Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-03-24 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 24, 2026 Andover City Hall Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. 1.Call to Order 2.Pledge of Allegiance 3.Approval of Minutes –March 10,2026, Regular Meeting 4.Public Hearing:Consider a Sketch Plan for a master planned development, using a Planned Unit Development (PUD), for the 31-acre property at 17613 Ward Lake Drive,Andover, MN PID#: 12-32-24-22-0007, (Applicant:Team Fair). 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 24, 2026 REQUEST The Planning & Zoning Commission is requested to approve the March 10, 2026, regular meeting minutes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULARMEETING –MARCH 10, 9 2026 10 11 The RegularMeeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to 12 order by Chairperson Loehleinon March 10, 2026, at7:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 13 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: None. 20 21 Also present: City Planner Peter Hellegers and Community Development 22 Director Joe Janish. 23 24 25 CALL TO ORDER 26 27 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 28 29 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 30 31 Commissioner Grout noted he was absent from the February 24, 2026, meetings. 32 33 Motion. The Chair assumed a motion to approve the February 24, 2026, Regular Meeting 34 Minutes as presented. The Motion passed on unanimous consent,with Commissioner 35 Grout voting present. 36 37 Motion. The Chair assumed a motion to approve the February 24, 2026, Workshop 38 Meeting Minutes as presented. The Motion passed on unanimous consent, with 39 Commissioner Grout voting present. 40 th 41 PUBLIC HEARING – Consider variance for rear setback – 1545 154Lane NW, 42 Andover, MN PID#23-2-24-23-0055 (Applicant: Michael Summerbell). 43 44 Mr. Hellegers reviewed this request for a 3-foot rear setback variance for the property at th 45 1545 154Lane NW for a covered porch addition. The minimum rear setback in the R-4 46 zoning district is 30 feet. Mr. Hellegers indicated the property on a map. 47 RegularAndover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 10, 2026 Page 2 1 City Code 12-15-9 establishes review criteria for considering variance requests and states 2 that variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes 3 and intent of the official control and when the variances are consistent with the 4 comprehensive plan. Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variances 5 establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the official control. 6 “Practical difficulties” are used in connection with the granting of a variance, which 7 means: 8 9 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not 10 permitted by an official control. 11 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to their property, not 12 created by the landowner. 13 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. 14 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. 15 16 Materials submitted by the applicant were provided for Commission review. 17 18 Mr. Hellegers reviewed the analysis of the variance request. The subject property is part of 19 the Chesterton Commons Second Addition development,and a building permit for the 20 dwelling was issued on August 21, 2001. The subject property is approximately 87 feet 21 wide by 125-133.6 feet deep. The existing dwelling appears to meet the minimum setback 22 requirements within the development and other minimum requirements established by the 23 City Code,including applicable development standards such as minimum lot size and lot 24 frontage. The City does not have a record of a building permit for the deck that was 25 removed,and where the proposed addition is now located. 26 27 The addition proposed by the applicants resembles what is commonly referred to as a 28 screen porch or three-season porch. These structures are classified as additions onto the 29 dwelling by the Minnesota State Building Code and have different standards than a 30 traditional deck. While traditional decks are allowed to encroach up to 8 feet into the rear 31 yard setback by the City Code, additions onto the dwelling are required to meet the rear 32 yard setback since they are treated by the Building Code as being an addition onto the 33 dwelling. 34 35 Mr. Hellegers noted in the applicant’s narrative and as seen in the picture attached to the 36 narrative, the structure has already been built without a building permit. A building permit 37 application was submitted to the building department on September 24, 2025, but it was 38 determined to be incomplete, and the applicant/builder was notified on September 26, 39 2025. Upon discovery of the construction and potential setback issues, the applicant was 40 requested to obtain a survey if they would pursue a variance and make modifications to 41 what has been built to meet setbacks, along with showing the Building Department how it 42 was constructed. A building permit cannot currently be issued as the structure does not 43 comply with the setback requirements. 