Loading records…
2021-10-26
Agenda
Not posted
What was on the agenda.
Minutes
Not posted
The official record of what happened.
Agenda items below are drawn from the packet; outcomes will not appear until minutes are added.
One-line summary
The Planning & Zoning Commission approved the agenda and prior minutes, discussed the Borg Verde Valley Road flag-lot concept without a formal vote, and continued work on commercial and industrial architectural standards.
9 items as recorded in the packet and minutes.
A0Called to Order
The transcript begins with the pledge and roll call; no separate action was recorded for calling the meeting to order.
A1Pledge of Allegiance
The pledge was recited; no vote was required.
A2Roll Call
Roll call was taken; the transcript records Schiller as not present.
A3Approve/Amend meeting agenda of October 26, 2021
Approve or amend the October 26, 2021 agenda.
The agenda was approved by voice vote.
A4Approve Planning & Zoning Commission minutes for July 27, 2021 and August 24, 2021
Approve Planning & Zoning Commission minutes for July 27, 2021 and August 24, 2021.
The July 27 and August 24, 2021 Planning & Zoning Commission minutes were approved by voice vote.
A5Concept Plan Review - Borg Lot Split, 5763 Verde Valley Rd.
Concept plan review for a proposed two-lot split at 5763 Verde Valley Road requiring a flag lot CUP and lot-width variance.
The commission gave concept-level feedback only. No formal motion was required, and the applicant would need more information before filing a lot split application.
A6Discussion - Commercial/Industrial Architectural Standards
Discuss possible ordinance changes for commercial and industrial architectural standards.
The commission discussed draft ordinance language and asked staff to continue revising it, including landscaping and separate commercial and industrial standards.
A7Upcoming Projects at November Meeting
Upcoming projects at the November meeting: Woodhaven 9-lot preliminary plat and Toft 2nd Addition preliminary plat.
Staff reported that Woodhaven was expected for the next agenda and that the CST/Toft second phase depended on street issues being resolved.
A8Motion to Adjourn
The transcript ends with an all-in-favor vote, but the motion text and mover/seconder are not captured.
What this meeting did about specific topics, organized by issue rather than by document.
October 26 agenda approval
The commission approved the October 26, 2021 meeting agenda at the start of the meeting by voice vote.
Agenda: A3. Motions: M1. Speakers: Jorgensen, Pearo.
July and August Planning & Zoning minutes
The commission approved the Planning & Zoning Commission minutes for July 27, 2021 and August 24, 2021 by voice vote.
Agenda: A4. Motions: M2. Speakers: Carlson, Jorgensen.
Borg lot split at 5763 Verde Valley Road
Planner Stockman presented Jerry Borg’s concept for splitting a 10-acre Verde Valley Road parcel into two lots, which would require a flag lot CUP and a variance for lot width. The commission discussed the existing nonconforming frontage, the 33-foot flag access, wetlands and possible driveway crossing, the adjoining landlocked high ground, and whether a 66-foot access would be practical. No formal vote was taken; the commission indicated the applicant would need to complete more homework, especially on wetland access, before submitting a formal lot split application.
Agenda: A5. Speakers: Stockman, Bies, Pearo, Jorgensen, Haapala, Carlson.
Commercial and industrial architectural standards
The commission reviewed draft Ordinance 2021-06 for commercial and industrial architectural standards. Discussion focused on whether to require earth-tone colors, how much flexibility businesses should have, how to handle entrances, roof forms, wall articulation, screening, utilities, parking location, and reciprocal access. Members asked for clearer, more enforceable language, including separate standards for commercial and industrial districts, and staff said landscaping revisions would come back in a later draft.
Agenda: A6. Speakers: Stockman, Pearo, Pilon, Carlson, Bies, Jorgensen.
November project preview
Staff said Woodhaven was expected on the November agenda and that the CST/Toft second phase was still dependent on street issues being resolved, including sub-base inspection problems before paving.
Agenda: A7. Speakers: Stockman.
2 motions on the record. Split votes are highlighted.
M1Approve/Amend tonight's meeting agenda of October 26, 2021
moved by Jorgensen, seconded by Pearo
Voice vote; all in favor; motion carried.
M2approve the planning and zoning commission many minutes for july 27 2021 and august 24 2021
moved by Carlson, seconded by Jorgensen
Voice vote; no opposition heard; motion carried.
Each figure links back to the document it came from. When the council voted on the amount, the motion is shown.
F1
Processing requirement for the Borg lot split concept: payment of park/trail fees for one new lot.
fee · park/trail fees
$2,500
inflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F2
Base fee listed on the concept plan review application for the Borg property.
fee · concept plan review base fee
$200
inflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F3
Escrow listed on the concept plan review application for the Borg property.
fee · concept plan review escrow
$1,000
inflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F4
Total amount due listed on the concept plan review application for the Borg property.
fee · concept plan review total amount due
$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.
In April of 2021 the City Council directed to TPC to research Architectural Standards at which time the attached Memorandum, dated May 4, 2021, was prepared.
— Elizabeth Stockman
What this is about
Prior Council direction and moratorium leading to the architectural standards discussion.
