Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-03-17 CC REGULAR ANDOVER CITY COUNCIL MEETING – MARCH 17, 2026 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Barthel, March 17, 2026, 7:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Councilmembers present: Karen Godfrey, Rick Engelhardt (arrived at 7:05 p.m.), Scott Schue (arrived at 7:05 p.m.), and Jonathan Shafto Councilmember absent: None Also present: City Administrator, Sarah Cotton Director of Public Works/City Engineer, David Berkowitz Community Development Director, Joe Janish City Attorney, Scott Baumgartner Others PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE RESIDENT FORUM st William Corn, 3001 151 Lane NW, stated he is present to discuss Item C, under Discussion Items. He stated previously, with proper notice and public input, the Council had approved an alternate for bituminous curb to be included within the project bid. He stated that now, without the same process, the Council is going to remove that alternate from the project bid. He stated the promised th, workshop to compare bituminous curb versus concrete curb was held on February 24 and in review of those meeting minutes, this was less of a workshop and more of an echo chamber with a predetermined outcome. He stated no financial analysis was completed, and the Council accepted staff input and engineering perspectives. He did not believe there was data provided that nd refuted the data provided by residents. He stated at the February 2 meeting, the Mayor stated that he would oppose a policy deviation because it would be unfair to residents, yet in the workshop, the statement was made that a previous project deviated from policy in order to provide cost savings to residents. He asked where in the policy it states that the Council is allowed to deviate from the policy because of the potential assessment to residents, and how much is too much for one resident and not too much for another resident. He stated Councilmember Godfrey opposed notifying residents, which he found ingenious. He stated the bid spec was approved through a public hearing and asked if changing the bid spec should require the same level of public notice and scrutiny. He asked the Council if they had really completed a thorough review and whether it was transparent to the residents. Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes – March 17, 2026 Page 2 Councilmembers Engelhardt and Schue arrived. rd Kevin Romano, 2990 153 Avenue NW, agreed with the comments of his neighbor. He stated he feels deceived as he was present at the Council meeting where the Council supported the inclusion of the bid alternate, but that decision is now being reversed. He did not expect the City to treat its residents this way, as the Council is elected by residents. He stated his neighborhood would also be impacted by an adjacent development that will have its lots abutting 50-foot lots. He felt that the Council lied to them. Ben Riechers, 15844 Martin Street, recognized there would be a review of the AUAR next week and hoped there were a few things that could be done to improve the public meeting. He stated that there seems to be a distaste for cash flow analysis, but believed that they could complete some pieces of that analysis. He recognized they would be upside down on infrastructure improvements for a number of years before the new homes are constructed, and ease the tax burden. He stated they should have that information, and it should be shared with residents. He stated the plan has 20 pages of water-related items and was unsure how a decision could be made with all the maybes and mights that exist in the language. He asked who would take accountability for the accuracy of the engineers and others who provide that data to the City. AGENDA APPROVAL Motion by Engelhardt, Seconded by Godfrey, to approve the Agenda as presented. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 3, 2026, Regular Meeting: Correct as written Motion by Godfrey, Seconded by Schue, to approve the March 3, 2026, Regular meeting minutes as presented. Motion carried unanimously. 1. CONSENT ITEMS A. Approve Payment of Claims B. Approve Plans & Specs/Order Advertisement for Bids/25-29/Crosstown Boulevard NW & Bluebird Street NW Roundabout (R033-26) C. Approve Park Exclusive Use Permit/Prairie Knoll Park D. Approve Park Exclusive Use Permit/Sunshine Park E. Receive February 2026 General Fund Progress Report F. Receive February 2026 City Investment Report G. Approve Used Vehicle Sales License H. Accept Resignation Facilities Coordinator I. Award Bid & Approve 2026 Code Enforcement Abatement/Mowing Contract Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes – March 17, 2026 Page 3 Motion by Shafto, Seconded by Godfrey, to approve of the Consent Agenda as read. Motion carried unanimously. 2. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. ANOKA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE MONTHLY REPORT Commander Brent Erikson provided a monthly report, providing details on enforcement activities. B. ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT Deputy Fire Chief Ernie Scherger provided a monthly report with an update on Fire Department activities within the city. C. RECONSIDER BID ALTERNATE FOR PROJECTS/26-02B: 2026 STREET RECONSTRUCTION (KADLEC ESTATES) & 26-02D: 2026 STREET RECONSTRUCTION (NIGHTINGALE PRESERVE/WITTINGTON STRD RIDGE/NIGHTINGALE ESTATES 1 – 3) The City Council is requested to reconsider the bid alternates for the 2026 Street Reconstruction projects 26-02B and 26-02D. Director of Public Works/City Engineer Berkowitz reviewed the information with the Council and stated the City Council is requested to rescind Resolution No. R019-26 and Resolution No. R020-26. By approving the proposed consolidated resolution, the bid alternate for bituminous curb will be removed, establishing concrete curb and gutter as the sole allowable curbing type for Projects 26-02B and 26-02D. Councilmember Shafto commented he spent many hours researching this, not only using input from staff and residents, but also information from MnDOT. He stated he reached the conclusion that in Minnesota, research shows that concrete curb has a service life three times longer than bituminous curb and requires much less repair. He stated the long-term costs of bituminous curbing are two to three times higher than those of concrete, which results in concrete being 60 to 80 percent less expensive over a forty-year life cycle. He provided additional information on damage from the freeze-thaw cycle, plowing, and the incompatibility of bituminous curbing with mill and overlay projects. He stated all cities are moving away from bituminous curbing, which creates a lack of experienced construction vendors for that type of product and is another risk to consider. He shared additional information on life cycle, maintenance, and ultimate costs for both bituminous and concrete curbing. He believed that, for those reasons, the current City policy to use concrete curbing should continue to be the standard. He understood the upfront cost is higher for concrete, but noted they have to fix roads now and think about what is best for the long-term. Councilmember Schue stated he was the most reluctant on this matter and wanted to better understand the information behind the policy. He stated he met with different residents to discuss this, who expressed their viewpoint. He recognized it hurts when people do not see something the same way. He stated the minutes from the meetings are the official documentation, but do not Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes – March 17, 2026 Page 4 always tell the whole story. He stated to be present in the room, you would also see body language and other factors that are not documented, which would tell the entire story. He believed Councilmember Shafto did a good job of pointing out additional research that was not in the minutes. He stated even though he was the most reluctant to move forward with concrete curbing, after the workshop, he has become convinced that it is the right answer. He appreciated the residents, City staff, and the other members of the Council who shared their insights on this topic. City Administrator Sarah Cotton provided information on the draft resolution that was included in the Council packet. Motion by Shafto, Seconded by Engelhardt, to adopt Resolution No. R034-26, Rescinding Resolution No. R019-26 and No. R020-26; Reordering the Improvements for Project 26-02B and Project 26-02D; and Directing the Preparation of Final Plans and Specifications. Further discussion: Councilmember Godfrey stated she appreciates the input received from residents on this topic. She stated the Council has given this a lot of thought, research, and discussion. She expressed concern about the lifecycle cost to all residents. She acknowledged that the upfront cost is a lot, acknowledging that the taxpayers are contributing 75 percent of the project cost, and therefore, they must not only look at the upfront cost but also the lifecycle cost, which is why she supports the use of concrete curbing. Mayor Barthel stated he is not a person who goes back and forth. He stated after the motion was made in February, there was no direction to slow down the work. He stated everything goes through the appropriate process and commended staff for the excellent work they do. Motion carried unanimously. TH D. CONSIDER VARIANCE FOR REAR SETBACK – 1545 154 LANE NW – PID# 23- 32-24-23-0055, (APPLICANT: MICHAEL SUMMERBELL) The City Council is requested to consider a request for a three-foot rear setback variance for the th property at 1545 154 Lane NW for a covered porch. Community Development Director Janish reviewed the information with the Council and stated the City Council is requested to compare the variance request with the review criteria of City Code 12-15-9 and consider the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation to deny the variance request. Mayor Barthel asked if this had started to be built without receiving a permit. Mr. Janish stated a permit had been applied for, but was not issued when work began to occur. He explained that additional information was requested by the Building Department, and the State met with the applicant and the Building Department on-site. He stated since that visit by the State, there has been no additional construction activity on the site. Mayor Barthel asked if the project would meet the Building Code, with the exception of the setback. Mr. Janish replied the Building Department has not inspected the work that has been Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes – March 17, 2026 Page 5 done. Mayor Barthel asked for clarification on the next steps, whether this is approved or denied. Mr. Janish explained if this were to be denied, the applicant would need to remove the structure or make modifications to comply with the Building and Zoning Code. He stated if this were to be approved, the applicant would need to provide information showing that this was constructed to meet the Building Code. Councilmember Godfrey asked if an awning or canopy could be used, if the goal is to cover the deck that was used to replace the previous deck, and whether that would comply with City Code. Mr. Janish