April 26, 2008

April 2: Regular Session

Final action on Ordinance 08-01

This would change the preliminary development plan of a portion of the Woolery Planned Unit Development (PUD). The plan for Parcel G of this development would change from 19 single-family houses to 38 multi-family town homes while preserving 2 acres of woods on the parcel.

Several Council Members praised aspects of this revised plan

• It would save 2 acres of woods

• The new town homes would be sold at affordable prices.

• The amount of parking is less than is technically required by the city’s UDO. It was generally agreed that the parking requirements in the UDO need to be revised.

There were a few concerns about the plan, though, which led to the following conditions for approval brought forward by Council Members:

·         Condition #1: Sponsored by Mike Satterfield, this condition would require the developers to put in a sidewalk on the east side of Adams Hill Circle, the public street that will lead into the development, as well as the proposed sidewalk on the west side. The developers (Langley Construction) proposed to NOT put a sidewalk in on the east side because there would be less disturbance to the tree preservation area and because there would be a sidewalk on the west side of the street that, the developers proposed, would fulfill all pedestrian needs. Mike argued pedestrians will want to walk along the tree preservation area, so the sidewalk would be needed. The Council voted against this condition.

·         Condition #2: Sponsored by myself, this condition would require the developers to “land bank” 11 parking spaces in the development – meaning, they would set the land aside but not pave it until and unless it was needed for parking later. I argued that on a similar town home development nearby, the amount of parking needed was less than expected, so they might not need as much parking as proposed. Also, there are clear environmental benefits to paving less land. The Council voted against this condition.

We then voted on the original proposal, and it passed.

Introduction of Ordinance 08-04: This ordinance would create the Prospect Hill Conservation District, which means that any demolition, moving of houses, and new construction in this neighborhood would have to be reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Committee.

April 9: Committee of the Whole Meeting

Discussion of Ordinance 08-04: The Prospect Hill Conservation District

Nancy Hiestand, a staff member in the city’s Housing and Neighborhood Development (HAND) department, explained what a Conservation District is, how the borders of the proposed district were determined, and what the process and public input had been on this proposal so far.

Many members of the public spoke in favor of the ordinance, including residents of Prospect Hill neighborhood and a few people from the city’s first Conservation District, the McDoel Gardens Neighborhood. One couple who own a house in the proposed District spoke against it, saying that their house, 111 S. Rogers St., should be considered part of downtown and not part of the Prospect Hill Neighborhood.

April 16: Regular Session

Final action on Ordinance 08-04: The Council voted to approve the Prospect Hill Conservation District. The CD will exist for 3 years, and then it will be put to a vote by property owners who can decide whether to continue the CD, increase the level of regulation by changing to a full Historic District, or discontinue the CD altogether.

Introduction of Ordinance 08-05: Moving the jurisdiction of the city’s Tree Commission from the Board of Public Works to the Board of Parks Commissioners, and clarifying the membership of the Tree Commission.

Introduction of Ordinance 08-06: Revision of the city’s Tree Ordinance, which describes how trees in the public right-of-way (mainly in tree plots between streets and sidewalks) should be handled vis a vis planting, maintenance, and removal.

April 23: Committee of the Whole Meeting

Discussion of Ordinances 08-05 and 08-06

These ordinances were introduced to us by city attorney Margie Rice, with assistance by the city’s urban forester Lee Huss.

Council Member Dave Rollo expressed an interest in adding an official duty of the Tree Commission to Ordinance 08-05: Review of development proposals that would affect existing trees. He proposed that the Tree Commission review such proposals and make a report to the Plan Commission, much like the Environmental Commission currently does. He will probably bring forth an amendment next week.

Ordinance 08-06 requires a Tree Work Permit for any work done by persons or entities other than the city itself on trees in the public right-of-way. Council Member Chris Sturbaum expressed concern that residents who take issue with the city’s plan to remove an existing street tree would not have much recourse to stop this action. He will probably bring forth an amendment next week to allow the public to appeal the city’s decision to remove trees. Note: The ordinance does require the city to clearly mark trees slated for removal at least 10 days in advance.