02/12/1985 - Advisory Parks & Recreation Commission JOINT CITY COUNCIL /APRC MEETING
TUESDAY
FEBRUARY 12, 1985
7:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call
II. Future Development of Blackhawk Park
III. Landscaping Policy
IV. Leaf composting
V. Park Plan Review Wedgewood, Capricorn,
Schwanz Lake
VI. Other APRC Items
VII. Special City Census
VIII. Discussion of Multifamily IDB Pool
IX. Collective Bargaining Update
X. Other
XI. Adjournment
MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
CHAIRMAN ROGER MARTIN ALL MEMBERS OF THE
ADVISORY PARKS RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
DATE: FEBRUARY 11, 1985
SUBJECT: JOINT CITY COUNCIL /APRC MEETING
A joint meeting of the City Council and Advisory Parks Recreation
Commission is set for Tuesday, February 12, 1985. Attached
is a copy of the agenda to be used as a guideline for discussion
tomorrow evening.
The Director of Parks Recreation has prepared memorandums
and background information for City Council review on the following
items: 1) Future development of Blackhawk Park and 2) Landscaping
policy.
The Director of Parks Recreation is requesting direction regarding
leaf composting. The City began a pilot program last fall and
if leaf composting is to continue, it will be necessary for
the Department to plan accordingly for distribution and pick
up of compost this spring for gardening as well as providing
an area for the collection of leaf composting later this year.
Also, the Director of Parks Recreation has reviewed park plans
for Wedgewood, Capricorn and Schwanz Lake parks and it would
be appropriate to review those park plans with the City Council
at the special meeting. All three parks were included in the
bond referendum and it is intended that the City proceed with
development during 1985.
Included on the agenda is an item entitled "Other APRC Items"
which allows members of the APRC and City Council to discuss
any matters pertaining to the Parks Recreation Department
and /or programs.
Following the joint APRC business, the City Council will continue
their_ special City Council meeting for the purpose of reviewing
1) Special City census, 2) Discussion of the multifamily IDB
pool and 3) Collective bargaining update. There may be additional
items for review by the City Council.
r 4�
City Administra r
TLH /jj
MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR CITY COUNCIL
ADVISORY PARKS RECREATION COMMISSION
TOM HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS RECREATION
DATE: FEBRUARY 6, 1985
RE: BLACKHAWK COMMUNITY PARK JOINT COUNCIL /COMMISSION MEETING
In anticipation of the joint City Council and Advisory Parks Recreation
Committee meeting, the following information is intended to act as a
"briefing" and background information pertaining to the discussion on
Blackhawk Community Park.
In July of 1984, the issue of access and park usage was thrust upon the City
with the proposed platting of the Blackhawk Oaks and Blackhawk Lake Addition.
In response to the proposed platting, a review and analysis was performed by
the City's Parks Consultant. The conclusion reached by the Consultant,
Commission and Council was that a southerly access to the park would be
essential. The current access off of Palisade Way would be used only as a
secondary access or pedestrian way, dependent upon final park plan design. It
was recognized during this analysis of the south access that additional park
property would have to be acquired. Further, the Advisory Parks Recreation
Commission wished to address the Blackhawk Park P.U.D. dedication requirements
and the development of a preliminary park plan to coincide with the
acquisition issues. This has been completed and was presented to the Advisory
Commission in January of this year.
Under discussion with the Advisory Commission has been the issue of
acquisition of additional land around Blackhawk Lake, generally east of the
existing park property. This acquisition would be in addition to the parkland
"owed" to the City from the Blackhawk Park P.U.D.. Investigation of a
possible L.A.W.C.O.N. grant application for acquisition has also been
discussed. Attached to this memorandum is a reduction of the master planning
for Blackhawk Community Park which reflects the current thinking for this
area. Adjacent to the existing Blackhawk Park is Parcel "A" which
approximates 13 to 14 acres. This is being proposed as parkland to be
acquired through the Blackhawk Park P.U.D.. The additions of Parcel "B" (also
owned by Mr. Dunn) and that of Parcel "C" owned by Mrs. Waldron capture the
majority of the remaining unplatted lakeshore property. It is this
combination of Parcels "B" and "C" which appear to be desirable for
acquisition, as well as a L.A.W.C.O.N. /LCMR grant application.