replied a temporary awning would need to be used in order to fall into that category. Councilmember Godfrey asked if the structure could be changed to have a shorter roof, which would cover a portion of the deck. Mr. Janish replied that, in theory, that could be done, but the applicant would indicate that if the roof were reduced, it would not cover the hot tub. He stated if the roof were reduced by three feet, it would become compliant. Mayor Barthel invited the applicant to speak. th Mike Summerbell, 1545 154 Lane NW, introduced his general contractor, Seth Marshall. Mr. Marshall stated they had planned for this project months in advance, ordering materials in July. He stated they applied for the permit in the fall, and the City wanted additional information, which they provided. He stated they agreed to add an additional footing as requested, and City staff then had additional questions on the roof system. He stated that is where the difference of opinion occurred, and they asked the State Inspector to meet them onsite. He stated they asked the Building Department to schedule that appointment multiple times, and it took almost 1.5 months for that meeting to take place. He stated they cannot have the trusses sitting on the ground through the winter. He stated they built the project because they did not want to waste the homeowner's money. He stated after the meeting with the State, the City wanted to confirm setbacks, at which point it was determined that there was an issue with the setback. He stated the problem that they had was with the definition of enclosed deck, because there is screening and a screen door. He stated following the recommendation of denial from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the homeowner has stated they could not add the screening to avoid the definition of it being enclosed. He asked if the Council believes that the deck with a roof is enclosed. He stated the Building Department has said that the roof would still make it enclosed. He stated normal decks can go eight feet into the setback, and this is only three feet into the setback. Councilmember Godfrey stated she is confused, and was confused during the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting as well, noting that the picture being shown sounds like it is not the most current picture of the structure, as there may already be screening and a door. Mr. Summerbell replied the structure looks exactly like the picture shown tonight. He stated they stopped all work when they were told to. Councilmember Godfrey asked if the intention was to enclose the structure. Mr. Summerbell replied they were going to add screening to keep bugs out. He stated after the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, they discussed not putting the screening on to avoid the definition of it being enclosed. He stated they applied for the permit before construction began and did not intend to Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes – March 17, 2026 Page 6 violate any rules. Mr. Marshall stated even in the current condition, it is not acceptable for framing inspection. He stated once there were concerns from the City, they had the State Inspector get involved. He stated they are not trying to push this under the radar and have followed all required processes. Mr. Janish provided additional clarification on the discussion at the Planning and Zoning Commission, which was a discussion of the plans showing a door and screening. He confirmed the photo is accurate. Mayor Barthel asked why the builder did not apply for a permit in July when the materials were ordered. Mr. Marshall replied that permits are only good for so long, and they do not know how long projects will take. He stated their practice is to apply for a permit when they plan to begin the project. Mayor Barthel commented the builder applied for a permit and then started building before the permit was issued. Mr. Marshall provided additional information on the back-and-forth discussions he had with City staff, which typically takes one week. He stated there were delays in that process and additional delays, so they got to the point where they had to build or risk damage to the materials. Mayor Barthel noted if the permit were applied for in August, all issues would have been resolved by the time they wanted to start building. Mr. Marshall agreed. Councilmember Schue asked if the request is for a variance of three feet. Mr. Janish confirmed if this were approved, the applicant could continue through this process if a building permit were obtained. He confirmed a building permit has not been issued because of the setback issue. He stated the applicant is making the argument that even though there is a roof, this remains an unenclosed structure and meets the definition of a deck. He stated he has had conversations with the Building Official, and as shown, this would not meet the definition of a deck. Mayor Barthel stated the Planning Department and Building Official consider this structure to be enclosed, regardless of whether the screens are added. Councilmember Godfrey noted the work that she has done with FEMA, and when it comes to flood insurance, any walled or roofed structure is considered to be enclosed. She asked if that type of definition would carry through. Mr. Janish commented they read the definition of a deck versus a structure, and as proposed and constructed, this would be a structure and would have to meet the principal structure setback. Mayor Barthel stated if the Building Inspector and Planning Department say this is enclosed, he agrees with that. He stated he could also support the variance