The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02-12-2024 CC Agenda Packet - work sessionAgenda City Council Work Session Monday, February 12, 2024, 5:00 PM City Council Chambers | 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 952-249-4600 /https://www.oronomn.gov/ Roll Call Work Session Item Average Lakeshore Setback Discussion - Part 3 Adjournment Sign up for email notifications at https://www.oronomn.gov/ 1 Item No.:Date: February 12, 2024 Presenter: Laura Oakden Presenter: Community Development Director Section:Work Session Item Title: Average Lakeshore Setback Discussion - Part 3 1.Purpose: Review the current Average Lakeshore Setback (ALS) regulations and consider changes. 2.Background: The Council directed staff to bring the average lakeshore setback (ALS) regulations to the Council at a work session to explore potential amendments. The ALS is a sight line setback applied to protect views of the lake from neighboring homes across property lines. The ALS is currently determined by finding the most lakeward point of the homes on abutting lakeshore properties and drawing a line that across the subject property. The City also requires a 75-foot lakeshore setback which is a measured distance from the Ordinary High Water Line (OHWL) to protect water quality. Both the 75-foot lakeshore setback and the ALS apply to lakeshore properties; the more restrictive setback applies. 3.Summary: The ALS is unique to each property and each specific building at time of development. A curved lakeshore, an extreme neighbor setback, a peninsula, or a parcel that abuts a channel create a variety of challenges for implementing the ALS regulation. In theory, when the lakeshore is straight and when properties are uniform in shape and size, the ALS achieves the goal of protecting views of the lake from each of the neighboring homes along the shoreline. The City receives many requests for variances to the ALS setback annually. As long as the proposed project does not negatively impact the neighbors’ views of the lake, the majority of the ALS variances are granted. In 2023, 43% of the variance applications included a request for an ALS variance. On November 13th, Staff provided a range of options to the Council at a work session. Council directed staff to complete an analysis on recently granted variances to determine if recalculating the average lakeshore setback to a measured average distance based on the abutting neighbors would alleviate the variance requests being requested under the current regulation. Through this analysis, staff found that out of the five most recent ALS variance requests only one would no longer need a variance. 4.Staff Recommendation: After conducting the analysis and reviewing the recent variances, staff finds that adjusting the current ALS regulation would not significantly reduce the number of ALS variances requested each year. It is staff's opinion changing the ALS regulation (from a straight line based on neighboring homes to a calculated average of the neighboring home setbacks) would not result in fewer variance requests and in some situations would result in a larger setback placing a greater setback burden on the property. Staff also finds that adding more exceptions to the existing rule (such as excluding the "extreme AGENDA ITEM 2 setback" homes over 300-feet from the OHWL as part of the calculation or an exception to allow decks to be located in the ALS) would not make a notable impact on the amount of variances requested. Further, the added complication of multiple rule exceptions introduces confusion for residents and builders. Staff recommends elimination of the ALS requirement in its entirely. The 75-foot lake setback along with structural and hardcover limitations sufficiently define the building envelope and developability of a property. Removal of the ALS regulation would give property owners more flexibility and eliminate the need for a variance when the property meets all other city code standards. The Council should first discuss if the City should have regulations which preserve a property owner's views of the lake across a neighbor's property. If this is a priority, the Council should determine if the current ALS regulation adequately addresses this goal. If so, staff recommends no changes to the ordinance. Additionally, if no changes are directed, Council should revisit the practice of granting ALS variances in situations that may not fully meet practical difficulty criteria. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED The Council should consider the following: 1. Does the Council feel a change is necessary? 