Landscaping Bed Coverage & Water Wise Plantings

[BradMcIlrath]

The City I currently work for, and most if not all that I have worked for before, have a requirement that landscaping have a minimum of 50% bed coverage either at time of planting or at maturity. A common issue that arises with this is that there is usually a lot more shrubs required to meet this requirement then the number required by ordinance (e.g. 1 shrub for every 600 square feet, etc.). In speaking with some landscape architects, there is a concern that this type of requirement requires more shrubs and ground coverage that is feasible to survive. Nor does it really leave any room for landscape boulders that also add variety and beauty to the landscape. A very dense landscaping bed may also not really save the amount of water we are hoping for by limiting grass and requiring shrubs and grasses to be used more. I would like to know if other jurisdictions that have good landscaping ordinances approach this in a similar manner or different way altogether.

My second question is how do your jurisdictions handle water wise plants. My current City requires that 90% of plants used be from a list provided by our local water conservancy district. In speaking with that district, they do not have a list more recent than 5 years ago and still don’t have a strong opinion about the use of that list. They think it is a good starting point, but that there are a lot of options out there for water wise landscapes, and it isn’t as easy as requiring plants on a list. My question here is the same, how does your or other jurisdictions you are aware of handle the requirement for water wise plantings? Do you go off of an approved list, allow plants that are from different lists, or local examples?

Thanks for any feedback you have!

Brad McIlrath, AICP

[bdonald@cedarcityut.gov]

Brad-

I don’t have a good response for you regarding your questions, but I am curious to know how your jurisdiction is enforcing landscape plans in light of the new State Law:I am scratching my head on how we can enforce or basic landscape ordinance here in Cedar City.

 

Thanks,

Donald Boudreau

 

 

• This reply was modified 4 days, 14 hours ago by Nicole Masson.

[bdonald@cedarcityut.gov]

My apologies, that came out terrible.

 

10-9a-509(l)

l) A municipality:

(i) may require the submission of a private landscaping plan, as defined in Section 10-9a-604.5,
before landscaping is installed; and

(ii) may not withhold an applicant’s building permit or certificate of occupancy because the
applicant has not submitted a private landscaping plan.

[BradMcIlrath]

In short. Doing the best we can. The State Legislature needs to recognize that by trying to make things smoother, they are forcing cities to do other things that make it harder. They are hurting themselves by trying to control cities through LUDMA.

[bdonald@cedarcityut.gov]

I concur.  Our legal folks are struggling with us even asking for a landscape plan.  If your jurisdiction thinks otherwise, please advise.

Thank You for the reply.

[Baldcoop]

p>

• This reply was modified 5 days, 17 hours ago by Baldcoop.
• This reply was modified 5 days, 16 hours ago by Baldcoop.

[Nicole Masson]

Having done a couple of these, the 50% seems pretty standard out there, but I agree with your concern Brad, that maybe we are not really accomplishing enough water savings. I’m not an LA, so no real training there, just experience with a few ordinances. Boulders and nowadays veggie planter boxes out front are great additions to xeric landscapes. do the veggie boxes save water? I doubt it, but they serve another purpose of locally grown food.

I think the way the xeric landscape is defined needs flexibility. Also, I have seen some that don’t provide for the long-term canopy of a tree – I think that shade area, even though it might not be there for a while, really matters. I’m unsure how the so-called best practices have been studied for all their impacts or unintended consequences.

Also, a recent Weber U study showed that rock mulch isn’t as hot as the dark bark mulch – if you are concerned about too many rocks showing up and creating more heat island effects.

Plant lists – I think they are helpful, but likely need updating every few years. Also, when actual installation occurs, often the plants designated on the landscape plan are not available – there needs to be flexibility for “similar” plants (as determined by planning staff). Comparative info is available and should be allowed.
-John Janson

[Nicole Masson]

To add to John’s response, typically, we hear two reasons for these landscape ordinances being created. The first is the waterwise component, the second is the aesthetics. 50% of the plant material at full maturity should be the maximum of what the code should state, as opposed to at the time of planting. 50% at the time of planting will generally cause less waterwise design due to plant intensity and significant overgrowth. In addition, only drip irrigation systems should be allowed within these beds by code. That said, if you reduce the plant material from 50% at full maturity, I would add language into the code that provides at least 2-3 contrasting (in size and color) material groundcovers to make up for the loss of plant material. If you leave the 50% plant coverage at full maturity, you can add the tree canopy as included plant coverage, but at a discounted rate (at the tree’s maturity).

 

We have written several of these landscape ordinances as well, and over planting is a common issue with many of the codes we have seen. I also agree with John on the use of similar plants if specific plants are prescribed within the code.

-Chris Hupp

[Author]

Posts