The records I searched do not contain a prior City Council decision or moratorium matching the recollection that, in April 2021, Council directed the TPC to research architectural standards. The search results returned unrelated 2026 packet materials, including development applications, interim use permit conditions, fee schedule language, and other administrative items, but not the April 2021 direction or the May 4, 2021 memorandum referenced in the cue. Based on these results, I cannot confirm from the searched records whether a formal vote, consensus direction, or moratorium action occurred in April 2021 leading to the architectural standards discussion.
On August 9, 2021 a moratorium was adopted to temporarily prohibit all new commercial and industrial development in the City while architectural standards are discussed.
— Elizabeth Stockman
What this is about
The adopted commercial and industrial development moratorium that prompted review of architectural standards.
The records I searched do not contain the August 9, 2021 council action adopting a moratorium on new commercial and industrial development, nor do they show the related architectural standards discussion or a recorded vote on that moratorium. The closest date references in the results are unrelated: a September 12, 2023 agenda item approving August 2023 meeting minutes, and a 2025 packet that references an August 19, 2021 planning report for a minor subdivision. Neither document matches the recalled commercial/industrial development moratorium.
this is the half house property it had a history of some animal issues [2:23–2:34] but um mr half has passed away and the property got purchased and mr board has actually cleaned it up a ton
— Stockman
What this is about
Prior condition of the Borg property before cleanup and the new concept review.
The records I searched do not contain a prior Council decision or documented enforcement history matching the recollection that the Half/Borg property had “animal issues” before being cleaned up. The search results include later land-use packet material from 2025 and 2026 with standard conditions about outside storage, code compliance, septic compliance, and permitted uses, but the excerpts do not identify or document a prior animal-related nuisance case, cleanup order, or formal Council action tied to this property. So, based on these results, the records only partially support the recollection: they show the City was reviewing later property-use or development concepts, but they do not show the earlier animal-condition history or any formal vote about cleanup of the property.
when brian's bend was subdividing along 47 there they had some landlocked parcels and we made them [21:28–21:39] move the lot lines so that you know that the contiguous land was all together
— Stockman
What this is about
A prior subdivision where landlocked parcels were addressed by moving lot lines.
The records I searched do not contain a prior decision specifically matching the recollection of “Brian’s Bend” subdividing along Highway 47 with landlocked parcels that were corrected by moving lot lines. The closest related records are in the February 24, 2026 and March 10, 2026 packets, where staff proposed minor-subdivision ordinance changes requiring that all parcels resulting from a minor subdivision have frontage and access on an existing public improved street, and separating lot-line adjustments from the minor-subdivision process. The February 24, 2026 packet also notes, for a subdivision review, that lot-line changes or a reduction in the number of lots might be needed to meet ordinance requirements. However, the search results do not show a formal vote or a specific prior subdivision approval involving Brian’s Bend or landlocked parcels.
we just did [37:28–37:42] [Music] adopt a change to the accessory building ordinance earlier in the month which allows some [37:41–37:52] in i guess mostly well could be commercial areas but mostly residential allowing a building in front of the home
— Stockman
What this is about
A recent accessory-building ordinance amendment used as context for architectural design rules.
The records I searched do not contain a prior decision matching this recollection. The search results did not return an accessory-building ordinance amendment or a council action allowing an accessory building to be located in front of a home. The results that did appear were unrelated ordinances or agreements, including fee-schedule amendments in the February 24 and March 10, 2026 packets, court-data access materials in the May 12, 2026 packet, and references to other ordinances such as THC/cannabis regulation. None of those records document the accessory-building change Councilmember Stockman was referring to.
when bills came in they expected some architectural standards because they had the pine [58:11–58:23] river state bank there and they assumed like many of the holiday station stores when you go up north they have to have stone and wood and in greater minnesota the holiday stores [58:21–58:32] don't look like the ones in twin cities they look like something that's up north
— Pilon
What this is about
The history of how Bill's and Pine River State Bank influenced expectations for the main commercial corridor.
The records I searched do not contain a prior discussion or decision matching this recollection about Bill’s, Pine River State Bank, or architectural expectations for the main commercial corridor. The search results do show Pine River State Bank appearing in city financial records: it was listed as an official depository at the January 13, 2026 meeting, and monthly treasurer’s reports in early 2026 show city checking balances held there. Those records do not discuss building design, stone/wood architectural standards, Holiday station store comparisons, or corridor appearance expectations.
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="123" --> 7\. The memo from the City Planner dated February 18, 2026 is incorporated herein by reference. The staff report from the City Planner dated March 4, 2026
<!-- PageBreak --> <!-- PageNumber="152" --> 17\. No liquid, gaseous and solid wastes resulting from the use shall be discharged into the soil, water or air until the specific methods and means of dis
<!-- PageBreak --> <!-- PageNumber="15" --> 16\. Noise levels which constitute a nuisance shall be prohibited as regulated in the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's Noise Pollution Control Rules (MN
CITY OF NOWTHEN </figure> RESOLUTION No. 2026-XX Council Meeting Location: Historic Townhall 19800 Nowthen Blvd NW Nowthen MN, 55330 # A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF THE SERVICE AGREEMENT W
Every document and recording archived for this meeting.
Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting — Agenda Packet (2021-10-26)
Packet · 2021-10-26
45 pages
Meeting recording
YouTube
Transcript · 698 segments · 1:49:42
The structured brief on this page is auto-generated and may need correction. The PDFs and the meeting recording remain the official record.