Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-26-2006 AdditionsADDITIONS TO AGENDA WEDNESDAY, APRIL 26, 2006 OLD BUSINESS: 1. 30% Impervious Surface Issue Correspondence Pages 1 through 34. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Continuation of Zoning Workshop to Monday, May 15, 2006 from 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. 2. Letter from Eric Weisman Correspondence Pages 35 through 37. 0 - 1 - MINUTES TEXT AMENDMENT - CUP FOR SECOND DRIVEWAY ACCESS IN R=1 DISTRICT MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL LITTLE CANADA, MINNESOTA MARCH 22, 2006 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof a regular meeting of the City Council of Little Canada, Minnesota was convened on the 22nd day of March, 2006 in the Council Chambers of the City Center located at 515 Little Canada Road in said City. Mayor Bill Blesener called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and the following members of the City Council were present at roll call: CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Council Member Council Member Council Member Council Member ALSO PRESENT: City Administrator City Attorney City Planner Cable TV Producer City Clerk Mr. Mr. Mr. Ms. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Ms. Bill Blesener Jim LaValle Rick Montour Barb Allan John Keis Joel R. Hanson Tom Sweeney Steve Grittman Rusty Arntson Kathy Glanzer Ms. Allan introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -3 -65 — APPROVING THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 8, 2006 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AS SUBMITTED The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by LaValle. Ayes (5). Nays (0). Resolution adopted. Mayor Blesener opened the Public Hearing to consider a Text Amendment to the Zoning Code creating a Conditional Use Permit for a second driveway access for Single - Family Residential (R -1) properties. Blesener noted that the City Planner has recommended against the Text Amendment, but the Planning Commission recommended in favor subject to a list of conditions that would have to be met to qualify for the CUP. Blesener noted that if the Text Amendment is adopted, Mike and Heidi Murphy are requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow them to install a horseshoe driveway on their property at 601 County Road B -2 East. 3 MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MARCH 22, 2006 The City Planner reviewed his report dated March 3, 2006 relative to the issue of allowing two curb cuts for single- family lots. He noted the research done by City staff as well as his office which indicates that the majority of cities surveyed limit single - family properties to one curb cut. The Planner also reported that the Minnesota Department of Transportation has done a significant amount of work promoting access management, and recommends that access to the public rights -of -way be limited. MN DOT's position is that more access points result in less safe conditions. The Planner reported that the busier the street, the more important it is to minimize the number of access points along the street. The Planner noted that the Planning Commission discussed the safety issues related to backing out onto a street that has a lot of non - motorized/pedestrian traffic. The MN DOT studies do not address that issue, but do say that the more access points along a road the less other drivers are able to predict where turning movements will occur. The Planner reported that the Planning Commission felt that despite the MN DOT research, backing out onto a busy street was a safety concern and recommended approval of the Text Amendment creating the CUP subject to a list of conditions. Blesener felt the IVIN DOT research would have been more thorough if it had addressed the issue of bacicing out onto a busy street. The Planner replied that MN DOT is saying that all other things being equal, the more access points along a street, the Less safe the street is. Blesener felt that the ability to pull out onto a street would be safer. The City Planner stated that he could not argue that point, but noted that T turnaround or full circle driveway would provide the ability to pull out. LaValle stated that backing up an automobile is the most unsafe driving motion. LaValle stated that he does not have a strong feeling about the driveway issue, but felt the proposed Text Amendment should not be adopted. LaValle felt the need for second driveway access could be handled under the City's Variance process. Allan agreed that the issue should be handled under the Variance process, and felt the CUP process proposed would only benefit a chosen few. Allan noted the conditions proposed in the Text Amendment would eliminate many property owners from the ability to apply for a CUP for the second driveway access. Allan noted the house at the intersection of Little Canada Road/County Road C/Lakeshore Avenue would not be able to qualify for a CUP and has a difficult situation for backing into the street. Allan felt that the current Variance process worked well for addressing requests for second curb cuts, and felt that a hardship should be 4 MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MARCH 22, 2006 present to warrant the second curb cut. Allan stated that she had concern with allowing second curb cuts routinely given the added impervious surface and the impact on the environment. Allan suggested that if second curb cuts are allowed one condition should be the use of pervious surfacing. LaValle pointed out that a double driveway may have the same amount of impervious surface as a single -width horseshoe driveway. Keis agreed and pointed out that there are triple -car garages in the City that have very wide driveways. Keis pointed out that there is no limitation on the amount of impervious surface for a residential property other than in the Shoreland District. Allan felt that the City should take a look at that issue given its impact on the environment. Keis did not feel there would be a huge influx of requests for CUP's for second driveway accesses if the Council approved the Text Amendment. Keis pointed out that even the T turnaround and full circle options add additional blacktop. He felt a horseshoe driveway looked nice, and that the driving factor was really one of personal choice. Allan agreed that aesthetically a horseshoe driveway can look good. She pointed out, however, that according to MN DOT numerous curb cuts along a street resulted in a less safe condition. Keis felt it depended on the street indicating that it was safer to pull out on a busy street. Allan noted that property owners with 75 foot wide lots would not be able to put in a horseshoe driveway under the proposed conditions in the Text Amendment. Keis pointed out that they would likely have the ability to put in a T turnaround. The City Planner indicated that a T turnaround is allowed as long as it is not used as a parking space. Biesener indicated that a T turnaround could add as much impervious surface to a lot as a second curb curt. Montour felt that the Text Amendment had some merit, and pointed out the list of existing horseshoe driveways in the City that the Murphy's provided. Montour felt that the definition of a hardship was somewhat subjective. He felt that handling these requests by CUP took away the ambiguity. He also pointed out that unless a property owner can meet the conditions outlined in the CUP, the request would not be processed. LaValle felt requests for second driveway curs should be handled on an individual basis, 3 5 MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MARCH 22, 2006 Allan pointed out that creating a CUP process for these requests will open up the availability to any property owner that can meet the conditions spelled out in the Text Amendment. Under the Variance process, a hardship would have to be met. Keis noted that a hardship must be a physical characteristic unique to the property, and most properties will not have a true hardship. Keis pointed out that technically, the City should not grant variances. Blesener reviewed the list of existing horseshoe driveways in the City noting that five were installed without City approval after the 1980 Code was adopted. Others were installed prior to enactment of the 1980 Code, and one was installed on County Road B -2 under a Variance action. Blesener noted that it will take a minimum of four affirmative votes of the Council Members to pass the proposed Text Amendment. Allan indicated that she would not support it. LaVaile stated that he felt requests for second curb cuts should be handled on a case -by -case basis. The Planner indicated that this is the way requests are currently handled, but under the Variance process which requires a hardship. The