HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-11-07 Public hearingOctober 26, 1995
ROBERT P. BURNS
319 East Washington Street
P.O. Box 1226
Iowa City, Iowa 52244
019) 338-7600
FAX O19) 337-2430
Mayor and City Council
City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Rezoning Application No. REZ95-0010
Saratoga Springs
Dubuque Road
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
It is my understanding that the planning and zoning commission will consider rezoning
application no. REZ95-0010 at its November 2, 1995 formal meeting, next Thursday.
Therefore, we request the city council consider a resolution at your November 7, 1995
meeting to conduct a public hearing on the rezoning application during your November 21,
1995 meeting.
Sincerely Yours,
Robert P. Bums
RPB/slk
XC:
City Clerk
City Manager
Bob Miklo
Steve Nasby
Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship
MaD, Losch
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing
will be held by the City Council of Iowa City,
Iowa, at 7:30 p.m. on the 24th day of October,
1995, in the Civic Center Council Chambers,
410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa; at
which hearing the Council will consider:
1. An ordinance amending the Zoning Chapter
by adopting a Sensitive Areas Ordinance to
regulate development on properties contain-
ing environmentally sensitive features,
including wetlands, stream corridors, steep
slopes, wooded areas, hydric soils, prairie
remnants and archaeological sites.
Copies of the proposed ordinance are on file for
public examination in the office of the Ciw
Clerk, Civic Center, Iowa City, Iowa. Persons
wishing to make their views known for Council
consideration are encouraged to appear at the
above-mentioned time and place.
MARIAN K. I(ARR, CITY CLERK
ppdadmin~cc 10-24.nph
331
Karen Kubby
CITY COUNCIL MEMSEP-,
To:
city Council
Civic Cerfcer
410 E. Washington St.
Iowa City, IA 52240
(319) 356-5010
(319) 356-5009 (FAX)
P.e~ldence
728 2rid Avenue
Iowa City, IA 52245
(319) 338-1321
Re: Sensitive Areas Ordinance
Date: November 1 1995
We received quite a lot of feedback about the
Sensitive A~eas Ordinance. One area that I would
like to focus on is the buffer width requirements
for stream corridors and wetlands. Vince Neary
outlined his concerns in a letter dated September
22, 1995. Vince and Laura Dowd wrote a letter from
Environmental Advocates to us dated October 19,
1995. Both letters raised some legitimate points.
Requirements in the ordinance are based on current
Federal law, other communities' experience, and/or
scientific findings. Vince and Laura are asking
that we ensure our stream corridor and wetland
buffer width requirements meet these same tests.
Their research has found that the proposed buffer
width requirements are at the bottom of the average
when compared to those of other communities
nationwide. They also provided us with information
from a publication called "Watershed Protection
Techniques" which discusses this issue.
I would like us to have some discussion on
increasing the buffer widths for stream corridors
and wetlands. The area in the ordinance where this
is discussed begins on page 7 for wetlands and on
page 11 for stream corridors. For me, there are
two other important things to reme~%ber. First, we
have agreed to review our Floodplain Management
Ordinance which might have some bearing on this
issue. Second, the ordinance is written to say
that the buffers as outlined are in addition to the
floodway for stream corridors.
CITY OF I0 WA CITY
The specific suggestions are to not allow a
reduction in the 100 foot wetland buffer
requirement as is outlined in the ordinance and to
increase the stream corridor buffer to a minimum of
50 feet for all levels of stream corridors.
I would be interested in having these be two topics
of conversation at our Monday informal meeting when
we discuss the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Feel
free to call me with comments or questions at 338-
1321 or e-mail me at kkubby@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu.
Thanks for thinking about this.
Prlnted on 100%
recycled paper-10%
post-consumer fibers
SAOA
NOVEMBER 1, 1995
MAYOR SUSAN HOROWITZ
AND MEMBERS OF THE IOWA CITY COUNCIL
MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ON NOVEmbER 7TH YOU WILL BE CONSIDERING THE FIRST
PASSAGE OF AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "SENSITIVE AREA ORDINANCE".
AS A TAXPAYERAND 50 YEAR RESIDENT 0F IOWA CITY I OBJECT
TO THIS ORDINANCE OF BEING UNNECESSARY, THREATENING, COSTLY
AND ~AGEABLE.
I FEEL THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS AN INSULT TO THOSE OF US WHO
HAVE OWNED AND MANAGED PROPERTY FOR THIRTY TO FORTY YEARS
AND HAVE DONE NOTHING TO THE PROPERTY EXCEPT GROW TREES.
THIS IS THE PROPERTY THAT YOU ARE NOW CONSIDERING!
THE 29 PAGE DOCUMENT IS AN AMATUERISH ATTEMPT TO COPY
THE BEST PARTS OF DOCUMENTS ALL OVER THE UNITED STATES
AND MAKE AN IOWA CITY ORDINANCE. IT WILL BE UNWORKABLE
kND WILL RESULT IN A FURTHER RIFT BETWEEN TAXPAYERS AND THE
CITY ADMINISTRATION.
WHEN MY LAWYERS AND ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS CAN NOT
INTERPRET THE MEANING OF THE ORDINANCE AND TELL ME WHAT
IS REQUIRED, I FORSEE A MIGHTY MIX UP IN THE CITY HALL.
HOW WILL YOUR NEW EMPLOYEES...JUST OUT OF COLLEGE WITH
A DEGREE IN GEOGRAPHY...ADMINISTER THIS ORDINANCE?
ENCLOSED ARE SOME QUESTIONS AND STATEMENTS THAT I HAVE
WRITTEN ABOUT THIS ORDINANCE AND A COPY OF A
PRESENTATION MADE TO THE P&Z COMMISSION.
I WOULD REQUEST THAT YOU PUT THIS ORDINANCE ON HOLD
UNTIL YOU CAN REALIZE THE NEGATIVE IMPACT THAT IT WILL HAVE
ON IOWA CITY AND THE NEW IOWA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS.
SINC~ERELY, /
BRUCE R. GLASGOW//
834 NORTH JOHNSOn/ST.
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52245
SAO1
SENSITIVE AREA ORDINANCE
WHAT EFFECT WILL THIS PROPOSED ORDINANCE HAVE ON FARMS LOCATED
WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF IOWA CITY?
