HomeMy WebLinkAboutA001 - Council Agenda Form, August 7, 1981 DATE August 7, 1981
COUNCIL AGENDA FORM
SUBJECT: Mobile Home Park Ordinance
COUNCIL AGENDA DATE : August 13, 1981
BACKGROUND:
At the July 15, 1980, City Council meeting, Council directed the City Attorney
to draft the proposed regulations into proper ordinance form, which was then
presented back to Council on September 23, 1980. At this time Council set a public
hearing date on the proposed ordinance for October 21, 1980.
At the October 21, 1980, meeting several concerns were raised by Council dealing
primarily with the landscaping requirements of the proposed ordinance. Some of
the concerns expressed were:
- that the landscape requirements were too detailed and too restrictive,
and
- that the size specifications for plant materials would make landscaping
unnecessarily costly.
It was suggested that the matter be viewed in terms of a "cost/benefit analysis"
in order for the impacts of the proposed legislation to be fully understood.
In light of this, a motion to pass the proposed ordinance on first reading
failed and it was sent back to the Community Development staff for review.
The following excerpt is from the minutes of the October 21, 1980, City
Council meeting:
"Council Member Curtis suggested that staff make a comparison of a couple
of mobile home parks in the city of what financial impact the ordinance
would have on the parks if they were brought up to the standards of the
proposed ordinance in terms of landscaping."
The report relating to the above is attached.
ALTERNATIVES:
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Set September 1, 1981, for Public Hearing and first reading of the Mobile
Home Park Ordinance.
•
Impact Analysis of Landscape Requirements
of Proposed Mobile Home Ordinance
BACKGROUND
The proposed Mobile Home Ordinance was prepared in response to a perceived
need to provide guidelines for the safe, orderly and humane development of
mobile home parks. Initial research was begun in late 1979,with a draft of the
regulations completed in March, 1980. The draft regulation was forwarded to
the Planning and Zoning Commission and it was discussed at their April 16, May 21,
and June 18 meetings. The Commission then forwarded the draft to City Council
on June 18, 1980, with a recommendation for approval.
At the July 15, 1980, City Council meeting, Council directed the City
Attorney to draft the proposed regulations into proper ordinance form, which
was then presented back to Council on September 23, 1980. At this time Council
set a public hearing date on the proposed ordinance for October 21, 1980.
At the October 21, 1980, meeting several concerns were raised by Council
dealing primarily with the landscaping requirements of the proposed ordinance.
Some of the concerns expressed were:
- that the landscape requirements were too detailed and too restrictive,
and
- that the size specifications for plant materials would make landscaping
unnecessarily costly.
It was suggested that the matter be viewed in terms of a "cost/benefit analysis"
in order for the impacts of the proposed legislation to be fully understood.
In light of this, a motion to pass the proposed ordinance on first reading
failed and it was sent back to the Community Development staff for review.
The following excerpt is from the minutes of the October 21, 1980, City
Council meeting:
"Council Member Curtis suggested that staff make a comparison of a
couple of mobile home parks in the city of what financial impact
the ordinance would have on the parks if they were brought up to
the standards of the proposed ordinance in terms of landscaping."
The rest of this report outlines the process used in the impact evaluation method
and details the results.
STUDY METHOD
The study differed somewhat from Council's suggestion in that only one
park was analyzed. The site chosen was Old Orchard Mobile Home Park. It was
selected because it represents for Ames a somewhat modern approach to mobile
home living and may contain some of the elements outlined in the proposed
ordinance. The Old Orchard site contains approximately 39.5 acres, 282 mobile
home spaces and 2 house lots, for a gross density of 7.18 dwelling, units per
acre. It also contains a recreation complex with swimming pool, tennis and
basketball courts, and children's play areas.
2 •
The study contained four phases: inventory of existing landscaping;
creation of a new landscape plan in conformance with the proposed ordinance;
gathering cost data; and impact evaluation. Each phase will be discussed
separately.
Landscape Inventory
A field survey of the existing landscaping was conducted in November, 1980,
to show the location and type of all plant materials on the site. A conversation
with the park manager revealed that it was their intent to plant one shade tree
per lot in conjunction with additional ornamental plantings. The survey also
showed that several residents had personalized the landscaping on their individual
lot. The existing landscaping is shown on Map 1.
