Loading...
PL 04/03/1974 - 30397� a CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 3, 1974 0 CALL TO ORDER: PAGE 1 Chairman Fitzpatrick called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Harris, Lindblad, Fitzpatrick, Blair Members 3-�bsent: Drigans Others Present: Darrel Clark, Community Development Administrator APPROVE JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION & BOARD OF APPEALS SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES: MARCH 13, 1974 MOTION by Harris, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commission approve the minutes of the Joint Planning Commission and Board of Appe�1 Subcommittee meeting.of March 13, 1974.. Upon a voice vo,te, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. APPROVE PLANidING COMMISSION MINUTES: �MARCH 20, 1974 � MOTION by Harris, seconded by B1air, that the minutes of March � 20th be corrected as follows: Sixth paragraph, page 17, be changed . to a f.urniture inanufacturing building was built after the transmission Zines were in; First paragraph, paqe 22, be changed to Mr. Harris asked; Sixth paragraph, page 23, should read, Mr. Harris said we have to come up with some.thing because they've got t.he City government between the stone and the hard spot. Upon a voice vote aZl votinq aye, the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by B1air, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commission approvethe minutes of the March 20th meeting as corrected. Upan a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE BUILDING STANDARDS-DESIGN CONTROL SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES: MARCH 21, 1974 MOTION by LindbZad�, seconde'd by Blair, that the Planning Commission receive the minutes of the Building Standards-Design Contral Subcomrait�e� rneeting of March 21, 1974. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. � RECEIVE BOARD OF APPEALS SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES: MARCH 26, 1974 MOTION by Narris, seconded by Lindb.lad, that the Planning Commission receive the minutes of the Board of Appeals Subcommittee meeting of 'Ma,rch 26, 1974. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried � unanirimousl y . � Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1974 Page 2 � R�CEIVE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION MINUTES: MARCH 12, 1974 Mr.�Harris said Mr. Langenfeld called him before the meeting tonight. The first thing he wanted to know was if he should be pre�ent for.this meeting. Mr. Harris said he told Mr. Langenfeld . that he didn't remember if a member of the Environmental Quality ° Commission waa asked to be present at this meeting, but Mr. Langenfeld was certainly welcome. Mr. Langenfeld said he had just been discharged from the hospital and didn't think he was physically able to be at the meeting. Mr. Harris said Mr. Langenfeld asked him to pass on � a couple of comments that he had on the March 12 minutes of the � �nvironmental Quali�ty Commission. Mr. Fitzpatrick said there are two items in the minutes that the Planning Commission shauld discuss. One was the motion that was passed unanimously that the Council enact the Tree Ordinance as � presented, and the other is the request that a member of the Environ- mental Quality Commission be made a permanent member of the Planning Commission. Mr. Harris said these were the items Mr. Langenfeld made comment on. He wanted to know if this had been discussed before by the Planning Commission and if there were any comments we would like to make. � � � Mr. Fitzpatrick said it had come up for discussion by the Planning Commission before, and it was discussed by the Council at the time this ^ Environmental guality Commission was formed. The comment that was made was that this would make the Planning Commission a 6 man board, , which might not�be a serious problem. The other comment was that it was not Ynown how long this Commission would be in operation, and if it had a long duration, the question would be considered again. Mr. Fitzpatrick said that time had probably come. Mr. Lindblad said it seems that more consideration is being given to environmental impact and it mi�ht be a good thing to have someone from this Commission as a member of the Planning Commission. Mr. Clark said this may be a question for the City Attorney, but he didn't see why the Planning Commission couldn't operate as a 6 man commission. He said they didn't legislate, only made recommendations. The City Attorney could determine if the Planni�ng:Commission could make a recommendation with a tie vote. Chairman Fitzpatrick said it could probably be worked out that the Chairman of the Planning Commission didn't vote. Mr. Clark said that was 'a possiblity but he didn't think this would be necessary. Mr. Harris said the Environmental Quality Commission would then become a Subcommittee of the Planning Commission.' Mr. Clark said that at the present time, it is a separate Commission directly under the . Council. �• � Mr. Blair said he had discussed with the Chairman of the Environment• al Commission previously about becoming a member of the Parks & Recre- _� ation Commission because they work in the same areas. Mr. Harris sa�d then this Commission would be a Subcommitee of the Parks and Recreation• Commission. - � . Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1974 Page 3 ,--1 Mr. Clark. said there was even the possibility of these two Commissions being combined. He said the Plats & Subdivisions-Streets & Utilities Subcommittee used to be two subcommittees, and they were combined because what they did overlapped. Mr. Fitzpatrick said Parks and. Recreation were two separate commissions•at one time, also, and they were combined. � ehairman Fitzpatrick said he would hate to see the schedule for appointing members to these committees disrupted after it finally was set up. Mr. Clark said the members of the Environmental Quality Commission could be plugged into that schedule. • Mr. Eitzpatrick said this Commission has seven members and all the other Subcommittees of the Planning Commission have 5. He thought if tHis Commission belonged with the Planning Commission it would have to eventually be a 5 man Commission and be brought into our schedule � of appointments. MOTION by Harris, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commission receive the minutes of the Environmental Quality Coramissi�on of March 12, 1974 and take under advisement having a member of this Commission become a perrrcanent member of the Planning Commission. The number of people serving on the Commission, how the appointments would be set up and an opinion from the City Attorney on the feasibility of having a six man Planninq Commission should be determined before a recommenda- tion is made. Upon a voice vote, a1Z voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. . � l. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #74-03, KENNETH LEHR: Per Fridley City Code, Section 205.051, 2, A, to allow construction of a second accessory building on Lot 9, Block 2, Elwell's Riverside Heights, the same being 168 Talmadge Way N.E. Mr. Kenneth Lehr was present. MOTION by LindbZad, seconded by B1air, that the PZannin'g Commission waive the reading of the Public Hearing notice on the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #74-03, by Kenneth Lehr. Upon a voiCe vote, aZ.Z voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. . Mr. Clark said that Nl�, Leh-r has already been granted variances by the Board of Appeals and approved by Council for the front yard sethack for the proposed garage, and also a side yard variance foz an addition, which is not part of the consideration before the Comm�s- sion. There is no question that Mr. Lehr can build this second acces- sory building at the proposed location if a special use is approved. Mr. Lehr said he needecl this 22' x 26' garage because he only has a single car garage and has two cars. He will use the present garage ^• •for storage for wood for the fireplace, a picnic table, canoe, snow blower, lawn mower, etc. He said the garage is a little larger than �''' normal size, but he would like to have a work bench. He said he felt this additional garage was a necessity because they needed more'space. He said he has a couple of trees in his yard which dictated the place- ment of the second garage. Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1974 Page 4 � Mr. Clark said the administration thought Mr. Lehr was making a reasonable request. There are other garages located in front of the house in this area, so this proposal was not out of context for this neighborhood. Mr. Fitzpatrick said the neighbors had recei�ed notices on the variance requests and for the request for a Special Use Permit and no one was here with objections. Mr. Lehr said he had a letter from a neighbor who lived a couple doors from his house who said he approved this request and had no objections. MOTION by'LindbZad, seconded by Harris, that the Planning Commission clbse the Public Hearing on the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #74-03, by Kenneth Lehr. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, t�e motion carried unanimously. Chairman Fitzpatrick said that all the variances have been approvea so we do not have to concern ourselves with the location of this garage. MOTION by Lindblad, seconded by B1air, that the P1an�ing Comm.ission recommend to Council approval of the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #74-03, by Kenneth Lehr, per Fridley City Code, Section 205.051, 2, A, to a11ow construction of a se�cond accessory building on Lot 9, B1ock 2, E1we11's Riverside Heights, the same being 168 Talmadge Way N.E. ^ Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 2. SET PUBLIC $EARING DATE FOR ARMORY PROPOSAL Mr. Clark said you had tentatively set this date for May 8, 1974. Mr. Fitzpatrick asked if this was a regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Clark said it was. MOTION by Blair, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commission set May S, 1974 as the date for a Public Hearing on the armory proposal. Mr. Fitzpatrick asked Mr. Clark to contact General Cheeseman to see if he could be present