THESE QUESTIONS ARISE ....
EACH YEAR THE CONTRACT FARMER HAS TO TRIM, REMOVE, CUT DOWN
OR MOW DOWN TREES ON THE FARM. THESE TREES
INVADE THE FARMED AREA AND MUST BE REMOVED. HOW WILL
THIS PROPOSED ORDINANCE WORK WITH OR AGAINST THE FARMER?
SEVERAL PARCELS OF GROUND HAVE BEEN LEFT IDLE DURING THE
PAST YEARS AND ARE NOW READY TO BE PLOWED AND RE-USED. TREES
HAVE GROWN UP IN THESE AREAS AND MUST BE REMOVED. HOW WILL
THIS PROPOSED ORDINANCE AFFECT THE CONTRACT FARMER?
UNDER SOME CURRENT AGREEMENTS WITH THE CONTRACT FARMER... IT
HAS BEEN AGREED THAT CERTAIN FIELDS WILL BE PUT INTO
CULTIVATION. THIS REQUIRES TREES TO BE REMOVED. HOW WILL
THIS PROPOSED ORDINANCE AFFECT THE CONTRACT FARMER?
TREE FARMS AND MANAGED FORESTED AREAS WITHIN THE CITY LIMI~
THERE ARE SEVERAL TREE FARMS AND MANAGED WOODLANDS INSIDE THE
CITY LIMITS. THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ARISE:
HOW WILL THIS ORDINANCE AFFECT EXISTING TREE CONTRACTS WITH
WOODLAND TREE PURCHASERS WHO HAVE CONTRACTS FOR TREE
DELIVERY IN 1996, 1997 AND 19987
WILL THIS PROPOSED ORDINANCE INTERFERE WITH THE OWNERS OF
THESE IOWA CITY TREES WHEN THE TIME COMES FOR REMOVAL?
WILL THE CITY ATTEMPT TO PURCHASE THESE CONTRACTS IN ORDER
TO PRESERVE THE TREES?
TREE FARMERS IN THE IOWA CITY AREA GENERALLY PLANT TWO TREES IN
THE SPACE REQUIREED FOR ONLY ONE TREE. IF BOTH TREES SURVICE
WILL THIS PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROHIBIT THE REMOVAL OF ONE OF
THESE TWO TREES?
IT SHOULD BE POINTED OUT THAT THESE TREES WERE PLANTED
5 TO 8 YEARS AGO BEFORE THE NONSENSE OF SENSITIVE AREA WAS
DREAMED UP.
SAO2
S E N S I T I V E A R E A
IOWA CITY HAS MANY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS ON THE DRAWING
BOARD. HOW WILL THIS ORDINACE AFFECT THESE PROJECTS?
PAGE
ORDINANCE
REGARDLESS OF THE ATTEMPT BY THE CITY OF IOWA CITY TO
EXEMPT ITSELF FROM FOLLOWING THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE, THE
CITY WILL BE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW ALL THE RULES AND REGULATIONS IN
THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE. WILL NOT THIS COST THE TAXPAYERS
OF IOWA CITY AN ADDITIONAL MILLION IN CONSTRUCTION COSTS
JUST FOR THE WATER PLANT AND THE WATER DISTRIBUTION LINES?
A PARTIAL LIST OF THE PROJECTS ON THE DRAWING BOARD THAT
ARE KNOWN TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC ARE LISTED:
THE IOWA CITY WATER PLANT CONSTRUCTION WITH THE NECESSARY
DESTRUCTION OF TREES, CUTTING AND FILLING OF LAND,
REMOVAL OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES, FILLING WETLANDS,
WORKING WITH SLOPES AND RESTORATION OF HISTORICAL BUILDINGS.
THE IOWA CITY WATER PLANT DISTRIBUTION LINES UNDER
1/80, THRU FARMS, UP AND DOWN GULLEYS, OVER AND UNDER
EXISTING PIPE LINES AND THRU FORESTED AREAS.
THESE LINES CAN NOT BE CONSTRUCTED UNDER THE PROPOSED
ORDINANCE WITHOUT THE VIOLATION OF THE INTENT OF THE ORDIN~NCE
AND THE EXPENDITURE OF MANY THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS EXTRA.
THESE DISTRIBUTION LINES TRAVEL FROM THE KXIC TOWER AREA
TO MELROSE AVENUE, FIRST AND ROCHESTER, NORTH DODGE ST
AND PRAIRIE DU CHIEN ROAD.
RAISING DUBUQUE STREET OUT OF THE ANNUAL FLOODS!
ANY CITIZEN COULD FILE A LAW SUIT TO PREVENT THIS IMPROVEMENT
UNDER THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE.
THE MAP
THIS DOCUMENT CALLED THE "MAP" IS FLAWED. LAND THAT WAS IN THE
500 YEAR FLOOD ON TAFT SPEEDWAY WAS NOT UNDER WATER BUT IS
SHOWN IN THE FLOOD AREA. LAND IN FRONT OF THE MAYFLOWER
RESIDENCE HALL (WHICH WAS UNDER THREE FEET OF WATER) IS
SHOWN ON THE MAP AS BEING "HIGH AND DRY". WITH TWO FLAGRANT
TRUTH VIOLATIONS ON A ONE ACRE PORTION OF THE MAP...WHAT
DOES THAT SAY ABOUT THE BALANCE OF THE "MAP"?
SAO3 PAGE THREE
SENSITIVE AREA ORDINANCE
IOWA CITY GOLF COURSES
WILL THIS PROPOSED ORDINANCE REQUIRE GOLF COURSE CONSTRUCTION
TO FOLLOW THE RULES AND REGULATIONS?
CASE IN POINT! THE ELKS COUNTRY CLUB MUST CONSTRUCT TWO
NEW GREENS ON THE EXISTING GOLF COURSE. THESE GREENS
COULD BE ON CITY OWNED LAND OR ON ADJACENT PRIVATE LANDS.
THE CITY IS PROPOSING TO MOVE FOSTER ROAD NORTH INTO A WOODED
GULLY.
