Loading...
06. RR-N Dimensional Standards Memo 1 | P a g e Date of Meeting: May 6, 2026 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: T.J. Hofer, Consultant City Planner Re: Discussion on Rural Residential Neighborhood Dimensional Standards Staff have noticed a large number of variance requests within the city originate from lots that are zoned Rural Residential Neighborhood (RR-N). The RR-N zoning district is designed to essentially function as a “lakeside” or riparian lot zoning district and includes much of the historical development around lakes in the city, both Recreational Development and Natural Environment lakes. As such, these properties are subject to ordinary high-water level (OHWL) setbacks, which require either 100 or 200 ft. of lakeside property to be vacant of structures and impervious surfaces. While OHWL setbacks cannot be changed, as they are established by state statute, the city can amend other restrictions related to structure placement, notably the front (street-side) setback. Additionally, a number of dimensional standards in the RR-N zoning district are inconsistent with the Shoreland Management Regulations (Shoreland Ordinance). Table 153.200.030-9. Rural Residential Neighborhood (RR-N) Dimensional Standards and Setbacks Principal and Accessory Structure Setbacks (Minimum) F Front • Minor Arterial 150 Feet from centerline, or 75 Feet from ROW, whichever is greater less • Major or Minor Collector 100 Feet from centerline, or 50 Feet from ROW, whichever is greater less • Any other Public Street 40 Feet G Side 10 Feet H Rear Non-Riparian 50 Feet D Riparian See OHWL Setback in Table 9 Accessory Structure Standards1 Location Outside all setbacks, if in front of principal structure see Character Standards Size 1,000 SF Residential Accessory Structure Number 1 Residential Accessory Structure Coverage and Height Standards (Maximum) Impervious Surface Coverage 25% I Principal Structure Height 35 Feet J Accessory Structure Height 35 Feet, but not taller than Principal Structure Other Standards Principal & Accessory Uses See Section 153.300.020-2 Table of Uses 2 | P a g e Character & Development See Section 153.400 1Accessory Structure Standards identified based on Minimum Lot Size. Accessory Structure Standards can be found in Subd. 6 of this Section. The current standards require a varying front setback for RR-N lots based on road type. The required setbacks for arterial and collector roads generally have not been an observed issue, as lots that abut these types of roads are typically larger. The city has issued a number of variances for front (street-side) setback encroachments for lots that are zoned RR-N and is scheduled to consider another request later this month. The 40-ft. front setback is standard throughout the city; however, the characteristics of lots typically zoned RR-N are atypical when compared to the larger lots that generally make up the city. Staff believe it may be beneficial to reduce the front setback in the RR-N zoning district, as it may lead to fewer variance requests. Below, staff have included images of the various RR-N clusters throughout the city. A large number of parcels within the zoning district include structures that encroach into the front setback. Many lots without structures encroaching into the front setback are due to the structure encroaching into the OHWL setback. Staff have not completed a detailed analysis to determine the number of properties that currently have structures located within the front setback, as this would require several hours of analysis; therefore, the images are included for reference only. The Bliss Neighborhood is the clearest example of setback issues. Many lots are not deep enough to allow for a structure outside of the OHWL setback, even with front setback encroachments. Several structures located on Layton Ave N have effectively been constructed with a zero-foot front setback. Admittedly, this type of issue will not be resolved with an amendment to the front setback, but they do illustrate the point. The goal of the city, as stated in 153.500.110, is to eliminate nonconformities. Addressing some of the common nonconformities within the Bliss Neighborhood would require prohibiting building on some parcels by not issuing variances, but this could be seen as removing any reasonable use from the property. Immediate concerns related to a reduction of front setbacks are typically related to parking. Single-family dwellings in Scandia are required to have two parking stalls on the property and this requirement can be met with either garage or off-street parking (driveways). A reduction of the front setback would reduce the area available for a driveway, but it may allow for a garage where a variance previously was required. Staff believe that parking can still easily be accommodated with a reduced setback. The intent of a reduced front setback is to reduce encumbrances on a property and potentially reduce the need for property owners to seek variances. Ultimately, staff feel that a reduction would be beneficial; however, if the City Council wishes to review structures that may be located within this area, has concerns related to parking, or has other concerns, an amendment may be unnecessary. 