05.a Water-Oriented Accessory Structures and Facilities - PC Packet
1 | P a g e
Date of Meeting: November 12, 2024
To: Chair Loeffler and Members of the Planning Commission
From: T.J. Hofer, Consultant City Planner
Re: Shoreland Ordinance Amendment for Water-Oriented Accessory
Structures and Facilities
City staff have prepared a draft language for a shoreland ordinance to allow for water -oriented
accessory structures and facilities within the ordinary high-water level setback.
BACKGROUND
In the past year, the City has received multiple requests for variances to allow for structures or
facilities within the setback of the ordinary high-water level (OHWL) as well as addressing a
number of violations of these types of structures and facilities that are illegally existing. The
Shoreland Ordinance, Ordinance 198 or Chapter 155 in the Unified Development Code (UDC),
prohibits structures and impervious surfaces within the OHWL setback. The City’s shoreland
ordinance is more restrictive than the model ordinance published by the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR). The DNR model ordinance was most recently revised in April of 2022. The
City adopted the shoreland ordinance on May 15, 2018, and the City’s ordinance was last
amended in March of 2024.
At the September 17, 2024, City Council meeting, staff presented the language from the model
ordinance from the DNR and language drafted by City staff to allow for water-oriented accessory
structures (WOAS). The Council briefly discussed the ordinance and indicated that input from
the public would be needed. The Council directed staff to send the amendment to the Planning
Commission to gather public opinion at a public hearing.
OVERVIEW OF DNR MODEL LANGUAGE
The model ordinance includes the following standards for water-oriented accessory structures
(WOAS):
2.0 GENERAL PROVISIONS AND DEFINITIONS
2.5 Definitions. Unless specifically defined below, words or phrases used in this
ordinance shall be interpreted to give them the same meaning they have in common usage
and to give this ordinance its most reasonable
2 | P a g e
2.562 Water-oriented accessory structure or facility. A small, above ground building
or other improvement, except stairways, fences, docks, and retaining walls, which,
because of the relationship of its use to surface water, reasonably needs to be located
closer to public waters than the normal structure setback. Examples of such structures and
facilities include, watercraft and watercraft equipment storage structures, gazebos, screen
houses, fish houses, pump houses, patios, and detached decks. Boathouses and boat
storage structures given the meaning under Minnesota Statutes, Section 103G.245 are not
a water-oriented accessory structures.
7.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE FACILITIES
7.3 Water-oriented Accessory Structures or Facilities. Each residential lot may have
one water-oriented accessory structure or facility if it complies with the following
provisions:
7.31 The structure or facility must not exceed ten feet in height, exclusive of
safety rails, and cannot occupy an area greater than 250 square feet. The
structure or facility may include detached decks not exceeding eight feet
above grade at any point or at-grade patios;
7.32 The structure or facility is not in the Bluff Impact Zone;
7.33 The setback of the structure or facility from the ordinary high-water level
must be at least ten feet;
7.34 The structure is not a boathouse or boat storage structure as defined under
Minnesota Statutes, Section 103G.245;
7.35 The structure or facility must be treated to reduce visibility as viewed from
public waters and adjacent shorelands by vegetation, topography,
increased setbacks or color, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions;
7.36 The roof may be used as an open-air deck with safety rails, but must not
be enclosed with a roof or sidewalls or used as a storage area;
7.37 The structure or facility must not be designed or used for human habitation
and must not contain water supply or sewage treatment facilities;
7.38 As an alternative for general development and recreational development
waterbodies, water-oriented accessory structures used solely for storage of
watercraft and boating-related equipment may occupy an area up to 400
square feet provided the maximum width of the structure is 20 feet as
measured parallel to the shoreline; and
7.39 Water-oriented accessory structures may have the lowest floor placed
lower than the elevation specified in Section 6.43 if the structure is
designed to accommodate internal flooding, constructed of flood-resistant
3 | P a g e
materials to the elevation, electrical and mechanical equipment is placed
above the elevation and, if long duration
The standards within the model ordinance generally allow for structures or facilities up to 250 sq.
ft. within 10 ft. of the ordinary high-water level (OHWL). Structures allowed this way are
required to have a water related use and cannot be used for purposes such as garages or non-
water orientated storage. Staff have reviewed these standards and draft language specific to
Scandia.
PROPOSED STANDARDS
Staff have developed draft language based on the model ordinance. Generally, changes that have
been made are more restrictive than the model ordinance, which the DNR has been favorable
towards in the past. The draft language is presented below with comments from staff, but staff
asks that the Planning Commission discuss the idea of allowing WOAS at a high level. The
following are questions to consider:
Are there dimensional standards lots must meet to have a WOAS?
• Should there be a minimum lot size?
• Should there be a minimum lot width?
• Should lots with existing structures that are nonconforming based on the setback from
the OHWL be allowed to have a WOAS? What if the existing nonconforming
structure is located outside of the shore impact zone (50 ft. Recreational Development
lakes, 100 ft. Natural Environment lakes).
