Loading...
PL 03/20/1974 - 31169a-, � n, �,� CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 20, 1974 0 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, Drigan� Members Absent: None Others Present: Darrel Clark, Community Development Administrator Brother Thomas Sullivan, Vice Chairman of �the Environmental Quality Commission . Paul Brown, Director of the Parks & Recreation � Department APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MARCH 6, 19?4 MOTION by Lindb�ad, seconded by B1air, that the P.Ian,ning Commission approve the minutes of the March 6, 1974 meeting as written. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE BOARD OF APPEALS SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES: FEBRUARY 28, 1974 MOTION by Driga•ns, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commissioi receive the Board of Appeals Subcommittee minutes of February 28, 1974. Upon a voice vote, a1Z voting aye, the motion carried unanimous.Zy. RECEIVE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES: MARCH 4, 1974 MOTION by Blair, seconded by Drigans, that the P.Zanning Commission receive the Parks & Recreation Commission minutes of March 4, I974. Upon a voice vote, a1I voting aye, the motion carried unanimousiy. RECEIVE BOARD OF APPEALS'SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES: MARCH 13, 1974 MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Blair, that the Planning Commission receive the Board of Appeals Subcommittee minutes of March 13, 1974. Upon a voice vote, aZ2 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. l: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL:. USE PERMIT, SP #74-02, DAVII� 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,o� the West 334.5 feet of Outlot A, Dennis Addition, an� the West Half of th� East 16� feet of the West 467.5 feet of Lot 6, Revised Audi•tor's Subdivision No 10, the same being 1328 66th Avenue N.E. • Mr. David Coppernoll was present. MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Harris, that the Planning Commission waive the reading of the Public Hearing notice on the request for a � ' speciaZ use permit, SP #74-02, by David Coppe'rno11. Upon a voice vote, � all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ''^1 � � � 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. Coppernoll 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 only 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 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 Blair, that the Planning Commission close the Public Flearing on the request for a Special Use Perrrcit, SP' #74-02, by David Coppernoll. Upon a voice vote, a11 vQting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Clark.if the City 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 gatheri:ng 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, secOnded by B1air, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council approval of the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #74-02, by Da.vid 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, and the West Ha1f of the East Z66 feet of the West 467.5 feet of Lot 6, Revised Auditor's Subdivisio�n No. 10, the same being 1328 66th Avenue N.E., with the following stipulations: (1) This building be attached to a permanent foundation. (2) The use of thi�s building be limited to storage. (3) This building is not tio be used for any commercial enterprise. UPON a voice vote, a1l�voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. � ,� r`1 � Planning 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 gaper, 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 for changes in thi�s 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 ��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 th into the minutes. He said this was an ordinance destruction of trees on City owned public land in except under specified conditions, and states: The City of Fridley Does Ordain as follows: e petitioned ordinance prohibiting the the City of Fridley 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: (a) For control o£ 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 perinitted, 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. No tree r.emoval shall be allowed under the provision of this Paragraph which is not defined in the Plan. (c} For purposes of ne�essary public utility construction, but only after the preparation of a detailed plan and approval by the authorities named in Paragraph "b"�abov� No.such plan shall be•approved which does not provide for reforestation and restora�ion of the land to its original condition. 