Thursday, November 5, 2020 · 7:00 PM
Agenda
Not on file
What was on the agenda.
One-line summary
The Planning and Zoning Commission continued the Swanson/Sonsteby Burns Auto IUP and variance hearing to November 24, 2020, discussed draft snow-removal and on-street-parking ordinance changes, and adjourned at 8:49 pm.
7 items as recorded in the packet and minutes, each with a short summary of what was at issue.
A1Pledge of Allegiance
The minutes in this bundle do not record whether the Pledge of Allegiance occurred.
A2Called to Order
Chairman Ames called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.
A3Roll Call
Roll call was taken.
A4Approve/Amend tonight's meeting agenda of November 5, 2020
The minutes record a motion and second to approve or amend the agenda, but do not record whether the motion carried.
A5Public hearing - Swanson/Sonsteby Interim Use Permit and Variance
Swanson/Sonsteby Interim Use Permit and Variance, 5340 199th Avenue NW (PID 24-33-25-34-0002) - Reuse of Burns Auto Site for used auto sales; a 10.2 foot Variance has been requested from the 100 foot buffer yard requirement.
The Commission opened the public hearing on the Swanson/Sonsteby request to reuse the Burns Auto site for used auto sales with an interim use permit and a bufferyard variance. Neighbors raised concerns about drainage, possible contamination, lighting, police calls, traffic, test drives, road conditions, and septic capacity. The Commission did not make a recommendation that night; it continued the public hearing to November 24, 2020, to gather more information on the holding pond, road paving, drainage, soil testing, lighting, police reports, and resident input.
The Planning and Zoning Commission continued the public hearing to November 24, 2020, for additional information.
A6Discussion - Ordinance 2020-04 regarding On-Street Parking and Snow Removal
Ordinance 2020-04 regarding On-Street Parking and Snow Removal.
Planner Stockman reviewed draft Ordinance 2020-04, which clarified winter on-street parking, snow-emergency parking, and snow-depositing rules. The Commission treated it as a discussion item only, with the item to be forwarded to the City Council for approval without a public hearing.
The item was discussed and was to be sent to the City Council for approval.
A7Motion to Adjourn
The motion to adjourn carried at 8:49 pm.
3 motions on the record.
M1Approve/Amend tonight's meeting agenda of November 5, 2020.
Approve/Amend tonight's meeting agenda of November 5, 2020.
moved by Alders, seconded by Pearo
M2Continue the public hearing to November 24, 2020, to get additional data for the Commission and the residents, in addition to the stated items in the Planners' Findings, regarding: 1. the holding pond design requirements; correctly designed, 2. road apron paved, cost, and extent of pavement to go past the driveway and potentially the other commercial driveway - get estimate from MNDOT & how much more to go to driveways 3. Garage floor draining into drain tile verified and corrected 4. Engineer address drainage & test soils on applicant property and possibly neighborhood to get a baseline for future drainage concerns; series of drain tiles that affect neighbors down the line; Pearo thinks the soil testing of the neighbors should be limited to the applicant property, and residents should be responsible to pay for their own. Pilon said that the drain tile mapping is important. 5. Lighting standards maintained - details from applicant 6. Police reports 7. Retention pond soils - check for sediment, sludge; responsibility of property owner or city? 8. Requested resident input to be submitted.
continue the public hearing to November 24, 2020, to get additional data for the Commission and the residents, in addition to the stated items in the Planners' Findings, regarding: 1. the holding pond design requirements; correctly designed, 2. road apron paved, cost, and extent of pavement to go past the driveway and potentially the other commercial driveway - get estimate from MNDOT & how much more to go to driveways 3. Garage floor draining into drain tile verified and corrected 4. Engineer address drainage & test soils on applicant property and possibly neighborhood to get a baseline for future drainage concerns; series of drain tiles that affect neighbors down the line; Pearo thinks the soil testing of the neighbors should be limited to the applicant property, and residents should be responsible to pay for their own. Pilon said that the drain tile mapping is important. 5. Lighting standards maintained - details from applicant 6. Police reports 7. Retention pond soils - check for sediment, sludge; responsibility of property owner or city? 8. Requested resident input to be submitted
moved by Alders, seconded by Ames
All in favor
M3Motion to Adjourn at 8:49 PM.
Motion to Adjourn at 8:49 PM
moved by Schiller, seconded by Pearo
All in Favor
When someone referred back to earlier business, we found the matching prior discussion and tied it in here.
The Interim Use Permit (IUP) approved in March of 2016 for Burns Auto is non-transferrable.
— Elizabeth Stockman
What this is about
Prior Burns Auto interim use permit and the need for a new approval after property transfer.
The records searched do not include the March 2016 Burns Auto interim use permit approval itself, so I cannot confirm from these results the exact approval date, vote, or original conditions for Burns Auto. The search results do show related IUP language used in later City packets stating that an interim use terminates “if the owner of the business no longer lives on the Subject Property, or if the property owner sells the Subject Property.” That language appears in several 2026 packet excerpts, including the February 24, March 10, March 24, and April 14, 2026 materials. Those records support the general point that these IUPs are treated as tied to the current owner/property situation and are not automatically transferable after a sale, but the specific 2016 Burns Auto approval was not found in the records provided here.
When the C-1 District provisions were adopted on October 11, 2011, the property was grandfathered in with the multiple principal uses on a single property.
— Elizabeth Stockman
What this is about
Prior adoption of the C-1 District provisions and grandfathering of multiple principal uses on the property.
