HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-14-23,ANL6 6W^�
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV
Andover Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Agenda
March 14, 2023
Andover City Hall
Council Chambers
7:00 p.m.
1. Call to Order
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Oath of Office — Commissioner Patrick Shuman Jr.
4. Approval of Minutes —February 28, 2023 Regular Meeting, February 28, 2023 Workshop
5. Public Hearing: Variance Request —17337 Roanoke St NW; PID# 06-32-24-33-0016—
Samantha Haupert & Colin Anderson (Applicants)
6. Public Hearing_ Consider Amendment to City Code Title 12-7-3 Fence Height — City of
Andover (Applicant)
7. Other Business
8. Adjournment
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV
TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners
FROM: Jake Griffiths, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Approval of Minutes
DATE: March 14, 2023
ACTION REQUESTED
As of the publication of this packet, City staff has not yet received minutes for the February 28,
2023 Regular Meeting or February 28, 2023 Workshop from the recording secretary. If minutes
are received prior to the meeting, City staff will provide them to the Commission as
supplemental information.
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV
TO: Planning & Zoning Commissioners
CC: Joe Janish, Community Development Director r%
FROM: Jake Griffiths, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Public Hearine: Variance Request —17337 Roanoke St NW; PID# 06-32-24-33-
0016 — Samantha Haupert & Colin Anderson (Applicants)
DATE: March 14, 2023
BACKGROUND
A variance is a way that cities may allow for an exception to part of an ordinance for a specific
property. A variance is generally for dimensional standards such as setbacks or height limits and
allows the landowner to deviate from a dimensional rule that would otherwise apply. Minnesota
State Statute and City Code provide specific review criteria the City must consider when reviewing
a variance request, this criteria is included later in this report. If a variance is approved it becomes
a property right which runs with the land.
DISCUSSION
The applicants are requesting two variances to City Code 12-3-5: Minimum District Requirements;
one variance to the minimum lot size and one variance to the minimum lot width. The subject
property is located within the R-2: Single Family Residential Estate zoning district and City Code
12-3-5 establishes a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres and a minimum lot width of 300 -feet. The table
below compares the City Code requirements to the variance request. The applicant has indicated
that if the variance request is approved, they plan on submitting a lot split application in the future
to split the property into two separate lots.
Review Criteria
City Code 12-15-9 establishes review criteria for considering a variance request and states that
variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent
of the official control and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical
difficulties in complying with the official control. "Practical difficulties" as used in connection
with the granting of a variance, means:
1. The property owner proposes to the use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted
by an official control
2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to their property not created by
the landowner.
3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Ci Code Requirements Variance Request
Difference
Min. Lot Size
2.5 Acres 1.15 Acres
- 1.35 Acres
Min. Lot Width
300 Feet 138.50 Feet
161.50 Feet
Review Criteria
City Code 12-15-9 establishes review criteria for considering a variance request and states that
variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent
of the official control and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical
difficulties in complying with the official control. "Practical difficulties" as used in connection
with the granting of a variance, means:
1. The property owner proposes to the use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted
by an official control
2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to their property not created by
the landowner.
3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.
As practical difficulties must be established by the applicant, a letter submitted on behalf of the
applicants is attached for review as well as a lot split sketch. It is anticipated that the applicant may
wish to make a brief presentation to the Commission as part of the public hearing. Because two
variances are being sought, the Planning & Zoning Commission should apply the review criteria
to each variance separately and review each variance request based on its own respective merits.
The City Council may also impose reasonable conditions on the granting of a variance request. A
condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created
by the variance. In this situation, one such condition might be that approval of the variance request
is made contingent on approval of a lot split application in the future. The draft resolution of
approval includes this condition.
Historic & Existing Conditions
Prior to 1989, the subject property existed as two separate parcels, which will be referred to as
Tract 1 and Tract 2 as shown on the attached certificate of survey. In 1971, a dwelling was
constructed on Tract 1 prior to the adoption of the City of Andover zoning ordinance or the
incorporation of the City of Andover which occurred in 1974. Because of this, Tract 1 was
considered to be legally nonconforming or "grandfathered in". It is City staff's understanding that
in 1989 Tract 1 and Tract 2 were combined into one property by the property owner at that time.
