HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-07-28
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV
Andover Planning and Zoning Commission
MeetingAgenda
July 28,2026
Andover City Hall
Council Chambers
7:00 p.m.
1.Call to Order
2.Pledge of Allegiance
3.Approval of Minutes –June 9,2026, Regular Meeting
4.Public Hearing: Consider a Conditional Use Permit to allow for an expansion of a religious
institution at 16150 Crosstown Blvd NW; PID: 14-32-24-14-0001 –Pope Design Group on
behalf of Constance Free Church (Applicant).
5.Other Business
a.Considerrescheduling future meeting date to Wednesday, August 12, 2026, due
to primary election.
6.Adjournment
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item #3
TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners
FROM: Peter Hellegers, City Planner
SUBJECT:Approval of Minutes
DATE: July 28, 2026
REQUEST
The Planning & Zoning Commission is requested to approve the June 9, 2026, regular meeting
minutes.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULARMEETING –JUNE 9, 2026
9
10 The RegularMeeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to
11 order by Chairperson Loehleinon June 9, 2026, at 7:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall,
12 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota.
13
14 Commissioners present:Chairperson Nick Loehlein, Commissioners Roger Grout,
15 Scott Hudson, Chuck Naughton, Jonathan Weinhold, Nicole
16 Wicklund, and Ryan Winge.
17
18 Commissioners absent: None.
19
20 Also present: City Planner Peter Hellegers, and Associate Planner Aidan
21 Breen.
22
23 CALL TO ORDER
24
25 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
26
27 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
28
29 Motion. The Chair assumed a motion to approve the May 26, 2026, Regular Meeting
30 Minutes as presented. The Motion carried on a 6-ayes, 1-present (Chair Loehlein) vote.
31
32 PUBLIC HEARING – CONSIDER AN INTERIM USE PERMIT (IUP) FOR
33 INTERIM PERFORMANCE STANDARDS PURSUANT TO ANDOVER CITY CODE
ND
34 12-14-18 AT 3149 162 LANE NW; PID 16-32-24-23-0009 – LANDSCAPES
35 UNLIMITED (APPLICANT)
36
37 Associate City Planner Breen reviewed the Interim Use Permit request for Landscapes
38 Unlimited.
39
40 Commissioner Naughton asked for clarification regarding the proposed lighting plan. He
41 noted that the lighting in the area appeared not to meet code requirements and questioned
42 whether a deviation was being requested. Heasked the staff to explain the reason for the
43 proposed lighting approach briefly.
44
45 Associate Planner Breen explained that the lighting concern applies only to the storage
46 yard area. City code incorporates international lighting standards that establish minimum
47 illumination levels based on the type of business and specific areas within a commercial or
RegularSession Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes – June 9, 2026
Page 2
1 publicly accessible site. Applicants are required to submit a photometric plan
2 demonstrating that the proposed lighting will meet those standards.
3
4 Mr.Breen noted that the applicant is proposing a single exterior light mounted on the
5 garage to illuminate the storage yard. Based on the available information, that lighting
6 configuration would likely not meet the minimum required illumination levels for that
7 area. However, the parking lot and other publicly accessible portions of the site are
8 expected to comply with the City's lighting standards. He added that there is currently no
9 lighting in the storage yard, so the proposed floodlight would improve existing conditions
10 even though it would not fully satisfy the applicable code requirements.
11
12 Commissioner Naughton asked whether the updated rendering referenced by staff would
13 be received before the proposal is forwarded to the City Council. He noted that the
14 rendering presented reflected the staff's best effort to approximate the applicant's
15 anticipated revisions and sought confirmation that an updated plan would be submitted
16 before Council review.
17
18 Mr. Breen responded that he had not received confirmation that an updated rendering or
19 site plan would be available before the proposal is presented to the City Council. He
20 explained that the applicant has been working to obtain the revised documents but has
21 encountered delays involving the engineering firm and other parties involved in the
22 project. Although the applicant had anticipated receiving the materials the previous
23 Friday, they were not available then.
24
25 Mr. Breen expressed hope that the updated plans would be completed by the end of the
26 week, but noted that no revised timeline had been provided. He added that the applicant
27 has indicated both verbally and in writing that it intends to comply with all aspects of the
28 application, even if an updated site plan is not available before the matter proceeds to the
29 Council.
30
31 Chair Loehlein assumed a motion to open the Public Hearing at 7:19 p.m. Motion carries
32 by unanimous consent.
