Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 10, 2026 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING – MARCH 10, 2026 The Regular Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Loehlein on March 10, 2026, at 7:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Chairperson Nick Loehlein, Commissioners Roger Grout, Scott Hudson, Chuck Naughton, Jonathan Weinhold, Nicole Wicklund, and Ryan Winge. Commissioners absent: None. Also present: City Planner Peter Hellegers and Community Development Director Joe Janish. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Grout noted he was absent from the February 24, 2026, meetings. Motion. The Chair assumed a motion to approve the February 24, 2026, Regular Meeting Minutes as presented. The Motion passed on unanimous consent, with Commissioner Grout voting present. Motion. The Chair assumed a motion to approve the February 24, 2026, Workshop Meeting Minutes as presented. The Motion passed on unanimous consent, with Commissioner Grout voting present. th PUBLIC HEARING – Consider variance for rear setback – 1545 154 Lane NW, Andover, MN PID#23-2-24-23-0055 (Applicant: Michael Summerbell). Mr. Hellegers reviewed this request for a 3-foot rear setback variance for the property at th 1545 154 Lane NW for a covered porch addition. The minimum rear setback in the R-4 zoning district is 30 feet. Mr. Hellegers indicated the property on a map. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 10, 2026 Page 2 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” are used in connection with the granting of a variance, which 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. Materials submitted by the applicant were provided for Commission review. Mr. Hellegers reviewed the analysis of the 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 a 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. Mr. Hellegers noted in the applicant’s narrative and as 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 was notified 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 and 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 issued as the structure does not comply with the setback requirements. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 10, 2026 Page 3 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, those setback requirements would allow a property owner to utilize 11-12 feet from the back of their house for the construction of an addition without needing a variance. If a traditional deck was 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 has informed the applicant 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. 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. Also provided for Commission consideration were Draft Resolutions of Approval and Denial, Location Map/Aerial Photos, City Code §12-3-5 – Minimum District Requirements, City Code §12-4-3 – Encroachments, City Code §12-15-9 – Variances, and Applicant’s Application Materials. It is anticipated that the City Council will review the Variance request at their meeting on Tuesday, March 17, 2026. Commissioner Grout asked what the distance is to the back lot line, and Mr. Hellegers stated the requirement is 30 feet, and the drawing shows 27.1 and 28.0. Commissioner Naughton asked when the building permit was applied for, and Mr. Hellegers stated the application was submitted on September 24, 2025, and was deemed incomplete, and the applicant was notified on September 26, 2025. Commissioner Naughton asked when construction began. Mr. Hellegers stated he does not know when it began, and it is very close to completion now. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 10, 2026 Page 4 Commissioner Weinhold noted the criteria and asked if the Comprehensive Plan is affected, and asked Mr. Hellegers for an example. This would not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Naughton asked Mr. Hellegers what would happen if the recommendation was not to approve the variance. Mr. Hellegers stated that if the Council denies the variance, the applicant will need to work with the Building Department to obtain permits and inspections. Part of the structure may need to be pulled back. The Building Permit process would dictate the timeline. Chair Loehlein opened the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. th Mr. Mike Summberbell, 1545 154 Lane NW, and Seth Marshall, owner of Marshall th Brothers, 650 217 Avenue NE, East Bethel. Mr. Marshall is the contractor hired to build the porch. There was an existing deck on the property. They applied to the City for the permit. The City was happy with the existing deck but had some concerns about the roofing. There was a difference of opinion on how racking was going to be prevented on the roof. He met with the State Building Professional and the City in November. They referred to the Ordinance and saw that a deck could go into the setback by 8 feet. Construction has stopped, and the photograph shows the current state. The footings are on the ground. The footprint of the deck was not changed. If the variance is not approved, it will be removed. The lot line is not square due to the curve in the road. It took over 2 months to receive the permit from the City, so the deck was built. Commissioner Grout asked if there was a permit issued for the deck portion, and Mr. Marshall stated that the deck, and roof would