Workshop lays out proposed landscape code: limits on site clearing, tree preservation and green‑infrastructure incentives

City of Central planning staff and external consultants outlined proposed revisions to the city’s landscape and site‑clearing rules during a workshop, proposing clearer disturbance‑permit triggers, tree‑preservation standards and incentives for green infrastructure aimed at protecting the area’s rural character and reducing flood risk.

The workshop framed the changes as an effort to “keep Central, Central,” consultant Dana Brown said, summarizing the project’s intent to preserve mature canopy and maintain the area’s rural quality while allowing development. Brown, a landscape architect leading the presentation, told the commission that mature trees help manage stormwater: “A mature tree can take up 800 to 2,500 gallons of water a day, if the water’s sent to it,” she said.

Why it matters: The proposed code would clarify when a disturbance permit is required, tighten limits on speculative clearing and add specific standards for protecting significant trees during construction. Staff said the revisions aim to reduce erosion and downstream flooding, encourage on‑site infiltration using bioswales and tree canopy, and reward developers who preserve existing trees with reduced planting and parking requirements.

Key proposals discussed - Disturbance permit scope and thresholds: The draft would make the disturbance permit requirement explicit for development activity and propose an exemption for tree removal on an existing single‑family lot that is less than 3 acres in size when a building permit is not required. Staff noted the 3‑acre threshold is under discussion and could change. - Limits on site clearing: The presenters suggested a presumptive maximum (noted in the discussion as roughly 85% of a lot) that could be cleared without further justification; clearing beyond that would require specific approval tied to an associated building or site plan to avoid speculative, blanket clearing. - Tree preservation and replacement: The draft categorizes “significant trees” (discussion referenced a 6‑inch DBH threshold) and would require preservation where feasible for projects requiring a disturbance permit. If removal is approved, replacement would be required at a rate described in the draft as twice the DBH of trees removed (staff clarified this is a caliper/DBH‑based formula rather than a one‑for‑one replacement of equal size). - Construction protection: The draft calls for tree‑protection zones during construction and allows some flexibility in barrier type and extent compared with current rigid fencing standards. - Plant list and native species: Staff proposed an approved plant list prioritizing native species and a professional certification requirement at project closeout to confirm plantings were installed per plan. - Green infrastructure and parking: The draft would require at least half of on‑site landscape area to be vegetated using low‑impact features (bioswales/bioretention) where appropriate, and would discourage raised planting islands that inhibit infiltration. Staff also proposed a cap on how much parking can exceed the minimum (discussion referenced a 25% cap as an example) to reduce excess paving and encourage permeable design alternatives. - Fences and transparency: The draft would limit fences to six feet tall and require transparency for fences in front yards or along the public right‑of‑way so the street retains an open character; finished fence faces should face the right‑of‑way.

Commissioners raised implementation concerns, especially for single‑family property owners. Several commissioners said they did not want routine tree removal on private residential lots to become onerous; staff and the consultant repeatedly noted the proposed 3‑acre threshold and said the proposal could be adjusted. Commissioners also asked about the practical cost of compliance for homeowners (surveying trees, hiring arborists) and how enforcement would be applied.

No formal vote was taken; the workshop was framed as a pre‑public‑hearing discussion. Staff said they will revise code language based on input and return with a public hearing set for March 27. Commissioners asked staff to clarify thresholds and to provide specific construction cross‑sections and stormwater calculations to show how proposed green‑infrastructure approaches would affect costs and drainage design.

What to watch: The draft will return for additional review and a public hearing; commissioners signaled interest in adjusting the single‑family exemption threshold and in clearer cost and enforcement details before they make a formal recommendation to council.