Tuesday, September 24, 2024 · 7:00 PM
Agenda
Not on file
What was on the agenda.
Minutes
Not on file
The official record of what happened.
They are AI-extracted from the transcript, not the official minutes. Check them against the minutes or the recording before relying on them.
One-line summary
The Planning Commission approved routine items, discussed AB Welding's five-lot family subdivision concept without taking action, and gave staff direction for a draft cannabis zoning ordinance.
10 items as recorded in the packet, each with a short summary of what was at issue.
1Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance
The meeting began with the call to order and pledge of allegiance.
Call to order and pledge occurred; no vote was needed.
2Roll Call
Roll call was taken.
Roll call was taken; no vote was needed.
3Approve/Amend Agenda
The Commission considered approval or amendment of the agenda.
The Commission approved the agenda, approved the August 27, 2024 minutes with a correction to the spelling of Mr. Sonnestahl's name, and later made an adjournment motion; the transcript ends during the adjournment vote.
Approved by voice vote in the transcript.
4Approve/Amend Minutes from August 27, 2024, Regular Meeting
The Commission considered the August 27, 2024 regular meeting minutes and corrected a speaker name.
The Commission approved the agenda, approved the August 27, 2024 minutes with a correction to the spelling of Mr. Sonnestahl's name, and later made an adjournment motion; the transcript ends during the adjournment vote.
Approved by voice vote with a correction to spell Mr. Sonnestahl's name.
5Public Hearings - none
The agenda listed no public hearings.
No public hearing was listed on the agenda.
6Old Business - none
The agenda listed no old business.
No old business was listed on the agenda.
7New Business
The Commission took up new business items.
The new business section consisted of two discussion items, 7a and 7b.
7aAB Welding Concept Subdivision Plan
AB Welding presented a concept for a five-lot subdivision using a shared driveway or outlot approach; the Commission discussed ordinance issues and possible redesigns.
AB Welding presented a concept to split land into five lots for the Ulwelling family using either a shared driveway easement or an outlot/private-drive arrangement. Planner Nash explained that the concept did not match several subdivision and fire-code requirements, especially public-street frontage, private access easements, cul-de-sacs, road construction standards, and fire apparatus access. Commissioners were generally uncomfortable with a long shared driveway, discussed alternatives such as constructing a shorter public road and moving the cul-de-sac south, and indicated the applicant could work with the engineer on a revised preliminary plat.
No formal action was requested; the applicant received preliminary feedback to revise the layout, shorten the cul-de-sac if possible, and return with a preliminary plat if ready.
7bCannabis Zoning Ordinance Discussion
The Commission discussed a future cannabis zoning ordinance, including districts, interim use permits, and buffers.
Planner Nash reviewed the need for a local cannabis zoning ordinance before state licensing begins, suggesting a conservative starting point. The Commission discussed putting cannabis uses mostly in the I-1 and C-1 districts, using interim use permits rather than conditional or permitted uses, applying maximum statutory buffers from schools, daycares, residential treatment facilities, and park attractions used by minors, and measuring buffers from the cannabis structure to the protected use's property line. Staff planned to draft an ordinance for further review and possible public hearing.
Staff received direction for a draft ordinance; no final ordinance action was taken at this meeting.
8Adjournment
The agenda ended with adjournment.
The Commission approved the agenda, approved the August 27, 2024 minutes with a correction to the spelling of Mr. Sonnestahl's name, and later made an adjournment motion; the transcript ends during the adjournment vote.
The transcript shows an adjournment motion and the start of a voice vote, but the provided transcript ends before a clear outcome is recorded.
3 motions on the record.
M1Approve the agenda for this evening.
approve the agenda for this evening
moved by commissioner Perell, seconded by commissioner hippo
Voice vote; transcript records, "all in favor say I I I."
M2Approve or amend minut many minute meetings from August 27 to 2024 regular meeting.
approve or amend minut many minute meetings from August 27 to 2024 regular meeting
seconded by commissioner B
Voice vote; transcript records, "all in favor say I hi hi motion car."
M3I'll make a motion to is during the meeting.
I'll make a motion to is during the meeting
moved by commiss per, seconded by commissioner hia
Transcript shows a motion and second and begins the vote, but it ends before a clear result is recorded.
When someone referred back to earlier business, we found the matching prior discussion and tied it in here.
currently I had a large part of property broken down into only two lots and the City [12:30–12:42] encouraged that we give them a outlot that would be a future road and [12:37–12:48] it was a pretty large chunk but it was what they kind of forced on us so that we could have the driveway we had [12:46–12:57] without having a flaged driveway or a shared driveway and can can I ask when that [12:53–13:06] occurred 2015
— commissioner hippo
What this is about
A commissioner recalled a 2015 subdivision/outlot situation as a comparison for the AB Welding road and outlot concept.
