Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
07-14-2025 - Agenda Packet City Council - work session
Agenda City Council Work Session Monday, July 14, 2025, 5:00 PM City Council Chambers 12780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 952-249-4600 /oronomn.gov Roll Call Work Session Item Average Lakeshore Discussion (Part 6) City Code Enforcement Discussion Adjournment Sign up for email notifications at oronomn.gov AGENDA ITEM Date: July 14, 2025 Title: Average Lakeshore Discussion (Part 6) Presenter: Laura Oakden, Community Development Director Section: Work Session Item Purpose: Review the Average Lakeshore Setback (ALS) information. Item: 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. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Council should provided feedback and direction to proceed. Exhibits A. ALS Discussion- pt.6 7.14.25 Presentation B. 8.12.24 ALS Discussion - Pt 5 C. 6.10.24 ALS Discussion - Pt 4 D. 2.12.24 ALS Discussion - Pt 3 E. 11.13.23 ALS Discusion - Pt 2 F. 8.14.23 ALS Discussion - Pt 1 K �oAt>-'o i Aver Lakeshore Setback Discussion - Part 6 City Council Worksession April 28, 2025 Laura Oakden, Community Development Director UM City Code Section 7 8 -12 7 9'.�� (6) Average Lakeshore Setback 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 over the subject lakeshore lot. No principal or accessory building or accessory structure shall be located closer to the Ordinary High Water Line (OHWL) on a lakeshore lot than the average lakeshore setback line. This does not apply to patios and other accessory structures less than 42 inches above existinggrade; stairways, lifts, landings (as re ulated under Section 78-1282); or lockboxes, flagpoles, and pump houses defined as water -oriented accessory structures in Section 78-1281). Furt er, the average lakeshore setback shall apply only to classified lakes and shall not apply to tributaries. a. In situations where improvement is proposed on a lot adjacent to a vacant lot or right-of-way, the average lakeshore setback shall be equivalent to the setback of the most lakeward protrusion of the pot.rincipal building on the immediately adjacent improved lakeshore l In situations where the average lakeshore setback line bisects the principal building located on either of the adjacent lakeshore lots, the next most adjacent lakeside point of the bisected principal building shall be used to determine the average lakeshore setback. If the adjusted line continues to bisect the principal building, the next, most lakeside point of that principal building shall be used until the setback line does not bisect the principal buildings on either of the adjacent lakeshore lots. ■ ALS Challenges Language is cumbersome 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.) ■ 5 Statistic s -in 2023, 43% of variance applications included an ALS variance. -The city received 44 variance applications including 19 requests for ALS variances. -In 2024, 52% ui- variance applications included an ALS variance -The City received 38 variance applications including 20 request for ALS variances. ■ 1.1 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 IAverage 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. *The rr►ure restrictive setback will be applied to determine the building setback. 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. 7 Options that have been 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-IA 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. Finding: Hardcover and ALS have different goals. Tying them together would be challenging and cumbersome for residents, builders and staff. Option 7: Only apply the ALS where the existing structures are located within the lake setback. 1.1 Option " The ALS would only be applied to properties where a building(s)/expansion is located within the lake setback, to evaluate the lakeward extent of the building envelope. Pros: • If the shore setback is met, the ALS does not apply (75' on Lake Minnetonka). • Simplifies City Code for residents/builders and staff • Acts as a guide for reviewing variances for expansions of buildings within the shore setback. Cons: • Would allow buildings to be built to the lake setback • For conforming lots, removing the ALS could impact the protected view over neighboring property boundaries. ■ �47 Use the ALS as a tool/guide for variance analysis. Text • Add a definition of average lakeshore setback to Definitions Sec. 78-1, simplified to remove exceptions; Amendment remove the existing language from Sec. 78-1279 • Develop a new Practical Difficulty Standard to apply to variance requests for improvements within the Lake yard (75-foot) setback. ■ 10 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: • 211 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 11 Example Timeline (August 18 September 12 • Planning • Legal Commission Notification review of draft sent to the Text D N R Amendment Language September September October November 15 1 23 20 10 • Draft • Legal Notice • Planning • City Council Ordinance submitted to Commission Review available on the Newspaper Meeting WITH City Website Public • Introduce Hearing Proposed Amendment with Social Media • Planning Commission Meeting Noven 24 • City Council 2nd Reading of Ordinance and Formal Adoption • Continued Education • Implement Ordinance 01/01/2026 12 Discussion / Wrap Up • Comments on the proposed text amendment • Provide Staff with direction/feedback public input process. Average Lakeshore Setback &"-O)V,O 1� Discussion- Part S City Council Work Session os/12/24 14 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. 