Loading...
PL 04/03/1974 - 7485.�1 �\ � � � A G E N D A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 3, 1974 8:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: �/� PAGES ROLL CALL: APPROVE JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION & BOARD OF APPEALS 1- 5 SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES: MARCH 13, 1�974 APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MTNUTES: MARCH 20, 1974 6- 30 RECEIVE BUILDING STANDARDS-DESIGN CONTROL SUBCOMMITTEE 31 MINUTES: MARCH 21, 1974 RECEIVE BOARD OF APPEALS SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES: MARCH 32 - 38 26, 1974 l. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPEGIAL USE PERMIT, 39 - 44 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, Elwe11's Riverside Heights the same being l68 Talm«dge Way N.E. 2. SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE FORlARMORY PROPOSAL � t�5 3. RECOMMENDATION TO C UNCIL ON TREE ORDINANCE 46 - 50 z� y� ���� f ��io � �'� _ �g�'� „ � �j-� - a - , 1 �� 'MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING OF THE PLANNTNG COMMISSION AND THE BOARD OF APPEALS OF MARCH 13, 1974 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Fitzpatrick at 8:30 P.M. Plannin� Comnission MEMBERS PRESENT: Fitzpatrick, Haxris, Lindblad, Drigans r�ERS ABSENT: Blair Board of ApPeals MEMBERS PRESENT: Drigans, Crowder, Plemel, Wahlberg MII�LBERS ASSENT : Gabel Others Present Mr. Vixgil Herrick, City Attorney Mr. Darrel Clark, Community Development Adm. Mr. Howard Mattson, Engineering Aide Item of Discussion THE POLICY TO FOLLOW TN HANDLING REQUESTS FOR SPECIAL USE PERMITS AND VARIANCES FOR EXISTING NON-CONFORI�IING BILLBOARDS Mr. Mattson handed out a sta�us report which w�.s made up by the City on the � existing billboards and how each sign meets or does not meet each code requirement � of the billboard ordi.nance. Mr. Clark gave a summary of why these requests wi11 be coming before the Commissions. He said in Saptember of 1969 the P1anni.ng Commission and the Gouncil adopted a Sign Ordinance. He said this ordinance requires that all billboards will need a special use permit granted before September 15, 1974 or will have to be remov ed. He said there are approximately 24 existing billboards in the City with only four having had a special use permit granted. He said the list that was handed out shows the location of fihe signs and how most of them don't meet at least one Code requirement and some don`t meet two or more. He said before we staxt getting the requests, it was thought to be a good idea to have a joint meeting, with the City Attorney pxesent, to decide what the Commissions would do and what they can do on the requests. He said on the last page of the status regort is a tax base report on four of the billboaxds. Mrs. Wahlberg asked if there is signs. Mr. Clark answered that less than $50.00 a figure for the total tax�derived from all of the this was not done but it would probably amount to Chaixman Fitzpatrick stated that this ordi�ance was presuma,bly looked into and studied before it was adopted and he asked Mr. Herrick if it would hQld up in court for removing billboards that were constructed before the ordinance was adopted. , �� Mx. Herrick stated �hat our sign oxdinance is constitutional. He said it allawed � for a 5 year moxatorium for depxeciation on existing signs so it is satisfactory. in this regaxd. The Commission wi11 have to decide as to whether its reasonable for a special use pexmit on a sign or betore they ask that it be taken down. He said they must take it on a fact to fact basis. He said the Council will have to March 13, 1974 rage � Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the Planning Commission and the Boaxd of Appeals decide whether they are going to issue any special use permits and they could say ^ take them a11 down or �hey could grant them all. He said whatever action is taken on the requests should be consistanC whether it is extreme measures or not. He said if you a11ow some and deny some, you need guidelines and a criteria as to what is needed for approving or denying. He said as far as determini�fg in advance whether the court would support the City or not, thats hard to do. He said a fox�► should be ma.de up showing factors you think would be important to make your � decision on. Mr. Harris brought up the point about the City`s responsibility as far as a Iease for the sign goes. He said as an example if a sign company leased the land their sign is on for 10 years, and they have 5 years left on the lease, and the Commission decides the sign should be xemoved. He asked if the Attorney thought the City would be held respansible for the balance of the lease. Mr. Herrick replied that in some cases no. He said the oxdinance was adopted 5 years ago after most property owners and sign companies knew about it. He said even though we might diminish the value of the land, it would be difficult to determine. He said tae have given them 5 years to recoup their imrestment. He said the question that then comes up is is 5 years reasonable.He said the court has decided that 3 years i,s sufficient. He said he would suggest that the City get information on the lease and the cost of the sign when it was built to add to the data they already have on the signs. Mr. Harris asked if the Conanission could recommend to the Council that the Special Use Permit, if approved, run until the end of the lease. Mr. Herrick replied that could be done and that was why he suggested looking into the length of the lease. He added they could also grant the speaial use permit fox a specific length of f'1 time, say 1 yaar, and review them again after that time. Mr. Drigans asked the Conanission to look at the denial extre�ne. He said if the denial was done on a mass basis, would the City need a resolution passed. He asked if that would be one way of �overing not granting any special use permits. Mr. Herrick repliad he would think that that is what the City wauld want to do if they wanted a mass denial. He said if that was the result, the City would have to look into the reasons for doing it. Mr. Drigans said the Ordinance was drawn up and somebody must have looked into this throughly. He asked if it would be better to deny all the requests before we get all the requests to eliminate the consideration on an individual basis. He said thats what we want to get away from. Chairman Fitzpatrick stated some of the criteria is more important than others. He asked how many of the billboards don`t meet the Code. Mr. Clark answered about 90 percent of them don't meet the Code. Chairman Fitzpatrick said you have talked about a form and getting information on each sign. He asked if we would have to take applieations for special use permits if we were to decide to deny all of them. Mr. Herrick stated we would have to accept.the applications.but you could recommend that no special use permits be granted. Mr. Harris asked if the City were to deny all of one companies signs, would the court find the City acting in a capricious manner. Mr. Herrick stated that was n� a hard.question to answer. He said Mir►netonka took that position (to deny them all), and won in court, but he couldn't say what would happen now. Mr. Drigans asked about the billboards that have had leases negotiated within the last five years. He asked what chance the City would have in court if we denied their request for a special use permit. Mr. Herrick answered that the City would have a good position on these. March t3, ty/4 Yage 3 Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the Planning Commission.and the Board of Appeals Mr.Plemel asked about the City's billboards. He said isn't that putting us in a bad position. Mr. Clark said some of those billboards have agreements on them ^ and some have Council approval with just building permits. Mr. Herrick stated that was another reason to check into each billboard permit as they have been erected under several different means. � � /'� Mr.�Lindblad stated who;is governing who. He said why should a sign company be. able to tell the City what to do. Iie said if we are going to approve anything, what will prevent anybody from coming in to get a billboard permit. Mr. Herrick stated its a question of property owners rights. He said if the owner has a bonified property interest, then the City has to prove it is in the interest of the health, welfare and safety of the public to remove them. Mr. Crowder stated the decisions have to be a blanket denial, give everyone a special use perinit, or go through the requests individually. He said it sounds like we should set quidelines for each action. Mr. Herrick stated the outcome that is accepted would not only affect the existinr �illboards but also would apply to new applications. He said the City should come up with a form that will require all inf�rmation about a sign. Mr. Clark asked if two public hearings will have to be held for a billboard needing both a speeial use permit and a variance. Mr. Herrick said there could be a joint meeting between the Planning Commission and �oard of Appeals and hold one hearing. He said there could be the one advertising, one meeting and have two separate votes; the Board of Appeals first for the variance, the Planning Commission second on the special use permit. Mr. Clark said he felt we were weakening our position by having two votes. Mr. Crowder said he felt it should go to one board or the.other. Mr. Drigans said he felt the Commission should list the advantages and disadvantages of the actions open to them. He said we should attack this on a systematic basis. Chairman Fitzpatrick said lets look at the blanket denial and what the rationale would be. The Commission came up with; 1. Upholding the Code as written and adopted. Z. Save administrative time for going over individual requests. 3. Save Council and Commission time. 4. Court costs on going just once instead of several times. Mr. Lindblad asked if a11 24 billboards have to have action taken on them before September. Mr. Clark said there are 4 that may not have to as they had-special use permits granted before the 1969 Ordinance but they do not meet �he criteria for billboards now. Mr. Rerrick said he felt they should be lumped together with the others. Mr. Herrick said he had a discussion with a sign company about taking down three signs because of roadwork involving widening the street. He said compensation of $1,000.00 apiece had to be paid out on the removal of the signs, and added that might give�the Commission an idea of what can happen. Mr. Fitzpatrick said he didn't think the City would be going to court 18 times, because of the court findings, one of the parties would learn. Mr. Clark said he felt the signs are individual in themselves and to state a blanket request would be wrong. Mr. Herrick said some communities have had a blanket denial but that would have to be the Commission's decision. He said if Council agrees with the Commission, then a portion of the Oxdinance would have to be deleted. March 13, 1974 Page 5 Minutes of the Joint Meetin� of the Planning Commission and fihe Board of Appeals Mr. Plemel asked about the grandfather clause and why it doesn't apply here. � Mr. Herxick stated it has applied here for the last 5 years but after September, it will cease and then they need special use permits. Mr. Crowder said the Conunission has been assuming the sign companies will not confox7n to the bil-lboard requirements. He said maybe they will. Mr. Mat�son said some rest,rictions could be complied with and some couldn't be as far as setbaeks are concerned. Mrs. Wahlberg asked if it was possible to prohibit signs on a specific xoadway. Mr. Herrick said he thought it could if you could show accident statistics or something unique about it to qualify �enying. He said the Commission would need basis and fact and a qualified person in engineering or traffic study should do the study. Mrs. Wahlberg stated she had been told that the book "Street Graphics" has information in it giving statistics about signs and she felt the City should obtain a copy which might be of help on the billboards and especially helpful to the Board of Appeals on the variance requests. Mr. Drigans asked if this body should meet agai.n after information is acquired and the �orm made up. Mr. Clark suggested each,board going over the information when it is"available and then calling a special meeting.if it is decided it is necessary. Mr. Herrick stated that on the wliole, it might be better to consider tlie requests one at a ti.me, and then try to adop� a consistant pattern of action. r''� Mr. Drigans statecY the book "Street Graphics" might show that our Sign Ordinance is outdated in relation to its findings. He said at the Board of Appeals meeting it was brought up that the Code says nothing about the number of traffic directional sign allowed. Chairman Fitzpatrick said if the people on the Commissions feel the Ordinance or parts of the Ordinance are outdated and should be looked at again, it should be done• Mr. Clark said the City staff will research and get the information on each billboard including lease, type of permit, etc., and also draw up the form and get this report back to the members in possibly two weeks. He said after th ey get this information the Commission can make up their format and present it to the Council for thie r approval. ADJOURNMENT• The meeting was adjourned by Chairman Fitzpatrick at 10:30 P.M. Respectful�y submitted, � MARY HINTZ Secretary-Board of App s /'� � . CITY OF FRIDLEY �• /1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 20, 1974 �PAGE 1 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Fitzpatrick called the meeting to order at 8:10 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Fitzpatrick, Harris, Lindblad, Blair, Drigans ' Members Absent: None Others Present: Darrel Clark, Community Development Administrator Brother Thomas Sullivan, Vice Chairman of the Environmental Quality Commissinn � Paul Brown, Director of the Parks & Recreation Department APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MARCH 6, 1974 MOTION by Lindblad, seconded by Blair, that the Planning Commission ap�rove.the minutes of the March 6, 1974 meeting as written. Upon a voice vote, aZ1 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE BOARD OF APPEALS.SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES:. FEBRUARY 2$, 1974 � „ MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Lindblad, that the P1ann�nq Commission receive the Board of Appeals Subcommittee minutes of February 28, 1974.' Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES: MARCH 4, 1974 MOTION by B1air, seconded by Drigans, that the Planning Cbmmissian receive the Paxks & Recreation Commission minutes of March 4, 1974. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE BOARD OF APPEALS'SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES: MARCH 13, 1974 MOTION by Drigans, seconded by B1air, that the PZanning Comrrrission receive the.Board of Appeals Subcornmittee minutes of March 13, 1974. Upon a voice vote, a11 votinq aye, the motion carried unanimousZy. � , . 1: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL_ USE PERMIT, SP #74-Q2, DAVID COPPERNOLL: Per Fridley City Code, Section 205.051, 2, A, to construct a second accessory building, a metal shed to be used for storage on the East 83 feet of the West 334.5 feet of Outlot A, Dennis Addition, an� the West Half of th� East 16F feet o.f the West 467.5 feet of Lot 6, Revised Auditor's Subdivision No 10, the same being 1328 66th Avenue N.E. ^ • Mr. David Coppernoll was present. MOTION by Drigans, s'econded by Harris, that the Planning Commission waive the reading of the Public Hearing notice on the request for a special use permit, SP #74-02, by David Coppernoll. Upon a voice vote, a11 votinq aye, the motion carried unanimously. � � Planning Commission Meeting - March 20, 1974 Page 2 Mr. Coppernoll said he has a small single car garage and needs this 14 foot square metal shed for storage. He was purchasing this from Ward's. Mr. Blair asked the height of the shed. Mr. Cappernoll said it was a little under eight feet. Mr. Blair asked if the door was large enough to aceommodate a car. Mr. Coppernoll said the door was anly 6 feet and it couldn't be used for this purpose. Mr. Harris said the plot plan showed that this building will be 6 feet from the side lot line, but how far will this be from the house. Mr. Coppernoll said it would be 8 feet. Mr. Harris thought this was pretty close to the house. Mr. Clark said the code states there has to•be 5 feet between combustibles, measured from eave to eave, or it could be attached with a fire wall. Mr. Harris said he thought it was 15 feet.