Consider Possible Amendments for Landscape Requirements in the Employment Districts

At the November meeting, the Environmental Policy Board (EPB) directed Staff to research what some of our peer communities have in terms of landscape requirements for their industrial areas and how those compare to Ramsey's current requirements.  Staff has attached the landscape standards from Elk River, Andover, Dayton, and Coon Rapids.  As can be seen, there is a range of approaches that these communities utilize. 

Two of the communities base their planting requirements mostly on open space (e.g. for 3,000 square feet of open space, one overstory tree and one evergreen tree are required, for every 1,500 square feet of open space, one ornamental tree is required, etc.).  Another community has standards somewhat similar to Ramsey's, requiring one tree per fifty (50) lineal feet of site perimeter, one shrub per twenty (20) feet of site perimeter, and one shrub per ten (10) lineal feet of building perimeter.  The fourth community uses a formula based on the site perimeter to determine the minimum tree plantings required.

Staff attempted to apply these various standards to the DeltaMod Tech Landscape Plan to see how they would compare to the City's current landscaping requirements.  It should be noted that most communities specify that additional plantings may be required for buffering/screening purposes, for parking lot areas, etc. (similar to Ramsey), so this is really just comparing base landscape requirements.  Staff also attempted to apply the Canopy Cover Formula that is in City Code, but currently only applicable to multi-family developments.  Attached to this case is a summary of various communities' planting requirements, along with the application of the Canopy Cover Formula, as applied to the DeltaMod Tech plan.

Staff believes that there is some merit in considering amendments to the planting standards in the Employment Districts, where it is more common to have large buildings accompanied by large parking and maneuvering areas, leaving less area for a healthy, thriving landscape.  However, Staff is not ready to provide any specific recommendations at this time.  The intention is to simply continue the discussion about potential ideas to improve the landscaping standards while not losing site of their purpose (aesthetics, stormwater management, reforestation to compensate for trees lost to development, etc.).
 

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

No specific action is required at this time.