for this Hear.ing. He said he didn:t know if he should be asked to make another presentation�, but he would be able to answer any questions the audience might have on this proposal. Mr. Clark said it was possible �hat some things might have changed since Mr. Cheeseman made his presentation to the Planning Commission. MOTION by Harris, seconded by B1air, that the Planning Commission receive the letter from the Fridley,DFL, dated March 13, 1974, where they requested that a member of this organization be notif�ed wben the Public Hearing for the armory proposal would be he1d. Upon a voice � vote, aI1 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. /`1' '3. RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL ON TREE ORDINANCE (PETIT�O� #4-1974) L�� MOTION by BZair, seconded by Narris, that the Planning Commissi�on receive the portion of the Parks & Recreation minutes of the March 25, 1974 meeting that contain.� the discussion on t'he tree ordinance. Upon a voice vote, a.i1 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 19Z4 Page 5 � Mr. Lindblad asked if the 3 trees per acre mentioned in this petitio�ed ordinance can.be averaged out for each site. Mr. Fitzpatrick said he had this question also, but he thought the intent of the ordinance meant_three trees for each acre. Mr. Clark said that on a large parcel, it would be hard to determine where an acre would begin and end. Mr. Clark said he would like to make some comments on the two proposed ordinances in the agenda. The first one is a revision of the petitioned ordinance. In Section l, we want to add a new "b" . which should say "groject development that involves fewer than 3 trees per acre are exempt from this ordinance". This is so that in constructing a street, tennis court or a ball diamond, if there were on1X one or two trees involved, it won't entail going through the whole process as outli�ed in this ordinance. � The Planning Commission reviewed their motion from the March 20th meeting. Mr. Fitzpatrick said they had asked to have a referendum vote on the use of North Park included in the proposed ordinance. Mr. Clark said the reason it wasn't in the two proposed ordinances in the agenda was because he wanted the Plannirig Commission to say how they wanted it worded. Mr. Clark said it could be made part of this ordinance with another Section, or it could be a motion that any.park development on larger ^� than 120 acres would have to go to a referendum vote. Mr. Lindblad said he thought the acreage should be less than 120 acres. He thought 65 acres would be better. Mr. Clark asked Mr. Blair how big Locke Park was. Mr. Blair said it was 102 acres. Mr. Fitzpatrick said we aren't really trying to imvolve the use of Locke Park in this ordinance. He said that Locke Park is basically developed, but he had he�rd of different proposals for Locke Park from time to time, also. Probably any drastic change in the use of Locke Park should be included in this also. Mr. Clark said that if the statement said l00 acres, this would include Locke Park. . �. Mr. Harris said he couldn't really see where the City would be acquiring another site of that size. Mr. Clark�said there was a possiblity that Fridley might obtain .BanfieldIsland in the Mississippi River. Mr. Harris said this island•was only about 30 acres. Mr. Harris said that someone hacl either written a letter or telephoned the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources ^. .and asked some questions about the North Park site. They asked how many acres were under water, the quality of the water in, and the - quality of the water ou�, and some other questions. This inquiry was ' passed on to the Department Heads of the D.N.R. Mr. Harris continued, that one of the Department Heads was a friend.of his and called him and asked if he could arrange for a review of the site. Mr. Harris said he contacted Paul Brown and Darrel Clark and a meeting was set '� � Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1974 Page 6 up on March 29th. There were four people from the Department of Natural Resources, one member from the Pollution Control Agency, Paul Brown, Darrel Clark and himself. They looked over the entire site. Mr. Harris.said Paul Brown will be making a report on this meeting. He didn't know if the Department of Natural Resources would be making a report or not. Mr. Harris said they wanted the complete lay of the land and took some vegetation samples. Mr. Cl.ark said they asked the zoning on all four sides of the park, what drainage facilities went into the park and what �t was surrounded by as to development. Mr. Fitzpatrick asked if they gave any reason for all these questions? Mr. Harris said it was to answer the inquiry they had. Mr. Clark said it might have had to do with the Environmental Assess-. ment Statement they have requested also. Mr. Clark said if they were just going to read the statement, it might be hard to visualize. After they have visited the site, the report would be more meaningful. Mr. Clark said the difference between the two proposed ordinances in your agenda is that one is on City owned