While City staff is uncertain about the reasoning behind the combination, around this same time
an accessory structure was constructed on the property that would not have otherwise been allowed
if not for the combination of the properties. Ever since this combination in 1989, the subject
property has existed as a legally conforming parcel which meets all City Code requirements for
the R-2: Single Family Residential Estate zoning district. This includes the minimum lot width and
minimum lot size requirements in which the applicant is seeking to deviate from through their
request. Pursuant to Minn. State Statute 462.357; Subd le, since the legal nonconformities have
been discontinued for a period of more than one year, the property no longer has nonconforming
rights to either the minimum lot width or minimum lot size requirements of the City Code.
City Code Flexibility for Lot Splits (90% Rule)
In addition to the minimum lot size and minimum lot width requirements, City Code 12-3-5:
Minimum District Requirements also provides flexibility for lot splits that cannot conform to the
minimum district requirements. City Code 12-3-5-A states that lot splits may be allowed with lot
sizes that cannot conform to the minimum district provisions as follows:
1. This provision shall only apply to lot splits which result in no more than two (2) lots.
Reduced lot standards shall not be considered for plats containing more than two (2) lots.
2. Each lot within the proposed lot split shall meet at least two (2) of the following
requirements for the applicable zoning district: lot width, lot depth, lot area.
3. Each lot within the proposed lot split shall provide at least ninety precent (90°yo) of the
requirement that cannot be met.
The proposed future lot split would not qualify for flexibility under this City Code section as
requirements 2 and 3 listed above are not met, therefore, City Code would not allow for subdivision
of the property.
Analysis of Variance Requests
City Code 12-3-5 requires a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres, and the applicant is requesting a
variance to allow a minimum lot size of 1.15 acres. However, the subject property is currently 6.4
acres in size. Meaning that there is more than enough lot size to accommodate a lot split if the
proposed parcel line were drawn differently. While it is true that this could result in the creation
of an asymmetric parcel, there is no City Code requirement regulating the shape of a lot so long as
the minimum requirements of the City Code are met. As the City Code for minimum lot size can
be met on the subject property, City staff are unsure of what the practical difficulties necessitating
this variance request would be.
Additionally, the City Code and Comprehensive Plan provide the following guidance relative to
minimum lot size as it applies to the subject property:
City Code 12-3-3-C: Purpose of Each District; R-2 Residential Estate, states in part that "Lots in
this district created after 1978 and without City sewer and water must be at least 2.5 acres. "
The City of Andover Comprehensive Plan states in part on page 2-6 that the minimum lot size for
the Rural Residential land use district in which the subject property is located is "2.5 acres to
provide sufficient space for onsite sewer and water facilities and to prevent dense development
that would create an adverse impact on municipal and regional infrastructure ".
City Code 12-3-5 requires a minimum lot width of 300 feet, and the applicant is requesting a
variance to allow a minimum lot width of 138.50 feet. While the City Code and Comprehensive
Plan provide little guidance specifically as it applies to the minimum lot width requirement, other
than the requirement itself, City staff also has concerns relative to the variance review criteria for
this request.
As the variances are being requested for the purpose of subdivision to create a new nonconforming
parcel from an existing conforming parcel, City staff has informed the applicant that it may be
challenging to show that the practical difficulties are not created by the landowner or that economic
considerations are not the primary reason for the variance request. In fact, it would appear that the
practical difficulties for which the variances are being sought only arises as a result of the
landowners' request to subdivide a conforming property, thus creating a nonconforming property
needing the variance.
Next Steps
If the variance request is approved, the next step for the applicant would be to submit a lot split
application for review. As part of that process, a public hearing, Planning & Zoning Commission
review, and City Council approval will be required. In addition to the lot split application
requirements, the applicant will need to establish how they plan to meet the requirements of City
Code 12-6-2 relative to construction of an accessory structure prior to a principal structure and
potentially seek either an Interim Use Permit or land use agreement with the City of Andover.
ACTION REQUESTED
The Planning & Zoning Commission is requested to hold a public hearing on the variance requests,
compare the variance requests with the review criteria of City Code 12-15-9, and make a
recommendation based on findings of fact to the City Council.
