HomeMy WebLinkAbout02.23.99 Work Session Packet
",-
" .
~ ~
. .
'\ 'J # .
CITY OF FARMINGTON
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 23,1999 -7:00 p.m.
WORKSHOP AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ADOPT AGENDA
3. DEER MEADOWS 2nd ADDITION - RESIDENT PETITION
a. Administrative Report - Citizen Complaints
1. Staff Presentation
2. Council Review
3. Action Items
b. Engineering Report - (Distributed at Workshop)
1. Staff Presentation
2. Council Review
3. Action Items
4. LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE
a. Staff Presentation
b. Council Review
c. Action Items
S. ADJOURN
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farminflton.mn.us
TO: Mayor and Council Members
FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Deer Meadows 2nd Addition - Resident Complaints
DATE: February 23,1999
INTRODUCTION
At the December 7, 1998 Council meeting, resident communications from Ms. Sue Petitand Mr.
and Mrs. Richard and Linda Gvist were forwarded to the City Council. In addition, comments
from Mr. Ken. Young were also received regarding the performance of City buildinJt inspection
staff relative to his particular housing concerns. Resident communications alleged that City staff
had improperly conducted themselves, had "threatened" residents,and were not perfonnmg their
job responsibilities in a competent and professional manner.
DISCUSSION
In response to these allegations, this office conducted an internal review of the issues raised by
Deer Meadows 2nd Addition residents. Accordingly, this administrative report shall serve as an
official response to Council and residents in this matter by my office.
The issues raised by the residents were seriously and thoroughly reviewed by this office.
Investigative materials included resident statements and communications, written documentation
and reports provided by City staff, interviews with department staff, other supportive data and
Department Director recommendations relative to the performance of their respective staff in
keeping with City ordinances and policies, and state regulatory requirements.
In addition, the City's Human Resource Office conducted a separate, independent review of all
pertinent data that was submitted by both City departments and has generated an advisory
recommendation (attached) to my office concerning the substantial nature of the .resident
allegations.
In review of this information, I did not interview the residents in this matter in light of the fact
that legal counsel has been retained by one of the resident complainants, and adequate written
information was available to tIlls office to assess the actual nature of the resident complaints.
Should Council wish to have further interactions with the complainants on the issues identified in
this report, it would be advised that the City Attorney's office be consulted for a liability
Mayor and Council Members
Deer Meadows 2nd Addition - Resident Complaints
Page 2 of 4
recommendation and thai the City's insurer, the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust be
notified. While these precautions may appear to be overly conservative, contemplated legal
action by the complainants against the City in this matter should be taken seriously, and should
be dealt with in accordance with standard risk management practices.
Findings of Fact
The following information is presented as the basis for the conclusion of this investigative report:
I) In review of the complainant's allegations that staff threatened residents, this office finds no
evidence that "threats" were used by City staff in responding to resident complaints. Staff
did make numerous recommendations to affected property owners with the intent of
resolving private property issues brought to their attention by City residents. The term
"threat" is used frequently by the complainants to characterize staff suggestions and
recommendations relative to possible engineering solutions that would resolve resident
drainage and house moisture problems.
2) Citizen allegations that staff did not perform their respective duties courteously, . competently
and professionally. In review of the. documentation presented characterizing the nature of
staff interactions with individual property owners, ata neighborhood meeting andinyarious
other communications, this office can find no particular instance or pattern of behavior that
would suggest inappropriate staff conduct.
3) A letter from a Coldwell Banlcer Real Estate representative was reviewed regarding the
author's belief that the City was liablefor inadequate grading and should be responsible/or
correcting the drainage issues.. This same view is expressed by the complainants regarding
drainage issues experienced by a number of residential properties. The liability for improper
subdivision grading leading to residential drainage problems has been reviewed in other past
developments as well. This issue appears to be a central factor in whether the City or the
developer is responsible for drainage related concerns.
The grading plan for this particular subdivision was prepared by the developer, Mr. ..TiIn
Giles, and was approved by the fonner City Engineer. It bas been noted that drainage grades
should typically be a minimum of no less than I percen4 with a standard grade of 2 percent
as the most desirable grade depending upon geographical constraints. In the case of Deer
Meadows 2nd Addition, the developer's grading plan, which was approved by the . City in
early 1996, was discovered to have grades less than 1 percent on four particular lots.
