HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-03-10
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV
Andover Planning and Zoning Commission
MeetingAgenda
March 10, 2026
Andover City Hall
Council Chambers
7:00 p.m.
1.Call to Order
2.Pledge of Allegiance
3.Approval of Minutes –February 24,2026, Regular Meeting
–February 24, 2026, Workshop Meeting
th
4.Public Hearing:Consider variance for rear setback -1545 154Lane NW, Andover, MN -
PID#: 23-32-24-23-0055, (Applicant: Michael Summerbell).
5.Other Business
6.Adjournment
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item #3
TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners
FROM: Peter Hellegers, City Planner
SUBJECT:Approval of Minutes
DATE: March 10, 2026
REQUEST
The Planning & Zoning Commission is requested to approve the following minutes:
A. February 24, 2026, regular meeting minutes.
B. February 24, 2026, workshop meeting minutes.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULARMEETING –FEBRUARY 24,
9 2026
10
11 The RegularMeeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to
12 order by Chairperson Loehleinon February 24, 2026, at7:00 p.m., at the Andover City
13 Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota.
14
15 Commissioners present:Chairperson Nick Loehlein, Commissioners Roger Grout,
16 Scott Hudson, Chuck Naughton, Jonathan Weinhold, Nicole
17 Wicklund, and Ryan Winge.
18
19 Commissioners absent: Commissioner Roger Grout.
20
21 Also present: City Planner Peter Hellegers and Associate Planner Aidan
22 Breen.
23
24
25 CALL TO ORDER
26
27 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
28
29 OATH OF OFFICE
30
31 Chairperson Loehlein administered the Oath of Office to Commissioners Jonathan
32 Weinhold, Nicole Wicklund, and Ryan Winge. The term for all three Commissioners will
33 end on January 1, 2029.
34
35
36 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
37
38 Motion. The Chair assumed a motion to approve the January 27, 2026, Regular Meeting
39 Minutes as presented. The Motion passed on unanimous consent, with Commissioner
40 Wicklund voting present.
41
42
43 ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON & VICE CHAIRPERSON
44
45 The Commission is requested to nominate and appoint a Chairperson and Vice
46 Chairperson. Commissioner Loehlein is the current Chairperson, and Commissioner
47 Hudson is the current Vice Chairperson. The Chairperson and Vice Chairperson selected
RegularAndover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes – February 24, 2026
Page 2
1 this evening will begin those roles at the next regular meeting of the Planning
2 Commission.
3
4 Motionby Commissioner Hudson, seconded by Commissioner Weinhold,to nominate and
5 appoint Commissioner Loehlein as Chairperson for the Planning Commission for 2026.
6 Motion carried on a 6-aye vote.
7
8 Motion by Commissioner Winge, seconded by Commissioner Weinhold,to nominate and
9 appoint Commissioner Hudson as Vice Chairperson for the Planning Commission for
10 2026. Motion carried on a 6-aye vote.
11
12
13 OTHER BUSINESS
14
15 The next meeting will be on March 10, 2026, for the Planning and Zoning Commission.
16
17 The three items the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed at its January 27, 2026,
18 Regular Meeting went before the City Council and were approved.
19
20 The North Suburban Home Show will be held on March 7.
21
22
23 ADJOURNMENT
24
25 Chair Loehlein adjourned the meeting at 7:15 p.m.
26
27
28 Respectfully Submitted,
29
30 Debbie Wolfe, Recording Secretary
31 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MEETING –
9 FEBRUARY 24, 2026
10
11 The Work Session Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called
12 to order by Chairperson Loehleinon February 24, 2026, at7:15p.m., at the Andover City
13 Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota.
14
15 Commissioners present:Chairperson Nick Loehlein, Commissioners Roger Grout,
16 Scott Hudson, Chuck Naughton, Jonathan Weinhold, Nicole
17 Wicklund, and Ryan Winge.
18
19 Commissioners absent: Commissioners Roger Grout.
20
21 Also present: City Planner Peter Hellegers and Associate Planner Aidan
22 Breen.
23
24
25 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONER TRAINING.
26
27 PLANNING AND ZONING PROCEDURES
28
29 Associate Planner Aidan Breenreviewed the Planning and Zoning Commission
30 Procedures in detail, including:
31
32 A chart showing the general applications process and where Planning and Zoning
33 Commission meetings fall within that process.
34
35 General Information
36 Role of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
37 Procedures.
38 Meeting Dates and Times.
39 Length of Term.
40 Staff Reports.
41 Attendance.
42 Payment.
43 Public Hearing Notification Process.
44 Recusal.
45 60-Day Rule.