�spectfully submitted,
Jake Griffiths/P� --
Associate Planner
Attachments
Draft Resolution of Approval
Draft Resolution of Denial
Site Location Map
Applicant's Materials
CC: Dan Gregerson, Attorney, Gregerson, Rosow, Johnson & Nilan, LTD. (Via Email)
Colin Andersen & Samantha Haupert (Via Email)
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RES. NO. XXXX
A RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 17337
ROANOKE ST NW; PID# 06-32-24-33-0016 LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
THAT PRT OF SWI/4 OF SWI/4 OF SEC 06-32-24 DESC AS FOL: BEG AT A PT ON W
LINE OF SD 1/4,1/4,270.1 FT N OF SW COR THEREOF, TH N ALG SD W LINE 138.5 FT,
TH N 89 DEG 23 MIN E 363 FT, TH S PRLL/W SD W LI NE 138.5 FT, TH S 89 DEG 23 MIN
W 363 FT TO POB, TOG/W THAT PRT OF SD 1/4,1/4, DESC AS FOL, COM AT SW COR
OF SD 1/4,1/4, TH N ALG W LINE THEREOF 538.60 FT, TH N 89 DEG 23 SEC E 363 FT
TO POB, TH S PRL L/W SD W LINE 541.4 FT TO S LINE OF SD 1/4,1/4, TH ELY ALG SD
S LINE 348.08 FT +OR- TO INTER OF FOL DESC LINE, COM AT A PT ON W LINE OF
SD 1/4 1467.08 FT N OF SW COR THEREOF, TH N 86 DEG 25 SEC E (ASS D BRG OF SD
W LINE IS DUE N) 745.84 FT, TH S 34 DEG 34 SEC E 233.32 FT TH S 54 DEG 09 SEC E
296.78 FT TO POB OF SD LINE, TH S 19 DEG 29 MIN 30 SEC W 1216.20 FT TO SD S
LINE & THERE TERM, TH N 19 DEG 2 9 MIN 30 SEC E ALG SD LINE TO INTER/W A
LINE DRAWN N 89 DEG 23 SEC E FROM SD POB, TH S 89 DEG 23 SEC W TO POB; EX
RD; SUBJ TO EASE OF REC
WHEREAS, Samantha Haupert and Colin Anderson are the owners of a parcel of land located at
17337 Roanoke St NW, Andover, Minnesota with Parcel ID Number 06-32-24-33-0016; and,
WHEREAS, Samantha Haupert and Colin Anderson have applied to the City for a variance for a
future subdivision of said property; and,
WHEREAS, the proposal would vary from City Code 12-3-5: Minimum District Requirements
in that it would decrease the minimum lot size from 2.5 acres to 1.15 acres and decrease the
minimum lot width from 300 feet to 138.50 feet; and,
WHEREAS, the Andover Review Committee has reviewed the variance requests; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to published and mailed notice thereof, the Planning and Zoning
Commission held a public hearing on March 14, 2023;
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of
the variance request; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council completed a review of the variance request along with the
recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council agrees with the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning
Commission and approves the variance request to decrease the minimum lot size from 2.5 acres
to 1.15 acres and the minimum lot width from 300 feet to 138.50 feet; and,
WHEREAS, based on the criteria for granting a variance under City Code 12-15-9, the City
Council finds the following findings of fact to support the approval of the variance requests:
1.
2.
3.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover hereby
approves the variance request with the following conditions:
1. Approval of the variance request shall be made contingent on obtaining approval of a lot
split application and recording of said approval with Anoka County. The lot split request
shall meet all other requirements established by the Andover City Code at the time of
application with the exception of those requirements explicitly deviated from in this
variance and shall meet the requirements of any other agency having an interest in the lot
split application.
2. Pursuant to City Code 12-15-9-E-6, if the City Council determines that no significant
progress has been made within the first twelve (12) months after the approval of the
variance, the variance will be null and void.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this 21" day of March, 2023.
