HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-26-231685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.AN DOVE RM N.GOV
Andover Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Agenda
September 26, 2023
Andover City Hall
Council Chambers
7:00 p.m.
1. Call to Order
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Approval of Minutes — August 8, 2023 Regular Meeting
4. Public Hearin: Variance Request —17337 Roanoke St NW; PID# 06-32-24-33-0016—
Samantha Haupert & Colin Anderson (Applicants)
5. Other Business
6. Adjournment
C I T Y O F
,NDOVE
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: September 26, 2023
ACTION REQUESTED
The Planning & Zoning Commission is requested to approve the August 8, 2023 regular meeting
minutes.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
PLANNINGAND ZONING COMMISSIONMEETING —AUGUST 8, 2023
The Regular Bi -Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was
called to order by Chairperson Karen Godfrey on August 8, 2023, 7:00 p.m., at the Andover
City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota.
Commissioners present: Scott Hudson, Bert Koehler IV, Nick Loehlein, Jonathan
Shafto, and Ryan Winge
Commissioners absent: Patrick Shuman, Jr.
Also present: Community Development Director Joe Janish
Planning Intern Aidan Breen
Others
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OFMINUTES
July 25, 2023 Regular Meeting Minutes
Commissioner Koehler requested the following corrections:
Page 4, Line 14: the addition of the word "not" in the sentence "not attached to the house
and is secure.", so it reads "not attached to the house and is not secure."
Page 4, Line 16: addition of the sentence "we have not worked with my contractor to draw
plans up in that matter to make it conforming" to the original sentence that reads "due to
the home placement being pushed back"
Motion by Commissioner Loehlein, seconded by Commissioner Koehler, to approve the
minutes as amended. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1 -present (Shuman), 0 -absent
vote.
PUBLIC HEARING. Interim Use Permit (IUP) Amendment — 13655 Round Lake
Boulevard, PIDs 34-32-24-42-0009 and 33-32-24-42-0007— Grace Lutheran Church of
Anoka (Applicant)
The Planning & Zoning Commission is requested to hold a public hearing and provide a
recommendation to the City Council regarding the IUP Amendment request. Planning
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —August 8, 2023
Page 2
1 Intern Aidan Breen noted the purpose of this item is to hold a public hearing and take input
2 on the applicant's request to extend their existing IUP. Planning Intern Breen shared with
3 the Commission the history of the IUP which was approved in 2014, extended in 2019,
4 which was then extended another 4 years. Planning Intern Breen presented site plans and
5 photos of the site location.
7 Commissioner Loehlein asked for context concerning the 3 rounds of comments the City
8 provided to the applicant, noted on slide 4 of the presentation. Janish stated that as a part
9 of the commercial site plan process, there are several revisions similar to the preliminary
10 plat process. For every expansion of a commercial use, they go through a commercial site
11 plan process where this is a list of items that are needed, they are gone through at the same
12 degree as the grading plans. The plan set can then be used for the planning of that site after
13 being approved by the engineer and planning and the civil work that is needed can be done.
14
15 Commissioner Koehler asked if the City is comfortable with the length of this extension
16 being so short. Planning Intern Breen stated that he has not heard of any misgivings or any
17 staff members that have issues with the length of the extension.
18
19 Commissioner Hudson asked if an inspection would still be provided for an extension of
20 the permit, and would the inspection be done at the same time as well. Planning Intern
21 Breen said that was correct.
22
23 Motion: Chair Godfrey assumed a motion to open the Public Hearing at 7:10 p.m. Motion
24 carries by unanimous consent.
25
26 Tracy Russell, Church Administrator, 2332 151" Avenue NW, came forward to answer
27 questions from the Commission. Commissioner Koehler asked what makes her think a one -
28 year extension is going to be enough for the permit. Ms. Russell stated that the original
29 request was made in the beginning process of raising funds and working with the architect.
30 In the time since the previous extension, there have been multiple delays including Covid
31 and getting a new Senior Pastor. Initially, the building was planned to start in the Spring
32 of 2023, which would have allowed the project to be completed by December. However,
33 the construction costs and estimates for the build came in $1 million over what the
34 congregation had approved, meaning the plans had to be revised. Ms. Russell updated that
35 all of the planning phase is done, and the construction manager has all of the information
36 and is working on collecting permits to start the construction phase. The hope is to finish
37 the construction by the spring/summer of 2024, the extension request is made to December
38 2024 just in case of any delays, such as supply chain delays.
39
40 Commissioner Koehler asked what other factors could impact the timeline of the
41 construction. Ms. Russell stated that she cannot foresee any other delays that could come
42 up, besides potential supply chain delays.
43
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —August 8, 2023
Page 3
1 Commissioner Loehlein asked if the one-year extension is going to be enough because he
2 does not want to have to reconsider. Ms. Russell stated that one year should be enough,
3 according to the construction manager.
5 Motion: Chair Godfrey assumed a motion to close the Public Hearing at 7:17 p.m. Motion
6 carries by unanimous consent.
8 Commissioner Koehler commented that this seems to stretch on forever, starting back in
9 2006. He would recommend extending the IUP to 2025 to give a buffer to ensure that there
10 does not need to be any reconsideration in the future.