Once the discussion about what metrics are required to be met to allow for a lot to have a
WOAS, the specifics of WOAS such as screening can more easily be determined.
• How far back from the OHWL does the City want WOAS to be located?
• Should WOAS be required to meet side yard setbacks for structures?
• Should setbacks be different for structures (sheds) and facilities (patios)?
Overview of Draft Language with Comments from Staff
Staff drafted a preliminary version of the language and shared it with the Carnelian -Marine-St.
Croix Watershed District, the Comfort Lake Forest Lake Watershed District, and the Rice Creek
Watershed District. Their comments were incorporated where relevant and some comments are
included from the watersheds. Draft language is provided in italics with commentary regarding
the standard is provided after.
Water-oriented accessory structure or facility. A small, above ground building or other
improvement, except stairways, fences, docks, and retaining walls, which, because of the
relationship of its use to surface water, reasonably needs to be located closer to public
waters than the normal structure setback. Examples of such structures and facilities
include watercraft and watercraft equipment storage structures, gazebos, screen houses,
fish houses, pump houses, patios, and detached decks. Boathouses and boat storage
4 | P a g e
structures given the meaning under Minnesota Statutes, Section 103G.245 are not a water-
oriented accessory structures.
No changes from the model ordinance. The term facility here can be somewhat confusing, but
within the description patios and decks that do not require a building permit would not be
considered structures, so the facility allows for features outside structures.
7.3 Water-oriented Accessory Structures or Facilities. Each residential lot may have
one water-oriented accessory structure or and one water-oriented facility if it
complies with the following provisions:
In discussions regarding the amendment with staff and the watershed districts, the restriction of
one structure or facility was considered to be potentially unnecessary if the City could set limits
on total square footage, which is done below in 7.32. The DNR confirmed that this is something
that they would be open to as a variation from the model ordinance.
Following the September 17, 2024, Council meeting staff received comments regarding the
number of structures and facilities. The Commission should discuss if the number of structures
should be limited to a single structure or facility.
7.31 No water-oriented accessory structure or facility shall be constructed until an
Administrative Permit has been issued.
The model ordinance does not require a permit to allow for WOAS, but also sets a lower setback
than staff is proposing. Staff believes it would be prudent to require an administrative permit,
otherwise, facilities such as patios could be installed without review by the City and would be
more likely to not be compliant with the shoreland ordinance and zoning standards and there is
no way to confirm that a structures has a relationship of its use to surface water.
7.32 The structure or facility must not exceed ten feet in height, exclusive of safety
rails, and cannot occupy an area greater than 250 square feet in total between
all water-oriented accessory structures. The structure or facility may include
detached decks not exceeding eight feet above grade at any point or at-grade
patios;
Staff have included additional language here to note that the maximum allowed area for WOAS
is 250 sq. ft. since the language has been modified to allow for both a structure and facility.
Following the September 17, 2024, Council meeting staff received comments regarding the total
allowed size. Many comments so far have noted that 250 sq. ft. is too large of a structure to be
allowed. This size could be lowered to any number that the City may wish to approve. Buildings
under 120 sq. ft. do not require a building permit, but if allowed this way would still require an
administrative permit as required by proposed 7.31.
7.33 The structure or facility is not in the Bluff Impact Zone or Shoreland Impact
Zone;
5 | P a g e
7.3X The setback of the structure or facility from the ordinary high water level must
be at least ten feet;
The model ordinance sets a setback for WOAS of 10 ft. from the OHWL. Staff originally
thought to propose that a WOAS must be located outside of the bluff impact zone (BIZ) and
shoreland impact zone (SIZ). Locating a WOAS outside of the BIZ is a requirement of the model
ordinance. Locating WOAS outside of the SIZ would require that the WOAS be located 50 ft.
from the OHWL on Recreation Development lakes and 100 ft. on Natural Environment lakes.
Other options could be to allow a consistent 50 ft. setback regardless of lake classification or
allowing the 10 ft. setback with additional requirements noted below.
Staff is unsure if allowing WOAS within 10 ft. of the OHWL would be consistent with the
existing character of shorelines and traditionally, encroachments for structures of facilities have
been required to be minimized. There are a number of options that the City could consider when
determining the required setback:
• 10 ft. setback of the model ordinance.
• Shoreland Impact Zone as the setback.
• 50 ft. setback
• CMSCWD suggested allowing the 10 ft. setback if a portion of the SIZ was restored to
natural vegetation and potentially restoring the view corridor required by 8.23 of the
shoreland ordinance.
Comments expressed concerns regarding obstructions to views of the lake and views from the
lake. While staff understands the concern regarding views across adjacent properties, there is no
inherent right to views across property owned by others. If obstructions are a significant concern
for the City, allowing WOAS may be ultimately unachievable.
Staff believes that either requiring WOAS to be setback outside of the SIZ or requiring a flat 50
ft. setback from the OHWL options would be consistent with past approvals and the
characteristics and goals of the City. These further setbacks would also work to address concerns
regarding obstructions.