� Mr. Clark said that 15 feet applies to buildings of two different owners. Mr. Harris said this building is 196 square feet. He asked Mr. Coppernoll if this building would have a permanent floor.. Mr. Coppernoll said it will have a concrete floor. Mr. Harris asked if there would be any utilities in this building. Mr. Coppernoll said no, it would be used strictly for storage. Mr. Herbert Bacon, 6225 Central Avenue, said his property adjoins /'1 Mr. Coppernoll's property and he was here just to see what the request was about and he had no objections. MOTION by Drigans, seconded by BZair, that the Planning Commission close the Public Hearing o�z the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #74-02, by David Coppernoll. Upon a voice vote, a1Z vating aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Clark.if the Gity staff was working on any code changes on these metal storage buildings. Mr. Clark said they have been working on the sign ordinance and the tree ordinance and haven!t finished gathering the data from other communities. The data they do have, it seemed like the requirement for a special use permit was. between 200 to 300 square feet. Some cities don't require a permit at all for these sheds. . MOTION by Harris, secd"nded by Blaix, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council approval of the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #74-02, by David Coppernoll, per Fridley Cit� Code, Section 205.051, 2,: A, to construct a second accessory building, a metal shed to be used for storage, on the East 83 feet of the West 334.5 feet of Outlot A, Dennis Addition, and the West Ha1f of the East 166 feet of the West 467.5 feet of Lot 6, Revised Auditor's 5ubdivisio�n No. 1Q, the same being 1328 66th Avenue N.E., with the fol.Iowing stipulations: � (1) This building be (2) The use of thi�s (3) This building is attached to a permanent foundation. building be limited to storage. not to be used for any commercial enterprise. UPON a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. � � Plannin Commission Meeting - March 20, 1974 Page 3 �' 2. PUBLIC HEARING: TREE ORDINANCE (PETITION #4-1974) Chairman Fitzpatrick said there was no official Public Hearing notice published on this hearing, but it was publicized in the paper, as we requested at our last meeting. _ Mr. Fitzpatrick said that a petition for this ordinance was presented to the City Council with some 4,000 signatures. The Council has 64 days to react to the petition, at which time they will have the choice.of adopting the ordinance as presented or prepare to have it go on a referendum ballot. They can also ask �or changes in this� ordinance, and if four of the five members of the sponsoring committee agree to these changes, the Council can adopt the amended ordinance. If the sponsoring committee doesn't agree to the changes made by the Council,. it will still have to go to a referendum ballot. The Council passed this p�titioned ordinance on to the Planning Commission for our recommendation. At that point the Commission decided to hold a Public Hearing to get input in preparation to making a recommendation to the City Council. Mr.. Fitzpatrick said he would like to read the petitioned ordinance into the minutes. He said this was an ordinance prahibiting the destruction of trees on City owned public land in the City of Fridley except under specified conditions, and states: ^ The City of Fridley Does Ordain as follows: Section l. No person or corporation, public or private, `including but not limited to the City of Fridley, its officers, employees or agents, shall order or cause the injury or destruction of any living tree on the City�owned land except under the following conditions: r'`� (a) For control of verified cases of Oak Wilt or Dutch Elm disease as provided in Ch. 28 of the Fridley City Code. (b) For purposes of woodland management, the removal of up to 3 trees per acre per year may be permitted, but only after a management plan justifying such removals has been approved by the Fridley Parks & Recreation _ Subcommittee, the Fridley Planning Commission and the Fridley City Council. Nd tree removal shall be allowed under the provision of this Paragraph which is not defined in the Plan. (c) For purposes of necessaxy public utility construction, but only after the preparation of a detailed plan and approval by the authorities named in Paragraph "b" abovE No,such plan shall be approved which does not provide for reforestation and restora�ion of the land to its original condition. Section 2. Trees measuring 1FSS than 3 inches in diameter at a point 4 ft. above ground are exempt from the provisions of this ordinance. � � � Planning Commission Meeting - March 20, 1974 Page 4 Section 3. Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to prevent the routine trimming of trees in street right of way. Section 4. Any person who violates this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The injury or destruction of each protected tree shall be a separate violation. Chairman Fitzpatrick said this is the ordinance that has been referred to us for our recommendation. Any changes the Planning Commission or Council might wish to make are limited to keeping the intent of the ordinance. If the sponsoring committee doesn't agree with any proposed changes, it will still have to go to a referendum vote as required in our City Charter. �r Fitzpatrick said he had received two letters that should be in the minutes. He would read them and then the Planning Commission could receive them. IMr. Fitzpatrick said the first letter was from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and was wr�itten to Jerrold Boardman, Planning Assistant of the City of Frialey. � ��Re:--Froposed eity of Fridley Tree Preservation and Management Ordinance. � In the brief time provided, the Department of Natural Resources has reviewed the proposed ordinance prohibiting the destruction of � trees on city owned publi� land in the City of Fridley. The intent of the ordinance is to preserve the existing trees. Therefore, it is not for the purpose of woodland management but rather for the purpose of woodland preservation. No management plan to provide for a viable healthy stand of trees could be predicated upon the removal of only three trees per acre per year. Therefore, we belive that the wording of para�raph B should read: "for the purpose of.woodland preservation the removal", and so forth. We are not certain as to the reason for exempting trees measuring less than three inches in diameter at a point four feet above the ground from the provisions of this ordinance. We would assume that the intent would be to create a park-like situation with only larger trees preserved, however, in areas where larger trees do not exist it would appear that it would be desirable to retain smaller trees with the spacing desired by the city to create a park-like affect. Due to the short notice�, we regret that we were unable to arrange for a Department of Natural Resources representative to attend your meeting, but we trust that this assessment of the proposed ordinance will be usefull to you. Sincerely, C.B. Buckman, Deputy Commissioner." � MOTION by BZair, sec.onded by Drigans, that the Planning Commission receive the Zetter from the Department of Natural Resources, dated March .I9, 1974. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. � � �� �� Plannin Commission ME:eting - March 20, 1974 Page 5 Chairman Fitzpatrick than read into the minutes the letter from Northern 3tates Power Company dated March 20, 1974, and addressed to the Fridley Planning Commission. "Re: City of Fridley Ordinance We want to be certain restrictions are not placed on us that would prevent us from providing good reliable electric service. Changes listed below would be recommended: Section l Paragraph C--- Omit last sentence --- no such plan shall be.approved which does not provide for reforestation and the restoration of tk�e land�to its original condition. % � i�5ection 111 Amend Section 3--- nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to prevent the routine trimming of trees in street right- of-�ay or u.tility easement right-of way. �our consideration of these suggestions would be appreciated. � Sincerely,,'John F. Ranck, Municipal Services Respresentative, North Divi�ion." _ MOTION by Harris, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commission receive the letter from Northern States Power Company dated March 20, I974.' Upon a voice vote, aI1 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously Chairman Fitzpatrick said that if it was possihle he would like the people who have positive �eelings about'this ordinance to alternate with people who have negative feelings about the ordinance, in coming to the microphone. Mr. Bill Nee, 219 Logan Parkway, said that concerning the Northern States Power Company letter, he would like to get a little feed-back. In Section 111, where they propose to ask for utility easement right- of-way he wondered if that's necessary to the extent it's on public land and is permitted,. and to the extent it's ��t on public land, it's not regulated. Mr. Nee asked if this was the way the Planning Commission read the ordinance. Chairman Fitzpatrick said to the extent it's on private land, it isn't regulated,�but on public land, it is. Mr. Nee said he understood. He said he saw the point of the comment on Paragraph C. It is mainly the concern of trees growing up and interfering with overhead utilities. If it read, "except where they interfere with overhead utilities", could that be worked out rather than a complete deletion of the sentence. We should find some way to provide language, without ar�y deletion. Mr. John Ranck, Northern States Power Company, said that the ordinance attempting to regulate the City's removal of trees has nothing to do with our. every day business. In that light, we are not opposed to this ordinance. We want to make sure that there aren't � � � �.1 Planning Commission Meeting - March 20, 1974 Page 6 things in this ordinance that prohibits us from providing services which the City of Fridley reguires from us. Usually when we remove a.tree, it is to remove a danger. zf a tree grows up into high voltage line, the tree is either going to be killed or it can be enexgiz�d and cause a hazard to someone walking by. It can cause momentary outages, which while this doesn't cause too much of a problem in a residential area, it can cause big problems for a commercial enterprise. They may have a computer or tape driven equipment. Momentary outages can cause machines to lose control. We've had problems with this before: Also, in the case of high winds � where trees have been blown over into our lines and in order to get these lines baek in order, sometimes we have to remove some trees to get into an area with our heavy equipment, to repair the lines. We wouldn't have ti,me during an emergency to come to meetings to get permission to remove these trees. We a�re a service company and it is our job to repair electric lines as soon as possible. This ordinance is not aimed at us , and we'd really like to be exempt from the whole ordinance. \ Chairman Fitzpatrick said all of Paragraph C is aimed at the }�ublic utilities. , Mr. Ranck said that in the past, where they have had to remove trees to put in an underground system, they have put the trees back /1 and re�alaEed the sod. He said the company thought problems could come from this ordinance that they couldn't anticipate at the present time. Mr. Drigans said you stated that Northern States Power Company requ�sts to be relieved of the whole ordinance. Is it the position of N.S.P, that this is not a good ordinance? Mr. Ranck said they were fully cognizant of the reasons for this ordinance and we don't feel it was written with Northern States Power Company in mind. Because tree trimming is important to us and also the keeping of trees we aren't against a tree ordinance. We have a large tree management program on the St. Croix. We just don't want � to get embroiled in something that doesn't pertain to us . In case of a bad storm, we would not want to end up in Court trying to perform our regular job. Under this ordinance, we can't do business in Fridley as we have been, and we wcsuld like the two considerations men�.ioned in our letter to be given consideration. We would like to be relieved of the entire ordinance. Mrs. Helen Treuenfels,;5248 Horizon Drive, said she was one of the people who circulated the petition. She said that Mr. Ranck stated that he was sure this ordinance had nothing to do with I�Torthern States Power Company and that we all know why this ordinance was written, which is true. Some of the comments that were made by the people I /�, approached might be rel�3vant here. A number of people commented that they were signing thispetition. not just for North Park, but also because of what happened in Locke Park. They felt the N.S.P. wires that went across Locke Park despoiled the City. They were interested in North Park, but they felt the util�ity companies should have to pay � attention ta what we need in Fridley too. . They don't want this ordinanc /"\ �. /'1 x� Planning Commission Meeting - March 20, 1974 Page 7 written for the benefit of Northern States Power Company. Mr. Clark said as he reads the ordinance, it does pertain to public utilities, and he didn't know if it pertains to street con- struction, but let's say it does. Then Paragraph C, that Northern States Power Company is concerned about, would make it practically impossible to build a street where there was forest or trees. If you had to put the trees back after you put in the street, it would be impossible to use the street. While he thought there should be a plan submitted to the different bodies mentioned in Paragraph B, the point of restoration should be gone into a little more thoroughly. It should be determined what restoration really is necessary. Would grading,;, soding and the planting of boulevard trees be permitted, or does it mean that trees have to be planted back from�where they were originally removed. Mr. Fitzpatrick said he would think that would be part of the plan at the time it was submitted. Mr. Clark said the ordinance does say restoration of the land back to its original condition. He�thought this part of the ordinance should be modified somewhat. Mr. Clark said there may be other instances where a private owner may want to remove a boulevard tree. The tree in the boulevard could be a short lived tree and as the other trees in his yard matured, it might be good tree management to remove the boulevard tree. If there were more than three of these in the street right-of way, it would would prohibit the removal of this tree. Mr. Clark thought there should be some provision for that person to get a permit to remove it. Mr. Fitzpatrick asked what the policy was now. Mr. Clark said there was no permit required. People should call in if they want to remove a tree and it would be inspected. If it should be removed they would be given permission to do so. Mr. Harris asked if �e had an ordinance covering this. Mr. Clark said he cauldn't state where it was covered, but no ane would be allowed to dig a big hole in street right of way to remove a tree without permission. Mr. Harris said that he kn�w that in Minneapolis, the only orie who could remove a�boulevard tree was the Park Board. Mr. Clark said the City probably does need a good tree management ordinance, but it should be something the City could live with. Mr. C. M. Kam, 120 Talmadge Way N.E., said that in reference to the strees in the street right-of way, he thought that through t�e tax process of the City, that the property owner was responsible for the grass up to the curb. For example, and,this is relating to voting, if someone puts a poster on that land between the road and your property, which you are taxable for, even if you relate �ourself to maintaning 'that boulevard and keeping it presentable, that you have the right to leave it there, or give the right to have a sign put there without any one else complaining�. So I don't believe the City has anything to do with, at the present time, if you have a tree that is detrimental to your area, that you haven't got the right.to remove it. This has nothing +:o do with the ordinance tonight. This is a separate issue. � � ^� .