The records I searched do not contain a prior decision matching this recollection. In particular, the search results provided do not include an October 11, 2011 meeting record, an adoption of C-1 District provisions, or a recorded finding that this property was grandfathered for multiple principal uses on a single property. The available results mostly relate to later zoning, interim use, subdivision, and code-compliance materials from 2025 and 2026. Those materials may involve property uses and zoning compliance generally, but they do not confirm the specific 2011 C-1 District adoption or grandfathering statement.
The City Council had directed staff earlier this year to take a look at City Code regulations and the code enforcement process relating to snow removal.
— Elizabeth Stockman
What this is about
Earlier City Council direction to look at snow-removal regulations and enforcement.
The records I searched do not contain a prior City Council decision or recorded direction matching this recollection about snow-removal regulations or snow-removal code enforcement. The closest results involve general City Code and enforcement matters, such as fee-schedule/code amendments in the February 24 and March 10, 2026 packets and a February 24, 2026 code-enforcement agreement for unrelated property violations. Those records do not mention snow removal or show a formal Council vote directing staff to review snow-removal regulations or enforcement procedures.
20 years ago, he signed off for 5-8 cars, and it has turned into a nightmare, which does nothing but collect the
— James Day
What this is about
Original neighborhood approval or understanding for a much smaller car-sales use about 20 years earlier.
The records I searched do not contain a prior decision or approval matching this recollection of a neighborhood agreement for a small 5–8 car sales use from about 20 years ago. The search results returned unrelated items from 2026, including personnel drug-testing policy language, security/access-control proposals, and a Birchwood Lane variance packet, but nothing documenting an original car-sales approval, neighborhood sign-off, or conditions limiting the number of vehicles.
When the City had the meeting for the special use permit back when Bob Swanson was applying for it, he brought up the night sky lighting issue as a point that he was concerned about. He was assured that the lights would be turned off at night, and Bob claimed that they had less theft at night when the lights were off than when they were on. That is in the record somewhere and dismissed his concern years ago.
— Eric Libby
What this is about
Prior special use permit meeting and representations about car-lot lighting at night.
The records I searched do not contain a prior special use permit decision matching this recollection about Bob Swanson, a car lot, or assurances that lot lights would be turned off at night. The search results returned unrelated permit and subdivision materials from 2025–2026, including minor subdivision conditions and interim use permit conditions for other uses. They do not show a prior discussion, public hearing, vote, or permit condition about car-lot nighttime lighting or theft concerns.
It was zoned commercial 10-15 years ago, and it sounds like the neighbors need to work to change that.
— Joe Hanson
What this is about
Prior zoning of the neighborhood property as commercial and possible future effort to change zoning.
The records I searched do not contain a prior decision matching the recollection that this neighborhood property was rezoned or zoned commercial 10–15 years ago. The results mainly show recent 2025–2026 packet materials for minor subdivisions and interim use permits/home occupations, not an older zoning-map change or commercial rezoning action. So, based on these search results alone, there is no documented prior council vote or decision establishing when or why the property became commercial, nor a recorded discussion about neighbors pursuing a future zoning change.
Stockman said in 2016 Swansons built a storm water pond that was reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.
— Liz Stockman
What this is about
Prior 2016 stormwater pond review and approval by the City Engineer.
The records searched do not contain a prior 2016 decision or approval matching the recollection that the Swansons built a stormwater pond reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. The search results do show later, unrelated 2026 development materials where plans, wetland buffers, grading, and stormwater-related documents were subject to City Engineer review or approval, including references in the March 10, 2026 and April 14, 2026 packets. But those records do not identify the Swansons, a 2016 stormwater pond, or a formal City action approving such a pond.
Pilon mentioned that all information regarding this application is available on the City Website. Under the Meetings Tab, select Planning & Zoning Commission, 09-22-20 Agenda w/Packet, Item 4: "Site and Building Plan Review - Burns Auto, 5340 199th Ave NW," and in the 11-05-2020 SP Agenda w/Packet. Video of both meetings is also available on the City YouTube Channel.
— Jeff Pilon
What this is about
Prior meeting packet and video materials for the Burns Auto application.
The records searched here do not include the September 22, 2020 Planning & Zoning Commission packet, the November 5, 2020 special meeting packet, or any Burns Auto application materials. The cue itself indicates that Jeff Pilon was directing people to the City website for the relevant prior materials: the Planning & Zoning Commission September 22, 2020 agenda packet, Item 4, “Site and Building Plan Review - Burns Auto, 5340 199th Ave NW,” and the November 5, 2020 special meeting agenda packet, with videos of both meetings available on the City YouTube channel. The search results provided are from 2026 packets and Planning & Zoning policy materials and do not contain a prior decision or discussion matching the Burns Auto application. Based on these results, no formal action, vote outcome, or application details for Burns Auto can be confirmed from the searched records.
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 discharge have been reviewed and approved
16\. Noise levels which constitute a nuisance shall be prohibited as regulated in the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's Noise Pollution Control Rules (MN Rules Ch. 7030). 17\. No liquid, gas
compliant, then installation of a new ISTS or remediation of a non-compliant ISTS shall be completed prior to commencement of the business. 10\. All materials, equipment and parts used for the
10\. All materials, equipment and parts used for the business shall be stored in the accessory structure. No outside storage of any items is permitted. 11\. All personal property stored on sit
8\. No concrete shall be made on the property. Any concrete used shall be sent directly to the off-site project. No concrete washout is permitted on the property. 9\. All materials, equipment a
Documents and recordings archived for this meeting, when available.
The summary on this page is AI-extracted and may need correction. The PDFs and the meeting recording are the official record. What do the trust labels mean?