Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 27, 1990 o o () /I '(A] ""i CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.w. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (612) 755-5100 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - NOVEMBER 27, 1990 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Becky Pease on November 27, 1990; 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Ron Ferris, Steve Jonak, Bev Jovanovich Randal Peek, Wayne Vlstad Bill Coleman City Planner, David Carlberg; and others Commissioner absent: Also present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 13, 1990: Correct as written. MOTION by Ferris, Seconded by Jovanovich, approval. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: LOT SPLIT - JOHN MENGELKOCH. 26 CONSTANCE BLVD NW c=) Mr. Carlberg reviewed the request to split a 7.41-acre lot into two separate lots of 3.84 and 3.57 acres. Staff is recommending approval contingent upon the payment of a park dedication fee of $400. The fee is for one newly created lot. Both lots meet al I setback and dimension requirements. John Menaelkoch - stated they want to build a single-family residence on the vacant parcel, Parcel B. It Is in compliance with all setbacks. MOTION by Ferris, Seconded by Vistad, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Ferris, Seconded by Vistad, that the Planning and ZonIng recommend approval of the Lot Spilt legally described as that part of the east 660 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 13, TownshIp 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying southerly of the southerly rIght-of-way line of County Road No. 60 (Old Constance Boulevard NW) except the south 660 feet thereof, also except roads subject to easements of record; that this be subject to the applicant to pay a total park dedication fee of $400 upon City CouncIl approval of the proposed lot split; that the request Is in complIance with Ordinance 40 and Ordinance 8, Section 6.02 in terms of lot width, the front setback, lot depth, and lot area per dwellIng, and with Ordinance 10, Section 9.07.10, minimum land area. Motion carrIed on a 6-Yes, l-Absent (Coleman) vote. o This item will go to the City Council on December 18, 1990. Hearing closed at 7:38 p.m. \..) u Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting '\ Minutes - November 27, 1990 ,~ Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED: ORDINANCE NO. 44 FENCING REQUIREMENTS FOR JUNKYARDS Mr. Carlberg reviewed the background information on this Item regarding the City Council's directive, the fencing of the yards and its impact of FHA financing on surrounding residences, and the proposed changes to Ordinance 44. The Commission reviewed several areas of concern In the ordinance and recommended several changes and clarifications, including the addition of a date by which all automotive recycling and/or Junkyards must come into complaince with these new regulations. June 1, 1991, was suggested. The hearing was then opened for public testimony. Harold Sullivan. 15300 Prairie Road - noted the Junkyards have been there for a long time, asking If the intent is to try to screen them from view from the road or from other residences. Because of the terraine, he felt some of them could not be fenced off so they are not visible. It would also take many, many more acres if they are not al lowed to stack the cars. He Is not in the Junkyard business, but he felt they are trying to make a living and it is not all that bad having to look at junk cars. '\ , ) The Commission explained the original Intent was to correct some conflicting requirements in the ordinances. They then looked into what type of fencing would be acceptable to FHA so they would once again finance housing In the area; however, the City was unable to get anywhere with them. So they are now updating and correcting the discrepancies in the ordinance. The owners of the yards have told the Commission that they could meet the fencing and stacking requirements being recommended. Also, this area has been designated by the City as a blighted area, and the City would like to see minimal visibility of the blight from outside of the Junkyards. Ann Sikora - stated the junkyards were there long before the developers came in, and everyone lived with them. Once the developers came in, the trouble started. She felt it is unfair that after being here for 40 years, the Junkyards are having al I these problems, that they are Just trying to make a living too. Mike Lund. ATV Salvaqe - thought a deadline to meet these new requirements would be better set at July 1. Because of the weather, there would be very little time available to work on the fencing if June 