11
12 Commissioner Loehlein asked staff what would be the downsides or potential hang-ups to
13 giving a longer buffer. Community Development Director Joe Janish stated that the
14 residents have received notice that it is only a 12 -month extension, changing that could
15 lead to residents finding issues with a longer extension.
16
17 Commissioner Shafto stated that he tends to agree with Commission Koehler and his
18 recommendation.
19
20 Chairperson Godfrey reminded that the Commission does not approve the amendment,
21 they only make a recommendation to the City Council.
22
23 Community Development Director Joe Janish recommended that the Commissioner makes
24 a motion to recommend the approval of the resolution as written and if legally available to
25 add an additional year. That way there is an opportunity for the City Attorney to provide
26 comment related to that possible extension.
27
28 Commissioner Winge asked staff if there have been any complaints from residents
29 concerning the subordinate structures. Community Development Director Joe Janish stated
30 that there have not been. The only comment that he has received was wondering what the
31 signs were for but did not receive any complaints.
32
33 Motion by Commissioner Koehler, seconded by Commissioner Shafto, to recommend to
34 the City Council approval of the resolution as written, asking City Council to entertain
35 extending it by 1 year. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1 -absent vote.
36
37 Mr. Janish stated that this item would be before the Council at the August 15, 2023 City
38 Council meeting.
39
40 PUBLIC HEARING: Consider a Preliminary Plat for the third phase of the Petersen
41 Farms development which will be known as Legacy at Petersen Farms. (Applicant — JD
42 Andover Holdings).
43
44 The Planning and Zoning Commission is requested to hold a public hearing and make a
45 recommendation to the City Council to consider a Preliminary Plat for the Petersen Farms
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —August 8, 2023
Page 4
1 development. Community Development Director Joe Janish gave a presentation
2 concerning the approximate location of Legacy at Petersen Farms. Mr. Janish updated that
3 the applicant is proposing a roadway connection at 170'h and CR 7. Site A would be a
4 newly constructed roadway, that would be paved in the spring. Site B would be a possible
5 future roundabout. Site C would remain as access to the farm site and emergency access
6 location as well. Site D would be a gated emergency exit. Mr. Janish updated that there
7 would be no negative impact on traffic in this area. Mr. Janish gave information on the
8 shoreland management criteria, parkland dedication, minimum net land area, and
9 stormwater reports. Mr. Janish updated that properties within 700 feet received notice of
10 the public hearing, as well as there are 3 sign locations, and advertised in the Anoka County
11 Union Herald Newspaper.
12
13 Motion: Chair Godfrey assumed a motion to open the Public Hearing at 7:33 p.m. Motion
14 carries by unanimous consent.
15
16 Darren Lazan, representing the applicant, updated that they are excited to get underway
17 this fall. Mr. Lazan stated there is a high demand for these lots to be online. Commissioner
18 Koehler stated that there is one lot that is not conforming and would like an overview of
19 the adjustments that would be needed. Mr. Lazan updated that there are floodplains A
20 (normal floodplain) and B (higher floodplain), minor changes including 6 inches of fill to
21 floodplain B will allow much more upland to be created and become conforming.
22
23 Chairperson Godfrey asked what the confidence level at this time after all the geotechnical
24 reports that have been done that this road can be built to code. Mr. Lazan stated that
25 confidence levels are very high.
26
27 Commissioner Hudson asked when the IUP for stockpile will be brought before the
28 Commission. Mr. Lazan stated that the Preliminary Plat presented tonight includes all the
29 activities during construction. The IUP is needed when construction is done.
30
31 Community Development Director Joe Janish stated that the grading plans need to be
32 evaluated by staff and stamped first, at which point they can carry out their project.
33
34 Hope Luedtke, 16932 Jivaro Street NW, came forward and stated concern for the slippery
35 slope occurring in the development in Andover. Mrs. Luedtke stated she would like to push
36 the pause button until the roundabout is put in. She asked the Commission to look at the
37 big picture for what the goals are for Andover. Mrs. Luedtke stated her concern for the size
38 of the lots and recommended dropping a few lots to allow for larger lots to be made in
39 regard to resolving the upland issues. She stated that Andover needs to keep its gate narrow
40 to remain in control.
41
42 Bud Holst, 4276 165t` Avenue NW, came forward and stated that during rush hour it is
43 difficult to turn out of his driveway onto 165th Avenue and then onto CR 7. He stated there
44 have been 12-13 fatalities between 157`h and 167h Avenues, and that putting a roundabout
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —August 8, 2023
Page 5
1 in before would be lovely to work to avoid that. He stated that parking is another issue that
2 was not discussed in the last phase.
3
4 Fred Siegel, 17185 Roanoke Street NW, came forward and stated that he has seen
5 numerous deer hit right in his driveway because of the speed of drivers. Another concern
6 is the water near the boundary line, the pond is low now, and he does not want to see the
7 ponds disappear. Mr. Janish updated that they are looking for intersection improvements
8 going in both directions on 170th Avenue.
9
10 Leslie Crowley, 16732 Guarani Street NW, came forward and stated her concern with the
11 traffic and speed of drivers. At 7 a.m. every morning, the speed of drivers coming down
12 either side of CR 7 is 65+ mph, the roundabout needs to be done sooner rather than later.