33
34 Chair Loehlein assumed a motion to close the Public Hearing at 7:20 p.m. Motion carries
35 by unanimous consent.
36
37 Commissioner Weinhold asked for clarification regarding the remaining incomplete
38 aspects of the proposal. He summarized his understanding that the outstanding issues were
39 limited to the landscaping plan and questioned whether the uncertainty primarily
40 concerned the number and placement of trees and shrubs in the final design.
41
42 Mr. Breen explained that he has not received any updated site plans beyond the version he
43 presented to the Commission, which includes annotations reflecting discussions with the
44 applicant and direction from the City Council. He noted that the applicant had been unable
45 to provide a revised plan and that he was uncertain about the reason for the delay.
RegularSession Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes – June 9, 2026
Page 3
1
2 Mr. Breen emphasized that a complete commercial site plan documenting all required
3 improvements must be submitted and approved before a building permit can be issued. As
4 a result, construction cannot begin until the City has received the finalized plans. He
5 added that the original proposal focused solely on constructing the garage with no
6 additional site improvements. However, following feedback at the Council workshop, the
7 applicant agreed to incorporate the recommended enhancements. At the time of the
8 meeting, those commitments had been communicated verbally and through email but had
9 not yet been reflected in an updated visual site plan.
10
11 Commissioner Weinhold asked whether the proposal presented to the Commission was
12 expected to remain substantially unchanged or could change significantly once the
13 applicant receives input from its engineers and other consultants. He questioned whether
14 the delays in communication and the absence of an updated site plan could result in major
15 revisions to the building or even an entirely different proposal.
16
17 Mr. Breen responded that he could not predict exactly what the applicant would ultimately
18 submit. He explained that the conditions attached to the interim use permit were
19 intentionally written to establish minimum requirements for screening and landscaping
20 that any final site plan would have to meet or exceed if approved by the City Council.
21
22 Mr. Breen acknowledged that the applicant could submit plans that differ from what had
23 been discussed. However, doing so would be inconsistent with the applicant's verbal and
24 written commitments to comply with the recommended improvements. In his opinion, the
25 interim use permit would not be valid unless the final site plan satisfied or exceeded the
26 required standards, including the proposed screening, landscaping, and any additional
27 trees or related improvements.
28
29 Commissioner Grout expressed confidence that the interim use permit conditions
30 adequately address the required improvements and stated that any significant changes to
31 the proposal would likely fall outside the permit's scope.
32
33 Chair Loehlein agreed with Commissioner Grout and reminded the Commission that its
34 role was to evaluate the interim use permit and its performance standards, not the final site
35 plan details.
36
37 Commissioner Naughton asked whether the City Council would be required to review the
38 completed site plan before moving forward with the proposal,or if that assumption was
39 incorrect.
40
41 Mr. Breen responded that he does not believe a completed site plan is required for the
42 interim use permit application process.
43
44 Commissioner Weinhold stated that focusing on the interim use permit standards, rather
45 than the incomplete site plan details, addressed his concerns about the application.
RegularSession Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes – June 9, 2026
Page 4
1
2 Chair Loehlein agreed and added that the applicant's commitment to comply with the City
3 Council's requested improvements provided additional reassurance that the interim use
4 permit met the applicable standards.
5
6 Motion by Commissioner Grout, seconded by Commissioner Hudson, to recommend that
7 the City Council approve the Interim Use Permit (IUP) for Interim Performance Standards
8 Pursuant to Andover City Code 12-14-18.The motion passed on unanimous consent.
9
10 DISCUSS STEERING COMMITTEE FOR 2050 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
11 UPDATE.
12
13 City Planner Hellegersinformed the Commission that the City is beginning to updateits
14 2050 Comprehensive Plan, a state-mandated effort that will largely be completed in-
15 house. He explained that during the previous update, the Planning Commission served as
16 the steering committee by reviewing draft chapters and providing feedback before they
17 were presented to the City Council.