Planner noted that under the CUP process, anyone who can meet the conditions of the CUP would have the right to obtain a permit for the second driveway access. The Planner suggested that to make the process somewhere between a Variance and CUP, the CUP conditions should be very restrictive which would narrow the possibility of properties that would qualify for the CUP. Montour suggested that the compromise then might be to include more restrictions under the CUP process. Allan noted the proposed restriction that lots must be at least 100 feet in width. She pointed out that there may be lots narrower than the 100 feet that may have more of a need from a safety standpoint for a horseshoe driveway than a wider lot. LaValle asked about corner lots. The Planner indicated that comer lots would meet the 100 foot minimum. The Planner also corrected an earlier statement and indicated that the Code limits the ability to install T turnarounds to lots on minor collectors and above. The Code does not allow T turnarounds on every street. Blesener suggested that perhaps the ability to install T turnarounds should be available to all residential properties. Allan felt the Codes works the way it is written and should remain as is. LaVaile asked the width of the Murphy property. Heidi Murphy responded that the lot is 114 feet wide and the existing driveway is 20 feet wide. There would be a 40 foot separation between driveways. 6 MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MARCH 22, 2006 Murphy noted that at the Planning Commission meeting, the Commission supported the Text Amendment and agreed that backing out on a busy street was a safety issue. Murphy noted that County Road B -2 is a busy street consisting of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. She further noted that they do not have the ability to install a T turnaround in their yard given that a large spruce tree would have to be cut down. She also noted that there is not enough room between the house and the street to install a T turnaround due to the tree location. Montour felt that there were other streets in the City just as busy as County Road B -2. He noted that he lives on DeSoto Street which has a lot of pedestrian traffic to Pioneer Park. Backing out onto streets with pedestrian traffic is an issue and drivers must be careful. Allan felt there was some room on the Murphy property to install the T turnaround without disturbing the tree. Murphy disagreed and indicated that the turn would be too tight. Murphy again pointed out that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Text Amendment. She noted that the two dissenting votes only opposed the Text Amendment as written and felt it should be available to more property owners and not as limited as drafted. Murphy stated that they can understand the concern for aesthetics as well and limiting impervious surface. She indicated that they have already submitted a landscape plan for the horseshoe driveway, and would have no problem changing their plan to utilize pervious surface. Murphy indicated that they want to pull out on County Road B -2 for safety reasons. She also noted the point their driveway intersects with the street makes it difficult to back out and drive up the County Road B -2 hill during the. winter. The property across the street has the same situation, and that property was granted a Variance for a horseshoe driveway. Murphy pointed out that several property owners have gone ahead and installed horseshoe driveways over the years without asking for the City's permission. Keis noted that if the City sees a horseshoe driveway being put it, it is stopped. The City Administrator noted that several have been requested, and City staff has told these property owners that they are not permitted. Chris Cardinal, 2755 Lakeside Court, reported that horseshoe driveways have been permitted on County roads. The City Administrator indicated that while the County issues curb. cut permits on County roads, property owners are still required to obtain necessary approvals from the City. Cardinal reported that there is a great deal of pedestrian and non - motorized vehicular traffic around the lake, and consequently on County Road B -2 East. He felt this was a safety issue and that the request for the 7 MINUTES CITY COUNCIL, MARCH 22, 2006 horseshoe driveway should be granted. Cardinal also noted that there are high traffic speeds around the lake on Keller Parkwayand County Road B -2 East. At this point in the meeting, Blesener reviewed the City Planner's recommended conditions for a Conditional Use Permit for second driveway access outlined in the Text Amendment. Allan questioned why the impervious surface limitation did not only apply to the front yard. The City Planner indicated that it is difficult to define front yard, and also indicated that the amount of impervious surface should be a consideration of the entire parcel, not just the front yard. He noted that the City's Shoreland Ordinance already limits the amount of impervious surface on a property to 30 %. This requirement would be new to residential properties that are not shoreland. Montour asked if the impervious surface limitation applied to the house, garage, pool, sports court, driveway, etc. The Planner replied that that was correct. The Planner noted that when applying, the City will ask property owners to show the amount of impervious surface on their property. Blesener noted that provision (g) will limit a lot of horseshoe driveway requests given the requirement that a property owner cannot request the horseshoe drive if a T turnaround or full circle with one curb cut access is able to be installed on the property. Blesener asked if the property owner's desire to save trees would be enough to allow the horseshoe driveway rather than the T turnaround or full circle. The City Planner indicated that that would be at the Council's discretion. LaValle stated that he would support a horseshoe driveway if it meant saving large trees. LaValle stated that he was not comfortable with (g) as written feeling it was too subjective. Keis agreed, and felt that in most requests it will be possible to install a T turnaround or a full circle option. Keis felt that (g) could be better worded. Allan noted that the MN DOT studies show that the more curb cuts, the more safety concerns. Keis noted that the MN DOT studies did not address safety issues related to vehicles backing into busy roadways. LaValle agreed it was safer to pull out on a busy street than to back out. Allan pointed out the additional snow banks that result from curb cuts and that impact on safety conditions. Keis asked about the discussion relative to street classifications. The Planner reported that the City's Comprehensive Plan classifies streets into four categories: local, minor collector, major collector, and arterials. County Road B -2 East is a minor collector. The proposed Text Amendment limits CUP eligibility to minor collector and above. It was 6 -8 MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MARCH 22, 2006 further noted that local streets would not be eligible for a horseshoe driveway or a T turnaround. LaValle asked the turning radius needed for a full circle driveway. The Planner estimated 25 feet was needed to turn around a passenger vehicle. It was the consensus of the Council to strike "full circle" from item (g) in the proposed text amendment given the increased impervious surface that would be necessary to install a full circle. The Council discussed item (h) which limits the horseshoe driveway option to minor collector as recommended by the Planning Commission. The consensus was in support of this condition, noting that this would address streets with high levels of vehicular as well as non - motorized and pedestrian traffic. There was no one else present wishing to comment on this matter. Upon motion by Montour, seconded by Keis, the public hearing was closed. LaValle stated that he had concern with item (g) as worded feeling that this provision was too subjective. He felt it could be reworded to specifically address the issue that tree removal would be an acceptable condition for allowing a horseshoe driveway rather than a T turnaround. Mr. Montour introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -3 -66 — ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 903.050 OF THE LITTLE CANADA CITY CODE, KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BY PROVIDING FOR CURB CUT ACCESS TO SINGLE - FAMILY DETACHED PARCELS AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT TO REMOVAL OF THE PHRASE "OR FULL CIRCLE" FROM PARAGRAPH (g) The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Keis. Ayes (3) Montour, Keis, Blesener. Nays (2) Allan and LaValle. Motion failed. Blesener noted that an amendment to the Zoning Code requires four affirmative votes in order to pass. Therefore, the amendment above failed. CUP FOR Blesener noted that given the Text Amendment failed, the Conditional HORSESHOE Use Permit process that would allow for second curb cuts in the Single - DRIVEWAY — Family Zoning District was not created Therefore, no action is required. 