2. Is the current ALS regulation designed to address a specific priority of the Council or a goal identified within the Comprehensive Plan? And is this goal being met? 3. Discuss the staff recommendations and direct staff for any next steps. Exhibits Ex A 2.12.24 ALS Discussion- pt.3.pdf Ex B ALS Ordinace History.pdf Ex C ALS 5 Options presented 11.13.23.pdf 3 Average Lakeshore Setback Discussion-Part 3 City Council Work Session 02/12/2024 4 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) 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. 5 Restrictions to Lake Lots Lake Setback The Lake Setback is a measured setback from the 929.4'Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL)contour restricting development near the lake to protect water quality. This includes prohibiting buildings, structures and hardcover improvements (exceptions include lake stairs) •General Development (e.g. Lake Minnetonka): 75’ •Natural Environment (e.g. Lake Classen & French Lake): 150’ •Recreational Development (e.g. Long Lake): 75’/100’ Average Lakeshore Setback (ALS) The ALS is a sightline setback intended to protect views of the lake, including views across a neighbor’s property. •Accessory structures (pools, patios, retaining walls) are permitted if they are under 42” in height from grade. •The setback is determined based on the location of the neighboring homes. •Because there are two lake setbacks, the more restrictive setback is applied to determine the building setback . Hardcover •Hardcover allowance for an individual property is based on the assigned tier within the Stormwater Quality Overlay District. •Majority of the properties abutting the lakes and protected tributaries are classified as Tier 1 and are limited to 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. 6 ALS 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 7 ALS Challenges and Impacts Challenges -The ordinance language is cumbersome for staff and residents to interpret and apply -Over time can substantially limit the buildable envelope of a parcel -The setback changes whenever an abutting parcel redevelops or changes (i.e. deck, addition, new home) -Common error on surveys, leads to multiple submittals and reviews by staff -Shoreline inconsistencies make the setback hard to apply (peninsulas, inlets, etc) -In 2024, 43% of variance applications received included a ALS variance. -The city received 44 variance applications and 19 requests for ALS variances. Results -ALS further limits massing away from the shoreline -Creates a stricter setback and a higher level of protection of the lakeshore -Strives to creates uniformity between neighbors -Unique for every parcel -Protects neighboring views of the lake -Higher standard above and beyond DNR model ordinance 8 Options to Consider: •Option 1: Recalculate the ALS using abutting neighbors •Option 2: Create an Exception for homes over 300’ from the lake •Option 3: Allow decks (any height) to encroach •Option 4: Eliminate Average Lakeshore Setback •Option 5: No Change to Code The following slides reflect Staff’s analysis of recent ALS variances to show the different options for recalculating the ALS could be applied. 9 2605 Mapleridge Lane-Addition LA23-000066 Average Lakeshore Setback variance requested for remodel and addition of existing home •ALS 1: Leave ALS as is (red line) •ALS 2: Eliminate the ALS, setback determined by required 75’ lake setback (yellow line) •ALS 3: Calculate the average(blue line) and allow the less restrictive to determine the setback •In this scenario the original measurement of ALS is less restrictive 10 2605 Mapleridge Lane-Addition LA23-000066 •Current ALS line (red line) bisects the home •Averaging the neighboring setbacks creates a more strict ALS than the current regulation in this case Neighbor #1 –187’ from OHWL Neighbor #2 –167.2’ from OHWL Average –177.1’ from OHWL (blue line) Current ALS –about 140’ from OHWL Neighbor #1 Neighbor #2 75’ Lake Setback Current ALS Calculated ALS 11 Average Lakeshore Setback variance requested for the construction of a new home •ALS 1: Leave ALS as is (red line) •ALS 2: Eliminate the ALS, setback determined by the required lake setback (yellow line) •ALS 3: Eliminate neighbor that is over 300’ from OHWL from calculation (green line) •ALS 4: Calculate the average (blue line) and allow the less restrictive to determine the setback •While in this case the calculated average is less restrictive, variances would likely still be needed for the construction of a new home 3400 Fox Street-New Home LA23-000068 12 3400 Fox Street-New Home LA23-000068 •Current ALS line (red) makes the lot unbuildable •Eliminate the abutting home over 300’ from the lake (green line) •Averaging the neighboring home distances