property onl�, and the second ordinance is for all property except R-1. He said he talked to Jerry Boardman about this ordinance and Mr. Boardman's feelings were that because all building permits are processed through Building Standards and Council for commercial, industrial and apartment complexes, we both thought these could be excluded. We then thought, why include private property at all, because we could streng"then the ordinances we have for land alteration, P.D. development and building permits. We could require that they would have to bring in a topography map and show the existing trees and which ones they will have to remove and which ones they can save. Mr. Harris asked if that wasn't required at the.present time. Mr. Clark said we do, in so many words, but we don't require the devel�per to show alI the existing trees. If the site isn't familiar to the people cansidering the proposal, there would be no way of knowing how many trees were involved, under our present system. Mr..Clark said that this is where the regulat�_ons could be strengt�ened, rather than by clouding an issue that is so involved now. He said a good tree manage- me�t program pertaining to private property could be taken up at a later date, or the present ordinances could be strengthened. Chairman Fitzpatrick said this is how he felt about it also. He said we should focus on the issue of City owned.land. Mr. Clark said he did feel that if we were going to have a good tree management program, it would have to include all land. •Mr. Fitzpatrick said it could come in another form, as Mr. Clark has mentioned. Mr. Clark said the difference in th'e proposed ordinance and .the petitioned ordinance is that there is no limit on the amount '� of trees removed per acre if they go through the prescribed process, `= it exeludes utility companies on an emergency basis for trimming or removing trees, it would allow the Park Department to trim trees in the parks and if a�tree was damaged, it would.allow removal of that tree. . Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1974 Page 7 '�'1 Mr. Fitzpatrick asked about the development of other park sites, other than North Park. Mr. Clark said they would have to go through the Parks & Recreation Commission, the Planninq Commission and"Council. Mr. Blair said that in the letter from the Department of Natural Resources, they made the statement that in areas where there are no large trees, smaller trees should be retained. Is there any way we can get this in the ordinance? Mr. Blair said he has a tree in his back yard that is 13 years old and is not 3" in diameter. Mr. Clark said that if you include trees smaller than 3" it would make it almost impossible to show the existing trees on some of these sites becaus� it would include so many. Mr. Fitzpatrick said.this refers to two kinds of problems. The ord�nance pertains to large trees and the recommendation from the Department of Natural Resources is on property where there are no large trees. Mr. Harris said we have the street right of way for the extension of Main Street. What happens when it becomes time to put this street .in, under this ordinance. Mr. Clark said�that a plan would have to be � drawn up showing al1 the trees in the project. This plan would show the trees that would be replaced. It would have to go to the Parks and Recreation Commission, Planning Commission and Council. He said that as there is already a Public Hearing process for streets, he didn't � think that having to go through these other Commissions should hold up street construction. He said that both the Engineering Department and -, the Park Department has a schedule for any new development, so this could jus� be included in that time schedule. Mr. Clark said they couldn't find another ordinance that just covered City owned land. � The Planning Camnission went through the proposed ordi.nance on City owned land. Mr. Fitzpatrick said he thought that having a development that only needed to have one or two trees removed, exluded from this.ordinance was a good idea. He said we want to'know about any area where a large amount of trees were being removed, but we don't want to be flooded with requests that only involve one or two trees. � Mr. Harris asked abou� school property. That was publicly owned land. Mr. Clark said this ordinance is for City owned land and would exclude school districts. If the ordinance said public owned land, it �would cover a lot more property than the City owned land. Mr. Clark said our Paragraph C differs from their Paragraph B in that it doesn't limit the removal of trees to 3 per acre per year. Mr. Blair said in referring back to the letter from the Department ^, of Natural Resources again, he thought the ordinance should read for ,�, the purpose of woodland preservation, rather than management. Mr. Lindblad asked if this ordinance was going to create a problem if we have a City Forester and he wanted to go in and brush out some land: • He said he also thought that this ordinance would require any de�elopment '� �, rr`1 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1974 Page 