13 Because the construction trucks park on both sides of the road, there are major problems
14 getting cars to be able to get through.
15
16 Chairperson Godfrey asked Mr. Janish to provide a summary of the authority over CR 7
17 and provide any suggestions on whom residents can contact about concerns for that road.
18 Mr. Janish updated that the funding for the roundabout has been approved for 2026, Anoka
19 County is not able to move that funding forward at this point.
20
21 Rhonda Ganski, 2159 153`d Lane NW, came forward and stated that because of the lack of
22 forethought about where stormwater would go when the other Nightingale estate
23 developments were put in. There is no room in the drainage ponds for stormwater from the
24 new developments, leading to the excess water being directed into her private backyard.
25 She recommended trying to make sure how this will affect future citizens.
26
27 Pat Becker, 17125 Roanoke Street NW, came forward and stated concern for phase 4 and
28 the effects it will have on his property. He also stated his concern for the traffic as well.
29
30 Darren Lazan came back to the podium and updated that the proposed improvements for
31 the 170th Avenue access at CR 7 and Roanoke are to add dual left turns and right turn lanes
32 into the neighbor's and their properties. He stated that there has been a remarkable change
33 to the stormwater management in the last 7-10 years, they are storing twice the amount on -
34 site and is confident that the stormwater issues are resolved.
35
36 Commissioner Koehler asked Mr. Lazan about failed wells that needed to be rebuilt. Mr.
37 Lazan stated that the main concern was iron and nitrates; however, the redrills hit very
38 clean water, and none of the redrills failed.
39
40 Jason Osberg, 153536 Ukon Street NW, came forward and clarified that they work with
41 city staff to ensure they are not lowering the neighboring property's water tables or
42 backyards.
43
44 Commissioner Loehlein asked how the developments will affect neighboring property
45 values. Mr. Lazan stated that based on studies, there have been no negative impact on
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —August 8, 2023
Page 6
1 property values, but usually a positive impact. Mr. Janish clarified that these developments
2 has been shown to pull the values up.
4 Commissioner Shafto asked about parking on the streets and streets being clogged due to
5 construction trucks. Mr. Lazan updated that they make it clear to their builders that they
6 must follow the parking requirements in that neighborhood. He recommends the Sherriff
7 should go through and ticket trucks that are parking incorrectly, but that it is not in his
8 control.
10 Motion: Chair Godfrey assumed a motion to close the Public Hearing at 8:22 p.m. Motion
11 carries by unanimous consent.
12
13 Commissioner Shafto asked about the potential enforcement of the clogging of streets and
14 what the City can enforce. Mr. Janish stated that he could speak with the Sherriff's
15 department about enforcing the parking violations.
16
17 Commissioner Shafto stated that he also shares the public's concern about the dangers on
18 CR 7.
19
20 Commissioner Koehler stated that if you see something illegal with parking, call the police.
21 He also stated that there cannot be stormwater redirected into anyone's property, and he
22 asked how residents should deal with that if that occurs. Mr. Janish said to call the City to
23 get that resolved.
24
25 Commissioner Winge asked if there have been any significant variances requested by the
26 applicant that have been approved through this process. Mr. Janish stated that they have
27 gone through the PUD process. There are deviations to the code, such as the standard 2.5-
28 acre lot can be 1.5 acres, and instead of a 300 foot wide lot, it can be 100 foot wide. Mr.
29 Janish stated that the deviations can be done if there is proof of higher quality development
30 as a result of the deviations.
31
32 Motion by Commissioner Hudson, seconded by Commissioner Loehlein, to recommend to
33 the City Council approval of resolution as written. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 1 -nay
34 (Koehler), 1 -absent vote.
35
36 Mr. Hellegers stated that this item would be before the Council at the August 15, 2023 City
37 Council meeting.
38
39 OTHER BUSINESS
40
41 Community Development Director Janish updated on the IUP for the extension of
42 subordinate structures. That was approved by City Council.
43
44 For the variance request, City Council voted and tied. They put it on the table and are
45 trying to have 5 members present at the meeting to potentially vote on August 15`s to
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —August 8, 2023
Page 7
1 reconsider the item.
3 ADJOURNMENT
5 Motion: Chair Godfrey assumed a motion to adjourn the meeting 8:36 p.m. Motion carries
6 by unanimous consent.
8 Respectfully Submitted,
10
11
12 Lilian Rokosz, Recording Secretary
13 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
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
FROM: Jake Griffiths, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Variance Request —17337 Roanoke St NW; PID# 06-32-24-33-
0016 — Samantha Haupert & Colin Anderson (Applicants)
DATE: September 26, 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.
The applicants are requesting a variance to the minimum lot width of the R-2: Single Family
Residential Estate zoning district established by City Code 12-3-5: Minimum District
Requirements. City Code 12-3-5 establishes a minimum lot width of 300 feet and the applicant is
requesting a variance to reduce the minimum lot width to 138.50 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. A letter submitted on behalf of the applicants as well as a lot split sketch is
attached for review.