7.34 Water-oriented accessory structures or facilities, including patios, must meet
the structure setbacks for the zoning district in which it is located.
This standard is not in the model ordinance and is inherently required for structures, but staff
included it to ensure patios are setback and those reading the code would know to refer to zoning
district setbacks.
Following the September 17, 2024, Council meeting staff received comments regarding the
requirement to meet side yard setbacks.
Staff also discussed the placement of WOAS with the Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed
District. The CMSCWD noted that generally properties have greater levels of screening from the
lake in the side yard, rather than outside of the side yard setback.
6 | P a g e
The City could choose to exempt WOAS from or require reduced side yard setbacks. However,
making these structures exempt from the setback requirements could simply cause additional
complaints from property owners, as WOAS are now located directly adjacent to property lines.
7.35 The structure is not a boathouse or boat storage structure as defined under
Minnesota Statutes, Section 103G.245;
No changes from the model ordinance.
7.36 The structure or facility must be treated screened to reduce visibility as
viewed from public waters and adjacent shorelands by native vegetation,
assuming summer, leaf-on conditions, and topography. A landscaping plan
must be submitted with any application for an administrative permit to allow
for a water oriented accessory structure or facility. Additional screening may
be required and may include increased setbacks or and visually inconspicuous
colors, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions;
Staff have modified the standards for screening to require any permanent improvement be
screened. WOAS such as brick walls around a fire pit or sheds would need to be screened with
vegetation and maintained in perpetuity. A WOAS such as a structure without walls but with
vertical poles (gazebo) would require screening of vertical poles through the use of dense shrubs
or trees. Items like chairs, tables, and portable fire pits within the structure or facility would not
need to be screened. The intent of screening would be to obscure the view of any structures or
facilities from a view from the lake, but to not obscure the view to the lake from the WOAS.
Staff have also included a requirement for a landscaping plan to review screening before WOAS
are approved.
Following the September 17, 2024, Council meeting staff received comments that indicated
screening from adjacent properties may also be desired. Staff believes the screening from
adjacent properties may largely be dependent on the setback from the OHWL that is determined.
The City could choose to required additional screening from adjacent properties.
The current language does not set a standard for a percentage screened or to completely screen
the WOAS from public waters and adjacent shorelands as these are generally impractical . Stating
that the WOAS must be screened implies that the WOAS should essentially not be visible. With
the included requirement for a landscape plan, staff will be able to evaluate the effectiveness of
approved screening.
7.37 The roof may be used as an open-air deck with safety rails, but must not be
enclosed with a roof or sidewalls or used as a storage area;
Following the September 17, 2024, Council meeting staff received comments that were largely
against the idea for allowing for roof-top decks. This standard could be change to prohibit the
use of WOAS in this way. If roof-top decks are prohibited, the City should also consider
prohibiting elevated decks as a WOAS, as this achieves a similar effect.
7 | P a g e
7.38 The structure or facility must not be designed or used for human habitation
and must not contain or be connected to water supply or sewage treatment
facilities;
Modifications made for clarity.
As an alternative for general development and recreational development
waterbodies, water-oriented accessory structures used solely for storage of
watercraft and boating-related equipment may occupy an area up to 400
square feet provided the maximum width of the structure is 20 feet as
measured parallel to the shoreline; and
Staff recommends eliminating the provision to allow for a larger structure. If a provision to allow
for larger structures or facilities was desired by the Council, staff would recommend maintaining
the 20 ft. width of the structure and propose additional screening requirements.
7.39 Water-oriented accessory structures may have the lowest floor placed lower
than the elevation specified in Section 6.43 if the structure is designed to
accommodate internal flooding, constructed of flood-resistant materials to the
elevation, electrical and mechanical equipment is placed above the elevation
and, if long duration flooding is anticipated, the structure is built to withstand
ice action and wind-driven waves and debris.
No changes from the model ordinance.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Following the September 17, 2024, Council meeting staff received numerous phone calls and
emails regarding the proposed language. Comments received have generally been against the
idea of larger structures (250 sq. ft.) allowed as WOAS, against the 10 ft. setback due to visual
obstructions and environmental impacts, and have advocated for consideration of limitations on
WOAS depending on lot size and width. Written comments that have been submitted are
attached to the staff report.
The Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District (CMSCWD) also provided a letter that
recommends additional amendments to the shoreland ordinance including:
• Clarify and improve protection standards related to grading, filling, and retaining wall
installation that may accommodate or precede the installation of WOAS/Fs.
• Clarify and improve vegetation standards to include type, density, and composition
specifications required for screening.
• Clarify how to address existing WOAS/F (legally nonconforming, permitted through
variances, and/or non-permitted) so they may conform to the new standard.
The letter from CMSCWD is attached.
8 | P a g e
ANALYSIS
Staff Analysis
Staff believes that the proposed changes will allow for greater use of properties that are impacted
by OHWL setbacks while maintaining and increasing the amount of vegetation and screening
along shorelines.