46
Work Session Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes – February 24, 2026
Page 2
1 Summary of Items Reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
2
3 Chair Loehlein noted that there does not need to be 100% agreement among the
4 Commission. He stated that the discussion and reasons for agreeing or disagreeing on an
5 item are important and will be noted in the minutes for the City Council to review.
6
7 Chair Loehlein discussed the Typical Planning and Zoning Meeting Cadence document
8 that was in the workshop packet and suggested that in 2026, when there are applications
9 before the Commission, the applicant will be invited to address the commission prior to
10 the public hearing being opened.
11
12 Commissioner Weinhold asked, if there are questions from residents that are not directly
13 related to the application before the commission, is there a way that the Commissioncan
14 be proactive to head off potential questions before the meeting? Associate Planner Breen
15 noted that with the public hearing notices staff will answer resident questions that they
16 receive prior to the meeting. Planner Hellegers noted commissioners can pose the
17 question back to staff and staff can answer if it is not the right venue. In addition, while
18 some questions may not be able to be addressed during the meeting, after the meeting staff
19 will often direct those questions to where they can be addressed.
20
21 CommissionerHudson asked about traffic studies and how much the City has to say with
22 Anoka County regarding roads. Associate Planner Breen discussed how different roads
23 fall under different jurisdictions, and all land use applications adjacent to county roads are
24 reviewed by Anoka County, who make decisions about what improvements or changes are
25 needed on county roads. All improvements or changes to City roads are directed by the
26 City. The City may require a traffic study as a part of a larger land use application, but
27 Anoka County will ultimately use that information to make their own decisions about any
28 county roads.
29
30 Commissioner Winge asked what the official Code change process is for the City.
31 Proposed Code Amendments are generally brought to staff, who present them for
32 discussion at a City Council Work Session. The Council gives direction to Staff to pursue
33 the change or not. Code Amendment applications are typically initiated by the City of
34 Andover as they benefit the whole city, but individual entities may apply for Code
35 Amendments as well. Commissioners interested in seeing a certain code change are
36 encouraged to speak with staff or provide direction via conditions in their
37 recommendations for approval or denial of land use applications.
38
39 City Planner Hellegers explained that the land use matters that come before the Planning
40 and Zoning Commission generally fall into categories where the City would be “creating
41 law” and have broader review discretion and there are other items which would be
42 considered “applying law (applying existing law)” and the discretion is more limited.
43 Planner Hellegers discussed the applications that would fall under the first category of
44 “creating law”:
45 Comprehensive Plan.
Work Session Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes – February 24, 2026
Page 3
1 Comprehensive Plan Amendment –Commissioner Winge asked who has input on
2 amendments.Planner Hellegers and Associate Planner Breen noted that Met
3 Council sets the standards, and the City needs to determine how to meet those
4 standards. Council approves the plan, and it goes back to the Met Council for
5 review.
6 Zoning Ordinance.
7 Zoning (City Code) Amendment.
8 Rezoning.
9
10 Associate Planner Breen reviewed the zoning map and the land use map and the following
11 application processeswhich would be considered “applying (existing) law”:
12 Sketch Plan. This item also explained something shown on a Sketch Plan and is
13 referred to as a “Ghost Plat”.
14 Preliminary Plat.
15 Conditional Use Permit (CUP).
16 Interim Use Permit (IUP).
17 Variance – All 4 criteria must be met.
18
19 Reviewed Making Recommendations Based on Findings of Fact.
20 Noted Processes Which Are Not Part of the Planning Commission Review such as
21 Environmental Reviews, Final Plat, Dedication of Easements, and Vacation of
22 Easements..
23
24 OPEN MEETING LAW/REMOTE MEETING PARTICIPATION POLICY
25
26 City Planner Hellegersreviewed the Minnesota Open Meeting Law document from MN
27 House Research. All Planning and Zoning Commission Meetings are open meetings. The
28 Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. Staff reviewed the use of social
29 media and posting by Commissioners who are representatives of the City.