CITY OF ANDOVER CITY OF ANDOVER
Michelle Harter, City Clerk
Sheri Bukkila, Mayor
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RES. NO. XXXX
A RESOLUTION DENYING VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 17337
ROANOKE ST NW; PID# 06-32-24-33-0016 LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
THAT PRT OF SW1/4 OF SW1/4 OF SEC 06-32-24 DESC AS FOL: BEG AT A PT ON W
LINE OF SD 1/4,1/4,270.1 FT N OF SW COR THEREOF, TH N ALG SD W LINE 138.5 FT,
TH N 89 DEG 23 MIN E 363 FT, TH S PRLL/W SD W LI NE 138.5 FT, TH S 89 DEG 23 MIN
W 363 FT TO POB, TOG/W THAT PRT OF SD 1/4,1/4, DESC AS FOL, COM AT SW COR
OF SD 1/4,1/4, TH N ALG W LINE THEREOF 538.60 FT, TH N 89 DEG 23 SEC E 363 FT
TO POB, TH S PRL L/W SD W LINE 541.4 FT TO S LINE OF SD 1/4,1/4, TH ELY ALG SD
S LINE 348.08 FT +OR- TO INTER OF FOL DESC LINE, COM AT A PT ON W LINE OF
SD 1/4 1467.08 FT N OF SW COR THEREOF, TH N 86 DEG 25 SEC E (ASS D BRG OF SD
W LINE IS DUE N) 745.84 FT, TH S 34 DEG 34 SEC E 233.32 FT TH S 54 DEG 09 SEC E
296.78 FT TO POB OF SD LINE, TH S 19 DEG 29 MIN 30 SEC W 1216.20 FT TO SD S
LINE & THERE TERM, TH N 19 DEG 2 9 MIN 30 SEC E ALG SD LINE TO INTER/W A
LINE DRAWN N 89 DEG 23 SEC E FROM SD POB, TH S 89 DEG 23 SEC W TO POB; EX
RD; SUBJ TO EASE OF REC
WHEREAS, Samantha Haupert and Colin Anderson are the owners of a parcel of land located at
17337 Roanoke St NW, Andover, Minnesota with Parcel ID Number 06-32-24-33-0016; and,
WHEREAS, Samantha Haupert and Colin Anderson have applied to the City for a variance for a
future subdivision of said property; and,
WHEREAS, the proposal would vary from City Code 12-3-5: Minimum District Requirements
in that it would decrease the minimum lot size from 2.5 acres to 1.15 acres and decrease the
minimum lot width from 300 feet to 138.50 feet; and,
WHEREAS, the Andover Review Committee has reviewed the variance requests; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to published and mailed notice thereof, the Planning and Zoning
Commission held a public hearing on March 14, 2023;
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the City Council denial of the
variance request; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council completed a review of the variance request along with the
recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council agrees with the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning
Commission and denies the variance request to decrease the minimum lot size from 2.5 acres to
1.15 acres and the minimum lot width from 300 feet to 138.50 feet; and,
WHEREAS, based on the criteria for granting a variance under City Code 12-15-9, the City
Council finds the following findings of fact to support the denial of the variance requests:
1.
2.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover hereby
denies the variance request to decrease the minimum lot width and minimum lot size on the
subject property.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this 21st day of March, 2023.
CITY OF ANDOVER CITY OF ANDOVER
Michelle Harter, City Clerk Sheri Bukkila, Mayor
OV E R
Site Location Map
Date Created: February 28, 2023
Disclaimer: The provider makes no representation or warranties with respect to the reuse of this data.
DAVID H. GREGERSON-
JOSEPH A. NILAN•}
DANIEL R.GREGERSON-
JOSHUAA.DOROTHYt
DANIEL A. ELLERBROCKN
MARGARET L. NEUVILLE-
JACOB T. MERKEL
DAVID R. HACKWORTHYN'
NICHOLAS J. SDERAS•
TORY R. SAILER
JUSTINE K. WAGNER
GREGERSON, ROSOW, JOHNSON & NILAN, LTD.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
100 WASHINGTON AVENUE SOUTH
SUITE 1550
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55401
TELEPHONE: (612) 338-0755
FAX: (612) 349-6718
W W W.GRJN.COM
February 27, 2023
City of Andover
Attn: Community Development Director
Andover City Hall
1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW
Andover, MN 55304
ROBERT L LANG (1922-2012)
ROGER A. PAULY (RETIRED)
RICHARD F. ROSOW (OF COUNSEL)
MARK 1. JOHNSON (RETIRED)
NAlso admitted in Illinois
tAlso admitted in North Dakota
'Also admitted in Wisconsin
Writer's Direct Dial: 612-436.7492
Writer's E-mail: dangregersonCgrjn.com
VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL
RE: Variance Requests - 17337 Roanoke Ave NW, City of Andover, MN.
Our File No.: 3182.001
Dear Community Development Director:
As you will recall, this office represents the owners, Samantha Haupert and Colin Andersen
(collectively, the "Applicants") of 17337 Roanoke Ave. NW, Andover, MN 55304 ("Property").
