Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-27-2026 - Agenda Packet City Council - Work SessionAgenda City Council Work Session Monday, April 27, 2026, 4:30 PM City Council Chambers 12780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 952-249-4600 /oronomn.gov Roll Call Work Session Item 1. Interviews - Commissioner Applicants 2. Average Lakeshore Discussion Part 7 Adjournment Sign up for email notifications at oronomn.gov AGENDA ITEM Date: April 27, 2026 Title: Interviews - Commissioner Applicants Presenter: Joe Ruthenberg, Superintendent - Parks, Facilities Section: Work Session Item 1. Purpose: Conduct interviews for Park Commissioners Item: 1 2. Background: The Council will interview applicants for two open Park Commission seats. Brief role descriptions and schedule are provided below. The Park Commission is a volunteer group that advises the City Council on parks and recreation. Members review community needs for parks, trails, and recreational facilities and make recommendations for improvements and future planning. 4:30 - 4:35 Briefing (Interview Panel) 4:35 - 4:55 Interviews: 4:35 - 4:45 Applicant 1 - Kim Kang 4:45 - 4:55 Applicant 2 - Cody Ferguson 4:55 - 5:00 Discussion (Interview Panel) COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Council should provide direction to staff for appointments to the Park Commissions. A resolution for appointments will be brought to a future Council meeting. Exhibits Tentative Interview Questions.docx `� Tentative Interview Questions 1. Understanding of Role: What is your understanding of the role and responsibilities of a Parks Commissioner for the City of Orono? Response: 2. Interest and Motivation: What interests you most about serving on the Parks Commission? Response: 3. Value of Parks & Open Space: In your opinion, why should the City invest resources in parks, open spaces, and trails? Response: 4. Personal Use & Familiarity: Which City of Orono parks, trails, or open spaces do you use most frequently? What has been your experience? Response: 5. Comprehensive Plan Knowledge: Describe your understanding of the City's Comprehensive Plan as it relates to parks, open space, and trails. Response: 6. Key Issues & Future Vision: What do you see as the key issues or opportunities facing Orono's park system over the next 5-10 years? Response: 3 7. Governance & Collaboration: How do you view the relationship between the Parks Commission and the City Council? Response: 8. Community Engagement: How would you approach balancing differing community perspectives regarding parks and open space? Response: 4 AGENDA ITEM Date: April 27, 2026 Title: Average Lakeshore Discussion Part 7 Presenter: Laura Oakden, Community Development Director Section: Work Session Item Purpose: Review the Average Lakeshore Setback (ALS) information. Item: 2 2. Background: In 2023, Staff was directed to evaluate ALS regulations, which began a series of work session discussions. The ALS is applied to protect 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, other classification of lakes have more restrictive lake setbacks. Both the lakeshore setback and the ALS apply to lakeshore properties. The more restrictive of the two setback is applied to a subject parcel. The Council held a work session in July of 2025 (ALS Part 6) and discussed the challenges of ALS ordinance and the benefits of having overlapping ALS and Lake setbacks, although each regulation serves a different specific purpose. The ALS as noted above protects views, the purpose of the lake setback is to protect/preserve the water quality. At the July work session staff recommended an amendment to remove the ALS requirement and create a new criteria for evaluating new improvements within the lake setback. The Council directed staff to revisit the ALS regulation for discussion. Attached are the past presentations summarizing the ALS work session discussions. The Council will be asked to provide feedback regarding the intent of the ordinance and clarify the Council's goals for regulating development of lakeshore properties. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Council should provided feedback and direction to proceed. Exhibits A. ALS Discussion pt.1. 8.11.23 B. ALS Discussion pt.2 11.9.23 C. ALS Discussion- pt.3 2.12.24 D. ALS Discussion- pt.4 6.10.24 E. ALS Discussion pt.5 8.12.24 F. ALS Discussion pt.6 7.14.25 Average Lakeshore Setback -ON 1� r ",,, CG�z 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. 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. 1.1 Orono City Limits: Forest Lake Lakeshore F,I Unimpr ve4d Mw ROW 200' 4-A 10 I . wi ALSI N 74� +�% % ':fin ?'�: � y! _ • - ry� �f- f L,� ��' 'ALS- :'!-- � t�t'. q, - - y 11�. •,i ��-r`-s-.`-4'.�+: - - l 4, Ylr.�. t J t� � �s �1:,`� rA �•vv I V 12 ALS Variances Granted 2021- 12 ALS Variances 2022- 7 ALS Variances 2023- 10 ALS Variances (through the end of July) 4,04 0& Ak. 1. A! 13 Neighboring Cities Minnetonka Yes. (Recently amended in 2023) A line is drawn from building to building to determine NMI Beach the ALS as well as a separate deck to deck line is drawn. Wayzata Yes A line is drawn between the principle buildings AND Rarely- Maybe 1 the average distance is calculated based on the Variance a year principle buildings. The MORE restrictive is applied. Minnetrista Yes A line is drawn between the principle buildings AND No 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. Spring Park No Follow at 50' lakeshore setback from the OHWL. N/A Some exceptions for deck encroachments Victoria No N/A N/A Deephaven No They only follow a 100' lakeshore setback from the N/A OHWL 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. 