TREE REMOVAL, LOW LAND FILLING, HIGH GROUND GRADING WILL BE REQUIRED.
THE PERMITS UNDER THIS ORDINACE COULD TAKE UP TO THREE YEARS .....
IF THEY CAN GET THE PERMITS. WHAT WILL THE PERMITS COST
AND WILL THE ELKS BE FORCED TO CLOSE AND DISBAND BEFORE THIS
HAPPENS?
WHAT IS THE REASON FOR THIS ORDINANCE?
THIS ORDINANCE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LAND, TREES, SLOPES
OR WETLANDS. THIS ORDINANCE IS ABOUT "CONTROL".
CITY ADMINISTRATORS WILL HAVE THE POWER TO STOP WHAT EVER
PROJECT IS PRESENTED .... UNLESS THE LAND OWNER WILL ....
GIVE A PART OF THE LAND FOR PARKS
GIVE A PART OF THE LAND FOR TRAILS
GIVE A PART OF THE LAND FOR FLOOD PLAIN
GIVE A PART OF THE LAND FOR SLOPES
GIVE A PART OF THE LAND FOR FOREST RESERVES
ANY OPTIONS UNDER THIS ORDINANCE?
OH YES. ONE CAN USE MITIGATED WETLANDS IF ONE IS REAL NICE
TO THE PERSON IN CHARGE WHO HAS ALL THE OPTIONS.
BUT...ONE HAS TO ENTER INTO A 5 YEAR REPORTING SCHEDULE: A/ HOW ARE THE TREES GROWING
B/ HOW ARE THE BEAVER, DEER AND COONS BEING CONTROLLED
C/ DATA ON WATER CHEMISTRY. WHAT IS GROWING IN THE WETLANDS!
SAO4
SENSITIVE
AREA
PAGE FOUR
OR D I NANC E
HOW WILL THIS ORDINACE AFFECT DEVELOPMENT IN IOWA CITY?
DEVELOPMENT WILL STOP EXCEPT FOR FLAT FARM GROUND WITH A
LOW SPOT IN THE MIDDLE FOR STORM WATER STORAGE. NO ON WILL
DEVELOP THE GROUND THAT IOWA CITY CUSTOMERS DESIRE. THE FLAT
CORN A~ND BEAN GROUND WILL BE DEVELOPED FOR TRACT HOUSING ...
AND TRAILERS.
SOME IOWA CITY BUILDERS HAVE DEPARTED FROM IOWA CITY PRIOR TO
THIS ORDINanCE AND NOW THIS PROPOSED ORDINANCE WILL BE THE
FINAL BLOW.
THE IOWA CITY COUNCIL SHOULD TAKE PRIDE IN THE FACT THAT
THEIR RULES AND REGULATIONS ARE MAKING THE TOWNS OF
NORTH LIBVERTY, CORALVILLE, WEST BRANCH, KALONAAND COSGROVE
A VIABLE PLACE LIVEo THE RULES AND REGULATIONS PLACED ON
IOWA CITY HOUSING MAKE HOUSING IN THESE TOWNS MUCH LESS
COSTLY.
THIS ORDINANCE IS A "TAKING OF LAND" UNDER SUPREME COURT
DECISIONS.
THERE WILL BE LITIGATION THAT WILL COST TAXPAYERS THOUSANDS
OF DOLLARS FIGHTING THRU THE COURTS TO KEEP THIS PROPOSB~
ORDINANCE IN EFFECT.
(SEE ATTACHED SUPREME COURT DECISION)
THE COST TO THE TAXPAYER TO RUN THIS PROPOSED ORDIN~ .'T. ~
IS VERY HIGH. A CONSERVATIVE FIGURE WOULD BE $250,~10 A~J~EAR
THIS ORDINANCE WOULD REQUIRE: TWO MORE EMPLOYEES, '~
ONE SECRETARY, DESK SPACE, TWO CARS, FRINGE BENEFITS, SICK
PAY, RETIREMENT BENEFITS, AND HOURS OF HELP FROM P&Z
AND HOUSING
THIS IS FOR ONE YEAR...IF WE GET INTO SOME OF THESE 5 YEAR
REPORTING SCHEDULES ..... WHO KNOWS?.
AND...WE MUST REALIZE THE DELAY FACTOR TO THE TAXPAYER TRYING
TO FIGHT HIS/HER WAY THRU THE MAZE OF RULES AND REGULATIONS
THAT NOW EXIST AND THEN DUMP THIS ORDINANCE ON TOP OF
THE EXISTING PILE OF ORDINANCES.
BOTTOM LINE
THE TAX PAYERS OF IOWA CITY DO NOT NEED THIS ORDINANCE.
IS A GOOD GUIDELINE OF WHAT DEVELOPERS, BUILDERS AND
HOME OWNERS SHOULD WORK TOWARD. BUT IT SHOULD NOT BE A
THREAT TO IOWA CITY TAXPAYERS.
IT
SEPT
TOM SCOTT
CHAIRMAN..PLANNINGAND ZONING COMMISION
CIVIC CENTER, IOWA CITY, IOWA
1995
TOM SCOTT A~ND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION:
THE QUESTION:
"DO WE NEED ANOTHER ORDINANCE TO PROTECT THE TREES AND
THE ENVIRONMENT?"
BUT THERE ARE OTHER QUESTIONS THAT MUST BE ANSWERED BEFORE
THE FIRST QUESTION CAN BE ANSWERED...
WHAT IS THE GREATEST THREAT TO EXISTING IOWA CITY TREES?
ONE ANSWER: DISEASE, DEER, BEAVER, FIRE, FLOODING AND DROUGHT
SECOND ANSWER: THE CITY OF IOWA CITY
THIRD ANSWER: UTILITY COMPANIES
FOURTH: CONSTRUCTION AND TREE MAINTENANCE DAMAGE
LETS TALK ABOUT THE DISEASE:
EVERY ELM TREE IN IOWA CITY WILL DIE EVENTUALLY. THE ENTRANCE
TO HICKORY HILL PARK ON FIRST AVE SHOWS 20 DEAD ELM TREES
AND THE CITY DOES NOT HAVE THE TIME, MONEY, OR INCLINATION
TO REMOVE THEM. I HAVE FIVE HUGE BUT DEAD ELMS JUST NORTH
OF HICKORY HILL LPARK ON IST AVE THAT WILL BE REMOVED SOON.
