HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-18-2026 Planning Commission - Agenda PacketMinutes
Planning Commission Regular Meeting
Monday, April 20, 2026, 6:00 PM
City Council Chambers 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356
Page 1 of 3
Vice Chair Prchal called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
1. ROLL CALL
Orono Planning Commission members present: Vice Chair Kelly Prchal, Commissioners Thomas
Brandabur, Andrew Jarnot, Sam Tift, Shane Weltzin, and Alternate Commissioner Stacey Royal. Chair
Jon Ressler and Commissioner Chris Bollis were absent.
Staff present: Community Development Director Laura Oakden, City Planner Melanie Curtis, and City
Planner Matthew Karney.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Brandabur moved, Jarnot seconded, to approve the Agenda with the addition of the Oath of Office
for a new Alternate Commissioner. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
OATH OF OFFICE
Community Development Director Oakden administered the Oath of Office to new Alternate Planning
Commissioner Stacey Royal.
4. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 16,
2026
Brandabur or Weltzen moved, Tift seconded, to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning
Commission meeting of March 16, 2026. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
5.1. LA26-000005, Revision LLC o/b/o Brent Teele, 356 Westlake Street, Average Lakeshore
Setback Variance
The Planning Commission is requested to review the Staff report, receive a presentation, and discuss and
approve the request to expand a roofed porch on the home and enclose an existing porch as living space.
Staff found the lot creates practical difficulties and limits expansion capabilities.
The Planning Commission discussed the item and asked questions of staff and the applicant, Brent Teele,
356 Westlake Street, and Sven Gustafsom, representative from Revision LLC.
Vice Chair Prchal opened the public hearing at 6:09 p.m.
There were no Public Comments.
Vice Chair Prchal closed the public hearing at 6:09 p.m.
Minutes
Planning Commission Regular Meeting
Monday, April 20, 2026, 6:00 PM
City Council Chambers 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356
Page 2 of 3
Commissioners noted that the plan seems well thought-out and does not impinge on neighboring
properties.
Brandabur moved, Jarnot seconded, to approve LA26-000005, 356 Westlake St., Average
Lakeshore Setback Variance as applied. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
5.2. LA26-000007, Allied Construction o/b/o Barbara Burwell, 1100 Millston Road, Variances
The Planning Commission is requested to review the Staff report, receive a presentation, and discuss and
approve the request for a variance for an accessory structure to replace several older and oversized
accessory buildings on the property with one larger building that would serve as a maintenance building.
It was noted that the limitations on the number of oversize buildings do not take into account the size of
the parcel, which is more than 12 acres. The proposal would exceed the maximum square footage for
accessory buildings. The applicant also owns another 25 acres on either side. Staff said the request is not
out of character for the zoning and the size of the property.
The Planning Commission discussed the item and asked questions of staff and the applicant, Barbara
Burwell, 1100 Millston Road, and Rob Wilson of Allied Construction.
Vice Chair Prchal opened the public hearing at 6:31 p.m.
There were no Public Comments.
Vice Chair Prchal closed the public hearing at 6:31 p.m.
Commissioners asked about any plans to subdivide the property and pointed out that there are no nearby
neighbors, and replacing three dilapidated buildings with one building would be beneficial. The plan also
moved accessory buildings away from the lake. The only concern would be precedent. Commissioners
suggested setting a requirement that the property not be further subdivided in the future. It was explained
that any variance would be for the property as it exists. Commissioners also recommended a possible
future zoning code revision to tie the allowed square footage of accessory buildings to property acreage.
Weltzin moved, Tift seconded, to approve LA26-000007, 1100 Millston Road, Variances as applied.
VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
5.3. LA26-000013, Woodcraft Design Build o/b/o Jesse & Rebecca Lucking, 900 Dakota Avenue,
Variances
The Planning Commission is requested to review the Staff report, receive a presentation, and discuss and
approve the request for a variance for a side and rear setback variance for the construction of a garage.
The property is non-conforming in lot width, which allows for a side setback exception. The side
neighboring property is large and has a wetland, and the other neighbor has submitted a letter of support.
An existing shed would be moved to a conforming location.