Lot Size and Width
Staff believes that the City should consider limitations to WOAS based on lot size and width.
While there is no guarantee to views over neighboring properties, the location of structures and
facilities on lots that are either small or narrow can have potential impacts on property values.
Staff have discussed the possibility of limiting WOAS to lots that are conforming, however, the
number of conforming lots on the three Recreational Development lakes within the City (Big
Marine, Bone, Keewahtin) are low and this is where staff sees the majority or requests and
issues.
The Shoreland Ordinance has existing language within it that allows for development of a
property if it meets 66% of a dimensional standard. This same metric could be a requirement for
WOAS on lots that are nonconforming. If the City chose to use this metr ic the following
dimensional standards would be the requirements to have a WOAS.
Recreational Development – No Sewer
Riparian 66% of Requirement
Lot Area (sf) Lot Width (ft) Lot Area (sf) Lot Width (ft)
Single 40,000 160 26,400 105.6
Duplex 80,000 225 52,800 148.5
Triplex NA NA NA NA
Quad NA NA NA NA
Natural Environment – No Sewer
Riparian 66% of Requirement
Lot Area (ac.) Lot Width (ft) Lot Area (ac.) Lot Width (ft)
Single Goose Lake 2.5 160 1.65 105.6
Other Lakes 5 300 3.3 198
Duplex Goose Lake 2.5 160 1.65 105.6
Other Lakes 5 300 3.3 198
Triplex NA NA NA NA
Quad NA NA NA NA
9 | P a g e
Recreational Development – Public Sewer
Riparian 66% of Requirement
Lot Area (sf) Lot Width (ft) Lot Area (sf) Lot Width (ft)
Single 40,000 160 26,400 105.6
Duplex 80,000 225 52,800 148.5
Triplex NA NA NA NA
Quad NA NA NA NA
Lots would be required to be approximately 26,400 sq. ft (~0.60 acres) and 105.6 ft. wide to be
able to have a WOAS on Big Marine, Bone, and Keewahtin Lake. All other lakes would need to
be 1.65 acres and 105.6 ft. wide. An analysis has not been done of riparian lots to know what
percentage of lots this would immediately disqualify; however, this analysis could be performed
if the City is interested in this type of standard.
The City could also choose to differentiate between water-oriented accessory structures and
accessory facilities, applying lot dimensional requirements to lots for structures, while leaving
facilities (patios) more widely available as a facility like patio will generally be less of an
obstruction than a structure.
Existing Nonconforming Structures
Many riparian lots in Scandia contain legal existing nonconforming principal structures that are
nonconforming due to an encroachment into the required setback for the OHWL. These lots
create additional complications when considering allowing a WOAS, as there already is an
encroachment into the setback. If the City chooses to allow WOAS, staff believes that there are
multiple solutions to the issue of existing nonconforming principal structures that range from less
to more permissive.
Most Restrictive
WOAS are prohibited on lots that contain an existing nonconforming
principal structure, that are nonconforming due to an encroachment into
the OHWL.
Permissive
WOAS are allowed on lots that contain an existing nonconforming
principal structure, that are nonconforming due to an encroachment into
the OHWL, that are not located within the shore impact zone. WOAS are
prohibited on lots that contain an existing nonconforming principal
structure, that are nonconforming due to an encroachment into the
OHWL, that are located in the shore impact zone.
Unrestricted
WOAS are allowed on lots that contain an existing nonconforming
principal structure, that are nonconforming due to an encroachment into
the OHWL. The setback for the WOAS will be either the required setback
established in this ordinance or the setback to the existing principal
structure, whichever is less.
10 | P a g e
Staff believes the permissive option will not be so restrictive as to limit the number of properties
able to have a WOAS, but does not create additional encroachments like the unrestricted option
does.
In addition to the issues around nonconforming principal structures, there is an impact on how
the adopted language will apply to existing structures and facilities that are effectively already
acting as WOAS. Unless allowed through a variance or continued through a legal
nonconformity, any existing structures and facilities within the setback from the OWHL are
illegally nonconforming uses and structures. Any existing structure or facility would be counted
towards the number of allowed WOAS and when a permit was sought for any work regarding
these structures or facilities, they would need to be brought into conformity with adopted
ordinances.
11 | P a g e
COMMISSION ACTION
After holding the public hearing, the Planning Commission can do one of the following:
1. Recommend approval, with or without changes
2. Recommend denial, with findings
3. Table the request for further review/study
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the amount of public input already received by the City and the number of outstanding
standards to be determined, staff recommends the Planning Commission:
Motion to table the attached ordinance to amend Ordinance 198, also known as Chapter
155 within the Unified Development Code, regarding water oriented accessory structures
and facilities, with direction to staff to revise the proposed ordinance in accordance with
the discussion and consensus of the Planning Commission as discussed at the November
12, 2024, meeting.
