Agenda - Environmental Policy Board - 02/10/2020

Home

Environmental Policy Board (EPB) Meeting Date: 02/10/2020 By: Chris Anderson, Community Development 5. 1. Information Title: Continued Discussion on Potential Amendment to Landscape Requirements in the Employment Districts Purpose/Background: At the December, 2019 Environmental Policy Board (EPB) meeting, there was continued discussion about potential amendments to the landscaping requirements for the Employment Districts (E-1, E-2, and E-3), which originated as a result of the DeltaMod Tech Landscape Plan. The EPB had reviewed what various peer communities (Andover, Coon Rapids, Dayton, and Elk River) had for landscaping requirements. Additionally, the EPB expressed a desire to explore what the results would be if the Canopy Cover Formula, which is applied to multi -family developments, were applied. Staff was directed to prepare exhibits (Landscape Plans) to assist the EPB in understanding what the various code requirements would look like. Those exhibits are attached. Observations/Alternatives: In the following table, the originally approved landscaping numbers for DeltaMod Tech are outlined along with the required number of trees and shrubs for that same site after applying the various communities' landscaping requirements. It seems apparent that the shrub requirements of a couple communities are significantly higher than Ramsey's standard While shrubs can be an important element of a landscape, Staff would encourage a greater emphasis on trees rather than shrubs. Community Number of Trees Number of Shrubs DeltaMod Tech 218 762 Andover 70 350 Coon Rapids 409 3,282 Dayton 192 2,882 Elk River 90 0 As part of this exercise, several exhibits were also created to demonstrate multiple alternatives if the Canopy Cover Formula were applied to this site. When applying the Canopy Cover Formula, there is a lot of flexibility in terms of number of trees (meeting a minimum amount of square footage of canopy cover rather than a minimum number of trees/shrubs), so this is not really an apples to apples comparison with the numbers outlined in the above table. This option would afford the project's design team to be more creative in designing the landscape. But, some thresholds may need to be incorporated to ensure a mix of species is included to avoid focusing on just a couple species that have the greatest assigned square footage (e.g. Bur Oak, White Oak, American Elm, each are assigned almost 4,000 square feet in value). Finally, it may be helpful to also consider a cap on the amount of square footage accomplished via shrubs and ornamental trees, as this helps shift more emphasis to shade trees that generally provide more benefits, both environmentally and economically. If the EPB supports amending the landscape requirements, Staff would recommend including intended objectives of landscaping within the ordinance. This may assist in outlining what the intent of the requirements are, such as improving the aesthetics from public roads, enhancing energy efficiency, etc. Attached to this case are some examples of possible objectives. If the EPB supports the inclusion of objectives, Staff can revise and refine the draft for consideration as part of a formal draft ordinance amendment. One other item that the EPB may wish to consider is a standard or requirement for a certain amount of native landscaping (wildflowers and grasses). This could potentially be tied to a certain percentage of building footprint, as an example. This could help reduce the amount of maintained turf grass and thus, reduce the amount of water and fertilizer applied to the site over time. While Staff does not have any specific recommended standard, if this is of interest to the EPB, Staff can attempt to vet this more and incorporate into an ordinance amendment, if that's the ultimate direction of the EPB.