IN MY 40 ACRE TIMBER BEHIND THE MAYFLOWER THE OAK WILT
DISEASE KILLED 40 TREES LAST YEAR AND APPROXIMATELY
THE SAME THIS YEAR. SINCE THE WILT IS SPREAD UNDERGROUND THRU
THE ROOT SYSTEM, PROMPT REMOVAL OF DEAD OAK IS ONE PREVENTION..
THE MAJORITY OF THESE Oi~ TREES ARE BETTER THAN 12" IN DIAMETER
BUT MANY ARE MORE THAN 36" IN DIAMETER.
ONE POSITIVE NOTE ON THE LOSS OF THESE TREES IS THAT THE
REMAINING TREES LOOK BETTER AND THE CLEARING IS THE BEST
PART OF THE FOREST BECAUSE THE GRASS IS GROWING AND THE SUN
FILTERS THRU.
I CLEARED OUT 40 DEAD OAKS LAST YEAR BUT HAVE NOT DONE ANYTHING
THIS YEAR.
PAGE TWO:
LET'S TALK ABOUT DEER AND BEAVER:
TREES CAN NOT BE PLANTED IN IOWA CiTY WITHOUT
A WIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM AROUND THE TREE. DEER KILL THE
TREES BY FEEDING ON THEM AND BY RUBBING THEIR HORNS ON THE
TRUNKS AND GIRDLING THE TREE.
ON THE RIVER FRONT ALL TREES MUST BE SURROUNDED BY WIRE
SO THE BEAVER CAN NOT CUT THE TREE BY CHEWING THE BASE.
ALSO: ON THE RIVER FRONT THE RIP RAP BEING DONE BY THE CITY
ON~ ONLY ONE SIDE OF THE RIVER WILL CAUSE RIVER BANK EROSION
ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE RIVER AND THE HUGE RIVER TREES
WILL BE UNDERMINED AND WILL FALL INT0 THE RIVER.
LET'S TALK ABOUT THE CITY OF IOWA CITY:
STREETS HAVE TO BE WIDENED AND PAVED ETC. THE LOSS OF TREES
UNDER THESE CONDITIONS IS SUBSTANTIAL. THE STREET WIDENING
AT THE NCS ENTRANCE ON NORTH DODGE ST. TOOK OUT FIVE HUGE
OAK TREES. THEY BELONGED TO THE CITY WHEN REMOVED BUT WERE
MINE FOR THE PREVIOUS 20 YEARS.
THE MAINTENANCE AND MOWING AROUND THE TREES ON SCOTT BLVD
SHOWS SEVERE DAMAGE TO THE BASE OF THE TREE FROM MOWER
AND WEED EATER USE. YOU ARE INVITED TO INSPECT THE
REST OF THE TOWN.
SEVERAL YEARS AGO ON GREEN MOUNTAIN DRIVE I DID A SUBDIVISION
WHICH REQUIREED A "MARY NEUHAUSER SWAMP". IN ORDER TO
GET THE REQUIRED WATER STORAGE CAPACITY SEVERAL ACRES WERE
NEEDED. THESE WERE WOODED ACRES IN THE REAR YARDS. CITY
SPECIFICATIONS REQUIRED T~? THE "SWAMPt' NOT HAVE ANY TREES.
WE HAD TO REMOVE MORE THAN 120 TREES FROM THE BACKYARDS
LATER--THE CITY REQUIRED THAT I PLANT 5 TREES ON THE TOP OF
THE DAM. THAT ORDINANCE IS STILL ON THE BOOKS. "THOU
SHALL NOT PLANT TREES IN STORMWATER BASINS".
LETS TALK ABOUT UTILITY COMPANIES:
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES IN IOWA CITY
REQUIRES THE TOPPING, THE CUTTING THRU OR THE REMOVAL OF
STREET TREES.
UNDERGROUND UTILITY INSTALLATIONS IN NEW SUBDIVISIONS
DO NOT HAVE THESE PROBLEMS.
PAGE
THREE:
LETS TALK ABOUT CONSTRUCTION AND TREE MAINTENANCE DAMAGE.I
PROTECTION OF THE EXISTING TREES CAN BE DONE BUT THE
CONTRACTORS MUST HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE TO DO SO.
ONE CAN NOT PARK UNDER A TREE, ONE CAN NOT PUT A LOAD OF
GRAVEL OR SAND AT THE BASE OF A TREE, CEMENT TRUCKS CAN NOT
CLEAN OUT THEIR TRUCKS AT THE BASE OF THE TREE. A FENCE
SZ~OULD BE PUT AROUND THE DRIP LINE OF EACH TREE THAT IS TO
BE SAVED. A TREE CAN NOT BE SAVED TWO FEET FROM A FOUNDATION.
LET'S JUST FACE THE FACTS AND REMOVE TREES THAT CAN NOT
SURVIVE.
THE CITY CAN NOT REQUIRE THIS BY ORDINANCE...IT WILL TAKE
EXAMPLE AND EDUCATION.
IN MY LAST SUBDIVISION THE FAVORITE PARKING SPOT FOR THE
CITY INSPECTOR WAS UNDER THE BIG OAK TREE. A FENCE WAS
PUT AROUND THE TREE TO PUT A STOP TO THAT PRACTICE.
LET'S LOOK AT THE ENTIRE CITY:
SINCE THE CITY OF IOWA CITY HAS A GOOD SHARE OF THE WOODED
LAND AND THE UNIVERSITY HAS ABOUT 30% OF IOWA CITY (WOODED AND
NOT WOODED) AND ALL SINGLE PARCELS OF LAND ARE EXEMPTED, IT SEE
THAT THE REMAINING 10% IS THE SUBJECT OF /UN¥ PROPOSED ORDINANCE
THE LAND OWNERS AND THE DEVELOPERS OF THIS LAND KNOW THE
VALUE OF A TREE ON A TRACT OF LAND. THEY HAVE AND WILL CONTINU~
TO PROTECT THIS VALUE.