Another issue relative to the planning of Blackhawk Community Park is that
acquisition of Parcel "D" will be necessary to accomodate the south access
road. This property, as depicted, represents approximately five acres of land
of Mr. Leo Murphy's. The City has no agreements with Mr. Murphy regarding
parkland dedication or acquisition of this property for an access road.
Discussion by Council and Commission as to the method of this acquisition and
the timing of it should be reviewed.
In discussion with the parks recreation grant coordinators from the State
office, they seem very favorable to an acquisition grant, although acquisition
is not a high priority in its funding proposals. It appears that to increase
the likelihood of an award of the grant for acquisition, the City should
consider one or both of the following:
The first would be to combine the acquisition grant with a development
proposal. The development proposal would include a roadway, parking lot,
canoe access and trailway. To do this would obviously require resolution of
the acquisition of the four to five acres of Leo Murphy's property for the
road.
The second method to enhance the acquisition relies on the overall approval of
a concept plan for access to the park from the south and the road acquisition.
Again, this would require the resolution of the access road alignment and
ownership into Blackhawk Park.
In summation, the issue to be discussed by the Advisory Commission and Council
is to review the additional acquisition priorities for Blackhawk Lake /Park,
the access road from the south, the acquisition of property from Leo Murphy
and what might be tied to an acquisition grant or acquisition /development
grant.
master planning
blackhawk
j community park
Blackhawk
Lake
I r� i i''i park location_
I l A� r •�.t Ate_ 1 i A A v vw�� v L /c,
Lit
I
1
�T T A'�p p��'�RQ3ED SOUTWAC 88 CONNECTION
I
L j
eagan, minnesota
i T tl 'I 'I I iuy 1984
1h
2W ,W l
c oo I
This maP e5 is la da
mrrgg ���v ISI���
Mpppp Only arq ShaAC C
m� M is r�e0�
Mkaa� M )f�� rl1lq!
f
a
RM
MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR CITY COUNCIL
ADVISORY PARKS RECREATION COMMISSION
TOM HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS RECREATION
DATE: FEBRUARY 11, 1985
RE: LANDSCAPE POLICY JOINT COUNCIL /COMMISSION MEETING
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide some background and an update to
the City Council regarding the proposed Landscape Policy since it was first
introduced to the City Council in the fall of 1984.
The Advisory Parks Recreation Commission, having reviewed a number of
proposed plats, became increasingly concerned for the lack of attention paid
to the preservation of significant existing trees within the plat and the
apparent lack of attention for providing landscaping and screening. After
some investigation and background work by the Special Issues Committee of the
Commission, the item was presented to the City Council seeking direction. The
City Council then directed the Advisory Commission to investigate what other
communities were doing in the area of Landscape Policies or Ordinances and to
develop draft recommendations to the City Council. The Special Issues
Committee began the task by identifying specific criteria which a proposed
landscape policy should address. For the past several months, the
Subcommittee and Commission met to review and provide direction concerning
landscape guidelines and their impact on projects. Attached is the
culmination of the Advisory Commission and staff work presenting a draft
proposal for the City Council's review. The Advisory Commission is looking
for the direction from the City Council regarding this proposed Landscaping
Policy.
MEMO TO: ADVISORY PARKS RECREATION COMMISSION
�4 FROM: STEPHEN SULLIVAN, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT /PARK PLANNER
DATE: JANUARY 14, 1985
SUBJECT: LANDSCAPE PROCEDURES REQUIREMENTS EVALUATION
The purpose of a landscape policy or ordinance is to establish minimum
requirements and standards to provide the necessary landscaping, open space,
buffering and screening for quality urban development. These standards and
criteria should then be utilized by the City staff, City Commissions and City
Council while evaluating development proposals. The objectives of the
standards are to:
1. establish maintain forestation of the City.
2. provide a required minimum amount of landscaping.
3. preserve significant existing plant material.
4. provide design guidelines for quality development.
5. provide plant material specifications.
6. achieve screening and buffering of undesirable visual elements.
7. provide ground cover requirements to control soil erosion.
The existing trees and rolling hills are one of Eagan's greatest assets.