30
31 MEETING CADENCE
32
33 The Typical Planning and Zoning Meeting Cadence document was provided.
34
35 OTHER TOPICS/QUESTIONS – NONE.
36
37 ADJOURNMENT.
38
39 Chair Loehlein adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m.
40
41
42 Respectfully Submitted,
43
44
45 Debbie Wolfe, Recording Secretary
Work Session Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes – February 24, 2026
Page 4
1 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item #4
TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners
CC: Joe Janish, Community Development Director
FROM :Peter Hellegers, City Planner
th
SUBJECT:Public Hearing: Variance Request – 1545 154
Lane NW, PID #: 23-
32-24-23-0055, (Applicant: Michael Summerbell).
DATE: March 10, 2026
INTRODUCTION
th
Consider a request for a 3-foot rear setback variance for the property at 1545 154 Lane
NW (“subject property”) for a covered porch addition.
BACKGROUND
What is a Variance?
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.
Zoning and Location
The subject property is located within the R-4: Single Family Urban Residential Zoning
District. Abutting properties to the north, east, south, and west are also located in the R-4
th
Zoning District. The subject property is generally located north of 154 Lane NW, east of
th
Eagle Street NW, south of 155Avenue NW, and west of Crane Street NW.
Public Hearing Notice
Public hearing notices were sent to the owners of properties within 350 feet of the subject
property and published in the City’s official newspaper, the Anoka County Union Herald,
and a sign was placed at the subject property
DISCUSSION
The applicants are requesting a 3-foot variance from the rear yard setback requirement
established by City Code 12-3-5: Minimum District Requirements. The minimum rear
setback in the R-4 zoning district is 30 feet. The following table compares the minimum
setback established by City Code to the variance request.
1
City Code Requested Variance
Requirement Distance Request
Rear Yard
30 ft 27.3 ft 3 ft
Setback
Review Criteria
City Code 12-15-9 establishes review criteria for considering variance requests 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 variances
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 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.
The City Council may also impose reasonable conditions on the granting of a variance
request. A condition must be related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the
impact created by the variance.
As practical difficulties must be established by the applicants, a letter submitted by the
applicants is attached for review as well as other materials submitted by the applicant in
support of their request (see attachment 4-6).
Analysis of Variance Request
The subject property is part of the Chesterton Commons Second Addition development
and a building permit for the dwelling was issued on August 21, 2001. The subject
property is approximately 87 feet wide by 125-133.6 feet deep. The existing dwelling
appears to meet the minimum setback requirements within the development and other
minimum requirements established by the City Code including applicable development
standards such as minimum lot size and lot frontage. The City does not have record of a
building permit for the deck that was removed and where the proposed addition is now
located.
The addition proposed by the applicants resembles what is commonly referred to as a
screen-porch or three-season porch. These structures are classified as additions onto the
dwelling by the Minnesota State Building Code and have different standards than a
traditional deck. While traditional decks are allowed to encroach up to 8 feet into the rear
yard setback by the City Code, additions onto the dwelling are required to meet the rear
yard setback since they are treated by the Building Code as being an addition onto the
dwelling.
As noted in the applicant’s narrative, and seen in the picture attached to the narrative, the
structure has already been built without a building permit. A building permit application
was submitted to the building department on September 24, 2025, but it was determined
to be incomplete, and the applicant/builder were notified by on September 26, 2025.
Upon discovery of the construction and potential setback issues the applicant was
requested to obtain a survey if they would pursue a variance or make modifications to
what has been built to meet setbacks along with showing the Building Department how it
was constructed. A building permit cannot currently be issuedas the structure does not
comply with the setback requirements.
The survey provided by the applicant shows that the dwelling is located just over 40 feet
from the rear property line at the closest point, up to approximately 43 feet at the other
side of the dwelling. The minimum rear yard setback in the R-4 zoning district is 30 feet.
In the area where the addition is shown, these setback requirements would allow a
property owner to utilize 11-12 feet from the back of their house for construction of an
addition without needing a variance.
The applicant’s narrative references a section of city code regarding encroachments into
setback areas. Under City Code if a traditional deck were built rather than an addition, the
property owner could have that deck encroach into the rear setback provided no portion
of the deck extends more than eight (8) feet into the otherwise required rear yard setback.
This means that on the subject property which has a 30-foot minimum rear setback a deck
must be at least 22 feet from the rear property line. Based on the survey provided by the
applicant the property owner could utilize 19-20 feet from the back of their house for the
construction of a deck without needing a variance.