The Planning & Zoning Commission previously reviewed two variance requests for this property
at their March 14, 2023 meeting. Minutes from this meeting are attached for review. At that time
the applicants were requesting variances from the minimum lot width and minimum lot size
requirements. After holding a public hearing and discussion, the Commission unanimously
recommended denial to the City Council based on the fact that the variance request for minimum
lot size was only necessary because of the landowner's decision as to where to draw the proposed
property line, and that the essential character of the locality would be changed based on the fact
that it no longer meets Zoning Code. The applicants then withdrew their variance application prior
to City Council review. As part of tonight's variance request, the applicant has modified their
proposed lot lines for future subdivision to eliminate the need for a variance to minimum lot size.
City Code Requirements
Variance Request
Difference
Min. Lot Width
1 300 Feet
138.50 Feet
- 161.50 Feet
The Planning & Zoning Commission previously reviewed two variance requests for this property
at their March 14, 2023 meeting. Minutes from this meeting are attached for review. At that time
the applicants were requesting variances from the minimum lot width and minimum lot size
requirements. After holding a public hearing and discussion, the Commission unanimously
recommended denial to the City Council based on the fact that the variance request for minimum
lot size was only necessary because of the landowner's decision as to where to draw the proposed
property line, and that the essential character of the locality would be changed based on the fact
that it no longer meets Zoning Code. The applicants then withdrew their variance application prior
to City Council review. As part of tonight's variance request, the applicant has modified their
proposed lot lines for future subdivision to eliminate the need for a variance to minimum lot size.
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.
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.
Analysis of Variance Requests
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 have expressed concerns to the applicants 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.
Pursuant to City Code 12-15-9-E-6, if the City Council determines that no significant progress has
been made in the first twelve (12) months after the approval of the variance, the variance will be
null and void.
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.
Re ectfully submitted,
ake Grif th����
Associate Planner
Attachments
Draft Resolution of Approval
Draft Resolution of Denial
Site Location Map
March 14, 2023 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
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
IT�19M91W.W.W.i.1
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 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 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 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 September 26, 2023; and,
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 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
approval with the exception of those requirements explicitly deviated from in this
resolution 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 3rd day of September, 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 A VARIANCE TO MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 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 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 September 26, 2023; and,
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 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.
3.
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 on the subject property.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this 3rd day of September, 2023.
CITY OF ANDOVER CITY OF ANDOVER
Michelle Harter, City Clerk
Sheri Bukkila, Mayor
r%:4._ i ___4.:_._ n n_._
Date Created: February 28, 2023
Disclaimer: The provider makes no representation or warranties with respect to the reuse of this data.
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes—March 14, 2023
Page 2
Motion\amended.
mmissioner Koehler, seconded by Commissioner Loehlein, to approve the
minutes Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1 -present (Commissioner
nsent vote.
PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE REQUEST -17337 ROANOKE ST NW; PID #06-
32-24-33-0016 -SAMANTHA HAUPERT & COLINANDERSON (APPLICANTS)
The Planning & Zoning Commission is requested to hold a public hearing and make a
recommendation to the City Council to either approve or deny the Variance request made
by Samantha Haupert and Colin Anderson. Associate Planner Jake Griffiths explained a
Variance is a way through Zoning that cities can allow an exception to an Ordinance that
would otherwise apply to a specific property. This Variance Request relates to minimum
lot standards. The request is to deviate from the minimum lot size and width requirements
of the R2 zoning district, one on Roanoke Street(7th Avenue) and one on 173rd Avenue
to the South. For lot size, the City Code requires 2.5 acres, and the applicant is requesting
a Variance to drop that to 1.15 acres. For lot width, the City Code requires 300 feet, and
the applicant is requesting 138.5 feet. The applicant must show there are practical
difficulties, and the Variance needs to be in harmony with the general purposes and intent
of the comprehensive plan for the property. The Commission is being asked to compare
the Variance Request with the review criteria outlined by the City Code, and make a
recommendation based on finding of facts to City Council. He shared the history of the
property being discussed, and that the applicant is requesting a variance for a lot split that
would otherwise not meet City Code.
Commissioners had no questions about the presentation.
Motion: Chair Godfrey assumed a motion to open the Public Hearing at 7:10 p.m.
Motion carried by unanimous consent.
Dan Gregerson, Gregerson, Rosow, Johnson & Nilan, LTD, 16025 Temple Lane,
Minnetonka, the attorney for the applicants, who bought the property at a distressed sale.
They would like to develop the property into two lots to become their forever home. They
plan to build a home and accessory structure on the 173rd Avenue lot. The Roanoke
Street lot would be rented out to friends and family. Any split of this property would
require a variance along Roanoke, no matter how the boundary line is drawn. The
applicant wants the line drawn in the original position so there is uniformity in size, and
so it's taken back to what the property looked like 10-15 years ago. It would also allow
the applicant to build a larger accessory structure along the 173rd Avenue lot.