7 -9- MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MARCH 22, 2006 601 COUNTY ROAD B -2 EAST — MURPHY VARIANCE FOR HORSESHOE DRIVEWAY — 601 COUNTY ROAD B -2 EAST — MURPHY Blesener noted that the request of Mike and Heidi Murphy for a Variance to the Code to allow a second curb cut at their property at 601 County Road B -2 East was tabled on December 14, 2005 until this evening's meeting. Mr. Keis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -3 -67— BRING THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE CODE TO ALLOW A SECOND CURB CUT AT 601 COUNTY ROAD B -2 EAST BACK TO TABLE AND BEFORE THE COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by LaValle. Ayes (5). Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. Blesener noted that a hardship must be present in order to warrant the granting of a variance. Keis stated that he would consider the need to remove the existing large spruce tree in order to put in a T turnaround a hardship. LaValle also pointed out the safety issue related to backing onto County Road B -2 East given the traffic volumes of motorized, non - motorized, and pedestrian traffic. Allan stated that she felt the same as she did in December, that there was no hardship present and that a T turnaround could be installed rather than allow the second curb cut. There was no one else present wishing to comment on this matter. Upon motion by LaValle, seconded by Allan, the public hearing was closed. Mr. LaValle introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -3 -68 — GRANTING A VARIANCE ALLOWING A SECOND DRIVEWAY CURB CUT FOR THE SINGLE - FAMILY PROPERTY AT 601 EAST COUNTY ROAD B -2 AS REQUESTED BY MIKE AND HEIDI MURPHY ON THE BASIS OF THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH ARE UNIQUE TO THIS PROPERTY AND CONSTITUTE A HARDSHIP: 8 -10- MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MARCH 22, 2006 ''NO REASONABLE OR SAFE USE OF THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY EXISTS. THIS IS DUE TO HEAVY TRAFFIC AND HIGH SPEEDS COMBINED WITH HEAVY PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC ALONG COUNTY ROAD B -2 EAST; *CIRCUMSTANCE BEYOND THE APPLICANT'S CONTROL WHICH INCLUDE LOW VISIBILITY TO SPEEDING TRAFFIC OR PEDESTRIAN APPROACH FROM EITHER DIRECTION; *VARIANCE WOULD NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE AREA AND ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT'S SUBMITTAL A SECOND CURB CUT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE AREA The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Keis. Ayes (2) LaValle, Keis. Nays (3) Allan, Blesener, Montour. Resolution failed. Blesener stated that he could not support this resolution as his concern was with the next request for a Variance for a second curb cut. LaValle felt that each request should be considered on a case -by -case basis. Allan indicated that the hardship criteria listed above was not true, specifically the first and second points. Montour and Blesener agreed. Montour felt that the issue came down to item (g) in the Text Amendment that was considered, that is if there is no ability for a property owner to put in a T turnaround, then a second curb cut should be allowed. Montour felt that all efforts should be made to require the T turnaround when practical. Allan again stated that she felt the Text Amendment was inequitable as it would be available to property owners who have lots a minimum of 100 feet wide. She pointed out that there may be properties 75 feet in width that would need a second curb cut just as much as a property with 100 feet of width. LaValle asked if one of the negative votes on the Text Amendment could bring the matter back for reconsideration. The City Attorney replied that that was correct. Mr. LaValle introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -3 -69 — BRINGING THE PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING CODE RELATED TO SECOND CURB CUTS BACK FOR RECONSIDERATION MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MARCH 22, 2006 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR SECOND CURB CUT — 601 COUNTY ROAD B -2 EAST — MURPHY The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Keis. Ayes (4) LaValle, Keis, Montour, Blesener. Nays (1) Allan. Resolution declared adopted. Mr. LaValle introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -3 -70 — ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 903.050 OF THE LITTLE CANADA CITY CODE, KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BY PROVIDING FOR CURB CUT ACCESS TO SINGLE - FAMILY DETACHED PARCELS AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT TO REMOVAL OF THE PHRASE "OR FULL CIRCLE" FROM PARAGRAPH (g) The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Montour. Ayes (4) Montour, Keis, Blesener, LaValle. Nays (1) Allan. Resolution adopted. Blesener opened the Public Hearing to consider a second driveway access for 601 County Road B -2 East as requested by Mike and Heidi Murphy. It was noted that the Planning Commission has recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit as requested, subject to a satisfactory review of drainage There was no one present from the general public wishing to comment on this matter. Upon motion by LaValle, seconded by Keis, the public hearing was closed. Mr. LaValle introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -3 -71 — APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR SECOND CURB CUT FOR 601 COUNTY ROAD B -2 EAST AS REQUESTED BY MIKE AND HEIDI MURPHY, SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE, EFFECTIVE UPON THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT RELATIVE TO THIS ISSUE, AS WELL AS SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, SATISFACTORY DRAINAGE REVIEW BY THE CITY ENGINEER, AND INSTALLATION OF LANDSCAPING AS REFLECTED ON THE APPLICANT'S LANDSCAPE PLAN MINUTES CITY COUNCIL NIARCH 22, 2006 RECESS PROPERTY DIVISION - 3007 ARCADE STREET - KISSELL CONSTRUCTION TEXT AnIENDMENT - OUTDOOR STORAGE IN I -1 DISTRICT The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Keis. Ayes (4) LaValle, Keis, Montour, Blesener. Nays (1) Allan. Resolution declared adopted. At this point in the meeting, 9:05 p.m., Council took a short recess. The meeting was reconvened at 9:10 p.m. Blesener opened the Public Hearing to consider the division of 3007 Arcade Street into two single - family lots. It was noted that both the City Planner and the Planning Commission have recommended approval of the property division. Blesener noted that Kissell Construction is proposing to tear down the existing house at 3007 Arcade Street. Once the property division is finalized, KisselI Construction would be building two new houses on these lots. The City Planner reported that the proposed lots meet the minimum frontage requirements and exceed the lot area minimum. There was no one present from the general public wishing to comment on this matter. Upon motion by LaValle, seconded by Allen, the public hearing was closed. Mr. LaValle introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -3 -72 — APPROVING THE DIVISION OF 3007 ARCADE STREET INTO TWO SINGLE - FAMILY LOTS AS REQUESTED BY KISSELL CONSTRUCTION SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CITY PLANNER The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Montour. Ayes (5). Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. Blesener opened the Public Hearing to consider a Text Amendment to the Zoning Code allowing accessory outdoor storage as a Conditional Use Permit in the Light- Industrial District. It was noted that the City Planner and Planning Commission recommended approval of the Text Amendment. 11 - 1 3 - 917. "S ", SHORELAND DISTRICT 917.010. GENERAL PROVISIONS. A. Statutory Authorization: This Shoreland Ordinance is adopted pursuant to the authorization and policies contained in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103, Minnesota Regulations, Parts 6120.2500 - 6120.3900, and the planning and zoning enabling legislation in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462. B. Policy: The uncontrolled use of shorelands of the City of Little Canada affects the public health, safety and general welfare not only by contributing to pollution of public waters, but also by impairing the local tax base. Therefore, it is in the best interests of the public health, safety and welfare to provide for the wise development of shorelands of public waters. The Legislature of Minnesota has delegated responsibility to the municipalities of the State to regulate the subdivision, use and development of the shorelands of public waters and thus preserve and enhance the quality of surface waters, preserve the economic and natural environmental values of shorelands, and provide for the wise utilization of waters and related land resources. This responsibility is hereby recognized by the City of Little Canada. 