Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Landscaping And Wildfire topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission backs landscaping, screening and fencing updates tied to water efficiency and wildfire code
Summary
Planning staff presented code edits to landscaping, screening and fencing (CDA-000026-2026) to align with state water‑conservation directives and the Colorado wildfire resiliency code; commissioners recommended approval and asked staff to reconcile a street‑tree spacing standard with wildfire crown‑clearance requirements.
Jim Hardcastle, long‑range principal planner in Community Development, presented Planning File CDA-000026-2026, a package of amendments to section 7040.50 covering landscaping, screening and fencing.
Hardcastle said the package includes three streams: staff‑initiated clarifications for usability and errors; alignment with state water conservation rules referenced in the presentation as Senate Bill 245 (restrictions on non‑functional turf, artificial turf, and invasive species for new and redevelopment); and adoption of requirements from the new Colorado wildfire resiliency code to reduce wildfire transmission risk near structures.
Among the changes are restrictions on artificial turf for new development (with limited functional exceptions), clearer guidance on plant selection (referencing the city parks species guide and county noxious‑weed list), separation and spacing requirements to meet wildfire code guidance (for example, minimum planting distance near structures and limits on combustible materials within 8 feet of a structure), and clarifications to streetscape, screening and refuse enclosure standards.
Commissioners asked about applicability to existing private residences and whether the city would require homeowners to maintain or prune trees. Staff clarified that most provisions apply in the context of development or permits (new construction, redevelopment or major additions) and would not generally force one‑off pruning on private residences; the city does maintain some street trees and runs mitigation/grant programs with the fire department for defensible‑space work.
A commissioner moved to recommend approval to City Council, incorporating staff findings, and requested staff analyze and revise a table (Table 40.6 street trees) to resolve a conflict between a 30‑foot spacing standard and a wildfire resiliency requirement that calls for 10 feet between mature crowns. The motion passed.
Staff noted public notice had been provided and that no public comments were received to date. The commission advised staff to return to council with any corrected language and analysis regarding tree spacing and the applicability sections.
