HomeMy WebLinkAbout01.12.99 Planning Packet
.
.
~~..-'
r . .'---
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular
January 12, 1999
7:00 P.M.
Counell Chambers
325 Oak Street
1.
CALL TO ORDER
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a)
December 8, 1998 - Distributed at the meeting
3.
PUBUC HEARINGS
7:00 PM
a) Application to Amend the Comprehensive Plan - 821 Third Street - (continued from
12/8/98 meeting)
b)
Application to. Rezone property at 821 . Third Street from R-2 (Medium Density
Residential) to B-2 (General Business) - (continued from 12/8/98 meeting)
c)
Amend. Title IQ of the Farmington Zoning Ordinance - (continued from 1218198
meeting)
4. DISCUSSION
a) Amend Section 10-2-3, 10-3-1 and 10-3-2 of the Farmington City Code - B-4
Neighborhood Business District
b) City of Farmington's 1999 Land Use Map
c) Amend Title 2 Chapter 9 and SectioIl1O-6-14 of the Fannington City Code -- Revised
Landscape Ordinance
5. ADJOURN
.
.
.
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ct.farmln~on.mn.us
TO:
City Planning Commission r/)
Lee Smick, AICP (){j/
Planning Coordinator Y
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Application to Rezone 821 Third Street from R-2 (Medium Density Residential)
to B-2 (General Business)
DATE:
January 12, 1999
INTRODUCTIONIDISCUSSION
The application to rezone the property at 821 Third Street consisting of 41,047 square feet from
the existing R-2 - Medium Density Residential to B-2 General Business was reviewed at the
December 8, 1998 Planning Commission meeting.
As stated in the prior staff memo to amend the Comprehensive Plan for 821 Third Street, City
staff recommends the following:
1. Consideration of the establishment of a new neighborhood business district as a text
amendment to the Zoning Code and that the property at 821 Third Street be considered
for rezoning to this new classification.
2. Since the Airlake Ford space has continually been used as a vehicle repair shop since the
early 1960's when Dakota Electric constructed the building, there will be no change in
the original non-conforming use for a vehicle repair shop. Therefore, it is recommended
that the application to rezone the property from R-2 - Medium Density Residential to B-2
General Business be withdrawn and the owners apply to rezone the property to the new
neighborhood business district upon approval of the district by City Council.
The City Attorney has reviewed and approves the staff recommendation.
ACTION REOUESTED
City staff recommends the public hearing to rezone the property at 821 Third Street from R-2 -
Medium Density Residential to B-2 General Business be closed. Action should be continued for
rezoning the property to the new neighborhood business district.
Respectfully Submitted,
cdl )
Lee Smick, AICP
Planning Coordinator
.
.
.
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street. Farmington. MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmlnaton.mn.us
TO:
City Planning Commission _
Lee Smick, AICP III /)
Planning Coordinator ~
Amend Title 10 of the Farmington Zoning Ordinance
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
January 12, 1999
INTRODUCTIONIDISCUSSION
The Planning Division proposes to amend Title 10 of the Farmington Zoning Ordinance in
Section 10-1-4 concerning the definitions of "Day Care Facilities", "Residential Care Facilities",
"Personal and Professional Services" and "Neighborhood Services". The amendment also
includes changes to 10-3-1 and 10-3-2 pertaining to "Clinics" as permitted uses and certain
"Residential Care Facilities" as conditional uses in the B-1 and B-2 district. An additional
amendment allows provisions for "Personal and Professional Services", "Day Care Facilities"
and "Residential Care Facilities" as permitted uses in the new B-4 Neighborhood Business
district.
City staff recommends that these text amendments be continued until the proposed B-4
Neighborhood Business district is approved by both the Planning Commission and the City
Council.
ACTION REQUESTED
Continue the public hearing for the text amendments to the March 9, 1999 Planning Commission
meeting pending the approval of the proposed B-4 Neighborhood Business district.
~~' (7
0~~~
Lee Smick, AICP
Planning Coordinator
.
.
.
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington. MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ct.farmington.mn.us
TO:
City Planning Commission
Lee Smick, AICP /'}' V
Planning Coordinator~
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Application to Amend the Comprehensive Plan - 821 Third Street
DATE:
January 12, 1998
INTRODUCTIONIDISCUSSION
The application to amend the Comprehensive Plan at 821 Third Street was reviewed at the
December 8, 1998 Planning Commission meeting. The owners requested that the Comprehensive
Plan be amended from Low Density Residential to Business for the 41,047 square foot property.