Attachments
A. Draft Ordinance 2024-XX Amending Ordinance 198
B. City Council “Discussion of Water-Oriented Accessory Structures and Facilities in the
Shoreland District” Packet, September 17, 2024 (link only)
C. Zoning Map – City of Scandia
D. Vavoulis Public Comment, dated September 30, 2024
E. Schilling Public Comment, dated October 8, 2024
F. Pratt Public Comment, dated October 8, 2024
G. Grundtner Public Comment, dated October 14, 2024
H. Kramer Public Comment, dated October 28, 2024
I. Burton Public Comment, dated November 1, 2024
J. Collier Public Comment, dated November 6, 2024
K. Myre Public Comment, dated November 7, 2024
L. CMSCWD Comment, dated November 7. 2024
Removed Text: Strikethrough
New Text: Red Underlined
Page 1 of 2
CITY OF SCANDIA
ORDNANCE NO.: 2024-XX
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 198, ALSO KNOWN AS CHAPTER 155
OF THE CITY CODE, 2.0 GENERAL PROVISIONS, 7.0 PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE FACILITIES
The City Council of the City of Scandia, Washington County, Minnesota hereby ordains:
Section 1 Amendment. The City of Scandia Ordinance 198, also known as Chapter 155 of the
City Code, 2.0 General Provisions and Definitions, shall be amended by adding the
underlined text and deleting the stricken text as follows:
2.6 Definitions. Unless specifically defined below, words or phrases used in this
ordinance shall be interpreted to give them the same meaning they have in common
usage and to give this ordinance its most reasonable application. For the purpose of
this ordinance, the words “must” and “shall” are mandatory and not permissive. All
distances, unless otherwise specified, are measured horizontally.
(49) Water-oriented accessory structure or facility. A small, above ground building
or other improvement, except stairways, fences, docks, and retaining walls,
which, because of the relationship of its use to surface water, reasonably
needs to be located closer to public waters than the normal structure setback.
Examples of such structures and facilities include, watercraft and watercraft
equipment storage structures, gazebos, screen houses, fish houses, pump
houses, patios, and detached decks. Boathouses and boat storage structures
given the meaning under Minnesota Statutes, Section 103G.245 are not a
water-oriented accessory structures.
Section 2 Amendment. The City of Scandia Ordinance 198, also known as Chapter 155 of the
City Code, 7.0 Performance Standards for Public and Private Facilities, shall be amended
by adding the underlined text and deleting the stricken text as follows:
7.3 Water-oriented Accessory Structures or Facilities. Each residential lot may have one water-
oriented accessory structure or facility if it complies with the following provisions:
7.31 The structure or facility must not exceed ten feet in height, exclusive of safety rails, and
cannot occupy an area greater than 250 square feet. The structure or facility may include
detached decks not exceeding eight feet above grade at any point or at-grade patios;
7.32 The structure or facility is not in the Bluff Impact Zone;
7.33 The setback of the structure or facility from the ordinary high water level must be at least
ten feet;
Removed Text: Strikethrough
New Text: Red Underlined
Page 2 of 2
7.34 The structure is not a boathouse or boat storage structure as defined under Minnesota
Statutes, Section 103G.245;
7.35 The structure or facility must be treated to reduce visibility as viewed from public waters
and adjacent shorelands by vegetation, topography, increased setbacks or color, assuming
summer, leaf-on conditions;
7.36 The structure or facility must not be designed or used for human habitation and must not
contain water supply or sewage treatment facilities;
7.37 As an alternative for general development and recreational development waterbodies,
water-oriented accessory structures used solely for storage of watercraft and boating-
related equipment may occupy an area up to 400 square feet provided the maximum
width of the structure is 20 feet as measured parallel to the shoreline; and
7.38 Water-oriented accessory structures may have the lowest floor placed lower than the
elevation specified in Section 6.43 if the structure is designed to accommodate internal
flooding, constructed of flood-resistant materials to the elevation, electrical and
mechanical equipment is placed above the elevation and, if long duration
.
Section 3 Planning Commission. The Planning Commission discussed the proposed ordinance
at their November meeting and held a public hearing on the amendment at a public hearing at
their November 12th, 2024, meeting. Public comment included _______. The Planning
Commission voted to recommend ________ of the ordinance.
Section 4 Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its adoption.
Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Scandia this ____ day of ____, 2024.
Christine Maefsky, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kyle Morell, City Administrator
City of Scandia September 30, 2024
Re: Water-Oriented Accessory Structures and Facilities in the Shoreland District
I own a property at 12100 196th Street. It is a 50’ wide lot, as are my neighbor’s, stretching to
my left and right for several parcels. The view towards the lake is my front yard, as it is with all
lake property owners. Allowing structures up to 250 SF of assorted design and detail, (roof top
decks!) to populate the front yards around the lake is a bad idea.
• The Shoreland Management Ordinance lists the prevention of “uncontrolled use of
shorelands” within its Intent and Purpose and sets minimum wide lots at 160’ and 100’
building setback from the OHWL and no accessory structures allowed in the lakeside
front yard. “Unique circumstances” allows variances from these standards after a public
hearing and evidence of some sort of hardship. Property owners depend on these
development protections.