5ection 2. Trees measuring less 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. M Fitzpatrick said he had received two letters that should be in the minutes. He would read them and then the Planning Commission cou d receive them. Mr. Fitzpatrick said the first letter was from the Minnesota De�artment of Natural Resources and was written to Jerrold Boardman, Pl�nn�ing Assistant of the City of Frialey. �Re �----�roposed City of Fridley Tree Preserva ' Ordinance. tion and Management 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 paragraph 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 B1air, seconded by Drigans, that the PZanning Commission receive the Zetter from the Department of Natural Resources, dated March 19, 1974. Upon a voi�e vote, a1Z vot.ing aye, the motion carried unanimous.Zy. . � Plannin Commission ME:eting - March 20, 1974 Page 5 Chairman Fitzpatrick than read into the minutes the letter from Northern States 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 1 Paragraph C--- Omit last sentence --- no such plan shall be_approved which does not provide for reforestation and the restoration of the land to its original condition. � �ection 111 Amend Section 3--- nothing in this ordinance shall be �onstrued to prevent the routine trimming of trees in street right- of-�ay or utility easement right-of way. � � our consideratian of these suggestions would be appreciated. Sincerely, John F. Ranck, M�anicipal Services Respresentative, North Div��ion." /'� MOTION by Harris, seconded by Lindblad, that the Pl.anning Commission � receive the letter trom Northern States Power Company dated March 20, .Z974. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unan.imously. 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 �nt 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 dele�ion of the„sentence. We should find some �'~�• ��way to provide language, without a�� deletion. Mr. John Ranck, Northern 5tates Power Company, said that the ordinance.attempting to regulate the City's removal of trees has nothing to do �ith our every day business. In that light, we are not opposed to this ordinance. We want to make sure that there aren't Planning Commission Meeting - March 20, 1974 Page 6 ,� � things in this ordinance that prohibits us from providing services which the C�ity of Fridley requires from us. Usually when we remove a tree, it is to remove a danger. If a tree grows up into high voltage line, the tree is either going to be killed or it can be energized and cause a hazard to someone walking by. It can cause mome�tary outages, which while this doesn't cause too much of a problem in a residential area, �t 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 back in order, sometimes we have to remove some trees to get into an area with our heavy equipment, to repair the lines. We �vouldn't have time during an emergency to come to meetings to get permission to remove these trees. We are 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 pu�blic 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 ,r-�� and re�.laeed 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 requests 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 tro 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 o€ a bad storm, we wouid not want to end up in Court trying to perform our regular job. I3nder this ordinance, we can't do business in Fridley as we have been, and we w�uld like the twd 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 Northern 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�vant here. A number of people commented that „ they were signing this petition, 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 uti.l�ity companies should have to pay attention to what we need in Fridley too. They don't want this ordinana � ,T� r''�'� � 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 �he 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 d�es it meari 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. �e��hought this part of the ordinance should be mod�fied 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 c�e had an ordinance covering this. .Mr. Clark said he couldn't state where it was covered, but no one would be allowed to dig a big hole in street right of way to remove a tree without permission. Mr. Harris said that he knew that in Minneapolis, the only one 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,k�e tax process of the City, that the property owner was responsible for the grass up to the curb. F'or 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 yourself 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 �here 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. 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. Clark said 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 sEarched the ordinanc�hat far to determine how it would affect the boulevards. If some neighbor called in and complained about another neighbor cutting down a boulevard tree, we would try to discourage 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 askea 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 way 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 mad�, 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 should 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 sc that four out of the five sponsoring committee mem�ers 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 th�re should be a Section 3,A, � or something that provides for emergencies. He said there should be a constructive approach to this and recognize that something like this . will go before'the el�ctorate. 