These natural amenities set the City apart from other Minneapolis /St. Paul
suburbs and promotes development. Accompanying development, hills are graded,
building pads established, open space reduced and plant material is destroyed.
A landscape ordinance /policy will establish standards insuring replacement of
destroyed landscape and preservation of existing plant material. A landscape
ordinance /policy will provide immediate measures to compensate and replace
plant material lost with development. It also insures the forestation of the
City for the future.
Landscape guidelines provide an objective approach for evaluating development
proposals. A landscape policy would set quantity, size and performance
requirements insuring development quality and equal treatment. It also
provides developers with up -front criteria for design and budgeting purposes.
The following pages will provide the Commission with information regarding:
Landscape issues
Other communities' policies relating to these issues
Staff's recommendations and rationale for the landscape
policy /ordinance.
1
ISSUE:
A minimum quantity of landscape materials is not currently required within
developments. This condition allows the developer unlimited flexibility to
plant one or 100 trees. The City currently evaluates landscape performance
and quantities subjectively. This approach can provide inconsistencies,
unequal treatment and offer minimal leverage.
OTHER COMMUNITIES:
Other communities' landscape policies /ordinances specify a minimum number of
trees that a development must include. The minimum number of deciduous
overstory (shade trees) and coniferous trees required per development in a
commercial, office or industrial district are:
1. EDEN PRAIRIE
a. One tree per 800 sq. ft. of gross building area or;
b. One tree per 50 lineal ft. of total lot perimeter, whichever is
greater or;
c. The cost of the total number of deciduous overstory or coniferous
trees, as estimated by the City, shall be greater than or equal to
3% of the project value. In no case can there be less trees than
required by "a" and "b
2. PLYMOUTH
a. One tree per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross building area or;
b. One tree per 50 lineal ft. of total lot perimeter, whichever is
greater.
3. MINNETONKA does not require a minimum number of trees. Instead,
landscape quantities are based on a percentage of the installed
landscape cost to project cost.
The minimum number of deciduous overstory and coniferous trees for multiple
residential districts:
1. PLYMOUTH
a. One tree per dwelling unit.
2. BROOKLYN CENTER
a. The minimum number of trees for multiple residential districts
shall include 6 diameter trees, or larger, according to the
following minimum schedule:
One tree for the first six dwelling units (or portion
thereof), one tree for each seven dwelling units (or portion
thereof) in excess of six units, but not exceeding 97 units;
one tree for each 10 dwellings (or portion thereof) in excess
of 97 units, but not exceeding 197 units; one tree for each 13
dwelling units (or portion thereof) in excess of 197 units.
3. EDINA
a. One tree per thousand square feet of gross floor area or one tree
per 50 lineal feet of lot perimeter.
2
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Minimum number of deciduous overstory and coniferous trees within
commercial, office and industrial districts shall be one tree per 1,000
square feet of gross building area or; one tree per 50 lineal feet of
total lot perimeter, whichever is greater. (See figures 1, 2 3).
2. Minimum number of deciduous overstory and coniferous trees within multiple
residential districts shall be one tree per unit. (See figure 4).
3. The developer should have the option to use less plant material, but
larger plant material at a diameter inch for diameter inch or foot height
for foot height equivalent.
For example, if the site did not provide the area necessary for 100 trees:
50 2 1/2" diameter maples are equivalent to 25 5 diameter maples.
50 6' evergreens are equivalent to 25 12' evergreens.
RATIONALE:
Staff has evaluated both trees /building ratio and percent of landscape
cost /project cost formulas for determining minimum number of trees. The
project cost approach deals with differing land uses inequitably. For
example, a 50,000 square foot warehouse and 50,000 square foot office building
will differ in project cost by approximately double. Based on identical
landscape cost percentages, the warehouse would be obligated to a landscape
budget one -half that of the same size office building.
The one tree per thousand square feet of gross building floor area or one tree
per 50 lineal feet of lot perimeter (whichever is greater) has an effective
track record in communities such as Plymouth, Edina and Eden Prairie. Staff
has taken a sample of existing developments, applied these requirements, and
found this formula to be effective. Figures 1, 2 3 are developments within
the City of Eagan. Both the approved landscape plan and the landscape concept
plan, as shown, conform to the ordinance /policy requirements for minimum
number of trees. Meeting the minimum number of tree requirement will not
insure that performance standards such as screening or buffering can be
accomplished with this amount of landscaping. This requirement is only a
minimum and additional plant material, berms, fencing or site planning may be
necessary to insure that these performance standards are fulfilled.