be under one permit. A hot tub had been purchased for the deck. Commissioner Winge asked about the distance the deck is from the property line. Mr. Marshall stated 27.1 feet approximately and 1.5 feet on the other side. Mr. Marshall stated that when the deck was removed, it was replaced exactly as it was. Commissioner Winge asked what the dimensions of the deck are, and Mr. Marshall stated 12 x 20 feet. Commissioner Weinhold asked if the deck was built as part of the house. Mr. Summerbell stated that no permit was obtained when the original deck was built in 2002. It was a 3- foot deck, and they were told they did not need a permit. The extra footing has nothing to do with the roof. Commissioner Naughton asked why extra footing was needed, and Mr. Marshall stated that it was to accommodate the hot tub load. A 10-foot deck would not be usable. Chair Loehlein stated this appears to be an example of asking for forgiveness rather than permission. This is clearly a screened or covered porch, Mr. Marshall continues to refer to it as a deck. Mr. Marshall stated there is no protection on the sides other than the screen. It is a covered deck. It will not be enclosed. The structure will be completely open. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 10, 2026 Page 5 Commissioner Grout stated he shares some of the same confusion. There is a door, and Mr. Marshall stated it is a screen door to access the backyard. Chair Loehlein stated that this is an addition to the dwelling according to the State Code. Mr. Marshall stated that this is not how an addition is built. This is a deck with a roof system over it. Commissioner Wicklund asked who drew the blueprint and whether it was included in the original application. Mr. Marshall stated they had it done, and it was included in the application materials. City staff were aware that there was going to be a roof, and they did not want the roof to twist. City Staff suggested having walls constructed. Mr. Summerbell did not want walls. Commissioner Wicklund asked when construction began, and Mr. Marshall stated sometime in September. Normally, permits are issued within 5-10 days after application. Commissioner Winge asked about the dimensions of the screened porch, and Mr. Marshall stated 22 x 14 feet. He asked what the City considers to be an addition, and whether that information was available prior to the beginning of the project. Mr. Marshall stated that they are required by law to have permits, and he has made many attempts to get the permit from Andover, and they continue to try to work with the City. Chair Loehlein closed the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. Mr. Hellegers stated the addition piece is through the Minnesota State Building Code. He read the definition of a deck from the 2006 Ordinance. Commissioner Weinhold referred to the word “unenclosed”. He asked Mr. Hellegers if this project is enclosed, and it is assumed to be enclosed by a roof and screens. This would not meet the definition of a deck. Commissioner Grout asked if there was notice on September 26, 2025, advising the applicant of incomplete information for the permit. Mr. Hellegers stated that an email was sent to the permit applicant. Commissioner Winge spoke to whether the proposed structure was a deck or a porch and stated he could read this as unenclosed. There is a door, and the intention is for it to be screened. Commissioner Winge read through the practical difficulties criteria. Commissioner Naughton stated the applicant was told there was no problem with the deck. The roof structure seemed to cause the issues. It appears on the drawing it is largely enclosed. He reviewed the criteria. He does not feel a variance is appropriate for this project. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 10, 2026 Page 6 Commissioner Weinhold referred to the plight of the landowner. The deck was built, and the City said it was ok. He feels this is the landowner's plight due to the fact that until City/State officials tried to redefine the project. Commissioner Grout stated there are 2 issues, whether it is enclosed or not enclosed. This is a technical review. He agrees with the consensus of the criteria. Construction continued without a permit. Commissioner Winge asked why a variance is being requested and could the project have been built without a variance? Chair Loehlein, this is an addition to the dwelling, but that should not affect the decision on whether or not to grant the variance. A permit needs to be obtained before construction can occur. This does not meet the criteria for variance. Commissioner Winge stated that the applicant can propose an amendment to the City Code for consideration. Motion by Commissioner Grout, seconded by Commissioner Hudson, to recommend to denial of the variance to the City Council as the application did not meet the variance criteria. Motion carried on a 5-aye and 2-nay (Winge and Weinhold) vote. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Janish reviewed the draft AUAR for Fields of Andover, which is posted on the City website. There will be an Open House on March 23, 2026, to review the draft. Mr. Hellegers stated that groundbreaking for the Bank of Elk River occurred last week. ADJOURNMENT Chair Loehlein adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Debbie Wolfe, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.