At the meeting, a number of residents from the adjacent neighborhood had concerns with the
Airlake Ford body shop presently operating within the bay area of the building. The concerns
included noises associated with the repair of automobiles as well as the outside storage of cars
and parts. Other concerns from the residents included the alleged dumping of noxious pollutants
on an adjoining resident's property.
At the request of the Planning Commission, the property owners held a meeting at the site on
January 7, 1999. The owners, tenants of the building and residents were in attendance to discuss
the use of the building. Results from this meeting include the following:
1. The residents did not object to the Airlake Ford body shop as long as the owners require
the tenant to keep the garage door closed throughout business hours, limit the business
hours, not allow for outdoor storage of cars or parts, only allow for the priming of cars -
no painting of cars would be allowed and eliminating any noise associated with the body
shop operations.
2. The residents did not object to the veterinary lab in the building as long as no outdoor
mixing of powders is done on the site or dumping of materials on the lot and no semi-
tractor trailer trucks be allowed in the alley area.
3. The property owners verbally agreed to continue to share the parking lot with White's
Funeral Home to the south.
Since the property owners agreed to the above contingencies, the residents were satisfied with the
uses existing in the building. Therefore, City staff is making the following recommendations for
the property at 821 Third Street:
.
1.
Consideration of the establishment of a new neighborhood business district as a text
amendment to the Zoning Code and that the property at 821 Third Street be considered
for rezoning to this new classification.
2. Since the Airlake Ford space has continually been used as a vehicle repair shop since the
early 1960's when Dakota Electric constructed the building, there will be no change in
the original non-conforming use for a vehicle repair shop. Therefore, it is recommended
that the application to amend the Comprehensive Plan from Low Density Residential to
Business should be withdrawn and the owners apply for a conditional use permit for a
change of a non-conforming use as cited in Section 10-6-1 of the City Code.
The City Attorney has reviewed and approves the staff recommendation.
ACTION REOUESTED
City staff recommends the public hearing for the amendment of the Comprehensive Plan for the
property at 821 Third Street from Low Density Residential to Business be closed. Action on the
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan should continue to be considered with the rezoning to the
new neighborhood business district.
Respectfully Submitted,
. ~.~
Lee Smick, AICP
Planning Coordinator
.
.
.
.
City of Farmington
3Z5 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.cJ.farmlnlton.mn.us
TO:
City Planning Commission
FROM:
Lee Smick, AICP
Planning Coordinator
OW
SUBJECT:
1999 Comprehensive Plan Update-
Land Use Map
DATE:
January 12, 1999
INTRODUCTIONIDISCUSSION
At the January 6, 1999 Planning Commission workshop concerning the proposed 1999
Land Use Map there were numerous revisions to the map recommended by the
Commissioners. The following is a listing of the recommended revisions addressing
Commissioner's concerns.
1. Distinguish in greater detail the colors designated on the map between Low-
Density and Low/Medium-Density.
2. Distinguish the North Branch and the Vermillion River on the map in order to
meet the vision of utilizing the river banks as aesthetically pleasing opportunities.
3. Relocate the Medium-Density on the Neilan Property to the north side of Ash
Street to utilize the proposed minor arterial and eliminate the Medium-Density
along Denmark Avenue across from the single-family residences and Farmington
High School and redesignate the north half of the property as Low-Density.
4. Relocate the commercial strip oQ. the west side of the realigned Pilot Knob Road
to the Seed/Genstar property as a "floating" land use within the 950 acres and
relocate the Medium-Density to front along Pilot Knob Road with the knowledge
that the Medium-Density acreage may decrease depending on how the qty meets
the Livable Communities Act requirements.
5.
Relocate the Medium-Density on the Babe Murphy Property and the Reisinger
Property on either side of Akin Road to the Seed/Genstar Property as a "floating"
.
.
.
land use within the 950 acres. The Murphy and Reisinger properties are
redesignated as Low Density.
6. Show the Riverbend Property owned by Genstar as Low/Medium Density to
correspond with the Low/Medium Density located in Dakota County Estates.
Dakota County Estates is developed at 4.17 units per acre falling within the
Low/Medium Density requirements.
7. Meet the Livable Community Act requirement by locating 32% Medium-Density
residential within the 950 acres of the Seed/Genstar Property.
