Do landscaping standards expire once the development is complete?

[PonderInc]

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?

[Gaspar]

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.

[inteller]

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.

[Gaspar]

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.

[inteller]

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.

[PonderInc]

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.

[Townsend]

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.

[inteller]

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.

[patric]

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

[sgrizzle]

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.

[Gaspar]

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

[heironymouspasparagus]

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.

[inteller]

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.

[PonderInc]

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.

[Gaspar]

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.