My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-24-1990 Additions
>
City Council Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1990
>
01-24-1990 Additions
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/10/2013 2:34:08 PM
Creation date
7/10/2013 2:33:09 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
39
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
J flN- 24 -9C1 LJE D 1 1 - 1 :3 <br />F - 0 •5 <br />2. Screening /landscaping is usually required around the <br />perimeter of all parking areas in the form of a berm, fence, <br />planting screen or combination of those elements. <br />3. Landscape islands are often times required in parking lots <br />containing a set of number of stalls. <br />4. Some cities determine minimum landscaping requirements as a <br />percentage of project value. <br />5. Many cities have a requirement regarding tree replacement or <br />preservation. <br />6. Most cities surveyed have a maintenance clause to insure <br />proper maintenance and replacement. <br />Most cities interviewed had varying levels of detail and areas of <br />concentration regarding their landscaping ordinance. Many of the <br />cities surveyed have some of the same or similar requirements to <br />those found within the Little Canada Ordinance, however, go into <br />more specific detail. Based on the recent concern over the <br />adequacy of Little Canada's landscape /screening Ordinance, <br />additional provisions or expansion of current standards should <br />receive detailed consideration. Specifically, our office would <br />strongly recommend a provision to ensure proper on -going <br />maintenance and prompt replacement of landscaping due to the <br />City's history of problems in that area. <br />An additional issue raised while conducting the survey included <br />the City's enforcement of their Ordinance. Some cities <br />experienced very low levels of maintenance and conformance <br />problems (Eden Prairie and Bloomington), while others have found <br />it difficult to enforce their Ordinances (Roseville and <br />Maplewood). Nearly all of those cities surveyed, however, would <br />not revoke a conditional use permit due to non - conformance. Most <br />all interviewed would contact the property owner to try and work <br />out a solution to the non - conformance problems. In severe cases, <br />some cities have taken a property owner to court or have tied <br />conformance to any building expansions or site plan <br />modifications. <br />The following is a sample of ordinance language from the various <br />cities surveyed and according to the aforementioned <br />representative approaches. <br />Page 32 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.