8, Show parkland and a public school site as a "floating" land use within the 950
acres of the Seed/Genstar Property.
9. Minor land use changes at Hickory and 8th, Elm and 5th, Walnut and 8th and locate
the Business (Neighborhood-Business District) land uses throughout the
community.
The attached map reflects the above changes proposed at the January 6th Planning
Commission workshop. It was recommend by the Planning Commission that the Land
Use Map be presented at the January 12, 1999 Planning Commission meeting for final
review and adoption of the map.
ACTION REQUESTED
Approve and adopt the Land Use Map as an element of the 1999 Comprehensive Plan
Update and forward it to the City Council.
Respectfully submitted,
u1~(/
~/ ~.
Lee Smick, AICP
Planning Coordinator
.
.
.
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street. Farmington. MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 fax (651) 463-2591
www.ct.farmilljton.mn.us
TO:
City Planning Cnmmission f)
Lee Smick, AICP n (
Planning Coordinator y
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Amend Section 10-2-3, 10-3-1 and 10-3-2 of the Farmington City Code-
B-4 Neighborhood Business District
DATE:
January 12, 1999
INTRODUCTION
The Planning Division proposes to amend Section 10-2-3, 10-3-1 and 10-3-2 of the Farmington
City Code to provide a new zoning district titled B-4 - Neighborhood Business. The amendment
includes a purpose statement in Section 10-2-3 of the Code for the B-4 District and proposes
permitted and conditional uses in Sections 10-3-1 and 10-3-2.
DISCUSSION
During discussions at the December 8, 1998 Planning Commission meeting concerning the proposed
rezoning of 821 Third Street, it became apparent to the Planning Commission and City staff that
there was a need to provide business districts that could serve adjacent residential areas on parcels of
land three acres or less in size. The neighborhood business district is intended to provide a setting
for low and medium-density housing combined with complementary and supporting land uses
that serve a neighborhood and are developed and operated in harmony with the residential
characteristics of a neighborhood. The main purpose of the district is to meet a wide range of
needs of everyday living in neighborhoods that provide a variety of housing choices, that invite
walking to gathering places, services and conveniences, and that are fully integrated into the
larger community. Any new development within this district shall be arranged to form part of an
individual neighborhood. The Neighborhood Business District may be located within the core of
a neighborhood with adequate access to the business center or on the periphery of residential
neighborhoods along collector streets or streets of a higher classification.
The Planning Division has been in the process of examining surrounding communities such as
Rosemount, Lakeville, Apple Valley and Burnsville to determine the types of uses located in each
respective community. The attached matrix illustrates these fmdings.
The proposed amendments to the defmitions of personal and professional services, day care facilities,
residential care facilities and neighborhood services are also attached.
.
Advantages of the Proposed Amendment
The B-4 District will result in the following:
· Provide a variety of service oriented businesses in close proximity to neighborhoods
while remaining compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
· Provide locations for start-up businesses and uses that only require small leases
spaces.
· Provide the opportunity to make use of existing buildings within a residential
neighborhood while remaining compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the attached text amendment for adding the B-4
Zoning District to the Zoning Code.
ACTION REQUESTED
Staff is requesting comments from the Planning Commission in order to continue to refme the
proposed B-4 Neighborhood Business District zone.
. ~y~
Lee Smick, AICP
Planning Coordinator
.
.
1.
2.
3.
. 4.
5.
6.
7.
.
B-4- Neighborhood Business
Purpose: The neighborhood business district is intended to provide a setting for low and
medium-density housing combined with complementary and supporting land uses that
serve a neighborhood and are developed and operated in harmony with the residential
characteristics of a neighborhood. The main purpose of the district is to meet a wide
range of needs of everyday living in neighborhoods that provide a variety of housing
choices, that invite walking to gathering places, services and conveniences, and that are
fully integrated into the larger community. Any new development within this district
shall be arranged to form part of an individual neighborhood. The Neighborhood
Business District may be located within the core of a neighborhood with adequate access
to the business center or on the periphery of residential neighborhoods along collector
streets or streets of a higher classification.
