HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-02-20 Arborist CommentsJude Hultman
From:
Sent:
To:
Page 1 of 2
kdwid in a@comcast. net
Tuesday, February 20, 2007 12:11 PM
Tom Ozzello; Julie Hultman; Dennis Pastier; Eric A. Johnson; Jim Butler; Scott Richards; Mark Vierling
Subject: VSSA - Boutwell Care Center - Tree Removal and Landscape Plan
OPH Staff -
I have reviewed the plans dated 2/7/07 for the Boutwell Care Center and have the following observations
and comments:
1. The tree inventory is only of the trees on the north side of the building. The formula used for calculating
the Tree Replacement Requirement takes into account all trees on the site, so that is not really applicable
here since only the trees in the construction area have been included. The trees on the north side are all part
of the original landscaping and should be replaced with an equivalent amount of landscaping. According to
the tree lists which accompany the plan, 264 diameter inches are indicated to be removed and only 154
inches are indicated to be planted as new landscaping, and this includes diameter inches of spruce which are
indicated to be moved on site.
2. The trees being removed represent 78% of the trees present on the north side of the main building where
the addition will take place. Most of these trees are not of 'significant' size, but are of 'transplantable' size
and could potentially be moved to other areas of the site or to the adjacent park, rather than be destroyed.
At the date of these plans, only 17 spruce (I presume these are the smaller 'Black Hills' white spruce by 5 8th
St.?) are indicated to be moved, the rest of the trees are indicated to be removed.
3. The species of trees present on the site have been mis- identified. There are indeed blue and green spruce
(both Colorado spruce) but also 'Black Hills' white spruce on site. The trees identified on the plan as
'cottonwood' are actually ash and maple, and the trees identified on the plan as 'black cherry' are flowering
crabapples. Many of these trees appear to be in good condition and could be transplanted and saved.
4. The proposed landscape plan, though consisting largely of trees to screen the building from 58th St., does
contain an interesting feature of a waterfall and rain garden in the east side of the parking lot. I do have
several questions, however: 1. Why are there no foundation shrubs around the building? 2. Why is there no
landscaping indicated for what appears to be a central courtyard between the existing building and the new
addition? This would seem to me an ideal opportunity to introduce interesting landscape features which
could be viewed from inside both buildings.
5. Plant species incorporated in the planting list are good choices for this area, being attractive, hardy and
having few serious insect, disease or cultural problems.
6. In the west parking lot, I would suggest a wider median so plants can be grouped rather than lined out
singly and also there would be more area to protect the plants somewhat from de -icing salts and snow
storage.
7. Planting Detail is needed as part of the landscape plan.
Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this report.
2/20/2007