Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Landscaping Requirements topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sustainability board recommends adding 50 native species, boosting native-plant incentive to 20% in Chapter 30
Summary
Oshkosh City Sustainability Advisory Board voted to recommend adding an expanded list of Wisconsin native plants to the city’s Chapter 30 landscaping code, raise the current 10% native-plant bonus to 20%, remove several species recommended by UW Extension, and allow mixed perennial plantings for landscaping point calculations.
Get email alerts on the Landscaping Requirements topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Oshkosh City Sustainability Advisory Board on March 3 voted to recommend changes to Chapter 30 of the city’s zoning code that would add a 50-species list of Wisconsin native plants, increase the native-species landscaping bonus from 10% to 20%, remove species UW Extension advised should be deleted from the existing list, and allow a mix-and-match method for perennial plant point calculations.
Board members said the changes are intended to make native plants more attractive to developers by increasing their landscaping point value and to encourage greater planting diversity. Emma (staff member) read an update on the existing and proposed species lists and explained that any change to point values would require Plan Commission review and a formal zoning ordinance amendment.
The nut graff for developers: Chapter 30 currently assigns landscaping points by plant size and category; the board’s recommendations would (1) add the additional Wisconsin native species to the code with listed resilience weights, (2) raise the existing 10% bonus for using Wisconsin native plants to 20%, (3) remove several species identified by UW Extension and board member recommendations, and (4) change perennial point accounting so developers can mix species rather than be restricted to block groupings.
Board members described why they backed the measures. A presenter who compiled the additional species list summarized that most of the proposed plants are native and have higher resilience weights. Members discussed how the code currently awards whole-number points (for example, for tall trees) and how planners and the city forester would need to map resilience weights to the existing landscaping-point buckets. Several members suggested a simple, administrable approach such as applying a flat percentage bonus for items on the native list rather than assigning marginal fractional values to each species.
The board made and approved four formal recommendations by voice vote: (1) increase the 10% point bonus for use of Wisconsin native plant species to 20%; (2) adopt the additional species list into the code along with the resilience weights shown in the meeting packet; (3) remove the plant species recommended by Jacob Claymeier (and UW Extension) from the existing species list; and (4) allow landscaping point accounting for perennial plantings to permit a mix of different species rather than block-group-only counting. The board chair called voice votes; members answered “aye” and no opposition was recorded on the audio. The board also approved the February meeting minutes earlier in the meeting.
Board members and staff agreed that the next steps are: staff and planning to review how to map resilience weights to existing point categories, consult the city forester, and bring a red-lined code recommendation to the Plan Commission if appropriate. Several members proposed a small subcommittee of board members to work with planning staff and the forester to prepare the ordinance language and point mappings.
The board emphasized implementation details that would follow: any change to landscaping point values in Chapter 30 would need Plan Commission and ordinance amendment steps; staff noted that existing language already provides a 10% increase for Wisconsin native plants and that the board was proposing to raise that to 20% as a policy recommendation. The board recorded its recommendations for staff to advance through formal municipal review.
Ending: Staff will check procedural questions (whether perennial plantings are already mix-and-match, how resilience weights translate to point buckets) and report back; several board members volunteered to help prepare draft language or redlines for the code and to work with planning and the city forester on technical mapping and implementation.

