Loading...
PL 06/15/2011 - 6559PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF FRIDLEY AGENDA WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15, 2011, 7:00 P.M. � LOCATION: CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER, 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE NE CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: APPROVE PLANNIIdG COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES: May 18, 2011 ��f�- 1. Consideration of a Text Amendment to Chapter 510, Tree Preservation, Which Pertains to Removal of Living Trees on City-Owned Land. 2. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 9, 2011, HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY COMMISSION MEETING. OTHER BUSINESS: 1. Verbal Report on Current Status of East River Road Corridor Projeet by Scott Hickok, Community Development Director ADJOURN City of Fridley Parks and Recreation Department emo To: Stacy Stromberg, Planner From: Jack Kirk, Director of Parks and Recreation <Ik� Date: June 8, 2011 Re: � Tree Preservation Ordinance Almost 40 years ago, in the mid 1970's, a tree preservation ordinance was established in the City of Fridley. It came about during the contentious debate that centered on the development plans for some park land at the northern boundary of City. One group in the City favored developing the park as a golf course and another group wanted the park used as a nature center. That park land is wha� we now know as Springbrook Nature Center. It is my understanding that the tree preservation ordinance was established to prevent golf course fairways from being cut in the forested land of the nature center. The existing tree preservation ordinance only allows up to 3 trees (per acre) to be removed each year from City owned land. The trees may only be removed as part of a wood{and management plan as well. The ordinance does not allow for the trees to be removed to create a park amenity such as an open play area or to construct a picnic shelter. As we move forward with plans for the SPRING project at the nature center, it will be necessary to take down more than just 3 trees per year to accomplish various phases of the project. There may also be other future City projects on City land that will run into a conflict with the existing tree ordinance. I recommended to the Parks and Recreation Commission that several changes to the tree preservation ordinance may be appropriate at this time. The ordinance today allows for the removal of trees that have a verified case of Oak Wiit or Dutch Elm disease. There are other diseases and pest infestations that may require removal of trees, so I suggested that we add a statement like that in the ordinance. The current ordinance allows for limited tree removal (up to three trees per acre per year) for the purposes of woodland management. I recommended removing the limitation on the number of trees and adding a statement that would allow removal for City approved projects. While the basic premise of the ordinance will still be to protect trees on City owned land, a change in this ordinance will allow for approved projects to be completed on City land when needed or desired. The proposed changes will still allow for any projects or woodland management that will affect tree removal to be reviewed (and approved) by the Parks and Recreation Commission, the Planning Commission and the Fridley City Council. There are still the checks and balances in place to prevent unwanted removal of trees on City owned land. The Parks and Recreation Commission discussed this item at the May 23, 2011 meeting and passed a motion of support to change the tree preservation ordinance with the changes as recommended by staff. The motion passed on a 3 to 1 vote.. The proposed wording change for the tree preservation ordinance is on the attached documents. I recommend that the PJanning Commission approve the suggested changes to the City Code 510 Tree Preservation Ordinance. I am attaching the section of the draft rriinutes of the May 23`� Parks and Recreation Commission meeting as they pertain to this item. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE UPDATING AND AMENDING FRIDLEY CITY CODE CHAPTER 510 TREE PRESERVATION The Fridley City Council hereby finds after review, examination and recommendation of staff that Chapter 510 related to Tree Preservation be hereby amended and ordains as follows: FRIDLEY CITY CODE CIiAPTER 510. TREE PRESERVATION 510.01. DESTRUCTION OF LIVING TREES No person or corporation, public or private, including but not limited to the City of Fridley, its o�cers, employees or agents, shall order or cause the injury or destruction of any living tree on City-owned land except under any of the following conditions: 1. For control of verified cases of Oak Wilt, e� Dutch Elm, or other tree disease or pest infestation as provided in Chapter 104 of the Fridley City Code; 2. For purposes of woodland management or Citv approved projects, the removal of �e-t��ee {� trees may be permitted, but only after a management plan justifying such removals has been approved by the Fridley Parks and Recreation &�se�ee-Commission, the Fridley Planning Commission and the Fridley City Council. No tree removal shall be allowed under the provisions of this Paragraph which is not defined in the plan; or, 3. For purposes of necessary public utility construction, but only after the prepazation of a detailed plan ancl approval by the authorities named in 510.01.2. No such plan shall be approved that does not provide for reforestation and the restoration of the land to its original condition. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF 2011. Scott J. Lund, Mayor ATTEST: Debra A. Skogen, City Clerk First Reading: Second Reading: Publication Date: Parks and Recreation Commission Meetinq - Mav 23, 2011 Pacle 5 b. Recommended Changes to Tree Preservation Ordinance Mr. Kirk stated that the current Tree Preservation Ordinance was enacted in the 1970's during the discussion or fight over a golf course or nature center in what is now Springbrook Nature Center. It was established to prevent golf course fairways from being cut into the property. Mr. Kirk stated that this is a very restrictive policy that can prevent City projects in our park system such as the SPRING project being proposed for the nature center. The golf course versus nature center issue is in the past, so it may be time to revise this ordinance. As the ordinance reads today, it would prohibit the SPRING project from happening at Springbrook. Mr. Kirk stated that the current policy allows for the removal of up to three trees per acre per year for the purposes of woodland management. The current ordinance would prevent the clearing of trees for creating a berm along 85th Avenue. Mr. Kirk stated that he believes that with a few minor changes to the ordinance, there is still a way to protect and preserve the trees on public land. The change would allow for tree removal in cases of projects that were approved by the City. He further stated that the ordinance would still require plans to be approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission, the Planning Commission and the City Council before tree removal could occur. A restoration or reforestation plan could certainly be reviewed at the time of the approvals. Mr. Kirk stated that the recommended changes to the ordinance are as follows: • Under 510.01 - number 1, other tree diseases or pest infestation were added as exceptions to which tree removal would be allowed. • Under 510.01 — number 2, it would now read..."For purposes of woodland management or City approved projects, the removal of trees may be permitted, but only after a management plan justifying such removals has been approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission, the Fridley Planning Commission and the Fridley City Council. No tree removal shall be allowed under the provisions of this Paragraph which is not defined in the plan; ( the change is that City approved projects was added as a reason for tree removal and the limitation of up to three trees per acre per year was removed). Mr. Kiric stated that the rest of the ordinance was left unchanged. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Barrett, to approve the staff recommended changes to the tree preservation ordinance. UPON A VOICE VOTE, WlTH COMMISSION MEMBERS KONDRICK, BARRETT AND SOLBERG VOTING YES, AND COMMISSION MEMBER HEINTZ VOTING NO, CHAIRPERSON SOLBERG DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED Mr. Heintz stated that he voted no because he did not like the fact that the ordinance was okay to prevent a golf course, but when it came to our needs for the nature center then it is okay to take down trees. He understands the reasons for the recommended changes, but he voted no. He further stated that he doesn't want a golf course there, he just doesn't agree with this change.