� a.� Planning Commission Meeting - March 20, 1974 Page 8 Mr. Kam said he thought that if it was looked up, the taxpayer is responsible for everything up to the roadway. Mr. Cla�rk s�.id that it is true that the City doesn't go out and cut the grass on the boulevard. The private owner is responsible for maintaining the boulevard in front of his own house. I haven't s�arcYied the ordinanc�hat far to determine how it would affect the boulevards. If some neighbor called in and complained about another neighbar cutting down a boulevard tree, we would try to da.scourage that. from happening. In some cases, the boulevard trees have been planted by the City. For about two or three years, there was an intensive tree program going on. . Mr. Blair asked if any member of the sponsoring committee was present in the audience because he was concerned how this ordinance would affect the parks and recreation program of the City of Fridley. He said that Section 1, Paragraph B, that only allows 3 trees per acre to be removed would stop the park development program in Fridley. He said they have eight parks they were ready to develop and there was no�t�aay they could be.developed under this ordinance. Mr. Blair said he was not opposed to having a tree ordinance, but this ordinance was too restrictive in its present form. Mr. Fitzpatrick said he didn't see any members of the sponsoring committee in the audience. ' Mr. Harry Crowder, 146 63rd Way N.E., said as he interprets this ordinance, it would pertain to any tree on anyone's boulevard. If I read this right, I can't do injury to that tree. If the kids climb on it and break a branch, I won't be able to trim that tree until I get permission from the Parks & Recreation Commission, the Planning Commission and the City Council. Mr. Fitzpatrick said it would be his interpretation that you were not injuring that tree by reasonable tree trimming. Mr. Nee said he'd like to underscore that the process we're in is sort of an exorable process. At this point, it behooves us to make those adjustments that should be made, bearing in mind that they should be in line with the purposes of this ordinance. For instance, Darrel Clark brought up the question of. streets. Mr. Nee said he could see what he meant and if there is a question on whether you could legally build a street, that probably shauld be clarified. I don't think it's inconsistant with the intent of the ordinance. The purpose of this hearing is to find some way to work it out and I think this pertains to N.S.P. also. If you can find some way to work it out that four out of the five sponsoring committee mer-�bers would accept it as to whether or not there should be. some type of waiver procedure. As far as the boulevard trees, this ordinance would be more of a protection than a hindrance, because more often the municipality decides they want to widen a roadway and goes through and cuts all the trees down in the boulevard. Maybe there should be a Section �,A, or something that provides for emergencies. He said there should be a cons.tructive approach to this and recognize'that something like this will go before'the electorate. We should try to work out the wrinkles � � /"1 Planning Commission Meeting - March 20, 1974 Page 9 ��� in the ordinance so people can live with it. Mr. Liridblad said that in addition to Mr. Blair's statement, he would like to have thought given to a proposal the Plan.��ng Commission had discussed before and that was a tree nursery-for Fridley. Under this ordinance, the City wouldn't be able to move these trees for repZanting in other areas. Mr. Harris said as long as this has been brought up, he would like to see a City nursery and reforestration program tacked on to this ordinance. Mr. Paul Brown said they have picked out one or two sites where the Parks Department plans to have a nursery but it is up to our departent to submit this for the 1975 budget. Mr. Harris asked if it would help to tack a section onto this ordinance. Would it help to get this nursery set up instead of just having the idea. Mr. Brown said this would have to be set up as a yearly program, stipulating a certain amount of money that could be spend on the program. Chairman Fitzpatrick said the references made here are to a propasal that has been made for the last few years, by the Parks and Recreation Commission, the Planning Commmission and the general public, that the City get into a nursery program so they would have trees available to plant around the City. Mr. Kam said that he was in favor of h�rticulture, but as to adding this as an adderidum on this ordinance, he thought it would have a tendency to destroy this ordinance. This would in affect be raising our taxes, and he didn't believe it should be added. Mr. Harris said he didn't think we were talking about that much money. He said he wanted to call it to the attention of the Councilmen present that the City seemed to be able to come up with the money for other things . ;,,;; Mr. Brown said the program set up at the time of the tornad� was a three year program and it cost between $4600 to $5,000. � Mr. Harris said he�didn't think it was the Planning Commission's intent to have that kind of program. That program was for much larger trees. We're talking about a seedling program, a$500 program. Chairman Fitzpatrick said Mr. Kam's point that this could give opposition to this ordinance that it might not otherwise have, has to be considered. ; Mr. Fitzpatrick said he would like �o state again, that the Council has the aption of adopting this ordinance as presented, or recommending changes that are agreeable to four of the five members of the sponsor- �ing committee or else it goes to a referendum vote. He said we have to bear in mind that the sponsoring committee isn't going to agree with any changes that depart from the spirit of the ordinance. This petition was signed by 4,000 people and they are not going to take lightly the decision to agree to any changes. /'� /'1 �� Planning Commission Meeting - March 20, 1974 Page 10 Mrs. Barbara Hughes, 548 Rice Creek Terrace, said the Council can adopt an amended ordinance and if this is not satisfactory to the committee, it will still go to a referendum. Mr. Drigans asked the represQntative from Northern States Power Company if he was aware of the proposed tree ordinance for Edina, Minnesota. Mr. Drigans said he thought this ordinance should be read to::th�_people, so they could be aware of what another community was in the process of d.oing as to a tree ordinance. Mr. Clark said that this Edina ordinance pertains to private property and not to public property. It excludes the City, so as a tree ordinance it is quite dif�erent from the proposed ordinance for Fridley. � Mr. Drigans read the proposed tree ordinance for Edina. QRDI:IA�:CE ;�0. 823 ' AIv OF�I:i:1��C� REGUI.A'.CI'.�G T1�E �:I::�i0V�1L .OI' TF.F:LS tdI'T11IN TiiL' CITY Ati�J F'R0�'IDI\G A P�:::1LTY - TIiE CITY COli;;CIL OF 1HE CITX OF EllIN1, i•II�NESOTA, ORD.�ZtiS: Preliminary Draft (all new) Sec�ion 1. • PLIi:PnSE hNll IIvTE.:T. The City Council hereb}= finds tl�at it is necessar}* to r::aintain and protect the existin� urban forest in order to pre.serve windbreak protecL-ion, abate soil erosio:� and eniiance the natur�l be�iuLy of the Git}' and ac:opts this ordinance ii: the interest oi the health,.safety and general c�Telfare of the residents ot tne City. Sec. 2. Ti2EE I)I�FI.�ED. For the purpose of this ordinance, TF.EE sha�l tnean 2 L�OOCij� perennial plant, usuaTly with one Main stem or trunl: and many-br�nched, which has a diameter of greater ttian six (6) inches when measured at a point four (4) �eet above the ground le��el. . . Sec. 3. KE;fOE'E1L OF ThEF.S; PL°�fIT P.EOUI°.rTJ. t'ithout a pert*.iit there- tor�, it st�all be unla�vful fbr any perso:i, firm or CO1�OT'St7.0I1 to remeve or cut doc�n or autliorize the cutting do��� or destruction o* any tree gro:,ino wittiin ttze Cit��. �" � /"1 . Sec. 4. PEr�`fIT FOIZ P.E;fOVt+.L OF 1REES; PR.00rDL'?E. (a) A� lp icati.on. Ar�y per.son, firm or co�porati�n desirin� to cut cJoc•�n or remove an�� tree gro�aino v:ithin the Cit� shall fi.le an ap�lication there€or.��:ith tne City Glerk on the form provided b} him for such purpose. Such a�plication shall be accompanied by a fee of Ten Dollars ($10.�0). Each application shall include a survey sho�ain� the location of the tree or trees concerned and shall further include a state:.,ent of . the reason for the request. Prior to suS�itting suoh ap�l.ication, the applicant shall nark each tree to be cut down or. rr�r�oved c�:ith a red tag. �� � Planning Commission Meeting - March 20, 1974 Page 11 .� (b) Inspection. Upon receipt of such 4pplication, the Cit,y Clerl: shall f.orward tr�e a�nlication to the City Directo�- of Yarks �•�}�� shall pr.o.:,ptly ins?ect such tree or trees and indicate on said application: (1} The type of �iee or trees and their a�proxim�te h��i.�hts; ' (2) Ttie tiealtii or conditicn of the tree or trees; (3) t•;nether or� r:e;� ii� his c�_::ion sucii re.��o��al is • justified ti� reason o� : ('i) Good' forestry prac�ice;. or - (ii) The poor hev�lt:� or �a:a_ �rous cer.dition of ttie tree �r tr�4�; or (iii) Cor.stT-uctio:� or o�'_.r_ z-:�ro�e�ents bein� • made to tE?e vr:�a�r ��: . The Director of Parks s}�all �_;ereu�cn for.•,ard tt�e application tc the Pl�,ininj; �:�art�ent. � _ n � .. (c) ����rov�-�l^or De�; a1 . The Ci.t,: �ianr.er siizll rev? e�a the � ' zpplicat�o:t �age�h�r �:-�th t�� r��o-rt oi t?�e nirec�or of �'a-rt�s and st:all �n?roJe or ::e:�•� the a�plicati�n based upon the s�at:�ards s�� =�r�a in Sectzoti 4, (t�) (3) � � . above to��ther �:•ith L�.e v�_: c�� an�' znter,t �f ti��s ordi- nance as herein set s_cr.ch i:� ���c�ion 1. If tlie a?pli- caLion is den � EC! h�' tilc C? �`.: '! �P_L E.'T � LJr1.i.t2T2 IlOt1CG' of such action specir:;•in� t�� �a�e t:,ereoF, togethzr � �:itti tne reasons th�retor ::,a=:_ 5e �-�ailec: to the app.li- ca:it at the address s:�o:,n _:� ;•�c : a�;�Iication. If • � appreved, t�e C:�ty PI :T:n��� ;,..�' � issLL� the per�;it to the app].ican�. (d) Pernit �o�-Tr.an,:er2��e; ��r�t:on. �lny permit gcante� heraunder is t:on--t:a �::���?ra��� �:d shall e:�pire si:: (6) moni:hs £�:o:n date ot issuu^ce. (e) F.estric�tecl to Snec�,`.ic ?:o�?�- In t?:e event a�ermit for tree re�:ova.L is �r4,te_ _..•plCer to en���l4 t�z� applicaia� to car.rv�our s�-.� �r�}ect of dev�lopment or �mprove;ient af tl�e propert;•, such per�it shall be effec- tive on].y in c�:�necti:o:1 =wi �:: �,^,� aCLL81 acccr.�plis:i��e.1t � • �• of said project. , n _ ` Sec. 5. fi?;`.r:tZ:�?`:G T�.EE� TO n= r�.�������'�?�, Prior to c�.�ttin� doi,n or re.r.:ova.ng ary tree or tx _es pu=_-sc�ant to a�ar-a� � iss�nci ;:ereur,der, t;ie app� icant Stic ll pratec� �2x]., O�il�r tiCCS �^ .i? tiT1Cl.^.lty' O� Chose to be re- f:OVf•C� I•:tI1.Ci! '.:�:J JG [lu•�:Ll<.?'.':� CtUll.:lt�� SllCii �i�^.�.�Sj b�' 1i,7.ta3x�i3t1UI1 Of SP.O'.J £eizcing or ctn�r suit:ble enclosur��. Planning Commission Meeting - March 20, 1974 Page 12 �`7 ^ Sec. 5. aDn'.: ?t_S '_r0 C��'_`"C'? L 1 ^ , ,* ,'N i T ' ---��..`__�_ • r::�:: ':: �.._1C :..� i�il0 GC�.:. i �llu^�SC�.i `1`��;r'' CVE:C: L�J � :l �3�iF.._,��1_ L'� i OT: :i..^i F:�1:r yCTCa': � . _ .�11T�:;�':lt � C1�C1Si0it OL' .:i:tt`.:Y'^ �:.1I12�1.0:1 :.'.'CIC D� i;IC C:.C: l�lu::['tC2' .',..'1 :11C ��...� ;;.7tT'�:C?0:1 :;L t:CtI.S OY'G111�I1Cc� ::.�:y F,��:�2.1 CO tI:C'. �.? t� LO::I1C11 lIl Z:.,:C ? C_..,.,.:Z� _, ....:::2^C:r: � 'U (a) .'rhe applicant, ��ithin thirt}� :(30) days of any such � such order, requireme�nt, decision or deterr.iination, shall file a�arit:t-c�n appeal. witl� the City Clerk settin� fortt� Ct1G ttCt1011 being � ppealed and tI1e facts relating thereto, and the Mailing address of ap�licant. .. (b) T}ie Ci.ty Council at its next regular meeting after � x'eceipt Uy the City Cleri: o£ such appeal shall set . a date for hearing thereon, �•:hict� stiall be not I�ter than sixty (6U) days after the i:�eeting. A notice of the daL-e,.time, pl.ace znd purpose o£ the h�aring snall " be puhlished in the official newspaper of the City at ~ least �.en .(10) da}rs prior to the hearin�. After hearing . the oral or written views of all interested �ersons, � the Cauncil shall make its decision at the same or a specified future meeting there�f. � /1 Sec. 7. A�1E?�D�IENTS TO APPLICATTO::. The applicant may amend his application so as to reduc�� the number of trees to be ren-�oved at any tir.-�e ., prior to fina� determi.nation of an appeal by the c�ty cou�l�ii, and the City CaunciJ. shall consic3er arzd decide any appeal based upon the appiicat-ion as amended. apply .to: Sec. S. E�Ei�fPTIO\S. The pxovisions of this ordinance shall not (a) The'removal of trees by or at the direction of the City of Edina or any deparL'nent or administrative official thereof; (b) The removal of trees pursu��nt to Or�inance . .. No. 1Q35; � : . �. � (c) The removal of trees pursuant to an �,pproved Plan under Ordinance No. 817. Sec. 9. PE\�LTIES. Violation of this ordinance shall be a mzs- � de:n�anor pu�;ishable t>y a fine i�oC ta excced $300.00 per tree ille�gally re- trioved or leit unprotected�, or ii:�prisonncnt for not more t:�an n�neL'y (90) days, or both, and in addition payn,ent of all 'costs of prosecution and ex- penses involved in the case. Violation hercof shall also be grounds for � n �evocation or suspc:nilOTl of any ��ernit �ranted for the construction or re- modcl.ing of buildings or for the subdivision of land. Sec. 10. This ordinance shall be in full Force and effect fzon and upon it-s passage and publicatzon. ' ' . ., , <,...; v N �� Planning Commission Meeting - March 20, 1974 Page 13 ^ Chairman Fitzpatrick said this ordinance is similar to the ordinance they have in Carmel, California, where you can�t touch any tree, anytime, without a hearing. This type of ordinance is being adopted many places. n � Mrs. Treuenfels said she thought this was wonderful. We can run our Parks & Recreation Deoar.tmentfrom the $10 per tree we get from the Inspection Department. Mr. Brown said he noticed on the top of the Edina Ordinance that. it was a preliminary draft. Mr. Clark said this is a pending ordinance that hasn't been adopted yet. He said that Edina has a tree disease ordinance and a zoning ordinance covering the planting of trees in the boulevard. Mr. Brown said Edina's ordinance No..1035 is probably the one-on diseased trees and ordinance No. 817 is on plans for . development. Mr. Wa1t Starwalt, 1021 Hackmann Circle, said he wanted to speak as a citizen and to charge the Planning Commission with coming up with an ordinance that was beneficial and worthwhile to the City of Fridley, that will be acceptable to the five petitioners, and will also serve the purpose for which it came about, and this was quite a task. As far as the ordinance is concerned, they have mentioned Oak Wilt and Dutch Elm