Tuesday, May 25, 2021 · 7:00 PM
Agenda
Not posted
What was on the agenda.
One-line summary
The Planning & Zoning Commission denied Guimont outdoor storage, approved the Schultz setback variance, recommended the Toft 1st Addition preliminary plat with conditions and a possible trail review, and tabled the CST outdoor storage IUP.
10 items as recorded in the packet and minutes, each with a plain-English summary of what was at issue.
AI-00Called to Order
Opening of the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting.
Meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm.
AI-01Pledge of Allegiance
Pledge of Allegiance.
The minutes do not separately record action on the pledge.
AI-02Roll Call
Roll call.
The minutes record members present.
AI-03Approve/Amend tonight's meeting agenda of May 25, 2021
Approval or amendment of the May 25, 2021 meeting agenda.
The Commission approved the May 25, 2021 meeting agenda.
Approved by motion.
AI-04Approve the Planning & Zoning Meeting minutes of April 27, 2021
Approval of the April 27, 2021 Planning & Zoning meeting minutes.
The Commission approved the April 27, 2021 Planning & Zoning meeting minutes.
Approved by motion.
AI-05Guimont Outdoor Storage
Public hearing on Dan Guimont's request to allow exterior storage at 19009 Rhinestone Street through an amended interim use permit.
Dan Guimont's request to amend an interim use permit to allow exterior storage at 19009 Rhinestone Street was denied. The discussion focused on the existing 2019 permit allowing indoor storage only and the lack of agreement from the co-property owner.
The Commission voted to deny the amended IUP request.
AI-06Schultz Variance
Public hearing on Donovan and Alison Schultz's requested front setback variance for a home addition at 20066 Baugh Street.
Donovan and Alison Schultz received Commission approval for a front setback variance of 60.85 feet from the road to allow a home addition at 20066 Baugh Street, with stated changes to the findings.
Approved with changes to the findings: items A and B were stricken and item #3 removed.
AI-07Toft 1st Addition
Public hearing on the Toft 1st Addition preliminary plat for industrial and residential lots at 204xx St. Francis Boulevard.
The Commission recommended accepting the Toft 1st Addition preliminary plat for eight industrial lots and eight single-family residential lots, per the findings of fact, while asking the engineer to check into a possible trail in the development.
The Commission recommended accepting the preliminary plat per findings of fact and asked the engineer to check into a possible trail.
AI-08CST Companies
Public hearing on CST Companies' requested interim use permit for outdoor storage on Lot 1, Block 2 of Toft 1st Addition.
The Commission tabled CST Companies' interim use permit request for outdoor storage on Lot 1, Block 2 of Toft 1st Addition until the next month, after discussion of truck storage, screening, lighting, fuel and wash-bay concerns, and the need for revised plans.
The Commission tabled the request until the next month while awaiting revised plans.
AI-09Motion to Adjourn
Adjournment.
Adjourned by motion.
7 motions on the record. Split votes are highlighted.
M-01Motion by Pearo; 2nd by Jorgensen to Approve tonight's meeting agenda of May 25, 2021.
Motion by Pearo; 2nd by Jorgensen to Approve tonight's meeting agenda of May 25, 2021.
moved by Pearo, seconded by Jorgensen
M-02Motion by Ames; 2nd by Pearo to Approve the Planning & Zoning Meeting minutes of April 27, 2021.
Motion by Ames; 2nd by Pearo to Approve the Planning & Zoning Meeting minutes of April 27, 2021.
moved by Ames, seconded by Pearo
M-03MOTION TO DENY THE REQUEST ALLOWING EXTERIOR STORAGE ON A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 19009 RHINESTONE STREET (PIDs 28-33-25-44-0006 and - 0007) THROUGH AN AMENDED INTERIM USE PERMIT BY AMES, 2nd BY PEARO; ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION CARRED.