Engineering recommendations to resolve drainage concerns will be presented separately to
Council and are not addressed within this administrative report.
4) Suggested solutions to resident concerns by engineering and building inspection staff were
also reviewed in response to characterizations by complainants in Deer Meadows that staff
comments appeared to be favoring the developer. And, according to resident statements, is
not stafJ's role to protect the interests of private property owners.
C:\OOCS\Projects\DecrMeadows\Citizencomplaints.doc
Mayor and Council Members
Deer Meadows 2nd Addition - Resident Complaints
Page 3 of 4
In review of the doclmlents submitted, it would appear that staff provided assistance to the
complainant property owners in a factual, objective manner. Staffs role in assisting residents
is guided by state statutes, uniform building codes, city ordinances, Council policies and
administrative policies.
The need to remain completely objective in performing official public duties is a well
recognized tenet of public service. In this regard, the local unit of government role is to
fairly, lawfully and objectively exercise its authority in all matters of public service delivery.
As was noted in previous staff reports, recommendations made by staff were not guarantees,
and the residents were urged to engage private home inspectors and landscapers to address
their respective concerns. Furthermore, staff offered to meet with the homeowner's private
representatives relative to City comments regarding house structure and landscaping issues.
5) Finally, it is appropriate to comment on allegations that suggest that City staff and/or its
respective engineering consultants are in some way culpable for the problems currently
being experienced or that the City is attempting to divert attention from its own role, and
consequently its responsibilities, in this situation. In response, it should be pointed out that
this project was substantially complete prior to the tenure of this administration and current
engineering staff. Efforts over the course of the last two and half years suggest that this
administration has diligently worked to resolve a number of private development issues that
occurred prior to 1996. Moreover, given the fact that this administration has little vested
interest in justifying or rationalizing previous administrative and/or engineering decisions,
there is an element of openness and cooperation in resolving these issues as efficiently as
possible.
REPORT FINDINGS
This office finds no evidence or factual basis to support complainant allegations that City staff or
its consultants. have conspired to threaten or subvert the public process in resolving resident
complaints.
Further, in light of the information that has been assembled in review of these complaints, this
office is compelled to observe that City staff performed their jobs professionally and courteously
in a very difficult situation.
Further, I believe the record of this Council and administration suggests a very strong
commitment to resolve past private development issues' in a very fair and balanced manner as
evidenced by Council's commitment to expend the necessary staff and financial resources in
response to resident complaints.
Finally, while this office finds no evidence of inappropriate behavior on the part of staff in this
particular instance, this acJministration will continue to emphasize the need for staff and
contracted service personnel to treat each resident concern with respect, sensitivity and
professionalism. As the City of Farmington's Employee Code of Citizen Service suggests, City
representatives, whether staff or consultants, are committed to excellen~e in customer service.
C:\DOCS\PrOjects\DecrMeadows\citizcncomplaints.doc
,. .
Mayor and Council Members
Deer Meadows 2nd Addition - Resident Complaints
Page 4 of4
Along those lines, staff vt'ill continue to work with Deer Meadows 2nd Addition residents to assist
in the resolution of those issues and concerns within the City's responsibilities and pursuant to
the direction of the City CounciL
Respec~:~
1!:~
Cc: Joel Jamnik, City Attorney
Lee Mann, City Engineer
David Olson, Director of Community Development
Robin Roland, Director of Finance
Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Coordinator
File
..
C:\DOCS\Projccts\DccrMcadows\Citizencomplaints.doc
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ctfarmineton.mn.us
TO:
John Erar, City Administrator
SUBJECT:
Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Coordinator
Deer Meadows 2ad Addition Resident Complaints
FROM:
DATE:
February 1, 1999
INTRODUCTION
This memorandum provides infonnation regarding the City's investigation into allegations made by the
Deer Meadows Citizens on Petition re: WaterlDrainage Problems and Concerns, Sue Pettit and Linda
Gvist. These allegations imply that the conduct of City engineering staff was inappropriate, incompetent
and unprofessional.