PAGE
FOUR:
NOW: LET'S TALK ABOUT COSTS
WHAT WILL IT COST TO IMPLEMENT THIS
ORDINANCE?
LETtS FIGURE ONE PERSON SCHOOLED AND EXPERIENCED IN
TREE MANAGEMENT, A NICE WHITE CAR, A SECRETARY AND A
FULL TIME HELPER. I ESTIMATE $110,000 PER YEAR. WHAT
IS YOUR ESTIMATE?
I WOULD RAThER SPEND THIS MONEY ON PLANTING NEW TREES AND
TAKING CARE OF EXISTING CITY TREES.
ATTACHED ARE EXCERPTS FOR THE 10 LBS OF LITERATURE COLLECTED
BY THE STAFF COVERING COSTS AND GOALS.
BOTTOM LINE:
WE DON'T NEED THIS ORDINANCE AT THIS TIME. IT PINPOINTS TREES
IN CERTAIN AREAS AND EXEMPTS OTHERS. COOPERATION AND
EDUCATION WILL FURTHER THE CITY GOALS OF TREE PRESERVATION.
IT IS COSTLY. IT WILL BE THE FIRST TO GO DOWN THE DRAIN W~EN
BELT'-TIGHTENING SETS IN VERY SOON. UNFORTUNATELY THE CITY
CAN NOT TAKE CARE OF THE PROBLEMS THAT IT HAS NOW WITHOUT
ADDING NEW PROBLEMS TO ITS AGENDA.
THE CITY HAS ADEQUATE ORDINANCES TO DO THE JOB REQUIRED
WITHOUT AN ORDINANCE CALLING FOR COERCION, FINES AND
PUNISHMENT AS THE INCENTIVES.
RUC,ECTIVELY SUBMITTED:
E R. GLASGOW /I
834 NO. JOHNSON S~Io
IOWA CITY, IOWA 5~/240
THE SUPREME COURT: Developers the En onmefit _to
~ND USE '
Co n Limits Governments on Prope y
,.~:he.case...wa a_b_cou gh[.by. Flor e ne~
; . Cont!n~ed'F:~om Page J Dolan,~.he_oyxrnerofafamliybusines$
Ll?e_..8.Boy Sunply. Company on Mole.
found a new friend today." .Stt~et..n.T ga~
Chief Justice Rehnqulst's maJoj-Jt) wl[h..o~ cllarge in her constitutional
ol~inion was Jolned'~y J,;~tqc'~ San- ~allan~by, ~f~g~hl~hs tn Action, a.
~ra-O~y ~;~§?.'A~iU~o~.M. g~n~ pF6~.~y.Hghis'organlzatinn.
~f.-Rfiifihlfi ~illi i~a Clarenc~ Odiitde Oregon, the case had been
T~omig-... watched clogely by property rlghu
'" ~bstices Harry A. Blaekmun ant. advocates. who cheered the outcome
Ruth Bader Ghnsburg signed the dis after years of frustrated expectations
sifiilnj opinion by Justice Stevens as the Court moved only Incremental-
~vhlle Justice Divld }J. ~outir flied
OWTler to thb government. ' '
· : :'In this area, you're Lfivarlably
dealing with Hsk assessment,. not
with certainty," Professor Lazart~
said. YWhat risks are you willing to
take? That's what environmental
protectinn Is all about You're trying
to avoid Irretrievable losses.;': ..~..
[chad the case closely. John Ech~
a,.general eaurizal of the ^udu-
ben Society, said the rolin8 would
make land-use decisDn-molting more
time-consuming and expenslv& for
Shifting the
~i~parate dissenting opinion.
/':'he decision, Dolan v. City of TI.
/gard. No. 93-518. was .b. Rsed_on.th~.
/ taglrlgs clause at. the-Fifth _Amend.
~.~e~L.~'~i~ ~'rovJdes..tha! .privatt
~roperty shall not be ."takan lot p,u,b
XQll~: use without just compensation.
cat governmants, and probably also
for developer~, who will huve to do
more studies and supply more tnfor-
,,..q?t~Uon~ ~ ~ ~ ......
""*l~*~'~S an extraor*~ary ~truslon
burden of proof in bymecounmtotheauthon oflo
:FWesee no reason why the taking., government" Mr. Echeverrla said.
se of the Fifth Amendment, a., . . . "It elevates the interests of property
a part of the Bill el Rlghl~ ea restactinE owners over the Int,e, rests of the corn-
Its[ Amendment or Fourd* '"' . munlty as a whole,'
endmen[. should be relegat.,od t( nrnnort~r 11~$a /gut anotherenvironmentallawyer,
status o! a poor relation, th~ ~' ~'V'~" "J '"'~""" /Thn Searchlager el Bm Environmen-
ef Justice sam In his majorlq / tal Defense Fund, said he thought the
I Court had set a test that local govern.
Mgpmlon. L men[s, Including Tigard, woul_d. be
Seeks 'Elint[ to QuaaBly' . .'~able to meet "Localities shoulcln t be
/Itc sald that while "no preclst tv3e~w:..2'l£s..finaJJY_?.a-Pp~ned,"....s.a. lcL ~:~ted by[his." he said.
/mathematical calculation Is r~ Wlllla_m It. MelinL3d, generalcounseJ Mr. Searchlager said tt wasslRnlfl.
/ quired" to justify land-use res[no- ~ili~_l~ilibtb for Jusfii:~. ~ i:onser- cant that the Court had held that
0ohs. a city must make "some elfor~ 7pt!ve ~roup that flied a brief in! while Tigard had not lustIliad these
to quahilly" Its evtdence on the rein- .Mrs. Dotnil. , precise i'estrtctlons the city could
[Ionship betw~n [he Impact of tht ,.?111ng the decision a. dramatic have simply banned all development
development and the requirement viclb. r~,~//§atldt~tm.p~,..:r~,;eel~y?. In lts flood plain. Manyiooalland-use
~ imposed on the landowner. - t~ ~/?urt i t~op,§itlon mat the enag' ordinances prohibit rather than re-
7Tigard had made some fairly de, '~.fihfiolqng~)ust, lfy_th, e, meansinthe strlctdevelopmentlnfloodplntns, he
/ tailed studies, estimating that the en. re~Lllfi{Ion at [finn use. said. . ..
