The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04-28-2025 - Agenda Packet City Council - work sessionAgenda City Council Work Session Monday, April 28, 2025, 5:00 PM City Council Chambers | 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 952-249-4600 /oronomn.gov 1. Street Maintenance 2026 2. Average Lakeshore Discussion (Part 6) Roll Call Work Session Item Adjournment Sign up for email notifications at oronomn.gov 1 Date: April 28, 2025 Item: 1 Presenter: Adam Edwards, City Administrator / Engineer Section: Work Session Item Title: Street Maintenance 2026 1.Purpose: The purpose of this action item is to gain council guidance on planning for the 2026 Street Maintenance Project. 2.Background: In order to maintain our city streets the engineering department recommends a portion of the city’s streets for various pavement preservation activities each year. Streets are inspected and assigned a pavement condition index (PCI) rating. The PCI allows street to street comparisons and provides the data required to conduct street maintenance programming and planning. 3.Summary: A. 2026 Recommended Streets. For 2026 the recommended streets are as follows. Road Pavement Cost Estimate PCI Remarks North Arm Drive and Lane $ 950,900 59 Extensive surface cracking. Parks CIP has a trail being incorporated into this project when it occurs. Feasibility of widening N. Arm Lane should be included. Spates Avenue and Railroad Avenue $ 85,700 58 Will need to be deconflicted with MCES work in the area Preventive Maintenance $100,000 Chip sealing, crack sealing and contract patches Total $1,136,600 B. 2027 and Beyond. The list below is not exhaustive. There are several other roads in need on maintenance in the immediate future (PCI <70). Road Pavement Cost Estimate PCI Remarks Spring Hill Road $ 529,500 51 Suffering from stripping (separation of wear and base course) and settlement above utility crossings. AGENDA ITEM 2 Old Long Lake Road $ 805,200 61 Road base appears in good condition but pavement is suffering from stripping (separation of wear and base course). Possibly eligible for State Park Road Grant Garden Court $ 235,600 58 Suffering extensive surface deterioration. Heritage Lane and Drive $611,100 56 Suffering from extensive surface cracking. Project to include curb and gutter. Dickey Lake Drive And Pine Ridge $ 398,400 59 Suffering from surface cracking. Spruce Place, Linden Lane, Dahl Road, Loma Linda & Forest Lake $ 598,000 60 Surface cracking and potholes. These streets are candidates for Curb and gutter to address stormwater issues. Fagerness Point Road, Webb, and Concordia $ 400,200 62 Surface cracking and some stormwater issues. Road condition varies throughout area. Crestview Avenue $ 123,700 69 Road area and neighborhood suffer from draining issues that should be address in conjunction with a road project. Hackberry Hill, Elm Ln., Maple Ln. $ 227,600 74 Recommend combining with Hackberry park project to optimize resources and address area drainage issues. 4.Funding: A. Pavement Funding. The projects will be funded with a combination of the Pavement Management Fund, Sewer Funds, and Stormwater Fund. The Pavement fund is the limiting factor in the amount of pavement maintenance that can take place each year. Adequate funding is available in the Stormwater, Water and Sewer Funds. (1) Pavement Funding for 2026. The Pavement Fund receives resources from the pavement levy. The levy for 2025 is $1,000,000. Adjusted for a modest 2% Construction Inflation Index per year the amount for the 2026 levy should be $1,020,000. (2) Pavement Funding for the Future. After 2025 the pavement levy should be adjusted for inflation. Assuming a 2% inflation, that level of funding should allow the City to complete all of the projects listed in section 3 above. B. Municipal State Aid Roads (MSA). The city receives approximately $450,000 / yr from the state MSA fund. The following MSA roadways are in need of maintenance. Road Pavement Cost Estimate PCI Remarks McCulley Road $695,000 72 Currently projected for 2030. Old Crystal Bay (Watertown to Fox) $570,300 70 Currently projected for 2027. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED 3 Discussion and direction on 2026 Road Maintenance Project 4 Date: April 28, 2025 Item: 2 Presenter: Laura Oakden, Community Development Director Section: Work Session Item Title: Average Lakeshore Discussion (Part 6) 1.Purpose: Review the ALS information. 2.Background: Average lakeshore setback (ALS) regulations have been discussed during council work sessions since 2023. Staff was directed to evaluate the current regulations. 