creates a less strict ALS than the current regulation Neighbor #1 -325’ from OHWL Neighbor #2 –158’ from OHWL (green line) Average –241.5’ from OHWL (blue line) measured from both the lake and channel 75’ Lake Setback Current ALS Calculated ALS Neighbor #1 Neighbor #2 13 3600 Casco Avenue-New House LA23-000060 Average Lakeshore Setback variance requested for the construction of a new home •ALS 1: Leave ALS as is (red line) •ALS 2: Eliminate the ALS, setback determined by the required lake setback (yellow line) •ALS 3: Calculate the average (blue line) and allow the less restrictive to determine the setback •While in this case it is less restrictive, variances would still be needed for the construction of a new home 14 3600 Casco Avenue-New House LA23-000060 •Current ALS line (red) •Averaging the neighboring distances creates a less strict ALS than the current regulation Neighbor #1 -250.4’ from OHWL Neighbor #2 –115.1’ from OHWL Average –182.8’ from OHWL (blue line) Current ALS –about 203’ from OHWL Neighbor #1 Neighbor #2 75’ Lake Setback Calculated ALS Current ALS 15 559 Park Lane-Deck LA23-000033 Average Lakeshore Setback variance requested for the construction of a deck •ALS 1: Leave ALS as is (red line) •ALS 2: Eliminate the ALS, setback determined by required lake setback (yellow line) •ALS 3: Calculate the average (blue line) and allow the less restrictive to determine the setback •In this case the calculated average is slightly less restrictive but the difference is minimal. Following the Blue calculated ALS set may have allowed the deck expansion and a variance would not have been required. 16 559 Park Lane-Deck LA23-000033 •Current ALS line (red) •Averaging the neighboring distances creates a less strict ALS than current regulation in this case Neighbor #1 -101.4’ from OHWL Neighbor #2 –98.9’ from OHWL Average –100.15’ from OHWL (blue line) Current ALS –about 102’ from OHWLNeighbor #2 Neighbor #1 75’ Lake Setback Current ALS Calculated ALS 17 1340 Vine Place-New House LA23-000008 Average Lakeshore Setback variance requested for the construction of a new home •ALS 1: Leave ALS as is (red line) •ALS 2: Eliminate the ALS, setback determined by required lake setback (yellow line) •ALS 3: Calculate the average and allow the less restrictive to determine the setback. (blue line) •This scenario does not show a calculated average because the average, 147.5’ is greater than the depth of the lot 18 1340 Vine Place-New House LA23-000008 •Current ALS line (red) •Eliminate the ALS, setback determined by required lake setback (yellow line) •Averaging the neighboring distances creates a more strict ALS than current regulation in this case Neighbor #1 -100’ from OHWL Neighbor #2 –195’ from OHWL Average –147.5’ from OHWL (blue line -greater than the depth of the lot) Current ALS –about 112’ from OHWL Neighbor #1 Neighbor #2 Current ALS 75’ Lake Setback Calculated ALS 19 Outcomes •Majority of the ALS variances that meet the practical difficulty criteria are on uniquely shaped parcels •Recalculating the ALS to be a measured distance using the abutting properties does not seem to have a significant impact on relieving the need for ALS variances. •Calculating the distances for additional properties on either side of the subject parcel to calculate a neighborhood average could result in the ALS being more uniform for a neighborhood. This has the potential to alleviate the ALS pressure on a parcel however, this would require either significantly more staff time and interpretation to determine the ALS (which we currently require from the applicant) or more extensive survey work (at the cost of the applicant) to survey an entire neighborhood. •Of the examples 559 Park would benefit from recalculating the ALS to a strict measurement. In this case, 559 Park was asking for a small deck and the recalculation method would move the ALS line roughly 2’ closer to the lake. 20 Staff’s Recommendations After conducting the analysis, staff finds that adjusting the current ALS regulation would not significantly reduce the number of ALS variances requested each year. Changing the ALS regulation would not result in fewer variance requests and in some situations would result in a larger setback placing a greater setback burden on the property. •Recommendation 1 (preferred): Eliminate the ALS. The intent of the ALS is to protect the neighbor’s views of the lake (including views across a neighbor’s property) is subjective and not a goal of the City Council. •Recommendation 2: Keep the ALS as is -no change. •If this is the decision, a discussion about the current practice of granting ALS variances in situations that do not fully meet the practical difficulty criteria should be had. 21 Items to Consider •Does the Council feel changes are necessary to the ordinance? •What is the goal of the Council for this ordinance? Is it being met? •Discuss the recommendations and direct staff on next steps. 