request, but the roof and structure would need to have a building permit and pass inspection. He was frustrated that it had gotten to this point without a permit, but could support the variance as long as everything else met the Building Code. Councilmember Engelhardt asked if there would be any other elements that could be delayed due to State regulations. Mr. Janish explained the State was brought in to resolve differing opinions Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes – March 17, 2026 Page 7 between the builder and the City on the Building Code. He stated the question would be whether the variance criteria would be met, noting that the Planning and Zoning Commission did not feel that the criteria were met. He confirmed it was an advisory opinion rather than an issue of the Building Code. Councilmember Engelhardt asked if a sunshade would make the deck considered enclosed. Mr. Janish provided additional clarification explaining the roof as constructed is attached to the home, which is why it is considered to be an enclosed structure, whereas a sunshade is not considered a permanent material. He stated that this interpretation of the Building Code is used throughout the community. Councilmember Shafto commented perhaps they should more specifically define enclosed to provide better clarification in the future. He asked when the applicant was notified that they were running into setback issues. Mr. Janish commented it is his understanding that the Building Department was unaware that the structure was being constructed until they met onsite. Mr. Summerbell replied it was December when the State meeting occurred, and they were alerted to the setback issue. He stated the plan was approved at that time, but the issue of the setback was then identified. Mr. Marshall stated the State was involved in an advisory role at that meeting. He stated it was in December, and that was the first time the setback was mentioned. Councilmember Shafto stated he understands the conclusion of the Planning and Zoning Commission, but also believes that a good-faith effort was made by the applicant, recognizing that they probably would not follow the same path if they had to do it again. He stated he would be okay with the three-foot variance, although he would be hesitant to make this a precedent, as every case is unique. Councilmember Godfrey stated she struggles to understand how the circumstance is unique and not created by the landowner. She asked about the original plan or whether this has evolved. Mr. Marshall stated the plan submitted is the original plan, and they only changed the footing that was requested by the City. He confirmed they would not complete any work until the building permit is received. Mr. Summerbell stated there is a curve in the street that makes their property uniquely shaped on the left side. He stated they did not try to pull any shenanigans and were just trying to make something their family could enjoy. City Attorney Scott Baumgartner asked and received confirmation that an unenclosed deck would not need a variance, whereas an enclosed deck would need a variance. He stated the first decision the Council needs to make is whether this is enclosed or not enclosed. He stated if this is enclosed, they would need to go through the variance criteria. He stated the plans identify this as a porch and asked if a porch is considered a deck. Mr. Janish replied a porch is not considered a deck. Mr. Baumgartner asked if removing a screen would change something from a porch to a deck. He noted the decision as to whether this structure is enclosed or not enclosed would remain and set a Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes – March 17, 2026 Page 8 precedent for future requests, because this decision would determine whether this type of structure is enclosed or not enclosed. He stated even if the Council approves the variance, they still need to determine if the structure is enclosed. He asked the Council to consider whether this structure would be considered a deck if placed in front of the home. Councilmember Shafto stated he agrees with that, which is why he wanted to proceed with the variance route. He stated the Building Department believes that this structure is enclosed, which he supports. Mayor Barthel agrees that this is enclosed, even if there are no walls or screens. He stated the question is whether the Council supports the variance. Mr. Baumgartner stated if the Council chooses to support the variance, it would need to provide findings in support of that action. Councilmember Schue stated he has built decks for a number of years, and any type of roof made the deck into a porch or was considered enclosed. He stated he would agree that this is enclosed and also supports the variance. Mayor Barthel asked if a motion needs to be made that the structure is enclosed, as the Building Department and the majority of the Council find this to be enclosed. Mr. Baumgarter confirmed that if a majority of the Council believes that this is enclosed, that would be sufficient. It was the unanimous consensus of the Council that this structure is enclosed. Mayor Barthel recognized that criterion B is the one that could be a struggle. Mr. Janish provided additional information on the statement made by the landowner related to the curve in the road and the stagger in the property line. Mayor Barthel asked if the setback would be met if the covered porch were all the way to the right side of the home. Mr. Janish replied it would still not meet the setback in that location. Councilmember Godfrey commented there are a number of things that trouble her with this