disease, and I think it should include other diseases, if not mentioned specifically by name. It should include diseased tha� are detrimental to viable growth. You can't limit it just to two things. He �ontinued, that on grawth less than 3 inches in diameter, there are times when no growth should be removed. In other words, when is a tree a tree. He said you can buy some saplings for 5 cents apiece and hold 100 of them in your hand. On Section 111, he believed this section should be expanded to read that nothing in this ordinance shall be constru�d t� prevent the routine trimming of trees in street right- of-way except that non-viable growth can be taken. This would be a tree that has been damaged in some way, and its future is uncertain. It will never be a tree of beauty. Chairman Fitzpatrick said that other diseases were considered in writing the present ordinance the City has for diseased trees (Ordinance No. 481). One of the fears was that if the diseases weren`t mentioned specifically that trees with other diseases would be taken. Tree management people will tell you that outside of these two diseases, • other diseases can be treated and the tree can continue to live and grow. Some people go so far as to say the dead trees are where wildlife make their homes, but your point was very well taken, and it was considered at the time the other ordinance was written. < . Mr. Willis Unke, 1422 Trollhagen Drive, said he thought the petition does address the manner in which the Park Board can develop it's parks. He said the statement was made that you can't develop a ball diamond without the removal of trees. He said there probably should be some 'provision made when the Park Department feels a ball diamond is more valuable than the trees. He thought they need to determine how and to what purpose we have a park. There may be another area where the ball diamond could be located without removing trees. r � � Planning Commission Meeting - March 20, 1974 Page 14 �- Mr. Blair said the Park Department had just acquired a 3 acre • site that has some trees on it, and as part of the development of the park, they want to include a ball diamond. The nearest ball diamond is 8 blocks away. I don't know how we would justify telling people is this area that they can't have a ball diamond because we can't remove any trees. Mr. Unke waid this is the crux of the whole discussion. Maybe some grovision could be put in the ordinance for the development of ball diamonds. He couldsympathize with the Park Department's position. n n Chairman Fitzpatrick said we also have a 124 acre site that is heavily forested that would be difficult to develop a certain way, also. Mr. Har:ris asked Mr. Nee how this ordinance would affect the Island of Peace project. • Mr. Nee said that because the basic development of the Islands of Peace is completed and Gil Hadges Island is not City owned and Durnam Island is not City owned so this is not entirely oc�ned by the City- Part of it is owned by the County and this ordinance has nothing to do with County owned property or County right-of-way. Nr. Nee said he would doubt if this ordinance would have any real effect on this project. If this ordinance had been in existance a year ago, there may have been some problems. Mr. Harris Mr. Nee what we are trying to get with this ordinance, wild area preser�tation or woodland management. Mr. Nee said he didn't think he should respond to this question because he didn't represent the sponsoring.committee. He said he had some views of his own from cixculating this petition. He said the public signed this petition for many reasons, a couple being that they didn't want North Park d�:srupted for a golf course and a feeling that they simply did not like the �.dea of bulldozers knocking down trees willy-nilly. He said k�e thought thE: success of the petition is an expression of a profound lack of confidence in City government. They felt they couldn't trust the City to protect the trees. As far as what you will have to deal with when you speak with the sponsoring cQmmittee, he couldn't�say, but he had a feeling about it. Mr. Harris said in th� letter from Mr.• Buchman of the Department of Natural Resourses he said something about creating a park-like affect. This would not be woodland management. Mr. Nee said this petition doesn't require anyone to cut down a 3 inch tree, it just doesri't protect them. He said he was not sure what distinction Mr. Buckman was making. Mr. Harris said he had a list put out by the Park Fridley which lists the trees that do well in Fridley do not. You could class them as desirable trees and not so desirable. He said that trees iike Box Elders do serve a purpose, but if they were choking out Oak might be well to remove that type of tree. Department of and those that those that are• �. and Cottonwoods or Green Ash, it � /1 � F��� Planning Commission Meeting - March 20, 1974 Page 15 Mr. Nee said people have different opinions of what is a desirable tree� Chairman Fitzpatrick said he thought what the Department of Natural Resources letter was suggesting is a more elaborate definition. In certain places, maybe certain trees should be protected below the 3 inch limit. They are suggesting more detail. Mr. Kam said that little trees qrow to be big trees. A Red Pine seedling will grow 8 to 12 inches a year until it reaches about 6 feet and then it grows 12 to 18 inches a year. A White Pine will grow 20 to 36 inches a year after it reaches a height of 8 feet. These are two nice trees for restoration. If you take out trees like this because they are under 3 inches, this would be detrimental. to the . purpose of the ordinance. He said he would like to call it to the attention of the representatives of Northern States Power Company that it would take 22 years for a Norway Pine or Red Pine, from a seedling stage, to interfere with their lines. He said to have proper woodland management, you should only take the trees smaller than 3 inches that you know wouldn't come up good. He said he was referring to Mr. Harris's question on whether this ordinance was for woodiand management or a park-like affect. He said he could plant trees on his property so that you couldn't walk through, and he thought this was woodland management. � Mr. Harris said he was referring to open spa�e�,land. He said are we looking for a wild area or a park-1'ike �f'fect' � Mr. Kam said his understanding of this petition was that we were trying to keep certain areas of City property in a woodland stage. If we let trees come out of an open area, two years later its an open field and a prairie chicken couldn't live there. Then what do we do, we buy trees and start planting them. He said the City of Minneapolis is spending 17 million dollars to buy park land to create parks. Twenty years ago they had all the park land they wanted and they destroyed it. I think we see far enough ahead, as citizens, and we don't want that to happen here. Mr. Kam asked Chairman Fitzpatrick if he understood it correctly that if the Council adopted an ordinance that was satis- factory to the sponsoring committee, this would not go to a ref erendum vote. Chairman Fitzpatrick said if the Council adopted an ordiance that was satisfactory to the sponsoring committee, there would be no reason for a referendum. � Mr. Harris said lets �alk about•the 125 acres: He said he was up there the other day and saw a lot of wild life potential. If we move in there and make it a park-like affect, it will c�estroy this area for a wild life habitat. If we le�ave it as it is, it may be good for the wild life, but it will be inaccessible to people. Mr. Harris said if its not spelled out in the ordinance what. the purpose of the ordinance is, then we don't know if they want a park-like affect or woodland management. � Planning Commission Meeting - March 20, 1974 Page 16 /1 Mr. Kam said the Council can pass any They can change this ordinance, but within of the ordinance, the sponsoring committee ordinance or it goes to a referendum. F�1 ordinance it wants to. 10 days of the adoption has to agree to the Mr. Clark said the sponsoring committee has a certain number of days to appeal. If they haven't come to an agreement within 10 days, the ordinance will �o to a referendum vote. Chairman Fitzpatrick said the Council can pass any ordinance it �w�nts to. How wiJ�l the sponsoring committee know which ordin�-.nce they might want to appeal? Mr. Clark said this wpuld be an ordinance on trees. Mrs.Treuenfelssaid she didn't think the sponsoring committee would agree to an ordinance drawn up by the City. Mr. Drigans said that Mr. Nee stated that people signed the petition for many reasons. I� it possible for the City to come up with a proposed tree ordinance that could be put on the ballot also Mrs. Treuenfels said there could be two ordinances on the ballot amd both pass. The one that gat the most votes would be the one the Council would have to adopt. � . Mr. Starwalt said he knew the signers of the petition signed it for many reasons. He said he would have to disagree with Mr. Nee that one of the reasons was because people had a dim view of City government.- He though people had a dim view of certain Council action at a particular time, and I think a lot of people signed this petition because they wanted to vote on the use of North Park. He said he believed most of the signers did not read the ordinance, they were just for mother, God, Country and trees. Mr. Nee said he would moderate his statement on�a profound lack of confidence and take out � profound . , Chairman Fitzpatrick said anyone who is passing a petition should ask the person to read the petition before they ask to have it signed. Mr. Starwalt said the contact he has had with people who were interested in this petition said that there was a careful effort on the part of the people circulating this petitian to make sure that the person signing was a registered voter, but at a certain point in time, this effort was slacked off. Mrs. �'reuenfelssaid this was because the�e is a change in voter xegistration. People can register the day of the election now, so anyone who signed this petition could be registered to vote before this petition camE to a vote. - Mr. Starwalt said he knew the people were given the opportunity �, to read the petition, but a lot of them did not do so. He asked where are all the poople who were so interested in this petition. He was sure a large crowd was expected for this meeting and it isn't here. This is a sample of what the City Council contends with also. F� R ) �d fV Planning Commission Meeting - March 20, 1974 �Page 17 � /� Chairman Fitzpatrick said this does point up one of the weaknesses • of the petitioning system� but we can't�.assume that the majority of people signed the petition without reading it. Mr.'Starwalt said he was basing his assumption on the contacts he had made and the people who contacted him. _ n Mr. Fitzpatrick introduced Brother Sullivan who was representing the Environmental Quality Commission at this meeting. Brother Sullivan said he was asking for some clarification. If this ordinance goes to a referendum vote, will the entire petition � be put on the ballot? Mr. Fitzpatrick said that it would. Brother Sullivan said he wondered how many people will read it through before they vote on it. He said he was one of the circulators of the petition also, and he made sure that everyone read the petition before they signed i�t, and they did ask questions also. As far as the Environmental Quality Commission, at their meeting of March 12, 1974, they accepted this ordinance as it was written. As the Commission was established by the City to watch the environment of the City, we believed this was needed by Fridley. � Mr. Warren Johnson, Northern States Power Company, said he would like to respond to the gentleman who talked about trees growing in the right-of-way under transmission lines. He said it is true that t��es- can grow under these lines, but in an emergency situation where they would have to come in with heavy equipment, these trees would make zt very difficult to do a proper'job. Mr. Harris said that if this was the case, how come you allowed a building to be constructed under your transmission lines. Mr. Johnson said that happens in isola.ted cases, and there must be adequate clearance and the building can't be built any higher. Buildings can't grow. Mr. Harris said they can catch on fire. Mr. Johnson said this was true. Mr. Harris said the case in point was a furniture store that was built after the transmission lines were in. Mr. Nee said he thought Northern States Power Company should put into their recommendation more specifically where this ordinance could be a.problem. Mr.. Nee said that in Locke Park, they were not on public land. They were on N.S.S.S.D, right-of-way.He asked if the representatives of N.S.P.�.could give a spe�ific area where they might have problems with this ordinance, instead of generalities. Mr. Ranck said they might have to take out some trees on the boulevard on Mississippi.. Mr. Nee said that what he was getting at was that in the new developments, they were going to underground utilities. He said he had been sitting there thinking about where this could be a problem ^ .for utility companies and trying to determine where they would be developing on public land. Mr. Ran�k said they just didn't want to get themselves into a position where, if there was a storm, they would have to get someone to call a meeting before ::hey could restore electrical service. We ("� �j1' Planninc� Commission Meeting - March 20, 1974 Page 18 � have tree management programs ourselves. We try to make our sub- � stations blend in the best we can. We have to have electrical energy. Mr. Nee said if this was a real problem, we'd have to amend the proposed ordinance, but I can't see any real problem. Mr. Ranck said if we take out a tree, there is a safety reason, and we don't want to put it back. He said that after the tornado, N.S.P. had to take out many trees on public right-of-way to get service restored. He said it wasn't �heir job to take out the trees at that time, but the City had all they coulct handle. He said that when it was possible to replace a tree, they always replaced it with one of equal value. Mrs. Hughes said she would be very concerned that we grant these eme�gency powers to N,S.P., but she wouldn't want them•to cut a half mile wide path though a park. There may be times when they will have to go in to make a major correction. I am not against them having emergency powers, but I am not in favor of giving them wholesale power in the City. Mr. Ranck said the letter from N.S.P. asked for some minor changes in the ordinance and they were not asking for wholesale power. Chairman Fitzpatrick said the needs of the utility companies would � be considered in the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Mr. Neil Christensen, 608 63rd Avenue N.E., said that concerning Section 1, A, for control of verified cases of 0ak Wilt and Dutch Elm disease, that there are a variety of other diseases that trees can have, but these. are the two that are the most difficult to control. Other tree diseases can be controlled. Also, on the construction of baseball diamonds and other things on public property, he personally thought we had quite a few baseball diamonds at the present time. Mr. Brown has done an excellent job on this. He said he didn't think they would need a baseball diamond at North Park. In some parks we could use more trees so this could be a benefit from the proposed ordinance. Mr. Christensen said that as far as cottonwood. trees and cutting them down to eliminate the cotton problem, this would mix up the natural succession �f the forest in �he North Park area. They should leave the trees alone. Let them live and die normally. He thought that there should be minor changes made in the proposed ordinance and that should be submitted to the Council, rather than writing a new ordinance. Chairman