Loading...
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.