DISCUSSION
Attached is the infonnation provided to me by Lee Mann, Director of Public Works/City Engineer, Dave
Sanocki, Consulting Engineer, Jerry Auge, Civil Engineer, Matt Stordahl, Engineering Intern, Dave
Olson, Director of Community Development, and Darrel Gilmer, Building Inspector. This infonnation
documents all contact with the residents of Deer Meadows 2ad Addition.
After careful review of all documentation, I believe City staff performed their job responsibilities ina
professional and competent manner. Mr. Sanocki, Mr. Auge and Mr. Gilmer thoroughly. examined the
homes of various residents, asked appropriate questions and verified infonnation in order to understand
and resolve each problem. In many cases, suggestions were offered in an effort to alleviate some of the
problems.
Mr. Sanocki, Mr. Auge, and Mr. Gilmer realized that the Deer Meadows residents were frustrated with
the problems they have experienced and have worked diligently to identify the cause of each problem in
order to resolve them. They did not respond to any disparaging remarks and have, in my opinion,
continued to treat each resident with respect and courtesy.
RECOMMENDATION
It is my belief that City staff perfonned their job responsibilities professionally, appropriately and
competently and that no further action is warranted at this time.
Respectfully submitted,
Brenda Wendlandt
Human Resources Coordinator
Cc: Lee Mann, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Dave Olson, Community Development Director
r. ~
"
....
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.famtil\gton.mn.us
TO:
Brenda Wendlandt
FROM:
David L. Olson
Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Deer Meadow Resident Complaints Regarding Darrel Gilmer
DATE:
January 22, 1999
I have reviewed the attachedinfotmation prepared by Darrel Gilmer which summarizes
the discussions with Deer Meadow residents in which he was a participant Specifically,
I reviewed Mr. Gilmer's responses to comments that were made by Mr. Ken Young at
the December 7, 1998 City Council meeting. These comments were regarding statements
Mr. Gilmer made during a meeting with Mr. Tim Giles, the builder of Mr. Young's
home, Mr. 'Young and other City staff.
Based on a review of all of the, available informatioIl, I feel that Mr. Gilmer' s actions and
statements were appropriate. He is obligated to render judgements and opinions based on
the factual information observed conditions and not simply watching out for the in.terests
of one party over another. As far as I am concerned, no further action is required.
~~R
avid L. Olson
Community Development Director
cc: Darrel Gilmer
-,
'-lry 01 .r-armlngl.Ull
325 Oat Street. Farmington. MN 55024
(651) 463-1111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.d.farmlnl!on.mn.us
TO:
David L. Olson
FROM:
Darrel Gilmer
SUBJECT:
Deer Meadows Resident Complaints
DATE:
January 12, 1999
My recollection of discussions with the residents at 5827, 5853,5922 and 5917 - 180th
Street West concerning water problems. Present were Jerry Auge, Dave Sanocki and
myself.
11/4/98 - William Jensen Complaint of water problems in rear yard. The grade around
Mr. Johnson's house was even and in some places higher than the siding onhis house. A
minimum of 6" is required for separation from the top of the block or siding to the
landscaping. Inside his house showed slight moisture in one comer of his basement,
probably due to the high grade around his foundation. He was advised to-have his
grading corrected.
11/4/98 - Bettv Knuzer Complaint of water on floor in one comer of the basement.
There were no signs of water damage to insulation or cardboard boxes on the floor.
_._ Water on the floor could be from the water softener overflowing the floor drain. The
builder added an elbow to the drainpipe to direct water into the floor drain. Outside of
the house, on the West Side, the landscaping is sloped toward the house foundation.
Pond banks were eroded from water runoff.
11/11/98 - Sue Pettit Complaint of wet backyard and moisture in the basement. The
landscaping around the south and southeast comers of the foundation had bark chips that
were placed too low, (due to settling), wit40ut a plastic banier. A roof drain (downspout)
is directed into a PVC box, which has a 3" drain to daylight in the back yard. The
downspout could overflow the PVC box in heavy rain and run into an egress window
near by and into the backyard which could cause moisture next to and into the block wall
which could seep into the basement. Backfill materials seemed to be a granular material,
which would easily accept water and transfer to basement walls. Rear yard has low
spots, which would hold water. Inside, the basement had no signs of having moisture
such as watermarks or wet cardboard.