This letter accompanies the Variance Request Form ("Application") and provides additional detail
on our clients' "Description of Request" as required in the Application as well as addressing the
review criteria of Andover City Code 12-15-9. This letter, the Application, and attachments, are
all respectfully submitted for review and consideration by the City of Andover ("City").
DOCUMENTS ACCOMPANYING THIS LETTER AND VARIANCE
APPLICATION
• Exhibit A - Certificate of Survey of Property, dated December 19, 2022; and
• Exhibit B -Historical Plat Map (1978) identifying Property 1.
BACKGROUND
The Property is comprised of approximately 6.4 acres, with a small portion of the parcel
bordering Roanoke St. NW to the west (with 138.5 foot frontage on Roanoke St.), and the larger
' Ex. 2 shows that the Property existed as two separate properties in February 1978 — split along the same
division line as proposed by the Applicants now. According to City records, on January 2, 1989, the Property was
combined the two original lots into its current configuration.
Community Development Director
February 27, 2023
Page 2
portion bordering 173`d Avenue NW to the south (with 348.89 foot frontage on 173rd Ave NW).
See, Ex. A. The Property is zoned R-2: Single Family Estate.
The Applicants wish to split the Property into two (2) separate lots after receiving the two
variances. The two newly created lots would be one fronting Roanoke Avenue (the "Roanoke
Lot'), and the other fronting 173`d Avenue (the "173`d Lot'). The Applicants intend to construct
and live in a new home on the 173`d Lot and construct a larger detached accessory building. The
Applicants intend to rent out the existing home on the Roanoke Lot to friends or family.
In order to split the Property, the following City requirements must be met: (1) all lots must
meet the minimum lot width, depth, and square footage required in the underlying zoning district;
(2) all lots must have frontage on a public street; (3) no owner may do a lot split more than once
in any 3 -year period; and (4) the applicant must submit required materials to determine whether
the proposed lot(s) are buildable. (City Code Section 13 -IA)
The R-2 District contains the following minimum lot size requirements:
• Lot Area 2.5 acres (108,900 square feet)
• Lot Width 300 feet
• Lot Depth 150 feet
The lot split that will ultimately be requested by the Applicants requires two variances
because the resulting Roanoke Lot would be 138.50 feet wide and 363 feet deep, for a total lot area
of 50,275.5 square feet, or about 1.15 acres as noted on Ex. A. Thus, the newly created Roanoke
Lot would not meet either the lot width or area requirements of the R-2 district and two variances
would be required: (A) lot width, and (B) lot area.
Since it does not make sense for the Applicants to apply for a lot split without knowing
whether the two variances would be granted, you have suggested that the Applicants first apply
for the variances. The Applicants will therefore proceed with the variance application first. Once
approved, the Applicants will move forward with the lot split application.
City Code § 12-15-9.B, "Review Criteria"
The City may grant a variance request if the applicant "establishes that there are practical
difficulties in complying with the official control." Andover City Code § 12-5-9.B.2. The term
"practical difficulties," means: (a) the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable
manner not permitted by an official control, (b) the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances
unique to the property not created by the landowner, (c) the variance, if granted, will not alter the
essential character of the locality, and (d) economic considerations alone do not constitute practical
difficulties. Id We will address each variance in turn.
Community Development Director
February 27, 2023
Page 3
A. Lot Width Variance.
i. Applicant's Variance Application Represents a Reasonable Use.
The first factor is whether an applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner.
Here, the Applicant seeks to subdivide the Property into two new lots. The use on the Roanoke
Lot will remain the same—single family residential. The Applicants intend to rent the existing
home on the Roanoke Lot out to friends or family. There will be no change in the use. Continuing
to use the new lot for a single-family residential home is reasonable because the immediately
surrounding properties are also single-family residential houses.
ii. The Plight of the Property Is Due to Its Unique Circumstances.
The second factor is whether the Property's "plight" arises from the unique physical
characteristics of the Property. Here, the shape of the Property alone prevents its subdivision in
any way without necessitating a variance. As soon as the Property is split (no matter where the
boundary line is drawn), then Roanoke Lot is immediately in need of a width variance because of
its unique shape. This is not the fault of the Applicants; it is simply the reality of the existing
dimensions of the Property.
iii. The Variance Will Not Alter the Essential Character of the Locality.
