Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Trees Udc Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cheyenne committee directs review of tree-size rules in UDC after public debate
Summary
The Public Services Committee voted to direct staff to review the Unified Development Code's street-tree requirements and allowable species/sizes after varied public comment from homeowners, landscapers, realtors and forestry staff.
The City of Cheyenne Public Services Committee on Oct. 6 voted to direct the Planning and Development Department to prepare recommended amendments to the Unified Development Code (UDC) addressing what tree species and sizes are required or allowed in new residential developments.
Council member Dr. Aldridge introduced the resolution, saying changes were prompted by complaints from developers and concern that required canopy trees could cause concrete damage on small lots. "By the time you get utility lines and you get your concrete in, there is a, I think, a reasonable concern that over time, trees that are recommended currently for planting in the UDC, could cause concrete damage and some problems for the homeowner down the road," Dr. Aldridge said.
City forester Mark Ellison presented a slide-based summary of street-tree performance and benefits, arguing that shade trees provide larger long-term benefits than ornamentals. "Shade trees are an asset to the entire community, not just the individual homeowner. That is why shade trees with their size, longevity, and myriad of benefits are required in Cheyenne," Ellison said, and he described survivability, root depth, and canopy benefits using local examples.
Public commenters were split. Jeanne Shrednick, a licensed landscape architect with the Planning office, said she would "never choose to put an ornamental tree in the front yard with a small space like that" and supported maintaining canopy-tree requirements. Jeremy Hamilton and Jeff Geier, local residents and landscapers, expressed concerns about small lot widths, clay subsoils, root damage to sidewalks and private infrastructure, and water requirements for large trees. Philip Bowling, speaking for the Cheyenne Board of Realtors, said his group opposed the final ordinance as drafted because of cost and complexity but supported working with the city on solutions.
Committee members expressed support for starting the review. Several members said the review should include input from developers, foresters and the parks division and produce alternatives or an expanded tree list that works on smaller lots. The resolution requires staff to work with council members and the city forester, then forward recommended UDC amendments to the governing body for consideration; staff said recommendations would be timed to the city's annual UDC amendment schedule.
The committee moved and seconded the resolution (Councilman White, moved; Dr. Emmons, second) and recommended it advance to the governing body with a recommendation to adopt. Committee discussion and extensive public comment preceded the vote.
Why it matters: The review could change what species are allowed, whether ornamentals may substitute for canopy trees in constrained sites, and how the city balances urban canopy goals with water use, utility conflicts and small-lot development.
What happens next: Staff will work with the city forester, parks staff and stakeholders and return a written recommendation to the governing body, timed to the city's UDC amendment calendar.