Earnest England, 17350 Roanoke Street NW, stated he is seeing a 2.5 acre parcel they
want to subdivide into 1.15 acres. It is in Andover's rules that 2.5 acres should be kept as
the smallest lot size. He doesn't understand the use of the parcel, and asked if there is an
easement going through the middle of the property. He used to plow the driveway of a
man named Bruce, who used to live there, and there is one driveway going down the
middle so he is not sure how the brown house would get access if the Variance was
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes—March 14, 2023
Page 3
approved. He asked if anyone from City staff has been out to look at the property to see if
there is an easement in the middle. He used to work for Andover fire and brought up
concerns about there not being City water or sewer on the properties, and about houses
being built so close together since it could be a fire hazard. He asked what the 20 year
plan is for City water and sewer. He is opposed to the Variance. He has 7.1 acres across
the road and won't plan to subdivide until there is City water and sewer.
Commissioner Koehler asked Mr. England when he moved into his house.
Mr. England shared he and his wife bought their property in 1999. They had under 10
acres which were already subdivided and lived in the house on the 2 acre lot, then built
their home on the 7.1 acre lot.
Dan Gregerson returned to the stand to clarify Mr. England's questions. There is a
property on the Roanoke facing side, which will stay. A new residence will be
constructed on the 173rd Avenue side, so there will be one residence on each parcel.
Commissioner Koehler asked what the planned access looks like to each primary
dwelling on each property of the proposed variance request.
Mr. Gregerson explained there is a current access off Roanoke Street with an easement
there, they could do a cross access easement or investigate if they could take access from
173rd Avenue. They would need to revisit that as a possibility.
Commissioner Koehler asked Staff if 173rd Avenue is a City road or a County road. Mr.
Griffiths clarified it is a City road.
Chair Godfrey asked Staff for additional information. Mr. Griffiths stated the email he
received prior to tonight's meeting was from Mr. England, and is an official part of the
record. He explained the plans for City water in the area of the property being discussed.
He presented Andover's zoning map showing the current boundary to which the City
plans on extending City water and sewer. It is several miles short of where the applicant's
property is, and the City does not plan to extend it farther.
Chair Godfrey asked if any proposed additional building in this area, including the
applicant's property, would require a new well and septic. Mr. Griffiths shared that is
correct. Chair Godfrey asked if that is possible on this site, and Mr. Griffiths said it
would be up to the applicant to determine as part of their lot split process in the future if
the Variance is approved and they choose to move forward.
Commissioner Loehlein asked a question related to City Code flexibility for lot splits,
where it explains lot splits being allowed under certain conditions. A lot split must result
in no more than two lots and must meet two of the following requirements: lot width,
depth, or area. He asked if the applicants considered simply drawing the line differently,
so that it would be within City Code, so each property would meet the Code.
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes—March 14, 2023
Page 4
Dan Gregerson shared he discussed it with his staff and clients, but they would prefer to
go back to the original line for purposes of creating two more normal sized lots. If the lot
line was extended in a different area to try to meet the City Code, it might impact the
accessory structure that the applicants are hoping to build on the 173rd Avenue parcel.
They are going forward with two variance requests tonight.
Commissioner Loehlein asked for Mr. Gregerson to indicate on the map where the
applicants hope to build their accessory structure.
Mr. Gregerson asked Colin Anderson (variance applicant) to come forward to show on
the map where they plan on putting it. He explained they are not delving too much into
details of a potential lot split. They know they need to get the Variance first before
planning too much of the lot split. The applicants know there will be more hurdles even if
the Variance is approved, and that the Variance is the first step.
Colin Anderson, 17337 Roanoke Street NW, showed on the map that the shed would be
near where the current structure on the property is.
Motion: Chair Godfrey assumed a motion to close the Public Hearing at 7:36 p.m.
Motion carried by unanimous consent.
Commissioner Winge asked if the applicant were to redraw the lot lines to allow for only
one variance request for lot width, so each parcel would be within the 2.5 acre
requirement for a lot split, would the 90% rule apply to that?
Mr. Griffiths shared that in this case, no. Staff reports indicate the 90% rule exists
because if you meet two of the three criteria, the one requirement you are deviating from
has to meet 90% of the City requirement. In this case, the deviation to lot width would be
less than half of what City Code requires, so the 90% rule wouldn't apply.
Commissioner Koehler asked if Zoning was enacted in 1974 when the City was
incorporated, and if the Zoning changed considerably from 1974 until now.
Mr. Griffiths explained details of the R2 zoning district. Before 1974, the City was
known as Grow Township. When the City was incorporated first ordinances were passed,
one being Zoning. The R2 zoning district was established as a way to identify properties
that didn't meet City Code. There were properties that were already approved that didn't
meet the City Code, such as the one being discussed. Rather than having a bunch of
properties that didn't meet RI district rules, the City created R2 so existing properties
built before 1978 could remain but any new buildings would need to follow City Code
for 2.5 acres and 300 feet minimum. Since that time, unless a Variance was approved,
new structures have met those requirements.
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes—March 14, 2023
Page 5
Commissioner Koehler asked if Mr. England moved in in 1999, the Zoning would have
been in place as it is today, and the Zoning hasn't changed. Mr. Griffiths stated that is
correct, but noted that across the street there is an RI zoning district, but regardless
minimum lot size and width is the same between the two.