The third factor is whether the variance will alter the essential character of the locality if
the City grants the variance. To meet this factor, a variance request must not be out of scale, out
of place, or otherwise inconsistent with the surrounding area. Here, the Roanoke Lot will mirror
the properties directly bordering it to the north and south. Further, the Roanoke Lot will continue
to hold a single -residential house, consistent with the locality's zoning. If the City grants the
variance request, therefore, the essential character of the locality will not be altered.
B. Lot Area Variance.
Applicant's Variance Application Represents a Reasonable Use.
Again, the first factor is whether an applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable
manner. Here, the Applicant seeks to subdivide the Property into two new lots. The use on the
Roanoke Lot will remain the same—single family residential, and use on the 173'd Lot will also
be single-family residential. There will be no change in the use. Again, the immediate surrounding
properties are single-family residential houses.
ii. The Plight of the Property Is Due to Its Unique Circumstances.
It is the unique configuration of the Property that causes the lot -area variance request. The
proposed lot line merely returns to how the Property was previously divided before 1989. While
drawing the proposed lot lines as noted on Ex. A does result in the Roanoke Lot needing two
variances instead of one, reconfiguring the lot line in any other matter results in two irregularly
shaped parcels and prevents the Applicant from building a larger sized accessory structure on the
Community Development Director
February 27, 2023
Page 4
173`d Lot. Both the Roanoke Lot and the 173rd Lot will also closely resemble the dimensions of
the neighboring properties.
The Variance Will Not Alter the Essential Character of the Locality.
Again, to meet this factor, a variance must not result in the Property being out of scale, out
of place, or otherwise inconsistent with the surrounding area. Here, the Roanoke Lot will mirror
the properties directly bordering it to the north and south, although it will be slightly smaller in lot
size but not much more substantially than the lot immediately to the south. The character of the
locality will remain the same.
We appreciate your consideration, and we look forward to hearing from you in the near
future.
Very truly yours,
GRE/G�ERSON, ROSOjW,, JOHNSON & NILAN, LTD.
Daniel R. Gregerson
DRG/DRH/hmj
w/ enc.
cc: Client w/ enc. (via email only)
SED 2-]8
EXHIBIT
I �
S //2 SEC. 6, T. 32, R..24
CITY OF ANDOVER
CITY OF RAMSEY
s
65906
2 a
e
ROLAn W. ANDMOx
4
,o
b
t
ROLAn W. ANDMOx
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
—for— DAVID HACKWORTHY
—of— 17337 ROANOKE STREET NW,
ANDOVER, MINNESOTA
Tara s:
,:Y 3rgam:,u.axaw,m,.ru. samn:pcaw,m.p«q«a,
m�v n. aw:n» u. wm n» a»w spq.m aw:eX. p nx
asaovu oa::.w,«m «�mxxre nJ.=r«rxonn oru. s.m:.«r
aoaie se:,q..x rtXxp, p x» s»uw.x a•..qn u.m. ao.
lenX»W wat:m..Nu»:¢afvv.z r«c gs::pxwq av
« mu;lwr«uxX aw,,:p.rzcz r«ea«p a:. spm:«Xn.a
par 1a6z »ery gen¢seur4 J9eppea vmiW
• I.ryp M.3 ID2
5, Mai
.pU M16NW..Y W6xIaFW/,Y MTXO..,Anokr Uun=Y, Minnew».
nn' r J X,24,��^wX�c.unn,.xs.wn..nv:,.np.rswp: a.
m:ueb,eparl4Eas lolmna:
NOTES
LEGEND
0 bsixwv:nwwur
gyp° .apmn.,�xaw=m.,,.w:w,::ugx
1
I
I
n.o!-__.�
I
//NJPJ]eJ6M n �NSTJJ
L
":---��
----- ---------
----- Ca
i \
__. _ i xeasase-e az.zo
} J89M
TI
9BHO9'98l 9J9.00
E3
I Q�
I r
..
a..w ::.w ..
