Review Proposed Ordinance #21-06 Consolidating all Landscape Requirements into a Single Section and Amending Landscape Standards in the Employment Districts

The purpose of this case is to review a draft Ordinance Amendment for landscaping standards in the Employment Districts. The notion of amending the landscaping standards arose as a result of the DeltaMod Tech project, which, per current requirements, would have had to over-plant the site (with both trees and shrubs) to meet the minimum planting requirements.  This was becoming more common in the Employment Districts, where buildings tend to be larger, with greater areas consumed by paving and stormwater ponds as well.  Thus, leaving much less pervious area to accommodate the plantings.

As can be seen from the attached draft Ordinance, more than just the Employment Districts are being addressed. A new section entitled Landscaping is being proposed and all landscaping standards are being removed from individual zoning districts and moved here. There is a lot of repetition between many of the districts and this will help reduce the overall size of the Zoning Chapter.  

Much of what is included in the draft Ordinance is simply carried over from the existing zoning district language. However, there are some proposed revisions as well. The landscaping requirements of the Employment Districts are now based on the Canopy Cover Formula, similar to that of the multi-family districts. Bufferyard standards in the R-2 Residential and R-3 Residential districts have been eliminated as they are less restrictive than the Density Transitioning standards, which are also applied when higher density developments are proposed against lower density neighborhoods (City Code states that when two different standards are applicable, the more stringent standard shall be applied). Finally, bufferyard standards were added to certain districts that previously didn't have any (B-3 Neighborhood Business).

By shifting all landscaping requirements to a single section, Intent, Goals and Objectives could be created and would not need to be repeated throughout the Zoning Code. As had been previously discussed with the Environmental Policy Board (EPB), identifying and incorporating Intent, Goals and Objectives of landscaping requirements should help with future plan review. 

The last time the EPB reviewed the draft Ordinance Amendment, there were a couple topics that still needed to be addressed.  The first was to address species diversity within a project.  Subsection (c) (4) now includes language stating that projects should attempt to limit the planting of any one genus to no more than 20% of the total plantings on site.  Market availability can very and at any given time, certain species may not be available.  Having this flexibility will help avoid potential project delays resulting from a species being unavailable.

The second topic was to explore options to incentivize establishment and/or preservation of native plant communities.  Staff contacted the City of Elk River to get a better understanding of how their system works.  They noted that credit, in the form or reduced tree plantings, for establishment or preservation of native plant communities has rarely, if ever, been utilized.  Furthermore, they noted that where native plant communities have been installed, it is on public lands that the city is responsible for maintaining.  Nevertheless, Staff has incorporated language under Subsection (c) (7) g specifying that for every 500 square feet of preservation or establishment of a native plant community, the planting requirements can be reduced by one (1) tree.  However, this information needs to be included on the Landscape Plan and must also include a 3-year management plan for longer term maintenance.

This case is being handled as part of Staff's regular duties.

Motion to recommend adoption of Ordinance #21-06.