18
19 Mr. Hellegers asked whether the Planning Commission would like to continue in that role
20 for the current update. Under the proposed approach, the steering committee would consist
21 of the full Planning Commission, along with one representative from each of the City's
22 other commissions.
23
24 Commission Winge indicated he would be interested in serving on the Steering
25 Committee.
26
27 Commissioner Grout asked what alternatives would be available if the Planning
28 Commission chose not to serve as the steering committee for the 2050 Comprehensive
29 Plan update.
30
31 Mr. Hellegers responded that no formal alternative had been established but explained that
32 staff could assemble a steering committee from interested volunteers, including Planning
33 Commissioners or other participants, if the Commission declined to take on the role.
34
35 Commissioner Weinhold asked about the ideal size of the steering committee for the 2050
36 Comprehensive Plan update.
37
38 Mr. Hellegers responded that a group of approximately 10 to 11 members would be
39 manageable. He explained that the proposed structure, consisting of the full Planning
40 Commission and one representative from each of the other commissions, would fall within
41 that range and avoid logistical challenges associated with a larger group.
42
43 Commissioner Hudson asked when the 2050 Comprehensive Plan steering committee
44 would begin meeting and what level of time commitment would be expected.
45
RegularSession Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes – June 9, 2026
Page 5
1 Mr. Hellegers responded that no start date has been established, but meetings are not
2 anticipated to begin for at least a few months. He explained that the steering committee
3 would likely meet after the second Planning Commission meeting each month, allowing
4 the regular business meeting to conclude before transitioning tothe comprehensive plan
5 discussion.
6
7 Commissioner Wicklund asked how long the steering committee for the 2050
8 Comprehensive Plan update would remain active.
9
10 Mr. Hellegers explained that the committee would likely operate through the major phases
11 of the comprehensive plan process, but it may not be needed for the entire two-year
12 timeline leading up to plan adoption. He noted that meetings would occur as needed, with
13 more activity during in-depth topic reviews and fewer meetings during slower phases, and
14 that the anticipated schedule should not require more meeting nights than the Planning
15 Commission currently holds.
16
17 Chair Loehlein asked Commissioner Hudson to share his experience participating in the
18 previous comprehensive plan update. Commissioner Hudson recalled that the process
19 involved reviewing topics, discussing details, and providing community-based feedback,
20 and that it was manageable and worthwhile.
21
22 Chair Loehlein remarked that serving on the steering committee would allow the Planning
23 Commission to help shape the City's long-term vision rather than focusing only on
24 individual properties or development proposals. He expressed support for the
25 Commission's participation and invited members to raise any significant concerns.
26
27 Commissioner Naughton expressed support for the Planning Commission serving as the
28 steering committee, noting that the anticipated time commitment appeared manageable
29 and that Commissioners could provide valuable perspectives on the process. He also asked
30 whether business owners would be included on the committee, noting that the
31 informational materials had mentioned that possibility.
32
33 Mr. Hellegers explained that there are many ways to structure a steering committee and
34 that staff's current proposal is to use the Planning Commission along with one
35 representative from each of the City's other commissions.
36
37 Commissioner Naughton confirmed his support for the proposed approach.
38
39 Motion by Commissioner Hudson, seconded by Commissioner Grout, to make a non-
40 binding motion to express the Planning and Zoning Commission's support for serving as
41 the steering committee for the 2025 Comprehensive Plan Update. The motion passed on
42 unanimous consent.
43
44 OTHER BUSINESS
45
RegularSession Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes – June 9, 2026
Page 6
1 City Planner Hellegers provided updates on recent City actions, including adoption of the
2 Fields of Andover AUAR, upcoming City Council agenda items, and a proposed one-year
3 housing moratorium to allow additional study of sewer capacity and future infill
4 development within the urban service area.
5
6 Commissioner Winge asked for clarification about the proposed housing moratorium,
7 including how it was developed, why certain areas were excluded, and whether the one-
8 yeartimeframe could end sooner.
9
10 Mr. Hellegers explained that interim ordinances are a common planning tool, that the
11 proposal focuses on areas served by the existing City sewer system while excluding rural
12 and AUAR developments, and that the moratorium could be lifted before one year if the
13 sewer capacity study is completed early.