The one tree per unit works well in medium density, multifamily developments.
The available greenspace in high density residential developments, such as
apartments, occasionally cannot support the required minimum number of trees.
The provision for less but larger plant material comes to play in these cases.
Generally larger plant material suits the development advantageously. The
plant material is not minuted by the scale of the building and the development
is provided with an established visual character.
3
1
Tn i
h
i
O •o ,:,t
co
(a F
W U 4�
co
cc
U
Co H 13 S ARKING
POND AREA
A
0 0-cii I I
cf)
1
FORMULA #2
FORMULA: 1 TREE PER 50 LINEAL FT. OF
LOT
CLIFF ROAD LOT PERIMETER PERIMETER. 1,430'
TREES REQUIRED: 28
TREES REQUIRED BASED ON 111,000 RATIO: 24
5 PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE AREA: 5%
I N
1
2
I I I I I I I z
0 0 F z I ,oi i 0
I I I I I NI I I I I
J ,L 2 W W
Y I j
2 W S o n
%,B 2i ,Sis2 ,oz ,oz .Sh/ 02 a2 h2 02 07 ,h2 ,SO2 o
V
2
m
C i M
Q
000
0
h P2
Z
ao F
F h
I
3 FIGURE #1
c oz 6 J
79 Z4/ FORMULA: 1 TREE PER 50 LINEAL FT. OF
LOT PERIMETER.
LOT PERIMETER: LOT #1 1123'
#2 1178'
TREES REQUIRED: LOT #1 23
#2 24
TREES REQUIRED BASED ON 1 /1,000 RATIO:
LOT #1 6
4 #2 4
I'
r
r
1 1
r
c r-16-
r
C=e
c
i
i
U
w I O
O
D
s�
w
DD
Z
FIGURE #3
FORMULA: 1 TREE PER 1,000 SQ. FT. OF
GROSS FLOOR AREA.
GROSS FLOOR AREA: 37,900 SQ. FT.
TREES REQUIRED: 38
6 TREES REQUIRED BASED ON 1/50 RATIO: 36
f PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE AREA: 5%
i
W
m,
i
m
z
m
FIGURE #4
DUCKWOOD D RIVE FORMULA: ONE TREE PER UNIT
NUMBER OF UNITS: 262
7 TREES REQUIRED: 262
ISSUE:
Significant existing vegetation is being lost with development.
OTHER COMMUNITIES:
Other communities' landscape ordinances /policies provide incentives to the
developer for preservation of existing significant plant material.
1. EDINA
a. The total number of required new overstory trees may be offset by
the retention of existing overstory trees on the lot provided that
such trees satisfy the requirements of the ordinance as to size
and species. The Planner shall determine the amount of the credit
for such existing trees based upon their location and distribution
on the lot.
2. EDEN PRAIRIE
a. In instances where healthy plant material acceptable to City staff
exists on site and can be preserved with development, the
application of total project value allocated to landscaping may be
adjusted allowing credits for this material. The burden shall be
on the developer to demonstrate the value of the credited
material.
3. PLYMOUTH
a. It is the policy of the City of Plymouth to preserve the natural
forest and woodland areas throughout the city, and with respect to
specific site development to retain, as far as practicable,
substantial tree stands which should be incorporated into the
site.
b. Credit for the retention of existing trees which are of acceptable
species, size and location may be given to satisfy the minimum
number requirements set forth in this policy and in the City
Ordinances.
c. Where commercial, industrial and institutional uses clearly
demonstrate affirmative design efforts toward the preservation and
enhancement of desirable natural site characteristics, ordinance
required paved parking spaces may be reduced and installation
deferred until such time as the need for the full compliment of
parking.
RECOMMENDATION:
Credit for the preservation of significant vegetation may be given adjusting
the developers obligations for required minimum number of trees. The City
will determine the amount of credit based on quantity, size, type and quality
of plant material preserved.