• The vast majority of properties around Big Marine were either platted or built before
this ordinance was adopted and do not comply in width and/or setback. Neighbors are
much closer together than the “Model” envisioned, sharing views and space . This
Increases property owners’ reliance on the above development protections.
• A water oriented accessory structure, as currently contemplated as an allowable use,
could appear with no notice 10’ off property lines, blocking neighbors’ views and
possibly becoming a late night screened-in light and loud intrusion into lake life
enjoyment, blowing a 250 SF hole in those development protections.
• Screening (100%?) of these one car garage size structures from the lake view (3 sides?)
would only add to the mass and further obstruct the valued openness to the lake.
Note: If the use is a gazebo or roof top deck, the builder will not want their lakeside view
screened 100%.
The model ordinance language is a “model” drafted as a place to start…a perfect world of 2.5
acre lots, 160 ‘ wide…minimum! Bumping into the reality of existing lake conditions requires
extreme caution while interpreting every clause. Lakeside use and convenience may suggest
some accommodation but ten-foot-high structures of any size are just not acceptable and
should be tabled.
If lakeside storage needs to be formally addressed, I suggest a large trunk, up to 25 SF, not to
exceed 3’ high. It could be easily screened and could safely enclose most tools and toys. A
lakeside patio not to exceed 75 SF could be added, if necessary. Both of these would need to
meet all other applicable setback, land coverage and building restrictions.
If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me. Thank you
Anthony Vavoulis
12100 196th Street
Scandia, MN 55047
651 336-9019
1
TJ Hofer
From:TJ Hofer
Sent:Friday, November 1, 2024 10:18 AM
To:TJ Hofer
Subject:FW: Lakeside structures amendment
From:>
Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2024 10:04 AM
To: Kyle Morell <k.morell@ci.scandia.mn.us>; mail <mail@ci.scandia.mn.us>
Subject: Lakeside structures amendment
We are NOT in favor of an ordinance amendment that would allow lakeside structures up to 250 SF setback 10'
from the Ordinary High Water Level. We are lakeshore owners, and we feel that such structures would have a
negative visual impact, leading to a “junky” rather than a natural shoreline appearance. The watershed people have
been working hard to make sure our shoreline remains natural, and we support their efforts. The lakeside areas
should remain natural too.
Please reconsider approving this amendment!
Thank you.
Jerry and Nancy Schilling
12700 - 182nd St N
Scandia
1
TJ Hofer
From:TJ Hofer
Sent:Friday, November 1, 2024 10:18 AM
To:TJ Hofer
Subject:FW: Proposed Amendment on Water-Oriented Structures and Facilities in the Shoreland
District
From: Gregory Pratt <>
Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2024 11:30 AM
To: Kyle Morell <k.morell@ci.scandia.mn.us>
Cc: c.maefsky <c.maefsky@ci.scandia.mn.us>; s.kronmiller <s.kronmiller@ci.scandia.mn.us>;
%20m.lubke@ci.scandia.mn.us; %20j.cusick@ci.scandia.mn.us; Heather Benson <h.benson@ci.scandia.mn.us>
Subject: Proposed Amendment on Water-Oriented Structures and Facilities in the Shoreland District
City of Scandia
City Administrator, Mayor and City Council Members
October 8, 2024
Dear All,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed ordinance amendment that would allow large
structures close to the shore of Big Marine Lake. We do not need further destruction of the aquatic ecology
of Big Marine. We built a new cabin in 1982 to replace the 1955 war surplus temporary structure. We
located it to be minimally visible from the lake. Allowing more and larger structures at the lakeshore
destroys the view scape and changes the ecological character of the lake. We have plenty of lakes in the
metro area that are surrounded by development at the shoreline. We can go the way of these others, or
we can preserve some of the natural beauty of Big Marine. I urge you to reject the proposed amendment.
My family has owned land on a bay on the northeast part of Big Marine Lake since 1943. Many of my
relatives also had places on the bay. My siblings and I jointly own our cabin and are there often. I spent
summers of my youth at there. The lake was considered very clean with visibility to depths of 10-12
feet. The shoreline was mostly undeveloped, and the existing structures were mainly small summer
cottages. We had great fun with turtles, frogs, snakes, and other once abundant animals as summer pets,
but alas are much rarer now. The lakeshore was mainly native aquatic and emergent vegetation. We leave
most of our shoreline in native vegetation, leaving only room to put in a small dock.
Over my lifetime I have seen the character of the lake change. Small cottages are increasingly replaced
by large year-around homes with lawns to the lakeshore (often fertilized) and beaches with imported
sand. Diversity of plants and animals has decreased dramatically. Fishing is also not as good as in the
past. I remember many times catching my limit of panfish to share with my great-grandmother,
grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins who also summered there. Watching the mayfly hatch was an
event with enormous swarms and hundreds of fish jumping at once to catch them. When a “speedboat”
was on the lake, we ran to the shore to watch an uncommon site. Now the lakeshore is rife with large
2
docks accommodating multiple large powerboats. Please help us preserve some of the character of our
lake that is unique in the metro area.