22 23 ORDINANCE NO, THIRD SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF ORONO ZONING CODE SECTION 78-1279 REGARDING PLACEMENT OF STRUCTURES ON LOTS The City Council of Orono ordains as follows: Section 1: Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279, subsection (6) is hereby revised by adding subsection(a) as follows: Sec. 78-1279. Placement of structures on lots. 6) Average lakeshore setback. No principal or accessory structure shall be located closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots; except that this does not apply to stairways, lifts, landings and lockboxes. 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 residence buildings on the immediately adj acent lakeshore lots. a) In instances where the average lakeshore setback can not be met, administrative approval may be Qranted at the discretion of the Planning Director provided no lake views of an adjacent lakeshore lot are obstructed and adjacent nei bors provide written a rpoval• Section 2: This Ordinance shall be published in THE PIONEER and THE LAKER newspapers and shall become effective upon approval and publication. Adopted by the City Council of Orono on this 24th day of May, 2004 by a vote of 4 ayes and nays. Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: ZZG f / Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Published in the Laker/Pioneer newspapers the week of May 29 , 2004. The s s e language is deleted; the underlined language is inserted. Page 1 of 1 24 SECTION 27. The following language is hereby deleted and added to Section 78-1281 of the Orono City Code: Sec. 78-1281.-Water-oriented accessory structures. The only water-oriented accessory structures allowed to be located nearer the ordinary high water level than the normal structure setback as specified in this article shall be: 1 one lockbox no greater than 20 square feet in area and no higher than 48 inches in height. 2) one 1) flagpole setback from side lot lines a distance no less than the required principal structure side yard setback for the zoning district; and 3) onepumphouse no greater than 20 square feet in area and no higher than 48 inches in hei t." SECTION 28. The following language is hereby deleted and added to Section 78-1279 of the Orono City Code: Section 78-1279: Placement of Structures on Lots When more than one setback applies to a site, structures and facilities must be located to meet all setbacks. Structures shall be located as follows: 1) thru (5) remain as-is. 6) Average lakeshore setback. No principal or accessory structure shall be located closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots; except that this does not apply to stairways, lifts, landings1 a lockboxes, flagpoles and pump houses. Further, the average la.keshore 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 residence buildings on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lots. a.In instances where the average lakeshore setback can not be met, administrative approval may be granted at the discretion of the pla.nning director provided no lake views of an adjacent lakeshore lot are obstructed and adjacent neighbors provide written approval. SECTION 29. Orono City Code Chapter 78 - Zoning Regulations, Article X. - Supplementary Requirements and Restrictions, Division 1 - Generally is hereby amended by adding Section 78- 1378 to read as follows: Page 34 of 36 25 ORDINANCE NO. 157, THIRD SERIES CITY OF ORONO HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORONO MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 78-1279 REGARDING AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Section 78-1279 of the City of Orono Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding and deleting text within Sections 78-1279 as follows: 6) Average lakeshore setback. No principal or accessory structure shall be located closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots; except that this does not apply to patios and other accessory structures less than 42 inches above existing grade, stairways, lifts, landings, lockboxes, flag poles 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 residence 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 residence building on the immediately adjacent improved lakeshore lot. SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its passage and publication. ADOPTED this 10th day of August, 2015 on a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota. ATTEST: Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Ordinance published in The Laker and The Pioneer newspapers the week of August 17, 2015. 