917.020. DESIGNATION OF TYPES OF LAND USE. A. Shoreland Management Classification: In order to guide the wise development and utilization of shorelands of protected waters for the preservation of water quality, natural characteristics, economic values and the general health, safety and welfare, certain protected waters in the City have been given a shoreland management classification. These protected waters of the City have been classified by the Commissioner of Natural Resources according to the DNR Protected Waters Maps for Ramsey County as follows: Recreational Development Lakes DNR ID # OHWM 1. Twin Lake 62 -39 General Development Lakes DNR ID # OHWM 1. Gervais Lake 62 -7 859.50 2. Savage Lake (West) 62 -8P 2a. Savage Lake (East) 62 -147W 917 -1 - 1 4 - 3. Round Lake 62 -9 4. Unnamed Lake (St. Paul Waterworks Pond) 62 -129 5. Unnamed Lake (Section 8, Township 29, Range 22) 62 -154 * OHWM not determined by DNR. 13. Shoreland District: The shorelands of the City of Little Canada are hereby designated as a Shoreland Overlay District. The purpose of the Shoreland Overlay District is to provide for the wise utilization of shoreland areas in order to preserve the quality and natural character of these protected waters of the City. 1. Permitted Uses. All permitted uses allowed and regulated by the applicable zoning district as indicated on the official Zoning Map of the City. 2. Conditional Uses. All conditional uses and applicable attached conditions allowed and regulated by the applicable zoning district underlying this Shoreland District as indicated on the Official Zoning Map of the City. 3. Substandard Uses. Any uses of the shorelands in existence prior to the date of enactment of this Ordinance which are permitted within the applicable zoning district, but do not meet the minimum lot area, setbacks or other dimensional requirements of this Ordinance are substandard uses. However, structural alterations which substantially increase the substandard dimension may not be allowed. a. Deck additions may be allowed without a variance to a structure not meeting the required setback from the ordinary high water level if all of the following criteria and standards are met: (1) The structure existed on the date the structure setbacks were established; (2) A thorough evaluation of the property and structure reveals no reasonable location for a deck meeting or exceeding the existing ordinary high water level setback of the structure; (3) The deck encroachment toward the ordinary high water level does not exceed fifteen (15) percent of the existing setback of 917 -2 - 1 5 - the structure from the ordinary high water level or does not encroach closer than thirty (30) feet, whichever is more restrictive; and (4) The deck is constructed primarily of wood, and is not roofed or screened. 4. Prohibited Uses. Any uses which are not permitted or conditional uses as regulated by the applicable zoning district underlying this Shoreland District as indicated on the Official Zoning Map of the City. 917.030. A. LOT AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. RD GD Tributary Recreational General River Development Development Segments Lot Area Above OHW Sewered, Riparian Single 20,000 SF 15,000 SF N/A Duplex 35,000 SF 26,000 SF Triplex 50,000 SF 38,000 SF Quad 65,000 SF 49,000 SF Sewered, Non - riparian Single 15,000 SF 10,000 SF N/A Duplex 26,000 SF 17,500 SF Triplex 38,000 SF 25,000 SF Quad 49,000 SF 32,500 SF B. Lot Width at OHW Sewered, Riparian Single 75 feet 75 feet 75 feet Duplex 135 feet 135 feet 115 feet Triplex 195 feet 195 feet 150 feet Quad 255 feet 255 feet 190 feet Sewered, Non - riparian Single 75 feet 75 feet 75 feet Duplex 135 feet 135 feet 115 feet Triplex 190 feet 190 feet 150 feet Quad 245 feet 245 feet 190 feet 917 -3 - 1 6 - C. Setback from OHW' 75 feet 50 feet 30 feet D. Setback from public street Abutting federal, state or county trunk highway Abutting town road or public street E. Maximum impervious surface to lot area ratio2 50 feet 50 feet 30 feet 30 feet 30 percent 50 feet 30 feet 30 percent 30 percent F. Maximum building height 35 feet 35 feet 25/35 feet G. Side yard setbacks District standard unless abutting water body - then "C" above H. Setback of roads/ parking/other impervious surfaces from OHW3 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet Structure height (lowest floor) above highest known water level4 3 feet 3 feet 3 feet Setback requirements from the ordinary high water mark shall not apply to piers and docks. Where development exists on both sides of a proposed building site, building setbacks may be altered to more closely conform to adjacent building setbacks. Maximum may be exceeded up to 75 percent of lot area subject to submission of a shoreland impact plan as specified in Section 917.090 and provided by the City Council. Where feasible and practical. all roads and parking areas shall meet the setback requirements established for structure in "C" above. Natural 917 -4 .17. 4 vegetation or other natural materials shall be required in order to screen parking areas when viewed from the water. Parking areas of more than four (4) spaces shall be screened in accordance with a landscaping plan submitted and approved by the City Council. Does not include piers and docks. 917.040. SHORELAND ALTERATIONS. Alterations of vegetation and topography will be regulated to prevent erosion into public waters, fix nutrients, preserve shoreland aesthetics, preserve historic values, prevent bank slumping, and protect fish and wildlife habitat. A. Vegetation Alterations: 1. Vegetation alteration necessary for the construction of structures and sewage treatment systems and the construction of roads and parking areas regulated by this Ordinance are exempt from the vegetation alteration standards that follow. 2. Removal or alteration of vegetation, except for agricultural and forest management uses as regulated by this Ordinance is allowed subject to the following standards: a. Intensive vegetation clearing within the shore and bluff impact zones and on steep slopes is not allowed. Intensive vegetation clearing for forest land conversion to another use outside of these areas is allowable as a conditional use if an erosion control and sedimentation plan is developed and approved by the soil and water conservation district in which the property is located. b. In shore and bluff impact zones and on steep slopes, limited clearing of trees and shrubs and cutting, pruning, and trimming of trees is allowed to provide a view to the water from the principal dwelling site and to accommodate the placement of stairways and landings, picnic areas, access paths, beach and watercraft access areas, and permitted water - oriented accessory structures of facilities, provided that: (1) The screening of structures, vehicles, or other facilities as viewed from the water, assuming summer, leaf on conditions, is not substantially reduced; (2) The above provision is not applicable to the removal of trees, limbs, or branches that area dead, diseased, or pose safety hazards. 917 -5 - 1 8 - B. Topographic Alterations /Grading and Filling: Grading and filling and excavations necessary for the construction of structures, sewage treatment systems, and driveways under validly issued construction permits for these facilities do not require the issuance of a separate grading and filling permit. However, the grading and filling standards in this section must be incorporated into the issuance of permits for construction of structures, sewage treatment systems, and driveways. Public roads and parking areas are regulated by Section 903.050 of this Ordinance. 3. Notwithstanding items 1 and 2 above, a grading and filling permit will be required for: a. The movement of more than ten (10) cubic yards of material on steep slopes or within shore or bluff impact zones; and b. The movement of more than fifty (50) cubic yards of material outside of steep slopes and shore and bluff impact zones. 