.
fee · Consultant fee checklist · FY 2021
$113
outflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
Planning hourly rate in consultant checklist
Planning hourly rate shown in the consultant fee checklist reviewed during the process-diagram discussion.
fee · Consultant fee checklist · FY 2021
$120
outflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
Special meeting fee in consultant checklist
Special meeting charge listed as a cost-increasing situation in the consultant fee checklist.
fee · Consultant fee checklist · FY 2021
$500
inflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
CUP/IUP/variance application fee
Base application fee shown for CUP, IUP, and variance applications in the consultant fee checklist.
fee · City zoning application fees · FY 2021
$200
inflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
CUP/IUP/variance escrow
Escrow amount shown for CUP, IUP, and variance applications in the consultant fee checklist.
fee · City zoning application fees · FY 2021
$1,000
inflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
CUP/IUP/variance public hearing fee
Public hearing fee shown for CUP, IUP, and variance applications in the consultant fee checklist.
fee · City zoning application fees · FY 2021
$250
inflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
CUP/IUP/variance recording fee per lot
Recording fee per lot shown for CUP, IUP, and variance applications in the consultant fee checklist.
fee · City zoning application fees · FY 2021
$46
inflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
Park dedication fee per lot
Park dedication fee per lot shown in the consultant fee checklist.
fee · City zoning application fees · FY 2021
$2,000
inflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
Trail fee per lot
Trail fee per lot shown in the consultant fee checklist.
fee · City zoning application fees · FY 2021
$500
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.
there was a day and years past where we would take tuesday meeting items and discuss them on thursday make adjustments and then vote on them on tuesday two problems with that was one if there were a lot of changes staff had to scramble to get all the changes done before the tuesday meeting get them back to us if there weren't any changes the residents who were there on tuesday said how did you get to that decision because we never heard any of the discussion so we decided not to do that anymore
— Pilon
What this is about
Past practice of discussing regular-meeting Planning and Zoning items at work sessions, and why Council stopped doing that.
The records searched do not contain a prior Council decision matching Council Member Pilon’s recollection that the City stopped the practice of discussing regular-meeting Planning and Zoning items at Thursday work sessions and then voting the following Tuesday. There is a related but only partial match in the Planning and Zoning Commission policy included in the February 10, 2026 packet. That policy, noted as adopted by Council on March 11, 2025, emphasizes that agendas serve as the public’s guide to what will be considered and when public comment may be made, and that minutes are the official record of deliberations and votes. Those provisions are consistent with the concern described, but the search results do not show a specific Council discussion, vote, or date when the prior work-session practice was ended.
The last time the Council was in this situation, the City had to use the services of an interim administrator.
— Ruppe
What this is about
Prior City Clerk vacancy and use of an interim administrator around 2018-2019.
The records I searched do not contain a prior decision matching this recollection about a City Clerk vacancy in 2018–2019 or the City using an interim administrator at that time. The search results returned recent 2026 materials involving current City Clerk duties, payroll services, wage study/salary data, and attorney/reference documents, but they do not show a 2018–2019 vacancy, appointment, contract, or vote authorizing interim administrator services.
Pilon explained that last time this happened a few years ago (2018-19), the City engaged the services of an Interim Administrator from a list provided by the League of MN Cities (LMC). A hiring committee was selected to work with the Interim to find a replacement for City Clerk.
— Pilon
What this is about
Prior City Clerk hiring process and committee process from a few years earlier.
The records I searched do not contain a prior 2018–2019 decision matching this recollection. I did not find minutes or packet material showing the City engaged an interim administrator from a League of Minnesota Cities list, nor a recorded council action appointing a hiring committee to work with that interim administrator on a City Clerk replacement. The search results only show more recent, general staffing-related materials from 2026, such as wage study discussions and hiring policy references, but they do not document the earlier City Clerk hiring process Pilon described.
Planner Stockman stated that at some point in the past the intention was to allow a smaller accessory structure closer to the road.
— Stockman
What this is about
Prior intent behind accessory-building ordinance language allowing smaller structures closer to the road.
The records I searched do not contain a prior discussion or decision matching this recollection about accessory-building ordinance language allowing smaller structures closer to the road. The search results returned 2026 packet materials about lot line adjustments, lot consolidations, and minor subdivisions, including City Planner review procedures, but they do not address accessory structures, setbacks from roads, or the intent behind any accessory-building size distinction.
when we were codifying the ordinances previously we were looking at if you find yourself getting variance requests regularly you should go back and look at your ordinances and say why
— Pilon
What this is about
Past ordinance-codification practice of revisiting standards that produce repeated variance requests.
The records I searched do not contain a prior decision or discussion matching the recollection that, during ordinance codification, the City adopted or discussed a practice of revisiting ordinance standards when the same type of variance request keeps coming up. There is a partial related match in the February 24, 2026 packet: it quotes the City Code’s variance review criteria in Section 11-11-2.C, including the “practical difficulties” standard and the required findings for approving a variance. That record shows how variances are evaluated, but it does not document a broader codification discussion or a formal policy directing the City to amend ordinances when repeated variances occur.
you had asked if cities have a checklist because liz was putting together a checklist you were requiring her to create a checklist
— Lorensen
What this is about
Prior Council direction to create development-review checklists.
The records I searched do not contain a prior Council decision or direction matching the recollection that Liz was required to create development-review checklists, or that Council formally asked staff to prepare such checklists. The search results do show several recent development-review items with detailed conditions of approval, including minor subdivisions and plats at the September 23, 2025, December 23, 2025, March 10, 2026, March 24, 2026, and April 14, 2026 meetings. Those records include required items such as septic review, wetland buffers, engineer/planner comments, developer agreements, fees, and recording conditions, but they do not show a recorded vote or Council direction specifically establishing a checklist process.
<!-- PageBreak --> <!-- PageNumber="33" --> ### SECTION 11. AGENDA AND DEADLINE FOR AGENDA A. Purpose. The agenda of a Planning and Zoning Commission meeting serves two important functions: 1) It focu
## RESOLUTION No. 2026-XX ### A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION POLICY WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission does an annual review of their policies and procedures in Jan
Roll Call 3\. Meeting Policy read 4\. Approve/Amend Meeting Agenda 5\. Approve/Amend Meeting Minutes of the Preceding Meetings 6\. Public Hearings 7\. Unfinished Business 8\. New Business 9\. Adjournm
### SECTION 12. MINUTES A. Purpose. The minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission's meetings represent the official record of the Commission's deliberations and actions. As such, they record the P
<!-- PageBreak --> <!-- PageNumber="36" --> C. The applicant (if any) may make a presentation or report on the subject matter for the hearing. d. The presiding officer asks Planning and Zoning Commiss
Every document and recording archived for this meeting.
Meeting City Council Work Session — Minutes (2021-10-07)
Minutes · 2021-10-07
4 pages
Meeting City Council Work Session — Agenda Packet (2021-10-07)
Packet · 2021-10-07
81 pages
Meeting recording
YouTube
Transcript · 774 segments · 2:02:47
The structured brief on this page is auto-generated and may need correction. The PDFs and the meeting recording remain the official record.