HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-11-01 Arborist Comments - Landscape PlanJulie Hult
From: Kyle Oswald [koswald a@ozarkcivil.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 10:41 Alin
To: kdwidin a@comcast.net; Tom Ozzello; Julie Hultman; 'Dennis Postler'; Eric A. Johnson; Jim
Butler; 'Scott Richards'; 'Mark Vierling'
Cc: jddonath a@alliantWinc.com; Scott McGee; John Gelderman; Clark Wicklund
Subject: RE: Landscape Plans - CSM & Lowe's
Kathy,
I just wanted to see if we can view the project as a whole for the
tree replacement. It just turns out that most of the trees are on the
Lowe's parcel as well as the power line easement. The project is being
platted and approved as a whole so shouldn't the landscape be reviewed as a
whole? If needed, I can submit an overall landscape plan for review. The
reason the landscape plans are separate is for construction.
Thanks Again,
Kyle Oswald
Project Engineer
Ozark Civil Engineering, Inc.
11285 Strang Line Road
Lenexa, KS 66215
Phone: 913 - 310 -0470
Fax: 913 - 310 -0261
koswald@ozarkcivii.com
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the
individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this
email in error,
destroy it immediately.
- -- --Original Message---- -
From: kdwidin@comcast.net mailto:kdwidin @comcast.netj
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 10 :06 PM
To: Tom Ozzello; Julie Hultman; Dennis Postler; Eric Johnson; Jim Butler;
Scott Richards; Mark Vierling
Cc: jddonath @alliant- inc.com; koswald@ozarkcivil.com
Subject: Landscape Plans - CSM & Lowe's
AN 11 201 •i-a
I have reviewed plans and other information submitted to me on 11/1/05 on
behalf of the applicants CSM and Lowe's. The tree removal and landscape
plans are separate, so I will review them separately. I have the following
comments regarding the landscape plans and tree replacement requirements for
these two projects:
CSM -
1. The plan is attractive and should enhance the development.
2. The plant species proposed are dire ,.., se, mostly native, attractive, have
few major insect and disease problems and are easy to maintain.
3. The Planting Detail is acceptable.
4. This project is removing very few trees (33.25 in.). 328 in. are
proposed to be planted. Because they are planting more inches than they are
removing, there is no additional tree replacement requirement.
5. They should be sure that no overstory trees on the south side of the
property are indicated to be planted within the transmission line
right -of -way (it looks close on Plan L -2). Only ornamental trees would be
allowed within that easement area.
Lowe's -
1, The plan is repetitive and not very attractive.
2. The plant species proposed are limited, some species are not native and
are inappropriate for the site, and some species will be higher maintenance
because of disease problems.
3. Amur honeysuckle is a large shrub, not a tree, and an ornamental tree
such as Japanese tree lilac or flowering crab should be substituted for
this.
4. Amur maple -- is it a tree or multi -trunk shrub form which is proposed?
Though it has some good characteristics, this species has proven to be
somewhat invasive in natural areas in Minnesota and tends to self -seed into
areas where it has not been planted. Another ornamental tree should be
substituted for some of the Amur maple.
5. Colorado spruce often have serious fungal needlecast and canker problems
after 15 years of age in Minnesota. "Black Hills" white spruce and /or
Fraser fir should be substituted for at least half of the Colorado spruce.
0. Shrubs: which Viburnum species will be used? They are very different.
Juniperus horizontalis is one of the only shrub species included on the plan
and a lot of it is proposed. This is an extremely low - growing species and
won't provide much visual impact.
7. There are no overstory tree species included in the plan. The
transmission line easement is only over a portion of the property.
Overstory trees should be o. k. in the south, southeast, and southwest
portions of the site. Please include some overstory species such as bicolor
oak, red maple, basswood, thornless honeylocust and hackberry in the plan.
8. I would suggest incorporating more of the species shown on the CSM plan
into this one so that the landscapes flow together visually.
9. There was no Planting Detail included with this plan. It is intended
that the same Planting Detail as on the CSM plan will be used?
10. Tree removal is estimated to be 1372 inches. The proposed caliper
inches to be planted are 278. Therefore there is a tree replacment
requirement of 1094 inches. Per the city's Tree Preservation ordinance, the
project would need to plant 547, 2- inch diameter trees on this site or
elsewhere within the city, or pay cash in lieu of planting of $50. per
diameter inch: 1094 x $50. = $54,700. to the city's Tree Planting Fund to be
used for reforestation within city limits.
If you have any questions regarding this review or report, please contact
me.
Kathy Widin
Arborist
City of Oak Park Heights