4. The following considerations and conditions must be adhered to during the issuance of construction permits, grading and filling permits, conditional use permits, variances and subdivision approvals: a. Grading or filling in any type 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 wetland, as defined in the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Circulation No. 39 (1971 Edition), must be evaluated to determine how extensively the proposed activity would affect the following functional qualities of the wetland *: (1) Sediment and pollutant trapping and retention; (2) Storage of surface runoff to prevent or reduce flood damage; (3) Fish and wildlife habitat; (4) Recreational use; (5) Shoreline or bank stabilization; and 917 -6 -19- (6) Noteworthiness, including special qualities such as historic significance, critical habitat for endangered plants and animals, or others. This evaluation must also include a determination of whether the wetland alteration being proposed requires peimits, reviews, or approvals by other local, state, or federal agencies such as a watershed district, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, or the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The applicant will be so advised. b. Alterations must be designed and conducted in a manner that ensures only the smallest amount of bare ground is exposed for the shortest time possible; c. Mulches or similar materials must be used, where necessary, for temporary bare soil coverage, and a permanent vegetation cover must be established as soon as possible. d. Methods to minimize soil erosion and to trap sediments before they reach any surface water feature must be used; e. Altered areas must be stabilized to acceptable erosion control standards consistent with the field office technical guides of the local soil and water conservation districts and the United States Soil Conservation Service; Fill or excavated material must not be placed in a manner that creates an unstable slope; g. Plans to place fill or excavated material on steep slopes must be reviewed by qualified professionals for continued slope stability and must not create finished slopes of thirty (30) percent or greater; h. Fill or excavated material must not be placed in bluff impacted zones; i. Any alterations below the ordinary high water level of public waters must first be authorized by the Commissioner under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103G.241; Alterations of topography must only be allowed if they are accessory to permitted or conditional uses and do not adversely affect adjacent or nearby properties; and 917 -7 - 2 0 - k. Placement of natural rock riprap, including associated grading of the shoreline and placement of a filter blanket, is permitted if the finished slope does not exceed three (3) feet horizontal to one foot vertical, the landward extent of the riprap is within ten (10) feet of the ordinary high water level, and the height of the riprap above the ordinary high water level does not exceed three (3) feet. C. Placement and Design of Roads, Driveways and Parking Areas: 1. Public and private roads and parking areas must be designed to take advantage of natural vegetation and topography to achieve maximum screening from view from public waters. Documentation must be provided by a qualified individual that all roads and parking areas are designed and constructed to minimize and control erosion to public waters consistent with the field office technical guides of the local soil and water conservation district, or other applicable technical materials. Roads, driveways, and parking areas must meet shoreland 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. 3. Public and private watercraft access ramps, approach roads, and access - related parking areas may be placed within shore impact zones provided the vegetative screening and erosion control conditions of this sub -part are met. For private facilities, the grading and filling provisions of Section 9.4.B of this Ordinance must be met. D. Storm Water Management: 1. When possible, existing natural drainage ways, wetlands, and vegetated soil surfaces must be used to convey, store, filter, and retain storm water runoff before discharge to public waters. Development must be planned and conducted in a manner that will minimize the extent of disturbed areas, runoff velocities, erosion potential, and reduce and delay runoff volummes. Disturbed areas must be stabilized and protected as soon as possible in accordance with Best Management Practices. Facilities or methods shall be used to retain sediment on the site. 3. When development density, topographic features, and soil and vegetation conditions are not sufficient to adequately handle storm water runoff using 917 -8 - 2 1 - natural features and vegetation, various types of constructed facilities such as diversions, settling basins, skimming devices, dikes, waterways, and ponds may be used. Preference must be given to designs using surface drainage, vegetation, and infiltration rather than buried pipes and man -made materials and facilities. 4. When constructed facilities are used for storm water management, documentation must be provided by a qualified individual that they are designed and installed consistent with the field office technical guide of the local soil and water conservation districts. 5. New construction storm water outfalls to public waters must provide for filtering or settling of suspended solids and skimming of surface debris before discharge. 917.050. SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, AND PUBLIC /SEMI - PUBLIC: A. Uses without water- oriented needs must be located on lots or parcels without public waters frontage, or if located on Lots or parcels with public waters frontage, must either be set back double the normal ordinary high water level setback or be substantially screened from view from the water by vegetation or topography, assuming summer, leaf on conditions. Water- oriented need shall be determined by the Zoning Administrator. 917.060. CONDITIONAL USES: Conditional uses allowable within shoreland areas shall be subject to the review and approval procedures, and criteria and conditions for review of conditional uses established in Section 921 of this Ordinance. The following additional evaluation criteria and conditions apply within shoreland areas: A. Evaluation Criteria: A thorough evaluation of the waterbody and the topographic, vegetation, and soils conditions on the site must be made to ensure: 1. The prevention of soil erosion or other possible pollution of public waters, both during and after construction; The visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed from public waters is limited; 3. The site is adequate for water supply and on -site sewage treatment; and 4. The types, uses, and numbers of watercraft that the project will generate are compatible in relation to the suitability of public waters to safely 917 -9 - 2 2 - accommodate these watercraft. B. Conditions Attached to Conditional Use Penults: The City Council, upon consideration of the criteria listed above and the purposes of this Ordinance, shall attach such conditions to the issuance of the conditional use permits as it deems necessary to fulfill the purposes of this Ordinance. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Increased setbacks from the ordinary high water level; 2, Limitations on the natural vegetation to be removed or the requirement that additional vegetation be planted; and 3. Special provisions for the location, design, and use of structures, sewage treatment systems, watercraft launching and docking areas, and vehicle parking areas. 917.070. VARIANCES. A. Variances may only be granted in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462, as applicable. A variance may not circumvent the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance. No variance may be granted that would allow any use that is prohibited in the zoning district in which the subject property is located. Conditions may be imposed in the granting of a variance to ensure compliance and to protect adjacent properties and the public interest. In considering a variance request, the City Council must also consider whether the property owner has reasonable use of the land without the variance, whether the property is used seasonally or year- round, whether the variance is being requested solely on the basis of economic considerations, and the characteristics of development on adjacent properties. B. The City Council shall hear and decide requests for variances in accordance with the rules that it has adopted for the conduct of business. When a variance is approved after the Department of Natural Resources has formally recommended denial in the hearing record, the notification of the approved variance required in Section 917.090 shall also include the City Council's summary of the public record/testimony and the findings of facts and conclusions which supported the issuance of the variance. 