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 setback and the ALS apply to lakeshore properties. The more restrictive building setback is applied to a subject parcel. Council directed staff at the June 2024 work session to explore an amendments to the ALS. The City Council provided verbal direction to procced with a proposed amendment which would only apply the ALS when a building improvement is being proposed within the 75- foot lake setback. Buildings and improvements being constructed that meet the 75-foot lake setback on the property would not have the ALS apply. This would alleviate many of the variance applications that are being processed and provide development guidance for nonconforming lakeshore properties. Staff presented an ALS amendment and an outline for a public hearing process that allowed for additional public notice at the August 2024 work session. AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Council should provided feedback and direction to proceed. Exhibits A. 8.14.23 ALS Discussion - Pt 1 B. 11.13.23 ALS Discusion - Pt 2 C. 2.12.24 ALS Discussion - Pt 3 D. 6.10.24 ALS Discussion - Pt 4 E. 8.12.24 ALS Discussion - Pt 5 5 Average Lakeshore Setback Discussion City Council Worksession 8/14/2023 6 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. 7 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. 8 Orono City Limits: Forest Lake Lakeshore 9 10 11 12 ALS Variances Granted 2021-12 ALS Variances 2022-7 ALS Variances 2023-10 ALS Variances (through the end of July) 13 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 14 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 15 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? 16 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? 17 Average Lakeshore Setback Discussion-Continued City Council Work Session 11/13/2023 18 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. 19 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. 20 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? 21 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 22 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 23 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.24 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? 25 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 26 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 27 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. 28 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. 29 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. 30 Average Lakeshore Setback Discussion-Part 3 City Council Work Session 02/12/2024 31 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. 32 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. 33 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 34 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 35 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. 36 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 37 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 38 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 39 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 40 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 41 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 42 559 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. 43 559 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 44 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 45 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 46 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. 47 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. 48 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. 49 Driveway Width within the Shore and Tributary Setbacks City Council Work Session 06/10/24 50 Shoreland Regulations Orono: 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. 2019 DNR Model Ordinance: Placement and Design of Roads, Driveways, and Parking Areas. Public and private roads and parking areas must be designed to take advantage of natural vegetation and topography to achieve maximum screening as viewed from public waters and comply with the following standards: •7.11 Roads, driveways, and parking areas must meet structure setbacks and must not be placed within bluff and shore impact zones, when other reasonable and feasible placement alternatives exist. If no alternatives exist, they may be placed within these areas, and must be designed to minimize adverse impacts; 51 Orono Driveway Minimum Standards •Current minimum width –8 feet •The minimum driveway must equal the width of the garage door opening. •Minimum backup apron –8 foot x 8 foot 52 Staff Analysis and Recommendation •The need for a driveway variance in the shore or tributary setback is relatively uncommon. •Most recently, a variance was approved at 1850 Lakeside Trail to permit a 12-foot wide driveway within the tributary setback. •The Shoreland regulations limit driveway width to 8 feet within the lakeshore and tributary setback (when there is no alternative access). •Recommendation: Amend the City Code to follow the DNR model ordinance. •Staff would follow the guidance in the DNR model ordinance and the City’s existing driveway standards to ensure the driveway is designed to minimize adverse impacts. •Screening and/or hardcover mitigation may also be required. Next Steps: Determine if a code changes is necessary.