/ larged store would generat.e. 435 extra Tr~nd Instead of Departure /xR~ ~iivldual Determlnadoe
trips a day Into the city s central Richard J. Lazarus, a law prolea. /Renard n~ Ben ~zoverements'
business dtstrtcL But Chief Justlet sor"~l'~/~hT~.ton [Jfi~;~r~{[~ lg l~t t/~we~ to ~)ne land ~:hef Justlt.~
Rehnqulst said that.the city had L§Ul§,~U6~rk~cl6fithecaseforble /R"~hnoulst said that ~vh e "cosstir-I
failed to show how that additional ' ' ~
traffic Justified the Tequhement fat, city, said the standard the Court set lag entire areas o! Lite city aspart
tpdav confirmed a trimd rather [hap an overs land-use plan was a valid
X.._.the pedestrian and bike path. .,marking ~ sharp departure. ',~l~lLe., - eg s at ve de[arm nation." the dlf-
~ The Chief Justice said that th~ ~roportlonallty test in isolation taper- farenee tn th s case was that the city
/cuy's assertion that the pathwa) ~[6ctly ffilr," he said in on Intervib,~ had made not a peneral but an Indl-
/ "could offset some. of the traffic de- ,~dding that th6 troubling portion at vi'~ual determina?tan that a landown-
/ mand" was only a 'conclusery state
burden of proo! from the property \~ro~ert¥ as the price for permission
~...ment" with inadequate proof. Ule decision lay in Its shifting of the ker must yield control over part of her-
vernments' nower to iustffying'"~estrictions on land use. The prope
In a decision thatx go r . ~ . ; .~.,.,4 'in'he decision, in Tigard, Ore., is owned
e L,,ot~rt sal~ ~es - ,
land for pubhc ~sc, ~e Sup~em .... ~ ~-- son Dan. ~be city wanted 10 pecccnt set as~
day ~at g~mments must bear the Dur~en us 0--
. '.n. w re boh va Id 'ur~oses pr~?d ~eve16pmenl's advecse
to buho/ .... that were related to the development ...~..
~d~i]~l,Lo~[~est First. they es etlon . . . .. But ,he ,nal.r,tY went on ,o
men~ ? a [~Y.~I ] LitIons the- In h s dissenllng oplmon, JUSt,ce lish the secued level of ~qu ry
S~k~ff~fff-~:ra--e~'~at test stop at tills phase rodess the devel~.p::,d lndlvldaallzed aetermmaUun '
~he Chief
ffentlna II~ding
In a decision that limited governments' power to
require property owners to set aside part o! their
land for public use. the Supreme Court said yester-
day that governments must bear the burden o!
justifying restrictions on land use. The prope~
involved in the decision. in Tigard. Ore., is owned
Florence Dolan, who toured the land yesterday w,
her son Dan. The city wanted 10 percent set ass~
The decismn puts local govern-
meets Io a two.part test. First, they
must show that the conditions they
seek to attach serve s "legitimate
public purpose." Tigard met that test.
~he Chief Juslice sad. because pre-
ventln~ liedlag and reducing Iralite
coogestton were bolh valid purposes
Ihat were related to the development
restrlcllons
In his dissenting opinion. Justice
Sievens sa~d that the inquiry should
stop at this phase uldeSs the develop-'
er could show illat tile reslrlCtlon was
proposed developmem's advelse
i'ects" as to cast doubt on tile
hsh Ihe 5ec~Jnd level of inquiry
,l indivlduah~ud deiermLnatlou"
Tree protection programs should be admin-
istered so as to reduce the number of viola-
tions and Io punish violators quickl.~ and
effeclively. To reduce the number of ~iola-
tipns. programs should be accompanied by
continuing education. stressing tile benefits of
trees in the urban environment and outlining
the elements of the progralrn A requirement
that notices of applications for tree rems,. al be
posle~.~-tl!e.__sit~ would alert citizens and en-
courage their participation at a phase in :he
decision process where their comments would
be most useful.
Finally, for administration to be erfecti~e.
staff should be adequate in numbers and traiq:
in~.g so that a ,ntiuuing. active enforcement
program. involving periodic systematic in-
spection. could be conducted and reliable
professional advice could be given.
Protection programs should require that
during construction adequate measures be
taken to prevent damage to trees designated to
be kept. Ifs tree de$i_gpated to be..g_ke~! is dat~.
aged and subsequently dies, tile landowner
s~$;,]~e required to taplace it and to p~for
the loc__al_go_ver n Brent) exp_e. nses in supet~ is_i_ng
the repla. ce~mcn.t The prevalent practice of lev-
.x ing a fine on the owner does not usually result
m any improvement to the environment.
...... , ' ' ': .-,- ' · :t:" ': .-.t~- .[,, .., ,.. . - ' : "-". .. ~-~.-~-,
-. ~ -..,:~.~ ...... ;t.: '-to '-" '" ' ' " ' .... "
-. . . .. . .. : .... ..,,~I...: ~,. .~'. . · . ..... :.,
-: [h~ ta }~r~ly ~y hebd ~or fines or other p~ndlhe~:'~he ;~f. :'-:. '..;~' i ' ' - · ,-- .~' . . -.-
· -~ ~le~ firs ~le~ ~d · Move tluofigh ~te e~p~ bfdevelbp :. -~ e.~ k~a~',; .A~ ..,L~a~$ G~ -
' . me~t, '~ ~a la ~x a~a ~he ~oal should b~ ....... ~ - - - - - '
".. . .. P ...... ~.. · ........ ~ . ,..:..~'eds ffiLh~ th~ ~aLlon based on
· · I edu~fioli bf dbv~lopeYa ~btk, arid voI~]: - , ~;'; , :.: .~: :-: .r~ , ~-. .~ .......
' ~ ~ee~d ~l~tmtln~ find ae~ally t~ ~ ~t~etf6rm eSm~eti. '-. ~. ~, .,. · .... ., .....
~ ~ro~ldlng ebbS[ions ~or zoOrig chfinge$ or den~R '~ Free nttendnnee at conbn~ng ed ~cntlon
v
v
v
v
~ermRa
Stop wink orders
Delaying occupancy permit
Itolding funds in escrow
Posting of performance bonds (tnciudlng the ~uarou.
bed survival of trees ~thin a given period, such as 18
months}.