request, and things could have been done differently. She stated they have a situation in front of them, and based on the determination that the structure is considered enclosed and a variance would be required to comply with City Code, she would support approving the request. Motion by Godfrey, Seconded by Shafto, to adopt Resolution No. R035-26, Approving a Variance th for the Property Located at 1545 154 Lane NW; PID# 23-32-24-23-0055, based on the lot dimensions creating a plight for the landowner not of his making. Further discussion: Mayor Barthel stated he was not happy with how this occurred and stated inspections must occur, and no work can occur until a building permit is issued. He recognized even if the structure were moved all the way to the east, it still would have remained within the Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes – March 17, 2026 Page 9 setback. Mr. Baumgartner asked and received confirmation that the Council finds that all four variance criteria were met by this request. He noted additional conditions that no work shall occur until a building permit is obtained and that the structure shall pass all required inspections. Councilmembers Godfrey and Shafto agreed with the added conditions. Motion carried unanimously. 3. STAFF ITEMS A. ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT City Staff updated the Council on the administration and city department activities, legislative updates, updates on development/CIP projects, and meeting reminders/community events. (Administrative Staff Report) Ms. Cotton stated the draft AUAR is open for comments through thrd April 9, noting an open house scheduled to occur at City Hall on March 23. She clarified it is an open house and there will not be a formal presentation or public hearing at that time. (Public Works/Engineering Department Report) Mr. Berkowitz provided brief project updates. (Community Development Department Report) Mr. Janish had no further comments. MAYOR/COUNCIL INPUT Councilmember Engelhardt thanked City staff and the volunteers who attended the Home Show this past weekend, which was well attended. Mayor Barthel echoed those comments. He noted he received positive feedback from vendors on the event as well. Councilmember Schue wished everyone a happy St. Patrick’s Day. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Shafto, Seconded by Godfrey, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:43 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Amanda Staple, Recording Secretary 1 2 REGULAR ANDOVER CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES – MARCH 17, 2026 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 4 5 6 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1 7 RESIDENT FORUM ..............................................................................................................1 8 AGENDA APPROVAL ..........................................................................................................2 9 APPROVAL OF MINUTES ...................................................................................................2 10 1. CONSENT ITEMS ..........................................................................................................2 11 A. Approve Payment of Claims ............................................................................................2 12 B. Approve Plans & Specs/Order Advertisement for Bids/25-29/Crosstown Boulevard 13 NW & Bluebird Street NW Roundabout (R033-26) .........................................................2 14 C. Approve Park Exclusive Use Permit/Prairie Knoll Park ...................................................2 15 D. Approve Park Exclusive Use Permit/Sunshine Park .........................................................2 16 E. Receive February 2026 General Fund Progress Report ....................................................2 17 F. Receive February 2026 City Investment Report ...............................................................2 18 G. Approve Used Vehicle Sales License ...............................................................................2 19 H. Accept Resignation Facilities Coordinator .......................................................................2 20 I. Award Bid & Approve 2026 Code Enforcement Abatement/Mowing Contract ................2 21 2. DISCUSSION ITEMS .....................................................................................................3 22 A. ANOKA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE MONTHLY REPORT ...................................3 23 B. ANDOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT .............................................3 24 C. RECONSIDER BID ALTERNATE FOR PROJECTS/26-02B: 2026 STREET 25 RECONSTRUCTION (KADLEC ESTATES) & 26-02D: 2026 STREET 26 RECONSTRUCTION (NIGHTINGALE PRESERVE/WITTINGTON STRD 27 RIDGE/NIGHTINGALE ESTATES 1 – 3) (R034-26) ..............................................3 TH 28 D. CONSIDER VARIANCE FOR REAR SETBACK – 1545 154 LANE NW – PID# 23- 29 32-24-23-0055, (APPLICANT: MICHAEL SUMMERBELL) (R035-26) .......................4 30 3. STAFF ITEMS ................................................................................................................9 31 A. ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT .....................................................................................9 32 MAYOR/COUNCIL INPUT ...................................................................................................9 33 ADJOURNMENT ...................................................................................................................9 34