Sincerely,
Gregory C Pratt, Ph.D.
Adjunct Assistant Professor
Environmental Health Sciences
School of Public Health
University of Minnesota
1
TJ Hofer
From:Kyle Morell <k.morell@ci.scandia.mn.us>
Sent:Monday, October 14, 2024 9:01 AM
To:TJ Hofer
Subject:FW: lakeshore set backs
Kyle H. Morell
City Administrator
City of Scandia
14727 209th Street North
Scandia, MN 55073
Phone: 651.433.2274 Fax: 651-433-5112
Cell: 651.245.2654
Web: www.cityofscandia.com
Email: k.morell@ci.scandia.mn.us
From: Daniel Grundtner < >
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2024 8:54 AM
To: Kyle Morell <k.morell@ci.scandia.mn.us>
Subject: lakeshore set backs
Good morning Mr Morell,
I am reading about the proposal to allow structures next to lakes. This seems like a bad idea, especially on narrow lots
on the lake.
I am urging caution on this proposal, and even abandoning the idea. It does not sound like proper use of lakeshore.
Thanks, Daniel Grundtner
19730 Maxwill Ave N
1
TJ Hofer
From:TJ Hofer
Sent:Friday, November 1, 2024 10:16 AM
To:TJ Hofer
Subject:FW: do not the support the proposal for 250 square foot storage shed within 10 feet of
the lake
From: Susan Kramer >
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2024 11:54 AM
To: Kyle Morell <k.morell@ci.scandia.mn.us>
Cc: Leon Kramer <leon812goodrich@gmail.com>
Subject: do not the support the proposal for 250 square foot storage shed within 10 feet of the lake
To City Commissioner, Mayor of Scandia, Scandia Planning Commissioners and Big Marine Lake
Association,
My husband Leon Kramer and I, Susan Kramer are strongly opposed to the proposal for 250 square foot
storage shed within 10 feet of the lake to be allowed without the variance process. Our lake shore is on
the East Bay on 188th St. North on Big Marine. We have 30 feet of lake shore as do the two neighbors to
the West. Our shoreline is angled and if any of our neighbors to the West (a total of 6 cabins/homes) built
a size structure in the proposal it would greatly impact our lakeview; in some possible scenarios it could
obliterate most of our lake view. Please do not do this. Taking away neighbor input is disastrous. I’m sure
the current variance process is a demanding process but please do not permit this proposal. Approving it
I fear will impact property value, community/neighbor relations and likely will push residents to remove
flora to improve their lakeview’s if these structures are permitted. Angled shore line creates a much more
difficult approach to building/planting without affecting your neighbors lake view. Plus the lake shoreline
height changes so much I question how this could also impact the quality of the lake water if
contaminated by the sheds or their contents.
Please let me know if I can clarify our concern better or answer any questions. This is the most
frightening proposal I have seen in the 22 years of owning our property. Thank you!
Susan and Leon Kramer
13440 188th St. N
Big Marine Lake
Sent from my iPhone
1
TJ Hofer
From:TJ Hofer
Sent:Friday, November 1, 2024 11:24 AM
To:TJ Hofer
Subject:FW: Water - Oriented Structures
From: Rich Burton <>
Sent: Friday, November 1, 2024 10:49 AM
To: Kyle Morell <k.morell@ci.scandia.mn.us>; b.eklund <b.eklund@ci.scandia.mn.us>
Subject: Water - Oriented Structures
To: City Administrator, Mayor of Scandia, Scandia Planning Commissioners
Re: Water-Oriented Accessory Structures and Facilities in the Shoreland District
Allowing structures to be built on the front yards (the space between a house or cabin and the lake) is basically a bad
idea. In general, such structures would on many lakeshore properties, but not all, block the view of the lake from
neighboring properties. A key element of having lakeshore property is the view of the lake. Why jeopardize that
element and, at the same time, create situations where neighbors are at odds with neighbors because of the view
obstruction created by a structure?
Rich Burton
12624 - 182nd St. N.
Marine, MN 55047
(west end of east bay, south shore of Big Marine Lake)
From:Steve Collier
To:b.eklund
Subject:Shore and Ordinance 198
Date:Wednesday, November 6, 2024 3:32:17 PM
Ms. Ecklund,
As lake association members and shore property owners, we found it disturbing that the city
had done some significant work towards ammending shoreline structure ordinances with very
few of the community knowing.
While it must be difficult and time consuming to administer the many variance requests that
come in regarding lake structures, we feel thankful and pay taxes for just that government
purpose. If you don't edjudicate these issues who will.
Will neighbors fighting with each other via lawyers have to do all the work? If so, lower our
taxes by the amount of time you will save not dealing with this issue so we can allocate funds
for attorneys fees.
As I'm sure you notice, people will stretch the limits of what they can do, this won't go away,
you just move the line to a more obtrusive place.