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. Lindblad said that in addition to Nlr. Blair's statement, he would like to have thought given to a proposal ��e 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 replanting 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 proposal 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 horticulture, but as to adding this as an addendum on this ordinance, he thought it would have a tendency to destroy this ordinance. This would in affect be raising our taxes, and h� 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.tornada 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 to state again, that the Council has the option 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.� 0 � � �, 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 representative 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 doing as to a tree ordinance. Mr. Clark said that this Edina ordinance pertains to private property and not to public property. It e�cludes the City, so as a tree ordinance it is quite different from the proposed ordinance for Fridley. Mr. Drigans read the proposed tree ordinar�ce for Edina. ORDI�IAidCE �0. 823 AIv 0£.DIti�'1�C� REGULA'�II�G TIiF RE:•fOV�L Or TF.F:I:S [dIT11IN THL CITY Ati�J PhQ�'IDI\G A PE:yALTY - T}lE CITY COL�CIL OF THE CITY OF Elllh�, MI�:�ESOTA, OF�DAI\S: Prelimiriary Draft (all new) Section 1. PUi:l'OSE nI�D Y1�TE.dT. The City Council hereby finds ., that it is necessary to maintain and protect the e::istir.a arban forest in order to preserve windbre2k protection, abate soil erosion and enhance the natural beauty of the Gity.and a�opts this ordinance in the lI1tL'i25t oi the health,.safety and general welfare of the residents of tne City. Sec. 2. TREE DEFI:vED. For the purpose of this ordinance, TF.EE shall mean a �.�oody perennial plant, usuall}• taith one r�ain stem or trunk and many-br^nched, which has a diameter of greater than six (6) inches when measured at a point four (4) feet�above th� ground ?evel. . • . Sec. 3. RE�10�'AL OF ThEES; PEP�fIT P.EOUIP.F.TJ. t•'ithout a permit there- for, it shall be unlacafu]. for any person, firm or.carporation to remove or cut dot.a or authorize the eutting do���n or destruction or any tree grot,�ing within the City. ��� . Sec. 4. EEr.��fIT FOR REAIOVA.L OF 1REES; Pb'.00r�L'RE. (a) Application. Ariy person, firm or corporation desirin�- to cut docan or remove an5� tree gro�•rino within the City shall f�.le an application therefor.�Lith the City Clerk on the form provided b} hi�n for such purpose. Such . application shall be accompanied by a fee of Ten Dollars ($10.00). Each application shall include a survey showin� the location of the tree or trees concerned and shall further include a state.:.ent of the reason for the�request. Prior to sub�itting suoh application, the applicant shall nark each tree to be cut docan or. re�^oved �•:ittt a red ta�. � �• Planning Commission Meeting - March 20, 1974 Page 11 ;� (b) Inspection. Upon receipt of such application, thz Cit,y Gler}: sha11 fortaard the a�plicati.on to the City Director of Parks �•�ho shall prc�:��tly ins?�ct such � tree or tr-ees aiid indicate on said applic�tion: � (1) The type of tree or trees and their aPproxir�ate . hri.�hts; • :(2) The health or conditicn of the tree or trees; - (3) tti�eth�_r �r� nat in his c�� ::ioa sucii re:,io�*al is • justified lay reason of : (i) Good £orestry pra�t1ce; or - � �(ii) The poor he��lt:� or �anaeraLS conditzon of the tree or tr��s; or � (ii�) Cot�struction or ot';r� i-:;�rovenents being .. made to t:�e pi J�2I' ��: . The Direcror �f Par�;s sha11_ �.:ereupon for,•;ard L-he app�icati�n tc the Plannin�; Dn�art;:ent. ' � . ". � (c) AAD2'G�V�'t�, or De^�,zl. The Ci.t; ?lanr.er S112I.I r��'Z2T.J the 27pli.cat�on toge�h�r �•rith the rLaoct oi the Direccor of i'arks and sY:atl an�ro�e or �e�•� tha apnlicatio:� . based upon the szandar�s se� :�r�� in.Section 4.(i,)(3) � . abave to�ether �t ith ti:e pu�; �,-� an�' intent of th? s ord�- nance as herein set zorrh in SLction 1. It the a�pli- cation is den,'ed b;r tiie.Ci��: ?��r::�er, �,ritten notice of such action specir�in� t:�� ��ate ;.�ereor, togeth2r t;�th the reasons theretor s.a_'_• be �..aile� to the appli- canC at the address sno:,n �:� ;sc ; a��licatio�. If appreved, the � C:;.ty plann�� ��a� Z zssue the perr.sit �o t}iE-' �T���.].CBIli. � �a� Perni.t �a:?-Trans: era3le; ��,:rY�;.