The Planning Commission discussed the item and asked questions of staff and the applicant, Jesse
Lucking, 900 Dakota Ave.
Minutes
Planning Commission Regular Meeting
Monday, April 20, 2026, 6:00 PM
City Council Chambers 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356
Page 3 of 3
Vice Chair Prchal opened the public hearing at 6:44 p.m.
There were no Public Comments.
Vice Chair Prchal closed the public hearing at 6:44 p.m.
Commissioners said the request seemed reasonable based on the site conditions and avoided removing
mature trees and impacting sewer lines. They also cited the support of the neighboring property.
Jarnot moved, Weltzin seconded, to approve LA26-000013, 900 Dakota Avenue, Variances as
applied. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
6. OTHER ITEMS
Community Development Director Oakden discussed plans for scheduling a work session for legal
review, a proposed text amendment for park fees, and the beginning of the Comprehensive Plan Process.
She updated the Commissioners on City Council action on the proposed North Arm boat landing
improvement project.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Jarnot moved, Royal seconded, to adjourn the Planning Commission Meeting at 6:51 p.m. to May
18, 2026. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
ATTEST:
_________________________________________
Jon Ressler, Chair
Date Application Received: 04/22/2026
Date Application Deemed Complete: 04/27/2026
60-Day Review Period Expires: 06/26/2026
To: Chair Ressler and Planning Commission Members
Adam Edwards, City Administrator
From: Matthew Karney, Planner
Date: 18 May 2026
Subject: LA26-000017, Travis Van Liere Studio, 1520 Bohns Point Road
Variance (After-the-Fact) – Public Hearing
Background
In August 2024, the applicant submitted for an administrative zoning permit (Z24-000032) for
landscaping improvements on the lakeward side of the residence, including patio space and retaining
walls under 4 feet in height. The initial proposal (Exhibit G; dated August 1, 2024) met zoning
requirements, zoning approval was granted, and work commenced on the site. In April 2025, during
construction, the applicant submitted an amended plan (Exhibit F; dated April 18, 2025) which
indicated 65 square-feet of patio encroaching 3.7 feet into the accessory structure side setback of 10-
feet. The change to the plans expanded the paved patio into the stepper walkway closer to the home
where the previous patio existed. Staff requested additional information on the proposed plan on
May 9, 2025, and discussion of the zoning requirements and potential solutions to the design were
not discussed with the applicant/contractor until February of 2026. The patio extension shown in the
April 2025 plan was completed on the site. No amendments to the plan or site have been proposed
since the April 2025 plan was submitted.
Practical Difficulties Analysis
Applicant Submittal Information:
The applicant has submitted a narrative (Exhibit E) and practical difficulty responses (Exhibit D)
detailing the reasoning behind the changes to the plan. A setback exhibit (Exhibit I) has been
submitted comparing the existing conditions prior to the project, the initially approved August 2024
plan, and the as-built April 2025 plan. The applicant has shared the project details with the affected
neighbor to the north and has submitted the correspondence indicating they support the proposal,
attached as Exhibit J.
The applicant notes that during construction, the conforming, original plan became unfeasible due to
site constraints including grade changes that necessitated different retaining walls. Modifying the
patio to meet the setback would create a less functional space, negatively impact drainage patterns
and require significant grading to address the conditions of the site.
Note: Proposed hardcover calculations are provided on the August 2024 and April 2025 plans, in
comparison to the preexisting hardcover calculated when the property was surveyed in 2023.
Planning Staff Practical Difficulty Analysis:
The proposed patio that encroaches 3.7 feet into the side setback with 65 new square feet of
hardcover. Staff acknowledges the site issues at play, namely the grading and drainage around the
slope, and the first-floor egress directly to the patio, as articulated by the applicant. Total site
Application Summary:The applicant requests an after-the-fact variance for a patio within the
side yard setback.
Staff Recommendation:Planning Department Staff recommends denial of the variance.