Fitzpatrick said they had expected a larger crowd at this hearing. He said some of the supporters of this ordinance had contacted him after the Public Hearing date had been set, and took the position that we would want to hear,more from people who did not support this ordinance. Mr. Fitzpatrick said he didn't know if he agreed with this, but this could explain why we don't have a crowd. /1 • � Mrs. Treu�nfe�.s said this has been well publicized. The people knew there were sufficient signatures so the Council will have to do something about this ordinance, whether they want to or not. We don't �have to plead our case any longer. � � �, �4 Planning Commission Meeting - March 20, 1974 Page 19 Brother Sullivan said we could also assume that some of the geople who signed the original petition, after attending this meeting or reading the minutes of the meeting, might change their mind on this ordinance and vote against it. � Mrs. Treuenfels said this is fine. The people have demanded the right to vote on this issue and they'can vote anyway they want to. Chairman Fitzpatrick said we are having this hearing so we can return the proposed ordinance back to the Council with our recommendatio Mr. Nee said that just for his own information, he wondered if we could go through the ordinance briefly and define where the problem areas might be. �ie said that as a responsible member of the Council, I think we need to identify the areas that won't work and we need to : judicate them. We have' the questions of N.S.P., the question if parks can be developed, the question of if roads can be built. Chairman Fitzpatrick said there should be an avenue of appeal in this ordinance. It is pretty absolute. Maybe there isn't any way we can provide for an appeal without leaving loopholes we don't want. Mr. Hazris asked who was going to administer this ordinance. Mr. Fitzpatrick said the ordinance does not say, but it is implied that someone would administer it. Mr. Harris said would it be the Engineering Department, a naturalist, forestry manager or what. Mr. Clark said there would not have to an administrator for the ordinance, it would just have to be enforced. Mr. Harris said what would the City do if it wanted to extend Main Street, for instance. Would the Engineering Department prepare the plan. Mr. Clark said yes, and then the plan would go through the channels as stated in the ordinance. Mr. Harris said then the Council would have the final say on any proposed plan. Mr. Clark said this was correct. Mr. Harris asked who was going to administer the taking of three trees an acre. Mr. Fitzpatrick said we have some of these functions assigned to the Park Department�at the present time. He asked Paul Brown if he thought this ordinance seemed to call for personnelwe don't alr.eady have. He said he knew Paul has ac.ted as the City forester. Mr. Brown said that in Section l, B, where it.states there can be removal of 3 trees per�acre per year, and that this has to be. approved by the Parks & Recreation Subcommittee, the Fridley Planning Cammission and the Fridley City Council�, and the City administration is under the command of all three of these bodies. The conclusion you have to come to wili de��nd upon the equipment we have. At this time the City of Fridley has very little equipment for the removal of trees. Based on our ordinance concerning Dutch Elm and Oak Wilt, . any removal of trees under this ordinance has to be done by the property owner at his own expense. If he doesn't do it, then the City move� in and does it. At:.this time, the City always refers it to a professional � �' . Plannin Commission Meeting - March 20, 1974 Page 20 tree service and have them remove the tree.. Mr. Clark said that on any public land where the City might want to put up a public building, if it was a wooded area, they would not be able to construct this building if more than three trees an acre had to be removed. We wouldn't have been able to build City Hall, the Fire 5tation or move the A Frame to a park, under this ordinance. Mr. Brown said we may have to build a few more pump stations and filtration plants at some time also. Mr. Brown said he would like to make comment on N.S.P.'s proposal in that the City also has a problem of tree trimming and tree maintenance in the parks, so Section 3 woulct also have to ailow the Park Departmerit to do some routine trimming of trees within a park. This is done by the utility companies, the Public Works Department and�the Park Department. The petitioned ordinance only allows for tree trimming on street right-of-way. MOTION by Blair, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Cornmission close the Public Hearing on the tree ordinance (Petition 4-1974). Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion .carried unanimously. • Mr. Clark said the Council has to adopt an ordiriance by May 6th. To give the Council time to consider the Planning Commission's recom- mendation, they should have this recommendation by their first or ^ second meeting of April. He said the Planning Commission should give themselves April 3rd as a deadline for this recommendation. ;� Mr. Blair said he would want the Council made aware of the impact of this ordinance on the Park Depart.ment. Mr. Lindblad asked if it was up to the Planning Gommission to recommend changes in this ordinance. Mr. Fitzpatrick said that maybe one of the approaches, less than actually writing changes in this ordinance, would be to bring it to the.Council's attention iahat concerns we have and what provisions need to be made. _ Mr. Harris said they were trying to have one ordinance cover many different things and he thinks it has to be more flexible. It seems like there is no easy solution. Mr. Fitzpatrick said one of the problems is how you allow park development in some areas and not in others. Mr. Drigans said we know that people signed the petition for a tree ordinance for many reasons. No matter what changes we feel should be made, these changes will upset many people. He said that a solid approaeh to this problem would be not to touch this ordinance. If we are going to have a tree ordinance, let's submit one that the City can work with. Mr. Lindblad said he thought we shoulci write some recommendations that should be in the proposed ordinance. There has to be a way the park depar.tment can do routine tree trimming in the parks. We Snoula � Plannina Commission Meeting - Mar ch 20, 1974 Pa e 21 ^ be able to have a City nursery and move those trees. He thought there � might be a chance that the sponsoring committee would be able to agree that these �hings have to be in the ordinanee. n /'� Mr. Drigans said we don't know the intent of this ordinance. We don't know the reasons 4,000 people signed the petition. Chairman Fitzpatrick said the-�City Council has passed this down to us for our recommendation, and he thought that was our With only two weeks to work in, I don't see how we can rewrite ordinance. ordinance charge. this Mr. Drigans said the intent of the Council was to send this ordinance down to the Planning Commission for a Public Hearing and our recommendation. If we can recommend an alternate tree ordinance and send that to the Council for adoption or modification,athey can then direct the City Clerk to put both of the ordinances on the referendum ballot. Mr. Paul Brown said this ordinance was so written that it is impossible to live with. If those five people who represent the 4,OQ0, have already made up their mind that what ever alternative you come up with, they are not going to agree with, then you've got a referen�um vote. This is what Mrs.Treuenfels said during the Public Hearing. If you come up with an alternate ordinance, the people who want North Park as a nature center will vote for the petitioned ordinance and the people who want a golf course will vote for the City proposed ordinance. Why doesn't this ordinance cover heavy industrial zoned property. The proposed ordinance from Edina covers . all property. Mr. Clark said it cov�red all property except what was� owned by the City. Mr. Brown said as an example of industrial development, what if the Minnesota T ransfer Railway sells all their property North of North Park. Say they sold to a trucking company who wanted to relocate. They come out here and see those four or five thousand trees and say we've got to park trucks there. This ordinance doesn't stop them from knocking all those trees down and putting in a big parking'lot. Bill Drigans talked about the different �reasons people signed this petition. One of the reasons was because when N.S.S.S.D. whipped through Locke Park many years ago and made a.big air strip out there, there was no reforestation. The City should have made them put the trees back in at that time. �- . Chairman Fitzpatrick asked Mr. Drigans if it was his recommendation that the City.write another tree ordinance and return this one without change? Mr. Clark said that tb alter the proposed ordinance•to fit all the comments made at the Hearing would be impossible. The committee is not going to agree to losing control'of all.the parks. Mr. Lindblad said that what worried him is if you have a special electian on these two different ordinances, and this would usually be a light vote, if the vote was divided by how they want North Park to be used, we might end up with this ordinance that no one could work with. What would the City do then? . �� � Planning Commission Meeting - March 20, 1974 Page 22 Mr. Harris said if this ordinance passed in its present form, we couldn't build a road, couldn't trim park trees, couldn't develop eight park sites,.and couldn't construct any public buildings. Mr. Clark said that even if North Park was going to be used for a nature cFnter, they couldn't construct any type of building for this center if it involved tree removal. Brother Sullivan asked how these three trees per acre would be figured. In North Park for instance, there are 124 acres. Could you takF 3 x 124 and take that may trees out of one area, or would each acre be figured by itself. What is the magic number? Mr. Clark said it would even be possible to build a golf course if the trees-removed could use the entire site to figure the number of trees that could be removed. Mr. Fitzpatrick said that some of the concerns we.�have are not incompatible with the ordinance. � Mr. Clark said there has to be some�way to circumvent only taking three trees per acre. Mr. Drigans said we could spend a lot of time trying this ordinance to allow development of park property and ^ things pertaining to pa.rks, but I think we are defeating of this ordinance. He asked Pau� Brown and Dona.ld Blair , thought the proposed Edina ordinance was workable for the Fridley. Mr. Brown said he thought it was. to adapt the other the intent if they City of Mr. Harris said he wasn't in favor of extending anymore policing of private property. Mr.' Drigans said you can change everything in the Edina ordinance from private to public. Mr. Clark said that if the City Council was forced into adopting the petitioned nrdinance.they would really strap themselves. ' Mr. Harris said that if we don't come up with a workable alternative, � this could happen. Mr. Blair said he thought the City would have to come up with a workable alternative also. Brother Sullivan said`y`that if the Council recommended that North Park should be a nature center, it might stop this ordinance. Mr. Clark said you would have 4,000 people speaking�for 30,000 again. Mr. Brown said the Council has already made their decision. He said the Planning Commission could use the Edina ordinance as a guide- line in preparing an alternate ordinance. This ordinance prohibits the destruction of trees. ' � Mr. Clark said Mr. Nee had mentioned that there should be something in the ordinance about non-viable trees, trees that are not valuabl:e anymore. � � Mr. Brown Said there should be something about the welfare of the people,�and that's not in the petitioned ordinance either. He �� Planning Commission Meeting - March 20, 1974 Page 23 � said that he didn't think there was anything in our ordinance on who was res�onsible for boulevard trees. He said some people take this responsibility. He said we get calls from some people saying they want a boulevard tree out for some reason or another. We inspect that tree and if its a healthy tree, causing no problems, we don't take it out. If it's leaning, cracked or broke, then for the public welfare, it has to come out. Mr. Brown asked Mr. Clark if the Council approved an alternate ordinance, does the sponsoring committee make their recommendation. at that time. Mr..Clark said the Council can pass an alternate tree ordinance and the committee has 10 days to appeal. If the� appealed, it would go to a referendum vote. � Mr. Brown said that if a compromise could be worked out before the Council adopts a tree ord.inance, it wouldn't go to a referendum, but he didn't think that would happen. Mr. Harris said he didn't think there was anyway to go but up because the City couldn't live with the petitioned tree ordinance. Mr. Lindblad said this all came about because the people want to have some say on the use of North Park. ^ Mr. Clark said you could recommend an alternate tree ordinance with the stipulation that the use of North Park go to a referendum vote. He said�if two ordinances were put on the ballot, it would just be voting on that issue anyway. If one ordinance kept North Park a nature center and the other ordinance allowed No'rth Park to be used as a golf course, they could� just as well have that the issue that the people vote on. That way there is less of a change of this petitioned ordinance going on the ballot. Mr. Harris said we have to come up with something because they've got us between the stone and the hard spot. Mr. Clark said that if it was added to the alternate.ordinance that the City of Fridley do ordain that the issue of North Park will go to a referendum vote, maybe, as this is what we think the sponsoring committee is after, they will say that this is a good ordinance, and not appeal it. Mr. Harris said that if the petitioned tree ordinance passes, the proponents of��the nature center have already won. Mr. Drigans said the people who wrote this ordinance should have known the problems they were creating far the City in other areas other than �he North Park;area. • � Mr. Brown wondered if the City was forced to adopt this ordinance, if they could amend it after it was pa�sed. Mr. Fitzpatrick said the �. .amendments would have to be in keeping with the spirit of the ordinance. Mr. Glark said he would have to have it clarified if the City could amend an ordinance that was voted on by Charter. Mr. Fitzpatrick . said some of the things that should be changed, could be added�now. . Mr. Brown said that if the people signed this petition because � � , Planning Commission Meeting - March 20, 1974 Page 24 they thought Fridley was wantonly going around destroying trees, he was here to say that this was not true, and he was responsible for about 980 of the property owned by Frid.ley. Brother Sullivan said that when he went around with the petition, a lot of people were disturbed about the removal of trees in Innsbruck. Because this was private property, the people couldn't do anything about it. They felt they wanted some say on public property. He said he was in favor of the petitioned ordinance, with modifications. Chairman Fitzpatrick asked if the members of the Commission wanted the City staff to work on an alternate ordinance, or to work on amendmentsto the petitior�ed ordinance. Mr. Blair said they could work on both proposals. - Mr. Clark said the City staff could do that but they would need the input of the Commission to know what they wanted in the ordinance. He said that Paul Brown and himself could work on an ordinance along the lines that have been brought out at the Hearing. Mr. Clark ask�d if the alternate ordinance should ask that the use_of North Park