917.080. SUBDIVISION /PLATTING PROVISIONS. A. Land Suitability: Each lot created through subdivision, including planned unit development authorized under Section 917.080 of this Ordinance, must be suitable in its natural state for the proposed use with minimal alteration. Suitability analysis by the local unit of aovemment shall consider susceptibility to flooding, existence of 917 -10 - 2 3 - wetlands, soil and rock forniations with severe limitations for development, severe erosion potential, steep topography, inadequate water supply or sewage treatment capabilities, near -shore aquatic conditions unsuitable for water -based recreation, important fish and wildlife habitat, presence of significant historic sites, or any other feature of the natural land likely to be ha niful to the health, safety, or welfare of future residents of the proposed subdivision of Little Canada. B. Consistency with Other Controls: Subdivisions must conform to all official controls within the Little Canada Subdivision Ordinance. A subdivision will not be approved where a later variance from one or more standards in official controls would be needed to use the lots for their intended purpose. C. Information Requirements: Sufficient information must be submitted by the applicant for the community to make a determination of land suitability. The information shall include at least the following: 1. Topographic contours at ten (10) foot intervals or less from United States Geological Survey maps or more accurate sources, showing limiting size characteristics; 2. The surface water features required in Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.02, Subdivision 1, to be shown on plats, obtained from United States Geological Survey quadrangle topographic maps or more accurate sources; 3. Adequate soils information to determine suitability for building capabilities for every lot from the most current existing sources or from field investigations such as soil borings, or other methods; 4. Information regarding extent of anticipated vegetation and topographic alterations; near -shore aquatic conditions, including depths, types of bottom sediments, and aquatic vegetation; and proposed methods for controlling storm water runoff and erosion, both during and after construction activities; 5. Location of 100 year floodplain areas and floodway districts from existing adopted maps or data; and 6. A line or contour representing the ordinary high water level, the "toe" and the "top" of the bluffs, and the minimum building setback distances from the top of the bluff and the lake or stream. Dedications: When a land or easement dedication is a condition of subdivision approval, the approval must provide easements over natural drainage or ponding areas for management of storm water and significant wetlands. 91.7-11 - 2 4 - Platting: All subdivisions that create five or more lots or parcels that are ten (10) acres or less in size shall be processed as a plat in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 505. No permit for construction of buildings or sewage treatment systems shall be issued for lots created after these official controls were enacted unless the lot was approved as part of a formal subdivision. F. Controlled Access or Recreational Lots: Lots intended as controlled accesses to public waters or for recreational use areas for use by non - riparian lots within a subdivision must meet or exceed the sizing criteria in Section 917.030 of this Ordinance. 917.090. NOTIFICATIONS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES. A. Copies of all notices of any public hearings to consider variances, amendments, or conditional uses under local shoreland management controls must be sent to the Commissioner or the Commissioner's designated representative and postmarked at least ten (10) days before the hearings. Notices of hearings to consider proposed subdivisions /plats must include copies of the subdivision/plat. B. A copy of approved amendments and subdivisions /plats, and final decisions granting variances or conditional uses under local shoreland management controls must be sent to the Commissioner or the Commissioner's designated representative and postmarked within ten (10) days of final action. 917.100 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS (PUDs). A. Types of PUDs Permissible: Planned unit developments (PUDs) are allowed for new projects on undeveloped land, redevelopment of previously built sites, or conversions of existing buildings and land. The land use districts in which they are an allowable use are identified in the land use district descriptions in Subd. 917.020.B.1 of this Ordinance and the official zoning map. B. Application for a PUD: The applicant for a PUD must submit the following documents prior to final action being taken on the application request: 1. A site plan and/or plat for the project showing locations of property boundaries, surface water features, existing and proposed structures and other facilities, land alterations, sewage treatment and water supply systems (where public systems will not be provided), and topographic contours at two (2) foot intervals or less. When a PUD is a combined commercial and recreational development, the site plan and/or plat must indicate and 917 -12 -25- distinguish which buildings and portions of the project are residential, commercial, or a combination of the two. A property owners association agreement (for residential PUDs) with mandatory membership, and all in accordance with the requirements of Section 917.110.F of this Ordinance. 3. Deed restrictions, covenants, permanent easements or other instruments that: a. properly address future vegetative and topographic alterations, construction of additional buildings, beaching of watercraft, and construction of commercial buildings in residential PUDs; and b. ensure the long -term preservation and maintenance of open space in accordance with the criteria and analysis specified in Section 917.110.F of this Ordinance. 4. When necessary, a master plan/drawing describing the project and the floor plan for all commercial structures to be occupied. 5. Those additional documents as requested by the Zoning Administrator that are necessary to explain how the PUD will be designed and will function. C. - Site "Suitable Area" Evaluations: Proposed new or expansions to existing planned unit developments must be evaluated using the following procedures and standards to determine the suitable area for the dwelling unit/dwelling site density evaluation in Section 917.110.F of this Ordinance. 1. The project parcel must be divided into tiers by locating one or more lines approximately parallel to a line that identifies the ordinary high water level at the following intervals, proceeding landward. Shoreland Tier Dimensions Sewered (feet) General Development Lakes - First Tier 200 Second and Addl. Tiers 200 Recreational Development Lakes 267 The suitable area within each tier is next calculated by excluding from the tier area all wetlands, bluffs, or land below the ordinary high water level of public 917 -13 - 2 6 - waters. This suitable area and the proposed project are then subject to either the residential or commercial planned unit development density evaluation steps to arrive at an allowable number of dwelling units or sites. D. Residential and Commercial PUD Density Evaluation: The procedures for determining the "base" density of a PUD and a density increase multipliers is as follows. Allowable densities may be transferred from any tier to any other tier further from the waterbody, but must not be transferred to any other tier closer. 1. Residential PUD "Base" Density Evaluation. a. The suitable area within each tier is divided by the single residential lot size standard for lakes, unless the local unit of govemment has specified an altemative minimum lot size for rivers which shall then be used to yield a base density of dwelling units or sites for each tier. Proposed locations and numbers of dwelling units or sites for the residential planned unit developments are then compared with the tier, density, and suitability analysis herein and the design criteria in Section 917.110.F of this Ordinance. 