LA26-000017
18 May 2026
Page 2 of 5
hardcover is decreasing and ample screening has been installed to limit the visual impacts of the
encroachment. A support letter has been submitted from the affected neighbor. Staff finds the
increase in size of the patio (into the setback) does not appear to be warranted as a smaller patio was
approved that met the setback. The August 2024 plan proposed a 10-foot-wide patio in the space,
and the April 2025 plan is for 13 feet in width; the site allows for a patio in a conforming location.
LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Section 6.12.1450 – Setbacks: Accessory Structures
Section 6.12.9210 – Hardcover Calculations:
Stormwater
Overlay
District Tier
Total Area in
Zone
Allowed
Hardcover
Pre-Existing
Hardcover
(2024)
Proposed/As-Built
Hardcover
(2026)
Tier 1 0.85 acres
(36,974 s.f.)
9,243 s.f.
(25 %)
11,367 s.f.
(30.74%)
10,988 s.f.
(29.72%)
Applicable Regulations:
Accessory Structure Side Setback Variance (Section 6.12.1450)
Accessory structures, such as patios, must meet a 10-foot side setback within the LR-1B zoning district.
A small portion of the previously existing patio (prior to the project) encroached into the side setback,
therefore, this small area of patio is considered a legal nonconforming condition. The August 2024
plan showed the hardcover portion of the patio extending up to the 10-foot side setback line, with
open grass/turf extending beyond the setback line along the proposed retaining wall, which
conformed to zoning requirements. The April 2025 plan shows the paved portion of the patio
encroaching 3.7 feet into the side setback, which is not permitted. Exhibit I, submitted by the
applicant, overlays the different patio spaces.
Governing Regulation: Variance (Section 6.12.530)
In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the
proposed variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated
traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of
property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for
variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement
would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under
consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be
in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Economic considerations alone do not
constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties also include, but are not limited to, inadequate
access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered
construction as defined in Minn. Stat. §216C.06, subd. 14, when in harmony with this chapter. The
board or the council may not permit, as a variance, any use that is not permitted under this chapter
LR-1B District Required Pre-Existing (2024)Proposed/As-Built (2026)
Interior Side (North)10’~7.7’6.3’ Patio
Interior Side (South)10’ ~75’~77’ Patio
Rear/Street (West) 10’ ~200’ ~209’ Patio
Lakeshore (East) 75’ ~143’ 133’ Patio
Average Lakeshore This setback is not applicable to improvements less than 42” above
existing grade.
LA26-000017
18 May 2026
Page 3 of 5
for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or council may permit,
as a variance, the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.
According to MN §462.357 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when:
1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance:
The intent and purpose of the ordinance is to create separation and orderly spacing of
improvements from property to property. The applicant’s plan does not create physical separation
between the patio and the adjacent property, but implements screening as an offset to ensure the
use of this space will not create an adverse impact on the adjacent property. This criterion is met.
2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan:
The proposal of exterior patio space, accessory to a residential use within LR-1B zoning district, is
consistent with the comprehensive plan. This criterion is met.
3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties.
a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not
permitted by the official controls:
The proposal for patio space in an area of the property that has been historically used for
this purpose is reasonable and appropriate. This criterion is met.
b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner:
All the patio designs; the existing condition prior to the project, the August 2024 design,
and the April 2025 design, are all designed around a challenging grade that the existing
house was built into. In order to protect the lower-level walkout from erosion and
drainage, utilizing most of the once existing, nonconforming patio space is logical. This
criterion is met.
c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality:
Most, if not all, properties along Bohns Point Road have lake-facing patio spaces. Allowing
for a patio design and location that meets the needs of the property is sensible. Given this
part of the property has accommodated patio space in the past and the encroachment
amounts to less than 100 square feet, the character of the area will not be adversely
impacted. This criterion is met.
Additionally, City Code 6.12.530 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be
granted as follows:
4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties:
Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination.
5. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight
for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as
defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 17, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter
78:
This condition is not applicable.
LA26-000017
18 May 2026
Page 4 of 5
6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under
Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is
located:
This condition is not applicable
7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as
a two-family dwelling:
This condition is not applicable.