Commissioner Loehlein stated the R2 zoning district is unique and was created because
the properties there didn't meet the RI or R4 district requirements. He asked if many of
the properties were non -conforming at that time, or if they conformed to the R2 district
requirements. He stated the two properties being discussed didn't, but did most of the
properties not meet the R2 district? Mr. Griffiths said to look at properties in the R2
district that were subdivided prior to 1978, which almost all were. Any of those
properties in this Zoning District meet city code because they were grandfathered in. Any
new properties need to meet City standards and be at least 2.5 acres. New properties can't
be re -zoned. The Zoning District can't grow, and is locked in to memorialize the non-
conforming status of properties that are in it.
Commissioner Koehler stated he understands this is a Variance Request not a lot split. He
asked if emergency services or engineering looked at this request, or if any other groups
within the City provided input. Mr. Griffiths stated they won't get feedback on anything
until the lot split happens.
Chair Godfrey clarified that at this point, they are only looking at the request for two
variances. Staff guidance, MN state statutes, and City Code require the Commission to
look at specific review criteria. It seems clear that two of the three requirements must be
met and she doesn't see much leeway in that. She asked if from Staffs review, is it
possible to draw the boundaries differently so the lot size would conform to City Code
and there would only be one variance needed, which would be the frontage on Roanoke.
Mr. Griffiths stated that yes, currently the property is 6.4 acres in size, and minimum lot
size is 2.5 acres. There are many ways you could draw the line to meet the Code for
minimum lot size.
Commissioner Hudson asked Mr. Griffiths to clarify if currently this property is a
conforming property, and Mr. Griffiths said that is correct. Commissioner Hudson asked
if the Commission would then be seeking to make one of them non -conforming if it were
to go through. Mr. Griffiths said a variance is required because the applicant, through
their request, is asking to make a conforming property non -conforming.
Chair Godfrey asked if the City Council in recent years has approved any requests to
make conforming properties non -conforming. Mr. Griffith's shared he does not have an
answer. Typically cities don't approve things like this, usually properties go from non-
conforming to conforming, not the other way around. He doesn't have an answer to how
many similar variance requests, if any, have been granted.
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes—March 14, 2023
Page 6
Community Development Director Joe Janish reminded the Commission that they are
evaluating requests based on four questions, which should be leading the Commission's
discussion related to this particular parcel.
Chair Godfrey restated a paraphrased version of the four considerations the Commission
should be considering and focusing on. First, does the property owner propose to use the
property in an unreasonable manner that is not permitted, which in this case does not
apply. Second, is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to the property
and not created by the landowner. In this case it sounds as if the applicant is creating the
problems based on their preference of where the line is drawn. Third, is that the variance,
if granted, will not alter the essential character of locality. Fourth, economic
considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Mr. Griffiths added to also
consider the test to look at performance with the comprehensive plan as well.
Commissioner Koehler asked if there is an absolute bare minimum that a residential
property can be in the City of Andover, as he looked at the Zoning chart in front of him.
Mr. Griffiths said the minimum lot size would be 8,600 square feet - 3,600 for a building
pad and 5,000 for primary and alternate drain field locations. If the applicant went
forward with a lot split, City staff would be looking for those two criteria to be met.
Commissioner Koehler is having a problem with considerations two and three. He
restated the second, that the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the
property and not created by the landowner. He is hung up on where the applicant wants
the line, as it could be moved and then meet two of the requirements. He restated
question three related to Mr. England's comments, that if the Variance is granted it will
not alter the essential character of locality. There are two pieces of property there that
match what they are asking for and were there before the Zoning code was put in place.
People like Mr. England bought into the neighborhood understanding what the Zoning
requirements were and what the neighborhood should look like. From neighbors'
perspectives, some may be okay with it, some many not, but it alters what the expectation
was when they moved in, knowing what the Zoning Code was. Commissioner Koehler
invited others to argue with him and show him there is a way around it.
Commissioner Loehlein shared he can't argue. If the applicants had come before the
Commission having drawn the line in a different place, it would be different. But with the
request as is, he agrees with Commissioner Koehler.
Commissioner Koehler clarified he is not against the lot split, but there is another way to
do it that could maintain the integrity of what people expected when they bought into that
neighborhood and get the applicants closer to meeting the code. He shared about past
requests people have made to the Commission that were too far off from the Code to be
considered, one requesting 1.5 acres, and this request is even smaller. He struggles with
there being another way to draw the line, but the applicant not wanting to.
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes—March 14, 2023
Page 7
Commissioner Winge agreed with Commissioners Koehler and Loehlein. If the line could
be drawn so that the smaller lot would be closer to 2.5 acres, that would get them closer
to moving in the right direction.
Chair Godfrey explained before moving to a motion that the Commission makes
recommendations to City Council, but does not make official decisions.
Mr. Griffiths clarified there are two variance requests being considered, one for lot size
and one for lot width. He wanted to make sure the Commission wasn't missing one part
of the applicant's request. Commissioner Hudson asked if it's one request that is being
considered to recommend to City Council, two variances but one request that will either
pass or fail. Mr. Griffiths stated that is correct, but as part of the Commission's review,
both items should be discussed.
