Here's a question that's puzzled me for a while. When developers submit site plans for approval, they always include landscaping plans. They pull out artist renderings showing full-grown glorious trees and green space with lots of happy citizens strolling beneath. Invaribly the plan gets approved. I know that our city zoning ordinances require various percent of green space, etc, etc.
But you know the end of the story. The trees die and are cut down. The grass dies and is covered with gravel. Then what? Does that mean that the zoning code or PUD requirements no longer apply? Do the rules only apply for the first 6 months? Who do you report it to? What would happen if you did?
Does anybody know?
Quote from: PonderInc on December 09, 2010, 02:05:59 PM
Here's a question that's puzzled me for a while. When developers submit site plans for approval, they always include landscaping plans. They pull out artist renderings showing full-grown glorious trees and green space with lots of happy citizens strolling beneath. Invaribly the plan gets approved. I know that our city zoning ordinances require various percent of green space, etc, etc.
But you know the end of the story. The trees die and are cut down. The grass dies and is covered with gravel. Then what? Does that mean that the zoning code or PUD requirements no longer apply? Do the rules only apply for the first 6 months? Who do you report it to? What would happen if you did?
Does anybody know?
From past experience, City of Tulsa landscape requirements are so basic and minimal that developers have no problems satisfying them and usually go far beyond the minimum that the city requires. I think that the minimum must be maintained or you face possible fines. I'll look it up.
trees that die within a year have to be replaced with a tree of the same age as the others at the current date. i think it extends that if the replacement dies within a year it has to be replaced, and so on and so on. I've had to report several slacking developers around here. When city of tulsa had all those trees die downtown they had to be replaced per code. I believe I heard they were bonded with the subcontractor who was supposed to put them in, so the subcontractor ate that deal. The older a tree, the more expensive to replace, so it is in these developer's interest to keep the young ones living, rather than let them die and hope no one reports them.
Ok, I'm getting a definitive answer from a reliable source at the city, but. . .the code suggests by it's language that property owners are responsible for maintenance. If this is enforced they are liable for fines up to $100 for each day in violation.
Now whether they are liable for anything above and beyond the bare minimum, I don't know.
You can't look at the rendering. You have to actually look at the landscape plan submitted. The rendering is simply a sales tool.
you also have to stay on top of them for any landscape plan alterations. It is a standard scummy practice to submit a landscape plan, get the public off your back, then sneak in a landscape plan amendment later. there should be a rule that says no landscape amendments for 2 years or so.
I just re-read that part of the zoning code, and it definitely implies that the landscaping must be maintained and not slowly removed over time.
One example that jumps to mind is the Home Depot at 41st and Sheridan. Almost all of the "island" trees in the parking lot have died and have been removed. (Pretty ironic, since Home Depot SELLS trees!) I doubt that they were ever irrigated, as required by city ordinance... but the city ordinance only requires islands to be 3 feet wide, which doesn't give the tree much of a chance from the beginning.
I'll try to get a photo next time I'm out that way, and I'll post it as an example.
I'd be interested to see other examples of dead/removed landscaping that people know of around town. Provide a picture and the address/intersection. Then, perhaps, we can figure out who to report these to at the City.
Quote from: PonderInc on December 09, 2010, 04:04:39 PM
I'd be interested to see other examples of dead/removed landscaping that people know of around town.
I've not been by in a few weeks. How're those trees in the park at 6th and Main? They've been less than alive for some time.
Quote from: PonderInc on December 09, 2010, 04:04:39 PM
I just re-read that part of the zoning code, and it definitely implies that the landscaping must be maintained and not slowly removed over time.
One example that jumps to mind is the Home Depot at 41st and Sheridan. Almost all of the "island" trees in the parking lot have died and have been removed. (Pretty ironic, since Home Depot SELLS trees!) I doubt that they were ever irrigated, as required by city ordinance... but the city ordinance only requires islands to be 3 feet wide, which doesn't give the tree much of a chance from the beginning.
I'll try to get a photo next time I'm out that way, and I'll post it as an example.
I'd be interested to see other examples of dead/removed landscaping that people know of around town. Provide a picture and the address/intersection. Then, perhaps, we can figure out who to report these to at the City.
report them. beautification starts one property at a time. if I recall we have more code enforcement officers now to deal with this. It will help though if you pull the landscape plan for them from incog (ugh). landscape plans are not a "best effort" exercise.
Quote from: inteller on December 09, 2010, 04:19:14 PM
report them. beautification starts one property at a time. if I recall we have more code enforcement officers now to deal with this. It will help though if you pull the landscape plan for them from incog (ugh). landscape plans are not a "best effort" exercise.
