Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-24-2023 Council Work Session PacketCouncil Work Session Monday, April 24, 2023 5:00 P.M. Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 WORK SESSION AGENDA 1. Planning & Park Commission Interviews Applicant Commission Interview Time Michael Huddy Park 5:00 – 5:15 Ted Schultze Planning 5:15 – 5:30 2.Retaining wall Discussion CITY OF ORONO MEMORANDUM DATE: April 24, 2023 TO: Orono City Council FROM: Adam T. Edwards, P.E., City Administrator/ Engineer RE: Park and Planning Commission Interviews 1. Purpose. The purpose for this works session item is provide the City Council the opportunity to interview prospective Park and Planning Commissioners. 2. Background. Both the Parks and Planning Commission are made up of seven regular members who serve three-year terms. In addition, each Commission has from time to time had Alternate Commissioners. Alternate commissioners are called upon to ensure a quorum when regular commissioners are unavailable for commission meetings. a. Park Commission. The Parks Commission has a vacant seat as of March 1, 2023. The commission currently has two alternates that are not willing to commit to a regular status position. Michael Huddy has applied for the vacant seat on the Parks Commission. Mr. Huddy has previously served on the Parks Commission. b. Planning Commission. The Planning Commission currently has all 7 regular seats full however could use and alternate commissioner to ensure quorums when regular commissioners are not available 3. Applicants. The new applicants are listed below. Their applications are attached. Applicant Position Interview Time Michael Huddy Park Commissioner 5:00-5:15 Ted Schultz Planning Commission- Alternate 5:15-5:30 4. Appointments. Based on council feedback after the interviews staff will prepare appointment resolutions for the council’s consideration at the next council meeting. Attachments: A. Commission Applications B. Park Commission Interview Form C. Planning Commission Interview Form PARK COMMISSION APPLICANT INTERVIEW Applicant Name: _________________________________ Potential Questions: 1. What is your understanding of the role of a park commissioner? 2. What interests you most about this position? 3. What do you think will be your biggest challenge in this position? What is your biggest concern? 4. How do you feel about regulating your neighbors? 5. Describe your experience with park maintenance, park planning and/or open space management. Evaluation: Criteria Excellent Good Fair Poor Interest in serving on the Park Commission Knowledge, skills, abilities, and experience Support of current Programs/Policies and Philosophy of City Perspective on Council/Park Commission responsibilities and relationship Perspective on ways to develop or maintain good Park Commission/applicant/staff relations Perspective on key issues facing the Park Commission PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICANT INTERVIEW Applicant Name: Potential Questions: 1. What is your understanding of the role of a planning commissioner? 2. What interests you most about this position? 3. What do you think will be your biggest challenge in this position? What is your biggest concern? 4. How do you feel about regulating your neighbors? 5. Describe your understanding of the City's Comprehensive Plan and zoning regulations. 6. Describe your experience with the zoning review process — variance, CUP, site plan review, or writing code amendments. Evaluation: Criteria Excellent Good Fair Poor Interest in serving on the Planning Commission Knowledge, skills, abilities, and experience Familiarity with the following items: a. The City's Community Management Plan b. The City's rural development philosophy c. Protection of Lake Minnetonka Support of current Programs/Policies and Philosophy of City Perspective on Council/Planning Commission responsibilities and relationship Perspective on ways to develop or maintain good Planning Commission/applicant/staff relations Perspective on key issues facing the Planning Commission Prepared By: LLO Reviewed By: A. Carlson Approved By: CITY OF ORONO MEMORANDUM DATE: April 24, 2023 TO: City Council Members FROM: Community Development Director and City Engineer RE: Retaining Wall Discussion 1.Purpose Review the current retaining wall regulations and discuss possible text amendments. 2.Background. The City Council processes many retaining wall variances within the lakeshore setback every year. The Council directed staff to bring additional informational regarding retaining walls to explore if any amendments are necessary to the City Code. Currently the City Code prohibits retaining walls within the lake shore setback. For Lake Minnetonka that is within the 0-75’ setback. Walls can be replaced in-kind but no new walls or expansions are permitted by the City Code. The presents extreme limitations when reconstructing failing walls or addressing erosion control problems on a slope. Best practices for wall construction and materials have changed over time which does not always fall within the in- kind limitations allowed by the City Code. Often, this requires property owners to go through a variance process to address the replacement of dilapidated or failing walls. Staff will present background information regarding how retaining walls are construction and policies from the Orono Comprehensive Plan, DNR and other lake area communities. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Discussion and provide guidance to amend the City Code pertaining to retaining walls within the lakeshore setback. Retaining Walls within the Lakeshore Setback City Council Worksession April 24, 2023 Orono City Code •Shoreland Overlay District •78-1279 (5): Fences, docks, retaining walls.No fence shall be placed within the Shore Setback zone. Portions of dock located landward of the OHWL shall be considered as a landing, subject to the regulations for landings per section 78-1282. Retaining walls shall not be placed within the Shore Setback zone. •Definitions: •78-1 In-kind, when used in the context of replacement of a non-conforming building or structure, means the replacement of a building or structure completely within the limits (location, height, width, and depth) of the previous building or structure. Implementation •New walls and/or expansions are not permitted. •In-Kind replacements are permitted with a zoning or building permit. •Variance must be obtained in order to construct new walls and/or expansions Issues •The City Code prohibits retaining walls within the lakeshore setback. •The ability to reconstruct existing infrastructure is extremely limited. •Best practices for protecting slopes and prevention of erosion control may call for different methods or types of walls. Comprehensive Plan: Chapter 3: Environmental Protect Plan Natural Resource Management Policies: •Protect lake resources to allow reasonable access, use and enjoyment while preventing overcrowding and excessive encroachment. •Lake shorelines will be protected from alteration. •Retention of natural vegetation will limit the impact of urbanization as visible from the lake. Retaining Wall Construction and Impacts •Properly constructed retaining walls require disturbance of the slope being protected •There is more to a retaining wall than what you see from the front or top of a finished wall. Timber Retaining Walls 33 Feet 31 Feet 47 Feet Block Retaining Walls Boulder Retaining Walls DNR Shoreland Regulations •The DNR’s Current Model Shoreland Ordinance (04/28/22) lists retaining walls as permitted within the shore impact zone provided that the walls are: •Used only to correct a documented erosion problem (not aesthetic); •Wall height and length are the minimum necessary to correct the erosion problem (and not higher than 4 feet or longer than 10 feet unless the “zoning administrator” determines the larger wall to be necessary); and •The walls are screened by vegetation to be not visible from the lake. DNR-Higher Standard Alternatives: •Tiered permitting for new walls: •Administrative Permit* walls are at least 50-feet from the OHWL; and less than 3 feet high, less than 25 feet in length; and on a slope less than 12%. •Conditional Use Permit* walls <50 feet from the OHWL; or over 3 feet high & over 25 feet in length; or on slopes greater than 12% •Administrative approval for expansion of non-conforming structures (i.e. walls) not meeting OHWL setbacks, if: •The wall is more than 50 feet from the OHWL; and •Overall site hardcover is met/conforming; and •Property owner agrees to restoration/establishment of a riparian buffer for 80% of shoreline width with a minimum depth of 10 feet to include trees, shrubs, and natural ground cover. •Additional information: •Individual boulders >30” diameter are considered a retaining wall. •Vegetative screening is required for all walls. *Engineered plans may be required. Retaining Wall-Lake Community Input City Are Retaining Walls allowed within Lakeshore? Descriptions Minnetrista Yes, with conditions Allowed within shore setback (75') if 4’ in height or less; Not allowed in steep slope or bluff; Nothing allowed within 10' of OHWL Deephaven/ Woodhaven Yes Allowed in shore setback. Not allowed in Bluff Impact Zone. Greenwood Yes, with conditions Not allowed within the 50' Setback from OHWL, a CUP required for walls within the 50' Shore setback. Retaining walls not allowed in Bluff Impact Zone. Tonka Bay Yes Allowed Minnetonka Beach No Not allowed within 75’ setbacks. Shorewood Yes, with conditions Retaining Walls are allowed only for erosion issues not for accessory improvements (Patios/beaches). Mound Yes Retaining Walls are allowed in shore setback (50’) but are not allowed in bluff. Recommendation •Staff has identified issues with the implementation of the current City Code and its limitations pertaining to the reconstruction of the existing walls. •Additional research is needed to develop best practices to protect the lakeshore from erosion and to align the City Code with DNR standards. Next Steps •Staff will research and develop draft language as a proposed text amendment.