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? P 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 1� Average Lakeshore Setback r ",,, CG�z Discussion- Continued City Council Work Session 11/13/2023 U:3 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. Ms1 Purpose � � r Lakeshore Setback Average Lakeshore Setback The Lakeshore Setback is a measured The ALS is a sightline setback setback from the 929.4' Ordinary intended to protect the neighbor's High Water Level (OHWL) contour views of the lake. restricting development near the lake in order to protect water quality. I •Accessory structures are • Natural Environment (e.g. Lake Classen & French Lake): 150' • Recreational Development (e.g. Long Lake): 75'/100' • General Development (e.g. Lake Minnetonka): 75' 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, 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? f Ply 75 Y r Should the Cit 's role be M•>, boo to protect a resident's -A ,' views across a neighbor's 01 property. �•SS''L y 1�♦ . If so, is the current ALS ' , regulation the best way to address the protection of .,+N,: � neighbor's views? 21 Unimproved Row .A �f ALS Impact A. AL 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 4 home) - Common error on surveys, leads to multiple submittals and reviews by staff - Many variances granted each year - 10 Variances have been granted through July 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 �x ALSO A 23 Option 1: Recalculate the ALS with abutting neighbors Structure Setback A►reraging Existing structure x----- j Shore jimpact zon@ �OHINL f Proposed Structure Structure setback T----- X+Y=2 Existing ` Structure Use the average distances measured from the two abutting homes to find a numerical average setback from the OHWL for the subject property. a. Pros: i. Creates a measured distance setback from the OHWL ii. Follows the shoreline and could allow for a more uniform building envelope iii. Resolves issues on peninsulas and bays b. Cons: i. Setback is still determined by location of the neighbors ii. Discrepancies in setbacks will continue to be challenging iii.Could allow homes to be built forward of the neighbor's homes impacting views c. Questions: i. This could be an alternative way to measure in addition to our current practice. Allowing residents to use the less restrictive of the two. 24 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? 00 z00ft 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 i A- V- 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 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 "do we like our neighbor?", too subjective. iv.Preserves a right to a view over another's property. W Staffs Recommendation A. Eliminate the ALS B. Recalculate the ALS to a measured average from the OHWL V l 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. Kill 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' 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 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. 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 AILS - (2018) Ord 222, 3rd Series - Change the terminology from "structures" to "buildings" as regulated within the AILS. - (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 Results - The ordinance language is cumbersome for - ALS further limits massing away from the staff and residents to interpret and apply g y 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 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 Fxi.ng ,—Bea Ezdng B uctum I OWL- 111C 16 Structure setback ----x-----------}----- - -- - - - - Shore X.Ya2 Y mpect tore wOHWL The following slides reflect Staff's analysis of recent ALS variances to show the different options for recalculating the ALS could be applied. 91. 2605 Mapleridge Lane- Addition LA23-000066 ti\ d \ L,lME A9lHNETONXA .w✓• ?44 $ � ..n. �(L lFAYETfE BwYJ� -- 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(blue ) 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 I � I A • 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 38 3400 Fox Street- New Home LA23-000068 Average Lakeshore Setback variance requested for the construction of a new home • ALS 1: Leave ALS as is ( ed line) • ALS 2: Eliminate the ALS, setback determined by the required lake setback • ALS 3: Eliminate neighbor that is over 300' from OHWL from calculation (green ling) • ALS 4: Calculate the average (blue lir- ) 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 KP'I 3400 Fox Street- New Home LA23-000068 • Current ALS line (rea) makes the lot unbuildable • Eliminate the abutting home over 300" from the lake ( ;ree. . • 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 40 3600 Casco Avenue- New House LA23-000060 Average Lakeshore Setback variance requested for the construction of a ®w new home °O pv- -§�o • ALS 1: Leave ALS as is (red line) e9 ,ter. � ALS 2: Eliminate the ALS setback determined by the required lake setback • ALS 3: Calculate the average (blue lit, ) 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 line) Current ALS — about 203' from OHWL 42 559 Park Lane- Deck LA23-000033 �z �t?:, Lots 9 and 10, Block 6, M114 • ; denotes iron m 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 ) • ALS 3: Calculate the average (blue ) 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 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 I I I I ) Current ALS — about 102' from OHWL 44 1340 Vine Place- New House LA23-000008 i�\ R Y. ] RIN LOTS EEVISEDVISED 8 Average Lakeshore Setback variance HENME. requested for the construction of a LOT 4 FOREST new home LOT 3 LAKE (-E 3AMNETgY(A) • ALS 1: Leave ALS as is (red line) z .