Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Park Landscaping topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Recreation Board approves Jeffrey Park pool parking‑lot landscape plan after debate over sugar maples
Summary
After public comment and arborist consultations, the Recreation Board approved a landscape plan for the Jeffrey Park pool parking lot despite resident concerns about sugar‑maple cultivars, irrigation needs and soils; staff said structured soil and temporary irrigation (gator bags) will support establishment.
The Recreation Board voted to approve the Clifton/Jeffrey Park pool parking‑lot landscape plan following public comment and technical input from staff and the tree commission.
Resident Mary McMun urged the board to favor native or more drought‑tolerant species and questioned the long‑term survival of sugar maples in compacted parking‑lot pits: “I just struggle with spending money to plant trees that will be lucky to live 20 years,” she said, and outlined watering needs for newly planted trees.
Jim Wilson, another nearby resident, told the board he attended the tree commission meeting and said commissioners lacked answers about why standard sugar maples were appropriate for this site. He suggested red maples or smaller, more drought‑tolerant cultivars if maples remain the city’s preference.
Mike Carter summarized the process used to select the planting plan, saying the city had engaged Elena Andrews of Spruce Design for the plan and that staff consulted in‑house arborists and a city consultant about species and soil. He said test holes were dug and that structured soil was specified for the medians. “We fully expect to have gator bags,” he said, noting temporary irrigation would be part of planting to aid establishment.
Board members debated replacing turf with ground cover to reduce heat and trampling but also expressed concern that dense ground cover could discourage the pedestrian flow to the pool and lead people to cross through vehicle lanes. Staff said ground‑cover choices could be adjusted later if operational issues arose.
When asked about timing, staff acknowledged spring plantings are workable but recommended planting sooner rather than later to take advantage of current conditions; alternately, the board could delay and request alternate species lists and plant in the fall. After discussion, a member moved to approve the plan “as presented by Mike today,” the motion was seconded and carried by voice vote; the transcript does not include a roll‑call tally.
Staff said they would incorporate the tree commission’s four recommendations (review species sustainability, consider alternate ground cover, evaluate and amend soil as needed, and provide temporary watering) into implementation. The board directed staff to proceed with the approved plan while remaining open to future adjustments to species or ground‑cover details.