�n, tlny permit �ranted hereui�d�r is i:on-t.barts=�ra�� �:d� sha11 e:�pire si:: (6) monihs fxo:n date ot issua: ce, . � � (e) �;estricted to S�eci,`.ic t:o�?c� In the e�Tent a per�it � • for tree re*^oval is gL��tec _: �order to C.'I1c j1L� tne • applic�-:nt L-o car.ry � our_ so:: e �roject of develogment or improve;�ent af tI�e pra�ert;*, such pernit shall be effec- ti>>e o:�1y in ca:'1T1CCr10I1 tsi'-c• t::� actual acca�plis:�ment • • of s�.id }>�o j ect . � � ,�, • � ` � � .. .r � Sec. 5. fiT:�.r:,ti�?`:C: TitF.1:S TO P,�. r;.,':�^.FD. Prior or rer.;ovzng ary tree or tr�_es pu�st�ant to a�`r;z: � �o cuttin� do�tin � app? ic�.nt shaZl. protec� all. ot}�::r tre�s �. ��. _ �'SUe° ` Ereunder, t�e r:,ovr•d a:hi.ch ::a•.� be dra•::a�ed duria ; such pr�c_ss� by�i.^.stal�atiolnsof �sno•,i re- £encinb o: ctntr suitable enc.i.o;ure. Planning Commission Meeting - March 20, 1974 Pa e 12 � Sec. 5. AP?".:1LS TO C��'_':•r� r, • �-- - `1'���r'.'�.CVCC: LV ^_ c3��`•-, -'------- i.""_.— �:`�%' c: � 1Ca.^.i ?i�'10 GCc�.ff:S 2]1fi.SC1.I c:1 .�C_,cQ .tt. i OY .i.i1 i:.l_r C:Cc:: �._.i11TL-: c':1 CC r�ina -� :,scie t, i pl . ' �, � is�on or u�ter- ��� r *:•�y L�?�el co 't ec. CitC L� a•:�;e in .Le a:-? :�stra*_ioa ::� this orc:in�nce . ; C�;:tici.I. in t::e icr?c:•i-- -�:iner: :� ... (a) . The applicant, witliin thirty .(30) days of any such such arder, requirencnt, decision or deterr�in�tion, shall file a �arit•L•en appeal �aith the City Clerk ' settin� forth ttie action bci.ng appealed and tlie �acts relating tllereto, and the Mailing address of � applicant. . (b) The City Council aL• its next regular Meeting after receip� by the City Clerk of such app�al shall set : a date for hearin�, thereon, �•rhich shall oe not later than sixty (6U) days after the Tneeting. A notice of the dat:e, time, pl.ace and purpose of the h�aring snall " be puhlished in the official ne�aspaper of the City at least ten. �10) days prior to the hearin�. After hearing the oral ar written views of a11 interested persons, �. the Council shall make its decision at the same or a specified future meetinb thereof. � � S�c. 7. Ar1ERD�IEVTS TO APPLICATIO`:. The applicant may amend h�s application so as to reduc�� the number of trees to be renoved at any time .. prior to final determination of an appeal by the City Council, and the City Council shall consider and decide any appeal based upon the app�ication as amended. Sec. $, E�Fs��TIOti'S. The provisions of this ordinance shall not apply .to: , (a) The'removal of trees by or at the direction of the City of, Edina or any deparCnent or . .administrative official thereof; - . �� (b) The removal of trees pursuant to Ordinance ; � No. 1Q35; A� , (c) The remaval of trees pursuant to an Apnrov'ed Plan under Ordinance I�o. 817. Sec. 9. PEt�ALTIF,S. , Violation of tliis ordinance shall be a mis- . demeanor punistiable by a fine �iot to exceed $300.00 per tree illegally re- moved or leit unprotected', or iMprisonraent for not more than ni.nety (9Q) � da��s, or botti, and in addition payrent of all costs of prosecution and ex- penses involved in the case. Violation hercof siiall also be �rounds for ' ,.� • �evocation or suspc_nsion o£ any perr�it granted for the construction or re- � modeling of buildings or for the subdivision of land. " See. 10. lhis ordinance shal.l be in full force and effect fron � ' and upon its passa�e and publicati.on. �. • • 0 , ' ♦ 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. � �, . Mrs. Treuenfels said she thought this was wonderful. We can run our Farks & Recreation D�par.tment from 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. Walt 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 specif ically by name. It should include diseased that are detrimental to viable growth. You can't limit it just to two things. He �ontinued, that on growth 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. � Planning Commission Meeting - March 20, 1974 Page 14 �' � Mr. Blair said the Park Department had just acquired a 3 acre site th�t 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 provision could be put in.the ordinance for the development of ball diamonds. He could sympathize with the Park Department's position. 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 Hodges Island is not City owned and Durnam Island is not City owned so this is not entirely o�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 preservation 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 circulating this petition. He said the public signed this petition for many reasons, a couple being that they didn't want North Park disrupted for a golf course and a feeling that they simply did not like the m�ea of bulldozers knocking down trees willy-nilly. He said he thought thE: success of the pe�ition is an expression of a profound lack of c�nfidence in Cit� 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 committee,� he couTdn't say, but he had a feeling about it. � Mr. Harris said in the.