Tuesday, August 24, 2021 · 7:00 PM
Agenda
Not on file
What was on the agenda.
One-line summary
The Planning & Zoning Commission approved routine items and recommended a revised Kontz Property lot split with Parcel B reshaped and future access concerns noted.
7 items as recorded in the packet and minutes, each with a short summary of what was at issue.
A-1Called to Order
The minutes in this bundle list attendance and business but do not separately record the call-to-order time.
A-2Pledge of Allegiance
The minutes in this bundle do not separately record the pledge.
A-3Roll Call
Roll call was reflected by the attendance table rather than a motion.
A-4Approve/amend August 24, 2021 agenda
Approve or amend the August 24, 2021 meeting agenda.
The Commission approved the August 24 agenda and approved the June 22 Planning & Zoning minutes after amending page 2 to say Haapala instead of Carlson.
Approved by motion.
A-5Approve/amend June 22, 2021 minutes
Approve or amend the June 22, 2021 Planning & Zoning meeting minutes.
The Commission approved the August 24 agenda and approved the June 22 Planning & Zoning minutes after amending page 2 to say Haapala instead of Carlson.
Approved as amended.
A-6Kontz Property lot split, 81xx 181st Avenue NW
Don Jensen of DJ2DMJ Planning LLC requested approval of a three-lot split for the Kontz Family Trust property at 81xx/82xx 181st Avenue NW.
The Commission reviewed the Kontz Family Trust request to split a farmed 40-acre parcel on 181st Avenue into residential parcels and remaining farmland. Staff raised concerns about direct access to a minor arterial road, future local street connectivity, wetland constraints, soil borings, park and trail fees, and whether the smaller parcel would block future subdivision. The applicant argued that road construction was premature and that the trust wanted to create marketable home-site parcels. The recorded Commission recommendation was to allow approval if Parcel B was shortened and widened, while noting that any later development of Parcel C would need access from County Road 64 or through the Greenwaldt property.
The minutes record a Commission recommendation to approve with a revised Parcel B shape and future-access limitations, but the provided minutes text does not include a formal motion on the lot split.
A-7Adjournment
The provided minutes text does not record an adjournment motion or adjournment time.
2 motions on the record.
M-1Motion by Pearo to approve.
Motion by Pearo to approve
moved by Pearo, seconded by Carlson
Motion Carried
M-2Motion by Haapala to approve amended minutes.
Motion by Haapala to approve amended minutes
moved by Haapala, seconded by Pearo
Motion Carried
When someone referred back to earlier business, we found the matching prior discussion and tied it in here.
When the Greenwaldts split, they were required to incorporate any future subdivision with the Kontz property.
— Liz Stockman
What this is about
Prior Greenwaldt parcel split requirements for future subdivision coordination with the Kontz property.
The records searched do not contain a prior decision that specifically matches the recollection that the Greenwaldt parcel split required future subdivision to be coordinated or incorporated with the Kontz property. The closest partial match is in the September 23, 2025 packet, which includes a minor-subdivision condition stating: “No future divisions will be permitted by the same owner without the written approval of the Nowthen City Council and through the platting process.” That condition addresses future subdivision limits, but the search results shown do not identify the property as Greenwaldt’s, do not mention the Kontz property, and do not show a recorded vote outcome on that specific condition.
Connectivity has been considered for these three properties since 2017.
— Liz Stockman
What this is about
Long-running planning history for street connectivity across the Greenwaldt, Paulson, and Kontz properties.
The records searched show a partial match. For the Kontz property, a City Council Findings & Decision for a minor subdivision at the September 14, 2021 meeting states that the 3-lot subdivision was “laid out to accommodate future local street access in an east-west configuration to ultimately connect with the adjoining parcels in a unified neighborhood.” It also states that Parcel A would be split by providing a local east-west street connection and direct public street access. The excerpt does not show the vote outcome or full final conditions. The search results do not show a 2017 record, nor do they show a prior street-connectivity decision specifically tying together the Greenwaldt, Paulson, and Kontz properties. The only Greenwaldt-related result is a 2022 permit-tracking table noting a Carr’s Tree/Greenwaldt use was denied on September 8, 2020, which appears to concern a utility/tree-cutting business rather than street connectivity. No Paulson connectivity record appeared in the provided results.
Discussions with staff indicate that in the last 10 years, no one from the property to the east has indicated any interest in development.
— Donald Jensen
What this is about
Applicant’s reference to earlier staff discussions and lack of prior development interest on the property to the east.
The records searched show the current Petersen Acres application: at the January 28, 2025 Planning & Zoning meeting packet, the applicant sought preliminary and final plat approval for about 47 acres on 205th Avenue NW, creating two single-family residential lots with existing homes and an outlot for future development. The March 11, 2025 City Council packet carried forward the same Petersen Acres plat and development agreement materials. The records I searched do not contain a prior decision or documented discussion matching the specific recollection that, over the last 10 years, owners of the property to the east had expressed no interest in development. That statement appears to come from staff/applicant discussions rather than a prior recorded Council or Planning & Zoning action in the search results provided.
Staff indicated and pulled an old sketch from the property to the east from internal files, not readily available on a comprehensive plan graphic and requested consideration of a road concept running completely through the property without imminent road creation from either direction.
— Donald Jensen
What this is about
Applicant’s recollection of staff producing an older internal road concept sketch during the application meeting.
The records I searched do not contain a prior decision or discussion matching this recollection. The search results are primarily packet excerpts for unrelated 2026 applications, such as extended home occupation/interim use permit materials and treatment facility information, and they do not reference an older internal road concept sketch, a road running through the property, or staff presenting such a sketch during an application meeting.
DECISION: Based on the foregoing information and applicable ordinances, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the Minor Subdivision subject to the following conditions: 1\.
Option A: The cul-de-sac can be installed in substantial compliance with the Approved Plans and an easement acceptable to the City Attorney recorded prior to the recording of the lot split. A pr
5\. No extraction, production, or retail endorsements have been issued by the OCM. Even if granted by the OCM in the future, these activities may not be commenced or undertaken under this Interi
6\. The approved total outdoor cultivation area shall not exceed 7000 square feet that is in a fenced and secured area as shown on the Site Layout. All cultivation shall occur not less than 200
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 is incorporated herein by reference.
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?