The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06-10-2024 CC Agenda Packet - work sessionAgenda City Council Work Session Monday, June 10, 2024, 5:00 PM City Council Chambers | 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 952-249-4600 /https://www.oronomn.gov/ 1. Driveway Width and Average Lakeshore Setback Part 4 Discussions Roll Call Work Session Item Adjournment Sign up for email notifications at https://www.oronomn.gov/ 1 Date: June 10, 2024 Item: 1 Presenter: Laura Oakden, Community Development Director Section: Work Session Item Title: Driveway Width and Average Lakeshore Setback Part 4 Discussions 1.Purpose: The Council should review the provided information and give direction to Staff for next steps. 2.Background: Average lakeshore setback (ALS) regulations have been discussed during recent council work sessions. Additionally, a variance request regarding driveway width within the shore/tributary setback was recently approved that brought up questions about driveway accessibility. Staff was directed to evaluate the current regulations. As a result, staff has the following topics to discuss: a. (City Code Section 78-1282) Within the lake/tributary setback (commonly 75 feet from the OHWLE) an 8 foot driveway is allowed if no other access existing. b. (City Code Section 78-1279) The ALS is applied to views of the lake across neighboring property lines. The city also implements a minimum lake setback that is measured from the Ordinary High Water Line (OHWL). The lake setback for Lake Minnetonka is 75 feet from the OHWL. Both the lakeshore setbacks and the ALS apply to lakeshore properties. The more restrictive setback is applied to a subject parcel. City Code Section 78-1282. - Driveways, stairways, lifts and landings. (a) A driveway no wider than eight feet is permitted in the shoreland or tributary setback zone if the property has no other frontage on or access to a public or private road. 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. 3.Staff Recommendation: Staff will present analysis and recommendations of the subject City Code regulations. AGENDA ITEM 2 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Council should provided feedback and discuss the goal and intent of the ordinance. Provide guidance pertaining to the driveway width maximum and ALS regulations. Exhibits 8.14.23 ALS Discusion- PT 1.pdf 11.13.23 ALS Discusion - Pt 2.pdf 2.12.24 ALS Discussion- pt.3.pdf 3 Average Lakeshore Setback Discussion City Council Worksession 8/14/2023 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 ALS vs 75’ Lakeshore Setback •The 75’ Lakeshore Setback is a measured setback from the 929.4 Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL)to restrict development in order to protect the lake. •This setback can vary depending on the classification of lake -up to 150’ setback can apply •The ALS is a sightline setback intended to protect the neighbor's views of the lake. •The more restrictive of the two setbacks is applied. 6 Orono City Limits: Forest Lake Lakeshore 7 8 9 10 ALS Variances Granted 2021-12 ALS Variances 2022-7 ALS Variances 2023-10 ALS Variances (through the end of July) 11 Neighboring Cities City Do they implement a sightline setback? (In addition to a OHWL setback) Do they follow a similar formula as Orono for determining the setback Do they grant variance from their sightline protection ordinance? Minnetonka Beach Yes. (Recently amended in 2023)A line is drawn from building to building to determine the ALS as well as a separate deck to deck line is drawn. No Wayzata Yes A line is drawn between the principle buildings AND the average distance is calculated based on the principle buildings. The MORE restrictive is applied. Rarely-Maybe 1 Variance a year Minnetrista Yes A line is drawn between the principle buildings AND the average distance is calculated based on the principle buildings. The LESS restrictive is applied. Additionally if the abutting neighbor is over 200’ from the OHWL, it is excluded. No Spring Park No Follow at 50’ lakeshore setback from the OHWL. Some exceptions for deck encroachments N/A Victoria No N/A N/A Deephaven No They only follow a 100’ lakeshore setback from the OHWL N/A Shorewood No N/A N/A 12 Key Differences •Half of the responding cities rely solely on the Lakeshore Setback from the OHWL and do not implement a sightline setback (ALS). •Some cities exclude properties based on their extreme setbacks. •Not all cities use a drawn line, some use a calculated average. ALS 13 Items to Consider •Orono has a lot of lakeshore and most of it is not a straight line. •There are special considerations when reviewing and granting ALS variances. •Range of Situations: •Double frontage Lots •Non-lakeshore lots abutting lakeshore properties •Channels •Timing of development •Is the ALS achieving the intent of the council? 14 Points of Discussion •Should the City’s role be, to protect a resident’s views across a neighbor’s property. •Structures vs Landscaping? •If so, is the current ALS regulation the best way to address the protection of neighbor’s views? 15 Average Lakeshore Setback Discussion-Continued City Council Work Session 11/13/2023 16 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. 17 Purpose Lakeshore Setback The Lakeshore Setback is a measured setback from the 929.4'Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL)contour restricting development near the lake in order to protect water quality. •Natural Environment (e.g. Lake Classen & French Lake): 150’ •Recreational Development (e.g. Long Lake): 75’/100’ •General Development (e.g. Lake Minnetonka): 75’ Average Lakeshore Setback The ALS is a sightline setback intended to protect the neighbors views of the lake over a subject property. •No Building permitted in the setback •Accessory structures are permitted if they are under 42” in height from grade. •The setback is determined based on the location of the neighboring homes on each side of the subject property. *Because there are two, the more restrictive setback gets applied to determine the building setback. 18 Questions Posed to the CC: •Does the current ALS achieve the intent of the Council? •Should the City’s role be to protect a resident’s views across a neighbor’s property? •If so, is the current ALS regulation the best way to address the protection of neighbor’s views? 19 ALS Impact Challenges -The ordinance language is cumbersome for residents and staff 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, new lot creation) -Common error on surveys, leads to multiple submittals by applicants and reviews by staff -Many variances granted each year •15 Variances have been granted through October of this year 20 Summary from City Council Discussion Results: -ALS further limits massing away from the shoreline -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 21 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 lieu of our current practice. Allowing residents to use the less restrictive of the two.22 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? 23 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 24 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 25 Option 5: No Change to Code a.Pros:i.Residents and stakeholders are 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 “Are the neighbors okay with it?”, too subjective.iv.Preserves a right to a view over another’s property. 26 Staff’s Recommendation A.Eliminate the ALS •This is staff preferred option. •The ALS intent is to protect viewsheds which is subject and not the goal of the City Council B.Recalculate the ALS to a measured average from the OHWL •Can maintain some setback uniformity along the lakeshore •Using a measured distance from the OHWL could help alleviate the need for variances on curving lakeshore with bays and peninsulas. 27 Items to Consider •Does the Council feel a changes in necessary to the ordinance? •What is the goal of the ordinance? •Next Steps: •Council should discuss a recommendation and direct staff to draft proposed language. 28 Average Lakeshore Setback Discussion-Part 3 City Council Work Session 02/12/2024 29 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. 30 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. 31 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 32 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 33 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. 34 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 35 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 36 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 37 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 38 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 39 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 40 559 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. 41 559 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 42 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 43 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 44 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. 45 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. 46 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. 47