Permitted Uses:
Personal & Professional Services (not exceeding 3,000 square feet of gross floor
area)
Neighborhood Convenience Stores (no gasoline sales/limited to 3,000 square feet
of gross floor area)
Personal Health & Beauty Services (not exceeding 3,000 square feet of gross
floor area)
Restaurants (no drive-through services, limited to 3,000 square feet of gross floor
area)
Non- Profit/Public Buildings
Day Care Facilities serving 14 or fewer children
Residential Care Facility
Conditional Uses:
1. Personal & Professional Services (exceeding 3,000 square feet in gross floor area)
2. Neighborhood Convenience Stores (gasoline sales and/or exceeding 3,000 square
feet in gross floor area - no automotive repair facilities allowed)
3. Day Care Facilities serving 15 or more children
4. Funeral Homes
5. Animal Clinics
6. Health Clubs
7. Neighborhood Services (not to exceed 3,000 square feet in gross floor area)
8. Parking Lots
9. Multi-Family Dwellings
10. Churches
~ liON 1:>: U4 FAX 812 452 5550 >" ~
/'
.
.
.
CAMPBELL
+.+-+ FAJ<JUNl>TUN
IgJ002
ORDINANCE NO.
CITY OF FARMINGTON
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNBSOT A
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE FARMINGTON
CITY CODEt THE FARMINGTON ZONING ORDINANCE, CONCERNING
DAY CARE FACILITIES, RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES, AND
PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AND BY INCLlJDlNG
CLINICS AS PERMlTl'ED USES AND CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL CARE
FAC~ITIES AS CONDITIONAL USES IN THE B-1 AND B-2 DISTRICTS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. The definition of "Day Care FacUity" in Section 10-1-4 of the
Farmington City Code is amended to read as follows:
DAY CARE FACILITY:
Any state or county licensed facility, public or private,
which fot gain or otherwise regularly provides care of
a child in a residence outside the child's own home fOT
periods of less than twenty-four (24) hours per day.
~CTJON ~. The definition of "Residential Care Facility" in Section 10-1-4 of
the Fannington City Code is amended to read as follows:
RESIDENTIAL CARE
FACILITY:
Any state or county licensed facility, public or private,
which provides care for children or the aged or infirm,
or for those who may be disabled, and includes
licensed programs dermed under Minn. Stat.
~ 245A,02, Subds. 10 and 14.
SECTION 3. Section 10-14 of the Farmington City Code is amended by adding
a definition for "Personal and Professional Services" to read as follows:
PERSONAL AND
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES:
Nonretait services involving predominantly the
handling of information or the performance of
administrative services which may include services
provided both o.n-site and off-site on a walk~in or
appointment basis, such as counseling or indirect or
non~personal service such as real estate, travel
agencies, financial agencies, insurance offices and
professional services which include, but are not limited
to: legal, psychology. and accounting services.
67616
.
.
.
NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES:
Libraries
Self Defense/Martial Arts
Dance Studios
Copying and Postal (i.e. Boxes Etc., Kinkos)
Locksmiths
Cleaning/Janitorial Services
Jewelry/Watch repair
Health & Fitness Consultants (i.e., Jenny Craig)
Upholstery and Furniture Repair
Computer Services & Repair
Drycleaning/Tailoring Shops
Optical Care
Craft shops
Antique Stores
.
.
.
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street. Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-1111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ct.farminllton.mn.us
TO:
City Planning Commission
Lee Smick, AICP IlLtV
Planning Coordinato~
FROM:
SUBJECT:
1998 Comprehensive Plan Update-
Land Use Map
DATE:
January 12, 1999
INTRODUCTIONIDISCUSSION
At the January 6, 1999 Planning Commission workshop concerning the proposed 1999
Land Use Map there were numerous revisions to the map recommended by the
Commissioners. The following is a listing of the recommended revisions addressing
Commissioner's concerns.
1. Distinguish in greater detail the colors designated on the map between Low-
Density and Low/Medium-Density.
2. Distinguish the North Branch and the Vermillion River on the map in order to
meet the vision of utilizing the river banks as aesthetically pleasing opportunities.
3. Relocate the Medium-Density on the Neilan Property to the north side of Ash
Street to utilize the proposed minor arterial and eliminate the Medium-Density
along Denmark Avenue across from the single-family residences and Farmington
High School and redesignate the north half ofthe property as Low-Density.
4. Relocate the commercial strip o~ the west side of the realigned Pilot Knob Road
to the Seed/Genstar property as a "floating" land use within the 950 acres and
relocate the Medium-Density to front along Pilot Knob Road with the knowledge
that the Medium-Density acreage may decrease depending on how the City meets
the Livable Communities Act requirements. -
5.