The records I searched do not contain a prior 2015 subdivision/outlot decision matching Commissioner Hippo’s recollection — specifically, no record showing the City required or encouraged an outlot for a future road as part of splitting a large property into two lots to avoid a flag driveway or shared driveway. The records do show the current A&B Welding issue being discussed recently. In the Planning and Zoning materials for the October 22, 2024 meeting, the A&B Welding concept included two possible layouts: one with a shared driveway/easement and one with an outlot for easements. Planner Nash noted the plans did not meet the ordinance requirement that lots front on a public street, and that a shared driveway would need to be built to road standards with an all-weather surface. The discussion ended with the owner expected to revise the plan toward a public-street-standard road, five lots, and possibly a flag lot, then return for further review. At the October 8, 2024 City Council meeting, Council also discussed the City-owned outlot in the industrial park that A&B Welding was interested in buying. The minutes state there was a reason it had remained an outlot, that staff needed to confirm whether it was buildable, and that platting and wetland delineation would be needed. No sale price or final sale vote is recorded in the excerpt; the minutes say an asking price would need to be set in a closed meeting.
so since that time the city adopted amendments to the ordinance that provide for sort of a hybrid [13:03–13:14] approach where somebody can plat ride of away um construct everything through the subbase but not necessarily put the [13:11–13:27] binus on top but then you can only get four Lots on it and that's sort of that hybrid approach
— Cindy Nash
What this is about
Planner Nash recalled that the City had adopted ordinance amendments after the 2015 outlot example, allowing a hybrid approach for up to four lots.
The records I searched do not contain a prior ordinance amendment matching Planner Nash’s recollection about a “hybrid” road/platting approach allowing up to four lots with improvements through subbase but without the final bituminous surface. The search results returned unrelated Planning Commission and Council items from 2025–2026, including cannabis permitting, a home business discussion, and Viking Estates comprehensive plan/rezoning actions. None of those records describe the post-2015 ordinance change or a formal vote adopting the four-lot hybrid approach.
to keep us from getting into a sticky situation like we have over on on what is that paradot and rhinestone [13:35–13:47] were portion of its portion of its gravel and it's been no fun to take care of and I lived on that road
— commissioner hippo
What this is about
A commissioner referenced prior road-maintenance problems on Paradot and Rhinestone while discussing why the City avoids half-built or gravel road situations.
The records searched show only a partial match. In the April 23, 2025 City Council agenda packet, Rhinestone Street and Peridot Street were both listed among roads “anticipated to be at or near the end of their service life by the year 2030,” with staff noting that current 2026–2030 capital improvement funding levels would not address all road needs and asking whether Council wanted an alternate plan with increased funding. However, the search results do not show a prior formal Council decision specifically about gravel or “half-built” road-maintenance problems on Rhinestone or Peridot, nor a recorded vote tied to that issue. Other Rhinestone references in the results relate to a 2026 cannabis interim use permit at 19420 Rhinestone Street NW, not road maintenance.
you could choose to not have sidewalks or feature trails along that road that would be consistent with what the city [16:18–16:31] had um just done with the Peterson plat
— Cindy Nash
What this is about
Planner Nash compared trail treatment on a low-traffic cul-de-sac to the Peterson plat.
The records I searched do not contain a prior decision matching the recollection of a “Peterson plat” involving sidewalks or trails. There is a partial match on the general issue of trail requirements: at the March 10, 2026 meeting, Planner Nash presented a preliminary plat for Palomino Estates and listed “exempting the property from trail requirements” as one of the key conditions under discussion. The excerpt provided does not show the final vote or the exact terms of any trail exemption for that preliminary plat.
are you talking about ends is that [20:57–21:08] the elastical one no that's not Leo did that too but they didn't they didn't come back they quit they stopped [21:05–21:17] everything he talking Leo East the the old one oh that one went right off of Main Road so there was no that one had that's where this orance change came in
What this is about
Commissioners recalled a prior 'Leo East' or 'old one' application when discussing the ordinance change on deferred paving and outlots.
The records I searched do not contain a prior “Leo East” or “old one” application matching this recollection, and they do not show a prior decision tying that application to the ordinance change on deferred paving and outlots. The search results returned 2026 packet materials about roadway/drainage easements and Viking Estates, but they do not identify “Leo East,” an abandoned or withdrawn application, or a formal vote on the deferred-paving/outlot ordinance issue.
we justed this was a unique situation down in here as [33:48–34:00] well um so it was this one lot and they divided two off of it and that's what we had to work with because of the lowland [33:57–34:09] is that a road or a shared driveway it's a shared driveway because they had no area to go all of that lowland
What this is about
The discussion recalled a prior nearby unique subdivision/shared driveway situation created by lowland constraints.