1 was the deadline. He was also concerned about the possibility of the City coming back in the future and wanting a different height or type of fencing. He wondered why FHA couldn't give an answer now. The Commission agreed with the July 1 deadline. They also explained the frustration of dealing with the FHA and the noncommittal answers received from them. Apparently screening Is not the issue with FHA. : ) , \ U u ~) Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - November 27, 1990 Page 3 <Public Hearing Continued: Ordinance No. 44, Junkyards) Mr. Lund - stated all this started since the housing has been put up; and it is now infringing on his business, expressing his frustration and confusion over the entire situation. JoAnn Wilber. Jay Street - asked about the fencing between yards. Mr. Carlson stated outside fencing is a minimum of six feet high, and between the yards will be the concern of the property owners to do what they want to do. Ms. Wilber - asked if the licenses will be changed to Automotive Recyciing Yards. Mr. Carlberg stated he will talk to the City Clerk about that tomorrow. ~ Ms. Wilber - asked about the outside storage. One yard out there has very nice racks which go higher than six feet high, and they look very neat. Will that be allowed? She felt that should be looked at as to how high the racks can go. There is a difference between crushed cars and racks. There are some things that need to be stored outside. The Commission noted the proposal is the storage would not exceed the height of the fence; however, the variance section, 5.03, could possibly be used to ailow racks to go higher. Also, the ordinance has the flexibility to build a portion of the fence at a greater height against which the racks could be placed, then dropping down to six feet. MOTION by Vistad, Seconded by Ferris, to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously. The Commission suggested further changes and clarifications in the ordinance. In Section 4.9, Ms. Wiiber explained they must fill out a Dealer Junkyard Report each month, send a copy to the State and retain one. The title cards are also forwarded to the State. Leon Kozlowski. 1021 Crosstown Boulevard - referenced Section 4.7, asking about the disposal of the antifreeze, Freon, and other substances that are found in cars. He felt all the other substances should be addressed as well, not Just gasoline and oil. Ms. Wilber - explained the procedure of handling those substances from the cars according to State and Federal guidelines. Minnesota has an ordinance which will be enacted in 1991 regarding the removal and disposal of Freon. Her point was they do handle those items properly. ~ Rick Heidelberoer. Mom's Auto Salvaoe - explained the process he uses for storing antifreeze and oil and using the gas after it has been filtered. He is also looking into Freon recycling pumps, though he didn't expect that to be operational until June or July. C) u -. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - November 27, 1990 Page 4 'J (Public Hearing Continued: Ordinance No. 44, Junkyards) Mr. Kozlowski - asked whether the City gets a report on what happens to hazardous waste streams within Andover, as all businesses in the State are required to report that to the cities. Ms. Wilber stated they are sent to the State and they keep a copy. They do not send it to the City or to the Fire Department. Commissioner Ferris also noted that the CIty controls hazardous waste through the issuance of Special Use Permits which are then monItored. The following changes to the proposed ordinance were agreed to by the Commission: Section 4, 4.5 - "Automotive recyclables and/or junk shall not exceed the height of the fence, except for snow accumulation, and shall be arranged to permit easy access to al I automotive recyclables and/or Junk for fire fIghting purposes." Section 4, 4.7 - "All fluids and gasses shall be removed and disposed of in an approved manner from any scrapped engines or scrapped vehicles on the premises." '\ ,_j Section 4, 4.9 - Add a clause havIng to do with the Dealer's Junk Report that the dealers are requIred to fill out and file with the State each month. The dealers retain a copy of that report on file. Section 5, 5.1 - "Exterior Storage. Where automotive recyclables and/or junk is kept outdoors, the area shal I be enclosed by a solid vertical wall or fence of uniform material and color which is at least six (6') feet high and a maxImum heIght of twelve (12') feet, said height to be consistent over any residential or business properties, public roads or public lands as measured from the street level. Where automotive recyclables and/or junk is piled, stacked or externally stored, the