2. Commercial PUD "Base" Density Evaluation. a. Determine the average inside living area size of dwelling units or sites within each tier, including both existing and proposed units and sites. Computation of inside living area sizes need not include decks, patios, stops, steps, garages, or porches and basements, unless they are habitable space. b. Select the appropriate floor area ratio from the following table. Commercial Planned Unit Development Floor Area Ratios* Public Waters Classes *Average unit floor area (sq.ft.) 200 300 400 500 600 General Development Lakes .040 .048 .056 .065 .072 917 -14 - 2 7 - Recreational Lakes .020 .024 .028 .032 .038 700 .082 .042 800 .091 .046 900 .099 .050 1,000 .108 .054 1,100 .116 .058 1,200 .125 .064 1,300 .133 .068 1,400 .142 .072 1,500 .150 .075 For average unit floor areas less than shown, use the floor area ratios listed for 200 square feet. For areas greater than shown, use the ratios listed for 1,500 square feet. For recreational camping areas, use the ratios listed at 400 square feet. Manufactured home sites in recreational camping areas shall use a ratio equal to the size of the manufactured home, or if unknown, the ratio listed for 1,000 square feet. c. Multiply the suitable area within each tier by the floor area ratio to yield total floor area for each tier allowed to be used for dwelling units or sites. d. Divide the total floor area by tier computed in Item C above by the average inside living area size determined in Item A above. This yields a base number of dwelling units and sites for each tier. e. Proposed locations and numbers of dwelling units or sites for the commercial planned unit development are then compared with the tier, density and suitability analysis herein and the design criteria in Section 917.110.E of this Ordinance. 3. Density Increase Multipliers. a. Increases to the dwelling unit or dwelling site base densities previously determined are allowable if the dimensional standards in Section 917.020 of this Ordinance are met or exceeded and the design criteria in Section 917.110.F of this Ordinance are satisfied. The allowable density increases in Item "b" below will only be allowed if structure setbacks from the ordinary high water level are increased to at least fifty (50) percent greater than the minimum setback, or the impact on the waterbody is reduced an equivalent amount through vegetative management, topography, or additional means acceptable to the City of Little Canada and the setback is at least twenty-five (25) 917 -15 - 2 8 - percent greater than the minimum setback. b. Allowable dwelling unit or dwelling site density increases for residential or commercial planned unit developments: Density Evaluation Maximum density increase Tiers within each tier (percent) First 50 Second 100 Third 200 Fourth 200 Fifth 200 F. Maintenance and Design Criteria. 1. Maintenance and Administration Requirements. a. Before final approval of a planned unit development, adequate provisions must be developed for preservation and maintenance in perpetuity of open spaces and for the continued existence and functioning of the development. b. Open Space Preservation. Deed restrictions, covenants, permanent easements, public dedication and acceptance, or other equally effective and permanent means must be provided to ensure long -term preservation and maintenance of open space. The instruments must include all of the following protections: (1) Commercial uses prohibited (for residential PUDs); (2) Vegetation and topographic alterations other than routine maintenance prohibited; (3) Construction of additional buildings or storage of vehicles and other materials prohibited; and (4) Uncontrolled beaching of watercraft prohibited. c. Development organization and functioning. Unless an equally effective alternative community framework is established, when applicable, all residential planned unit developments must use an owners association with the following features: 91716 - 2 9 - (1) Membership must be mandatory for each dwelling unit or site purchaser and any successive purchasers; (2) Each member must pay a pro rata share of the association's expenses, and unpaid assessments can become liens on units or sites; (3) Assessments must be adjustable to accommodate changing conditions; and (4) The association must be responsible for insurance, taxes, and maintenance of all commonly owned property and facilities. 2. Open Space Requirements. Planned unit developments must contain open space meeting all of the following criteria: a. At least fifty (50) percent of the total project area within the Shoreland District must be preserved as open space; b. Dwelling units or sites, road rights -of -way, or land covered by road surfaces, parking areas, or structures, except water- oriented accessory structures or facilities, are developed areas and shall not be included in the computation of minimum open space; c. Open space must include areas with physical characteristics unsuitable for development in their natural state, and areas containing significant historic sites or unplatted cemeteries; d. Open space may include outdoor recreational facilities for use by owners of dwelling units or sites, by guests staying in commercial dwelling units or sites, and by the general public; e. Open space may include subsurface sewage treatment systems if the use of the space is restricted to avoid adverse impacts on the systems; f. Open space must not include commercial facilities or uses, but may contain water- oriented accessory structures or facilities; g. The appearance of open space areas, including topography, vegetation, and allowable uses, must be preserved by use of restrictive deed covenants, permanent easements, public dedication and acceptance, or other equally effective and permanent means; and 917 -17 - 3 0 - h. The shore impact zone, based on no al structure setbacks, must be included as open space. For residential PUDs, at least fifty (50) percent of the shore impact zone area of existing developments or at least seventy (70) percent of the shore impact zone area of new developments must be preserved in its natural existing state. For commercial PUDs, at Least fifty (50) percent of the shore impact zone must be preserved in its natural state. 3. Erosion Control and Stoun Water Management. Erosion control, storm water management plans, and Best Management Practices must be developed and the PUD must: a. Be designed, and the construction managed, to minimize the likelihood of serious erosion occurring either during or after construction. This must be accomplished by limiting the amount and length of time of bare ground exposure. Temporary ground covers, sediment entrapment facilities, vegetated buffer strips, or other appropriate techniques must be used to minimize erosion impacts on surface water features. Erosion control plans approved by a soil and water conservation district may be required if project size and site physical characteristic warrant; and b. Be designed and constructed to effectively manage reasonably expected quantities and qualities of storm water runoff. Impervious surface coverage within any tier must not exceed twenty -five (25) percent of the tier area, except that for commercial PUDs thirty -five (35) percent impervious surface coverage may be allowed in the first tier of general development lakes with an approved storm water management plan and consistency with Section 917.030 of this Ordinance. 4. Centralization and Design of Facilities. Centralization and design of facilities and structures must be done according to the following standards: a. Planned unit developments must be connected to publicly owned water supply and sewer systems. b. Dwelling units or sites must be clustered into one or more groups and located on suitable areas of the development. They must be designed and located to meet or exceed the following dimensional standards for the relevant shoreland classification: setback from the ordinary high water level, above the surface water features, and 917 -18 - 3 1 - maximum height. Setbacks from the ordinary high water level must be increased in accordance with Section 917.020 of this Ordinance for developments with density increases; c. Shore recreation facilities, including but not limited to swimming areas, docks, and watercraft mooring areas and launching ramps, must be centralized and located in areas suitable for them. Evaluation of suitability must include consideration of land slope, water depth, vegetation, soils, depth to groundwater and bedrock, or other relevant factors. The number of spaces provided for continuous beaching, mooring, or docking of watercraft must not exceed one for each allowable dwelling unit or site in the first tier (notwithstanding existing mooring sites in an existing commercially used harbor). Launching ramp facilities, including a small dock for loading and unloading equipment, may be provided for use by occupants of dwelling units or sites located in other tiers; d. Structures, parking areas, and other facilities must be treated to reduce visibility as viewed from public waters and adjacent shorelands by vegetation, topography, increased setbacks, color, or other means acceptable to the City of Little Canada, assuming summer, leaf -on conditions. Vegetative and topographic screening must be preserved, if existing, or may be required to be provided; e. Accessory structures and facilities, except water oriented accessory structures, must meet the required principal structure setback and must be centralized; and f. Water oriented accessory structures and facilities may be allowed if they meet or exceed design standards contained in Section 917.020:13.4 of this Ordinance are centralized. 