The closest match in the records is the flag-lot/minor-subdivision item heard at the February 24, 2026 Planning Commission public hearing and brought to the City Council in the March 10, 2026 packet. The staff report described flag lots as generally not allowed except under “unique circumstances” where practical difficulties exist because of natural features, physical constraints, or existing street and lot arrangements. In that case, the proposed flag lot would use driveway access to 210th Lane NW rather than direct access to Highway 47, and staff noted that nearby homes were separated from the plat by wetland areas. At the March 10, 2026 meeting packet, the recorded decision states that the City Council approved the minor subdivision subject to conditions. Those conditions included demonstrating the site is buildable, possibly adding fill to meet separation from mottled soils, verifying septic drainfield sites, meeting driveway standards, prohibiting wetland impacts during driveway/home construction, and requiring deeds and easements before recording. The excerpts show the approval, but they do not include a vote tally.
the idea of connecting balt to Gypsy Valley was floated years ago but [35:11–35:23] nobody's interested in developing the land there would open that opportunity
What this is about
The Commission recalled that a Basalt-to-Gypsy Valley road connection had been discussed years earlier.
The records I searched do not contain a prior discussion or decision matching the recollection of a Basalt-to-Gypsy Valley road connection being floated years earlier. The results returned were about Planning and Zoning Commission procedures, bylaws, minutes requirements, and member selection processes, not a road connection or land development in that area. So based on these search results, there is no documented prior vote, action, or formal discussion in the available records confirming that proposal.
we did have that before it was legalized and it was fencing and [45:36–45:47] security cameras and and it had quite a stench to it as well it was not hard to figure out what they were doing in that big fence with the security cameras and [45:45–45:57] the light so it it does it does impact the neighboring properties
— Mayor
What this is about
The Mayor recalled a pre-legalization cannabis-growing operation with fencing, security cameras, lights, and odor while discussing outdoor cultivation impacts.
The records I searched do not contain a prior discussion or decision matching the Mayor’s recollection of a pre-legalization cannabis-growing operation with fencing, security cameras, lighting, and odor impacts. The only “fencing” references in the results are unrelated: at the March 23, 2026 goal-setting meeting, Council discussed possible chain-link fencing around basketball and pickleball courts to keep balls in the play area, with an estimated cost of about $3,000. No cannabis-related action or vote appears in the provided search results.
we did similar thing to the threshing sh for a while there they have to come in every so often and reup them their right their [1:08:56–1:09:10] iups and tells and having more shows or types of things
What this is about
A prior Threshing Show interim use permit practice was recalled while discussing whether cannabis IUPs could have renewal periods.
The closest match is in the March 27, 2025 packet: the Nowthen Historical Power Association submitted its yearly schedule of public events for the Nowthen Threshing Show grounds at 7415 Old Viking Blvd. The letter says this annual notice was required as part of its Conditional Use Permit and Interim Use Permit. It listed four planned 2025 events and stated the permits allowed up to 10 total events: 4 under the CUP and 6 under the IUP. The records searched do not show the Threshing Show coming back to “re-up” or renew the IUP on a regular cycle, nor do they show a formal vote on that permit in these results. They do show recurring annual council items related to the Threshing Show grounds, such as proposed resolutions at the April 8, 2025 and March 10, 2026 meetings to authorize use of the City grader for tractor pull dates, but those appear to be separate annual assistance requests rather than IUP renewals.
## MEMORANDUM <table> <tr> <td>TO:</td> <td>Scott Lehner, City Administrator</td> </tr> <tr> <td>CC:</td> <td>Natalie Johnson, Deputy Clerk</td> </tr> <tr> <td>FROM:</td> <td>Shane Nelson, City Engine
PUBLIC HEARING: none ITEM 6a. OLD BUSINESS: none ITEM 7a. NEW BUSINESS: A&B WELDING CONCEPT SUBDIVISION PLAN Mr. Jordan Brown spoke on behalf of A&B Welding and explained to the commissioners what the
## NEED PRIORITY, IN PROGRESS, AND COMPLETED GOALS SINCE NATALIE AND SCOTT STARTED <table> <tr> <th>Ranking of Priority</th> <th>What is the Goal?</th> <th>What is the status of the Goal?</th>
### NEED PRIORITY, IN PROGRESS, AND COMPLETED GOALS SINCE NATALIE AND SCOTT STARTED <table> <tr> <th>Ranking of Priority</th> <th>What is the Goal?</th> <th>What is the status of the Goal?</th> <th>Da
TO RECTIFY THE ISSUES ON THIS PROPERTY TO BE PAID BY THE CITY AND CERTIFIED TO THE PROPERTY TAXES. 4 AYES. MOTION CARRIED. 3\. Fire Chief Position. There are 7 applicants as of today for the position.
Documents and recordings archived for this meeting, when available.
Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting — Agenda Packet (2024-09-24)
Packet · Tuesday, September 24, 2024
76 pages
Meeting recording
YouTube
Transcript · 590 segments · 1:26:33
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?