height of the pile, stack or storage cannot exceed the height of the fence." SectIon 5, 5.2 - It was felt this provision is virtually the same thing as SectIon 5.1. It was proposed that thIs section be deleted and incorporated In SectIon 5.1. Section 5, 5.3 b - "RevocatIon of Variance: If screening changes in such a manner that stored materials come into vIew of adjacent residential or business properties, public roads or public lands, the variance wII I be revoked immediately and the applIcant has thIrty (30) days from date of notice to provide screening in complIance with this Ordl nance. " '\ i "-------./ Section 10 - Add Section 10.2: "The required fencing is to be installed as of July 1, 1991." ~) :) \ ) ( , , ) ~~ o Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - November 27, 1990 Page 5 (Public Hearing Continued: Ordinance No. 44, Junkyards) MOTION by Vistad, Seconded by Jovanovich. that we send to the City Council with approval of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission the Ordinance 44 ordinance regulating and licensing automotive recycling yards and/or Junkyards and dealers and repealing Ordinance No.9 with the appropriate changes that we mave made at tonight's meeting. Public hearing was held and there were comments made; six people spoke. all six were in objection to the ordinance. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Ferris had a problem with all the changes. The Council aksed them to look at the height of the fence so the ordinances agree. not to control the stacking or to rewrite It. He had a hard time with the fact that the City will not sit down and work with the yards to come up with some methodology to which everyone can agree. He said he didn't like continually making ordinances that Increase costs of running a business hoping to eventually run them out of business. The only other constructive change was on Section 4.7. Putting up the fence wil I not hide the Junk one bit. He did not see this as a venture to get the City and the owners to work any closer together; in fact he felt it is Just the opposite. Mr. Lund - appreciated Commissioner Ferris's honesty. He asked what they can do about it. The ordinance does keep changing and eventually it will be changed to something they cannot afford to do. More than anything he'd like to sit down and find out what they all have to do. Chairperson Pease suggested talking to the Councilmembers individually and at their meeting to see if something could be worked out. There will be changes with progress. but everyone has to learn to live together. There has been Input from those in the recycling community. seeing this as an opportunity to solve some of the problems. VOTE ON MOTION: Motion carried. 8:40 p.m. 5-Yes, l-No (Ferris), l-Absent (Coleman) This will to go the City Council on December 18. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED: ORDINANCE NO. 29 DISEASED SHADE TREES Mr. Carlberg reviewed the changes made to Ordinance 29 since it was before the Commission on November 13. One concern Is the authority given the Tree Board in the ordinance. Staff thinks it should be more of a citizens' group to set up programs and activities and citizen participation. etc., not be in control of establishing control areas or enforcing the details of the ordinance Itself. After some discussion. the Commission generally agreed. Commissioner Ferris expressed his concern of implementing an ordinance that has the potential of imposing large financial hardships upon the residents. The ordinance Is ineffective if neither the residents nor the City can afford to do it. He also wanted to see the control areas recommended. () o () Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - November 27, 1990 Page 6 (Public Hearing Continued: Ordinance No. 26, Diseased Shade Trees) Commissioner Ferris felt enforcing this ordinance could cost a property owner more than the value of the property. There is a need for it, but there is no funding for it. But the City cannot get funding without the ordinance. (The Commission recessed at this time to have more copies of the proposed ordinance made for those present. 