MOTION TO DENY THE REQUEST ALLOWING EXTERIOR STORAGE ON A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 19009 RHINESTONE STREET (PIDs 28-33-25-44-0006 and - 0007) THROUGH AN AMENDED INTERIM USE PERMIT BY AMES, 2nd BY PEARO; ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION CARRED.
moved by Ames, seconded by Pearo
M-04MOTION TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR A FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE OF 60.85 FEET FROM THE ROAD TO ALLOW AN ADDITION TO THE HOME, STRIKING ITEMS A&B, AND #3 REMOVED COMPLETELY FROM THE FINDINGS BY PEARO, 2ND BY SCHILLER; ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR A FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE OF 60.85 FEET FROM THE ROAD TO ALLOW AN ADDITION TO THE HOME, STRIKING ITEMS A&B, AND #3 REMOVED COMPLETELY FROM THE FINDINGS BY PEARO, 2ND BY SCHILLER; ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION CARRIED.
moved by Pearo, seconded by Schiller
M-05MOTION BY AMES TO ACCEPT A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR TOFT 1ST ADDITION INCLUDES THE FRONT 30 ACRES THAT IS PLANNED FOR EIGHT (8) INDUSTRIAL LOTS (ABUTTING ST. FRANCIS BLVD.) AND THE REAR 40 ACRES IS PLANNED FOR EIGHT (8) SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS (ABUTTING THE CITY OF OAK GROVE), PER THE FINDINGS OF FACTS AND THE ENGINEER CHECKING INTO A POSSIBLE TRAIL IN THE DEVELOPMENT, 2ND BY PEARO; ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY AMES TO ACCEPT A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR TOFT 1ST ADDITION INCLUDES THE FRONT 30 ACRES THAT IS PLANNED FOR EIGHT (8) INDUSTRIAL LOTS (ABUTTING ST. FRANCIS BLVD.) AND THE REAR 40 ACRES IS PLANNED FOR EIGHT (8) SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS (ABUTTING THE CITY OF OAK GROVE), PER THE FINDINGS OF FACTS AND THE ENGINEER CHECKING INTO A POSSIBLE TRAIL IN THE DEVELOPMENT, 2ND BY PEARO; ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION CARRIED.
moved by Ames, seconded by Pearo
M-06MOTION TO TABLE UNTIL NEXT MONTH BY AMES, 2ND BY JORGENSEN; ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION TO TABLE UNTIL NEXT MONTH BY AMES, 2ND BY JORGENSEN; ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION CARRIED.
moved by Ames, seconded by Jorgensen
M-07MOTION TO ADJOURN BY SCHILLER, 2ND BY JORGENSEN; ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION TO ADJOURN BY SCHILLER, 2ND BY JORGENSEN; ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION CARRIED.
moved by Schiller, seconded by Jorgensen
When someone referred back to earlier business, we found the matching prior discussion and tied it in here.
Planner Stockman explained that this property had an Interim Use Permit approved in 2019 to allow indoor storage in two accessory buildings on the property. One of the conditions of that permit was no exterior storage above and beyond what is typically allowed in a residential area.
— Liz Stockman
What this is about
Prior Guimont IUP approval and its indoor-storage-only condition.
The records searched contain a partial match to Planner Stockman’s recollection. The 2026 meeting packets include IUP condition language consistent with an indoor-storage-only approval: at the February 24, 2026 meeting and again in the March 10, 2026 packet, the conditions stated that “all materials, equipment and parts used for the business shall be stored in the accessory structure” and that “no outside storage of any items is permitted,” with personal property still required to meet the City’s residential outdoor-storage rules. However, the search results provided do not include the original 2019 Guimont approval itself, the meeting date, vote outcome, or the full 2019 permit record. So the records searched support the existence of an indoor-storage/no-outside-storage condition, but they do not independently confirm the 2019 approval action or its vote details.
Stockman has since spoken to the DNR and they are fine with moving forward without that, because they are not increasing the non-conformity.
— Liz Stockman
What this is about
DNR review of the Schultz variance after earlier concerns about a bluff variance.