8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property:
The April 2025 patio location is wedged in between a notable grade change and the side property
line, where the least amount of land disturbance would occur. Grading in this area to support a
patio would either impact the lower-level walkout, or involve significant clearing of earth to make
the land suitable for a conforming patio. This criterion is met.
9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the
land is located:
The patio space on the property has historically been located near the northern (side) property
line, at a similar grade to the first floor of the house. There is a lower-level walkout south of the
patio space, with a several-foot grade change in between. The only lake-facing egress from the
first floor of the house exits to this patio space. This criterion is met.
10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant:
The scope of the work of the project has changed since the initial zoning permit submittal in August
2024, but the use of the affected area of the property has historically been space for a patio. The
April 2025 plan moves the patio area closer to the home where a patio area was previously
located, yet encroaches 3.7 feet into the side yard setback due to the proposed 13-foot width. The
April 2025 plan provides 10 more feet of separation between the patio and the lake than the
August 2024 plan and will be screened from the neighbor by vegetation. However, the
encroachment into the side setback may not be appropriate, given that a 10-foot-wide patio could
be sited in this area and meet setback requirements. The owner is not prevented from having a
patio in this space, and constructing a wider patio is not necessary for the preservation of the
owners’ property rights. This criterion is not met.
11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or
morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter:
The granting of a variance will not impact the health, safety or welfare of residents and owners in
the area. The approved August 2024 plan had a similar encroachment, but with grass or a pervious
surface opposed to concrete. Ample screening has been provided to alleviate the potential impacts
of the encroachment. This criterion has been met.
12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is
necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty:
There are special conditions affecting the property in which the location of the patio near the
northern (side) property line is reasonable. The approved August 2024 plan indicated a conforming
patio could be located in the area along the northern property line, albeit closer to the lake than
LA26-000017
18 May 2026
Page 5 of 5
the present April 2025 plan. The enlarged patio is a convenience and are not necessary for the
reasonable use of the property. A conforming patio can be installed and utilized on the site. This
criterion is not met.
The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. Any
conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact
created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this
chapter in the district where such land is located.
Public Comments
No public comments have been received as of the submittal of this report.
Discussion
1. Considering the location of the allowed patio, will the activity on the April 2025 patio area be
more or less impactful than the connected, level turf surface shown on the August 2024 plan?
2. Is the size of the proposed patio appropriate?
3. Has the applicant provided sufficient justification to support the patio’s location and
configuration?
Planning Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends denial as applied.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A. Staff Report
Exhibit B. Application Summary
Exhibit C. Aerial Imagery
Exhibit D. Practical Difficulty Responses
Exhibit E. Narrative
Exhibit F. Proposed Plans (dated April 18, 2025)
Exhibit G. Approved Plans (dated August 1, 2024)
Exhibit H. Preexisting Survey (dated November 23, 2023)
Exhibit I. Setback Overlay Exhibit
Exhibit J. Neighbor Letter of Support
Exhibit K. Mailing List and Map
Exhibit C – Aerial Imagery of 1520 Bohns Point Road, Orono
File #: 24-001056
Permit #: Z24-000032
Address: 1520 Bohns Point RD
Orono MN 55391
Description: Landscape renovation that includes walls under 4' and concrete patios.