We fully expect our lake view to be compromised if this change gets implemented. It may
force us to erect a similar structure to restore our view from the upper deck/roof of the
structure, as permitted in the proposed ordinance. We expect issues or litigation from our
opposite neighbor when we have to put up that structure; their view will be compromised and
they have no room for their own structure. This will start a swift degradation in the lake
community, a community that provides a significant percentage of the city's revenue stream.
Please do not approve this change.
Steve and Shaun Collier
1
TJ Hofer
From:TJ Hofer
Sent:Thursday, November 7, 2024 10:54 AM
To:TJ Hofer
Subject:FW: Water Oriented structures
From: Anne Myre <
Sent: Thursday, November 7, 2024 9:38 AM
To: mail <mail@ci.scandia.mn.us>; Kyle Morell <k.morell@ci.scandia.mn.us>
Subject: Water Oriented structures
I am opposed to the proposed ordinance amendment for the building of "Water
Oriented Structures".
What is the main reason to amend this ordinance?
The neighbors on adjoining properties should be notified and have a say on what is
being built next to their property.
This seems like one more thing to take away from the beauty of our lake.
Anne Myre
Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District
11660 Myeron Rd North • Stillwater, MN 55082 • Tel 651-275-7451
Tori Dupre, President ● Kristin Tuenge, Treasurer ● Paul Richert, Secretary
Managers: Mike White, Pat Gleason, Ann Warner, & Fred Rozumalski
1
To: City of Scandia Planning Commission
From: CMSCWD Board of Managers
Date: November 7, 2024
Subject: Proposed Shoreland Ordinance Updates for Water Oriented Accessory Structures/Features
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft City of Scandia Shoreland Ordinance revision.
The Carnelian Marine St. Croix Watershed District’s (CMSCWD) understanding is that the City is
currently in a discovery process to obtain more input and insights from the public and partners as it
considers pursuing a formal process to amend Shoreland Ordinances related to Water Oriented Accessory
Structures and Features (WOAS/F).
Recommendation
Avoid further loss of the shoreline habitat and protect the water quality of Scandia’s lakes. The
CMSCWD highly recommends ordinance revisions that address the following items prior to considering
adoption of a WOAS/F ordinance update:
• Clarify and improve protection standards related to grading, filling, and retaining wall installation
that may accommodate or precede the installation of WOAS/Fs.
• Clarify and improve vegetation standards to include type, density, and composition specifications
required for screening.
• Clarify how to address existing WOAS/F (legally nonconforming, permitted through variances,
and/or non-permitted) so they may conform to the new standard.
Rational
In 2022 and 2023 CMSCWD surveyed lakeshore vegetation from a boat on five of Scandia’s lakes.
Every parcel on Big Marine, Hay, Sand, Fish and Goose was evaluated. The results demonstrated that the
majority of lots on five of the six lakes do not have sufficient vegetation within the Shore Impact Zone
that would meet current requirements to screen 50 percent of structures and features.
*As defined in Scandia City Code 8.23
Scandia Lakes Developed Lots Not Meeting City
Screening Requirements* Total Number of Developed Parcels
Big Marine 73% 200
Hay 72% 13
Sand 65% 26
Fish 50% 6
Goose 23% 27
2
The lakeshore survey also included the structures and features present on properties between the home
and lake. Some of these features are allowable by Scandia ordinances (i.e. steps) while others are
WOAS/F (i.e. patios). These results suggest many features already exist within structure setbacks on
most Scandia lakes.
The Minnesota DNR Model Ordinance language assumes vegetation is unaltered within the shore impact
zone and WOAS/F are completely screened from the lake by a minimum of 10 feet of native trees, shrubs,
and perennial vegetation. It is clear many of Scandia’s lakeshore parcels have been highly altered within
the shore impact zones and will not provide the screening, habitat, or water quality protection intended by
the model ordinance.
Impacts
As a result of the loss of native vegetation and the extent of structure development within the shoreland
zone, DNR biologists measured less diversity in wildlife, less aquatic invertebrates, and fewer, smaller
fish, in Big Marine Lake despite the lake’s good water quality. This has led to the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency listing Big Marine as nearly impaired for biotic health.
In response, the CMSCWD has increased engagement and technical assistance for shoreline owners, and
modified the cost share program to incentivize restoration of native shorelines. However, under certain
circumstances, current City of Scandia ordinances continue to allow vegetation clearing, grading and
filling, and retaining walls within the shore impact zone with no habitat or water quality improvement.
Conclusion
To improve the protection of Scandia’s lakes, their habitat, and water quality, the CMSCWD recommends
that the City modify ordinances to clarify and improve standards that consider the highly altered shore
impact zones on most parcels prior to considering modification to the WOAS/F requirements.
Scandia Lakes Parcels with WOAS/Fs Between the
House and the Lake Total Number of Developed Parcels
Big Marine 75% 200
Hay 8% 13
Sand 60% 26
Fish 0% 6
Goose 49% 27