J.J.ev
w:�...:ap...Y....,...
nano A4
a
�
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W.. ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV
TO: Planning & Zoning Commissioners
FROM: Joe Janish, Community Development Director-#
SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Consider City Code Amendment — 12-7-3 Fence Height -
Planning
DATE: March 14, 2023
DISCUSSION
During review of Commercial Site Plans, staff has discovered that ground mounted mechanical
equipment has become larger, and more difficult to screen. Ways in which to screen currently
allow for fencing, however fencing is limited to 6 feet in height in most cases. As staff
researched neighboring communities, many allow taller fences to screen mechanical equipment,
even with similar code language to ours.
12-14-5: SCREENING:
C. Mechanical Equipment
2. Ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from public streets
and residential properties with landscaping or a fence or enclosure that is
architecturally compatible with the principal structure.
During conversations with neighboring community's staff, it was noted that they would allow for
a taller fence then allowed by their ordinance for screening mechanical equipment. Andover staff
however, believes it would be appropriate to amend the City Code to allow for taller fencing
prior to the allowance of fencing exceeding the height within our current City Code. This would
allow for a more transparent process and verify that the Planning and Zoning Commission and
City Council agree.
Therefore, staff is proposing the following language that would allow taller fencing as part of a
Commercial Site Plan (CSP) provided that the fencing met the requirements as identified in the
proposed ordinance.
C. Fences that are required for screening of ground mounted mechanical equipment,
through a required commercial site plan (CSP), may exceed the height otherwise
required by City Code, provided that:
1. Location of fencing meets Building Setbacks for a principal structure.
2. Fencing is to screen ground mounted mechanical equipment.
3. Fencing shall be the minimum height needed to screen the equipment and
no taller than 10 feet.
4. Fencing shall not be taller than the height of the adjacent building wall.
5. All other screening requirements are met.
ACTION REQUESTED
The Planning Commission is requested to review the proposed City Code amendment, conduct a
public hearing, and make a recommendation to the City Council.
Respe Ily itt ,
Joe J nish,
Community Development Director
Attachments
Proposed Ordinance Amendment
12-15-4: Commercial Site Plan Review
CITY OF ANDOVER
ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Ordinance No.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ANDOVER CITY CODE SECTIONS 12-7-3 FENCE
HEIGHT.
The City Council of the City of Andover does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. AMENDMENT. Andover City Code Title 12 — Zoning Regulations, Chapter
7 — Fences and Walls, Section 3 — Fence Height, is hereby amended to include:
C. Fences that are required for screening of ground mounted mechanical equipment,
through a required commercial site plan (CSP), may exceed the height otherwise
required by City Code, provided that:
1. Location of fencing meets Building Setbacks for a principal structure.
2. Fencing is to screen ground mounted mechanical equipment.
3. Fencing shall be the minimum height needed to screen the equipment and
no taller than 10 feet.
4. Fencing shall not be taller than the height of the adjacent building wall.
5. All other screening requirements are met.
SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this
21 sc day of March, 2023.
ATTEST:
Michelle Hartner, City Clerk
CITY OF ANDOVER:
Sheri Bukkila, Mayor
chapter shall be held by the Planning Commission in
accordance with the Minnesota State Statutes.
2. A notice of the time, place, and purpose of the hearing sha
published in the official newspaper of the city ten (10) d prior
to the day of the hearing.
3. Property owners and occupants within three hun fifty feet
(350') of subject properties located inside the icipal Urban
Service Area (MUSA) (based on the City's st current version
of Anoka County Property Records) sha a notified in writing.
4. Property owners and occupants withi even hundred feet
(700') of subject properties locate tside the MUSA (based on
the City's most current version noka County Property
Records) shall be notified i iting.
5. The notification distance all be measured from the perimeter
of the subject propert roperty owner notifications shall be
sent by mail. Fail y any property owner or occupant to
receive such n ' e shall not invalidate the proceedings.
6. Staff shall h discretion to expand the notification area on a
case -by- a basis.
7. The h ng may be continued from time to time in the event the
Pla g and Zoning Commission needs additional information
fr the applicant or other sources to make its decision.
8 he Planning Commission recommendation shall be presented
to the City Council.
9. The City Council shall make the final decision on the proposed
action (Amended Ord. 342, 3-6-07)
12-15-4: COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW: �•�
A. Purpose: Commercial Site Plan Review is necessary to protect the public'
health, safety and general welfare as well as to promote orderly
development and prevent adverse impacts on the surrounding community.
B. Applicability: All non-residential development proposals shall be required
to complete the commercial site plan review process before a building
permit can be issued.