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 doesn'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 like Box Elders do serve a purpose, but if they were choking out Oak might be well to remove that type of tree. i Department of and those that those that are• �. and Cottonwoods or Green Ash, it �. � /'"'�,. Planning Commission Meeting - March 20, 1974 Page 15 Mr. Nee said people have different opinions of what is a desirable tr�eo 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 grow 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 woula be �etrimenta�. to the purpose•of the ordinance. He said he would like to call it to the attention of the representatives of Northern States Pow�r 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 woodland management or a park-like affe�t. 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 space land. He said are we looking for a.wi�d area or a park-like affect. 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- factary to the sponsoring committee, this would not go to a referendum 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 talk 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 destroy this area for a wild life habitat. If we leave 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 � 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. � ordinance it �ants 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 go to a referendum vote. Chairman Fitzpatrick said the Council can pass any ordinance it wantsto. How will the sponsoring committee know which ordin��nce they might want to appeal? Mr. Clark said this would be an ordinance on trees. �S,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. Is it possible for the City to come up with a proposed tree�ordinance that could be put on the ballot also Mrs. Treuenf�ls said there could be two ordinances on the ballot amd both pass. The one that got�the most votes would be the one the Council would have to adopt. Mr. Starwalt said he knew the signers of the petition signe� 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 petiti�n said that there was a,careful effort on the part of the people circulating this petition 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 thexe is a change in voter registration. ,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 people 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. • 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. � � 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 it, 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 tx��s_ can grow under these lines, but in an emergency situation where they would have to come in with heavy equipment, these trees would make it 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 isolated 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 linss 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, �.ight-of-way�ie asked if the representatives of N.S.P.�.could give a specific area where they might have problems with this ordinance, instead of generalities. Nlr. 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. Ranck 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 they could restare electrical service. We � ,� �� Planning 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 man� trees on public right-of-way to get service restored. He said it wasn't �heir job to take out the trePs at that time, but the City had all they could 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 concerried that we grant these emergency powers to N.S.P., but she wo�ldn'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 Oak Wilt and Dutch Elm disease, that there are a variety of other diseases t�at 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 o�her 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 propo�ed ordinance. Mr. Christensen said that as far as cottonwood trees and cutting them � down to-e�iminate the cotton problem, this would mix up the natural succession of the forest in the 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 wha 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. _ Mrs. Treuenfels 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. , Planning Commission Meeting - March 20, 1974 Page 19 � '' Brother Sullivan said we could also assume that some of the g��ople 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. Treu�nfels said this is fine. The people have demanded the right to vote on this issue and they can vote anyway they want to. Chairmari 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. He said tha�t as a responsible member of the Council, I think�we need to identify the areas that won't work �nd 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. Harris asked who was going to administer this ordinance. � Mr. F�itzpatrick 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 �ust have to be enforced. Mr. Harris