Document: 20240801_McConnell_PERMIT SET_EDIT.pdf
,
,
Comment: Construction Site Runoff Control: 1. Perimeter sediment control measures must be
Contractor must provide minimum 24-hour notice prior to inspection. 2. Locate soil or dirt
38 08-117-23 44 0006
GREGORY HUGH PERRILL
3220 BOHNS POINT LA
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 08-117-23 44 0007
DAVID J CONDON
DAWN M CONDON
3230 BOHNS POINT LA
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 08-117-23 44 0009
KENNETH F TEMPERO
JEANNE S TEMPERO
3265 BOHNS POINT LA
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 08-117-23 44 0010
CAPITAL FIRST TRUST CO
2263 WATERS DR
MENDOTA HEIGHTS MN 55120
38 08-117-23 44 0024
PATRICK J HALLORAN
KATHLEEN A HALLORAN
1595 BOHNS POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 08-117-23 44 0025
EL CAP HILLS LLC
451 A STREET #1600
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
38 08-117-23 44 0026
MAP HOLDINGS LLC
1595 BOHNS POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 09-117-23 33 0002
WAGENER PROPERTIES LLC
2605 W WAYZATA BLVD
LONG LAKE MN 55356
38 09-117-23 33 0003
MAURICE J WAGENER
1420 BOHNS POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 09-117-23 33 0004
HOWARD R ALTON III
1480 BOHNS POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 09-117-23 33 0005
DAVID M LEAVENWORTH
1500 BOHNS POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 09-117-23 33 0006
1520 BOHNS TRUST
1520 BOHNS POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 09-117-23 33 0007
BROOKS WEST & AMY WEST
1540 BOHNS POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 09-117-23 33 0008
THE NYK TRUST
1580 BOHNS POINT RD
ORONO MN 55391
38 16-117-23 22 0001
CHARLES MILLER & JILL MILLER
1600 BOHNS POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 17-117-23 11 0003
PHIL ECKER
1625 BOHNS POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 17-117-23 11 0004
JOHN CHURCH
KLERISSA CHURCH
1645 BOHNS POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
To: Chair Ressler and Planning Commission Members
Adam Edwards, City Administrator
From: Laura Oakden, Community Development Director
Date: May 18, 2026
Subject: Average Lakeshore Setback (ALS ) Discussion
Background
The Average Lakeshore Setback (ALS) standards have been a recurring City Council work session topic since
2023, with discussion focusing on the complexity, administration, and effectiveness of the regulation. In April,
the City Council directed staff to review the average lakeshore setback regulations with the Planning
Commission to determine if amendments to regulation would be warranted. At the recent, April 27, 2026
Council Work Session, the Council reaffirmed two long-standing priorities:
Protection of the lake views across neighboring lakeshore properties; and
lakeshore over time.
The ALS regulation attempts to balance these goals with the Shoreland regulations intended to protect water
quality and natural resources.
Existing Shoreland Regulations
From a water quality and environmental standpoint Orono regulates development through a fixed shore setback
measurement from the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL). According to City Code Section 6.12.5910, the
shore setback zone means land located between the ordinary high-water level of a public water and a line
parallel to it at the structure setback.
classification of the specific lake based on its use and environmental sensitivity.
For Lake Minnetonka, the required shore setback is 75 feet. Development on lakeshore properties is subject to
both the fixed shore setback (setback) and the ALS. Whichever standard is more restrictive determines the
lakeward extent of development. The ALS regulation is as follows:
City Code Section 78-1279 (6) Average lakeshore setback. No principal or accessory building shall be
located closer to the ordinary high-water line (OHWL) on a lakeshore lot than the average distance
from the shoreline of existing principal buildings on adjacent lots; this does not apply to patios and
other accessory structures less than 42 inches above existing grade and/or stairways, lifts, landings,
lockboxes, flagpoles and pump houses. Further, the average lakeshore setback shall apply only to
classified lakes and shall not apply to tributaries. The average lakeshore setback line shall be a straight
line connecting the most lakeward protrusions of the principal buildings on the immediately adjacent
lakeshore lots.
a. In situations where improvement is proposed on a lot adjacent to a vacant lot or right-of-way,
the average lake shore setback shall be equivalent to the setback of the most lakeward
protrusion of the principal building on the immediately adjacent improved lakeshore lot.
b. In situations where the average lake shore setback line bisects the principal building located on
either adjacent lot, the next most adjacent lake side point of the bisected principal building shall
be used for determining the average lakeshore setback. If the line continues to bisect the
principal building, the next most lakeside point is to be used until the setback line does not bisect
the principal building on an adjacent lot.
Intent: The purpose for the ALS regulation is to protect neighboring views of the lake across property lines.
Challenges:
The practical application of the ALS standard varies from property to property. Factors such as: curved
shorelines, irregular lot shape, channels, varying or extreme neighboring setbacks, or redevelopment of existing
homes create highly variable and sometimes unintended outcomes.
In situations involving straight shorelines and similarly sized lots, the ALS is straightforward and mostly functions
as intended to preserve lake views between neighbors. However, on irregular shorelines or where one
neighboring home is substantially less or more lakeward than its neighbors, the regulation can produce
inconsistent results.