44 RegularAndover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 10, 2026 Page 3 1 The survey provided by the applicant shows that the dwelling is located just over 40 feet 2 from the rear property line at the closest point, up to approximately 43 feet at the other 3 side of the dwelling. The minimum rear yard setback in the R-4 zoning district is 30 feet. 4 In the area where the addition is shown, those setback requirements would allow a 5 property owner to utilize 11-12 feet from the back of their house for the construction of an 6 addition without needing a variance. 7 8 If a traditional deck wasbuilt rather than an addition, the property owner could have that 9 deck encroach into the rear setback,provided no portion of the deck extends more than 10 eight (8) feet into the otherwise required rear yard setback. This means that on the subject 11 property, which has a 30-foot minimum rear setback, a deck must be at least 22 feet from 12 the rear property line. Based on the survey provided by the applicant, the property owner 13 could utilize 19-20 feet from the back of their house for the construction of a deck without 14 needing a variance. 15 16 City staff has informed the applicant that practical difficulties need to be established for 17 variance cases and that the City would need to review the application against those 18 practical difficulties provisions. The applicant’s narrative addresses how they believe the 19 proposed variance meets the practical difficulties standards. 20 21 The Planning and Zoning Commission is requested to: 22 23 1. Conduct a public hearing on the proposed request, and 24 2. Compare the variance requests with the review criteria of City Code 12-15-9 and 25 make a recommendation to the City Council based on findings of fact. 26 27 Also provided for Commission consideration were Draft Resolutions of Approval and 28 Denial, Location Map/Aerial Photos, City Code §12-3-5 – Minimum District 29 Requirements, City Code §12-4-3 –Encroachments, City Code §12-15-9 – Variances, and 30 Applicant’s Application Materials. 31 32 It is anticipated that the City Council will review the Variance request at their meeting on 33 Tuesday, March 17, 2026. 34 35 Commissioner Grout asked what the distance is to the back lot line, and Mr. Hellegers 36 stated the requirement is 30 feet, and the drawing shows 27.1 and 28.0. 37 38 Commissioner Naughton asked when the building permit was applied for, and Mr. 39 Hellegers stated the application was submitted on September 24, 2025, and was deemed 40 incomplete, and the applicant was notified on September 26, 2025. Commissioner 41 Naughton asked when construction began. Mr. Hellegers stated he does not know when it 42 began, and it is very close to completion now. 43 RegularAndover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 10, 2026 Page 4 1 Commissioner Weinhold noted the criteria and asked if the Comprehensive Plan is 2 affected,and asked Mr. Hellegers for an example. This would not conflict with the 3 Comprehensive Plan. 4 5 Commissioner Naughton asked Mr. Hellegers what would happen if the recommendation 6 was not to approve the variance. Mr. Hellegers stated that if the Council denies the 7 variance, the applicant will need to work with the Building Department to obtain permits 8 and inspections. Part of the structure may need to be pulled back. The Building Permit 9 process would dictate the timeline. 10 11 Chair Loehlein opened the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. 12 th 13 Mr. Mike Summberbell, 1545 154 Lane NW, and Seth Marshall, owner of Marshall th 14 Brothers, 650 217 Avenue NE, East Bethel. Mr. Marshall is the contractor hired to build 15 the porch. There was an existing deck on the property. They applied to the City for the 16 permit. The City was happy with the existing deck but had some concerns about the 17 roofing. There was a difference of opinion on how racking was going to be prevented on 18 the roof. He met with the State Building Professionaland the City in November. They 19 referred to the Ordinance and saw that a deck could go into the setback by 8 feet. 20 Construction has stopped, and the photograph shows the current state. The footings are on 21 the ground. The footprint of the deck was not changed. If the variance is not approved, it 22 will be removed. The lot line is not square due to the curve in the road. It took over 2 23 months to receive the permit from the City, so the deck was built. 