said what would the City do if it wanted to extend Main Street, for instance. W�nld 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 pre"sent time. He asked Paul Brown if he thought this ordinance seemed to call for personnel we don't already.have. He said he knew Paul has acted as the City forester. Mr. Brown said that in Section 1, 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 Commission 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 will depend 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 �i Planning 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 Station 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 p�lants at some time also. Mra 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 main�cenance in the parks, so Section 3 would also have to allow the Park Department 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 B.Zair, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Cornmission c.Zose the Public Hearing on the tree ordinance (Petition 4-1974). Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motio� carried unanimously. .��ir. Clark said the Council has to � adopt _:a�.:2�s�c�:inance by May 6th. To give the Council time to consider the PS.a��iing Commission's recom- mendation, they should have this��ecommendation by their first or � second meeting of April. He said the Planning Commission should give ' � themselves April 3rd as a deadline for this recommendation. r'"1 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 Commission 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 what concerns we have and what provisions "need to be made. � Mr. Harris said they were trying to have many different things and he thinks it has to seems like there is no easy so]:ution. one ordinance cover be more flexible. It Mr. Fitzpatrick said one of the problems is how you allow park development in some areas and not in others. � Mr. Drigans said we kn.ow 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 approach 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 should write some recommendations 'that �hould be in the proposed ordinance. There has to be a way the park depar.tment can do routine. tree trimming in iche parks. We should Plannina Commission Meeting - Mar ch 20, 1974 Page 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 things have to be in the ordinance. �� � 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 ordinance down to us for our recommendation, and he thought that was our charge. With only two weeks to work in, I don't see how we can rewrite this ordinance. . 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, they 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 . 4,000, 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 refer�a�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 covered all property except what wa's• owned by the City. Mr. Brown said as an example of industrial development, what if the Minnesota �.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 putt�ing in a big parking'lot. Bill Drigans talked about.the different 'reasons people signed this petition. One of the r.easons 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 to 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 electi�n 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? n . 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 wo�ld even be possible to build a golf course if the trees renaoved could use the entire site to figure the number of trees that could be removed. � Mr. Fitzpatrick said that some of the concerns we�:haue 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 parks, but I think we are defeating of this ordinance. He asked Pau]. Brown and Donald Blair '.• thought the proposed Edina ordinance was workable for the Fridley. Mr. Brown said he thought it was. to adapt the other the intent i� 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 ordinance,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�'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 tor 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 valuable anymore. Mr. Brown $aid 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 responsible for boulevard trees. He said some people take this responsibility. He said w� 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 . a� that time. Mr. Clark said the Council can pass an alternate tree ordinance and the committee has 10 days to appeal. If they 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 ordinance, 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 ordin�nce, 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 l�nown the problems they were creating for the City in other areas other than �he North Park.area. Mr. Brown wondered if the City was �orced to adopt this ordinance, if they could amend it after it was passed. Mr. Fitzpatrick said the � amendments would have to be.in keeping