21st & Harvard, Burger Street http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=14191.msg146339#msg146339
Quote from: Townsend on December 09, 2010, 04:12:35 PM
I've not been by in a few weeks. How're those trees in the park at 6th and Main? They've been less than alive for some time.
They replaced most of them during the summer.
Ok, according to a very reliable source, if the violation is within a PUD than the city will get involved and enforce the situation. If it is not than their is very little anyone can do, because the language in the code is not really legally binding. That's why code enforcement doesn't pursue such cases.
The language in the code is too vague to hold up to challenge.
PUD=Enforceable
Couple of big problems with trying to landscape a large slab of asphalt or concrete, besides that fact that it ain't gonna work!
3 feet is nowhere near enough room for a tree to live. Can't get the water and other nutrients it needs and cannot have root growth to physically support the tree. Good way to torture and kill a young tree.
Rule of thumb; the ground around the tree should be as large as the expected size of the canopy of that tree. The root system of a healthy tree will be about the same diameter as the canopy. Maybe a little "flatter" underground due to so much clay in the ground around here.
Second, and almost as important. Notice how many times you see new plantings of trees and there is this little "volcano cone" shaped pile of wood chips at its base. Somewhere along the line, someone sold the unknowing an amazing bill of goods. That is another excellent way to torture, then kill a young tree.
I guess we have brought our foreign policy into the landscaping realm.
Quote from: Gaspar on December 10, 2010, 07:51:52 AM
Ok, according to a very reliable source, if the violation is within a PUD than the city will get involved and enforce the situation. If it is not than their is very little anyone can do, because the language in the code is not really legally binding. That's why code enforcement doesn't pursue such cases.
The language in the code is too vague to hold up to challenge.
PUD=Enforceable
just a point of clarification though, the code enforcement officers also enforce PUD violations...it just takes them longer because they have to pull all the PUD documentation and amendments to see what is currently valid and what isn't. if you go to incog (ugh) and do this homework for them it makes resolution happen a lot sooner.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 10, 2010, 08:12:57 AM
Couple of big problems with trying to landscape a large slab of asphalt or concrete, besides that fact that it ain't gonna work!
3 feet is nowhere near enough room for a tree to live. Can't get the water and other nutrients it needs and cannot have root growth to physically support the tree. Good way to torture and kill a young tree.
Rule of thumb; the ground around the tree should be as large as the expected size of the canopy of that tree. The root system of a healthy tree will be about the same diameter as the canopy.
Yep. This explains why Utica Square has huge, healthy trees... and every modern PUD has sad little shrubs or dead trees in their pitiful afterthoughts of "landscaped" islands.
The landscaping requirements are a joke because they are essentially designed to fail. We could easily cut our parking requirements by a half or a third, and provide plenty more room for viable landscaping.... with thousands of square feet to spare for (hey!) additional development!
Think about it: every 1 parking space in a development requires more than 200 SF of land. The minimum parking space is 8.5' x 18' (up to 10 x 18) and the "aisles" in between rows are anywhere from 11-24' wide. The amount of wasted asphalt is mind boggling. Imagine how well the trees would grow if each tree were allocated a single parking space, instead of a three foot wide strip of dirt.
I also think that the landscaping islands in parking lots should be required to run north/south. This way, there would be shade in the morning and evening where people could park. It kills me when I have to park on these massive, barren heat islands when it's 100 degrees outside, and the little shrubbery islands run east/west. Not a speck of usable shade to be found.
Quote from: PonderInc on December 10, 2010, 02:28:36 PM
Yep. This explains why Utica Square has huge, healthy trees... and every modern PUD has sad little shrubs or dead trees in their pitiful afterthoughts of "landscaped" islands.
The landscaping requirements are a joke because they are essentially designed to fail. We could easily cut our parking requirements by a half or a third, and provide plenty more room for viable landscaping.... with thousands of square feet to spare for (hey!) additional development!
Think about it: every 1 parking space in a development requires more than 200 SF of land. The minimum parking space is 8.5' x 18' (up to 10 x 18) and the "aisles" in between rows are anywhere from 11-24' wide. The amount of wasted asphalt is mind boggling. Imagine how well the trees would grow if each tree were allocated a single parking space, instead of a three foot wide strip dirt.
I also think that the landscaping islands in parking lots should be required to run north/south. This way, there would be shade in the morning and evening where people could park. It kills me when I have to park on these massive, barren heat islands when it's 100 degrees outside, and the little shrubbery islands run east/west. Not a speck of usable shade to be found.
+1 Tulsa Parking requirements are moronic, bordering on criminal.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 10, 2010, 08:12:57 AM
Couple of big problems with trying to landscape a large slab of asphalt or concrete, besides that fact that it ain't gonna work!