RATIONALE:
The preservation of our tree resource will help maintain the visual quality
inherent to Eagan. Preservation of significant trees provide wildlife habitat
and protect plant material which take hundreds of years to establish. The
developer is given an incentive to preserve our tree resource.
8
ISSUE:
Landscape areas are not required within large parking lots. The result is
visual monotony, heat, wind, and decreased area for absorption of runoff.
OTHER COMMUNITIES:
Other communities' landscape ordinances /policies specify a minimum amount of
landscaping within parking lots.
1. EDEN PRAIRIE
a. Landscape areas shall be distributed within off street parking
areas of 20 or more stalls providing a 5% pervious coverage.
2. MINNETONKA
a. Where the total surface parking on a site exceeds 30 parking
spaces, parking lot landscaping shall be provided in the amount of
10 square feet per parking space. (5%)
b. Parking lot landscaping shall include all areas within a parking
lot and landscape area bordered on at least three sides by
parking, but shall not include buffer yards or landscaped "dead
areas" at the intersection of two rows of parking.
c. Parking lot landscape areas shall be reasonably distributed
throughout the parking lot area so as to break up expanses of
paved areas.
d. Each area of parking lot landscaping shall have at least 100 sq.
ft. of area and shall have no dimension less than six feet.
e. Parking lot landscape area shall be provided with deciduous shade
trees, ornamental or evergreen trees plus ground cover, mulch
and /or shrubbery as determined appropriate. Parking lot landscape
trees shall be provided at the rate of one tree for each 15
surface parking spaces provided or major fraction thereof.
f. Parking lot landscaping shall be contained in planting beds
bordered by a raised concrete curb or equivalent.
3. PLYMOUTH
a. Parking lots shall have a minimum of one internal landscaped
island- delineator in addition to any required traffic safety
islands for each additional 3,000 sq. ft. of off street parking
space after the first 3,000 sq. ft; such islands shall be equal in
size to a single parking space and shall be bounded by concrete
curbing. Trees may be installed in approved traffic safety
islands used to delineate parking spaces from driving aisles and
in other areas. The internal landscaped island(s) required above
may be deleted if the aggregate area and trees of individual
traffic islands meet or exceed the above requirements.
RECOMMENDATION:
Landscape areas shall be distributed within off street parking areas of 20 or
more stalls providing a 5% pervious coverage.
9
RATIONALE:
A five percent pervious coverage provides adequate landscape area for shade
trees to visually break up the monotony associated with large parking lots.
The 20 stall recommendation is simply a place to begin the 5% requirement. A
20 car lot is large enough (64' x 100 to accommodate landscape areas. The
5% coverage provides greater effectiveness the larger the parking lot. (See
figure 5).
10
20 STALLS AT 5% LANDSCAPE AREA
i
50 STALLS AT 5% LANDSCAPE AREA
u
rrw�
100 STALLS AT 5% LANDSCAPE AREA
FIGURE #5
11
ISSUE:
Performance standards are not established for screening /buffering of parking
lots, utility areas, loading docks and outdoor storage areas from public roads
and adjacent differing land uses.
OTHER COMMUNITIES:
Other communities' landscape policies /ordinances require that a development
meet screening /buffering performance standards.
1. EDINA
a. Non residential principal buildings or structures, and any building or
structure accessory thereto, shall be screened from lots in the R -1
District which are used for single dwelling unit buildings and which
are located within 200 feet of the non residential use. Said distance
shall be the shortest distance between the non residential buildings
or structures to be screened and the nearest lot line of the R -1
District lot, but shall not extend across a street;
b. Principal buildings or structures, or any building or structure
accessory thereto, located in the Planned Industrial District or
Planned Commercial District shall be screened from lots used for any
residential purpose which are located within 200 feet. Said distance
shall be the shortest distance between the PID or PCD building or
structure to be screened and the nearest lot line of the residential
lot, but shall not extend across a street;
c. Off- street parking facilities containing six or more spaces and all
loading facilities shall be screened from streets located within 50
feet, and from lots which are used for any residential purpose which
are located within 50 feet. Said distance shall be the shortest
distance between the parking facility or loading facility and the
nearest part of the street or the nearest lot line of the residential
lot;
d. Trash storage facilities shall be screened from all lot lines and
public road rights -of -way; and
e. All mechanical equipment accessory to any building, except single
dwelling unit and double dwelling unit buildings, shall be screened
from all lot lines and streets.