15 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 U-1 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) 17 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 J 18 Discussion /Wrap Up • Comments on the proposed direction • Provide Staff with direction/feedback on the suggested additional public input process. M:1 Driveway Width within the Shore and Tributary Setbacks RoN; a l� City Council Work Session 06/10/24 20 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 advanta e of natural vegetation and topography to achieve maximum screening as viewed trom 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; 21 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 Backup Apron ao (if Required) 7-7 8'x8' Minimum Garage `o Side load E P� E E Z E Apron Depth 20' Mi End Load 14- Rad (Min) Minimum Width of Garage Door �s n Minimum Taper E Drnreway ,%I..-ti I 2: 22 8' Minim;.rr .5 P Y Maximu,i' Driveway Width ------- 1 b 8' MiNnvjm 5' Rad. 5' Rad. (24' Ma)dmum) I Edge of Righ:-Of-Way (Lot Line) Minimum Driveway Standards 22 Staff Analysis and Recommends • 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 ordinance and the City s existing ensure the driveway is designed impacts. in the DNR model driveway standards to to minimize adverse • 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 Commission review and public hearing. PRC °M" D tion rrtoro�n soar '� coKsrRue=nN for a Planning 23 Average Lakeshore Setback RoN; a l� Discussion- Part 4 City Council Work Session 06/10/24 24 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. 25 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 devel 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. *The more restrictive setback will be applied to determine the building setback. FHardcover • 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. 26 ALS Challenges and Impacts Challenges - The ordinance language is cumbersome for staff and residents to interpret and apply - Overtime application substantially limit the parcel of the ALS can buildable envelope of a - 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 27 Options to Consider • Option 1: Calculate the ALS using the average of the measured distance of the abutting neighbors' homes Findin : As reviewed at the February 2024 Council Work Session, calculating the ALS does not provide significant relief rf om the regulation. • Option 2: Create an Exception for homes a specific distance from the OHWL (i.e. +300' from the lake) • Findin : This does not address the majority of AILS 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. M 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. a:] 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. Kill 3339 Crystal Bay Road - Addition VlLwl U, TI riL1.rH 1. Lu7 HIJIJI I LV.N _i V LA2 000016 THE VILLAGE OF MINNN BEACH _ MINNETONKA MIN HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA CRYSTAL BAY I /RIPRArA� Average Lakeshore Setback variance L29.4 INE u (OR ) L requested for the construction of an -� addition to an existin g home within '�� ''-g�'��� s�} '� '° 4,� AIPRAP / Opt both setbacks•°y�A �ti �l egg fi S C A L E N FEE T g1 v �. 135oRDpogn� r FENCE l bg `�� iC cnTCN WS ) �\ �F f aaQposEv 1 Er. wnu PRQ'O5� n r' i. (L} Tw1s5.2 • ALS as is (red line) �.. g AY:. o �y3 ! CONCRETE (K) F DRIVEWAY Lake setback at 75 `E'� f • ( ) Ro 4c r� EXISTING! iC9) 'TOh,4 p� C•31d) �' GARAGE HOUSE VyL000,j PROPO AGE 8AMMON }�Y 932.7 1� 1 y ry0 `ate s 3 J "hE E/ Applied Option 7 - Apply the ALS when the house ,� A �� encroaches into the lake setback. °�9f� PDREO�PCSE(�f MA� `I 8 `� "' TW 9 MI�SEwERI TO— 6w (Oz• L•E A$ RAFL WALJE {ssyar� ^�rSrdrE' y$9 WA • The ALS would function as a guide for the lakeward � ALLN�G � nXISTING w "� �° 0) HOUSE ("u; (u�2) extent of a home expansion. 3339 _ # (9saalf ' CRYSTAL MAY Im �p9 • 75' lake setback and 30' rear setback eliminate a `A'-942.— — o COAb r � s reasonable building envelope. `� �� z,¢ (B) r oEcx • 3 / r N"�'q`'y Using the ALS line (approx. 65 from the OHWL) EXISTING allows for a larger building envelope than the 75' lake X30U5E cRmw Rav m .,mow 9434 B43 - 31 3600 Casco Avenue- New House LA23-000060 Average Lakeshore Setback variance requested for construction of a new - home within ALS. i • ALS as is (red line) • NOC.IAA ROW N,lO V i.. - .. !