917.110. DEVELOPMENT ON SUBSTANDARD LOTS. A. Purpose: 1. The purpose of regulating development on substandard lots of record is to coordinate development on substandard lots to insure environmentally sensitive development, insure compatibility with surrounding existing development and to allow for combination of lots to the extent possible. B. Substandard Lots: 917 -19 - 3 2 - 1. A lot of record existing upon the effective date of this Ordinance in a residential district, located adjacent to a General Development Lake, which does not meet the requirements of this Ordinance as to area or width may be utilized for single family detached dwelling purposes provided that: a. Requires a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Section 921 of this Ordinance. b. The lot has been assessed a full sewer and water assessment. c. The lot has been in separate ownership from abutting lands at all times since it became substandard. d. The lot was created compliant with official controls in effect at the time. e. All setback and sewage treatment requirements of the Shoreland District are met. A substandard water frontage lot with public sewer shall be a minimum of fifty (50) feet in width measured at the front yard setback line and shall have a minimum lot area equal to or greater than seven thousand five hundred (7,500) square feet. g. A substandard non -water frontage lot of record shall be a minimum of fifty (50) feet in width measured at the front yard setback line and shall have a minimum lot area equal to or greater than ten thousand (10,000) square feet. h. The development plans must be in conformance with the policies for residential development as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. Development must be planned and conducted in such a manner that the control of disturbed areas and erosion is demonstrated during and after construction. A complete grading and drainage plan be submitted to the City Engineer for review. Such plans should be prepared in accordance with the National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) Guidelines and Best Management Practices. k. Any cutting of existing vegetation is minimized to the extent possible. 917 -20 - 3 3 - The lot and proposed structure must meet all other performance standards of the zoning and building codes. (Amended: Ord. 214, 378, 449, 573, 579) 917 -21 - 3 4 - Eric Weisman, Holistic Practitioner Holistic Health Now Television Series Little Canada, MN, 55117 Joel Hanson, City Superintendent Little Canada Feb. 21, 2006 RE: Citizen's Green Environmental Initiative Dear Joel: Last week we spoke about an exciting new project for the City of Little Canada that will literally Make our city "First in the Nation "! Little Canada can become a leader in "Going Green ". The end result is that people that live in our little city. will be healthier and live longer, our environment will be much more natural and supportive of wild life and human life. Typically Federal, State and Local Government has been lax and impotent regarding any real improvement of the environment. Greed, Status Quo, ignorance, lack of concern and ultimately lack of leadership have proven how the World Wide Disaster of Global Melt Down started and is progressing at a rapid pace. Little Canadians can make a huge difference! One little city can influence the rest of our country and the world. Our City Government together with our Citizens "can set the pace" and get tremendous notoriety for "doing it ". Not just Talking the Talk: But Walking The Walk! Here is how: 1. In our upcoming televised city forum and the next Little Canada Journal, La Petite Canadian, outline our new Citizens' Initiative. Get People excited about how they can get involved in improving the natural environment and improve their health and longevity at the same time. 2. Encourage people to slow their vehicles down inside and outside of Little Canada. This will cut emissions, reduce accidents and reduce the killing of wildlife on our roads. Get "Little Canada" Green initiative Bumper Stickers for our citizens. Put up road signs or sell road signs for oeccla to gut in 7.1-1&r _ %ar as. They should sab-, "Please Plow Down, Save -35- Gas Reduce Pollution, Respect Other P ecc_e, An =ma_s and Our Environment. 3. Encourage people not to use or buy motorcycles, SUVs, Jet Skies, Snowmobiles, ATVs, scooters, gas powered lawn mowers, and snow blowers because they pollute the air and do not have proper emission controls. 4. Encourage bicycles instead of the polluting vehicles and sponsor a twice per year LC bike tour or race. 5. Implement a special environmental tax on vehicles and machines that pollute that will be used to plant more trees in our parks and take care of animals that picked up by animal control. 6. Encourage citizens not to use lawn chemicals , pest poisons, lethal traps and toxic household chemicals. 7. Implement a special tax on people that breed dogs, cats and other small animals in Little Canada. Make citizens aware that this is being done to control the pet over population problem that leads to the unnecessary death of 60 -70 thousand dogs, cats and other pets in the Twin cities area every year. Local Vets can be notified that they must report any citizen that does not neuter or spay their pet and that they must pay a substantial tax on their pets and their off springs that are not fixed. Use this money to pay back Vets for policing and helping control the pet overpopulation. Pay vets to report any injured animals so that animal abusers can be properly charged and be brought to justice. This includes children and adolescents that injure or kill animals with or without weapons. 8 Discourage killing of wildlife and make wrist rockets, pellet and be -be gun ownership and use illegal in LC. Of course this means leaving the Geese alone and making it illegal to hurt the geese. 9. Put signs around our lakes informing fishing people about the dangers of eating fish and reminding them of the staggering death statistics related to eating fish and other meat, dairy and poultry products: 8 out of ten Americans die from Heart Disease and Cancer related to eating Flesh Foods. Lets have a twice per year strict vegetarian (vegan) cook off and pot luck with prizes. This gives LC a chance to encourage LCC to make positive changes in their diets and improve the planet. 10. Put up signs around our lakes that discourage the use of motorized vehicles in our lakes because of the - 36 - environmental damage. Encourage row boats and canoes instead. 11. Familiarize and profile different local animals at televised city meetings and in the Little Canada Journal. The possum, raccoon, and our beautiful and very intelligent crows. The wild life center can bring animals over to our meetings. 12. Encourage LC people to eat more of a vegetarian diet. Vegetarians live much longer and healthier than the average flesh eating American (about 15 healthy years longer). And it takes only one acre of land to feed a strict vegetarian for one year as opposed to all 25 acres for flesh eater for one year. Think of all the chemicals, fuel, and drugs that are used in a flesh based diet and it doesn't take long to understand why it is so damaging to the environment and the people that eat flesh. It only takes a large well washed salad and apple everyday to improve LCC health. I will give a free self help meeting at City Hall one day per month and advise people on how they reduce or eliminate their dependence on drugs and how they can use diet and over the counter supplements to reverse disease. I will profile different diseases at each meeting and give free advice based on my 26 years and 25 thousand plus patient' visit experience with Holistic treatment. 13. Encourage LC Citizens to be kind to all animals and show that the City is doing the same. Discuss how wild animals can be caught and moved without killing. Show that our City really does care. 14. When setting up any new housing project, notify and involve all LC people and make sure that old growth trees are left on the property. Excavation projects should include mandatory time to gently trap, remove and place all wildlife in a safe area before proceeding. 15. Put signs up around the outskirts of LC reminding people that they are entering Little Canada: the Nations' first Green Environmental Zone and to slow down, respect and enjoy the view. 16. Encourage LCC to plant new trees in their yards and not worry so much about animal feces and manicured lawns. Give LCC 3 test LC World Environmental Protector Awards per year. Let's do _t now and do it right and help save the planet! - 3 7 -