8 to spend a lot of money for an elaborate blueprint showing all the trees. � Mr. Fitzpatrick said this is the heart of this ordinance. Mr,� Clark said he thinks the people have shown a lack of confidence in the City administration or Council to protect the trees and that is why they have asked for this ordinance. If the 30,000 people in Fridley would trust the City to have a good tree management program without this ordinance, it would be wonder�ul. Mr. Lindblad said his concern was that this was going to involve a lot of money being spent to conform to this ordinance. • Mr. Harris said he thought that part of the reason this ordinance was petitioned for was because of street proje�ts. He said that the City has certain right of way to work with, and they put the road in on a straight line regardless of the trees involved. Mr. Clark said he could name any amount of streets that have been shifted to save boulevard trees, but it has happened. Mr. Harris said that some of have said that even if an effort were exposed, and later on these anyway. the people who have talked to him was made to save some trees, the roots trees died and had to be removed Mr. Fitzpatrick said this is what happened in North Minneapolis when they went through and widened some streets. They cut half the roots off these trees and a couple of years later a good wind came along, and all these trees went down. What control do we have on something like that? Mr. Clark said he thought that when a plan was presented showing the entire right of way and the trees that have to be removed and � the trees that are going to be saved, you can do something at that time, He said that if these trees were trimmed back so the. roots would have a chance to take hold again, this could save these trees. Mr. Clark said the paragraph in the proposed ordinance differs from Section 1, C, of the petitioned ordinance in that it does not say that the land has to be restored to its original condition. d Mr. Fitzpatrick said this was something the Northern States Power Company people objected to also. Mr. Harris said he could see why they were concerned about a large tree growing up into their lines and causing a problem, but there were smaller trees that could be planted under these lines. He said they could have planted some evergreens in Locke Park. Mr. Clark said that Northern States Power Company didn't take out any trees in Locke Park, they used the railroad right of way. Mr. Fitzpatrick said the utility companies will have to submit' plans for planned development just the same as the City. He said he was sure that other cities will be.having tree ordinances, so they will be having this problem in other places. Mr. Lindblad said he � Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1974 Page 9 thought most of their concern was for emergency situations. Chairman Fitzpatrick said that.Section 2 still says 3" in diameter and this is where we would have to put something in for smaller trees if we want it in the ordinance. Mr. �arris said this business about 3" in diameter is like Mr. Blair mentioned, where he has had a tree for 13 years and it's not 3" in diameter. He said it depends upon the species. Some trees are 6" in diameter in just a few years. Mr. Fitzpatrick said it would also depend upon what area we were looking at. He said he would hate. to see any sizable hard wood tree removed. Mr. Clark said one of the reasons this was. left at 3" was because if we do get a City nursery those �rees would be transplanted under 3". These trees would be excluded from this ordinance. If you get smaller than a 3" diameter tree, you're going to get involved with a program that will be hard to administer. Mr. Harris said that without naming any species.he didn't see how we can get below the 3" diameter. � Mr. Clark said the City is planning to hire a naturalist and I would hope that this would give everyone in the City confidence that ^ he would see that desirable trees weren't removed or destroyed. Mr. Fitzpatrick said a naturalist wouldn't be inclined to take these trees whether they were protected or not. Mr. Clark said that in the park that is being developed in North Innsbruck, they were keeping it i�n its natural state as much as possible. He said they may want to have a picnic area in this park which would involve some brushing. He said we wouldn't want to make this into a big project. Mr. Harris said when they had the meeting in North Park, there was mention made that there were some endangered species of plant life in t�is Park. He said the State has some regulations about cutting � these species. Mr. Fitzpatrick said if the City had a naturalist, it would be his business to know these regulations and what species are protec�ed. . Mr. Lindblad asked what the City did with trees it had to cut down. Mr. Clark said they have cut down very few, but we usually cut the larger pieces up and leave them and within a day or two they have completely disappeared. They chip out the stumps. Mr. Fitzpatrick asked about diseased trees. Mr. Clark said the smaller'branches are run through a chipper and are hauled