3 feet is nowhere near enough room for a tree to live. Can't get the water and other nutrients it needs and cannot have root growth to physically support the tree. Good way to torture and kill a young tree.
Rule of thumb; the ground around the tree should be as large as the expected size of the canopy of that tree. The root system of a healthy tree will be about the same diameter as the canopy. Maybe a little "flatter" underground due to so much clay in the ground around here.
Second, and almost as important. Notice how many times you see new plantings of trees and there is this little "volcano cone" shaped pile of wood chips at its base. Somewhere along the line, someone sold the unknowing an amazing bill of goods. That is another excellent way to torture, then kill a young tree.
I generally agree with you but there are many exceptions. Through Up with Trees (I am on their Board of Directors) we have planted all kinds of trees in all kinds of places. If anything, the sides of highways are terrible planting locations and the ground is in large part, fill concrete and debris.
Some trees have a much smaller needed root area and can be planted along sidewalks, driveways, etc.
Your wood chip comment is spot on. It is real important to leave a exposed area around the trunk of a young tree. At Up with Trees, we use a small section of flexible guttering to keep chips from touching the trunk. We mulch in the rest to keep moisture, heat etc. around the root area.
RM
At some locations, I think along 169, I've seen plastic fencing around the trees. Is that to keep animals away?
No. Those are to protect off a construction area to build a new bike/running path.
Side of highway as with Up With Trees, is a VERY rigorous place to put a tree. Actually, brutal! Most of the time there is no actual soil structure left. It will be either clay or rock with a skim coat of soil - just enough to put some sod down for a quick "green". It never ceases to amaze me how well your trees do (with few exceptions). Amazing!
Mulch - let me clarify a part of that. I am absolute believer in mulch. Besides placing the little volcanoes next to the tree, the biggest failing of most tree plantings is NOWHERE near enough mulch! And the right kind of mulch! Chipped up trees/shrubs etc is a lousy mulch unless a considerable amount of nitrogen is added over an extended time. The break down of woody materials requires so much nitrogen, that the mulch can actually "starve" the tree (or shrub) that it is used to help. And one application the first year is not enough. Takes some of those chip pile 3 to 6 years (or more) to decompose, and it needs supplement every year.
Hay mixed with manure (see 'horse poop' thread) is magnificent!! Best of all possible worlds. And as much as can afford to put on. This applies to any garden situation, too, flower or vegetable!! More so to garden!
After the mulch consideration, once a tree is started and growing, the rain it gets will be the major source of nutrients, with ongoing "mulching" by the materials (grass, weeds, etc) growing around it.
Side note; in the yard, NEVER pick up the grass. The clippings falling onto the earth and decomposing are what the rest of the landscape need to thrive. There is NO SUCH THING as "thatch"!! (There are however people who probably let their grass get a little too long between mowing.) It is an imaginary construct by many in the landscape industry to sell you chemicals or tools. It is a lie!
Love the trees!!!!!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 12, 2010, 09:49:57 PM
There is NO SUCH THING as "thatch"!!
Where do thatch roofs come from?
Corning. GAF. CertainTeed.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 12, 2010, 09:57:35 PM
Corning. GAF. CertainTeed.
Artificial thatch. Is nothing real anymore?
Back to the original topic...
It looks like the landscaping requirements were added to the zoning code in 1994.
One development that I always notice for its shocking lack of landscaping (even by our minimal standards) is the Target/Reasors, etc at 21st and Yale. I know that it's zoned CH, but I can't remember when this development was built. (I remember the Sears from my childhood, but I can't put a date on when the Target and Reasors went in.)
Quote from: PonderInc on December 13, 2010, 02:04:27 PM
One development that I always notice for its shocking lack of landscaping (even by our minimal standards) is the Target/Reasors, etc at 21st and Yale. I know that it's zoned CH, but I can't remember when this development was built. (I remember the Sears from my childhood, but I can't put a date on when the Target and Reasors went in.)
The current Sears store is actually newer than the Target/Reasors, since it replaced the original one you probably remember. Also, because of caves in the area, there are only so many places to put a large building.
Quote from: patric on December 13, 2010, 03:09:31 PM
The current Sears store is actually newer than the Target/Reasors, since it replaced the original one you probably remember. Also, because of caves in the area, there are only so many places to put a large building.
Are there natural caves there or are they mostly abandoned mines?
Both I suspect. I know there are a lot of strip mines around there.
Landscaping for the probably grandfathered in since the original Sears was mid '50s (just after Mayo Meadows).
That lot was scraped down pretty hard at that time and there probably is only rock (slate and coal?) under that concrete. Trees will not be happy.