•Direct staff to draft a code amendment and publish for a Planning Commission review and public hearing.53 Average Lakeshore Setback Discussion-Part 4 City Council Work Session 06/10/24 54 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. 55 Building Restrictions on Lake Lots Lake/Shore 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 necessary lake stairs) within the shore setback. •General Development (e.g. Lake Minnetonka): 75’ shore setback •Natural Environment (e.g. Lake Classen & French Lake): 150’ shore setback •Recreational Development (e.g. Long Lake): 75’/100’ shore setback Average Lakeshore Setback (ALS)* The ALS is a sight-line setback intended to protect the views of the lake enjoyed across a neighbor’s property. •Accessory structures with a maximum height of 42” or less from grade (pools, patios, retaining walls) are permitted within the ALS. •The ALS is determined by the location of the neighboring homes on either side of the subject. Hardcover •Hardcover limitations are placed on individual properties 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. *The more restrictive setback will be applied to determine the building setback. 56 ALS Challenges and Impacts Challenges -The ordinance language is cumbersome for staff and residents to interpret and apply -Over time application of the ALS can substantially limit the buildable envelope of a parcel -The setback changes each time 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 2023, 43% of variance applications received included an 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 create setback uniformity between neighbors -Unique for every parcel -Protects views of the lake over neighbors’ properties -ALS is a higher standard above and beyond the DNR minimum standards in the model ordinance 57 Options to Consider •Option 1: Calculate the ALS using the average of the measured distance of the abutting neighbors’ homes •Finding: As reviewed at the February 2024 Council Work Session, calculating the ALS does not provide significant relief from the regulation. •Option 2: Create an Exception for homes a specific distance from the OHWL (i.e. +300’ from the lake) •Finding: This does not address the majority of ALS variances requested. Only a few properties (mostly the deep properties in the LR-1A zoning district) would get relief. •Option 3: Allow decks (any height) to encroach within the ALS •Finding: This would add more complexity to the application of the regulation. Few projects would benefit (for decks only). •Option 4: Eliminate Average Lakeshore Setback Requirement •Finding: Elimination would simplify the building setback requirements. This could result in construction closer to the lake than a neighbor’s home. •Option 5: No Change •Finding:Status quo. •NEW: •Option 6:Only apply the ALS when the hardcover level exceeds the allowed limit. •Option 7: Only apply the ALS where the existing structures are located within the lake setback. 58 Option 6: Only apply the ALS when the hardcover level exceeds the allowed limit. •Application: •The ALS would not apply to a lot with a conforming hardcover level (25%). The building limit would be the shore setback requirement. •For properties with nonconforming hardcover levels (over 25%), the additional ALS will be applied. •Analysis: •Onerous. Applicants would be required to provide more information to determine the setbacks on each property. •Confusing for applicants. It is not an appropriate solution to address the identified challenges with the ALS regulation. The ALS and hardcover limitations do not address the same concerns. While both limit the development of a parcel, they do not have the same goal. Linking them together is cumbersome and confusing. •Recommendation: Staff does not recommend moving forward with this regulation. 59 Option 7: Only apply the ALS when existing structures are within the lake setback. •The ALS would be applied to properties with an existing building(s) located within the lake setback, to determine the lakeward extent of the building envelope. •Pros: •If the shore setback is met, the ALS does not apply (75’ on Lake Minnetonka). •Acts as a guide for reviewing variances for expansions of buildings within the shore setback. •Cons: •Could allow development closer to the lake. •For conforming lots, this change could impact the protected view over neighboring properties. 60 3339 Crystal Bay Road -Addition LA24-000016 Average Lakeshore Setback variance requested for the construction of an addition to an existing home within both setbacks. •ALS as is (red line) •Lake setback at 75’ (yellow line) Applied Option 7 -Apply the ALS when the house encroaches into the lake setback. •The ALS would function as a guide for the lakeward extent of a home expansion. •75’ lake setback and 30’ rear setback eliminate a reasonable building envelope. •Using the red ALS line (approx. 65’ from the OHWL) allows for a larger building envelope than the 75’ lake setback (yellow). 61 3600 Casco Avenue-New House LA23-000060 Average Lakeshore Setback variance requested for construction of a new home within ALS. •ALS as is (red line) •Shore/lake setback (yellow line) Apply Option 7-The shore setback can be met. The ALS would not apply. The yellow 75’ lake setback line would set the lakeward extent of the house placement. 