to a land fill that is under the jurisdiction of the Anoka Health Department. �^� � Mr. Clark said they ordinance. They added other City owned public have added to Secti.on 3 of the petitioned that " the routine trimming in City parks and land be allowed" and they have also added Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1974 Page 10 r`1 ' Paragraphs a and b under Section 3. Paragraph "a" states " This ordinance is not to be so construed as to prohzbit any utility company from removing any tree that has become a hazard to normal service, however, this waiver does not apply to new installations or to pre- planned routine maintenance", and Paragraph "b" states " Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to prevent the City from removing a tree from street right of ways, City Parks or other City owned land, that has by nature become damaged so as to be no longer viable. Mr. Fitzpatrick said that in his judgement this proposed ordinance follows the inteni of the petitioned ordinance, but still was workak�le. He said it was a good beginning on a tree ordinance and we don°t have any precedence to follow. We will still have to find some way to include our intent o� having the use of North Park go to a referendum vot�. Mr•. Harris said he thought that Paragraph "a" should be changed from removing any tree to trimming any tree. Mr. Clark said that if they had to remcve a tree that had grown too large, to him this was pre-planned maintenance and would not be excluded from this �,ordinance. He said that they don't go out one day, and decide the - next�day that a certain tree has to come down. Mr. Fitzpatrick said this section is for a hazard after a storm. Mr. Clark said we could add to this paragraph -"or to the total removal of any undamaged mature tree". Mr. Harris said he thought this would be satisfactory. r"� Mr. Fitzpatrick said we still have to get our recommend�tion that . North Park go to a re�erendum vo-te in this ordinance. Mr. Lindblad said rather than talk about the amount of acreage of a park use that should go for a referendum vote, why don't we call a spade a spade, and just say that any City owned property that is � proposed to be used for a golf course go to a referendum vote. Mr. Clark said this could be Section 5 of the proposed ordinance if you want this as part of the ordiz�ance. Mr. Harris said he didn't know.if this could be pa�"t o�' this ordinance or not. Maybe it should be a separate ordinance. Mr. Clark asked the Planning Commission if they felt the use of North Park should go to a referendum vote. All tY.�e members present said they thought it should go to a referendum vote. Mr. Clark said if you don't want to include it in the ordinance you could just make it part of your motion that the Council seriously consider having this go to a referendum. Mr. Fizpatrick said he knew the problems involved, but he woul�d like to see it tied more closely to the proposed tree ordinance. He said that even if this has a lot of weaknesses it does include our ,._. intent. • , � �, Mr. Harris said that land use has nothing to do with tree management. Mr. Fitzpatrick said he realized this but this wouldn't be the first ordinance that had a dual purpose. Planning Commission Meetin� - April 3, 197� Paqe 11 ^ Mr. Harris�said we could say that the development on City owned property over X number of acr�s should go to referendum vote. . Mr. Fitzpatrick said we are faced with.two things. One is to make this ordinance as acceptabl� to the sponsoring committee as possible to keep this ordinance from going to a referendum and the other thing is to make clear our intent. Mr. Clark said that Section 5 could read that " The City does hereby ardain that all City owned land of over 100 acres (or what ever amount of acres you want) go to referendum before d'evelopment ' plans are submitted as prescribed in paragraph "c". Mr. Fitzpatrick said this wasn't the line he was thinking about. Mr. Lindblad said he would like to see the•statement changed to 50 acres. Mr. Blair said 50 acres wQUld include a lot Af parkland and we don't want to have to go to referendum for every park�development. He said we still have 17 acres to develop in Locke Park and this is an 102 acre park. Mr. Fitzpatrick said the development of the balance of Locke Park wouldn't be changing its use. �• Mr. yindblad asked how many acres would be needed for a short course golf course. Mr. Clark said that if you want any proposal for a golf course to go to a referendum vote, th�� maybe that's what you should say. M1c. Lindblad said he thought this�would be the simplist thing to do. ^ � Mr. Harris said maybe we shouldn't put in the ordinance what we tY�ink. Mr. Blair said, maybe we should. Mr. Lindblad said he thought golf course should be specifically mentioned because this is where the contention is. Mr. Blair said we could spend hours trying to get around the real issue but this is what the issue is. The motion could be that the City not remove trees for the purpose of constructing a golf course without a referendum vote. Mr. Clark asked if this was going to be a motion