8:50; reconvened at 9:00 p.m. ) David Stephenson. Plant Health Specialist. Minnesota Department of Aqriculture - agreed that a Tree Commission should be an advisory group, not one that enforces the ordinance. The Diseased Tree Ordinance has been in effect since the mid-1970s. This proposal has only a few minor changes and is one of the criteria for cost-sharing of dollars and other programs for the control of diseased trees. They are in the process of drafting a Joint Powers Agreement with Anoka County for the use of the vibrating plow being purchased. That plow will be made available at no cost to the cities who have an ordinance in place. ,,) Mr. Stephenson explained the control areas are to begin the management of the problem and could be either a highly-diseased area to stop the danger of spreading onto other properties or to keep an area which is already disease-free from being infected. If the ordinance was not in place, the cost could be even higher because the number of diseased trees will increase. They are looking at control areas that will cover the entire community within three years or as agreed to. The intent is to control the disease and prevent it from spreading off the property. Ann Sikora - stated her oaks are dying from Chestnut Bore, not oak wilt. Mr. Stephenson acknowledged that the Chestnut Bore Is a problem because the trees have been weakened by the drought. This ordinance does not deal with that, only with the spread of the identifiable problem of oak wilt disease and what is required to be done about It. , \ ,~.J Ms. Sikora - has been planting trees for 40 years. The oaks are dying, but other trees are taking their place. She couldn't see why an ordinance is needed. She has over 100 acres of woods, stating she has had more experience with those woods than any City Forester. Mr. Stephenson reviewed the aerial survey map of where oak wilt appears in the City, showing there is a significant problem in Andover. He felt is is controllable. The Commission also explained the ordinance has been In place for many years, and this has been an attempt to get funding for Andover from outside sources. / '\ '0 (j ,.J Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - November 27, 1990 Page 7 (Public Hearing Continued: Ordinance No. 26, Diseased Shade Trees) Ms. Sikora - argued the State has no money either, again feeling new trees should be planted. Chairperson Pease said the idea was to be able to get help for the individual property owners and to try to control the problem. Art Jaworski. 3230 173rd Lane NW - stated in 1973 when the ordinance was adopted he the tree inspector. He wondered why this is being done allover again, asking when the City stopped having a tree inspector. He asked for a little historical background on the matter. Mr. Stephenson gave some background on the proposalS and funding on the State ievel since the mid-1970s. , ) Mr. Jaworski - stated this was ali done before. He thought educating the poeple is the most important thing to do, feeling that is where Andover dropped the ball. Many of the people moving out here didn't know how to take care of their trees. Mr. Stephenson explained in 1981 the shade tree program in the State was cut because of a budget crunch. The funds were restored in 1985, and programs were started again on a smaller scaie. Now Federal dollars are becoming available for suppression of forest disease and insect programs, referencing the cost-sharing done by Anoka County to purchase a vibrating plow. The cost share will be with communities only on a one-to-one basis. Someone asked how effective the vibrating plow is. Mr. Stephenson stated about 85 percent by those who know what they are doing. Ron? . 170th and Ivvwood - disagreed and explained the problem in his area, the things they did to stop the disease, with the result being that most of his and one neighbor's trees are gone and all of those on another neighbor's lot. Mr. Jaworski - disagreed with the gentleman, explaining the precautions taken in his area which resulted in no further spread of oak wilt. He thought the key is going deep enough to get the roots. Mr. Stephenson thought it sounded like the gentleman had Chestnut Bore, not oak wilt. '\ ./ Mr. Jaworski - wondered what the cost will be to the residents for enforcing the ordinance with the addition of a full-time forester, etc. He again stated his belief that a good educational program is more important. The Commission noted there have been educational programs in place for years but more is needed to solve the prOblem. One of the problems the Commission has tried to address has been cost, but it is just not possible to make that determination. It will depend on what the City decides to do for control areas, budget allocations, etc. One change in the ordinance is to expedite enforcement in a timely manner. There are some people who just do not care if the disease spreads to surrounding properties, and this should help in that respect. ~J ~) ~J u u Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - November 27, 1990 Page 8 (Public Hearing Continued: Ordinance No. 26, Diseased Shade Trees) Rav Sowada. Cltv Tree Inspector - has been the tree Inspector since 1978. The problem with the existing ordinance Is having to notify the Council of a problem. People are Interested In this Issue, and this Is an attempt to update the ordinance and begin a program to save people'S trees. However, he only spends 4 to 6 percent of his time on the tree program; and most of that Is In educating people. Ms. Sikora - didn't see how the disease could be stopped on her 100 acres. She can't keep up with it, though she recognized It is the Chestnut Bore, not oak wilt. Mr. Sowada talked about several methods of stopping the spread of oak wilt, Including covering the cut wood during early spring and summer months. Leon Kozlowski. 