, " ~
11/16/98 - Jeff Fore:a Complaint of moisture in the basement. The outside of the house
was landscaped with fock and keystone block. The block was installed at the same or
higher elevation as the siding of the house. This would create a dam so the water could
not escape. A minimum of 6" is required for separation from the top of the block or
siding to the landscaping. He had a sump basket, but no sump pump.
11/11/98 & 11/16/98 Linda Guist - Complaint of moisture in the basement and a wet
backyard. Inside of the house was very humid. The windows had moisture on them and
possibly mold or stain on the wood. The water softener in the basement was recharging
continually. The water heater was leaking and beginning to rust. The humidifier on the
furnace was not in use, but it had stains showing it had been used. Outside of the house,
the swale in the backyard had low spots, which could hold water and cause soaking of
lawn area. Also areas not sodded will hold excessive moisture. December 7, 1998 - The
moisture in the house was much less. She had been advised to turn the furnace fan on
manual. This seemed to help to dry out the house.
11/11/98 & 1/6/99 Ken Y oune: - Complaint of moisture inside the house and a wet
backyard. The outside grade of the house had sod even with and some places higher than
the siding on the house. A 6" minimum is required between the siding and the sod. No
landscaping .between the sidewalk. and garage created a void where water stands 3-5"
deep and created.a washout under the .sidewalk. Grading around the West Side oftlie
home has not been completed. Water could run towards the house. Inside, the house had
moisture on the windows upstairs and downstairs. The humidity seemed very high.
Moisture was found behind insulation on builtrite.sheathing. Suggested he tum the
furnace fan on manual. 1/6/99 - Jerry Auge, Dave Sariocki, Joh:nManke andmyseIfmet
with Ken Young concerning frost on the floor joists. No frost was. found.
In response to Ken Young's comments at the council meeting on November 2nd
concerning our support of Tim Giles:
Our 1-6-99 meeting with Ken Young at 5917 -180th Street Westconceming mold.
Present were Jerry Auge, Dave Sanocki" Tim Giles and myself. Ken Young showed us
what he thought was mold on his buildrite sheathing.
Tim Giles said it was chaulk from a chaulk line used to mark sheathing for cutting... I
used a flashlight and stool to get closer to. the rim joist and agreed it was definitely a
chalk line. Ken Young also stated that the black spots on the buildrite were mold. I used
a jacklarlfe to remove some of the black spots and they seemed to be part of the
pigmentation of the sheathing.
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-1111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ct.farmineton.mn.us
TO: Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Coordinator
FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Deer Meadows Resident Complaints Regarding City Engineering Staff
DATE: January 25,1999
I have reviewed the attached information prepared by Jerry ~uge, Matt Stordahl and
Dave Sanocki which summarizes their involvement with the citizens of Deer Meadows in
relation to the petition that was submitted regarding drainage and water problems.
Various allegations have been made by several of the residents regarding City staff, as
outlined in the attached documentation. These allegations generally question the
competence of staff and assert that staffhas treated citizens in an inappropriate manner.
Based on a review of the attached documentation and all other available information, it is
my opinion that Jerry Auge and Dave Sanocki have acted competently, appropriately and
in a professional and courteous manner in their interactions with the residents of Deer
Meadows. Consequently, it is my opinion that no further action is warranted in regards
to the allegations documented herein.
Respectfully Submitted,
~)rI~
Lee M. Mann, P.E.
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
cc: file
Jerry Auge
Dave Sanocki
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmin~on.mn.us
TO:
Mayor, Council Members,
City Administrator
FROM:
Lee Smick, AICP
Planning Coordinator
SUBJECT:
Workshop for the Revised Landscape Ordinance
DATE:
February 23, 1999
INTRODUCTION
The Planning Division proposes to amend Title 2 Chapter 9 and Section 10-6-14 of the
Farmington City Code to provide for a revised landscape ordinance. The. amendment also
includes the addition of requirements for street trees located on boulevards, which is. currently
location in the "Reforestation Advisory Commission" section of the code.
The proposed landscape ordinance also provides for the addition of the following: perimeter
parking lot planting requirements, interior parking lot planting requirements, buffer/screening
requirements, tree maintenance on City boulevards, tree protection in construction zones and
overhead utility line planting requirements.
