Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Space Trees Parking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Draft open‑space, tree‑replacement and parking standards prompt questions on applicability and cost
Summary
Planners proposed a points‑based social‑gathering/open‑space requirement, tree‑replacement rates and stricter parking‑lot landscaping; participants raised concerns about applying the rules to industrial and large commercial sites, maintenance burdens and fee‑in‑lieu calculations.
Stow City planning staff outlined a multi‑part proposal that would: require minimum open space or social‑gathering features for new developments, tighten tree‑replacement and preservation rules (including a fee‑in‑lieu option), and raise parking‑lot landscaping expectations for larger lots.
Why it matters: open‑space and tree requirements affect site layouts, developer costs and long‑term maintenance. Parking‑lot islands and landscape islands improve stormwater management and shade but can increase construction and snow‑removal complexity.
Staff explained a points system that lets developers earn required “points” by providing elements such as outdoor seating, play areas, dog parks, rain gardens or other social amenities. One participant asked how the system would apply to a large commercial redevelopment, noting the example of a longtime downtown redevelopment and saying the list of options might not suit every large commercial site.
Participants questioned whether stormwater ponds should count as open space; one participant argued excluding them is “unnecessarily restricting property” because a wet pond with a fountain can be usable open space. Staff noted the code allows developer‑proposed alternative open‑space elements subject to plan‑director approval.
On tree replacement, participants supported the principle of replacing trees removed during development but cautioned that a uniform fee or a large per‑inch charge could be punitive for large industrial sites that must remove many trees. One participant said a fee‑in‑lieu should allow the city to plant replacements in parks and public rights‑of‑way, but warned there may not be enough public land to absorb large numbers of replacement trees.
Speakers also reviewed parking‑lot landscape islands and rain‑garden options. Some attendees said islands are expensive, difficult to maintain and problematic in snow country; others noted that rain gardens reduce runoff and can qualify for stormwater credits. Participants suggested allowing both screening and green infrastructure options in appropriate locations and asked staff to revisit spacing and species for required buffers.
What’s next: staff will provide comparative examples, refine the points menu and show how the system would apply to representative local projects; the urban forestry commission will review tree‑replacement and landscape standards and staff will return with fee examples from other municipalities.
Ending: The planning team will follow up with examples of point calculations, alternatives for industrial sites and options for fee‑in‑lieu and tree replacement scales.
