Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Landscape Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Plan commission moves Article 11 landscaping revisions to public hearing
Summary
Planning staff outlined proposed changes to Article 11 that would add flexibility for alternative landscape designs, adjust point allocations for trees and planting beds, and introduce a 'landscape surface ratio' bonus. The commission voted to send the draft to a public hearing and asked staff to return defined language next month.
Planning staff presented a package of proposed amendments to Article 11 of the zoning code on Sept. 9, aimed at making landscaping requirements more flexible and easier to meet for developers and designers.
The presentation, delivered by planning staff (Speaker 6), said the draft would allow applicants to present alternative designs ‘‘toward the beginning of the ordinance in terms of applicability’’ so that site‑specific conditions could be considered. Staff proposed relaxing some point requirements for street frontage and general yard categories and increasing credit for certain planting types. "We also suggested adding a landscape surface ratio bonus," Speaker 6 said, presenting the change as a way to reward projects that provide more green area than the minimum.
Staff described five landscape categories under review—street frontage, foundation plantings, hardscape/parking lots, general area, and buffer yard—and said adjustments would increase credit for large and small deciduous and evergreen trees and give more predictable credit for annual and perennial beds based on square footage.
The proposed changes include limited ways to credit hardscape features consistent with green‑space objectives and examples of xeriscape language pulled from other municipalities. Staff acknowledged enforcement challenges tied to maintenance requirements that currently require replanting within a year when plants die and said clearer definitions and examples would be brought back to the commission.
Commissioners asked for clarified definitions and examples for items such as "boulder" (staff said the code uses an 8‑cubic‑foot measure) and reviewed municipal models Staff cited (Brookfield, De Pere, Janesville, La Crosse, Sheboygan, Wausau, Rapids, DeForest, Gillette WY, Madison and a Pennsylvania community).
Commissioners and staff agreed the proposal should go to a public hearing; staff said they would schedule the hearing and return with final, redlined language and any minor related edits at the next meeting. No formal ordinance adoption occurred at this meeting.
The commission did not set final numeric thresholds at the meeting; staff reported an example run showing a sample project would be roughly 154 points short under the current calculator and noted how the proposed bonuses could narrow that gap. The item will return after public comment and additional drafting.
Next step: staff will schedule a public hearing and bring defined language, examples and redlined code changes to the commission for a subsequent meeting.