The records I searched do not contain a prior decision or discussion matching this recollection about a Schultz variance, DNR review, or earlier bluff-variance concerns. The closest items involving Liz Stockman are unrelated: 2021 discussions about commercial/industrial architectural standards and a November 2021 email exchange with Anoka County Parks about the Woodhaven plat and a possible regional trail right-of-way. Those records do not address DNR approval, nonconformity, or a Schultz variance.
This was rezoned last year as part of our comprehensive plan.
— Liz Stockman
What this is about
Prior rezoning of the Toft property area during the comprehensive plan process.
The records I searched do not contain a prior rezoning decision matching this recollection for the Toft property area during the comprehensive plan process. The search results shown are mainly later land-use items such as minor subdivision or plat conditions and interim use permit conditions from 2025–2026, but they do not identify a comprehensive plan rezoning action, the Toft property, or a council vote on such a rezoning. So, based on these results alone, I cannot confirm that the Toft property area “was rezoned last year as part of our comprehensive plan.”
The city adopted a frontage road plan in 2013 because Viking Blvd may someday be a divided highway.
— Liz Stockman
What this is about
The City's 2013 frontage road plan for the Highway 47 and Viking Boulevard area.
The records I searched do not contain a prior 2013 decision adopting a frontage road plan for the Highway 47/Viking Boulevard area, and they do not confirm the specific recollection that the plan was adopted because Viking Boulevard might someday become a divided highway. The closest related records are from the February 24, 2026 and March 10, 2026 packets for the Viking Estates preliminary plat, located south of Viking Boulevard/CSAH 22 and on both sides of Highway 47. In those materials, Anoka County commented that right-of-way along Viking Boulevard should be sufficient for future reconstruction, that new access points onto Viking Boulevard would need county approval, and that the county reserved the right to impose future access restrictions based on safety, intersection performance, and anticipated roadway improvements. These records show the same general access-management issue in that area, but not the 2013 frontage road plan adoption itself.
This is something that the city has been working on for a number of years now - to get more industrial area in town, and we don't have anymore room.
— Dale Ames
What this is about
Commissioner's recollection that the City has been working for years to add industrial land.
The records I searched do not contain a prior decision clearly matching Commissioner Ames’s recollection that the City has been working for years to add industrial land. The closest items are planning-commission plat actions in early 2026: at the February 24, 2026 meeting, commissioners approved a variance for Lot 1 and approved a preliminary plat as conditioned by the planner, both on 6-0 votes; at the March 24, 2026 meeting, they recommended approval of the final plat as written, also 6-0. However, the search results provided do not identify that plat as industrial land, nor do they show a longer history of council or commission decisions to expand the City’s industrial area. Other results were unrelated items such as commission officer selection, candidate recommendations, and zoning ordinance text.
Melissa Pierce also added that according to Matt Look, this business had originally talked about building on the Ramsey/Nowthen border and her understanding was that it didn't go through because of the cost of re-doing the road.
— Melissa Pierce
What this is about
A resident's recollection of another potential business location near the Ramsey/Nowthen border.
The records searched show related discussion of Matt and Rhiannon Paradise’s cannabis cultivation proposal, but they do not confirm the recollection about an earlier Ramsey/Nowthen border site. The August 26, 2025 Planning and Zoning packet included material from Matt Paradise about a proposed cannabis-related ordinance amendment, including a suggested 20-acre minimum parcel size for cultivation. At the March 24, 2026 Planning Commission meeting, Planner Cindy Nash presented the Paradises’ interim use permit request for cannabis cultivation at 19420 Rhinestone Street NW, describing a 7,000-square-foot outdoor cultivation area on a 40-acre property. However, the search results do not contain a prior decision, vote, or recorded discussion saying this business had previously planned to build on the Ramsey/Nowthen border, nor do they mention the project failing because of the cost of redoing a road.
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.
Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting — Minutes (2021-05-25)
Minutes · Tuesday, May 25, 2021
9 pages
Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting — Agenda Packet (2021-05-25)
Packet · Tuesday, May 25, 2021
123 pages
Meeting recording
YouTube
Transcript · 914 segments · 2:24:43
The structured brief on this page is auto-generated and may need correction. The PDFs and the meeting recording remain the official record. What do the trust labels mean?