24 25 Commissioner Grout asked if there was a permit issued for the deck portion,and Mr. 26 Marshall stated that the deck,and roof would be under one permit. A hot tub had been 27 purchased for the deck. 28 29 Commissioner Winge asked about the distance the deck is from the property line. Mr. 30 Marshall stated 27.1 feet approximately and 27.5 or 28.5 feet on the other side.Mr. 31 Marshall stated that when the deck was removed, it was replaced exactly asit was. 32 Commissioner Winge asked what the dimensions of the deck are, and Mr. Marshall stated 33 12 x 20 feet. 34 35 Commissioner Weinhold asked if the deck was built as part of the house. Mr. Summerbell 36 stated that no permit was obtained when the original deck was built in 2002. It was a 3- 37 foot deck, andthey were told they did not need a permit. The extra footing has nothing to 38 do with the roof. 39 40 Commissioner Naughton asked why extra footing was needed, and Mr. Marshall stated 41 that it was to accommodate the hot tub load. A 10-foot deck would not be usable. 42 43 Chair Loehlein stated this appears to be an example of asking for forgiveness rather than 44 permission. This is clearly a screened or covered porch, Mr. Marshall continues to refer to RegularAndover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 10, 2026 Page 5 1 it as a deck. Mr. Marshall stated there is no protection on the sides other than the screen. It 2 is a covered deck. It will not be enclosed. The structure will be completely open. 3 4 Commissioner Grout stated he shares some of the same confusion. There is a door,and 5 Mr. Marshall stated it is a screen door to access the backyard. 6 7 Chair Loehlein stated that this is an addition to the dwelling according to the State Code. 8 Mr. Marshall stated that this is not how an addition is built. This is a deck with a roof 9 system over it. 10 11 Commissioner Wicklund asked who drew the blueprint and whether it was included in the 12 original application. Mr. Marshall stated they had it done, and it was included in the 13 application materials. City staff were aware that there was going to be a roof, and they did 14 not want the roof to twist. City Staff suggested having walls constructed. Mr. Summerbell 15 did not want walls. Commissioner Wicklund asked when construction began, and Mr. 16 Marshall stated sometime in September. Normally, permits are issued within 5-10 days 17 after application. 18 19 Commissioner Winge asked about the dimensions of the screened porch, and Mr. Marshall 20 stated 22 x 14 feet. He asked what the City considers to be an addition, and whether that 21 information was available prior to the beginning of the project. Mr. Marshall stated that 22 they are required by law to have permits,and he has made many attempts to get the permit 23 from Andover, and they continue to try to work with the City. 24 25 Chair Loehlein closed the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. 26 27 Mr. Hellegers stated the addition piece is through the Minnesota State Building Code. He 28 read the definition of a deckfrom the 2006 Ordinance. 29 30 Commissioner Weinhold referred to the word “unenclosed”. He asked Mr. Hellegers if 31 this project is enclosed, and it is assumed to be enclosed by a roof and screens. This would 32 not meet the definition of a deck. 33 34 Commissioner Grout asked if there was notice on September 26, 2025, advising the 35 applicant of incomplete information for the permit. Mr. Hellegers stated that an email was 36 sent to the permit applicant. 37 38 Commissioner Winge spoke to whether the proposed structure was a deck or a porch and 39 stated he could read this as unenclosed. There is a door, and the intention is for it to be 40 screened.Commissioner Winge read through the practical difficulties criteria. 41 42 Commissioner Naughton stated the applicant was told there was no problem with the 43 deck. The roof structure seemed to cause the issues. It appears on the drawing it is largely 44 enclosed. He reviewed the criteria. He does not feel a variance is appropriate for this 45 project. RegularAndover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 10, 2026 Page 6 1 2 Commissioner Weinhold referred to the plight of the landowner. The deck was built, and 3 the City said it was ok. He feels this is the landowner'splight due to the fact that until 4 City/State officials tried to redefine the project. 5 6 Commissioner Grout stated there are 2 issues, whether it is enclosed or not enclosed. This 7 is a technical review. He agrees with the consensus of the criteria. Construction continued 8 without a permit. 9 10 Commissioner Winge asked why a variance is being requested and could the project have 11 been built without a variance? 12 13 Chair Loehlein, this is an addition to the dwelling, but that should not affect the decision 14 on whether or not to grant the variance. A permit needs to be obtained before construction 15 can occur. This does not meet the criteria for variance. 16 17 Commissioner Winge stated that the applicant can propose an amendment to the City 18 Code for consideration. 19 20 Motion by Commissioner Grout, seconded by Commissioner Hudson, to recommend to 21 denial of the variance to the City Council as the application did not meet the variance 22 criteria. Motion carried on a 5-aye and 2-nay (Winge and Weinhold) vote. 23 24 OTHER BUSINESS 25 26 Mr. Janish reviewed the draft AUAR for Fields of Andover, which is posted on the City 27 website. There will be an Open House on March 23, 2026, to review the draft. 