Over the years, the City has frequently granted ALS variances where Council concludes that the improvement
of the lake. While this has provided flexibility in application, it
may not always align with the statutory practical difficult standard required for variances.
Additionally, applicants, surveyors, and staff often encounter challenges interpreting and applying the
regulation. This often results in errors on surveys, multiple resubmittals, extended review timelines, increased
cost for the applicant, and the substantial staff time devoted to interpretation and application of the Code.
Issues for Consideration
1.Is a change to the ordinance necessary?
2.Does the current ordinance as applied priorities to preserve lake views
across neighboring properties; and preventing lake creep?
3.If protecting lake views is the priority, should landscaping also be regulated?
4.Is the ALS regulation the best tool to protect neighb
Planning Staff Recommendation
The Commission should review the ordnance and provide direction for next steps.
Figure 1: ALS as applied to Lot B
Average
Lakeshore
Setback
Discussion
City Code Section 78-1279 (6)
No principal or accessory building shall be located closer to the ordinary high-water line (OHWL) on a lakeshore lot than the average
distance from the shoreline of existing principal buildings on adjacent lots; this does not apply to patios and other accessory structures
less than 42 inches above existing grade and/or stairways, lifts, landings, lockboxes, flagpoles and pump houses. Further, the average
lakeshore setback shall apply only to classified lakes and shall not apply to tributaries. The average lakeshore setback line shall be a
straight line connecting the most lakeward protrusions of the principal buildings on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lots.
a) In situations where improvement is proposed on a lot adjacent to a vacant lot or right-of-way, the average lake shore setback shall
be equivalent to the setback of the most lakeward protrusion of the principal building on the immediately adjacent improved
lakeshore lot.
b) In situations where the average lake shore setback line bisects the principal building located on either adjacent lot, the next most
adjacent lake side point of the bisected principal building shall be used for determining the average lakeshore setback. If the line
continues to bisect the principal building, the next most lakeside point is to be used until the setback line does not bisect the
principal building on an adjacent lot
History
- (1992) Ord 101, 2nd Series - Adopting of the DNR Model Shoreland Regulations
- (2004) Ord 11, 3rd Series - Add exceptions to allow for administrative approval by staff with written
neighbors consent
- (2013) Ord 106, 3rd Series - Add flagpoles and pump houses as exceptions to the definition
- (2015) Ord 157, 3rd Series- Remove the administrative approval process, created the exceptions for
a flat measurement when abutting ROW and for structures under 42” in height to be allowed
within the ALS
- (2018) Ord 222, 3rd Series - Change the terminology from “structures” to “buildings” as regulated
within the ALS.
- (2019) Ord 234, 3rd Series - Add an exception for situations where the ALS line cuts through a
home on the adjacent affected lots
- (2023) Ord 303, 3rd Series - Recodification, clarification that the ALS applies to Lakeshore lots
Restrictions to Lake Lots
25% hardcover
Hardcover means a hard surface that prevents or retards entry of water into the soil and causes water to run off the surface in
greater quantities and at an increased rate of flow than prior to development. Hardcover shall include but not be limited to the
following: all building footprints, driveways, sidewalks, stepping stones, retaining walls, patios, courts (sport, tennis, etc.), decks,
pools, areas used for the extended outdoor storage of vehicles or equipment, and all other similar features or surfaces as
determined by the city engineer or city planner.
ALS Challenges
Challenges
Example: Large
Neighbor SetbackExample: Bay
Example: Flag Lots
Example: Peninsula
Outcomes
Statistics
2023, 43% of variance applications included
an ALS variance.
2024, 52% of variance applications included
an ALS variance
2025, 34% of variance applications included
an ALS variance
Discussion Questions
Is a change to the ordinance necessary?
Does the current ordinance as applied meet the Council’s identified priorities to preserve lake views
across neighboring properties; and preventing lake creep?
If protecting lake views is the priority, should landscaping also be regulated?
Is the ALS regulation the best tool to protect neighbor’s views?
Thank you