City staff have informed the applicants that practical difficulties need to be established
for variance cases and that the City would need to review the application against those
practical difficulties provisions. The applicant’s narrative addresses how they believe the
proposed variance meets the practical difficulties standards.
ACTION REQUESTED
The Planning and Zoning Commission is requested to:
1. Conduct a public hearing on the proposed request, and
2. Compare the variance requests with the review criteria of City Code 12-15-9 and
make a recommendation to the City Council based on findings of fact.
Staff have drafted the attached resolutions for approval or denial of the variance request.
Specific findings related to the variance criteria need to be adopted by the City Council
when they approve or deny the request.
Attachment(s):
4-1: Draft Resolutions of Approval and Denial
4-2: Location Map / Aerial Photos
4-3: City Code § 12-3-5 –Minimum District Requirements
4-4: City Code § 12-4-3 – Encroachments
4-5: City Code § 12-15-9 – Variances
4-6: Applicant’s Application Materials
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RES. NO. XXXX
A RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
TH
1545 154LANE NW; PID# 23-32-24-23-0055 LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
LOT 18, BLOCK 2, CHESTERTON COMMONS SECONDADDITION
WHEREAS, Michaeland Sarah Summerbell are the owners of a parcel of land located at
th
1545 54Lane NW, Andover, Minnesota with Parcel ID Number 23-32-24-23-0055;
and,
WHEREAS, Michaeland Sarah Summerbell have applied to the City for a variance to
the rear yard setback on the subject property; and,
WHEREAS, the proposal would vary from City Code 12-3-5: Minimum District
Requirements in that it would decrease the rear yard setback from 30 feet to 27 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 10, 2026;
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 reduce the rear yard setback
from 30 feet to 27 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
request:
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. All necessary permits shall be obtained from any agency having an interest in
improvements constructed on the property.
2. Engineering or equivalent for the addition shall be submitted and shall be subject
to the review and approval of the Andover Building Department.
3. 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.
th
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this 17day of March, 2026.
CITY OF ANDOVER CITY OF ANDOVER
Michelle Harter, City Clerk Jamie Barthel, Mayor
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RES. NO. XXXX
A RESOLUTION DENYING VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
TH
1545 154LANE NW; PID# 23-32-24-23-0055 LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
LOT 18, BLOCK 2, CHESTERTON COMMONS SECOND ADDITION
WHEREAS, Michaeland Sarah Summerbell are the owners of a parcel of land located at
th
1545 54 Lane NW, Andover, Minnesota with Parcel ID Number 23-32-24-23-0055;
and,
WHEREAS, Michaeland Sarah Summerbell have applied to the City for a variance to
the rear yard setback on the subject property; and,
WHEREAS, the proposal would vary from City Code 12-3-5: Minimum District
Requirements in that it would decrease the rear yard setback from 30 feet to 27 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 10, 2026;
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 reduce the rear yard setback
from 30 feet to 27 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 reduce the rear yard setback from 30 feet to 27
feet.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this 17th day of March, 2026.
CITY OF ANDOVER CITY OF ANDOVER
Michelle Harter, City Clerk Jamie Barthel, Mayor
Aerial Photo-Spring 2025
Excerpt from City Code §12-3-5:
Excerpt from City Code §12-4-3:
Variance Request
th
1545 154 Ln NW
Andover, MN 55304
To whom it may concern,
I am seeking a variance for a proposed covered deck in my rear yard. While a standard deck
may encroach up to 8 feet into the rear setback per Ordinance 12-4-3 (#B and C2), the
ilding
department interpretation, necessitating this request.
This proposal meets the required review criteria based on the following practical
1. Harmony with General Purpose
The proposed covered deck is a modest residential improvement that maintains the
intended open space of the rear yard.
Reasonable Manner of Use
reasonable use of the property. The roof provides essential protection from the elements
and sun, allowing for the safe and functional enjoyment of a standard residential amenity.
The need for this variance is driven
by the irregular, non-linear geometry of the rear lot line. Unlike standard rectangular lots,
my property is situated near a road curve, resulting in an angled rear boundary. This unique
site topography creates a "hardship" where a standard square structure inevitably
intersects with the angled setback line. This condition is inherent to the platting of the
neighborhood and was not created by any action of myself, the landowner.
The structure will remain open-
walls, preserving sightlines and the open-space feel of the neighborhood. Because it
density of the locality.
Economic Considerations
the irregularly shaped lot and the desire for functional protection from the elements, rather
Sincerely,
Mike Summerbell