28 29 Mr. Hellegers stated that groundbreaking for the Bank of Elk River occurred last week. 30 31 ADJOURNMENT 32 33 Chair Loehlein adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m. 34 35 36 Respectfully Submitted, 37 38 39 Debbie Wolfe, Recording Secretary 40 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. STAFF REPORT Agenda Item #4 TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Joe Janish, Community Development Director SUBJECT:Public Hearing: Consider a Sketch Plan for a master planned development, using a Planned Unit Development (PUD), for the 31-acre property at 17613 Ward Lake Drive, Team Fair, (applicant). DATE: March 24, 2026 REQUEST The Planning Commission is asked to review a sketch plan for a single-family PUD residential development as proposed by Landmark Development. The applicant submitted a narrative for the proposed Sketch Plan which is attached for your review. What is a Sketch Plan / PUD Concept Plan? A Sketch Plan / PUD Concept Plan is used to provide feedback to the developer through Andover Review Committee (ARC), Planning and Zoning Commission, Park and Recreation Commission, and City Council but formal action is not taken at this stage. The intent of the Sketch Plan process is to view the concept plan for a proposed development and to discuss big picture concerns or areas of consistency with code. An applicant would need to develop detailed plans that address the concerns prior to their application for Preliminary Plat and PUD. Purpose of PUD? The purpose of a PUD is to encourage more efficient allocation of density and intensity of land use where such arrangement is desirable and feasible by providing the means for greater creativity and flexibility in environmental design than provided under the strict application of this code. It must be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City Council that a higher quality development will result than could otherwise be achieved through strict application of this code. PROJECT SUMMARY The City has received an application for a sketch plan showing a 9-lot single-family rural residential development on approximately 31 acres. The site is located in the northeast quadrant of the community, approximately one mile north of the intersection of Ward Lake Drive NW and Crosstown Blvd NW. Ward Lake itself is located on the northern boundary of the parcel. Holmberg Addition consisting of 7 lots is located to the south and was platted in 1992. The proposed development is located within the shoreland overlay district due to Ward Lake which is classified as a Recreational Development Lake. WARD LAKE DISCUSSION This section will review some of the site characteristics and processes for the proposed This section will review some of the site characteristics and processes for the proposed development shown on the sketch plan. For this development to move forward, several actions would need to occur including: Conditional Use Permit/Planned Unit Development (CUP/PUD)–Public Hearing required Preliminary Plat–Public Hearing required 2 Final Plat Building Permits GENERAL Conformance with Local and Regional Plans and Ordinances 1.The approximately 31-acreproperty (12-32-24-22-0007) is located outside of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) boundary –meaning,private wells and private septicsare proposed to be utilized. 2.The property is guided in the 2018 Comprehensive Plan as RR –Rural Residential, a designation that calls for gross densities of 0.00 to 0.4 units per acre. 3.The property is within the Shoreland Overly District. 4.The proposed development includes deviations from City Codes that are proposed to be addressed through the PUD process. Future Land Use Zoning SITE R-1 Single Family Rural Residential & Shoreland Overlay SITE CHARACTERISTICS Access The proposed sketch plan shows one access point and an emergency access/trail. The access would be from Ward Lake Drive. Ward Lake Drive is an existing street. The proposed homes would not have driveways onto Ward Lake Drive. 3 A–Road Access Ward Lake Drive B-Emergency Access Ward Lake Drive C–Future Access to East C A B Block Length Due to environmental constraints on the property, and existing development to the south the block length is expected to exceed the city code maximum length. The applicant is proposing a Homeowners Association Emergency Access from Ward Lake Drive to the temporary cul de sac in order to provide additional access to the property. Tree Preservation Plan If the applicant determines to move forward after obtaining input, they will identify the location of the home sites and provide a tree preservation plan with the next applications.Tree clearing is proposed to be done within proposed road right of way and stormwater ponding requirements. Wetlands/Floodplains