Commissioner Koehler asked if the line was drawn differently and the acreage of each
parcel was closer to 2.5acres, would the lot width still be a problem. Mr. Griffiths said
yes, it would be. Commissioner Koehler is hung up on how far off the request is, 300 feet
is the requirement for lot width and the request is off by more than 50%. Mr. Griffiths
explained there is no way to draw the line differently to tackle lot width. Lot width will
be 138.5 as requested, or it will be as it is today. He explained the reason as he showed
the map of the current property. Commissioner Koehler clarified that no matter how the
line is drawn, the lot width on Roanoke is staying the same no matter what, which was
confirmed by Mr. Griffiths.
Commissioner Loehlein asked Mr. Griffiths to clarify why the applicants couldn't draw
the line in a different place and meet the 90% rule, as stated in Item 2 of the City Code,
since a new line could help the applicants meet requirements for lot area and depth. Mr.
Griffiths explained it's because of Criteria 3, which states each lot within the proposed lot
split shall provide at least 90% of the requirement that can't be met. The lot width of the
proposed lot split would still be less than 50% of the City requirement.
Mr. Griffiths reminded the Commission that it can direct Staff to go back and craft
findings to present to the City Council based on tonight's discussion, to be forwarded to
them. It can be indicated in the motion. Chair Godfrey asked Mr. Griffith's if it needs to
be part of the motion or if it can be a direction after action on the motion is taken. Mr.
Griffiths stated that however the Commission would like to do it is okay.
Motion by Commissioner Koehler to recommend to the City Council approval of the
Variance Request as presented. Motion died for lack of a second.
Motion by Commissioner Koehler, seconded by Commissioner Loehlein, to recommend
to the City Council denial of the Variance Request as presented based on the fact that the
land area of the lot is due to the landowners decision as to where to draw the line, and
that the essential character of the locality is changed based on the fact that it no longer
meets Zoning Code. Motion carried by unanimous vote.
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes—March 14, 2023
Page 8
Chair Godfrey asked Mr. Griffiths to direct Staff to craft a summary of tonight's
comments and discussion for City Council. She stated the City Council will view the
QCTV recording of tonight's meeting and see the comments made during the public
hearing.
Mr. Griffiths stated that this item would be before the Council at the March 21, 2023 City
Council meeting.
PUBL HEARING: CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE TITLE 12-7-3
FENCE ftUIGHT - CITY OFANDO VER (APPLICANT)
The Planning d Zoning Commission is requested to hold a public hearing and make a
recommendatio to the City Council on an amendment to City Code related to fence
height. Commu 'ty Development Director Joe Janish shared this is coming to the
Planning and Zoni Commission based on things City staff has been seeing and based
on research that was onducted. As they have gone through their Commercial Site Plan
process required of c mmercial or larger residential sites, when it comes to ground
mounted mechanical equipment like ground generators, hvac units, etc. it appears
screening isn't adequate. e contacted nearby communities who allow for fencing up to
higher heights through the creening process. He wanted to make an amendment to Code
to make exceptions for fenc
code. The proposed new lar
Fences that are required for
height, and presented the language that will be added to the
uaee reads:
a required commercial site plan CS
Code provided that:
1. Location of fencing mee
2. Fencing is to screen arou
3. Fencing shall be the mini
taller than 10 feet.
4. Fencing shall not be taller
5. All other screening requir
of ground mounted mechanical equipment, through
, may exceed the height otherwise required by City
Building Setbacks for a principal structure.
I mounted mechanical equipment.
tum height needed to screen the equipment and no
the height of the adjacent building wall.
its are met.
Commissioner Koehler asked if the Ci has ever given exceptions before related to
fencing. Mr. Janish is not aware of that. Co issioner Koehler asked if this code would
pertain only to commercial buildings. Mr. anish said yes, only those that require a
Commercial Site Plan process. A single-famil home would not qualify for this section of
the code.
Chair Godfrey asked if a 4-plex or larger residen 'al property would qualify. Mr. Janish
said yes because they would trigger the Commerci Site Plan process.
Commissioner Koehler asked if an exception outside dX this would be a home that wanted
to build a fence in the front yard taller than 4 feet tal and clarified that would not be
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes—March 14, 2023
Page 9
allowed. Mr. Janish stated that is correct. A single-family homeowner would need to
request a variance showing practical difficulties or a Code amendment.
Motion: Chair. Godfrey assumed a motion to open the Public Hearing at 7:59 p.m.
Motion carried by unanimous consent.
There was no public input.
Motion: Chair Godfrey assumed a motion to close the Public Hearing at 8:00 p.m.
Motion carried by unanimous consent.
Motion by Commissioner Koehler, seconded by Commissioner Loehlein, to recommend
to the City Council approval of the amendment to City Code as written. Motion carried
by unanimous vote.
Mr. Janish stated that this item would be before the Council at the March 21, 2023 City
Council meeting.
OTHER BUSINESS.
Associate Planner Jake Griffiths updated the Planning Commission on related items. He
updated that at the last meeting there was a Conditional Use Permit for Grace Lutheran
Church which will be on the City Council agenda for March 21. The Commission is
planning to have a meeting on the 4th Tuesday of the month, March 28th. He also
recapped that the City had the North Suburban Home show and it was great to see several
present and former Commissioners there.
Commissioner Koehler thanked Staff and the City for the wonderful job they did on the
Home Show.
ADJOURNMENT.