2. EDEN PRAIRIE
a. All parking, loading, utility and outdoor storage areas shall be
screened from all public roads and adjacent differing land uses.
RECOMMENDATION:
The landscape policy /ordinance include the following standards:
1. Screening of parking lots from all public roads,
2. Screening of parking lots from adjacent differing land uses,
a. office, industrial, commercial parking lots next to residen-
tial developments,
b. multifamily residential parking lots next to single family
residential developments,
'2
z
3. Screening of loading, utility and outdoor storage areas from all
public roads,
4. Screening of loading, utility and outdoor storage areas from
adjacent differing land uses,
5. A buffer shall be placed between:
a. office, commercial, industrial land uses adjacent to residen-
tial land uses
b. multifamily residential adjacent to single family residential
c. office, commercial, industrial and multifamily residential
land uses adjacent to parkland or significant nature areas
(i.e. wetlands, creeks)
RATIONALE:
The objective is to screen or buffer undesirable visual elements and provide
an attractive result. Screening of parking lots from adjacent roads will
provide 'curb appeal" throughout the City. It is important to remember that a
City is generally viewed from the seat of a car. Screening parking lots from
adjacent residential developments maintains the residential visual quality
expected within our neighborhoods. Screening of loading docks, utility areas
and outdoor storage from public roads and adjacent differing land uses
protects the public from these undesirable visual elements. The
implementation of buffers between differing land uses aids in the transition
between land uses. It also provides a transition in scale of buildings
between office, commercial, industrial developments adjacent to residential
and nature areas.
13
ISSUE:
Plant specifications are not currently determined for developments. The
developer is able to plant any type and size of plant material. The City
currently evaluates plant specifications subjectively. This approach can
provide inconsistencies and unequal treatment. The developer is able to plant
undersized plant material which lack hardiness and variety necessary to
provide a healthy and quality landscape.
OTHER COMMUNITIES:
Other communities' landscape policies /ordinances specify minimum size and
plant specification requirements.
1. PLYMOUTH
a. Required trees shall be of the following minimum planting size:
1. Deciduous trees 2.5 inches diameter as measured six inches
above the ground.
2. Coniferous trees 6 feet in height.
b. A minimum of fifteen (15) percent of the required minimum number
of trees for mu1 tires idential developments shall be long -lived
hardwood deciduous trees, 3.5 inches in diameter as measured six
inches off the ground.
c. Evergreen shrubs used for screening purposes, including those used
in con juction with berming, shall be a minimum of 24" in height.
Species
d. All trees used in site developments shall be indigenous to the
appropriate hardiness zone and physical characteristics of the
site.
e. All deciduous trees proposed to satisfy the minimum requirements
of this policy shall be long -lived hardwood species.
f. The compliment of trees fulfilling the requirements of this policy
shall be not less than 25 percent deciduous and not less than 25
percent coniferous.
2. COON RAPIDS
a. All shade trees shall have a minimum 2 1/2" caliper except where
parking or drives parallel street rights -of -way in which case 3"
caliper trees shall be used.
b. All ornamental or understory trees shall have a minimum 1 112"
caliper.
c. All coniferous trees shall have a minimum planting height of 7
feet where parking or drives parallel street rights -of -way, 6 feet
in all other instances.
d. Coniferous shrubbery shall be the following minimum sizes:
a. Spreading 3 gallon
b. Medium 5 gallon
c. Upright 3 1/2 to 4 feet
14
e. Deciduous shrubbery shall have a minimum planting size of 24 to 30
inches.
f. The City of Coon Rapids lists an array of acceptable plant material
which can be used within a development.
3. EDEN PRAIRIE
a. Deciduous Overstory 2 1/2" diameter measured 6 above the
ground.
b. Deciduous Understory 1 3/4 diameter measured 6 above the
ground.
c. Coniferous 6' in height.
d. The plant material shall have an overall average size exceeding
the required minimum size for:
Deciduous Overstory 2 3/4 diameter
Coniferous 6 1/2' in height
RECOMMENDATION:
Establish minimum size requirements and specifications for all plant material.