· such as ~Balldtng IVith Trees Winkshop" (gee page :
: 8). , . :~.
V CredRe agelast pie]ring or land, coping when lings,
e~stlng trees me IeR on si~ mM 8dequa~ly pro-
Awards and publicity for successful tram phntmp;,,
bee protection, wildlife habitat preservation and
other acMevemenLs.
The idea of foetrying ozl saving old trees seems stroptel but somethn~ in theh' zeal to
punish builders for development (which In and of itself is mlsgulded-butlders ae often
p.n[~hed for the 's'ms" of others), people who write ord[...ces lose cite of it, Planting large
new trees, because it is a pain for builders and becm,~e it is costly, becomes the prescribed
p,mi_~hmenL
Once again people with the best Intentions pass a counter-productive policy into
ordinance. The tree species available at the nursery in the caliper sizes most often specified
by ordl~opceA are not the game as those that are lost during coustruetiom The forest is
never the same arld the whole issue o£ replanting becomes another bone of contention, an
issue that drives a wedge between the tree eatre and construction tmdnstries, further
hindering the exchange of important kLfonnation.
An ord_lnn.ce should focus oil the trees we have. It should not use the threat of huge
planting e~e?es ~ a threat,.h?ld over the heads of bu'.fl, ders who are often punished for the
actions of mvil enDneers. utilities and others. If replanting needs to be done. |t should focus
on doing it cost effectively (i.e. smaller stock) and in a more ecologically sound m~nner
(native species).
Trees should never be a p.nishment. they should be the reward.
THAN WHAT IT ACTUALLY SAYS. ~ ... ~:~
Information saves trees. No matter what an ordinance says, if information ooe~n t tiow
'effectively from tree ca.re people to eomtmction people, trees will die.
The process of drafting an ordinance is the perfect opportunity to initiate the
relationships beta, een different people and groups that will deterre!he the ordimmee's long
term success.
If a builder doesn't have the name and number of a tree care person who can answer
a spur.of. the-moment question. they might make a fatal mistake. The ordinance can have
· all the provisions for ptmi~hment it wanu, but uuless it facilitates communication It simply
won't accomplish its goals.
The process of gathering the information necessary to write an ordl~ance that
encompasses every aspect of development and construction is a great oppo~mity for
foresters to meet engineers, for builders to meet foresters, for engineers to meet concerned
citizens, etc. This takes a while but the effect is a better understanding of the parameters
each group must work within, and.th.e?~ore, .abetter ordinance.
In the process, groups and individuals talk to each other who uadltiotufily have worked
separately and even at cross purposes.
In the end, the words set to paper are no~ that important (except in their capacity to
teach). It Is the quality of the relationships formed through the development and
implementatio~i oi the ordinance that ultimately determine its succe~
Conciusiout The va-iters and a tree protection ordinance must first ask themselves the
question, *,~,r~ we here to save as many trees as we can, or do we simply want to p.nlgh
development?" If the real I~oal is to stop ~rther development, they are better off writing
lel~islatlon trader which the community purchases the land in question. Trytot to stop
development with a tree ordinance is terribly counter-productive. Development marches
on, and the k~ormatlon neccs~ to sav~ trees gets lost in a morass of emotions and
politics. Trees will continue to die, no matter what p.nl_~hments the writers command.
If the real goal is to save as man), trees as possible, the writers* best bet is' to work with
. · ' tioo neeess to save trees and formklg
the construction commumty, exchanging til,e,.ufforma. .~ . -..,__
the positive working relationships that will serve the torest wen tot man), years mto me
hittire.
TREE PROTECTION ORDINANCES:
A CIiA~CE FOR EDUCATION) COM3fUl~C~TION ~ COOPERATION
Chdstlau Slems
Lasting Woodlands~ In~
Many M,nnesota communities have recently passed or will soon pass ~i~.rd~at
is meant~o preserve and protect trees where people build. My job is to g~,ou~ region:~l
perspectiv~ on the ~u/: o~ tree ordinances.
Rather than give you a clause-by-clause account of the ordi~nnces currently on the
books (a publication with ~.ny existing ordinances will be available through this
conference), I :am going to make some general observations Based on my experience working
in a variety of communities with groups on different sides o£ the fence,
My hope, and the objective of Lasting Woodlands, Inc., is to save as many construction
site trees as possible [n developing communities. I am convinced that the best way to
accomplish this is not through antagonistic activism and efforts to "shut down" development.
That doesn't accomplish anything, Development marches oa and builders are more likely
to wipe out all the trees ~n their path and eliminate them as an hsue ff they come under
heavy fire from environmentalists. Too often an ordinance becomes the battleground
between builders and environmentn!ists.
The key to saving trees is the cooperative exchange of infoi marion between many groups
of people-builders, arbodsts, concerned citizens, civil engineers. planners and others.
Potentially, a tree ordi~nnce is the ideal tool to accomplish this end. But all too often
h~mnn emotion and personal .nimosltles get in the way of constructive leghlatiom I%e seen
it happen over and over in the Twin Cities area
Here then are the three tenets of my overall philosophy (my ~'regional perspective") on
tree ordinances:
I. EDUCATION IS BETTER THAN PENALIZATION.
· How can we expect developers and builders to save trees when many of them don't
know the kinds of actloas that kill them? No penalty, no matter how big, can bring a tree
bac~k'to life once it has been damaged dt~ing construction. Education. the transfer of
information, is the most ~portant component in any tree protection proir.m- People can
sav~ trees only when they know how,
Lasting Woodlands [s based upon the idea that it is better to work with people than
against. Too oftea good-hearted people who are worried about the timire of their
commttul~g woodlsnd~ tak~ a hard llne agelast development [n general and construction
in pa~icular. l ~ay "too often" because this is counter-productive.
Developers and builders mak~ their IMng [n a volatile, boom-or-bust industry.
