Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planting Standards topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Carbondale tree board reviews one-page planting diagram to tighten planting standards
Summary
Town arborist presented a one-page tree planting diagram aimed at simplifying planting specifications, adding required inspections and recommending mandatory tree protection measures such as wildlife fencing and trunk wraps.
Carl, the town arborist, presented a draft one-page tree planting diagram intended to condense the town’s existing tree maintenance standards into a field-friendly reference for developers, contractors and inspectors.
The diagram is intended to be a concise, on-site tool to reduce planting errors and to clarify expectations for new developments. Carl said he “took the standards we already have and just put it into this,” and noted he drew on examples from other Colorado municipalities and an open-source template to build the document.
Board members said the single-page format is useful in the field and for handing to landscapers. The draft adds an explicit pre- and post-planting inspection requirement and lists optional protections that Carl recommended be required in the right-of-way: wildlife fencing and trunk wraps. Carl described his example specification as “5 foot tall welded wire fencing, minimum 2 foot radius from the trunk, and 3 to 4 wooden posts,” and said he would correct a typographical error in the draft that mistakenly listed the height in inches.
Members discussed other technical elements that should be clarified in the diagram: the relationship between tree caliper and root-ball size, and the formula for hole diameter (several board members urged clarifying whether hole size should be “2–3 times the root ball” and how to compute that from caliper). Cammie Long (identified in the meeting as a state forester contact) had been consulted by Carl about caliper-to-root-ball expectations; Carl said he would refine the formula and language to avoid implying unrealistic hole sizes.
The board also recommended adding a short checklist or series of check boxes for the most actionable items (for example: remove burlap/tarp from the root ball; protective fencing installed; irrigation indicated), and including a glossary for acronyms so the sheet would be clearer in translation.
Board members suggested the one-page diagram remain a living document (the town’s tree ordinance can continue to reference a separate tree maintenance standards document) and that the diagram be included in the building submittal packet. Carl said he is working with planning staff on inspection procedures that would pair with the one-page guide.
Members asked Carl to incorporate the suggested edits and bring a revised version back for further review.
Ending: The board took the presentation as informational and asked Carl to revise the diagram to correct typos, clarify the hole-size formula tied to caliper, add a checklist and glossary entries, and to propose how the one-page guide will be included in the building packet and inspection workflow.