go to a referendum vote. Mr. Drigans said North Park is not mentioned in the proposed ordinance, and he didn't feel this should be part of the recommendation. ^ He said we should consider in the tree ordinance if we think it should in-�l:�d� or exclude private property. The Edina ordinance does have an . avenue of appeal. � Mr. Lindblad said he wouldn't want to have to get permission from the City to move a tree in his own back yard. He didn't think it should include R-1 property. Mr. Clark said there are many cities adopt�ng these tree ordinances, and most of them are on private property and exclude city owned property. Mr. Harris said he tY�ought a lot of people signed this petition because they ha�cre a distrust of City Hall. Mr. Drigans said he knew that the intent of this petition was to stop the development of North Park as a golf course. Mr. Clark said that if that was the intent of the getition, then maybe that's why the use of North Park should go to a referendum. Mr. Drigans said he didn't believe in government by referendum vote. That's why we have elected official� He said he didn't think there was anyone in the Ci;ty who would want to see trees wantonly destroyed. They want tree management and this ordinance doesn't give them that. What I am saying is leave this ordinance alone and give them an ordinance that the City and the citizens can live with. Mr. Drigans also said that he thought the ordinance should cover private property, especially industrial and commercial property. If this property has trees, they should have to come in with a plan on saving as many trees as they can. Mr. Lindblad said a lot of this is handled by the Building Standards-Design Control Subcommittee. n�� Planning Commission Meeting - March 20, 1974_ Page 25 � Mr. Harris said that all the Sub-Committees, the Planning • Commission and Council meetings the developers of Innsbruck went through to'develop their project, and all the way along they were told to preserve as may trees as possible. If we get more restrictive than that, it will impede the development of Fridley. � n MOTION by B1air, seconded by Lindblad, that the petitioned tree ordinance not be amended, and because we owe it to the rest of the City of Fridley to develop 8 park sites,and these cannot be sacrificed for the North Park issue, the Planning Commission requests the-Ci�y � staff to prepare an aZternate ordinance that the Cit� can live with, that provides in some way that the use of Norfh Park go to a referendum vote. Mr. Drigans asked if you could turn an ordinance into an agreement for a referendum? Mr. Clark said he didn't know. This could be decided upon at the Council level. We have to find out if two tree ordinances can be on one ballot also, which I would hate to see, if the people were really voting on the use of North Park. If the committee accepts the proposal of having a referendum on the use of North Park, the tree ordinances won't have to go for a referendum vote. Mr. Drigans said he couldn't see putting a stipulation on an ordinance. UPON A VOICE VOTE, B2air, Lindblad, Harris and Fitzpatrick voting aye, Drigans abstaining, the motion carried. Chairman Fitzpatrick adjourned the meeting at 12:02 A.M. Respectfully submitted, a✓LC ' /' ?'�-�'7''� Dorothy Ev$nson, Secretary V �, � BUILDING STANDARDS-DESIGN CONTROL SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING OF MARCH 21, 197� The meeting was called to order by Chairman Lindblad at 8:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Lindblad, Tonco, Treuenfels, Cariolano MEMBERS ABSENT: Simoneau OTHERS PRESENT: Jerry Boardman, Planning Assistant MOTION by Treuenfels, seconded by Tonco to approve the minutes of the January 31, 1974, February 7, 1974 and February 21, 1974 meetings as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 1, CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A I�EIV BRICK AND CONCRETE BLOCK BUTLDIi�IG FOR STORAGE PURPOSES, LOCATED O:I LOT 20, BLOCK 1, ONAi9AY AQDITION; THE Sa�IF. �EI\G 7891 EL"�1 STREET NORTFiEE�ST, FRIDLEY I%IINNESOTA. (REQL',EST BY PACO bl.ASO�IRY, IIvC. , 5920 KIRKIVOOD, hlIti�E- APOLIS. hII�NESOTA 55�42) . Mr. Pasehke for Paco Masanry was present for the request. �1 � Mr. Paschke went over the use of the building saying it will be used as a storage area. This building is completely separate from the large building it is adjacent to. �1r..Paschke plans on selling the present large building a�d,.,�eeping this, building for his own storage use. ,.<.� The Board went over the plans. Security lighting was approved as is. All garbage dumpsters will be inside the building. The Board did change the amount of parking stalls from 4 to 3, so as to eliminate parking right next to the adjacent building. They also added a.sidewalk on the west side of the buildi.ng, extending from the asphalt driveway to the front entrance. A 5 foot sidewalk in the rear of the building was added also to keep parking away from the building. Shrubs are to be planted between the east side side- walk and building. T'he Board said Paco will also have to follow all decisions ' placed on them by the Board of Appeals. bir. Paschke agreed to all of this. MOTION by Treuenfels, seconded by Cariolano to recommend to Council approval of this building with the following stipulations: . 1. Parking stall amount change from 4 to 3. 2. Add sidewalks- on the east and west side of tlie building. 3. Shrubs be planted between the building and sidewalk on west side. 4. Follow ruling of the Board of Appeals. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ^• � Chairman Lindblad adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m. ctful ubmitted, err Boardman Planning Assistant The Minutes of the Board of Appeals Subcommittee Meeting of March 26, 1974 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Drigans at 7:35 P.M. �►"� � MII�4BERS PRESENT: Drigans, Plemel, Wahlberg MENNIBERS ABSENT: Crowder, Gabel OTHERS PRESENT: Howard Mattson, Engineering Aide MOTION by Wahlberg, seconded by Plemel, to approve the minutes of the March 13, 1974 meeting as written. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carx'ied unanimously. Chairman Drigans noted one correction on the minutes for the joint meeting of the Planning Commission and the Board of Appeals of March 13, 1974. He said on the first page, paragraph 3 should be corrected to a,dd $50.00 per sign instead of.just ending the sentence with 50.00. MOTION by Plemel, seconded by Wahlberg, to approve the minutes of the joint meeting of the Planning Commission and the Board of Appeals of March 13, 1974 as amended. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried. l, A REQUEST FOR VARIANCES OF: SECTION 205.065, 2, FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TO REDUCE THE GARAGE STALL R�QUIREPIENT FROM 1z STALLS FER UNIT TO 1 STALL PER UNIT, SECTION 205.065, 3A, TO INSTALL A CRUSHED ROCK DRIVEWAY INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED HARD SURF'ACE DRIVFG7AY {ASPHALT OR CONCRETE) AND, SECTION 205.063, 3D, TO REDUCE THE R�QUIRED SETBACK IN THE REAR YARD FOR AN ACCESSORY BUILDING ON A DOUBLE FRONTAGE LOT FRQM 35 FEET TO 14 FEET, ALL TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION_OF A DOUBLE DETACHED GARAGE TO BE LOCATED ON LOT 2, BLOCK 1, PE�RSON'S CRAIGWAY ESTATES 2ND ADDITION, THE S[� BEING 7889-91 I'IRWOOD WAY N.E., FRIDLEY, ^• MINNESOTA (REQL'EST BY MR. LARRY MILLER, 7889-91 FIRWOOA WAY N.E., FRIDLEY, MINN�SOTA 55432). � MOTION by Plemel, seconded by Wahlberg, to waive reading the puhlic hearing notice. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Larry Miller was present to present the request. Mr. Miller said he is requesting to build a 24 foot by 24 foot 2-car garage. He said he is requesting to put it 14 feet from the back l,ot line and 5.5 feet from the side lot line. He said he has a double fron�age lot, between Firwood and East River Road, and the setback for the garage is-supposed to be 35 feet but he said he does not have enough area to position it according to Code. He said the garage will exit onto East River Road and the driveway is �isting now. He said the Building Inspector was out,to ch�k the location of the garage in relation to the lot irons that were ff�und ai�d the Building Inspector said the location was okay. Mr. Miller said the garage will; be in�line with the other garages on the street. Mr. Millex said he talked to Mr. Fischer, owner of the properi:y to the north, and Mr.. Fischer had no objections. Mr. Miller said there will be 11 feet between the proposed garage and Mr. Fischer's garage. Chairman Drigans stated the Code says 12 stalls for a double bungalow. Mr. � Mi11er said he only has 1 cax and the tenant only has 1 car so they don't really need a 3 sta11 garage. Mr. Miller said when he talked to the City staft .about this, they felt this was not to important. �� Mr. Miller stated he and his neighbor to the north use the same common driveway.� He said he has talked to her about paving the driveway but that she can't afford to pave her half. He said there are no other hard surface driveways in the The Minutes of the Board of A eals Subcommittee Meetin of Ma.rch 26 1974 ��e_2 neighborhood and he said most don't even have crushed xock. He said he felt � ' crushed rock would be adequate and if he had to put in a hard surface driveway, he would be the only one with one. Mr. Mattson stated that the staff felt that because of tha neighbor, the Board could grant the variance with the stipulation that it might be put in at a later date. Chaixman Drigans asked what the width is of the cammon driveway that is on his property. Mr. Millex said the culvert is probably 10 feet wide and he has approximately 5 feet. Chaixman Dxigans said in his opinion, crushed rock cannot be restrained where you put it, because of the kids picking it up and scattering it and also the cars scattering in into the street from the spinning tixes. He said these rocks can be very dangerous on a busy street like East River Road where they can �ly up and hit'cax windshields. Chairman Dxigans asked if Mr. Miller had talked to his neighbox about the cost of paving. He said ma.ybe she could afford to pave part of it this year and part of it ne�t year. He said maybe Mr. Miller could make some arrangements to have it all paved and then have the neighbor pay him back. Mx. Miller said he had not talked to her about how much she could afford and he added that if he had to pave, he would only pave his half of the driveway. He said his half would cost approxi.mately $700.00 for asphalt. He said he thought he could pave next year because of the expense for the garage this year. ^ Mrs. Wahlbexg said she would like to see that the Code for the driveway is met within a certain period of time and to see if Mr. Miller could work something � out with the neighbor. Mr. Plemel said the Board can't force the neighbor into paving her half of the driveway since she doesn't have a garage and she isn't asking to build one. Chairnian Drigans asked Mr. Miller how long he has lived there. Mr. Miller said 4 years. Chairman Drigans asked if any other garages have gone up in that time. Mr. Miller said there have not been. Mrs. Wahlberg asked when the Code requiring hard surface driveways was adopted. Mr. Mattson answered in 1969. Mx. Miller stated he felt the City should start cutting down on paving since oil is so hard ^� get and star� conserving energy. Mr. Plemel said he felt the Board should stay by the Code and maybe stipulate that the haxd surface driveway be Put in by 1975, since the applicant has stated he thought he would be putting it in n�t year. Chairman Drigans stated the Board is concerned with the crushed rock going into the street and flying around. He said it might be better to leave it as it is until it is paved instead of putting in the crushed rock. �� Mr. Miller said he would rather leave it as it is unti.l he can afford to pave. it. He said the only reason he suggested crushed rock was because Darrel Clark said the Board might be willing.to go along with it but he said personally he would rather leave it as it is. The Minutes of the Board of Appeals Subcommittee Meeting of March 26, 1974 Pa�e� 3 — �- Chairman Drigans asked if Che City has been checking and following up on the ^ stipulations like this that have been put on construction. Mr. Ma.ttson answered that tha City has, especially on new construction. Mrs. Wahlberg asked if Mr. Miller �ould be doing all of the construction himself. Mr. Miller said he_will have it done but will be doing the finishing work himself. MOTION by Wahlbexg, seconded by Plemel, to close the public hearing. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unani.mously. MOTION by Plemel, seconded by Wahlberg, to xeceive the letter of no objection to the construction of the garage and waiver of the required survey, from Mr. Clarence Fischer, 7893-97 Firwood Way N.E. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. Mrs, Wahlbexg said she felt it was accaptable to reduce the setback fxom 35 feet �0 14 feet to keep the garage in line with the othexs on East River Road. She said she is also willing to go along with the size of the garage. She said her main concern is that the driveway be paved within a reasonable period of time, preferabZy 1 year. Mr. Plemel said he felt that on new canstxuction, the Board should stay with the hard surface dxiveway being put in within l�year. MOTION by Plemal, seconded by Wahlberg, to recommend to the City Council, approval of the variances for the rear yard and of the paxking stalls but to omit the variance for the crushed rock driveway and to stipulate that a hard surface ^ driveway be installed within 1 year from the date that the building permit is issued. Upon a voice vote, thexe being no nays, the motion caxried unanimously. 2. A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF SECTSON 205.053, 4C, FRIDLEY CITY CODEa TO REDUCE THE , REAR YAI'.D SETBACK �'ROM 25 FEET TO 20 FEET TO AT LOW T�iE CONSTRUCTION OF A DWELLING TO BE LOCATED ON LOT 1, BLOCK 7, INNSBRUCK NORTH ADDITION, THE SAr1E BEING 1412 NORTH INNSBRUCK DRTVE N E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA. (REQUEST BY MR. CURTIS JOHNSON, 2300 WILSON STR.EET, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA.) MOTION by Wahlberg, seconded by Plemel, to waive reading the public hearing notice. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously: Mr. Curtis Johnson was present to present his request. Mr. Ekberg, architect, was also present. Mr. Johnson showed the Board the surv.ey of the lot showing the proposed house location and also a set of the�house plans. He explained c�hen they worked on the plan they didn't realize they had to have a 25 foot setback in the rear yard. He said he thought they were told it only had to be a 10 faot setback. Mr. EkUerg said they have contacted the property owners to the south ax�d to the west of this property and neither of them have any objections to the variance. Mr. Johnson said the house could be moved forward, and ask for a front yaxd .variance, but he felt the 35 feet in front is more important than the rear ^ yard. .He said since this is a corner lot, the setback from tha side street is a minimum of 172 feet according to Code, but they are propasing to set it back 40 feet. He sai.d the owner of the vacant loC to the south was pleased� with this setback as the future dwelling on his lot wi�.l not have an obstructed front view. He s�.id there are some trees on the lot that wi..11 be saved that_ are located in the rear yard and will be between the two properties. The Minutes of the Board of Appeals Subcommittee Meeting of March 26; 1974 Page 4 Mr. Johnson said that they had taken bids on the construction in January `since �� they thought they were building according to Code and it would be difficult to ^ change their plans naw and have a new design drawn up and relet the bids. Mr. Johnson presented to the Board, a no objecti�n letter fxom Mr. Kupcho, property owner to the south, and a letter acknowledging receipt of the appxoval from Mr. Johnson to Mr. Kupcho. . MOTION by Plemel, seconded by Wahlberg, to receive the two letters. Upal a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carxied unanimously. MOTION by Wahlberg, seconded by Plemel, to close the public hearing. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. Chairman Drigans stated it seems the hardship is the fact that the bids are out and the plans have been dxawn up. He said there has been no objections from the neighbors. . Mrs.�Wahlberg and Mr. Plemel both stated they could see no objection to the, variance. MOTION by Wahlberg, seconded by Plemel, to xecommend to the City Council, approval �f the variance. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried. � 3. A REQUEST FOR VARiANCES OF• SECTION 205,152, 2, FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TO DECREASE THE AVERAGE FRONT Y4RD SETBACK FROM 117.5 FEET TO 102 FEET, 2,I�1D S�CTION 205.053, 4B, TO RFDUCE THE NIINIMUM STDE YARD SETBACK �'ROM 10 FEET TO 8 FEET, TO ALLOW THE /'� CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE AND AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTIi�?G DWELLII�G LOCATvD �N LOT 9. BLOCK 2, ELWr'�L'S RIVERSIDE HEIGHTS, THE SAME BEING 168 TALMADGE WAY N.E. FRIDLEY, MTN�IESOTA. (REQUEST BY MR. KENNETH LEHR, 168 TAI.�'1ADGE WAY N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432.) MOTION by Wahlberg, seconded by Plemel, to waive reading the public hearing notice. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. Mr, Kenneth Lehr was present to present his request. Mr. Lehr said he was asking for two variances; one from 10 feet to 8 feet on the addition to the back of the house and the other from 117 feet to 102 feet for the garage. Mr. Lehr said he has talked to his neighbors and has gotten verbal approval from them. He said he does have a letter from the owner of the property 2 doors down from him giving his appxoval. Mrs. Wahlberg asked if he had any plans drawn up for this construction. Mr. Lehr said he has no plans drawn yet-�but he explained the addition will have a basement and will have quite a few windows because it faces the river. i�e said because o£ the pie shape of the lot, the variance for the addition is only needed on the one corner. Mrs. Wahlberg asked if he presently has a garage. Mr. Lehr said he does have a single car garage that he will be converting into storage space for lawn equipment. Mrs. Wahlberg said she could see where Mr. Lehx is limited on his iot �, is 70 feet wide. She asked if there are other garages built close to � Mr. Lehr answered that there are two others that are built just about Mrs. Wahlberg stated his garage would not be setting a precedent then. said it would not be and added that the shorter driveway would save on of a haxd surface driveway. since it the street. on the road. Mr. Lehr the cost The Minutes of the Board of Appeals Subcommittee Meeting�of March 26, 1974 Page 5 MOTION by Plemel, seconded by Wahlberg, to xeceive the letter of no objection from ^ Mr: Beal, 150 Talmadge Way. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion �� carxied unanimously. MOTION by Plemel, seconded by Wahlberg, to close the public hearing. Upon a voice vot.e, there being no.nays, the motion.carried unanimously. Mrs. Wahlbexg stated she had no objections as the garage will not be closer to the road than the existing structures and there are no objections from the neighbors. MOTTON by Plemel, seconded by Wahlberg, to recommend to the City Council, approval of the requests for front yard and side yard variances. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. 4. A REQU�ST FOR VARIANCES OF: SECTION 214.0315 LEY CITY SIGN 0' TO ALLOW A ROOr SIGN TO BE ERECTED TN A M-2 ZONING DISTRICTz_AND, SECTION 214.056, I:, TO INCR�ASE THE I�LAXIM[TNI SQUARE FOOTAGE OF AN TDE�ti TIFICATION SIGN FROM 80 � SQUARE FEET 7.'0 198 SQUAR� FEET, BOTH TO ALLOW TAE ERECTION OF A ROQF IDENTIFICATION SIGN TO BE LOCATED ON PART OF LOT 1, AUD'ITOR'S SUBDIVISION �k78, THE SArLC BEING 5320 MAIN STREET NORTHEAST, FRIDLEY, i�1INNESOTA. (REQUEST_BY INCORI'OREITED, 5320 MAIN STREET N.E.� FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA.) MIDI�AND COOPERATIVES, MOTION by Plemel, seconde d by Wahlbexg, to waive reading the public hearing notice. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Red Torrey was present to present his request. Mr. Torrey saa.d presently they are building on a 72 foot addition to the north side of their building. He said � they pxopose to put this sign on the roof of that addition and it will face east and west to eatch.the �sight of the freeway traffic. He said the sign will have the midland "M" and have the word Midland underneath the "M". He said the letters in '�Iidland" will be 1 foot high and the total height of the sign will be 15 feet. He said the sign will be interior illuminated. He said they need the ixientification sign as most of their business is from out of state and the people have difficulty in finding the buildi.ng as it is hard to see from the freeway. Chairman Drigans asked if the City has looked at the construction of the sign. Mr. Torrey said Darrel Clark and Jerry Boardman were over to the building and looked at the sign. . Mrs. Wahlberg asked how high the sign would be. Mr. Torxey said the building � is a 2 stoxy structure and the sign wi11 be on top �f this roof and extend 15 feet from the roof. Mrs. Wahlbexg ask.ed if this was within height limitations of�the Code. Mr. Mattson said Darrel Clark had mentioned that it was within the Code requirement on height. ��� � Chaixman Drigans asked if the only reason for the sign was giving Midland's location from the freeway. Mr. Torrey answered that it was. Mr. Torrey added they had ordered a11 the steel:for the sign because they th�ought there would be nothing wrong with it Mr. George Barth, 101 Hori�on Drl.ve and Mr. Floyd Knutson, 100 Crown Road, came . torward to see the proposed sign. Mx. Barth said he would only object if this ��'� would be setCing a precexient for later, on the other side of the building. He asked Mr, Torrey if there were any plans for the other side of the building as . he had once heard they were going to put in a gas station. Mr. Torrey answered they have no plans tv pu�t a sign on the other side of the building and their only plans for the building are for warehouse area. The Minutes of the Board of Appeals Subc�mmittee Meeting of March_26,�1974 Page 6 Mr. Torrey said the sign will be back from the freeway about 100 feet so�_ it won�� ^ . look as big as it seems . MOTION by Wahlberg, seconded by Plemel, to close the public hearing. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. � Mr. Plemel stated it is a large sign but he could see why they wanted an identificatian sign seen from the interstate. He said the grounds of this business are always kept up and that he would be inclined to go along with the variance. Mrs. Wahlberg said she is reluctant to go along with a sign that large but said she does understand their problem. MOTION by Wahlberg, seconde�i by Plemel, to recammend to the City Council, approval of the variance in view af their hardship for visual identification from the freeway. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. 5. A REQUEST FOl: VARTAI�?C�S OF : SECTION 205.134, 4B, rRIDLEY CIZ'Y CODE, TO REDUCE THE SIDE YARD REQUI��i�tT, ON BOTH SIDES OF THE SiRUC'i'CTRE, FROM 20 FEET TO ZLRO FEE7.', AND, SEC'PION 205 135, E3, TO RE�UCE THE OFF STREET PAIZKING SETBACK, FROri A LOT LINE, FROM 5 F�ET TO ZERO FEET ON T� NORTli At,tD SOUTIi P�OPERTY LINES, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A BUILDIl�?G, TO BE LOCAlED ON LOT 20, BLOCK 1, ONAWAY ADDITZO�;, T:IE � SAI�SE BEII�G 7891 ELM STREET N E, F�'.IDLEY, MIIVNESOTA. (REQU�ST BY PACO, INCORPORA.lED, 5920 KIRKWOOD LANE NORTH, MINNrAPOLIS, MTNN. 55442.) MOTION by Plemel, seconded by Wahlberg, to waive reading':the public hearing notice. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion caxried unanimously. Mr. Gerald Paschke was present to present the request. Mr. Paschke stated his building went before the Building Standards Committee and they changed the paxking stalls from 4 to 3 so the variances on off street parking will be withdra�an. He said the only variances they need are t�x uero side yards. He said this building wi11 be just south of 7893 Elm Stree� where they also got a variance for a zero side yard. Mx. Plemel asked how wide the building would be and what it would be used for. Mr. Paschke said it will be 40 feet wide and will be used by his company for storage space only. , . Mr. P1eme1 asked if anything was being done to the alley. Mr. Ma.ttson answered that the all�ey is part of the improvement project for this year. Cnairman Dxigans stated the only problem with this variance would be th.at it would restxict the size of a bu.ilding that Mr. Aarris could build an the adjoining lots. Mr. Dick Harris, 620Q:-Riverview Terrace, came forward and stated he came to the meeting tonight to find out the:Boards feeling about his building the same size building as the building at 7893 Elm Street with zero setbacks on the side yards. Mr. Paschke said this proposed building won't restrict Mr. Harris` building. �, Chairman Drigans stated that Mr. Paschke, at the Board of Appeals meeting for variances on 7893 Elm Stxeet, said they might build an addition to this building on Lot 20. He said now Mx. Paschke is asking fox a new building and it isn't the same size as 7893 Elm. Mr. Paschke said he would like to build it the same depth but he would then be over the lot coverage requirement. The Minutes of the Board of Appeals Subcommittee Meeting of March 26, 1974 Page 7 Chairman Drigans asked Mr. Paschke if he w�u1d be willing to grant Mr. Harris, in � writing, the right to build the same depth building as 7893 Elm Street and also �� � to have zero side yards. Mr. Paschke said he would do this as they have had to have agreements of the same kind on their other buildings. MOTION by Plemel, seconded by Wahlberg, to close the public hearing. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Plemel, seconded by Wahlbexg, to recommend to the City Council, approval of the variance for zero side yards with the stipulation that an agreement be drawn up by Paco, allowing Mr. Harris approval to build in line (east and west) with 7893 Elm Street and also that Paco has no objection to Mr. Harris having zero side yards. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. 6. A REQUEST I'OR A VARIANCE OF SECTION 205.Z03, 4, B1, FRSDLEY CITY CODE, TO DECR:CASE THE MINI,TNM REQUIRED SIDE YARD WHICH INCLUDLS A DRN EWAY, FROM 30 FhET TO 16 FEET, TO ALLOW 'i'HE CONSTP.UCTION OF A 9 FOOT ADDITIQN ONTO THE NORTH SID� OF AN EXISTING BUILDIi'`IG, LOCATED ON TRACT D, REGISTERED LAI�TD SURVEY N0. 19, THE SAi�IE BEIl�tG 6520 EAST R1VEP� ROAD N E, FRIDLEY, MIiVNESOTA (REQUEST BY RIVERSIDE CAR WASH, 652U EAST R1V�R ROAD N.E., FRIALEY, MINNESOTA.) No one was present to present the request. Chairman Drigans read aloud the Building Standards minutes of December 13, 1973 concerning this item. ^ The Boaxd agreed that they would like the petitioner present to answer questions about this construction before they made a decision on the variance. Mxs. Wahlberg questioned the elevation of the wallcway and Mr. Plemel questioned the width. MOTION by P1eme1, seconded by Wahlberg, to table this item, to the April 9, 1974 meeting. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, �he motion carried unanimously. 7. A REQUEST FOR VARIANCES OF S�CTION 214.0313, �'RIDZEY STGN ORDIN.ANCE, TO INCREASE THE MAXT.NNM SQUARE FQOTAGE FOR T�2AFFIC DIRECTIONAL STGNS: FROM G SQU.ARE FEET TO 24 SQUARE FE�T (SIGN ,��1) AN�D FROM 6 SQUARE FEET TO 75 SQUARE FEET (SIGN ��2), TG ALLOW THE FFECTION OF TWO '.l'R.1�1�FTC DIRECTTONAL SIGNS TO BE LOCATED ON PARCELS 600 AND 2400, SECTIOiV 11, T-30, R-24, ANOKA COiJDITX, TH� SAME BEING 550 OSBOR.NE ROAD N.E., FRIDLEY, I"IINNESOTA. (REQUEST BY UNITY HOSPITAL, 550 OSBORNE ROAD N.E., FRTDLEX, MINNESOTA.) This item continued to be tabled as no one was present to present it. �, , . AD.70URNME.'T • Chairman Drigans adjourned the meeting at 9:45 P.M, Respectfully submitted, ��,� o � ^ I�1ARY HINT Secretary /� �'� _ _ �� OFFICIAL NOTICE CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Notice is hereby given that there will be.a Public Hearing o£ the Planning Commission of the City of Fridley in the City Hall at 6431 University Avenue Northeast on Wedne�day, April 3, 1974 at 8:00 P.M. for the purpose of: � . A request for a Special Use Permit, � � SP #74-03, by Kenneth Lehr, per Fridley City Code, Section 205.051, 2, A, to construct a second accessory building, a 22 ft. x 26 ft. garage, on Lot 9, Block 2, Ellwell;s Riverside Heights, � lying in the North Half of Section 10, City of Fridley, County of Anoka, . Minnesota. Generally located at 168 Talmadge Way N.E. Any and all persons desiring to be heard shall be given an � . opportunity at the above stated time and place. Publish: March 20, 1974 March 27, 1974 er�1 EDWARD J. FITZPATRICK Chairman Planning Commission �I w � ` � " CI1'Y OF FRIDLEY - MINNFSO'I'A . . FLANNJNG ANll ZONTNG POIt�'�1 - /1 Nwnbcr „�� � !/ ' �� � ' APPLICANT' S SIGNATURE � �..�,.,,.�- ,���i.�c � Address 1(J � �'�-� r►, � G� Lv�{-y N �__ Tele�hone Nwnber 7 f b -- SI �? }'ROP�I2TY Ol'd\}:R'S SIGNl�f:l;:L �_,,,,,�_�� L�� Address �G � - �} L ��+� � � � �_ Telephone Nurnber � b�, — 5� S� • .��• _ . ,' �� � TYPE Ol� REQU�S1' Rezoni�lg -� Special Use Permit nr��•o��i �� Prelimi.nary Pl.�t A�proval of Final Plat Streets or. Alley Vacations Other � �:r� , Present Zoning Classification �— � Existing Use of Property ���.� � L-� � Pro�osed Zoning Classification, Special Use, or ot}ier rec{uest � �ai s r2�.� �. �- /f-c c X S.i .:�/2 � � +� G� E Describe Uriefly the Type of Use and Improve�nent Praposed 'Acreage of Proper.t�� Has tlte Present Applicaiit Previously Sought to Rczone, Plat, Obtain a Lot Split, � Obtain a Variance or S�ecial Use Pcrmit on t1�e Subject Site or Part of It? ,t�2�-<�� lVt�en? _a -/a - 7�/ � ,��y , A :�: ;/,L ��,� ���Cz-��✓ . 1Vtiat was reRuested Fee Cnclosecl$ Rec. No. ^ Date riled• Date of Ilearing � � . - p W�f���l.l��J 4i�;U z��i�NC FOi�� �. . .. � � � • • � �f1Lii Qi � .�I� �� � � ' � , � � � � . .. � � .. ��� I� 1ZC',�bc�r .�- 7� D� , . � �� ��pdc�'v��.ned underctands that; (a) A lint of nll residcnta on� ��nero a� ��ro- ' • percy wtthin 3G0 €ect canst 6� �Cteciiecj �;� thi.s r., plicatio�i. � _ (b) This �p�lication ciust be �i,�uc3 b� c1I . • owners of th2 prot er[y� or r.rt cYn�an�Cia:t • Ef.��r.n w:f�y tt►ia �n not t�e cn��. , (c) Respocisfhility for cn; cfcicct in rhe �;o� � . . cecdin�� rC£ultin�; frru the f�ii�.�r� tc� �.4rr . the nf�t�ea nnd a3dre�;+es of �11� xeoic;�n:.�^ . � ond yroperty or�r�erb �of property c�i,Cl:� ;s� :; .� .� fccC of the pror�rCy �n quc�C£on� �?Y�.�'s':;;� � ' . ta the unders�4nec3. � �',�p��i�c�t� �nd C�ne.rs of �ropere; �aithin 300 fcet;� - � �EtSt1i.S EiUURESS , . � . . � �-,. f ,�:�,� �� 2-G!'�--�'-��_� .�G � � -----•. ^ .. . . ' - �.. . j4 �E;qtc.i og ��o��sed property and structure c�uat be aroF�n on the b�c{c of kh$t� ��� .01 tz�tachYd, shoc,�in� the followtn�; 1. �a�th Direction � Z. L.�cutic�E� of �'rorosed SCrucCisro ou 40�. � . 3. ni.��ens�ons af pro��rt� t,�rogo�c� . ' oCruzture� �nd franC und sfde ��C+-�r�t�,l�� • 4< Street iia�es 5, ioc,�tfan Lnd use of ed�acent e�:LcC�.n� � � buildings (within 3C0 feet). iiip t�ndersi�ned hereby declarea thnt oIl the facts and representetfons atc�ted �� t�ii4 c�plicntS.on �:e truQ And co�rect. �-,�?�- 3 ` y S- � 7 �t S i Gi�A?tT2E .����`—� � /�i1!�..._ . _ • (AI't�I.TGkra2) , . • . - • �«. n t? dY � fi 14 ��Y 14 �ir (t��rcved . 2}eniQd 8y th� :,oasd a� Qp�pebbe ` . -��} !, � -1 - Qc�G�ece .to Lhc i'�llo:�ln� Conditivng: ' %��, ���� �p�rov�rd ,Denied • by the Plannin� G�iacion on '�"����i�—` ��uti,�opC Co xhe �o�loUin€ Conuitiona: 4i��e �.