The parcel does have wetlands and floodplain on the property. Currently the sketch shows the location based on data available. The applicant will be required to go through a field verification process if they continue to move forward with development of the property. It should also be noted that wetlands and floodplain are also on properties around this parcel which makes it difficult to meet some of the standards city code has (block length, cul de sac length). Street Improvements As part of the PUD request, the applicant is asking for flexibility with street construction standards. The applicant is requesting to construct a rural residential roadway with 18-inch 4 ribbon curb. The ribbon curb has been used in developments such as Hartmans Meadows, Petersen Farms, and Preserve at Oak View. Rural Street: The 18 inches of concrete ribbon curbing on each side of the street will maximize the protection of the edge of paved surface from the wear and tear of vehicle parking and snow removal. Since storm water will be treated within the ditch area, the ribbon curb will allow the flow of water into the ditches yet support the edging of the paved area. Hartmans Meadows, Petersen Farms and Preserve at Oak View have created similar roadways. The ROW will be 50 feet within the development along the new roadway(s), and an additional 10-foot drainage and utility easement will be provided along the roadways constructed. This is yet again similar to Hartmans Meadows, Petersen Farms and Preserve at Oak View. Utilities Each of the lots will be served by private wells and private septic systems. PROCESS Andover Review Committee The Andover Review Committee (ARC) conducted a review of the PUD and has submitted these comments to the applicant. These comments have been attached for review. Public Notice In accordance with the City Code, public hearing notice is published in the Anoka County Union Herald and mailed notice was provided to properties within 700 feet of the site located outside of 5 the MUSA boundary, using GIS data provided by Anoka County. In addition, a signhasbeen posted along Ward Lake Drive to alert passersby of the proposed public hearing. The City’s practice is more generous than Statute which only requires the published notice and mailed notice to properties within 350 feet. Park and Trail Dedication –(Park and Recreation Commission) The Park and Recreation Commission is expected to review this sketch on April 2, 2026,at their regular meeting. The current Master Park Plan does not identify parkland in this area. Shoreland Management Ward Lake is located to the North of this development and is classified as a Recreation Development Lake.Lake Leeman, to the East is also classified as a Recreation Development Lake. WARD LAKE LAKE LEEMAN The applicant will need to provide a “PUD Development Plan Shoreland Density.”As part of the Shoreland Ordinance, the applicant is required to verify the proposed density by creatinga tier system of 267 feet. Density is then compared to City Code within these tiers. The Shoreland Ordinance also allows for a density increase if a developer provides a larger setback (125 feet vs. 100 feet from the waterbody Ordinary High Water (OHW) and placing vegetation requirements around the recreational lake. The applicant is not seeking additional density. Due to the Shoreland Overlay District and seeking a PUD, additional responsibilities are required of the developer. These include a Mandatory HomeownersAssociation (HOA) and City code provides requirements of the HOA. Residential Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) within a shoreland area require a 6 property owner association agreement (for residential PUDs) with mandatory membership, and addresses the following within City Code 13-4-9 F: 1. Maintenance and Design Criteria; All 9 lots in this proposed project are on track to be built by a local, reputable, high end custom home builder – Hanson Builders. Each lot has the flexibility to be uniquely designed to the end buyers architectural preferences. A homeowners association will be established and duties performed will be the maintenance and snow removal of the trail, and ongoing maintenance and preservation of the outlot and conservation easement. 2. Open Space Requirements: Planned Unit Developments must contain open space; As part of the PUD criteria, we are proposing that 50% of the overall project be placed under a conservation easement. Erosion Control And Storm Water Management; and The City of Andover and Lower Rum River Watershed Organization will review erosion control and storm water management as part of future applications. 3. Centralization And Design Of Facilities. The proposed homes will not have centralization of sewer. The homes would have private septic and wells. OTHER Shoreland Management Items: 25% max impervious coverage for each lot. 25-foot max building height. 