62 559 Park Lane -Deck LA23-000033 Average Lakeshore Setback variance requested for the construction of a deck within the ALS. •ALS as is (red line) •Lake setback (yellow line) Under Option 7: The shore setback can be met. The ALS would not apply. The yellow 75’ lake setback line would set the lakeward extent of the house placement. 63 2605 Mapleridge Lane -Addition LA23-000066 Average Lakeshore Setback variance requested for remodel and addition to existing home •ALS 1: Existing ALS as is (red line) •ALS 2: Eliminate the ALS, setback determined by the required 75’ lake setback (yellow line) Under Option 7: The 75’ setback can be met. The ALS (red line) would not apply. The 75’ lake setback (yellow line ) would determine the building envelope. 64 Staffs Recommendations •#1: (preferred) Eliminate the ALS regulation. The purpose is the preservation of the view of the lake over a neighbor’s property, which is not a goal of the City Council. •#2:Option 7, Apply ALS only when existing buildings are situated lakeward of the lake setback or when building setbacks overlap or significantly limit building envelope (Crystal Bay Road, etc.). Direct staff to draft language and begin the public hearing process. •#3: Keep the ALS regulation as is -no change. •If no change is made, the Council should discuss the current practice of granting ALS variances in situations that do not fully meet the practical difficulty criteria and establish criteria for granting variances. 65 Discussion •Does the Council feel changes to the ordinance are necessary? •What are the Council’s goals for building setbacks on lakeshore properties? View protection? Water quality? Something else? •Does the current ALS regulation meet the Council’s goals? •Does Option 7 accomplish the Council’s goals? •If the home meets the lake setback, is there a need to preserve views over a neighbor’s property? •Discuss the staff recommendations and direct staff on the next steps. 66 Average Lakeshore Setback Discussion-Part 5 City Council Work Session 08/12/24 67 Options that were reviewed •Option 1: Calculate the ALS using the average of the measured distance of the abutting neighbors’ homes •Finding: As reviewed at the February 2024 Council Work Session, calculating the ALS does not provide significant relief from the regulation. •Option 2: Create an Exception for homes a specific distance from the OHWL (i.e. +300’ from the lake) •Finding: This does not address the majority of ALS variances requested. Only a few properties (mostly the deep properties in the LR-1A zoning district) would get relief. •Option 3: Allow decks (any height) to encroach within the ALS •Finding: This would add more complexity to the application of the regulation. Few projects would benefit (for decks only). •Option 4: Eliminate Average Lakeshore Setback Requirement •Finding: Elimination would simplify the building setback requirements. This could result in construction closer to the lake than a neighbor’s home. •Option 5: No Change •Finding:Status quo. •Option 6:Only apply the ALS when the hardcover level exceeds the allowed limit. •Option 7: Only apply the ALS where the existing structures are located within the lake setback. 68 Apply the ALS to existing structures within the lake setback •The ALS would be applied to properties where an existing building(s) is located within the lake setback, to determine the lakeward extent of the building envelope. •Pros: •If the shore setback is met, the ALS does not apply (75’ on Lake Minnetonka). •Acts as a guide for reviewing variances for expansions of buildings within the shore setback. •Cons: •Could allow improvements closer to the lake than current regulation 69 Next Steps •Average Lakeshore Setback to be used as a tool/guide for variance analysis. •Add a definition of average lakeshore setback to Definitions Sec. 78-1, simplified to remove exceptions; remove the existing language from Sec. 78- 1279 •Develop new Practical Difficulty Criteria to analyze variance requests for improvements within the 75-foot setback. •The average lakeshore setback would be applied to all variance requests for new or expanded buildings within the shore setback (75-foot setback) 70 Public Hearing Notice Process Required: •60 day notice to DNR •Legal Notice Publication 10 days before Public Hearing (Planning Commission) •Publish draft Ordinance on website 10 days before City Council •Public Hearing with the Planning Commission •Formal adoption by the City Council Suggested notifications to consider: •2nd Public Hearing by the Planning Commission •2nd Reading of the draft Ordinance by the Council •Publish on the Website 60 days before council meeting •Facebook/Newsletter publications •Post cards mailing to lake lots 71 Discussion / Wrap Up •Comments on the proposed direction •Provide Staff with direction/feedback on the suggested additional public input process. 72