��roved Denicc3 . by thc Cauncil on ` '7":'.i '�<;i - . . `3ttb��cr Ls Chc �'QZl.o��in� Con�itiona; � ' • -" . � ., d�c� . •. x�ora �c �aa . I SP #74-03, Kenneth Lehr 2nd accessory building ,�-� 22` x 26 garage MAILING LIST Mr. & Mrs. Kenneth Lehr 168 Talmadge Way N.E. Fridley, Minnesota 55432 Board of Water Commissions 204 North 3rd Street Stillwater, Minnesota Mr. & Mrs. Andrew I2emarcke 123 Talmadge Way N.E. Fridley'55432 Mr. & Mrs. Ronald Ellis 137 Talmadge Way N.E. Fridley 55432 Mr. & Mr:s. Arnold Gilbertson 181 Ta lmad�; e Way N. E. Fridley 55432 Mr. & Mrs. William Diek 161 Talmadge Way N.E. � Fridley 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Keneth Kravik 140 Talmadge Way N.E. Fridley 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Russell Ratfield , 144 Talmadge Way N.E. Fridley 55432 Mr. Paul Leski 148 Talmadge Way N.E. Fridley 55432 Mr. & Mrs. James Beal 150 Talmadge Way N.E. Fridley, 55432 � Mr. & Mrs.. Virgil Raasch 160 Talma�lge Way N.E. Fridley 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Orvin Henneman 17O Talmadg� Way N.E. Fridley 55432 �1 � Planning Commissi�n .3/19/74 Mr. & Mrs. James Beine 180 Talmadge Way N.E. Fridley 55432 ��� � � � 1. �. �° . ir s : )�� � � � ,� .•� �� �� � �.. -� .�; f � F.�� f / � . .?, �,- �s� . ' � : ` E . � ti � �! �• , � ,�,; t_.�� ^. 1_�p ' . �I� , j v � oo _ -..a.:�. ,.. 1. . .. .., �n, t` o• 4 � �� ' . . �.v;:.t / � ' lW . . � • � :a;r;�,,...�.- � .. , . - d° �i �>.r�.i. • � '� �� °:�77'L'O � � �� x. ' �l: - � ..�. � . � � � � . � � ' ��-- � iF i'ar��... � ' . �:�t- .�i �., c :Y � z ��� �-� ; ' : - ,� . f • y f � ,: , ' �s! � � � ', �` , y.. '� -' f-; •� �`" i � �n�(�b� = �� p r:�-: `a' ' � 1 ` � �_ % `, z � � � �) rn~ ��� i "` -.✓, r%-� ��+ , / (� `'� � I :n � > �, / ( '� r' �,' � j ,` , � _ .� ` t !> l7 � �! ` 2 r . /�7 . � s �. . . . � .. . ` ,t�:s �re � ?!-.7GJ��+ t•r•e I."1����' - J � ' �7 _ �J�� � - .. :d �":^ :\ �.a. ? :� � Q �O . / p� , � - r, l /� '� ._ �; �� .:� � %D�: . '� ��' � t\ � _,,Y --' ° . �n. - r��. � �--� p �:; "' �' �/ � %/6 ., � l�;':. i � ..� . . � . � _ ��: . �Si V � �.�',. V •� ,i\',��; � ' � _//�� `i �3� �'� ��` � -;p � ��1 �t '� � ���'� �1` ,+ = � "? � . \� . ,�,.':•' l� 1� ..L��`w,�._'� �.� 7 `t� j F � � = t• ,J �e !� •` j . �� �`� • _ .- � � s�, . . ' "3 �° 1 ' I , \ � �. � �" � '• ` � - _•.� r � r. �. .»-� '� w ` c y �c .- . �e y�:.. � � '�, .. � , �r'�!'� ._.,� t �,vl� .1 :�,l., �. T � vt; •c u �jl6C t �� O• ~\;, . t.J' r��`�,,� � •.�j ���,•. ,��;. .. � �T V � `\. \� r�J .•t �l ' `, IS_ � `Y � . t � � �'� , / _ - t r> .. i ` �}5 Z f �� i �.� ,�•� �'� . . `� \� �_.� ;. -ar •-: , ti�.4,11'1 v c�, � . � . -C��"�� f.j�E��.•-:;-!�` . . .\� F. R::.•I t f`J`` Y�, ��s�•�tty .� '� � ... A��'�.J .. \ �.-�' \ A � i^` �/ .1 (�5 � ����=�,� ��� 1 .a+' n/l -1 � !j '�� � 1'„" / ' .+ r . '� �i • . \, . ' ' � ai: ., ,,� . � :� i,t �: ' ' '•' �� ` � L._.. '..�. � - . . �. o , � . .� n . .i� . .� h \ '\ `� v SfD ` ; ' � �1 � `/� `� �,,: c � E ;t'' � .,,.' � l � �� .^ ,� ' . . � \ :� , � � ' �. 1 f �~ , `-�- : � s ; � .: � � �"' `jf .-'' Sl��`X=�'" ,'� °E- ° , ^• �'' '�y7 `;' p�'� '-;= �" � _ �, � '' �l ' �. i� �, �'�:.�'" ; ,, , .l'R" � i{ � 1�T • t ,f,�r ��� � �: V 7 .4 \ �� � /'�..-'� . . . ``�;,,, - ! +` � .� � :. ��� .,� s � ;; //���'�. �J3 ':, � n�x- y, ;, 5� �,- , ,, �.- � /\ A y ; ' .. ' ' 1��� . . �� �. ,': �.����' • _ � . . . _ ...;.� . .`•✓.r "V.,...`i . � -` .{ �� . . _ . � s �. � ' . �l " � ,��� . . � � � i � � • � ` ` . � ` t � . . f . . . � '� �� . � �e �.�� �,^�y �S. ` , L�� �. � . . �CI - � ` '/.. '� ('-', + � 6 '�� j �s _�"�F�;�,\ :� �;�.1 •_ � � � � � . `'°"'4_ _ ` , ,: _. . /11� ,' *_ `<e i` W *p� �. . \.i � ` Y" ;^ . .-s.�s'f ` � � r - �-- � � � .. � v .. ` . . ' N � : w ..�. . ; I . \ c• � '- . y . i � . \ � !'`�' , a' ../�� 1` � � � �v, ''y;. a ^ = I r � ��, ;� �.� �_. - � �,� � �� S. �,,,�5 _ �� b ; ` ;----�� , ig0�� �'� �- 1/� � �;�, 3 �`,' /I '-� . .. � . . •�J'�� '�� �•- � i . / t, � �. . � � [r� V , I� � , Sb � T ��'� r T . � . :3 �-, ' /gS'� "�'�. }, :'e \":/,43 `��i ��y, . ;' '. ', � � ' G1 �, r",� ��^Q' ttr �� �� i�l 0os � �.�� _ . : . `' �� �� i.s� � �3�.� � , ,�.:.� �� �ao -- � , ' �J � ,�� ,�-� f ���- ,�-' � � � •� `, �� �(�, 1� �� . : /10 �-� �� �' � � . � Sp # 7 4 - 0 3 KENNETH LEH � / - � �� p � , � `�j � -� � P , 168 Talmadge Way N. E. , ��1 g a'�% lv� ji n . �~p ,�-9 � y�� ��� � C `° �r To allow construction o � t ; ;�� •' � /�q a �> � �.� d� �� ( ° ;" •.' � , a second accessory buil ing,�' '-� a f 5� ' �n� `.�� �:� �`�� `t''� l ^ �'.� ��F,- � . A�2' x 26' Garage �l , !. . � o,�, �, -� - ti, � �� v � � � � � � � " G�/� � � � � � � 1 �, 1 �, , s ,� �• a. �-' � � )(' / 'i' �. i'"t � � � '� V . � �f `�, �-' r � ° �° , �`;.� , �{� � � ; ��. � � � , ; ��..� .� � ^,, � ; v ' 1 5 � � �' 4i � � :a � . (.� � � } # L� . 41! ,j n � \t � ' � . .•:�.r ." i � . j ; y � J �,' 1/ f ! , , ^ �n � '•" ` , � C `�, % � ti � , � . � . . .. . . . . • � 'i . � ��' . /. jr . ' /� ' � s /✓J . 1 . � , ��;�� i� j10) „ - : < 1��--= - � �r ���i ; �- �� f� R, , � i: .,,����!s�eot ��`'?----� u � ���°1 r � ; f . �� . �i'''�� /p * � � �1y7 �° ��. '� ; ; �.;. �° �.� t �%' ,�,� ` is9 q isf p�•" '�'"' ��L � , t. � ' � '� s ,.- ' , �.,, i �../� �.9•� �� � /� {�- ,_-� ._•,�� ..-���b /� � h�,` - ..LA?�� ��j I rQ"1 � I. "/w'.� t !� ^'..._ _' !` � �,�,: :, :.., :. � � Q��\N�� �" �� � �, ;.� ��i'� � ��,.�_ ''� � ,�j . .. �>f� e �� �. . � : , .,� es �N�sl � ,r•, ., �f, ; :I�.. �r. �r� � �GP ,,� �� :. � w ��,, �,!,1 �. . � . . : ��l � !'� \\ r•,�� }° , �\� '°► fM7 �,"'s.�� /.�. � •'° /� f ,' . . � �i d. pri.�.+ � •' ' ` y� � e • )_ 1 � �4 � i _:., Har � � � t . �` ` ��. . . i �aA 9 ( ��♦ . ��L '�. _...4 ..� _ ` � +-' ----� � -I�4_�`` �,-; .. .� � ,: .l :.:�.�:^-- �,N � js; . ",. ) !w� . =� � °� � . .��- ,� ,� , land Planning sr�ft'��!•'rtjr 6875 Highway No.6S N.E. ��' Min�enpolis� lund Surveyi�g � � � ��.'�� . (!�jl�tl/���'/.tjl�� •�I1.C. M���. sso�� . Soils 7esfing Civi1 Enginerri�g Telephone 784-6066 �� . Muniaipol Engineering F',n�lriE,'@I'S SG Surveyors n.eo Code 61Z v y� Mortgage Loari Survey for�i�c���._ Qnq�C�--, SP #74-03 Kenneth Lehr �JCr.Vc� � 1)lC���1�J 4��' i . 1 � 1 �, . � � _ A`�Y. � . � i � �� r`� h/ � . ��/ � . ��� , le �/� . . . � . . i � � t . . , u'. � . ( . ► . . � � . . . . � . � ' � V . �� / �c /` � � $ ��� i / � ;� , ; " � . . E,�;, � / ' �e � (f1 � ` . v` _ � ,, � • ,a �,��y � _ � -� . . �4 � d , / � ` � `': �r , . � . . . ' .. . . {. . r � �%� . . /i'`Pc=. . . .. `.. . ' . . . . . '• p d y . • . . . . ,-� —. ..''.i �. p . �' L�-�;C:7<< N . � �' . � . . . .. � . � � �� ,,x 1'� N ' . � X : . : . .. . .. . � . . . • • � >>� .�, 16�« �, ` i ��' x ,� / �� �, / �-=b= 1�:5 � �/'� < � r ,.�a�� � ,r -- ce w-.� � . �, i3. � •r e� � � 1�!"c � S � v. � ,.�1•'' • <� _�.0 Q ,� � . . \L � . � r : ` � . . . . . . . . i'. . . . . . � 1.� a,G . � ' . . . . . . • . . . . � � � .. . - �. � .:. . � . . . . ?� 4� ��y, � � ' / ; � � � � i a . /-^��^� � -" . . � �.�i� ' . _ . l . . ' . � . . ' � � � . . . ; . . , . . � . . . . /� � � . . . . i � ' . . . . . . L..^'� • ` ' ' / . . . • . . . . . � n ��� � � t . . ' . . . . . . . � . 1 ^ i • V ' T� � �.1 c.n : � `� 1._.� � 9,'�L��C� � "� � c� � ; � ,�; �.l.W�.!��'� ��V���i►;�� ���1G�-����5 � ` �� ` �iNSJK !�. � v ��Ni� '' f . 1��� �alrn�d� �. �� Tbis is o irue ond correct ►epresentation ot a survey of the�boundaries of the lo�d above desc�ibed ond of thr bcatip� 01 0!1 buildings� if anyt lhereon� and all visible 'encroochments� if ony� from or an soid (und.i This survey is made only in connrNion with o mortgage loao now beieg pinced on the property and �o liabidity is nssumed eacrpl to the holder o1 such mortgagr or ariy other interest ocquired by �he reoson of such mo�fgoge: It is u�derstood und ogrrrd no monumrnts h4va been loted for the purpose of esfablishing Iot lines or bouodory corners. Do�ed ihis 1?F day o1y� 1 ArD. 19�: . SUDURSAN ENGINEERtNG, INt. a Enginee�ti' ,. Surv�yo�s i'3 � ��� . ,•' j . ; . by r .•:- . . `..� JCJ1 � . ' . . . � . . � . 1 � � �� Gity of Fridley ROUGH DRAFT Ordinance # AN�ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE DESTRUCTION OF TREES ON CITY OWNED PUBLIC LAND IN THE CITY OF FRIDLEY EXCEPT UNDER SPECIFIED CONDITIONS The City of Fridley Does Ordain as follows: t�� SECTION 1. No person.or corporation, public or private, including but not limited to the City of Fridley, its officers, employees or agents, shall order or cause the injury or destruct"ian of any living tree on City owned land except under the follow conditions: a. For control of al1 types of tree disea`ses, such as: verified cases of Oak Wilt or Dutch Elm,.as provided in Ch. 104 of th,e F r i d l ey C i ty Co d e. �,� ,Gi,,���� � Gy�-r1' �'`r � � �,�,,, . .�,�, �� �� � . ,�,� �. �For purposesof woodland the removal of trees may be permitted, but only after a�management plan justifying such removal has been reviewed by the Fridley Parks and Recreation Commission, the Fridley Planning Commission and approval by the Fridley City Council. No tree removal shall be allowed under the provisions of this paragraph which is not defined in the Plan. �For purposes of necessary street and public utility construction, but only after the preparation of a detailed plan and approval by the authorities names in Paragraph '!�," above. No such plan shall be approved'which does not provide for reforestation and the restora�ion of the land according to the plan as approved by the City Council. �,, For the purpose of park ar other civic development but only after the prQparation of a detailed plan and review by the authorities named in Paragraph 't'�" above. Such plan must indicate how the final development will be done, including ground cover and tree plantings. SECTION 2. Trees measuring less than 3 inches in diameter at a point 4 feet above ground are exempt from the provisions of this ordinance. SECTION 3: Nothting in this ordinance shall be c�ns�rued., to prevent the routine trimming of trees in street right of way, City Parks or other City owned public 1and. . • a. This ordinance is not to be so construed as to prohibit any utility company from removing�any tree that has become a hazard to r�ormal service, however, this waiver does not apply to n� installations or to pre-planned routine maintenance. �� �� c���� � c.�y►�. '7`ti�" �� . � � -� �, � � �7. Ordinance # Page 2 b. Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to prevent the City from removing a tree from street rights of way. C�ty Parks or other City owned land, that has by nature � � become damaged so as to be no longer viable. SECTION 4. Any persan who violates this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The injury or destruction of each protected tree shall be a �eparate violation. /, �� � � C �. � �"� � .� City of Fridley ROUGN DRAFT ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE REMOVAL OF TREES WITHIN THE CITY AND PROVIDING A PENALTY .��� THE CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. PURPOSE AND INTENT. The City Council hereby finds tha� it is necessary to mafntain and protect the existing urban forest in order to preserve windbreak protection, abate soil erosion and enhance the natural beauty of the City and adopts this ordinance in the interest of the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the City. SECTION 2. TREE DEFINED.' For the purpose of this ordinance, TREE shall mean a woody perennial plant, usually with one main stem or truni� and many=branches, which has a diameter of greater than six (6) inches when measured at a poin� four (4) feet above the ground levele SECTIQN 3. REMO�iaL.OF TREES; PERMIT REQUIRED. Without a permit therefore, it shall be unlawful for any persan, firm or corporation ta remove or cut down or authorize the cutting down or destructian of afly tree growing withTn the City, except on property zoned.R-T (single family dwelling district). SECTION 4. PERMIT FOR REMOVAL OF TREES; PROCEQURE. (a) Application. Any person, firm or corporation desiring to cut down or remove any tree growing within the City sha11 file an application therefore with the City Forester on a form provided by him for such purpose. Such applieation shall be accompanied by a fee of Ten DoTlars ($10.00). Each application shall include a survey showing the location of the tree or trees concerned and shall further include a statement of the reasan for the requesi. Prior to submitting such application, the applicant shall mark each tree to be cut down or removed with a red tag or survey ribbon. (b) Inspection. Upon receipt of such application, the City Forester shall promptly inspect such tr.ee or trees and indicate on said application: (1) The type of tree or trees and their approximate heights; (2) The health or condition of the tree or trees; (3) Whether or not in his opinion such removal is justified by reason of: (i) Good forestry practice, or (ii) The poor health or dangerous conditian of the tree or trees, or (iii) Construction or other improvements being made to the property. � Ordinance Page 2 . . � . .e � . . . . .. . �� The City Forester shall thereupon forward the application to the Planning Department. (c) APproval or Denia� (1) �2) �3) The City Planner shall review the application together with the report of the City Forester and shall make written recorrmendation, based upon the standards set forth in Section 4.(b)' (3) above together with the purpose and intent af this ordinance as herein set forth in Section 1. The application with the City Forester and City Planne�'s recommendation then goes before the City's Parks & Recreation Commission and the City's Environmental Qua1 i ty Control Cormni ss i on for tMei r reco�nendati ons . Then the application, together with the recorrqr+endations of the above bodies, goes to the City Council for fina7 approval or denial. If approved, the City's Forester issues a permit to the applicant. (d) F'ermit Non-Transferable; Duration. Any permit granted hereunder is non-transferable and shall expire six (6) months from date ^ of issuance. ' � (e) Restricted to Specific Project. In the event a permit for tree removal is granted in order to enable the applicant ta carry out some project of development or improvement of the property, such permit shall be effective only in connectian with the actual accomplishment of said project. SECTION 5. REMAINING TREES TO BE PROTECTED. Prior to cutting down ar remaving any tree or trees pursuant to a permit issued hereunder, the applicant shall protect all other trees in the vicinity af those to be removed which may be damaged during such process by installatian of snow fencing or other suitable enclosure. SECTION 6. AMENDMENTS TO APPLICATTON: The -applicant may amend his application so as to reducP th� number of trees.' '- � SECTION 7. EXEMPTIONS. The provisions of this ardinance shall not apply to: (a) The removal of trees pursuan� to Chapter 104 of the Fridley City Code: (b) 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 ��ublic 1and. (1) This ordinance is not to be so constr.ued as to prohibit any utility company from removing any tree that has became a hazard to normal service, however, this waiver does not apply to new installations or to pre-planned routine maintenance. � � �� � _�� Ordinance Page 3 (2) Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to prevent the removal of a' tree from any land ' that has by naiure� become damaged so as to no longer viable. SECTION 8. PENALTIES. Violation of this ordinance sha11 be a misdemeanar punishable by a fine not ta exceed $300.00 per tree illegally removed or lef� unprotected, or imprisonment far not more than ninety (90) days, or �both, and in addition payment of all costs of prosecution and expenses invoTved in the case. Violation hereof � shall also be grounds for revocation or suspension of any permit granted for the construction or remodeling of buildings or for the subdivision of land. SECTION 9. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and upon its passage and publication. - ;� �