14
15 ADJOURNMENT
16
17 Chair Loehlein adjourned the meeting at 7:46 p.m.
18
19
20 Respectfully Submitted,
21
22
23 Sue Osbeck, Recording Secretary
24 TimeSaver Off-Site Secretarial, Inc.
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item #4
TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners
CC: Joe Janish, Community Development Director
FROM : Aidan Breen, Associate Planner
Isabel Chmielewska, Planning Intern
SUBJECT:Public Hearing: Consider a Conditional Use Permit to allow for an expansion of
a religious institution at 16150 Crosstown Blvd NW; PID:14-32-24-14-0001
Applicant: Pope Design Group on behalf of Constance Free Church.
DATE: 7/28/2026
INTRODUCTION
Pope Design Group has applied for a conditional use permit (CUP), on behalf of Constance Free
Church, to construct two expansions to the church building on the property at 16150 Crosstown
Blvd NW. The first addition is approximately 3,200 square feet and the second addition is
approximately 12,800 square feet. The expansion triggers the need for a CUP to ensure minimal
impacts on surrounding properties.
N
Figure 1- Constance Free Church Location
1
BACKGROUND
Pope Design Grouphas appliedon behalf of Constance FreeChurch for the construction of two
new expansions, measuring 3,200 square feet and 12,800 square feet,to the existing 81,800
square foot church building on 21.93acres at 16150 Crosstown Blvd.NW.
The smaller expansion on the west side of the building would contain a new commercial kitchen
and a meeting room. The larger expansion on the southeast corner of the building would contain
a new main entrance and education rooms.
Figure 2-Site Planwith proposed expansion shown in brown
(Pope Design Group, 6/23/26)
Zoning
The proposed site is zoned R-4: Single Family Urban Residential. Religious uses are allowed
under Conditional Use Permits in all residential districts.
Screening
The proposed additions are significantly set back from the property lines as to be either exempt
fromscreening requirements or sufficiently screened byexistingtrees and vegetation.
Given the location of the proposed parking area on the southwest end of the property (south of
the kitchen addition), this will need to be screened to meet City Code 12-14-5-Fif it is
constructed.
12-14-5-F: Screening(Parking Areas):
Parking Areas: Screening from residential properties shall be provided to
a minimum height of six feet as measured from the surface of the parking
area. Screening from public rights-of-way shall be provided to a minimum
height of three feet.
2
Parking
The existing site has 426 parking spaces. The seating capacity of the worship space is 1,080
occupants,which would require360 spaces (1/3 the seating capacity) under City Code 12-14-8-
G. After the addition and site improvements are complete, there will be 377 remainingparking
spaces, above the minimum required. The application also indicates a bid alternate parking lot at
the southwest corner of the site, which would add 30 spaces. The applicant states that this lot “is
positioned to create a larger green space for church exterior festivals.”
Access
With the larger education wing addition, the drive aisle along the east side of the existing
building will be removed. To provide access to the northeast parking lot, a new drive aisle is
being provided from the northwest parking lot.
Lighting
All lighting will be needed to comply with City Code 12-14-7 for glare and 12-14-8-E-8 for
minimum lighting requirements in off street parking areas. These items will be reviewed in depth
as a part of the Commercial Site Plan.
Review Criteria
The applicant has provided the attached narrative letter to address the criteria for evaluating
Conditional Use Permit requests established in Andover City Code 12-14-6-B. That section of
code states:
1. In granting a Conditional Use Permit, the City Council shall consider the advice and
recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and:
a. The effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, morals, and general
welfare of occupants of surrounding lands.
b. Existing and anticipated traffic conditions, including parking facilities on adjacent
streets and land.
c. The effect on values of property and scenic views in the surrounding area, and the
effect of the proposed use on the Comprehensive Plan.
The full applicant narrative is attached.
ACTION REQUESTED
The Planning Commission is requested to hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to
the City Council on the conditional use permit amendment request.