Model Landscape Plan
The creation of a new landscape plan for the Old Orchard site which would
conform with the proposed ordinance involved several stages in itself. First,
three typical lot configurations were identified based on lot size, mobile home
size, and street layout. They were categorized as "single-wide," "double-wide,"
and "cluster" lot configurations. Design concepts were created for an individual
lot within each of the categories, and these concepts were then applied to a
small grouping of the lots. These design concepts were then translated into a
typical landscape plan for each of the lot configuration categories. Finally,
these typical landscape plans were applied to the site as a whole. The process
is illustrated in Diagrams 1, 2, and 3, with the 'single-wide" lot configuration
as an example. The model landscape plan is shown on Map 2.
Cost Data
The model landscape plan identified five types of landscape materials to be
used: deciduous overstory trees, evergreen overstory trees, compact evergreen
trees/shrubs, ornamental trees, and shrubs. For each of these types, representative
species were selected for cost analysis. Questionnaires were sent out to eight
local nurseries asking for cost information on the species and sizes of plant
materials provided to them, as well as information on installation costs: Of
the eight questionnaires sent out, five were returned. For each specie, the high
and the low cost were thrown out and the remaining three were averaged for a
"specie average" cost. Within each plant material type listed above, these costs
were then averaged to get a representative cost for a single plant material within
that type. Alternate sizes were listed for those trees to be measured by height
so that comparisons could be made on the cost of trees with sizes required by
the proposed ordinance with the cost of smaller trees.
Information on installation costs were received in three forms: cost per
mobile home lot, cost as a percent of material purchases, and cost for the total
development (based on a 10-acre site, 7 units per acre, and 5 pieces of plant
material per lot) .
A summary of the cost data is shown on Table 1.
Impact Evaluation
Determining the financial impact of the landscape requirements of the proposed
ordinance is, of course, ambiguous. Actual costs for implementing any landscape
plan will depend upon existing site conditions, site planning, selection of plant
3
materials., extent of landscaping, and a number of other variables. Each case
is obviously different. For this illustration, a comparison was made between
what it would cost to accomplish the existing landscape development at Old Orchard
with what it would cost to implement the model landscape plan. Both were compared
in terms of relative costs for each plant material type (as described earlier)
and average installation costs. Table 2 and Table 3 illustrate the results.
These figures show that costs for landscaping Old Orchard Mobile Home Park
in accordance with the model landscape plan may be as great as 90% higher than
costs to implement a plan that accomplishes the existing landscape development.
About 30% of this increase may be due to the size requirements set forth in the
regulations.
This is not, however, a "cost/benefit" analysis, as no dollar figures have
been assigned to the "benefit" half of the equation. This is a difficult task, as
benefits from good landscaping do not always have a monetary value. But good
landscape planning will result in savings in energy costs through the use of
winter windbreaks and passive solar heating, and through summer shading and the
channelization of cooling summer breezes. Good landscape planning will provide
the private outdoor living spaces so essential in the higher densities of
mobile home living. Good landscape planning will also provide environmental and
aesthetic benefits, not only to the residents of the mobile home park, but to
the community as a whole.
• 4
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF COST DATA BY PLANT MATERIAL TYPE
DECIDUOUS OVERSTORY: 1 1/4" - 1. 1/2" caliper (8' - 10' height)
$ 78.33 1. Red Maple (Acer rubrum)
70.66 2. Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica lanceolata)
78.66 3. Hackberry (�eltis occidentalis)
75.66 4. Thornless Honeylocust (Gleditsia triacanthos inermis)
75.83
EVERGREEN OVERSTORY: Size A 3' - 4' height
Size B 5' - 6' height
A B
$ 53.00 $ 93.00 1. White Fir (Abies concolor)
49.00 83.33 2. Norway Spruce (Picea abies)
51.33 88.66 3. Colorado Spruce (Picea pungens)
59.66 93.66 4. Eastern Hemlock (Tsuga canadensis)
EVERGREEN COMPACT: Size A 3' - 4' height
Size B 5' - 6' height
A B
$ 34.33 $ 56.66 1. Pyramid Chinese Juniper (Juniperous chinensis)
50.66 85.00 2. Japanese Yew (Taxus Cuspidata capitata)
33.33 55.00 3. Eastern Arborvitae (ThujA occidentalis)
39.44 65.55
ORNAMENTAL: Size A 9/16" caliper (4' - 5' height)
Size B 7/8" caliper (6' - 8' height)
A B
$ 29.33 $40.00 1. Snowdrift Crabapple (Malus variety)
36.33 68.33 2. Washington Hawthorne (Crataegus phaenopyrum)
33.33 67.33 3. Shadblow Serviceberry (Amelanchier canadensis)
25.00 33.66 4. Purpleleaf Plum (Prunus ameriCana variety)
30.99 52.33
SHRUBS: 18" - 24" (5 gal.)