1021 Crosstown Boulevard - asked for a definition of shade trees. Mr. Sowada stated they are deciduous trees such as oak, elm, ash. Mr. Kozlowski felt shade tree is one which provides shade for his lawn and building areas, not those on large parcels of land of 10, 40, or 100 acres. As he reads the ordinance, It Is a far reaching approach to the entire city. It gives more power to the tree inspector than the police department has. He also felt it Is very restrictive, referring to the last portion on licensing and bonding to remove trees. That adds to the expense, plus having to remove the diseased wood and the stump and having to obtain a permit. He also felt It Is contradictory to require the removal of the diseased wood, yet It Is Illegal to transport the wood within the City. He asked where that wood can be taken. Discussion noted one reason for the ordinance Is because people were bringing diseased wood Into Andover and dumping It. The Tree Inspector can permit the wood to be transported out of the City. The tree disposal site In Bunker Hills has been closed, so now it must be taken to Ramsey or East Bethel. There Is an obligation to obtain a permit from the City so It knows what activity is taking place; however, there will be no cost for that permit. A property owner may take down his own trees. The licensing and bonding is required only of those companies being hired to take down trees and Is for the protection of the property owner. The wood can also be used for firewood as long as It Is covered during the appropriate time of year to prevent the spread of the disease. Mr. Kozlowski - stili felt a definition of shade tree Is needed and that the area being considered needs to be defined. He didn't feel the intent of the ordinance was to apply to those areas of one house on 100 acres, but to the higher density areas. The Commission explained the intent Is to control the spread of the disease. At this time, no control area has been defined. They also felt the ordinance clearly states what trees are Included. u o u Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - November 27, 1990 Page 9 (Public Hearing Continued: Ordinance No. 26, Diseased Shade Trees) Sophie Kozlowski - felt Andover should have a tree restoration program. She has been planting trees for 40 years, Mr. Kozlowski - summarized what is being said is the City is planning to spend a lot of money eradicating diseased trees. He felt it would be wiser to spend the money on replanting trees that will live in this area. He didn't feel the oak was indigenous to the area because of the soils. Mr. Stephenson strongly disagreed, that the oak is native to the area. The problem is when people start moving into an area. There are ways to protect the oak that needs to be followed by property owners, builders, etc. He then reviewed some of the precautions to take regarding storage of diseased oak wood, the trimming of oak trees, and removal of diseased trees. Nancv Erickson - thought Section 9 was too restrictive, that it may be unrealistic to remove all trees within 20 days. She has been working on her problem for three years. Mr. Stephenson stated the 20 days refers to abatement, that is determining a course of action, not to the actual removai itself. There is a variance provision for hardship, and the removal of 50 trees, as an example, would be considered a hardship. o Garv Lensman. 153rd and NiQhtenQale - asked who pays the expenses for tree removal in the control area, the City or the property owner. If it is the City, then everyone ends of paying for it. If It is the property owner, conceivably it could cost more than the house and property are worth. He hoped the money wouldn't come from his pocket, but he didn't see much funding coming from either the State of Federal governments, at least not enough to make any difference. For the past 20 years the City has had an ordinance but hasn't been enforcing it. He asked for an explanation of how the county Is purchasIng the vibrating plow and what other cIties have thIs ordInance. CommIssioner Ferris stated fInancing is his concern also. He felt it is a good ordInance, but