•IV tl I(yp. M. vwSfS O[L ' ' 1 �� ,=w_ ,_° �p r°1 • Shore lake setback(yellow line A I O tion 7-The shore setback - �- p p Y p �--� can be met. The ALS would not apply. The veiiuvv 75' lake setback line would set the lakeward extent of the house placement. 32 )NKA 559 Park Lane - Deck LA23-000033 l IMNNOLE �RM{97a.6) I CCAI IICCnDIDTIr%KI nr ©DnA Lots 9 and 10, Block 6, MINI` • : denotes iron m Average Lakeshore Setback variance requested for the construction of a deck within the ALS. • ALS as is (red line) • Lake setback ( ellow line) Under Option 7: The shore setback can be met. The ALS would not apply. The yellow 75' lake setback line would set the l a kewa rd extent of the house placement. KIK3 2605 Mapleridge Lane - Addition L , , , ft A23-000066 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 ( eiiow imp ) Under Option 7: The 75' setback can be met. The ALS (red line) would not apply. The 75' lake setback (YIP11MAI tint- )would determine the building envelope. 34 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. 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. Average Lakeshore Setback RoN; a l� Discussion- Part 3 City Council Work Session 02/12/2024 37 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. 38 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' 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. 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. 39 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 40 ALS Challenges and Impacts Challenges Results - The ordinance language is cumbersome for _ ALS further limits massingawayfrom the staff and residents to interpret and apply shoreline - 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. - 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 41 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 Structure Setback Averaging Ex4sdng ExOrg structure MCI- strucwre Structure setback jShore X + Y - 2 Y mpactzonel OHWL The following slides reflect Staffs analysis of recent ALS variances to show the different options for recalculating the ALS could be applied. 42 2605 Mapleridge Lane- Addition LA23-000066 A 2nN -- LAKE MIAWETONKA (L9FA YETI'E BAYJ 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( ) • ALS 3: Calculate the average(iIuP lip )and allow the less restrictive to determine the setback • In this scenario the original measurement of ALS is less restrictive 43 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 44 3400 Fox Street- New Home e.'- LA23-000068 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 l ) • ALS 3: Eliminate neighbor that is over 300' from OHWL from calculation (green ) • 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 45 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 IinE) • 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 IinE) measured from both the lake and channel U-I 3600 Casco Avenue- New House • NOC.IAA ROW � �N,lO �V LA23-000060 Average Lakeshore Setback variance requested for the construction of a new home • ALS 1: Leave ALS as is (red line) is ALS 2: Eliminate the ALS, setback determined by the required lake setback( ) • ALS 3: Calculate the average (blue 8�->>IinP) 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 47 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 line) Current ALS —about 203' from OHWL U:1 LIVE "9 A\� (ase.tl 9 962 \ \ a l \ \ \ (e 5) 559 Park Lane- Deck EXISTING W USF $543 P _ -j pN°` .. ......... fp4 " �55 -- (961 f `q50) •.� L96`�yl, g55A (9 . (9595) 1 1I I pll9 W \ I I \ II \(958b) (&58.8 I \ I I 1 \ \ \ (959A) 9 �^ ("E \ 1 WI I )NKA M liV 76 rwAu. —SETBACK LINE/ LA23-000033 Average Lakeshore Setback variance �Q�90HMRK. requested for the construction of a deck q01080) 59J J BLACKTOP DRIVEWAY 1 C �.... '�N TRAVEL CARAT 'a FLOOR I EXISTING (9.4.0 i HOUSE ,'' oop N (9843) + ATIO /WW (K) LOWERV90SO qW Ac'�-. (95J3) w; 015 1 ao G l9 \ \ d E�11� 955(1)1 hS'vpC `I \ 0. NN 20 ASH � �1 4.7 tO ucFO. EXISTING 9�3 WOUSE ,Y667 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREM Lots 9 and 10, Block 6, MINi' • : denotes iron m • ALS 1: Leave ALS as is (red lin • ALS 2: Eliminate the ALS, setback determined by required lake setback • ALS 3: Calculate the average (bluf 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 ALA set may have allowed the deck expansion and a variance would not have been required. we 559 Park Lane- Deck LA23-000033 • Current ALS line ( ) • 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 line-) Current ALS —about 102' from OHWL All 1340 Vine Place- New House LA23-000008 R; LOTS [SED & Average Lakeshore Setback variance IENNE. 