26 27 ORDINANCE NO. 234, THIRD SERIES CITY OF ORONO HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES PERTAINING TO AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Chapter Sec. 78-1279 Placement of Buildings and structures on lots shall be amended to read as follows: 6) Average lakeshore setback. No principal or accessory building shall be located closer to the lakeshore Ordinary High Water Line (OHWL) than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence principal buildings on adjacent lots; The most lakeward protrusion except that tThis 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 residence 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 residence principal building on the immediately adjacent improved lakeshore lot. b. In situations where the average lake shore setback line bisects the principal structure building located on either adjacent lot, the next most adjacent lake side point of the bisected principal structure 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. SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its passage and publication. ADOPTED this 14th day of October,2019 on a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota. ATTEST: tax* Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor Ordinance published in The Laker and The Pioneer newspapers the week of November Ito, 2019. 1 28 2/8/2024 4 Option 1: Recalculate the ALS with abutting neighbors Use the average distances measured from the two abutting homes to find a numerical average setback from the OHWL for the subject property. a. Pros: i. Creates a measured distance setback from the OHWL ii. Follows the shoreline and could allow for a more uniform building envelope iii.Resolves issues on peninsulas and bays b. Cons: i. Setback is still determined by location of the neighbors ii. Discrepancies in setbacks will continue to be challenging iii.Could allow homes to be built forward of the neighbor’s homes impacting views c. Questions: i. This could be an alternative way to measure in addition to our current practice. Allowing residents to use the less restrictive of the two. Option 2: Create an Exception for homes over 300’ from the lake a. Pros:i. Keeps the existing definitionii.Eliminates some extreme setbacks from the equationiii.Minimal impact as this scenario as this layout is not common around the lakeb. Cons: i. Allows for building in front of a neighbors homesii.Setback is still based on neighboring homesiii.Does not fix the challenges with a curvy lakeshore and peninsulasiv.Creates another cumbersome exception to the setbackc. Questionsi. Is 300’ the right number? Will there ever be a right number? ii.Does it serve the purpose for the regulation? 29 2/8/2024 5 Option 3: Allow decks to encroach A deck is considered to be a part of the principal structure and currently must adhere to the ALS. A deck is also used as the closest point for measurement. a. Pros: i. Eliminates variances for specific improvements ii.Keeps the intent of keeping building massing away from the lake b. Cons: i. Still based on neighboring homes ii.Does not fix the challenges with a curvy lakeshore/peninsulas iii.Creates another cumbersome exception to the setback iv.Allows for closer encroachments towards the lake v.Decks can still impact a view to the lake Option 4: Eliminate Average Lakeshore Setback a. Pros: i. Lake quality is still protected by lakeshore setback. ii.Simplifies the development of the property iii.Consistent with other neighboring lakeshore cities iv.Eliminates a lot of variance applications v.Removes the neighboring properties perceived “rights” over property they do not own. b.Cons: i. Allows for development closer to the lakeshore ii.Could impact existing lake views 30 2/8/2024 6 Option 5: No Change to Code a. Pros:i. Residents and stakeholdersare familiar with our code and restrictionsii.Continue to systematically push development further from the lakeiii.Additional setback in place to preserve lake quality (not the purpose for the regulation)b.Cons: i. Requires a lot of variancesii.Average lakeshore setback variances are more subjective and not generally approved based on practical difficulty. Making it difficult for staff to provide a predicable outcome. This creates inconsistency in approvals throughout city based on neighbor input.iii.Relies too much on “do we like our neighbor?”, too subjective.iv.Preserves a right to a view over another’s property. Staff’s Recommendation A. Eliminate the ALS B. Recalculate the ALS to a measured average from the OHWL 31