C. Additional Approval Required: All development proposals that require
additional approvals such as a Conditional Use Permit, Variance or
approval from another agency or organization shall obtain these approvals
prior to application for commercial site plan review.
D. Application: A completed commercial site plan application and fee as
established in City Code 1-7-3 shall be submitted to the Community
Development Department.
E. Required Materials: The application and fee shall be accompanied by the
required application materials as specified on the commercial site plan
application.
F. Completeness Determination: The Community Development Department
shall review the application and materials for completeness. If the
application is incomplete, staff will issue a letter detailing the deficiencies
of the submittal. No further action will be taken until the submittal is
complete.
G. Review: Complete applications shall be reviewed by the Andover Review
Committee (ARC) for compliance with applicable regulations. ARC shall
provide review comments to the applicant within two weeks of receipt of a
complete application.
H. Revision: The applicant shall make all necessary revisions to comply with
the review comments of ARC and all applicable regulations. The applicant
shall then resubmit the commercial site plan to the City. The applicant
shall also be required to respond in writing to each review comment to
describe how the comment was addressed on the commercial site plan.
I. Continuation to Compliance: The review and revision process described
above shall continue until ARC finds the commercial site plan in
compliance with all applicable regulations and all other approvals have
been granted.
Approval: Once the proposal has been found to be in compliance with
ARC comments, applicable regulations and all other required approvals
have been granted, the applicant shall provide two complete full size and
two complete half size plan sets to the City to be signed. A signed plan
set shall be returned to the applicant. A signed plan set shall be retained
by the City. No building permit shall be issued prior to approval of the
commercial site plan.
K. Appeal: Any person aggrieved by a decision of ARC shall be entitled to
appeal to the City Council within thirty (30) days of the decision by filing a
notice of appeal. The Community Development Department shall schedule
a date for hearing before the City Council and notify the aggrieved person
of the date. The decision of ARC shall not be voided by the filing of such
appeal. Only after the City Council has held its hearing will the decision of
ARC be affected.
Revisions and Amendments: Administrative approval of minor changes to
an approved commercial site plan may be authorized by the Community
Development Department upon review and approval by ARC. Proposed
changes that involve expansion in the use of the property or other
substantial modifications to the approved commercial site plan shall follow
the procedures described in this section.
M. Financial Guarantee: All improvements of the approved commercial site
plan should be completed before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. If
in the determination of the Building Official and Fire Chief a building meets
the requirements for occupancy and site improvements are substantially
completed a Certificate of Occupancy may be issued upon receipt of a
cash escrow or letter of credit to guarantee all remaining site
improvements will be completed. The amount of the cash escrow shall be
determined by the Community Development Department.
N. Inspection: The site shall be inspected as necessary to verify completion
of all work on the approved commercial site plan. No financial guarantee
shall be refunded until a site inspection has been completed and the work
for which the guarantee was held is completed as approved on the
commercial site plan. (Amended Ord. 314, 10-4-2005)
12-15-5: AMENDMENTS:
A. In accordance with the provisions of Minnesota statutes, the go 'ng
body may, from time to time, adopt amendments. Amendme to the text
may be initiated by the City Council, Planning and Zonin ommission,
property owner, or resident. Staff shall review all pro ed amendments
and make recommendationZPlanning lanning Com ' sion. All proposed
amendments shall be referr Planning Zoning Commission
prior to adoption, and the Pnd Zon' Commission shall hold a
public hearing on the propondm The public hearing shall be
held in accordance with Ch1 Fees shall be charged
according to the most curreedule. The final decisions regarding
amendments shall rest with Council. (Amended Ord. 8, 10-21-
1970, Amended Ord. 314 1)
B. Relation to Compreh ive Plan: It is the policy of the City of Andover
that the enforcem , amendment, and administration of this Chapter be
accomplishedsistent with the recommendations contained in the City
Comprehen ' e Plan, as developed and amended from time to time by the
Planning mmission and City Council. The Council recognizes the City
/inconsoistent
ensive Plan as the official policy for the regulation on land use
lopment in accordance with the policies and purpose herein set
accordance with Minnesota Statutes Chapter 473, the City will
ve any rezoning or other changes in these regulations that are
with the City Comprehensive Plan. Proposed changes to the
prehensive Plan shall have a public hearing per the process in
Chapter 12-15-3. (Amended Ord. 314 10-4-2005)