he doesn't know where the money wIll come from to enforce It. Mr. Stephenson brIefly outlIned the funding and proposed plan for use of the vibratIng plow that wIll be avaIlable to cIties in the county. Over 100 other citIes have this ordInance including Anoka, Ramsey, Lino Lakes and Blaine. The CommissIon again noted that the ordinance was updated so that the CIty could participate in using the vibrating plow and be elIgible for outside funding. They also stressed that very few changes have been made to the ordInance that has been in effect. o Ms. Erickson - also enacted and funded. homeowner. Has the felt She CIty a tree replacement program should be said Andover has done nothIng for the looked at appropriatIng any fundIng for thIs? u o ~ Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - November 27, 1990 Page 10 <Public Hearing Continued: Ordinance No. 26, Diseased Shade Trees) The Commission stated this is only the process of updating the ordinance. No funding has been allocated yet, but they noted the Eden Prairie budget for Forestry of $139,000 for 1989. Right now Andover does not have the funding nor the staff, which makes it difficult. Mr. Lensman - stated the City does not have a good tax base to generate taxes. His fears were as the City continues to grow, more needs are generated. Given that and the bond issues already passed, he was concerned about becoming the highest taxed city in the metropolitan area. Ms. Kozlowski - stated the taxes were low, then everyone started moving out here, and more fire stations, schools, etc., were needed. She predicted people will just be leaving their homes when the taxes get too high. The Commission felt many people move to Andover because they like the vicinity, the open spaces, and the trees. There was continued discussion with those present about their fears of higher costs and higher taxes, aggravated by the'predicted recession. u Mr. Kozlowski - asked if Section 13 is new and about the current City budget for this. Mr. Sowada said no, just the word "Forester" was added. This means that the property owner cannot interfer with the Forester performing his duties. The current budget has very little in it for this. Mr. Sowada also reviewed the process he uses to notify property owners and working with them to correct the problem. Mr. Lensman - said according to Section 7, B, he has to give notice of said inspection through oral or written notice. He felt it should be written so there is documentation. The Commission also explained the legal notice when put in the Anoka Union, the City's official newsspaper. Harold Sullivan. 15300 Prairie Road - asked the cost to establish the program and how much funding will come from the State. The Commission noted those figures are not known exactly, but a staff of six or seven people would be needed to enforce the ordinance city-wide. Without knowing the control areas, the cost factor cannot be determined. The amount that can be done will ultimately determine by the dollars that will be budgeted by the Council. Mr. Sullivan - felt that staff already exists on the county and state level, plus at the University of Minnesota, to help with education, answer questions, etc. He felt it may be possible to get a littie funding from the State, but he thought this is just a futile attempt to solve the problem. He wanted to know how much money it will cost to get the ordinance and people in place in order to get some outside funding. The Commission did not know for sure, again referring to the budgeted items in Eden Prairie's 1989 budget for ~~ u (j :--) Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - November 27, 1990 Page 11 <PublIc HearIng ContInued: OrdInance No. 26, DIseased Shade Trees) Forestry. Several resIdents dIdn't feel Andover had to do what other cItIes are doIng. The CommIssIon explaIned they gather ordInances from other cItIes for Ideas and reference and then draft an ordInance that wIll work for Andover. Ms. Sikora - felt the CIty Is not consIdering the "old timers" who cannot contInue payIng hIgher and hIgher taxes. Mr. Jaworski - asked when thIs ordInance will be in place. ChaIrperson Pease hoped It would be passed onto the CIty CouncIl tonight for their consIderatIon on December 18. FundIng Is a definIte factor, and she felt that other sources such as sharIng wIth other communities, wIll need to be explored. Mr. Kozlowski - noted the ordInance is vague In the specIfIc requirements for abatement. Mr. JaworskI - stated the natural solutIon to the problem Is the burn that used to go through these areas perIodIcally. It would kIll some trees, new ones would take Its place. That's not possIble now. He commended the CommIssIon for making the effort