DISCUSSION
The Planning Division has been in the process of reviewing and revising the existing < landscape
ordinance over the past several months. During the review process, the Planning Division examined
landscape ordinances from surrounding communities such as Rosemount, Lakeville and. Apple
Valley. Other communities outside of the metro area were also examined including Independence
and Blue Springs, Missouri; Lenexa and Witchita, Kansas and Schaumburg, Illinois (See attached
matrixes). Although the existing ordinance is adequate in certain cases, from this analysis, it is
apparent that there are areas where the existing landscape ordinance requirements for the City of
Fannington should be strengthened.
Areas where the City's landscape ordinance requirements fall below other ordinances are the
following: requirements for parking lot perimeter landscaping, buffer yard landscaping and
screening, overhead utility planting requirements, and tree protection in construction zones. The
existing ordinance also has no interior parking lot landscaping provisions creating large amounts of
unshaded and unattractive views of pavement, increased temperatures to parking lot surfaces and
increased flows ofrunofI. Communities such as Apple Valley, Blue Springs, Missouri, Lenexa and
Witchita, Kansas and Schaumburg, Illinois address these issues by requiring the landscaping of the
interior of parking lots.
Visionfor the City of Farmington
One of the visions for the City of Farmington is to provide aesthetically pleasing commercial,
industrial and business park developments along with the beautification of the downtown area
through landscaping. This vision will provide an improved quality of life through the creation of a
healthful environment, a city of beauty, and the promotion of a community identity. Objectives to
this goal include the increased awareness of the beauty within our community while. protecting
natural areas and preserving pleasing vistas. Other objectives include the consideration of aesthetic
impacts at major entrances to the City, buffering between incompatible land uses and developments
that help make the City an attractive place in 'which to live.
One of the major objectives to the revised landscape ordinance is to beautify the City through
landscaping for new developments and to create a City that will become more aesthetically desirable
to the citizens in the future. By requiring additional landscaping, the. ordinance will also create a
healthful environment, develop an improved quality of life and provide for transitions between
incompatible land uses through buffering and screening.
Proposal
The proposed . landscape ordinance provides both. revisions and additions to the existing landscape
ordinance. Revisions include:
1. Allowable street tree species.
2. Tree maintenance on City boulevards.
3. Screening requirements.
Additions include:
I. Purpose statement.
2. Definitions concerning the landscape requirements.
3. Requirement for a registered landscape architect and/or architect, horticulturist or landscape
designer to prepare the plan.
4. Perimeter parking lot requirements.
S. Interior parking lot requirements.
6. Buffering between incompatible land uses. (See attached Sec. 14.08.010 BUFFER YARD
REQUIREMENTS)
4. Screening of high activity uses, storage yards and double frontage lots.
S. Planting specifications.
6. Requirement for Builder to install street treeS on City boulevards.
7. Tree protection in construction zones.
8. Overhead utility line planing requirements.
Buffer Yard Requirements - Transition Zones between Incompatible Land Uses
Buffer yards are addressed in the proposed landscape ordinance in Section 10-6-14 (E) 3 pertaining
to nonresidential districts providing a ten foot wide landscaped yard when the use is adjacent to
residential districts. Other screening requirements are located in Sec. 10-6-14 (E) 8, 9 and 10.
2
In recent conversations with the Planning Commission, Commission Members have become aware
of the need to provide transition zones between both incompatible land uses and higher intensity uses
such as buffers between residential and business uses or between low and medium residential.
Therefore, the attached information titled Sec. 14.08.010 BUFFER YARD REQUIREMENTS has
been included to act as a guide in proposing screening requirements in transition zones. This
information is from the adopted landscape ordinance for the City of Independence, Missouri, which
the Planning Coordinator prepared in June of 1995.
These standards may apply to the City of Farmington or may seem too restrictive at this time,
however, the Planning staff was interested in presenting this information for the Council to review
and discuss.
Costs to the Developer
The costs to the Developer due to the ordinance changes for additional landscape material are
minimal when considering the increased value of the property and the cost of the entire construction
project. When addressing the increased value of the property through additional plantings on the
site, it is important that a design professional make knowledgeable choices concerning the types of
plantings suitable in this climate and how the plants function in the built environment. The revised
landscape ordinance proposes the need for a registered landscape architect or architect,. a
horticulturist or landscape designer to prepare the landscape plan to insure that the plantings chosen
for the site will survive and will function as intended in the built environment. Design fees charged
by a registered landscape architect depend on the size of the project and are typically billed hourly.