Variables in the way they do bnsines~ such as restrictions, regulations and ordlnnnces add
tlme to each job. They feel squeezed because the additional costs associated with these
variables ~_ay or may not be recovered when the project ~ sold at market price. They
naturally feel that people who take a hard line agal,_~[ them dodt understand their industry
and axe trying to run them out of busine.~. They are anlikely to adhere to any oral{hence
regulations when this is the situation.
Howeveh when the ~Witers of an ordinance make an attempt to Mfo. rm rather than
punish, when they make an honest effort to learn the construction business'and teach uee
preservation within the context of the real world (as the builders see it). the story can be
very different. People respond positively to efforts to meet them halfway. and like to be
supplied with up-to-date in. formation that helps them adapt to a changing marketplace.
When the nature of the relationship between concerned people and construction
industry folks is one of cooperation and education, a lot more trees get saved.
How can urban foresters and arbodsts teach tree preservativn? While no buffder has
to read University of Minnesota Extension publications or Department Agriculture
publications about construction damage and oak wilt (excellent though they are), and many
(believe [t or not) don't spare the time to read every Lasting Woodlands word-for-word, they
all must read the ordinance itself
By way of ouflmmg the process by which builders are to save trees the or&n .ce can
act,~lly teach basic tree preservatlon teehnlques. Rather than simply dole out l~nalues for
each tree lost, an ordinance can mandate practices that save trees and teach the
fundamentals of construction damage. An ordinance can't, and should not ever try to, make
builders professional forester~ or arborlsts. It can, however, teach the basics and lay the
groundwork for continuing cooperation and education.
A lot more trees will be saved when the tone of an ordinance switches from punitive
to cooperative. ,~
II. PRESERVATION iS PREFERABLE TO 1LEPLACEMENT.
.-,',.-..-- .-~ ;.
Common sense tells us it makes more sense to concentrate oa pres~r,~.g e~stin'~
mature trees than it does !o try to repl.a. ce the lost fores! tree by. tree. Old tr¢ _ 't~ttcsr,~
tha~ young. Or, as our friend Don Wdleke says, "the big trees in our towns ~day ~ the
only ones we will ever see."
SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMENTS:
by Larry R Schnittjer
MMS CONSULTANTS, INC
1917 S Gilbert Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
PURPOSE:
Permit and define reasonable use of properties
REASONABLE USE is not defined, however, the authors'
intent is alluded to in several locations. If the
illustrations and concepts as described are not
marketable or have a limited market in Iowa City, is the
"reasonable use" reasonable?
B. DEFINITIONS:
DIAMETER, TREE TRUNK:
Either eliminate the last sentence in the definition or give
additional thought to how multiple trunks should be
defined .... ie six 2 inch trunks does not equal one 12 inch
trunk '
FLOOD PLAIN:
As defined the caption should read FLOOD PLAIN, 100 YEAR.
GRADING:
As defined grading includes setting fence posts, planting
trees and similar activities.
SLOPE:
what is the purpose of the last part of the definition?
C. EXEMPTIONS:
There is no exemption for existing multifamily or commercial
uses or platted lots in commercial or multifamily zon.~d areas.
E. USES PERMITTED ....
With the exception of "Private Open Space" no private uses are
permitted, it would seem possible that some reasonable use of
these areas should be permitted.
3 ....... "will be restored" should be revised to "shall be
restored by those person(s) responsible for the disturbance.
F.2. There is NO provision in the ordinance for Commercial or
industrial development of tracts requiring OSA Zoning.
G. WETLANDS:
Current Federal Regulations allow for the elimination of small
parcels of wetlands (less than one acre) through the 404
permit process.. why not include a similar provision in
this ordinance?
The Federal regulation Process appears to be in a state of
evolution as to the review and authority process... Why not
revise the "US Arms, Corps of Engineers" to some appropriate
generic Federal authority?
Wetland requires a OSA Zoning application, as written an
PDH application must accompany the OSAapplication, therefore
t must be assumed that since Commercial and Industrial Uses
are not applicable to the OPDH process, either the ordinance
does not apply to these uses, or these uses are not allowed to
have wetlands, or if wetlands exist in commercial or
industrial zones (which they do), will the USE OF THESE LOTS
OR TRACTS WILL NOT BE ALLOWED '
There are several locations where "to the extent possible is
used... either there should be further definition of this
phrase or it should be eliminated and/or definite language
used.
1.2.c. The previous sections (I.2.a. & 1.2.b) enumerated
Sensitive Areas Plan requirements.. there is no requirement
enumerated in this section, however, Section C.l.a.4)
indicates that a Sensitive Areas Development Plan is required.
1.4.a. This paragraph gives further reinforcement to the
question of applicability to Commercial or Industrial
development or uses, in that there is no Minimum, Lot Size for
Commercial uses, therefore as written there would not be any
allowed construction area.
N.3.c ................ "rear lanes" Why not call an alley an
alley?
In general terms, this ordinance would be a lot easier to accept if
it had been written in more of a sense of cooperation with
developers. As written, it gives nearly all of the ultimate
decision to the reviewing staff. If staff doesn't like the plan,
it is nearly impossible to get the plan to the political arena for
a possibly less biased review. Terms like "may be prohibited",
"deemed necessary", "may require", "to the extent possible", have
no limitation or definable measure that may be expected to be
imposed by staff.
I am not opposed to development limitations for environmentally
sensitive areas, however I do feel that this ordinance goes
overboard.. to the point where reasonable use of property may not
When the Stormwater Management Ordinance was enacted nearly 20
years ago, it was written by professionals, and training sessions
were held to assist the local development community and their
professional(s) in the implementation of adequate designs and
understanding the principles involved. This ordinance was drafted
by city staff, using a compilation of ordinances and ideas of other
communities, apparently without consultation of professionals in
areas of grading and erosion control or wetland specialists. The
reason I make this observation is I would think that if these
professionals had been involved, there would have been more
specific requirements of what to do, rather than twenty some pages
of "shall nots~' and/or generic terminology.
I have definite concerns on the extreme limitations on grading that
are being imposed by this ordinance. Both in terms of the
council's desire to commit themselves and other governmental
agencies and the private development sector. Steep Slopes as
defined and proposed to be regulated, are an extreme overkill, and
if enforced to the degree possible, will preclude good and/or
reasonable grading design and may impede accessibility for the
physically impaired.