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( ) • 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 51 1340 Vine Place- New House + - Neighbor 41 LA23-000008 • Current ALS line (red) • Eliminate the ALS, setback determined by required lake setback( ) • 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 52 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. y-V Staffs Recommendations After conducting the analysis, staff finds that adjusting the regulation would not significantly reduce the number of Al requested each year. Changing the ALS regulation would ni fewer variance requests and in some situations would resL setback placing a greater setback burden on the property. current ALS S variances it result in It in a larger • 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. 54 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. 55 Average Lakeshore Setback &"-O)V,O 1� Discussion- Continued City Council Work Session 11/13/2023 A-1 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. UK 1 57 Purpose Lakeshore Setback The Lakeshore Setback is a measured setback from the 929.4' Ordinary ,High Water Level (OHWL) contour restricting development near the in order to protect water quality. lake Natural Environment (e.g. Lake Clasen &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 intended to views of the property. sightl i ne setback protect the neighbors lake over a subject • 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. 58 Questions Posed to the CC: •Does the current ALS achieve the intent of the Council? Should the City's role be ON,z to protect a resident's A views across a neighbor's property 1 4 .A �k� If so, is the current ALS regulation the best way to address the protection of neighbors ighbor's views? 44 Y 4011 M r 200' 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 Dill 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 M, 61 Option 1: Recalculate the ALS with abutting neighbors Structure Setback Averaging Existing structure shore impact zor* Proposed structur Structure setback ------ t----- X+Y4- Existing ' structure Y 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. 62 Option 2: Create an Exception for homes over 300' from the lake a. Pros: i. Keeps the existing definition ii. Eliminates some extreme setbacks from the equation iii.Minimal impact as this scenario as this layout is not common around the lake b. Cons: i. Allows for building in front of a neighbors homes ii. Setback is still based on neighboring homes iii.Does not fix the challenges with a curvy lakeshore and peninsulas iv.Creates another cumbersome exception to the setback c. Questions i. Is 300' the right number? Will there ever be a right number? ii. Does it serve the purpose for the regulation? 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 -1. 'iL-V' " 64 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 W Option 5: No Change to Code a. Pros: i. Residents and stakeholders are familiar with our code and restrictions ii.Continue to systematically push development further from the lake iii.Additional setback in place to preserve lake quality (not the purpose for the regulation) b. Cons: i. Requires a lot of variances ii.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. D:1-1 Staffs Recommenda 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. Lion l � 67 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. [d.] Average Lakeshore Setback RoN; 1� Discussion City Council Worksession 8/14/2023 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. UK 1 70 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. 71 Orono City Limits: Forest Lake Lakeshore 72 OEM, Av 12&,-9 A9 YL 3, 200' N4 73 ;Poor lop ALSI 33 Y ; 4t 33G p 44 74 75 ALS Variances Granted 2021- 12 ALS Variances 2022- 7 ALS Variances 2023- 10 ALS Variances (through the end of July) l�� y ..Y... '--��i, . 76 Minnetonka Beach Wayzata Minnetrista Spring Park Victoria Deephaven Shorewood Neighboring Cities Yes. (Recently amended in 2023) A line is drawn from building to building to determine No Yes Yes No No No [Lire the ALS as well as a separate deck to deck line is drawn. A line is drawn between the principle buildings AND the average distance is calculated based on the principle buildings. The MORE restrictive is applied. 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. Follow at 50' lakeshore setback from the OHWL. Some exceptions for deck encroachments N/A They only follow a OHWL N/A 100' lakeshore setback from the Rarely- Maybe 1 Variance a year No N/A N/A N/A N/A 77 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. 78 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? 