50% open space preservation within the Shoreland Overlay area. Zoning and Lot Size (w/in Shoreland Management) The subject property is zoned R-1: Single Family Rural Residential. The property is located within the shoreland overlay district. Shoreland regulations include additional regulations for lots. 7 Shoreland Regulation Proposed Lot Area Riparian Lots108,900 (2.5 acres) 2.55+ Nonriparian Lots108,900 (2.5 acres) 2.77+ Lot Width Riparian Lots300 175 Nonriparian Lots300 300 Planned Unit Development (PUD) The applicant is currently requesting a Planned Unit Development (PUD) sketch review. The applicant is requesting flexibility as depicted in the following table: 8 Proposed Conceptual PUD Standards City Code Standards: No. Item (R-1: Single Family PROPOSED Notes Rural) 1)*Lot Width (min.)300’ min.175’ Lot Width – on cul-de-sac 160’ min Temporary cul de sac is 2) (lacking municipal sanitary N/A (max 2 lots of this width on proposed the CDS) sewer max 2 lots reduced) 3) Lot Depth (min.) 150’ min 150+ Exceeds R-4 standard/ Exceeds 4) Lot Area (min.) 2.5 acres. 2.55+ Shoreland standard. 1-acreoutlot owned by HOA. 5)* Block Length (max.) 1,320’ max. 1,489+ No new streets are proposed. An emergency access trail is 6)* Cul-de-Sac Length (max.) 500’ Temp 1,489+ proposed. Front Yard Setback Shoreland requires the same 7) 40’ 40’ (Shoreland) setback as R-1 Side Yard Setback – 8) 40’ 40’ Adjacent to Local Street Side Yard Principal 9) Structure from Interior Lot 10’ 10’ Line Side Yard Principal Structure for Garage over 10) 10’ 10’ R-1 zoning requires 10 feet 20 feet wide from Interior Lot Line Side Yard Setback - Interior 11) 10’ 10’ (min.) Rear Yard Setback 12) 50' 50’ (Shoreland) Setback –County Road 13)50'50’ (Shoreland) Max Structure Height 14) 25’ 25’ (Shoreland) Max Lot Coverage 15) 20% 20% (structure) Impervious Coverage 16) 25% 25% (Shoreland) 17) Right of Way 60’ 60’ Driveway Access (from an 18) 60’ 60’+ intersection) 31.31 acre/2.5 acre = 12.5 Lots 19) Density 0.40 units per acre (upa) 0.29 upa Proposal is less lots than permitted 20) Upland per lot 8,600 square feet per lot 8,600+ *Red text indicates deviation from City Code 9 PUD Review The following City Code standards exist for PUD’s with responses in italics provided by the applicant (see also narrative information) Applicable Ordinances City Code 13-3-9 regulates the findings that are required for a PUD to be approved: 1. The proposed development is not in conflict with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan for the City. The proposed project is guided as RR Rural Residential. This comprehensive plan land use is consistent with the surrounding land uses which are all RR Rural Residential. The proposed development will be consistent with the goals of the comprehensive plan. Current Comprehensive Plan Goals that may be relevant which are found in Chapter 1: Foundation of the Comprehensive Plan. Overarching Goals, Objectives and Policies Goal 1: Maintain and enhance the quality of life in Andover Land Use Goals, Objectives and Policies Goal 4: Allow residential growth while maintaining the quality of natural resources and amenities. Goal: Reduce maintenance and energy costs for public facilities and infrastructure. Housing Goals, Objectives and Policies Goal: Provide a variety of housing types to accommodate the life cycle needs of all residents. Transportation Goals, Objectives and Policies Goal: Minimize impacts of the transportation system on the natural environment. 2. The proposed development is designed in such a manner as to form a desirable and unified environment within its own boundaries. We are proposing a low impact development utilizing the minimal amount of infrastructure to serve the proposed lots and extend to the property line for future development opportunities of adjacent property owners if they choose. An emergency access trail is proposed as the area does exceed the 500-foot cul de sac requirement in city code. 10 3. The proposed development demonstrates how each modified or waived requirement contributes to achieving the purpose of PUD. 1. Cul de sac length – limited access due to environmental constraints (flood & wetlands) 2. Lot width – less overall roadway not needing a cul de sac 3. Ribbon Curb – Low impact development 4. Block length – Environmental constraints City Code 13-3-11 identifies Desirable PUD Design Qualitie s that are sought in any PUD proposal as listed below. A.Achieves efficiency in the provision of streets and utilities and preserves area to achieve the elements of design qualities described in this Chapter. We have proposed the minimal amount of infrastructure to serve the proposed lots and extend to the property line for future development opportunity by adjacent properties. A permanent cul de sac was eliminated from the original design to reduce long term maintenance and created the most efficient use of the land while still coming in under maximum density for the overall site. B.Provides convenient and safe access for vehicles and pedestrians and all types of activity