$21.33 1. Maney Juniper (Juniperous chinensis maney)
26.00 2. Hicks Anglojap Yew (Taxus media hicksi)
12.33 3, Gray Dogwood (Cornus racemosa)
11.00 4. Arrowwood Viburnum (Viburnum dentatum)
12.66 5. Japanese Barberry (Berberis thunbergi)
16.66
INSTALLATION COSTS: (Choose one)
$ per plant - NO RESPONSES
$100.00 per mobile home lot - ONE RESPONSE
$5,940.00 total development - THREE RESPONSES
50 percent of material purchases - ONE RESPONSE
• 5 •
TABLE 2
Existing Landscaping
Cost
uan. Type Size A Size B
14 Evergreen Overstory $745.50 $1,255.24
0 Evergreen Compact
294 Deciduous Overstory $22,294,02
60 Ornamental $1,859.40 $3,139.80
123 Shrubs $2,049.18
491 Total Material $26,948.10 $28,738.24
1.73 Per Lot Material $95.22 $101.55
Installation $14,375.00
Installation Per Lot $50.79
Total Development Costs
(Material + Installation) $41,325.00 $43,115.00
Development Costs/Lot $146.00 $152.00
TABLE 3
Model Landscape Plan
Cost
uan. Type Size A Size B
105 Evergreen Overstory $5,591.25 $9,414.30
225 Evergreen Compact 8,874.00 $14,748.75
171 Deciduous Overstory $12,966.93
253 Ornamental $7,840.47 $13,239.49
499 Shrubs $8,313.34
1254 'Total Material $43,585.00 $58,682.81
4.4 Per Lot Material $154.01 $207.36
Installation $24,550.00
Installation Per Lot $86.75
Total Development Costs
(Material + Installation) $68,136.00 $83,233.00
Development Costs/Lot $241.00 $294.00
EVEWv��EN WIN E-� DN
..
:.. '.�s ?
Q
:::
�1f1111111 �Ilf ,- -� �,
IVIN�v G I+
i I
::z t i
wl
OUT"1�r� 1-NN SPAOE�
t '
� � 1f11II11111 =�
I
IIII Ill1
TtoN �-
N O sz T H
I N& Ad-LOW N°
�-Ttz FAT
Illl
tWF-AV V ATYCORD
' � I
' I 1
.y
::::; .....
WlW-rEF evN. k� � •;:�;�'' �• ;' VII I I I.I I I
P��-rl�a.. wINbP�r��K I(I ll Ill � III ll�l f( � .
,SF,A&I=1 PA12TIA �. r
�NT�`f, ��N Pf�1zKIN
t�oM armcr� NvIN�O
T-�
�•r w
WI I"�A-[E . r
ti7(isdo�M �
e� wHFAcT S-T P-F-ET
M
4 =4M '•`�
1
r + j
L
110
S-TRP-ET
T(P I CAL- L-4NPsGAPF-- RAN = �INI�L W►
mpmWAV.%r-
0
S. SIXTEENTH ST.
NORTH
OLD ORCHARD O
50
VL A
OT
o
® . PL AV ,
LOT
RECREATION O O
CENTER �o
�J\/
PARK O
OUSE O AINI O
"M 0 c0
00
co
s O
o
o .
No-tE G�+rzv&�:,AZC-- WO-T sa bWN o �Eu�t bc�OVE mR"f
EVERGREEN ddERS�RY
& 02NAt-1Et-I TAi-
MAF 1
EX I ST I N 6 LANP`:; ,API N�
FAVA Ir,
gill
Af�
HOUSE