3 | P a g e Eastern Bank of the North Portion of Big Marine Lake Tii Gavo on Big Marine Lake Bliss Neighborhood on Big Marine Lake Eastern Bank of Big Marine Lake Southern Bank of Big Marine Lake 4 | P a g e Bone Lake 5 | P a g e Hay Lake and Sand Lake Lake Keewahtin 6 | P a g e Table 153.200.030-8. Rural Residential Neighborhood (RR-N) Dimensional Standards – Density and Lot Size Lot Dimensions (only for lots created after the effective date of this UDC) Lot Size Lots in SM-O for Recreational Development Lake Lots in SM-O for Natural Environment Lake Existing Lot of Record (minimum) 0.92 Acres 1.84 Acres A New Lot (minimum) 2.5 Acres 2.5 Acres Density (maximum, apply to any new division of property) 4 DU/ 40 Acres 4 DU/ 40 Acres B Buildable Area (minimum, New Lot) 1.0 Acres 1.0 Acres C Lot Width (minimum if Riparian, New Lot) 150 Feet 200 Feet D Structure Setback from OHWL (minimum, Riparian) 100 Feet 150 Feet E Lot Frontage by Lot Size (minimum) • Less than 2.0 Acres 100 Feet • 2.0 – 3.0 Acres 160 Feet • 3.0 – 4.0 Acres 240 Feet • 4.0 Acres or Greater 300 Feet • If cul-de-sac lot 60 Feet In reviewing the above setback amendment, staff noted the requirement for new lots to be a minimum of 2.5 acres in the RR-N district. The Shoreland Ordinance was amended in 2023 to be consistent with the lot standards in the DNR Model Shoreland Ordinance, which reduced the lot sizes for riparian lots. Staff recommend making the two ordinances consistent. • In the Shoreland Ordinance, riparian lots on Recreational Development lakes have a minimum lot size of 40,000 sq. ft. for single-family dwellings and 80,000 sq. ft. for duplexes. The 40,000 sq. ft. minimum is consistent with the 0.92-acre minimum in the RR-N district. • The 0.92 acres/40,000 sq. ft. conflicts with the minimum buildable area of 1 acre for new lots. • The Shoreland Ordinance establishes a minimum lot area of 2.5 acres for nonriparian lots within the shoreland overlay of Recreational Development lakes. • The Shoreland Ordinance requires a minimum lot area of 5 acres for Natural Environment lakes, aside from Goose Lake, which requires 2.5 acres. • Lot width is regulated by the Shoreland Ordinance and requires higher standards (160 ft.– 300 ft.) than the RR-N district. • The RR-N district states an OHWL setback of 150 ft. for Natural Environment lakes, where the Shoreland Ordinance requires 200 ft. The simplest solution may be to replace standards in the RR-N district with a reference to the Shoreland Ordinance. At a minimum, the two sets of standards should be consistent. DISCUSSION Staff have prepared the following questions and discussion points for the City Council to consider: 7 | P a g e • Does the Council believe that a reduction in the front setback in the RR-N district is desirable? o If yes, what setback would be proposed? 20 ft.? 15 ft.? o If no, what concerns do the Council have related to a reduced setback? Would the Council like to schedule a public hearing to gather public input and Planning Commission comments on the reduced setback? • Should the RR-N dimensional standards be amended to reflect the Shoreland Ordinance? o If yes any concerns regarding: ▪ Lot area ▪ Lot width ▪ Buildable area COUNCIL ACTION The City Council should discuss the proposed text amendments. As part of this preliminary discussion, the Council need not establish findings related to the proposed amendments. If the City Council believes the proposed text amendments have merit, it should recommend the amendments to the Planning Commission to be heard at a public hearing, and for the Commission to consider the request and establish findings of fact. As the rezoning would not impact specific properties, no letters would be sent to residents; however, a notice would be published per state statute. Staff can also include other reviewing entities, such as the watershed districts or DNR, but this is not required. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommend the City Council discuss the proposed amendments. If the Council finds merit in the proposed amendments, staff recommend initiating the text amendment process.