that are anticipated to be a part of the proposed development. Proposed road to be constructed to City design standards. Proposed trail to be constructed to City design standards, which will allow safe travel of emergency vehicles if needed. Trail will be able to be utilized for pedestrian usage and public enjoyment. C.Provides a buffer between different uses, adjacent properties, roadways, between backyards of back-to-back lots. The proposed design has only 2 of the lots back to back with the existing neighborhood to the south, including a trail and existing tree cover as a buffer. Additional screening / landscaping is shown on the plan along the south side of the project. These two lots are conforming to the R1 City Code. D. Preserves existing stands of trees and/or significant trees. In the event that this concept plan receives positive discussion and feedback, our design engineer will be working directly with the custom home builder to identify the best, most efficient house pad location on each lot thus reducing the need to eliminatelarge stands of trees within the project. Tree clearing is proposed to be done within proposed road right of way and stormwater ponding requirements. 11 E. Provides considerable landscaping treatments that complement the overall design and contribute toward an overall landscaping theme. A landscaped, entrance monument is in the design process for the area adjacent to Ward Lake Drive and the proposed new road into the project. This is projected to be a high end neighborhood, therefore landscaping enhancements will be required, along with necessary screening along the south side of the project. An outlot is proposed on the south side of the entrance, which is approximately 1 acre in size. This outlot will remain in its natural condition and preserved as passive open space. F. Preserves significant usable space on individual lots or through the provision of open space within the development. As part of the PUD criteria, we are proposing that 50% of the overall project be placed under a conservation easement. G. Provides an attractive streetscape through the use of undulating topography, landscaping, decorative street lighting, decorative mailbox groupings, retaining walls, boulders, fencing, area identification signs, etc. As mentioned previously, the proposed entrance will include a landscaped monument identifying this proposed high end neighborhood. Retaining walls will be utilized as needed along the streetscape, stormwater ponding areas, and house construction with grading plan and existing topographical conditions. Conservation easement signage can be installed in accordance with City requirements. Of recent, the Andover Post Office has required the installation of cluster mailboxes versus individual mailboxes in the residential neighborhoods. H. The proposed structures within the development demonstrate quality architectural design and the use of high-quality building materials for unique design and detailing. All 9 lots in this proposed project are on track to be built by a local, reputable, high end custom home builder –Hanson Builders. Each lot has the flexibility to be uniquely designed to the end buyers architectural preferences. I.The lasing quality of the development will be ensured by design, maintenance and use guidelines established through an owners’ association. A homeowners association will be established and duties performed will be the maintenance and snow removal of the trail, and ongoing maintenance and preservation of the outlot and conservation easement. 12 NEXT STEPS The Park and Recreation Commission will provide input on April 2, 2026, at their regularly scheduled meeting. The City Council is expected to provide input on the sketch on April 7, 2026, at their regularly scheduled meeting. The applicant will then make a determination if they will proceed with additional applications, moving towards development of the property. ACTION REQUESTED The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to conduct a Public Hearing related to the sketch plan. After the Public Hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to provide input related to the development for the applicant to consider as they determine if they will continue with the development of this property. Attachments 1) Applicant’s Narrative 2) Applicant’s Responses to PUD Questions 3) Potential Landscape Entrance Monument (artist rendering) 4) Sketch Plan 5) Location Map 6) Public Comments – (Received by March 19, 2026) 13 WARD LAKE PRESERVE -CONCEPT PLAN XXX WARD LAKE DRIVE, ANDOVER, MN 55304 All – Hanson Builders the maximum The proposal and also A and pasOutlot and trail maintenance – WARD LAKE PRESERVE – PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) GUIDELINES 500- – – – – is - to- receives to - – Site Location –Parcel ID: 12-32-24-22-0007 SITE Date CreatedMarch 13,2026 N Disclaimer: The provider makes no representation or warranties with respect to the reuse of this data.