The requirements are as follows:
1. Minimum size requirements
a. Deciduous Overstory Trees 2 112" diameter measured 6 above the
ground.
b. Deciduous Understory Trees 1 3/4 diameter measured 6 above the
ground.
c. Coniferous Trees 6' in height.
d. The plant material shall have an overall average size exceeding
the required minimum size for:
Deciduous Overstory Trees 2 3/4 diameter
Coniferous Trees 6 112' in height
2. Plant material specifications
a. All trees shall be comprised of species which are classified hardy
to this region by the American Nurseryman Association.
b. The compliment of trees fulfilling the requirements of the policy
shall be not less than 25% deciduous overstory and not less than
25% coniferous. There shall be no specie which composes more than
50% of the required number of trees.
15
RATIONALE:
The minimum size requirements as recommended are typical of most communities.
This size plant material provides:
A positive visual consequence which has screening potential and
relates to the mass /height of most buildings.
An increase in survival rate.
A reasonable cost to the developer.
The percentage of coniferous /deciduous overstory trees recommendation
provides:
Evergreen plant material for screening.
Disease protection in the case where one species of plant
material would be infected (i.e. American Elm).
Visual variety.
The average plant material size recommendation insures that larger
plant material is used. Typically a developer will meet minimum size
requirement. The result is an environment with a consistent and
monotonous visual quality. The introduction of several sizes of plant
material provides:
Placement of large plant material in areas where increased size
is needed.
A natural and established visual quality.
16
ISSUE:
Existing developments are currently not obligated to maintain the landscape in
a healthy and attractive condition.
OTHER COMMUNITIES:
Other communities' landscape policies /ordinances require that all landscape
areas be maintained in accordance with the city approved landscape plan.
1. EDINA
a. The owner of the lot upon which the required landscaping or
screening is located shall maintain all materials in a sightly and
healthy growing condition without cost to the City.
2. EDEN PRAIRIE
a. Landscapes shall conform with the planting plan approved by the
City at the time the building permit was issued. It is the
owner's responsibility to see that this landscaping is maintained
in an attractive and well -kept condition. All vacant lots,
tracts, and parcels shall also be properly maintained in accord-
ance with their natural or existing character.
3. MINNETONKA
a. In order to provide for adequate maintenance of landscape areas,
the underground sprinkling system shall be provided as a part of
each development, excepting natural areas to be preserved and
landscape areas not contiguous to principal landscaped areas.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Landscapes shall conform to the approved landscape plan. The approved
landscape shall be maintained in a healthy condition. The functional and
visual qualities expected of the landscape plan at the time of approval shall
be maintained throughout the existence of development.
RATIONALE:
Obligating the owner to maintain the landscape according to the approved
landscape plan insures that the performance standards (i.e screening,
buffering, minimum number of trees) are maintained within the development.
17
ISSUE:
A minimum amount of pervious surface (green space) is not required within
developments. This allows developments to maximize site coverage with
building and parking lot resulting in additional run —off, lack of landscape
area, and aesthetic monotony.
R
OTHER COMMUNITIES:
1. COON RAPIDS
a. 15% green space lot coverage
2. MINNETONKA
a. 20% green space lot coverage
3. FRIDLEY
a. 15% green space lot coverage
4. EDEN PRAIRIE
a. No percentage is required. Green space is provided by setback
requirements for both the building and parking lot. No parking is
allowed within the building front yard setback, allowing a large
green space for landscaping.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff seeks direction from the Commission regarding pervious surface within
developments.
RATIONALE:
This issue relates to both landscape policy /ordinance and zoning requirements.
It is necessary to provide adequate green space to place the required plant
material in accordance with the landscape ordinance /policy. As well,
prescribing a certain percent impervious coverage must relate to zoning
requirements, i.e., building/ lot coverage, setbacks, minimum number of
parking stalls. Providing too much green space is not cost efficient for the
developer, while too little green space may not provide the area necessary to
landscape in accordance with requirements for the minimum number of trees and
screening.
18
LANDSCAPE POLICY PROCESS
The processing and review of any landscaping policy should be simple and
follow as closely as possible the existing plat application process. If this
procedure is to be followed, the following would be suggested:
1. Plat application material picked up by developer; City Landscaping Policy
and criteria provided.