Relocate the Medium-Density on the Babe Murphy Property and the Reisinger
Property on either side of Akin Road to the Seed/Genstar Property as a "floating"
.
.
.
land use within the 950 acres. The Murphy and Reisinger properties are
redesignated as Low Density.
6. Show the Riverbend Property owned by Genstar as LowlMedium Density to
correspond with the LowlMedium Density located in Dakota County Estates.
Dakota County Estates is developed at 4.17 units per acre falling within the
Low/Medium Density requirements.
7. Meet the Livable Community Act requirement by locating 32% Medium-Density
residential within the 950 acres of the Seed/Genstar Property.
8. Show parkland and a public school site as a "floating" land use within the 950
acres of the Seed/Genstar Property.
9. Minor land use changes at Hickory and 8th, Elm and 5th, Walnut and 8th and locate
the Business (Neighborhood-Business District) land uses throughout the
community.
The attached map reflects the above changes proposed at the January 6th Planning
Commission workshop. It was recommend by the Planning Commission that the Land
Use Map be presented at the January 12, 1999 Planning Commission meeting for final
review and adoption of the map.
ACTION REQUESTED
Approve and adopt the Land Use Map as an element of the 1999 Comprehensive Plan
Update and forward it to the City Council.
Respectfully submitted,
Lee Smick, AICP
Planning Coordinator
.
.
.
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION
City of Farmington
3I5 Oak Street. farmlngton. MN 550Z4
(651) 463-1111 fax (651) 463-2591
www.d.farmlnaton.mn.us
City Planning Commission
Lee Smick, AICP
Planning Coordinator
Amend Title 2 Chapter 9 and Section 10-6-14 of the Fannington City
Code - Revised Landscape Ordinance
January 12, 1999
The Planning Division proposes to amend Title 2 Chapter 9 and Section 10-6-14 of.. the
Fannington City Code to provide for a revised landscape ordinance. The amendment to Title 2
Chapter 9 - "Reforestation Advisory Commission" includes the removal of Section 2-9-11 to 2-9-
20 and transferring these requirements to Section 10-6-14. The amendment to Section 10-6-14
includes 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
Farmington should be strengthened.
Areas where the City's landscape ordinanc!, 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 smfaces and
increased flows of runoff. 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.
Vision for the City of Farmington
.
One of the visions for the City of Fannington 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:
1. 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.
.
.
.
.
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 infonnation titled Sec. 14.08.010 BUFFER YARD REQUIREMENTS has
been included to act as a guide in proposing screening requirements in transition zones. This
infonnation 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 infonnation for the Commissioners 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 arcbitect 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,
K wik 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 $ I 50,000. Total landscaping costs for the site including
the boulevard tree requirements and perimeter parking lot requirements were assessed at $2,435 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 Fannington'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:
.
Environmental benefits to the community through the introduction of plant material
will provide improved air quality by the absorption of pollutants, moderation of
daily tempemtures, 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 conselVation 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 of a
registered .Iandscape architect, registered architect, qualified horticulturist, or a
landscape designer with an established finn.
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 landscape
designer with an experienced firm; 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 will be seen from the
approval of the revisions and additions.
ACTION REOUESTED
.
Staff is requesting comments from the Planning Commission in order to continue to refine the
proposed changes to the landscape ordinance. Staff will present the revisions from this meeting at
the February 9, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. The City Council will meet for a workshop to
discuss the Planning Commission recommendations on February 23, 1999. After recommendations
.
for revisions from the workshop are completed, it is anticipated that a public hearing for the
landscape ordinance amendment will be set for March 23, 1999 at the Planning Commission with
final consideration for approval by the City Council on AprilS, 1999.
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 take effect. This also allows time to inform developers, professionals, and
plant nurseries of the new requirements.
Respectfully submitted,
cPtJu~<~
1.
2.
. 3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
.
Lee Smick, AICP
Planning Coordinator
Summmy of Attachments
Revised Landscape Ordinance
Existing Landscape Ordinance (Sec. 10-6-14)
Matrix of Surrounding Community Requirements
Sec. 14.08.010 BUFFER YARD REQUIREMENTS - City of Independence, Missouri
Illustration of Street-Side Tree Planting Requirements
Illustration of Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping Requirements
Illustration of Interior Parking Lot Landscaping Requirements
Illustration of Buffer Yard Landscaping Requirements
BufferN ard Landscaping Requirements
Detennination of Buffer Yard & Screening Requirements