with the spirit of the ordinance. `• �Mr. Clark 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 Fridley. Brother Sullivan said that when he went around with the petition, a lot of people were d isturbed 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 petitioned 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 asked if the alternate ordinance should ask t�at 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 �i�a� 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 adopting these tree ordinances, and most of them are on private property and exclude city owned property. � Mr. Harris said he t�ought a lot of people signed this petition because they have a distrust of City Hall. Mr. Drigans �aid he knew t.hat 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 petition, then maybe that's why the use of North Park should go to a referendum. Mr. �rigans said he di�n'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 C�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 a]_one 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. I.f 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. Planning Commission Meeting - March 20, 1974 Pa e 25 %'1 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. � MOTION by Blair, 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 reques�s'the_Ci�y staff to prepare an alternate ordinance that the City can live with, that provides in some way that the use of North 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, B1air, Lindblad, Harris and Fitzpatrick voting aye, Drigans abstaining, the motion carried. � � � ' � Chairman Fitzpatrick adjourned the meeting at 12:02 A.M. Respectfully submitted, � C,� � .��t�✓ Dorothy Ev�nson, Secretary . •� , e-.�- . / - , _ �y�, - � �� -- -- ------- �-- - /% "��'G� °�-D/- � �-z �-- -- ---- -- --- _. _ _ _ __ _ ----- - - - � . � - --__ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _. _ __ _ _ _ _ ---- - --- ____ _ ------ _ _ -- _ __-- -- ________-_ _ �____- _ ---,_,� -- _-- ---- _ _- -- � -- _ _ - - - 4� ___ _ - � - ��� ___ --_ __ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _���a--Ih►�'���__ _r_.__ _ _ ______- � t ���� � � ,� . �� -- _� - - --- -- E -- - - - - _ _ --. __ _ _ _ _ _ . _ __ ___ _ - -- - --- --- - - _--- - - __ _ ___ _ _ _ ����/1���-,Q� �.�'�G� .��.�'� _--- - --- ---- -- -_ ---- -- ---- _.__ _ _ ___ _ _ __ �����--- _ _ _ ___ __ �� _ � __- - __ _- --____ _ _ _ __!s�'9__ - ---- _- - ----- � --- _-- � -- _ _-- _ _ __ ----- _ __ _ - -- __- -- - - _ _ _ _ _ __ _ -_ �yo. �• r�- ___ ??,� ._- -- - _ o��� �( �.e��_ _ _ _- �C_. j _ .. . _ _.. . .._... . �_��. µ-�_- " � �.r. "___ ._ ._ _ ..,�."_ "__" .__. ..._ ____' `.� d �i ,.}' / , ___ f _ . � ���',j:.�l '�.. e _ _ �l� . �1 _ ��_ _��r� _�..,� i �. - - -- ( ,. ------ � - ` � ----. :°- �-- --- __ _._.._ .__. _-_ -_.___. ° t .. I y�� 3 �.,.� A� ��_ � � rr �r�ow� _ -- _ __--- - _ - _ _ __ � , - __ _ _ __ _ __ _ ____�� ��_ �' _ -_ �: __. -_ _ - - , ,� � --��, - � ,! �; _ _�� � _�°�-�_� __ . ._ _ _ _ . � � l� � � �� c �i ��:� _----������� = - __ - -- - _ __ - . _ _ �"_ -- ; ��' --- _ _ _ ` �a�n-� �����,�,� � '_ _ _ ��..�.ti�..� _ - - -_ - _ _ . _ _ _ ��..�?�.� ./ _ - _ _ _ ___ _ __.__ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ 1 ---__ _ _ __ - -T - ----____ ___-- - _ _ __ ___- --_ _ _ _ _ _ � � � � __ __ � i �. _- -- -_--_- -� ---- - � --�_-------�-���� _--�'� _-�-� _'y��_ -- ----- _ � --- � - ��- _- -- _- ---- - _.._----- __----____- _ -___ - -__ ___ � _ - __- --- - ___ _ _- -___ - _--- __ _ __- ---- ------ _ -- --- -- --- __ . __ _ _ _ _ � _ __- - -- - __ - --- - - --- __ - _ . _ _ �_ -, � � . -� �. �_�.�--- _ __ r�� ---- __ - --- � 3 _� _"- 4 b --_ _ �:�_ ---� �� -- _ -� -�� -�� _ _ _ - � @, �7, . 1; a/�- __! � U _ 7� — _ _ _ _ --- -- - -- ---- r- -- �i�' _ _ f C/L/d !h� / I e ` _/ _.�iti-- - - _ - -_ __ _- _ __ -- -- ___ - _. _ .. __----_._ _ - - -- �,'�! �� _-- �- . _ � - _ _ -- _ _ __ _���,t� - _ �� - _ _ ---- - ---- _ _ --_ _ _. - - -- __ - , ' _-- � _ _ _ _ _ ----- - - __ _ - -- _c��yl.�,_ _ _ -- —_ ._!Y'Jl-- ___ _ _ --- _ -- - -- - . •a y� - _ _ --- __ __ --_ _ _�-� -�u_�z-K,_ I�?y� _ Q'�, ._.l� � --- _ - ` _. - - - -- - _ . . ____ � _ _ __- --- '- -C������``"`_ -_ _ _____ __ _- - -- ---� (j _-!- � �a-e���� -_ _ _'",,.` � ___ __ - . � � �� _ - __ _ _ _ __ --- --- _ �Z o _-- `�--�� -�--�-1 __��- _� �f _ _ _ �` � �' J �G2�'�� �� �� _ � -�i_ _ =---��j� __ _ �-�- _-�' __ _ __ _ _ _ _--- - -- - _ -- - _ - _ _- % �� f� a _ _ _ _ _ �C.J �___ � �, ` . � �, � _���---,��, � I � �' Y 1��y-� . . _" .._ _ . " __ ...._ _ „=rs« .1..._. . ..... .__ ._ __. I_. __ __ — _...... . _ ._ __ .._....._ _ _ .. .. . ._ ... _ . ..._. _..___ .____..-_._ .. ... .__ ' ...._.. . __. {.._ _._.._..._.__._. .._._....__.._� _. .. �_...... . _ . .. ....- . . _._... . __.._.—_—_ _ . .__.._...__........ _.__....... ._._... ... ..... ........__.... . ... . .... . .. . .. . ._ . . . _. .. . _. ..