2. Developer /staff review of plat application materials and preliminary
landscaping plan.
3. Plat materials and detail landscaping plan submitted; staff reports
prepared for Advisory Planning Commission and Advisory Parks Recreation
Commission with staff report on compliance of the landscaping plan with
City policy.
4. Advisory Planning Commission's meeting. Recommendations on the plat to
the City Council and comments on the landscaping plan made.
5. Advisory Parks Recreation Commission's recommendation for park
dedication requirements and recommendations on the landscaping plan
provided.
6. City Council action on preliminary plat application; if approved
landscaping plan becomes part of the development agreement.
7. Staff inspection of landscaping as development is completed and bond
reductions sought by developer.
8. One year review of development to insure unhealthy or dead material has
been replaced in compliance with the one growing season landscaping
guarantee.
This format for the review of the landscaping plan follows the existing
procedures for plat review. Alternative methods of processing would be for
the developer to submit a detailed landscaping plan to the staff for review
(in compliance with the City's policy) at A) after the Advisory Planning
Commission's review or B) after City Council preliminary plat approval.
Alternative A is a response to the applicant's not desiring to prepare or pay
for a detailed landscaping plan until after the public hearing by the Advisory
Planning Commission. Changes suggested by the Advisory Commission regarding
the plat or public comment by interested neighborhood and community groups may
have a significant impact and result in changes in the landscaping plan. This
being the case, Alternative I would be a way to respond to that situation.
Generally there are ten days between the Advisory Planning Commission and the
Advisory Parks Recreation Commission meetings which should be sufficient
time for the developer to prepare a detailed landscaping plan. This plan
could then be submitted to the Advisory Parks Recreation Commission for
review and comment and then to the City Council for action along with the plat
application.
19
Following the reasoning that there may be changes in the plat, not only at the
Advisory Planning Commission's level but also at the City Council level, it
might be appropriate for the developer to submit a landscaping plan only after
a preliminary plat approval. However, this method would not provide
opportunity for public review and comment or for review of deviations from the
City policy. Public review and comment of the landscaping policy may be
desirable with issues relating to the type, quality and size of plant material
associated with screening or buffering between adjacent land uses.
Staff prefers the alternative in which a landscape plan is received by the
City as a component of the initial minimum submittal requirement for
development review.
PROCESS FOR EXISTING PLATTED PROPERTY
Prior to the issuance of the building permit, the developer is required to
submit the landscape /screening plan to City staff for review and approval.
The landscape /screening plan will be checked by staff for policy compliance
prior to issuance of the building permit. Included with the plan, the
developer provides to the City a security bond which insures the
implementation of the approved landscape plan. A contract form is signed
between the City and developer which ties the security to the approved
landscape /screening plan. Staff has the authority, if necessary, to have the
landscape plan revised prior to approval and issuance of the building permit.
-20-
SUMMATION•
The landscape ordinance /policy establishes objective minimum standards for
quality development with landscaping. Staff's research of other communities
policy /ordinance has resulted with a hybrid of recommendations tailored for a
concise, easily understood and administrated policy. A developer is given
incentives for the preservation of existing plant material. Performance
standards, plant material quantities and specifications are given providing
the developer with up front design criteria and the City with objective review
authority. The intent of the information is to provide the Parks Recreation
Advisory Commission the opportunity to review the recommendations, make any
necessary revisions and give staff direction for future refinement of this
draft.
21
r-_
Coon Eden
Burnsville Rap ids Prairie Plymouth Edina Minnetonka
Minimum number of
trees
Minimum size require- 1
ments for trees
Minimum amount of
landscape area within
parking lots
Credit for preserva-
tion of significant
on -site trees
r
AVk
Provide screening of y
^1
parking lots
i
Provide screening of
loading docks
'Provide screening of
r oor storage areas -I
I 1 r r r i
Plant species
Provide buffering be I
tween residential and
differing adjacent
land uses
g
Irri ation�
Maximum coverage by
impervious surface.
MATRIX KEY
Landscape /Screening Ordinance or Policy includes item
Landscape /Screening Ordinance f or Policy does not include item
*1 Screening only from adjacent residential land -uses only
-22-