An architect would typically prepare a landscape design along with the design..for the structure,
charging no additional fee for this service. The design fee for a horticulturist or landscape designer
usually ranges from $250 - $1,000 per landscape plan, depending on the size of the project.
Therefore, compared to the costs of the total project and rate of survival for the plantings chosen for
the site, it will be more economically feasible to retain a professional to design the landscape plan.
In evaluating the costs for additional landscaping to meet the requirements of the revised landscape
ordinance, a typical site was evaluated and fees for plant materials was assessed. In the example,
Kwik Trip at 217 Elm Street was examined pertaining to the size of the site and the cost of the
building construction. Fees for the construction of the building excluding the grading of the site and
surfacing of the parking lot was estimated at $150,000. Total landscaping costs for the site including
the boulevard tree requirements and perimeter parking lot requirements were assessed at $2,485 or
approximately 1.7% of the total cost in construction of the building. Apple Valley requires the
minimum cost of landscaping a commercial site to be 2.5% of the estimated building construction
costs, in line with Farmington's proposed landscape ordinance.
The revised landscape ordinance represents the consolidation of efforts from numerous individuals
including the Builders Association of the Twin Cities, City staff, developers, builders and
professionals in the design field.
Advantages of the Proposed Amendment
The revised landscape ordinance will result in the following:
3
· Environmental benefits to the community through the introduction of plant material
will provide improved air quality by the absorption of pollutants, moderation of
daily temperatures, and reduced soil erosion and runoff.
· Functional benefits to landscape plantings include the reduction of glare and
reflections from the sun, street lights, and automobile lights, reduction of noise by
the absorption and dispersion of sound energy and the provision of wind breaks for
slowing wind velocity and the reduction of heating costs.
. Economic benefits from the installation of plant material will include increased
property values for owners and surrounding properties, the conservation of energy
from shade trees planted near buildings, and the increased appeal of commercial
areas to shoppers driving to the site.
· Aesthetic benefits in requiring landscaping will include the creation of pleasing
vistas, unifying and organizing disparate site elements, and establishing a
community identity to the City ofIndependence.
· Submitted plans will achieve a higher level of design through the employment ofa
registered landscape architect, registered architect, qualified horticulturist, or a
landscape designer with an established firm.
Disadvantages of the Proposed Amendment
Issues related to the revision of the existing landscape ordinance include the following:
· An increase in development costs for the amount of plant material required and
installation of the plants, but the total amount of expenditure will in most cases still
be a relatively small percentage of total construction costs.
· An increase in development costs because of the need for employing a registered
landscape. architect, registered architect, or a qualified horticulturist or lands~
designer with an experienced finn; however, this should result in greater. plant
survival rates and high design standards and quality.
Conclusion
The revised landscape ordinance has been developed to create an improved quality of life for the
citizens of Fannington and reach the goals of the vision statements for the City. In comparing the
advantages and disadvantages, it is apparent that a great number of benefits wi)) be seen from the
approval of the revisions and additions.
AcrION REOUESTED
Staff is requesting comments from the City Council in order to continue to refine the proposed
changes to the landscape ordinance.
4
It is recommended that the adoption of the revised ordinance provide a one-month lead-time to be
instituted in order to allow current preliminary plats to continue through the planning process before
these new requirements iake effect. This also allows time to infonn developers, professionals, and
plant nurseries of the new requirements through mailed brochures.
Respectfully submitted,
D4- S,udd
Lee Smick, AICP
Planning Coordinator
Summary of Attachments
1. Revised Landscape Ordinance
2. Existing Landscape Ordinance (Sec. 10-6-14)
3. Matrix of Surrounding Community Requirements
4. Sec. 14.08.0 10 BUFFER YARD REQUIREMENTS - City of Independence, Missouri
S. Illustration of Street-Side Tree Planting Requirements
6. Illustration of Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping Requirements
7. Illustration of Interior Parking Lot Landscaping Requirements
8. Illustration of Buffer Yard Landscaping Requirements
9. BufferNard Landscaping Requirements
10. Detennination of Buffer Yard & Screening Requirements
5