1 1 40W. -. A- 79 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? AGENDA ITEM Date: July 14, 2025 Title: City Code Enforcement Discussion Presenter: Laura Oakden, Community Development Director Section: Work Session Item Purpose: To review and discuss the Code Enforcement and Complaint Process. Item: 2. Background: The City of Orono administers code enforcement (property violations) through a complaint -driven system. The goal for resolution of violations is through voluntary compliance by the property owner. The following is a list of code enforcement issues common to most cities including Orono: Zoning or land use violations Hazardous buildings Noise: Barking dogs, off - hours construction activity, Nuisance Lighting parties, etc. Accumulations of Inoperable/Unlicensed vehicles garbage/junk/etc. Unkept Property Maintenance Long grass/weeds Drainage / Water discharge Construction w/o permit Erosion control Obstructions placed in right-of- way Staff approaches city code violations and property complaints from an informational or educational standpoint with the goal being voluntary compliance. Most property complaints are resolved by working with property owners to achieve compliance not by involving the court system, whenever possible. We will work with any individual so long as they work with us, make progress, and keep us informed of the progress they are making. Complaints are received though a number of avenues such as: phone calls, emails, in person, online submittal via citizenserve or citizen problem reporter. Complainant information is protected (not public). The City does not accept anonymous complaint. Staff responds to complaints with a multi -step process: 1. A complaint is received and assigned to a staff person. 2. The property is inspected by staff to verify if a code violation exists. If a violation is confirmed, it is documented, and photos are taken. 3. An initial Notice of Violation letter is sent to the property owner detailing the infraction, city requirements, and recommended corrective measures, requiring attention and response within 7-14 days, depending on the infraction. 4. A follow-up inspection is completed by staff after the deadline to check progress and document any remaining issues with photos and notes, etc. 81 a. If the violation is addressed, the file is closed. b. If the property owner requests additional time to address an issue, city staff will consider that request with the goal of compliance, rather than punitive action. c. If the violation is not addressed but some progress toward compliance is made, a 2nd violation letter detailing the infraction and recommended corrective measures is sent to the property owner, requiring attention and an additional deadline is provided, depending on the infraction. d. If no progress is made by the deadline and/or the property owner has not reached out to staff with questions or to request an extension, a FINAL NOTICE letter is sent, informing the property owner that failure to respond or comply may result in staff engaging our attorney for consideration of prosecution. 5. If a violation is not found at the initial inspection, the file is closed as "unfounded". 6. If the violation is addressed, the file is closed. Efficiency factors Staff Time/Priorities. Code enforcement is not the primary job duty for any one person. Code Enforcement is handled across the entire Community Development Department. The Planning Assistant takes in the complaints through the online citizenserve system. A site inspection is often assigned to a Planner or the Building Inspector. The Planner will review the information and make a determination for a violation. Staff reacts to complaints, and works to respond with an initial inspection within 1-3 business days. If a violation is found, the code compliance process begins with a letter to notify the homeowner will be sent in the following days based on workload. Land Use Applications, Planning Commission and City Council Packets, Building permits/inspections, customer assistance and the front counter, special/highly active projects (developments), and department administration all have statutory or organizational deadlines that must be met first, and by default, take priority. The current staffing level is adequate for the current process that is not aggressive in code enforcement. However, staff is considering ways to streamline the code compliance process to relieve/redistribute some the of workload regarding code enforcement. If the Council wishes to increase code enforcement response, additional resources are necessary. Tracking and automation. Currently, citizenserve is the online permitting software being used for tracking code enforcement. There are issues with the software's ability to keep required information confidential. As such, staff is using the software for tracking, but documents and photos are kept in a separate drive to ensure all privacy laws are met. Staff has considered and is open to new software to better streamline the code enforcement administration. Clear and concise codes. The ongoing attempt to establish understandable codes consistently applied will help with constituents understand the rules and expectations. Funding. The budget includes nominal code enforcement funds under Law/Legal services. Changes to the code enforcement process including and upgrading the software or creating a more aggressive or strict enforcement procedure would require additional funding for upgrades or staffing. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED The Council is asking to review and discuss the code enforcement procedure. 82