or made a section of the ordinance? Mr. B],air said he was talking about a motion, but this�could be made a section of the ordinance. He said Yie thought nature center should be added. Mr. Clark said there was a diff�rent type of bond needed i£ it was going to be developed as a nature center or a golf course. He said a golf course is supposed to be self-supporting and would require one kind of bond and a nature ceater may not be, so this would be a different type of bond.and would require a referendum anyway, because it would be added to the mill rate for taxes. Mr. Lindblad said if we leave North Park in its natural state, it shouldn't cost anything. . ,� Mr. Blair said they're talking about a nature center costing $90,000. Mr. Harris asked what was going to make it cost that much. Mr. Fitz- �"' patrick said it would be something like Woodlake. Mr. Blair said they would have to remove trees to put buildings on this site. He said they could leave the nature center off the ordinance. Planning Commission Meetin - April 3, 1974 Page 12 ,� � Mr. Clark said for Section 5, he had written down that it could say "The City of Fridley further does ordain that before it removes trees from City owned land for the development of a golf course, it shall go to a referendum vote". Mr. Fitzpatrick said his Section 5 starts out that "The City shall not remove trees.........." MOTION by Lindblad, seconded by BZair, that the Planning Commiss.ion recommend to Council a revised proposed tree ordinance as follows: AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE DESTRUCTION OF TREES ON CITY OWPIED PUBLIC LAND IN�THE CITY OF FRIDLEY EXCEPT UNDER •SPECIFIED CONDITIONS • THE CITY OF FRIDLEY DDES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTIDN 1. No person or corporation, pub.Zic or private, including but . not Zimited to the City of Fridley, its officers, employees. or agents, sha11 order or cause the injury or destruction of any .living tree on City owned land except under the . following conditions: ^ a. For control of a1Z type�s of tree diseases; such as verified cases of Oak WiZt or Dutch EIm, as provided , .zn Ch. 104 of the Fridley City Code. b. Project developrrient that invoZves the removal of fewer than 3 trees per acre are exempt from this ordinance. c. For purposes of woodland preservation, the removal of trees may be permitted, but only after a management pZan justifying such removaZ has been reviewed by the Fridley Parks and Recreation Commission, the Fridley Planning�Commission and approval by the Fridley City CoanciZ. No tree rerr�oval sha11 be alZowed under the provisions of this paragraph which is not defined in the p1an. d. For purpos,es of necessary street and public utility construction, but only after the preparation of a detaiZed plan and approval by the authorities named in Paragraph "c" above. No such plan sha11 be approved which daes not provide for reforestation and the restora�ion of the land according to the plan as approved by the City Council. e. For the purpose of park or other civic development but /'� only after the preparation of a detailed plan and review `., by the authorzties named in Paragraph "c" above. Such plan must indicate how the final development will be done, incZuding ground cover and tree plantings. SECTIOIV 2. Trees measuring less than 3 inches in diameter at a point 4 feet above. ground are exempt�from the provisions of this ordinance. Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1974 Page 13 � SECTION 3. Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to prevent the routine trimming of trees in street right of way, City Parks or other City owned public Iand. a. This ordinance is not to be so construed as to prohibit any utlit� company from removing any tree that has become a hazard to normal service, however, this waiver does not apply to new instaZZations or to pre-planned routine maintenance or to the total removal of an undamaged mature tree. b. Nothing in this ordinance sha11 be construed to prevent the City from removing a tree from street right of ways, City Parks or ofher City owned 1and, that has by nature .become.damaged so as to be no longer viable. SECTION 4. Any person who violates this ordinance sha11 be guilty of a misdemeanor. The injury or destruction of each protected tree sha11 be a separate violation. . ..SECTION 5.. The City of Fridley sha11 not�remove trees for the purpose ' of developing a golf course without first submitting such proposed use to a public referendum for approval. UPON a voice vote, aZ1 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. � ' MOTION by B1air, seconded by Harris, that this ordinance be sent.to the five members of the Sponsoring Committee of the petitioned ordinance. Upon a voice vote, a1l.voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. , Mr. Clark said copies of this proposed ordinance should be sent to the Parks & Recreation Commission and Environmental Quality eommission. Chairman Fitzpatrick agreed. Chairman Fitzpatrick ac�journed the meeting at 10:25•P.M. ... Respectfully submitted, � /` i - Dorothy Ev son, Secretary