on thIs Issue. ~J MOTION by Ferris, Seconded by VIstad, to close the publIc hearing. MotIon carrIed unanImously. The CommIssion contInued dIscussIon on the ordInance itself, the main concern of CommIssIoners FerrIs and VIstad beIng the overwhelmIng cost that could be encountered by the property owner. They felt a cap should be set on the total cost to a property owner wIthIn a tax year. That amount could be adjusted each year just as other fees are. CommIssIoner Peek was not In favor of a cap. There was also concern about enactIng an ordInance that cannot be enforced because of the lack of fundIng. The fear was for hugh costs to the resIdents both In terms of taxes to finance enforcement and to the Individual property owner who has many trees to be removed. Discussion noted the size of the control area will In part be determined by the sIze of the budget allocated by the CouncIl to thIs item. The CommIssion also agreed the authorIty of the Tree Board should only be a recommendIng body to the CouncIl. The CommIssIon noted those In attendance thIs evenIng generally opposed a tree ordInance. Mr. Carlberg noted he receIved a call from someone In favor of the ordinance who saId they would have a petItion of 7 to 20 names supporting it. Ms. SIkora stated she could brIng In a petItIon wIth many sIgnatures opposed to It. ~.J MOTION by VIstad, Seconded by Peek, recommend to the CIty CouncIl approval of the new Diseased Shade Tree OrdInance No. 29C wIth the approprIate changes: u u o Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - November 27, 1990 Page 12 <Public Hearing Continued: Ordinance No. 26, Diseased Shade Trees) Section 3, B - The Tree Board will assist the Forest/Tree Inspector in establishing and prioritizing control areas, promulgate rules, regulations, standards and specifications, and advise the City Council of recommended actions. Section 9, G - add the wording that a cap of what a resident could be assessed for be the maxImum of $500 in a tax year. For the rest of the ordinance to go as written. There was a public hearing and there were a number of people that preferred not to see any tree ordinance at all. Change all references of Tree Board to Tree Commission. There were a number of residents that were going to be on a petition that were in favor of the ordinance, and there was favorable response received over the phone that we were working on a tree ordinance. :_~ VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Ferris, Jonak, Pease, Vistad; NO-Jovanovich, Peek, ABSENT-Coleman. Motion carried. Chairperson Pease - voted yes but is not certain a cap is needed or what the appropriate dollar amount would be; however, I do feel something is needed to get started on the problem. Commissioner Vistad - feels that we definitely do need a cap to protect our residents because the people with even one acre of heavily wooded land, if we don't have a cap, depending upon political changes that take place or who makes the decisions on what can and should be done, can receive an extreme financial hardship on that particular resident. I do not feel that we should do that. We have an obligation to the people in our community to try to work with our people to the best of those people's abIlity without causing extreme financial prOblems with those residents. Chairperson Pease - agreed, but didn't know how that could be put in an ordinance and didn't know what dollar amount it should be ~~ Commissioner Ferris - agreed with Commissioner Vistad emphatically, but reminds the Council that our objective here was to seek alternative funds for solving our problem, that we must be careful that those alternative funds are not from the coffers of our residents. I think the cap is most essential; I would never have voted yes for this unless that cap was there. Knowing from Mr. Stephenson that It does allow us to seek those alternative funds, I feel this is a way to meet the objective without assuring that the City or its residents are overburdened by the cost of it. The recommendation will to go the City Council on December 18. 11:08 p.m. ( \ o /\ U , ) Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - November 27, 1990 Page 13 OTHER BUSINESS Commissioners Peek and FerrIs WITHDREW the Second and the MotIon made at the Novmeber 13 meetIng to ask the CouncIl to reconfIrm the appointments of the CommIssioners to the P & Z. No further action was taken. Chairperson Pease noted the second meeting In December falls on Christmas. There will be only one Planning and ZonIng Commission meetIng In December, that of December 11. ChaIrperson Pease declared the meeting adjourned at 11:18 p.m. Respectfully submItted, ~~c;~l Marcella A. Peach RecordIng Secretary \ j ~',-)