Motion by Commissioner Shuman, seconded by Commissioner Koehler, to adjourn the
meeting at 8:02 p.m. Motion carried by unanimous consent.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kristina Haas, Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
GREGERSON, ROSOW, JOHNSON & NILAN, LTD.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
DAVID H. GREGERSOW
JOSEPH A. NILAN't
DANIEL R. GREGERSON•
JOSHUA A. DOROTHVt
DANIEL A. ELLERBROCK4
MARGARET L. NEUVILLE'
JACOB T. MERKEL
DAVID R. HACK WORTHY#•
NICHOLAS J. SIDERAS'
TORY R. SAILER
JUSTINE K. WAGNER
City of Andover
Attn: Mr. Jake Griffiths
Andover City Hall
1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW
Andover, MN 55304
100 WASHINGTON AVENUE SOUTH
SUITE 1550
MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55401
TELEPHONE: (612) 338-0755
FAX: (612) 349-6718
W W W.GRJN.COM
July 24, 2023
ROBERT 1. LANG (1922-2012)
ROGER A. PAULY (RETIRED)
RICHARD P. ROSOW (OF COUNSEL)
MARK J. JOHNSON (RETIRED)
#Also admitted in Illinois
tAlso admitted in North Dakota
'Also adtniaed in Wisconsin
Writer's Direct Dial: 612436-7492
Writer's E-mail: dangregerson(igrjn.com
VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL
RE: Variance Requests - 17337 Roanoke Ave NW, City of Andover, MN.
Our File No.: 3182.001
Dear Mr. Griffiths:
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 and new application follow the prior application hearing before the City of Andover's
("City") Planning Commission, and the subsequent June 8, 2023, meeting between yourself and
David Hackworthy, Esq.
This letter accompanies the Variance Request Form ("Application") and provides 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"). However,
if staff recommends meeting with our office and clients again before submission of this
Application, then we are certainly open to doing so.
DOCUMENTS ACCOMPANYING THIS LETTER AND VARIANCE
APPLICATION
• Exhibit A - Certificate of Survey of Property, dated May 25, 2023; and
• Exhibit B -Historical Plat Map (1978) identifying Property'.
' 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.
Mr. Jake Griffiths
July 24, 2023
Page 2
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
portion bordering 173rd 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`' 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 13-1A)
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 current proposal results in the new lots meeting the minimum area of 2.5 acres.
However, the new lot described as "Parcel A" on the revised survey means the minimum lot width
of Parcel A is 138.5 feet, which is short of the required 300 feet. To that extent, our clients are
only applying for one (1) variance as to lot width. You had previously advised that the current
zoning code requires all accessory structure to be set at least 5 feet from property lines. The
updated survey shows both the existing shed and chicken coop are within the newly proposed lot
lines of Parcels A and B. Our clients are willing to take those down.
Based on your meeting with attorney Hackworthy, we understand that even if the variance
is granted the clients have to submit a lot split application. They are aware of that requirement.
The lot split application requires information on buildability for the new home on Parcel B, which
includes:
A licensed land survey, including soil boring locations, existing and proposed
drainage easements, all other easements, topography, and proposed grading if
necessary, identification of any wetlands, proposed elevations of the lowest floor
and garage floor, and any floodplain areas with the 100 -year flood elevation;
Mr. Jake Griffiths
July 24, 2023
Page 3
A Geotechnical Soil Report, including any site-specific recommendations, soil
types, depths, boring logs, seasonal high-water mark, and soil boring at the building
pad location;
For properties without municipal sewer and/or water. evidence that the proposed
building can meet certain design and location standards, as well as septic
information; and
Evidence to show the ability to build an access drive servicing every principal
building that is 300 or more feet from the street; such access drive must have at
least a 20 -foot width, constructed with material to provide all-weather driving
capabilities, and may not exceed 8% slope.
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 § 12-5-9.13.2. 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.
A. Lot Width Variance.
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.
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.
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
Mr. Jake Griffiths
July 24, 2023
Page 4
of place, or othetivise 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.
We appreciate your consideration, and we look forward to hearing from you in the near
future. We enclose a check in the amount of $480.00 representing variance application fee.
Very truly yowl,
GREGERSON, ROSOW, JOHNSON & NILAN, LTD,
Daniel R. Gregerson
DRG/DRH/htnj
w/ euc.
cc: Client w/ enc. (via email only)
OF SURVEY
"33 DAVID WORTHY
--of-
1OKE STREET NW,
�
ANDOVER,MINNESOTA
-------'--"---"Y`-'
_—ssss•ux.--___._.._
— --
EXHIBIT
_,.
�.�«..rr.r_F•nr•'�w.r.at�.n•�ri.e_•r I 1 ^:
i� RRWBBeov/JICRIA
aB AMS RFRE[
e Rwse �w.nTRwxsosw.r
ela,.tl
ret, , ..u....._.
VRBtwBEBRARCBIB
aaweBwAnesen
.MILRES
•rt• /" LIGINN
r
---1--------
—r—
.:.....r.ar^-^• a ..... .. �n]ah mate
r-
—
—----- --------'-
- �y �B
exHlelr
g S //2 SEC. 6, T. 32, R.24
C/TY OF ANDOVER
C/TY OF RAMSEY 65906
_
8 1