`/'/ ' �'" ° `,y. • ALS 2: Eliminate the ALS, setback w LOT determined by required lake setback( ) ' �'r' '�. '`F��"��� �'%/ • ALS 3: Calculate the average and LOT 13 %' �/ .OaX gym allow the less restrictive to 8 ��°, ;'' determine the setback. (blue line) GP� ,✓ -u This scenario does not show a ` calculated average because the j , average, 147.5' is greater than the P____-- 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( ) • 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 U-I 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 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 )t result in t 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. U:1 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. we Driveway Width within the Shore and Tributary Setbacks ONO 11 1 5H01 City Council Work Session 06/10/24 691 Shoreland Regulations Orono: City Code Section 78-1282. - Driveways, stairways, lifts and landings. (a) A driveway no wider than eightfeet 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 is The minimum driveway must equal the width of the garage door opening. is Minimum backup apron —8foot x8foot 8' Backup Apron m (If Required) S)M' Minimurr. Garage `o {n a 8pj n Side Load E E , z f Apron Depth 20' Min. End Load (�n, Minimum Width of Garage Door -� ------------- Minimum Taper Drivel Width 2 i �2 E 8' Minimum (20 Mabrtwm) f Driveway Width — B' Minimum 5' Rad. 5' Rad. (20' Maximum)r, Edge of Right -Of -Way t (Lot Line) t t t t i e Minimum Driveway Standards 6N 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. PROPOSEDO HUSE LAK/ 1850 1 A �1 n 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. y-V 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. *The more 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. 4.1 ALS Challenges and Impacts Challenges - The ordinance language is cumbersome for staff and residents to interpret and apply - Over time application of the AILS 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 AILS 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 • 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) • 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. 4-1 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. 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. Dill 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' ( ) 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( ). MINNETONKA CRYSTAL BAY 929.4 O T LHE CO.H.W.)�p'S0 —t V. Vt1LjIlUrD ADD liU1V lU THE VILLAGE OF MINNETONKA BEACH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA `&s, 71 o 0 20 ao �n SCALF IN FEET 110 \� vmeas.o ar .r— 61 3600 Casco Avenue- New House LA23-000060 Average Lakeshore Setback variance requested for construction of a new �home within A LS . e A - _.... COO e9 � b , ALS a(red s s iline) ��,_. �� _ Shore/lake setback ( ellow line) Apply Option - The shore setback can be met. The ALS would not apply. The yu,wv, 75' lake setback line would set the lakeward extent of the house placement. 62 559 Park Lane - Deck LA23-000033 �z �t?:, Lots 9 and 10, Block 6, MIN • ; 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 jelln,N 75' lake setback line would set the lakeward extent of the house placement. W 2605 Mapleridge Lane - Addition LA23-000066 ti\ d .w✓• ?44 \ L,lME A9lHNETONXA $ � ..n. �(L lFAYETfE BwYJ� .- 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 (jeiiuw iir ) Under Option 7: The 75' setback can be met. The ALS (red line) would not apply. The 75' lake setback (yellov\f "ni ) would determine the building envelope. r:1 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. M-1 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. D:1-1 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. DV 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 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: • 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 71 Discussion / Wrap Up • Comments on the proposed direction • Provide Staff with direction/feedback on the suggested additional public input process. 72 i Aver Lakeshore Setback Discussion - Part 6 City Council Worksession July 14, 2025 Laura Oakden, Community Development Director 73 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. ■ 74 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.) ■ 75 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. ■ VP 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. 77 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. 78 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. ■ M7 ■ 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. 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 81 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 Discussion / Wrap Up • Comments on the proposed text amendment • Provide Staff with direction/feedback public input process.