Attachment(s):Draft Resolution of Approval
Draft Resolution of Denial
Exhibit A –Property Legal Description
Applicant CUP Narrative
Civil Plan Set
3
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. RXXX-26
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST for the
expansion of a religious institution on the property at 16150 Crosstown Boulevard NW and
legally described as:
SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A
WHEREAS, Pope Design Group has requested a conditional use permit on behalf of Constance
Free Churchfor a religious institution on the subject property; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a Public Hearing on July 28, 2026,
pursuant to the requirements of City Code 12-15-3, pertaining to the public hearing process; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the request and has determined
that said request meets the criteria of City Code 12-15-7-B pertaining to Conditional Use
Permits; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds the request would not have a
detrimental effect on the health, safety, and general welfare of the City of Andover and
recommends to the City Council approval of the Conditional Use Permit;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover hereby
agrees with the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approves the
Conditional Use Permit Amendment for expansion of, subject to the following conditions:
1) The applicant shall complete a Commercial Site Plan review process with the City in
compliance with City Code 12-15-4. The proposed building shall comply with the
commercial site plan once approved. All comments from Andover city staff regarding
the Commercial Site Plan must be resolved.
2) The applicant, or their successors or assigns, shall be responsible for obtaining the
required permits from the City of Andover prior to construction of the facilities.
3) All other permits shall be obtained from any agency that may have an interest in the
site including but not limited to Lower Rum River Watershed Management
Organization, Building Department, Fire Department, Health Department, etc.
4) The Conditional Use Permit shall be subject to a time limit for implementation within
twelve (12) months after approval, or the permit will be null and void, as per City
Code 12-15-7D.
4
rd
day of August 2026.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this 3
CITY OF ANDOVER
Attest: ________________________________
Jamie Barthel – Mayor
_______________________________
Michelle Hartner – City Clerk
5
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. RXXX-26
A RESOLUTION DENYING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST for the
expansion of a religious institution on the property at 16150 Crosstown Boulevard NW and
legally described as:
SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A
WHEREAS, Pope Design Group has requested a conditional use permit on behalf of Constance
Free Churchfor a religious institution on the subject property; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a Public Hearing on July 28, 2026,
pursuant to the requirements of City Code 12-15-3, pertaining to the public hearing process; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the request and has determined
that said request does not meet the criteria of City Code 12-15-7-B pertaining to Conditional
Use Permits; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds the request would have a detrimental
effect on the health, safety, and general welfare of the City of Andover and recommends to the
City Council denial of the Conditional Use Permit; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Andover, based on the materials provided and the
recommendation of the Planning and Zoning, agrees with said recommendation;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover hereby
denies the conditional use permit for the following reasons:
1. XX
2. XX
3. XX
rd
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this 3 day of August 2026.
CITY OF ANDOVER
Attest: ________________________________
Jamie Barthel –Mayor
_______________________________
Michelle Hartner –City Clerk
6
HOME
FAMILY
SINGLE
W
WW
W
W
W
WWW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WWW
WWW
WWW
WWW
WWW
WWW
WWW
WWW
WWW
WWWWWW
WWW
WWW
WWW
WWW
WWW
WWW
WWW
WWW
EXISTING
WWW
STORM POND
WWW
WWW
WWW
WW
PROPOSED
STORM POND
WING
ADDITION
EDUCATION
WWWW
PARCEL 2
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
9
WW
WW
WW
EXISTINGBUILDING
WW
WW
KITCHEN
ADDITION
WW
WW
WW
WW
XXXXXXX
WW
WW
PROPOSED
WW
WW
STORM POND
WW
HOME
FAMILY
SINGLE
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item #5.A
TO: Planning & Zoning Commissioners
CC: Joe Janish, Community Development Director
FROM :Peter Hellegers, City Planner
SUBJECT:Consider rescheduling future meeting date to Wednesday, August 12,
2026, due to primary election.
DATE:July 28, 2026
INTRODUCTION
The state primary election will be held on August 11, 2026, and public meetings may not
begin until 8:01 p.m. that evening. The next regular Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting is scheduled for 7:00 p.m. that evening, so the meeting date or time must be
changed.
Staff recommend moving the next meeting date to Wednesday, August 12, 2026, at the
regular 7:00 p.m. meeting time.
ACTION REQUESTED
Consider changing the meeting from Tuesday, August 11, 2026,to Wednesday, August
12, 2026, with a meeting start time of 7:00 p.m.
Attachment(s): None.
1